From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 26 17:52:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA27185; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:52:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905262152.RAA27185@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #101 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 May 99 17:52:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan (Kim Brennan) Canadian CLECs (gmorriso@telcordia.com) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Bob Goudreau) Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry (William Brownlow) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (Fred Goodwin) Re: Siemens 2420 (the_spectre@my-dejanews.com) Re: Consulenza per aziende (Bob Natale) Re: Consulenza per aziende (John R. Levine) Re: Consulenza per aziende (Jacob Sterling) Re: Consulenza per aziende (Kim Brennan) So We Agree it is Probably Spam? (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: 26 May 1999 17:56:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Subject: Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan Arthur Ross scribed: > This seems to be a phenomenon that recurs with a cycle time of about one > generation -- takes that long for the old generation of enthusiastic > engineers and marketing folks to forget about the last attempt, and to try > to sell the picturephone again. ... > Seems like it must be the Japanese' turn to find this out. One thing that should be considered before blanket generalizations be thrown around is that different cultures have different desires and will accept different situations. Extrapolating AMERICAN marketing experiences to a non-American culture can sometimes (not always) go astray. Japanese specifically prefer small compact objects (in general). Small cars. Small TVs, Small computers. They tolerate things to an extent that certain objects don't have a market elsewhere. An example are computers with very small keyboards (80% or smaller of the size of a regular keyboard). Some of this is by necessity because most Japanese live in very small/compact homes. But not all. Some of it is simply a love for small things. It is entirely possible that a video phone WILL go over well in Japan, when it wouldn't work in the US. Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:47:12 -0400 From: grm Subject: Canadian CLECs Do you have any info on who the fast moving Canadian CLECs are? Thanks, Jerry gmorriso@telcordia.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:20:09 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote, in what may well have been a troll: >>> Rather than have the FTC pursue >>> individual perpetrators taking advantage of this confusion, it seems >>> like it would be highly preferable for the FCC to dictate the use of >>> the international dialing prefix and country code for calls to the >>> Caribbean. >> But under what criteria? If you're going to disqualify the non-US >> NANP countries from being dialed from the US via 1+NPA dialing, then >> why not Canada as well? What distinguishes Canada from, say, Jamaica >> in this respect? Pricing, perhaps (the fact that lots of US long > Oh, to my mind that's *very* simple. Canada is well-behaved, and the > Carribean countries which harbor these telephonic scams are not. I note that "simple" explanations are often wrong. What makes Canada "well-behaved" in contrast to various Caribbean countries? AFAIK, phone sex lines exist in Canada and even in the US, not just in the Caribbean. If it's the higher settlement rates to some of the Caribbean nations that make them not "well-behaved", then why weren't you advocating kicking them out of the NANP years ago, when the rates were as high as they are now or even higher (as indeed were virtually *all* international rates)? > Certain nations, it seems to me, should be put on notice that their > free ride in country code 1 will soon be over -- shape up or they'll > be kicked out for bad behaviour. The FCC could mandate that direct > dialing end, the NANPA administrator could deallocate the codes, and > that would, by and large, be that. And the East Bumf**k Board of Dogcatching and Mosquito Abatement could also stamp its feet, beat its fists on the walls, and order NANPA to remove the United States from Country Code 1, to equal effect, since neither it nor the FCC runs NANPA. > No more scam artists hiding behind the illusion that they were in the > United States. No more sponging off the country code 1 international > gateways, either. What does the latter refer to? Every international telco I've ever heard of will route calls to the NANP based on at least the first 4 digits (+1-NPA). In fact, it used to be 6 digits for calls to the old NPA 809 (each +1-809-NX routed to a particular island). > So the ITU would throw a fit. So what? The ITU is, by and large, a > bunch of bureaucrats in eternal servitude to the European > telecommunications equipment vendors. It'd be well worth it just to > see them have to do something fast for once, instead of screwing up > others' hard work very, very, *very* slowly. Sorry, but I doubt that most people in the US would be willing to eliminate completely their ability to place phone calls to over a dozen Caribbean countries (which is what your plan would do, since those countries have no separate country codes of their own), just to tweak a bunch of ITU bureaucrats. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: wbrownlo@my-dejanews.com (William Brownlow) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:08:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , wfeidt@cpcug.org (Bill Feidt) wrote: > The problem continues, mainly in the mornings. As I noted, calling > the main problem reporting 800 number does little good, since by the > time the technician was dispatched, the problem had disappeared. The > BA "customer advocate" group did follow up with me, however. They put > me in touch with the area Supervisor, who seems to be very customer > oriented and serious about trying to solve the problem. She gave me > her direct office phone and told me to report outages there. This > morning when the problem occurred again, I called and left a message. > She returned my call early this afternoon with the news that they had > been able to monitor the line while it was out of order and had > localized the difficulty. She promised send a tech out to deal with it > tomorrow at the latest (today they're busy catching up on thunderstorm > related outages). If this woman is typical of BA's field supervision > staff, they're hiring the right people. At this point, I'm most > encouraged that the problem will finally be resolved. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do let us know if she is for real, or > was just put on the line as a buffer for your calls. PAT] Pat, Hell Titanic is trying to improve their image. They are/have invested lots of time and money in retraining their customer service people to actually perform customer service. For the most part, all of their reps that deal with the public actually do try to be friendly and resolve any reported problems. William "Bill" Brownlow "While my employer has their opinions, I have mine. Occasionally they converge" ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:35:47 -0500 The ten should be included under the radical: rate distance = sqrt[(V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2/10] Fred Goodwin, CMA Associate Director -- Technology Program Management SBC Technology Resources, Inc. 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor, Austin, TX 78759 fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com (512) 372-5921 (512) 372-5991 fax > sqrt((V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2)/10 where (V1,H1) is the V&H for one end of a > call, and (V2,H2) represents the other end of a call. > What's wrong here? Is the formula I have dated? -- hmmmmm... Could the original presentation of the formula have an omitted term? ------------------------------ From: the_spectre@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:16:18 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , bakie@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article , support@sellcom.com > wrote: >> The 2402 is very nice, but a giant step backwards from the 2420. For >> those who already have a sophisticated voice mail system it could be >> real handy and I suppose it could be located in a more ideal position >> for extra range since it would not need to be so accessible. I dunno, >> time will tell. Everything I have seen Siemens make has been excellent. > Any idea of what the price will be on the new 2402 or when it will > really be available? Does call bridging fix the annoying extension > problem (for residential use) that the 2420 has? I think I want the > 2402. Yes, bridging makes it act like an extension. The 2402 should be available within weeks. I hear they began shipping to distributors already. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:23:50 -0400 From: Bob Natale Subject: Re:Consulenza per aziende Hi Pat, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This came in the mail to the Digest. > Would someone please read it to me and tell me what it says. It's a (respectable) pitch from a company providing telecom consulting, sales, and integration services to businesses in Italy. > I hope it is not spam of some kind :( Close ... but saved (IMHO) by being reasonably germane to the topic of the list ... at least for a subset of its readers. I'll repeat the original contact info ... just in case anyone wants to follow up with "la signorina Giussani" now that they konw the basic intent of her message: > Barbara Giussani > SEPI Srl > via della Betulla 11/13 > 20035 Lissone (MI) > bgiussani@sepi.it > http://www.sepi.it/ > tel. 039 2456390 > fax 039 460611 Cordially, BobN ------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1999 10:48:28 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Consulenza per aziende Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA It's spam, advertising their most wonderful and unbiased new telecom consulting business. http://babelfish.altavista.com does automated translation between, among other languages, Italian and English. It does a pretty poor job but it's quite adequate to decode messages like this. The \354 and the like are vowels with accents over them, by the way. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Jacob_Sterling@mastercard.com Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:13:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Consulenza per aizende Pat, the message is translated as follows. (By the way, the numbers must indicate an extended character set, since the substituted characters are accented vowels -- not the acute ones, but grave (down and to the right) -- little seen outside of Italian and French, I believe. ... begin original message ... SUBJECT: Consulting for businesses SEPI srl is an organization with more than 20 years' experience in the technology industry. Spurred on by the ever-tighter links between telecommunications and computers, SEPI is now offering a new service in the field of business telephony. The liberalization [deregulation] of telephony fees has produced new and substantial savings possibilities; however, choosing the best service option becomes more complex every day. The new consultation service consists of identifying the best service options for fixed and mobile telephony, based on the individual client's business characteristics. Thanks to sophisticated software, the consultation supplies the solution that is most convenient and best suited to the specific needs and behaviors of the client's telecommunications traffic. SEPI can guarantee its impartiality, because it is funded totally independently of any telecommunications providers. For information contact... etc. ... end original message ... So unfortunately it *IS* what I would define as spam, but perhaps valuable for some readers. Of course, I assume this only applies in the Telecom Italia - Deutsche Telekom service areas. Thanks, Jake Sterling ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 1999 18:11:32 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: kim@aol.com (Kim) Subject: Re: Consulenza per aziende One resource on the web is AltaVista's Babelfish translator (http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/translate?) It doesn't always make perfect sense in the translation, but it sometimes is useful enough to give you a general feel for the original. Unfortunately in this case, it is of limited value. The translation (at least to me) is only marginally clearer than the original (which I assumed was Italian.) --------------------- SEPI srl (350) one societ(340) specialized give beyond a ventennio in the computer science field dell. Stimulated from the tie always pi(371) tightened between telecommunicationses and computer, it has determined hour to offer a new one sevizio in the field of the telephony for companies. The liberalizzazione of the telephone rates has produced new and substantial possibilit(340) of saving, however the choice of the best one contracted becomes than day in day always pi(371) complex. The advising baby attivit(340) consists to nell(222)individuare, thanks to a sophisticated software, the best one contracted than fixed and mobile telephony on the base of the characteristics of the customer, supplying the solution pi(371) convenient and pi(371) adapted to qualit(340) the detailed lists of its telephone traffic. To guarantee of seriet(340), SEPI emphasizes the own total independence from all the suppliers of mobile and fixed telephony. Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:54:28 +0100 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Organization: TELECOM Digest Subject: So We Agree it is Probably Spam? This is what I got out of Babel Fish with the help of someone who went through it word by word with me; also each phrase: (My helper says): Smells like Spam to me. Written by someone pretty clueless, judging by all the 8-bit characters. ------------------ > SEPI srl (350) una societ(340) specializzata da oltre un ventennio nel > settore dell informatica. SEPI Ltd is a company which has specialised in IT for 20 years > Stimolata dal legame sempre pi(371) stretto tra telecomunicazioni e > computer, ha ora deciso di offrire un nuovo sevizio nel campo della > telefonia per aziende. Because of the ever-stronger links between telecoms and computing, it has now decided to offer a new telecoms service to businesses. > La liberalizzazione delle tariffe telefoniche ha prodotto nuove e > sostanziali possibilit(340) di risparmio, tuttavia la scelta del miglior > contratto diviene di giorno in giorno sempre pi(371) complessa. Liberalization of telecom tariffs has produced new and significant opportunities for saving money, but choosing the best contract becomes more complex day by day. > La neonata attivit(340) di consulenza consiste nell(222)individuare, > grazie ad un sofisticato software, il miglior contratto di telefonia > fissa e mobile sulla base delle caratteristiche del cliente, fornendo > la soluzione pi(371) conveniente e pi(371) adatta alle qualit(340) > specifiche del suo traffico telefonico. Our newborn consulting service consists of using sophisticated software to work out the best land/mobile contract based on the client's usage patterns etc. etc. etc. > A garanzia di seriet(340), SEPI sottolinea la propria totale indipendenza da > tutti i fornitori di telefonia mobile e fissa. SEPI _must_ be sound, because it's independent of all fixed and mobile telephony providers. -------------------- The overblown yet content-free style is typical of Italian business correspondence. I spent too many years translating this stuff. (End of my helper's comments) So, there you have it. As a reader noted above, apparently spam, but not the worst kind, and if it is of interest to readers of the Digest in Italy, please contact the original message sender. Having looked over that Babel Fish thing, it occurs to me it might be sort of fun to publish this Digest in one hundred different languages each day. {Readers Digest} publishes in about that many languages, and my content is at least of the same Enduring Significance, -- as Readers D. used to say -- as theirs. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #101 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 27 02:37:23 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA16068; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 02:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905270637.CAA16068@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #102 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 May 99 02:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Smartjack and CSU ("Kevin") Re: Reciprocal Compensation (was Re: Strange Problems) (John McHarry) Lucent Sells Sales Group - Comments? (Janet Petrunti) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 26 May 1999 17:30:18 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Attached are portions of a spam mailing which I get about once per week, praising the value of 'free' email as a cost-effective way to sell things. His message is indented; my remarks as we go along are flushed to the left margin. From: mrichards@royal.net Received: from 98AA9945.ipt.aol.com (98AA9945.ipt.aol.com [152.170.153.69]) by insrv01.eifel.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/16.aaal) with ESMTP id ta103005 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 21:19:38 +0200 Date: Tue, 18 May 99 11:26:03 EST To: receiver@planetmail.com Subject: Re: how is your business doing? I have no idea who 'planetmail.com' is, or why I would be a 'reciever' at that place. Probably just a collection of names for spam purposes. I did not write him, yet he REplies to me. I have no 'business'. Dear Commercial Website Owner, Would you be interested in increasing your Online Business Sales by up to 400% through a NEW form of Internet Advertising for FREE? So, four hundred percent of zero is still zero, but let's read on. -------- ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - *** Like MOST Online Businesses, you have tried it all... *** Banners, Search Engines, Newsgroups, Classified Ads, etc... No, I have not tried it all. I do not believe in banners, and I do not go around polluting newsgroups. I do occassionally ask Infoseek and AltaVista to correctly index http://telecom-digest.org which they never get around to doing, so then I go back and ask them to correctly index hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu://telecom-archives/archives and they sometimes get that part okay. I *hate* seeing five-year old dead links in Infoseek to messages here that no longer exist where the link points, but try telling them to fix it. --- -- - - CONGRATULATIONS! You have made Web Site Hosting, Marketing and Advertising Companies RICH!! They have YOUR MONEY and could care less whether or not your business succeeds on the Internet! Isn't that GREAT? They don't have my money, and from what I hear, quite a few of the 'web site hosting, marketing and advertising companies' on the net are struggling financially. Some, I hear, have finally learned that the majority of netters just do not feel such things are welcome here. As for what they care or care less about, I am different. I *do* care what happens to them. I hope they all go belly-up, get off the net and eventually return the net back to the people it belongs to. -------- ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - Did you know that OVER 10,000,000 Businesses on the Internet are currently marketing with the SAME methods as YOUR BUSINESS? Only ten million? ---- --- -- - - ** When YAHOO was introduced as one of the first search engines on ** the Internet, it was an instant hit with the public! ** When AMAZON BOOKS came out as the first major online book store ** on the Internet, they became an instant success! Yahoo provides some very good, worthwhile and productive resources on the net. I will grant you there have been times I thought they were a bunch of yahoos with their software, but they are the only service of its kind on the net that provides a genuine news-ticker feed to your desktop that carries not a single advertisment. Totally user-defined, with local weather, etc. I give them an eight or nine out of ten. ---- --- -- - - Now... there are HUNDREDS of copycat companies trying to be just like them! They are all FAILING! Why? ====> BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING! -------- ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - You mean they are all trying to spam people at the same time? I do not see much productive out of any of them, but then I do not go looking usually. The SAME Principles Apply when Promoting YOUR Business! ** If you want YOUR Company to SUCCEED on the Internet, YOU NEED ** to do something your COMPETITION isn't doing! Did you know that the average Internet User makes in excess of $60,000 a year? Internet Users have a FORTUNE in DISPOSABLE INCOME that they would love to spend on your company! Is that a factoid? I think you ripped that line off from a similar brochure I received in the snail mail several years ago. Now companies have discovered the internet; back then they had just discovered the gay community. So back then guys like you were extolling the virtues of fashioning one's business ventures to go after gay men who lived in a committed relationship with another guy: You called them 'DINKS', meaning 'double-income, no kids' ... meaning lots of money left over after paying the landlord and the utilities each month to spend on your foolishness. So after the gay guys would not take the bait, now the nerds get their turn to be hassled all the time, eh? => But how can they buy from you... If they don't know you exist? Until recently, there has never been such a dramatically COST-FREE method of advertising your business to such a HUGE amount of the Internet population for FREE! For free, you say? Oh my, let me guess what medium we might be talking about ... ummm ... could it be email by chance? Nah, you would not be that crude would you ... ----- ---- --- -- - - "Apart from creating a Web Page for your company, there's another do-it-yourself method of online advertising that has powerful potential. I'm speaking of bulk email, a method of targeting appropriate online readers by the thousands or even millions and, with a simple click of your mouse, send them your marketing letter via email." - ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZINE I guess you would be that crude and ignorant. Remember this name, dear readers: 'Entrepreneur Magazine' ... a print publication which would no doubt scream to the high heavens if they got bombarded with all the useless trash most netters have to wade through everyday. "Many business people are finding out that they can now advertise in ways that they never could have afforded in the past. The cost of sending mass e-mail is extremely low, and the response rate is high and quick." - USA TODAY I would expect *USA TODAY*, which has always been run by a bunch of whores out for an easy buck to say something like this. Remind them of this quote the next time you get asked to subscribe to 'The Nation's Newspaper', that you do not support people who support or encourage spam. "Targeted direct email advertising is the wave of the future. By no other means can you effectively reach your market so quickly and inexpensively" - ONLINE PROFITS NEWSLETTER I have never heard of this bunch before. --- -- - - [COMPARISON OF INTERNET ADVERTISING METHODS]: ================================================================== => A 1/20 Page Web Site Banner Link to 5,000,000 People on the Internet will cost you about $100,000. => A 5 Page Targeted Direct Mailing to 250,000 People through the Postal Service will cost you about $150,000. => A 50 Page Targeted Broadcast Emailing to 50,000,000 People through the Internet will cost you $0. ..Which advertising method sounds most appealing to you? Well, let's see ... duh ... gawrsh ... I bet the last choice is the right answer, but let's read on and see. ================================================================== Only a HANDFUL of Companies on the Internet have Discovered Targeted Broadcast Email! You can be one of the FIRST! If only a 'handful' have managed to turn the net into the god-awful mess it is these days, what happens when everyone gets in on it? "Bulk email is simply using the net for what it does best.. communicating a message. ...it is a valid tool in the Internet marketer's toolbox, and smart marketers will experiment with it" - BOB SCHMIDT, MARKETING CONSULTANT, PROVIDER MARKETING GROUP If anyone ever discovers who this 'Bob Schmidt' person is, will you please go put him out of his misery for me? He is deluded, he is a false prophet of the worst sort. Now, let's read about Kate Richardson, who obviously has a lot better luck with her mailing software and mailqueue than I do. My mailings *never* get finished in less than a couple hours, and I only have a few thousand names on my list; but look at how well Kate handles things: --- -- - - [EXAMPLE OF A PERSONALIZED/TARGETED BROADCAST EMAIL]: ---------- --------- -------- ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - ** Below is 1 of 247,890 Personalized/Targeted Broadcast Emails ** sent by Kate Richardson on January 10th, 1999. => With Broadcast Email Software, she was able to send to all => 247,890 individuals with less than 2 minutes of time invested. ----- ---- --- -- - - From: kate@cat-lovers-inc.com To: mary@commtom.net Subject: Regarding your cat... Dear Mary, I saw your posting in the cats newsgroup and thought you may have some interest in a 25% off sale we are currently having on all cat toys. If you are interested in taking a look at what we have, feel free to visit our web site at: http://www.cat-lovers-inc.com I think that you and your cat will find many of the unique toys we offer to be quite fun and exciting! Thanks for your time and have a great day! With regards, Kate Richardson President of The Kitty Catty Company -- - - Dear Kate Richardson, if you exist, and others like you, my belief is you should be sacrificed for the good of the net if necessary. No one really wants to hear anything about your company or any of the other companies for that matter. And for those of you who cannot take a hint and vanish, at least for gawds sake put up halfway decent web pages with a bunch of links that are not all broken, okay? [NOTE]: The email example above was created to demonstrate how easy it is to send broadcast email to thousands of people. The email did not actually take place and the email addresses and web sites used are for example purposes only and are non-existent. Just as most of the return addresses you fools use are non-existent, and we already know how easy it is to send -- what did you call it? -- oh yeah, 'broadcast email' ... i.e. spam. ---- --- -- - - With Broadcast Email Software, you can send a Personalized & Targeted Broadcast Email, like the one above to up to 250,000 People every single day for FREE! The recipients of your Broadcast Email Advertisement will have no idea that the same personalized message they received from you, was sent to MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people ALL OVER THE WORLD! Oh really? No one will figure it out, huh? Yeah, most netizens are really pretty stupid; you sure will pull the wool over everyone's eyes. ---- --- -- - - "Consider this: My $1,000 PC is now a personal broadcasting station that reaches more people than the CBS affiliate in Washington D.C. I can get more local viewers with a single e-mail posting to the Internet than Sally Jessy Raphael can get in sweeps month." - INTERNET FOR DUMMIES, 3RD EDITION Remember the folks who publish the 'Dummies' book series also in your prayers ... all my 'Dummy' books are going in the trash can later today. "It has become prevalent on the Internet because, simply, the Internet offers a cheap, fast and effective way to reach 81 Million Americans who use e-mail on a daily basis." - PRESS DEMOCRAT NEWSPAPER Here is a newspaper who I suspect needs to have its fax machine, 800 number and email clogged up with worthless trash every day, but I have no idea where it is located. Maybe some reader knows. Of course they will probably tell you they something special, something different, and that you have no right to pollute their gateways. Sure, a lot of things in life would be 'cheap, fast, and effective' if you could get someone else or some major institution to pay the bills for you. It might even be 'free' in that case. ---- --- -- - - You can expect A HUGE AMOUNT of orders within minutes of sending out your first Broadcast Email Advertisement! What you can expect is a huge amount of complaints to be sent to the 'abuse' box at your ISP within minutes. You can expect to have your account cancelled if your ISP is any sort of good netizen at all, and you can expect that if some people I could mention ever were able to physically locate you, all of your fingers would get broken and your little toy computer would be smashed in a dozen pieces. * According to a recent FIND/SVP Survey, 41% of people check their email daily! "When you reach people with e-mail, they're in a work mode, even if they're not at work. They're sitting up, they're alert. You catch them at a good moment, and if you do it right, you have a really good shot of having them respond." - WILLIAM THAMES [Revnet Direct Marketing VP] With Broadcast Email, we are talking INSTANT ORDERS! No, we are talking 'instant spam', instant complaints to your ISP, and if some had their way, instant death to the perpetrator, although some would probably be more merciful about the latter than others. ================================================================== => If you send a Broadcast Email Advertisement to 10,000,000 => people and just 1 of 5,000 people respond, you will generate => 2,000 EXTRA ORDERS! How much EXTRA PROFIT is this for you? ================================================================== And how much extra expense is it for the sites which transport the stuff, and how much extra time is spent by the other 4999 people who have better things to do? --- -- - - "A gold mine for those who can take advantage of bulk email programs" - THE NEW YORK TIMES --------- -------- ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - As FEATURED in: "THE BOSTON GLOBE" (05/29/98), "PRESS DEMOCRAT" (01/08/99), and "ANVIL MEDIA" (01/29/98): ================================================================== ** [Neuport Internet Marketing]: BROADCAST EMAIL SOFTWARE PACKAGE Another newspaper run by a bunch of deluded idiots and that fine little fiction magazine published every day in Boston ... what a bunch of references. Maybe New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today and the Press Democrat will be true to their word -- not likely! -- and provide a few open mail relays to serve the community. Maybe they could make their own on-line phone and email directories public so the spammers could get a few more addresses. Not very likely, is it? *Of course* you would expect the print media to strongly support and encourage anything which led to the further degradation of the net. Once people get tired of wading through all the spam on the net each day, the hope is they will put their computer on a shelf in the closet along with their CB radio and go back to reading the daily newspapers where what you read and what you say can be more closely controlled by the publishers. This internet has long been a thorn in the side of the newspapers anyway; i.e. what do you mean, no more editorial control (read 'censorship') of those people who expose our advertisers, etc ... ================================================================== SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: A PC with Windows or a MAC with SoftWindows --- -- - - It also helps if the owner is an idiot. => BROADCAST EMAIL SENDING SOFTWARE: Our Broadcast Email Sending Software gives you the ability to send out a Personalized, Targeted Broadcast Email Advertisement to over 100,000,000 People on the Internet at the rate of up to 250,000 People per day automatically for FREE! What a liar! => TARGETED EMAIL EXTRACTOR SOFTWARE: With our Targeted Email Extractor Software, just put in a few keywords relating to your business and it will automatically navigate through up to 50,000 Newsgroup Categories, each with a readership of up to 100,000 People each and extract up to 500,000 Fresh, Personalized and Targeted Email Addresses directly from the Internet every single day! You can extract by Location, Hobbies, Employment, etc..! The software also extracts email addresses from web site pages and most Mailbox/ Database/Miscellaneous files! => 10,000,000+ PRE-EXTRACTED FRESH EMAIL ADDRESSES: 300,000 Opportunity Seekers, 17,000 Webmasters, Thousands of Investors, Business Owners, Golfers, Etc..! MILLIONS of the NEWEST and FRESHEST Targeted Email Addresses are ALL YOURS! => STEP BY STEP BROADCAST EMAIL SOFTWARE PACKAGE INSTRUCTIONS: You will be guided through the entire process of sending out Targeted Broadcast Email to MILLIONS of people and Extracting MILLIONS of Targeted Email Addresses! Even if you have NEVER used a computer before, these instructions make it easy as 123! => THE BROADCAST EMAIL HANDBOOK: The Broadcast Email Handbook will describe to you in detail everything you ever wanted to know about Broadcast Email! Learn how to write a SUCCESSFUL Advertisement, how to manage the HUNDREDS of NEW ORDERS you could start receiving, what sells BEST via Broadcast Email, etc... This Handbook is a NECESSITY for ANYONE involved in Broadcast Email! => UNLIMITED CUSTOMER & TECHNICAL SUPPORT: If you ever have ANY questions, problems or concerns with ANYTHING related to Broadcast Email, we include UNLIMITED Customer & Technical Support to assist you! Our #1 GOAL is CUSTOMER SATISFACTION! => ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Our Broadcast Email Software Package contains so many features, it would take five additional pages just to list them all! Duplicate Removing, an Automatic Remove List, and Stealth Encoding, are just a few of the HUNDREDS of additional features included with our software! ** You Will Receive EVERYTHING Above for ONLY: $395.00! ================================================================== => BUT WAIT!!! If you order by Friday, May 21st, as a May Sales Promotion, you will receive our ENTIRE $395.00 Broadcast Email Software Package for ONLY $149.00!! ================================================================== You will NEVER encounter any additional charges ever again! Our Broadcast Email Software can send an email advertisement, like this one, for your company, to up to 250,000 People a Day/90,000,000 People a Year for a LIFETIME for FREE! We are so confident about our Broadcast Email Software Package, that we are giving you 90 DAYS to evaluate it for FREE!! If you are not 100% COMPLETELY SATISFIED, just tell us within 90 Days of your purchase, and we will issue you a FULL REFUND, No Questions Asked! Best of ALL, if you decide to keep our Broadcast Email Software Package, it can be used as a 100% TAX WRITE OFF for your business! --- -- - - See what users of our Broadcast Email Package have to say.. ================================================================= Read this testimonial from a satisfied fellow idiot and spammer ... (Many other testimonies omitted because of space considerations) "I recently started a new business online. I stripped the email addresses of the AOL and CIS classifieds, I sent out 3,407 e-mail letters and got over 400 people to join my company in 5 days!" = DAVID SHEENHAM - Dallas, TX How many letters to abuse@ did your ISP recieve? How many ISPs have you gone through in order to get that much response? How come you did not include your real email address in your testimonial, David? ... oh, you knew better than that, didn't you. Let's cut to the chase: [TO ORDER BY PHONE]: To order our Broadcast Email Software Package by phone with a Credit Card or if you have any additional questions, feel free to call our Sales Department, toll-free in the United States at: ==> (888)6-NEUPORT / (888)663-8767 or (707)665-9184 Please make a note of the first two numbers; forget the last one. ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - [TO ORDER BY FAX]: To order our Broadcast Email Software Package by fax with a Credit Card, please print out the order form at the bottom of this email and complete all necessary blanks. Then, fax the completed order form to: ==> (707)665-9185 Can we fax other items of interest as well?? ------- ------ ----- ---- --- -- - - [TO ORDER BY POSTAL MAIL]: Neuport Internet Marketing 6585E Commerce Blvd. Suite #281 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 United States of America I suspect the above address is just a mail drop. I think someone once before told me the address was a fraud-hive. Make certain that you, and the users at your site do not receive this sort of trash in email. Call and provide each and every email address you own. We Respect YOUR Privacy and Honor ALL Remove Requests. To have Your Email Address(es) Removed from our PRIVATE Database, feel free to call us toll-free at our expense at: (888)352-5443. --------------------------------- And some people wonder why there is so much spam ... eliminate this outfit and help make a dent in the volume. Do not forget to get your name off of their mailing list, and let them know that people like them have made the net what it is today, and how pleased you are when you read your email each day, and how you have lots of time to spend figuring out one filter rule after another to keep them out of your sight. To the USA readers, have a great Memorial Day holiday weekend! To the rest of you, have a nice weekend anyway! PAT ------------------------------ From: Kevin Lundy Subject: Re: Smartjack and CSU Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:46:27 GMT Organization: @Home Network To all who helped ... We think we have it solved. It was cabling ... but not the house cable. It was the cross connect cable between the smart jack and the house cable. Or the slot the smart jack was on. When we put the Tbird on both monitor (CPE and net) ports, we saw occasional slips. So then we just monitored the CPE side and saw that we weren't seeing the "timing return" consistantly from the CPE. Test the CPE at the CPE and timing return signal was fine. So we just walked the cable back thru each connection until we lost the signal. To minimize the down time, the tech wired a new slot on the mux. When we moved the smart jack to that new slot, the return signal was fine. So it was either the slot or the cross connect cable. Since this has been a 3 week battle, I'm not convinced yet, but at least this time the techs actually observed the problem. Thanks to all. ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Reciprocal Compensation (was Re: Strange Problems) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 01:20:08 GMT On Tue, 25 May 1999 18:31:45 GMT, Eli Mantel wrote: > Let's remember that the issue of reciprocal compensation doesn't > directly affect what consumers pay for service. By the somewhat > arcane rules in effect, reciprocal compensation is paid only on local > calls, but classifying certain calls as long distance doesn't mean > that consumers will be charged for those calls. It only affects what > the phone companies involved pay each other. It puts a per-minute charge on the call that includes a toll to local subsidy. > It's probably the case that the incumbent local phone companies, such > as PacBell, made a tactical error in lobbying for reciprocal > compensation, with the result that the competing local phone companies > took advantage of the opportunity this created by signing up > businesses to use their service for phone lines that made few or no > outgoing calls, hence making them eligible to receive reciprocal > compensation. They made their bed; let them sleep in it. I guess they could try to compete for the ISP business, if they were willing to settle for competitive rates. > That mistake aside, payment of reciprocal compensation on calls > included in flat-rate service is extremely arbitrary, since both phone > companies involved carry the call part of the way, and neither one > receives any usage-sensitive charges from the consumer. Perhaps, but otherwise the party terminating the call gets nothing at all from the party placing it, yet the call uses its capital investment. If the two companies are of equal size and call mix, it is a wash transaction. Reciprocal compensation is intended as a means of settling the difference. Of course the BOCs figured on a small number of CLEC customers calling mostly BOC customers. > Whether or not charges for local phone service will go up if > reciprocal compensation continues to be paid or ISP charges go up if > reciprocal compensation is dropped is somewhat speculative... If the CLEC has to pay the long distance interconnect rate, cents per minute, it will have to pass that charge to the ISPs. ISPs will have to recover those costs, probably in per minute connect fees. I think most of the BOCs are under rate cap regulation. They need to play "root hog or die" on this one. Of course they have the best Congress money can buy to bail them out. ------------------------------ From: Janet Petrunti Organization: @Home Network Subject: Lucent Sells Sales Group - Comments? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 02:46:19 GMT In late April Lucent announced that it was selling it's small and midsize business' direct sales group. This unnamed company (as of yet) will become the largest convergence reseller in the U.S. with 1998 revenue of 850 million dollars and over 2,000 sales and support staff. I would be curious to hear any general comments people have about this move, especially the long-term prospects for the market segment that this new company will target, that is businesses with under 250 employees. Has there been any "insider" (telecom) buzz generated by this move? Anyone care to guess about the potential for this company going forward? Thanks for any answers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #102 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 27 15:22:31 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA14482; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:22:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905271922.PAA14482@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #103 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 May 99 15:22:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Reciprocal Compensation (Christopher M. Arfaa) More on "Number Portability" Charges (The Old Bear) Australia Admits part in Echelon (Babu Mengelepouti) The FCC's Money-Go-Round (Monty Solomon) FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes (Monty Solomon) GR-303 Test Set? (Nate Duehr) Consumer Choice (Monty Solomon) Seeking DSL Carrier (John Coleman) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (Alan Fowler) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Thor Lancelot Simon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: christopher.m.arfaa@bellatlantic.COM (Christopher M. Arfaa) Subject: Reciprocal Compensation Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:08:30 -0400 To the Editor: There is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue of reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic. First, the fact that the FCC has ruled that such traffic is not "local" does not necessarily mean that CLECs serving ISPs are entitled to _no_ compensation; it depends on their interconnection agreements with the ILEC. Second, the fact that ISP-bound traffic is not local does not meen that CLECs necessarily pay access charges on that traffic under their interconnection agreements. The Massachussets Department of Telecommunications and Energy recently applied the FCC ruling to an interconnection agreement between MCI WorldCom and Bell Atlantic. The DTE held that under the terms of that particular agreement, reciprocal compensation was not payable on ISP-bound traffic. The DTE directed the CLECs and Bell Atlantic to negotiate a solution to the issue of compensation for the traffic. The order can be found at: http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/dpu/telecom/97-116-c/97-116-c.htm In addition to ruling on the specific dispute, the DTE made some particularly detailed and thoughtful observations on the nature of competition and the role of regulators supervising competition in a regulated industry, which are reproduced below: The many comments filed in this case, asserting the importance of requiring reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic to advance toward the policy goal of promoting competition in the local exchange, make clear that it is necessary for this Department to express to the negotiators its views on what competition really means. Much futile debate in public utility regulation, especially in the current environment of developing markets, revolves around unexamined or sometimes distorted use of the terms "competition" and its derivative "competitive". Loose, misleading, or self-serving meaning often underlies disputes and sows confusion. It underlies this dispute as well. In so saying, we do not prejudge any formal renewal or prosecution of the dispute before us last October, where such a renewal might rest "on contractual principles or other legal or equitable considerations," as distinct from general policy arguments. But, as the parties and commenters in this docket will be negotiating, we believe it would be useful to highlight, in general terms, how the Department views underlying policy and economic issues. Otherwise, the parties must negotiate in a vacuum. In addition, certain of the interconnection agreements are coming due for renewal, e.g., MediaOne's agreement. The unqualified payment of reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic, implicit in our October Order's construing of the 1996 Act, does not promote real competition in telecommunications. Rather, it enriches competitive local exchange carriers, Internet service providers, and Internet users at the expense of telephone customers or shareholders. This is done under the guise of what purports to be competition, but is really just an unintended arbitrage opportunity derived from regulations that were designed to promote real competition. A loophole, in a word. There is, however, and we emphasize this point, nothing sinister or even improper about taking advantage of an opportunity such as the one presented by our October Order. One would not expect profit-maximizing enterprises like CLECs and ISPs, rationally pursuing their own ends, to leave it unexploited. Create an opportunity and inventive enterprise will seize upon it. It was ever thus. But regulatory policy, while it may applaud such displays of commercial energy, ought not create such loopholes or, once having recognized their effects, ought not leave them open. Real competition is more than just shifting dollars from one person's pocket to another's. And it is even more than the mere act of some customers' choosing between contending carriers. Real competition is not an outcome in itself--it is a means to an end. The "end" in this case is economic efficiency, which Baumol and Sidak have defined as "that state of affairs in which, as the specialized literature of welfare economics recognizes, no opportunity to promote the general welfare has been neglected. Such an opportunity is defined as the availability of a course of action that will benefit at least some individuals, in their own estimation, in a way not achieved at the expense of others." Toward Competition in Local Telephony, at 24 (emphasis added). Failure by an economic regulatory agency to insist on true competition and economic efficiency in the use of society's resources is tantamount to countenancing and, to some degree, encouraging waste of those resources. Clearly, continuing to require payment of reciprocal compensation along the lines of our October Order is not an opportunity to promote the general welfare. It is an opportunity only to promote the welfare of certain CLECs, ISPs, and their customers, at the expense of Bell Atlantic's telephone customers and shareholders. The Department has consistently rejected attempts over the years to make some customers and competitors better off at the expense of others, all in the name of promoting competition. For example, when the propriety of stranded cost recovery was being debated for the electric industry, the Department (with the sanction of the Supreme Judicial Court and of the General Court) found that electric companies should have an opportunity to recover all of their prudently-incurred, non-mitigable stranded costs. This decision was (and still is) opposed by some on the claim that it purportedly reduces the benefits of competition; but the Department has rejected the notion that the mere shifting of costs to other customers or shareholders can be considered a "benefit" of competition. Similarly, in its recent decision in the natural gas unbundling docket, the Department stated: "Our role is not to guarantee the success of entrants. Rather, our role is to put in place the structural conditions necessary for an efficient competitive process -- one where marketplace decisions of both producers and consumers are made on the basis of incremental costs. An efficient, unbundled gas industry framework would allow customers to compare the LDCs'[local distribution companies] incremental costs to marketers' incremental costs. However, this comparison cannot be made if historic cost commitments are imposed asymmetrically on the LDCs. In other words, if LDCs must include the inefficient costs of past commitments in their prices, while marketers are not required to include those costs for customers who choose to migrate, then marketplace decisions, at least in the near term, are being made on the basis of an asymmetric allocation of historic cost responsibility, not on the basis of incremental costs. This does not lead to efficient competition." Gas Unbundling, D.T.E. 98-32-B, at 30 (1999) (footnote omitted). As the FCC has noted, reciprocal compensation payments for ISP-bound traffic are probably not cost-based. Internet Traffic Order at 29. The revenues generated by reciprocal compensation for that incoming traffic are most likely in excess of the cost of sending such traffic to ISPs. ISP-bound traffic is almost entirely incoming, so it generates significant reciprocal compensation payments from Bell Atlantic to CLECs, an imbalance which enables CLECs to increase their profits or to offer attractive rates and services to Internet service providers, or to do both. Not surprisingly, ISPs view themselves as beneficiaries of this "competition" and argue fervently in favor of maintaining reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound traffic. However, the benefits gained, through this regulatory distortion, by CLECs, ISPs, and their customers do not make society as a whole better off, because they come artificially at the expense of others. Where an increase in income results from regulatory anomaly, rather than from greater competitive efficiency in the marketplace, a regulator is well advise to take his thumb off the scale. We do so today. Arguing that we should not correct the distortions created by reciprocal compensation payments because they benefit ISPs and their customers is much like saying that one should not encourage people to quit smoking, and so avoid adverse personal and public health consequences, merely because some members of society make a living growing tobacco. Decisions like this should be driven by concerns for overall societal welfare and not by concern for preserving the hothouse environment of an artificial market niche. Chris Arfaa (Views expressed are solely my own.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:33:27 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: More on "Number Portability" Charges As reported in Newscan (http://www.newsscan.com/) for May 26, 1999: CONSUMER ACTIVISTS CRITICIZE BELL-ATLANTIC CHARGE Consumer activists on the east coast are complaining about a new 23-cent monthly phone fee that Bell Atlantic is charging customers to pay for network changes necessary for "local number portability," so that people can keep their phone numbers if they decide to switch phone companies. Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers Union says, "The regulators aren't doing their jobs. There seems to be an endless price spiral that the FCC was supposed to be offsetting with price reductions." But Lawrence Strickling of the Federal Communications Commission says that spreading the costs of portability across the industry is the fairest way to ensure competition: "It all stems from the notion that everybody will be better off in a competitive environment. It seems quite fair to us that everybody ought to share the costs of creating that competitive environment." source: Washington Post (27 May 99) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/phones27.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:43:07 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Australia Admits Part in Echelon http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990523/news/news3.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:08:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The FCC's Money-Go-Round http://www.thestandard.net/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4708,00.html Which is more important: hooking up libraries and schools to the Internet, helping multinational corporations gobble one another up at the fastest possible rate, or making sure the nation doesn't run out of telephone area codes? The duty of multitasking those weighty duties falls on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the beleaguered regulatory agency that never seems to satisfy today's technology giants and their political friends. On the eve of the FCC's Thursday meeting, two influential Republican Senators proposed to eliminate the agency's power to review almost all telecommunications mergers. Looking at recent blurry moves by the likes of AT&T and Microsoft, the average American might reasonably conclude that the state of mergers is healthy indeed; Senators John McCain and Orrin Hatch know better. Though none of the nation's big newspapers have yet picked up this story, a Reuters dispatch dryly noted that the bill emerged "after some companies with mergers pending before the FCC complained the agency was taking too long to assess their deals." Faster, FCC, faster! But not too fast: At the same time, leading Republican members of Congress are griping about today's expected FCC vote to wire the nation's schools and libraries to the Net. The money comes from the "e-rate," a $1 billion fee tacked onto telephone bills; the GOP has begun labeling the e-rate a "Gore tax." On this issue, Republicans finds less support from tech mammoths, in part because the government contracts go to firms like Cisco Systems, IBM, Apple and Novell. Besides, as Wired News's Declan McCullagh observes in a first-rate roundup, "Congress has only itself to blame. The FCC's power to levy e-rate taxes comes from the universal service portions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a law that had broad bipartisan support." About the only thing the FCC can do to keep everyone happy is change the way it assigns phone numbers. The explosion of mobile phones, Internet use and pagers has created a number shortage, leading some to predict that the United States will run out of phone numbers and area codes in a decade. One proposed solution, as the Wall Street Journal reports, is moving to a 10-digit phone number system. Does that sound like bone-headed bureaucrats at work? Relax: The FCC contracts out phone-number allocation duties to a division of Lockheed Martin. Our phones rest safely in the cradle of the private sector. GOP Heads Call for End to FCC Merger Review http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37112,00.html?st.ne.fd.tohhed.ni The Price of Wiring Schools http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19909.html FCC to Propose Phone-Number Changes to Prevent a Shortage of Area Codes http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB927761210818782282.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:01:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes WASHINGTON (May 27, 1999 11:55 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Federal regulators will move Thursday to ease the area code crunch that has confused and outraged telephone consumers who are increasingly required to dial 10 digits to make a local call. The number of area codes in the United States has more than doubled in the past few years owing to the proliferation of cellular phones, pagers and competitive local phone carriers. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a series of steps, including doling out numbers to new companies in smaller blocks, that would reduce the need for new area codes. http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,53437-85640-608038-0,00.html ------------------------------ From: Nate Duehr Subject: GR-303 Test Set? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 01:15:18 -0600 Organization: NateTech I'm looking for a TR-303/GR-303 switch protocol analyzer/test set/bulk call generator. Currently we use the Abacus products that do this, and they work fairly well. (Only complaint is that they have this little flashing red light in the corner of the screen for a heartbeat, and flashing red lights in a switch room are generally a no-no.) I've spoken with Ameritech and they're not supporting GR-303 yet. Anyone else know of any other test gear for this protocol yet? I'll check the newsgroup, but please CC: me in e-mail as well! Thanks! Nate Duehr, Technical Service Engineer Carrier Access Corporation (303) 218-5587 Desk Phone ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 05:21:56 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Consumer Choice Passed along FYI to Digest readers: Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:40:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Audrie Krause Reply-To: audrie@netaction.org To: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear Friends, I am writing to let you know about Consumer Choice, a new Internet advocacy project which may be of interest to U.S.-based readers of the Micro$oft Monitor. The goal of Consumer Choice is to promote meaningful choices for consumers in telecommunications services. Details are available at: . Interested readers are invited to subscribe to the Consumer Choice Action Alert Mailing List to stay informed. The list will be used to alert subscribers to opportunities to speak out in support of public policies that provide consumers with a choice of local telephone service providers. By now, it is apparent to almost everyone who uses a telephone that the much-touted Telecommunications Act of 1996 hasn't produced the results Congress was looking for. We were promised local phone competition; instead, we've got one Baby Bell merger after another. We were promised lower prices for phone services; instead, prices are rising. In most parts of the nation, residential phone customers are no closer to having a choice of local phone service providers than they were three years ago. That's why it is important for consumers to speak out on this issue. Federal regulators are presently considering two important issues where consumer voices can make a difference -- the proposed takeover of Ameritech by SBC and reduction of the interstate access charges which long distance phone companies must pay to local phone companies for use of the local networks to complete long distance calls. The FCC will be making decisions on both of these issues within the next few months, possibly sooner. Consumer Choice makes it easy for U.S. Internet users to get involved. The site includes background information, links to other resources, and contact information for the Federal Communications Commission. The associated mailing list will keep you informed of new developments and opportunities to speak out on this issue. Subscription information is included below, and is also available on the web site at: : To subscribe to the list, send a blank message to: To subscribe from an address other than the address you are presently using, contact the list owner at: General questions or comments about the Consumer Choice campaign should be sent to me at: audrie@consumerchoice.org. I look forward to working with many of you on this new Internet advocacy campaign. Sincerely, Audrie Krause Consumer Choice! Email: audrie@consumerchoice.org Web: http://www.consumerchoice.org Mail: 601 Van Ness Ave. #631 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 775-8674 Fax: (415) 673-3813 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:30:48 -0400 From: John Coleman Reply-To: john_coleman@bigfoot.com Subject: Seeking DSL Carrier I'm looking for a DSL carrier - any help? Thanks. John Coleman ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:03:42 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) wrote: > In article , Charlie C. > wrote: >>> Within North America, rate distance is calculated using the "V&H" system. >>> V stands for "vertical" (north-south position) and H for "horizontal" >>> (east-west position). Each exchange is represented by a location expressed >>> as a V&H co-ordinate. A rate distance can be calculated from two V&H >>> co-ordinate sets based on Pythagorean Theorem, i.e. rate distance = >>> sqrt((V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2)/10 where (V1,H1) is the V&H for one end of a >>> call, and (V2,H2) represents the other end of a call. Wouldn't it be fairer to calculate the great circle distance? Regards, Alan ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam Date: 27 May 1999 09:49:42 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Bob Goudreau wrote: > tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote, in what may well have been > a troll: >>>> Rather than have the FTC pursue >>>> individual perpetrators taking advantage of this confusion, it seems >>>> like it would be highly preferable for the FCC to dictate the use of >>>> the international dialing prefix and country code for calls to the >>>> Caribbean. >>> But under what criteria? If you're going to disqualify the non-US >>> NANP countries from being dialed from the US via 1+NPA dialing, then >>> why not Canada as well? What distinguishes Canada from, say, Jamaica >>> in this respect? Pricing, perhaps (the fact that lots of US long >> Oh, to my mind that's *very* simple. Canada is well-behaved, and the >> Carribean countries which harbor these telephonic scams are not. > I note that "simple" explanations are often wrong. What makes > Canada "well-behaved" in contrast to various Caribbean countries? > AFAIK, phone sex lines exist in Canada and even in the US, not just > in the Caribbean. If it's the higher settlement rates to some of > the Caribbean nations that make them not "well-behaved", then why > weren't you advocating kicking them out of the NANP years ago, when > the rates were as high as they are now or even higher (as indeed were > virtually *all* international rates)? I was. As for why Canada is "well-behaved" whereas various Carribean nations are not, I would suggest that the rule of law -- particularly as regards this type of fraud perpetrated on U.S. citizens -- is better established in Canada and the U.S. than elsewhere in the NANP. >> Certain nations, it seems to me, should be put on notice that their >> free ride in country code 1 will soon be over -- shape up or they'll >> be kicked out for bad behaviour. The FCC could mandate that direct >> dialing end, the NANPA administrator could deallocate the codes, and >> that would, by and large, be that. > And the East Bumf**k Board of Dogcatching and Mosquito Abatement > could also stamp its feet, beat its fists on the walls, and order > NANPA to remove the United States from Country Code 1, to equal > effect, since neither it nor the FCC runs NANPA. U.S. telco relations to the ITU run through the State Department, which, like the FCC, is part of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, the FCC could almost certainly order U.S. IXCs not to allow direct-dial calls to the areas in question, and make it stick. And NANPA was, last I checked, run under a contract let out by the U.S. telcos, which are, of course, subject to FCC regulation ... Will this happen? No. But I can always wish. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #103 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 27 17:58:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA22080; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905272158.RAA22080@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 May 99 17:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Joseph T. Adams) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Matthew Black) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Andrew Green) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Art Walker) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Smartjack and CSU (Nate Duehr) Re: Canadian CLECs (Peter Hope-Tindall) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (Larry Finch) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Steve Cogorno) Re: Airtouch in NYC? (Jon Solomon) Last Laugh! Spam, All Spam, Nothing But Spam (Massimiliano Scagliarini) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: 27 May 1999 11:47:43 GMT Organization: Quality Data Division of JTAE TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@telecom-digest.org) wrote: > No, we are talking 'instant spam', instant complaints to your ISP, > and if some had their way, instant death to the perpetrator, although > some would probably be more merciful about the latter than others. If I were in charge they'd be treated like any other thief: (a) fourfold restitution for the first offense (and this can be MILLIONS of dollars for a big enough spam); (b) prison or close monitoring, until the debt is paid; (c) penalty doubles for each subsequent offense. If it could be proven that the person acted willfully and could never make adequate restitution -- as would be true of most spammers - then the second offense would result in the death penalty. Stealing is only a slower form of murder -- if you steal my time, or my money (which is equivalent to time), you are stealing what my life is made of, and if you steal the time of millions of people, it is similar to murder in terms of its impact on society. I see no reason why the penalty should be any less. Of course, all people, even spammers, are entitled to due process of law, meaning they need to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt before any criminal penalties could be applied. So "instant death" is probably not appropriate. Eventual death, after guilt is proven, very well may be. Joe ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: 27 May 1999 14:48:59 GMT Organization: Your Organization In article , ptownson@telecom- digest.org says ... '[original message edited for brevity --matt 990527] > [TO ORDER BY POSTAL MAIL]: > Neuport Internet Marketing > 6585E Commerce Blvd. Suite #281 > Rohnert Park, CA 94928 > United States of America > I suspect the above address is just a mail drop. I think someone once > before told me the address was a fraud-hive. Pat-- I'm told the US Postal Service will soon implement new rules regarding private mailbox companies. Users will no longer be permitted the use of "Suite" to imply a business presence. Rather, private mailbox users must indicate something like "PPO BOX" instead of "Suite" so customers will know that there is no business presence at the location. The USPS will also force the private mailbox operator to keep a photocopy of the box owners' drivers license on file for public inspection. The law provides that anyone can ask for the box user's registration information (drivers license). While these rules will help stop marketing scams similar to your message, it takes away individual privacy. [to send me e-mail, remove something obvious from my reply-to 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 ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:39:47 -0500 First of all, for the record... > From: mrichards@royal.net > Received: from 98AA9945.ipt.aol.com (98AA9945.ipt.aol.com > [152.170.153.69]) by insrv01.eifel.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/16.aaal) > with ESMTP id ta103005 for ; > Tue, 18 May 1999 21:19:38 +0200 > Date: Tue, 18 May 99 11:26:03 EST This appears to have originated from AOL, and has no apparent connection to royal.net, the easily-forged From line notwithstanding. TELECOM Digest Editor notes: >> To: receiver@planetmail.com >> >> Subject: Re: how is your business doing? > I have no idea who 'planetmail.com' is, or why I would > be a 'receiver' at that place. Probably just a collection > of names for spam purposes. I'd say it's just some third party's address, and you were listed in the BCC: field. >> "Many business people are finding out that they can now >> advertise in ways that they never could have afforded in >> the past. The cost of sending mass e-mail is extremely low, >> and the response rate is high and quick." - USA TODAY > > I would expect *USA TODAY*, which has always been run > by a bunch of whores out for an easy buck to say something > like this. Remind them of this quote the next time you get > asked to subscribe to 'The Nation's Newspaper', that you do > not support people who support or encourage spam. Oh, come now, Pat; you correctly poke holes in everything the spammer has said up to this point, but then a "quote" from USA Today comes along and you swallow it, hook, line and sinker? I see no more reason to believe that this undated "quote" ever existed than any other nonsense also presented here. >> "Consider this: My $1,000 PC is now a personal broadcasting >> station that reaches more people than the CBS affiliate in >> Washington D.C. I can get more local viewers with a single >> e-mail posting to the Internet than Sally Jessy Raphael can >> get in sweeps month." - INTERNET FOR DUMMIES, 3RD EDITION > Remember the folks who publish the 'Dummies' book series also > in your prayers ... all my 'Dummy' books are going in the trash > can later today. Again, I see no reason to believe this is accurate (I don't have that book handy), but note that this quote appears to be more of a refer- ence to a Usenet newsgroup posting anyway. Certainly the "Dummies" publishers would never endorse this junk, as John R. ("Internet for Dummies") Levine would probably agree. >> Neuport Internet Marketing >> 6585E Commerce Blvd. Suite #281 >> Rohnert Park, CA 94928 >> United States of America > I suspect the above address is just a mail drop. I think someone > once before told me the address was a fraud-hive. These idiots are long-time spammers, usually listing that address. Left unspoken is the fact that they need to do their advertising via throwaway accounts at other providers, since obviously anyone who actually _uses_ their advertising method is nuked in short order. This is something that would be demonstrated to their potential purchasers if they were to solicit email responses instead of faxes or phone calls: suckers trying to respond to an email address would find it mysteriously unavailable. I imagine they bank on the fact that the dimwits they're selling to won't notice the irony: A company advertising about doing business on the Internet is not actually conducting _their_ business on the Internet. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:53:02 GMT On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:30:18 EDT, Our Esteemed Moderator wrote: > And some people wonder why there is so much spam ... eliminate this > outfit and help make a dent in the volume. Better yet, change the pricing structure for Internet e-mail to a "charge per message" policy (with mandatory digital signatures for billing authentication), and the economic incentive for 'spam' would be gone. Art [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think that is what it is going to come to eventually; users being 'charged' some nominal amount to send email, with ISP's contributing to a pool according to some formula and receiving pay-outs from the same pool according to some other formula. It may be totally transparent to users who see no difference at all with each ISP giving each user some allotment of email traffic outbound at no extra charge as part of their membership, but if the user pays (as an example) twenty dollars per month for service, the ISP puts a dollar of it in the pool with other ISPs getting seventy-five cents of it perhaps and the first ISP getting back twenty-five cents, or whatever. The only problem with any sort of 'back office billing function' like this however -- despite the obvious technical ones -- is that IMO it tends to 'legitimatize' trafficing in spam. It gives the spammer a reason to continue since he can rightfully claim he is 'paying his way on the net'. A better approach is to attempt to isolate the spammers. Positively refuse connectivity to ISPs who refuse to take action against spammers or who have too many unaccountable 'incidents' with spammers due to negligence. Perhaps this function could be assigned to whoever handles domain name/number assignments from one year to the next. Let them work for some of the money they charge to register your site. :) When an ISP expells a user, he will be required to report the matter to the issuing authority, who in turn will run a mailing list sort of thing telling other ISPs; i.e. Spamford Wallace got cut by ISP 'X'; other guys are not to take him on unless they want the same thing to happen to them. Trouble is, ISPs need to be convinced somehow to work together on mutual problems. Even AT&T works with Sprint and MCI on matters of mutual concern such as extreme examples of toll fraud or network abuse. You old guys, who have been around since the Internet was 'invented' know the routine in the 1980's: maybe you were what was called a 'Unix shell collector' ... you had guest account status at various universities like I did (still do) ... a couple shells at berkeley.edu, maybe one at lcs.mit.edu, perhaps one at toronto.edu, and a couple in Florida somewhere. Maybe you even had root on a couple of work stations along the way because you were trusted and knew what you were doing. And if you acted-out in an offensive way using your priviledges, not only did the sysadmin close your account, tar your directories and send you packing, but the next day all the sysadmins knew about it, and what you had done, and you were lucky if a couple other shells weren't gone the next time you went telnetting over to use them, to say nothing of root passwords getting changed before you could blink your eyes. Well, the net was smaller and more closely-knit in those days, and such fast and cohesive responses to problem users are not as likely now. But the idea still has merit I think. If you screw up one place, you are welcome in no places. If one sysadmin catches you spamming, then you are out -- on your ass! You go on a 'hot list' and stay there for a year or so; come back and see us in a year and let's try to discover what you have learned, if anything; how therapeutic the enforced silence has been for you. If you get caught 'on the net' during the enforced silence period (sort of like driving while your license is suspended) then prosecution will be recommended, for whatever such a recommendation would accomplish. Of course this would require diligent cooperation between ISPs; and I am not at all sure they would work together. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:55:31 GMT In article , John R. Covert wrote: > You thought Title 47 of the U.S. code would stop unsolicited FAX > spamming, didn't you? Well, unfortunately, you were wrong. > See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html and note that in > the section for faxes, the award is due even for a single call, with no > need to say "stop" and wait for another call. I've been hit by the same thing, but the calls are all going to my VOICE number. I went away for a week, and returned to find my voice mailbox full of fax messages. Then I got a fax at 2:15 in the morning, and from another company at midnight. Do I have any recourse? From the URL above, it looks like it's only illegal to send faxes to a fax machine. Is it legal to keep pestering me this way? Thanks, Joel ------------------------------ From: Nate Duehr Subject: Re: Smartjack and CSU Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 01:11:11 -0600 Organization: NateTech Kevin Lundy wrote: > Is there any recommended maximum distance from the smartjack to the > CSU? I have a new T1 voice service that is giving me hell. It's an > intermittent problem - slips, dropped calles, static, etc. Kevin, One other thing to check with intermittent problems on SmartJack installations, is to MAKE SURE that the installer used the correct connectors for the RJ45 at the patch panel. We see this messed up in the field quite often. There are different types of connectors for stranded and solid wire cables, and we regularly get calls from customers describing problems like you've had where eventually someone takes a good hard look at the RJ45 connector and finds that it's wrong. Stranded wire connectors "pierce" the wire, and typically have two "teeth" that do this. Solid wire connectors "grab" the wire and typically look like a "slot" with two connectors on one side and a third in the middle on the other, some people say they look like paper-clips, but I don't like that description. Often, the tech installing the SmartJack has a box of RJ45's, doesn't know the difference, and starts crimping. If the connectors were for stranded wire, eventually they work loose inside the connector housing but the shield of the cable is still held solidly by the back end of the plug, causing intermittent problems. I'm wondering if the "bad jack" you described is really a bad connector on the cross-connect cable from the SmartJack to whatever your cable is terminated on if it's not crimped directly onto your cable. In general, my opinion about SmartJacks is mixed. I like their flexibility when done correctly, but good old wirewrap works better if you have the time and are good at it. Good luck! Nate Duehr, Technical Service Engineer Carrier Access Corporation (http://www.carrieraccess.com) (303) 218-5587 -- Desk Phone ------------------------------ From: Peter Hope-Tindall Subject: Re: Canadian CLECs Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:47:38 -0400 Organization: XL Consulting Reply-To: peter@hope-tindall.com The CRTC requires CLECs to register in Canada. A Current listing may be obtained from a link on the following page: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/PROC_REP/TELECOM/1999/8180/8180-8-99.htm Regards, Peter Hope-Tindall President - XL Consulting peter@hope-tindall.com (416) 410-0240 ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:23:13 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net "Charlie C." wrote: > Scott Prugh wrote: >> I found the following in TELECOM Digest: >> Within North America, rate distance is calculated using the "V&H" system. >> V stands for "vertical" (north-south position) and H for "horizontal" >> (east-west position). Each exchange is represented by a location expressed >> as a V&H co-ordinate. A rate distance can be calculated from two V&H >> co-ordinate sets based on Pythagorean Theorem, i.e. rate distance = >> sqrt((V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2)/10 where (V1,H1) is the V&H for one end of a >> call, and (V2,H2) represents the other end of a call. >> Seems pretty easy. So I pulled out my LERG and took the switch coordinates >> for two switches: >> SW1 = 'PSWYNJPIDS5' (v1,h1) = (5080,1444) -- PISCATAWAY >> SW2 = 'ACMEWAXARS1' (v2,h2) = (6102,8901) -- SEATTLE >> And plugged away: >> rd = sqrt( (5080-6102)^2 + (1444-8901)^2 )/10 >> rd = sqrt( -1022^2 + -7457^2)/10 >> rd = sqrt( 1044484 + 55606849)/10 >> rd = sqrt( 56651333)/10 >> rd = 7526/10 >> rd = 752 >> This is obviously wrong, since Seattle is more that 752 miles from >> Piscataway. >> What's wrong here? Is the formula I have dated? > Math looks good to me. I notice that the result is off by a factor > of about 3.1416 -- hmmmmm... Could the original presentation of the > formula have an omitted term? It's actually off by the sqrt of 10; the 10 belongs within the sqrt. If you make that change you get 2380 miles. Still off, because V & H coordinates assume a flat earth. But a lot closer. Larry Finch ::LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com PDCLarry@aol.com ::(whew!) N 40º 53' 47" W 74º 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: Steve Cogorno Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:36:03 PDT TELECOM Digest Editor said: > In these times, the phrase 'public servant' translates into 'public > master', and surely they must be in their glory about now. Maybe with > some effort, we can get Congress to repeal this law, but don't count > on it. George Orwell was only a few years off in his book '1984', when > Big Brother was just a teen-ager. Now he is coming of age. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but I am not concerned at all about being asked to furnish my SSN. Why the panic about government stalking? Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as Big Brother once pointed out, 'if you have nothing to hide, what do you care if they want to search your premises, ask you a lot of personal questions or audit all your comings-and-goings?' My answer to that is this: because in these times, and for quite a few years now, there are so many laws on the books that *everyone* is guilty of something or another. There are sufficient 'catch-all' laws around to insure that you could be arrested and sent to prison no matter who you are or what you were doing at the time. Since police prosper on distorting and taking out of context whatever you tell them -- as does much of the government -- therefore you are best telling them nothing at all, or as little as possible. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Airtouch in NYC? From: Jon Solomon Date: 27 May 1999 15:26:43 -0400 Patrick, I was the person in Boston who you tried this with ... You are correct about what you have said, except for the the following: When you told me what to dial ... (312) xxx-ROAM ... that's when the phone you were using rang. I was able to access my phone dialing locally with area code, but when I dialed Chicago roam service, back when it was in use, your phone rang. I don't believe Cell-One uses roam service like that any more. It was fun (and innocent in this case, I was prepared to pay the charges if I were billed for it.) Just thought I would give my 2c worth. --jsol [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your two cents is always welcome. I had forgotten that you first dialed into xxx-ROAM and then your cellular number when we did that experiment. In any event, it was fun seeing how easily in those days the cellular carriers could be decieved; just program your cellphone to some number, that's all that mattered back then. I have not heard anything at all about xxx-ROAM for many years and do not know if any carrier is using it any longer. I know that Ameritech prides itself on being able to locate any subscriber anywhere, anytime. As soon as any tower on God's green earth -- or it seems like it -- sees you out there, right away the Ameritech computer is told about it. And no more monkeying around reprogramming the cell phone to a new number for those occassions of midnight madness either. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:31:40 +0200 From: Massimiliano Scagliarini Subject: Last Laugh! Spam, All Spam, Nothing But Spam Hi! I'm sorry to inform you, Mr. Moderator, that this piece of mail from Italy is in fact a spam of the most common type. They are just trying to sell a consulting service: (I'm translating) "The new consulting service consists in determing, using a sophisticated software (LOL: maybe an Excel sheet? :))))), the best calling plan (fixed and cellular) based on the user characteristics, giving the cheapest options and the most suitable for his needs". --------------------- And the worst part is that there isn't even a toll-free number to call ;) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just realized what a brilliant way this would be to spam all the moderated newsgroups ... just send it in some foreign language the moderator cannot read, then he has to publish it and ask his readers to try and figure it out. :) Then as everyone on the mailing list reads it together, suddenly they realize they are getting spammed; but too late, they have already read it. And to think I spent all that time trying to rewrite the backslashes in order to not lose any possible meaning or misspell any words while at the same time humoring sendmail into accepting it without tossing a few thousand mails back in my box with a stern warning that eight-bit characters cannot be used in a two-bit digest, or sent to a seven-bit site, for that matter. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #104 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri May 28 12:49:35 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA26864; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:49:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905281649.MAA26864@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #105 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 May 99 12:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes (Roy McCammon) Re: FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes (Art Kamlet) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Art Kamlet) It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed (wkyr0xwb@my-deja.com) PBX or Hybrid? (Ron Walter) Does Somebody Know the DRS (Digital Reference Sequence)? (Carlos L.) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (John McHarry) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (David Esan) Re: Unsolicited Fax Spamming (David Esan) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (John R. Levine) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (John David Galt) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Jon W.) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Bill Godfrey) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (John R. Levine) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Roy McCammon Subject: Re: FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:50:42 -0500 Organization: 3M-Telecom Systems Division Reply-To: rbmccammon@mmm.com Monty Solomon wrote: > WASHINGTON (May 27, 1999 11:55 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - > Federal regulators will move Thursday to ease the area code crunch > that has confused and outraged telephone consumers who are > increasingly required to dial 10 digits to make a local call. > The number of area codes in the United States has more than doubled in > the past few years owing to the proliferation of cellular phones, > pagers and competitive local phone carriers. > On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a > series of steps, including doling out numbers to new companies in > smaller blocks, that would reduce the need for new area codes. I'd much rather add digits on the other end. I'd have my base number, add 1 for my pager, 2 for my cell phone, etc. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: FCC Tries to Limit New Area Codes Date: 27 May 1999 16:06:23 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > The number of area codes in the United States has more than doubled in > the past few years owing to the proliferation of cellular phones, > pagers and competitive local phone carriers. > On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a > series of steps, including doling out numbers to new companies in > smaller blocks, that would reduce the need for new area codes. I assume this means there will now be a Number Pooling Standard? Or will these be rules that make assumptions about what the industry's number pooling standard will -- or will have to -- contain? Sounds like the FCC got a but impatient with footdragging on the Number Pooling standard as well as Local Number Portability implementation, and are plowing forward. If so, this would tell the industry to stop stalling and do it. Phone companies have been charging customers for their eventual LNP costs, so they really have no good policically correct excuse. And if the FCC or consumer groups can make the public aware of the number pooling issue, without telephone companies adding a N-P charge to phone bills :^) they might get N-P working as early as this year. I wouldn;t mind seeing that, now. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam Date: 27 May 1999 16:00:12 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > U.S. telco relations to the ITU run through the State Department, Ah, for the days of the old Department of Commerce! > which, like the FCC, is part of the Executive Branch. Not so. The FCC and several other commissions are not under the executive branch. They are funded like any other government agency, their commissioners are nominated for fixed terms by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, but unlike the Secretary of State, who can be fired by the president, the FCC commissioners can be removed only by impeachment or expiration of their term of office. True, their budget can be cut if they act uppity, but they are not actually part of the executive branch. Their "judges" are not part of the judicial branch either, but decisions of FCC judges may be appealed directly to the Washington DC federal circuit court, which is one level up from your usual US District courts. The Federal Circuit/Supreme court also act as the other restraining power on the FCC. > the FCC could almost certainly order U.S. IXCs not to allow > direct-dial calls to the areas in question, and make it stick. And > NANPA was, last I checked, run under a contract let out by the > U.S. telcos, which are, of course, subject to FCC regulation ... > Will this happen? No. But I can always wish. Under the order of Modified Final Judgment of 1982, the federal district court for District of Columbia, Judge Harold Greene presiding, ruled that AT&T would keep control of Western Electric but spin off the regional into ten companies (currently eight -- PacTel merging into SBC and NYNEX merging into Bell Atlantic, going towards seven when SBC & Ameritech merge) and that that an organization to coordinate NANP and National Emergency communications would be created, orginally called Bellcore (later LockheedMartin/BCR later Telcore). I don't believe any of the subsequent communications acts passed by Congress removed Bellcore's role in that regard. I'm old fashioned enough to still think of them as Bellcore, but they do work with both international and UN organizations as well as the FCC on establishing standards. What I cannot speak for is how a Bellcore, greatly diminished in power and influence, can still carry out this function and how much influence they have in resisting an FCC whose current chairman speaks loudly and carries a big stick. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: wkyr0xwb@my-deja.com Subject: It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:56:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Let's have a little balance by seeing some of the ways that the sex site purveyors screw the customers. 1. Using a credit card to check age. How can they say this with a straight face? Even if a CC number did this, an expired number would do this just as well. However, they want a currently valid one. The real reason is that, altho they say they won't charge the card, they will later try to think of reasons to charge it. 2. Read the fine print on how to cancel a continuing agreement. Some of the sites require you to go thru the process twice or more, several days apart. The stated reason is to give you another chance to consider. Of course, if you forget to go back to the site a second time to recancel, or you're away from a terminal, you're stuck. 3. There was the recent story about a major sex site CC fraud. There were several components, so I'm not sure if this was one fraud or several. In any case, they included: - charging customers for an extra cycle after they canceled, - fraudulently charging 400,000 CCs, perhaps randomly generating the numbers to charge, and - transferring the money offshore to hide it. Remember that once you've given one of these services (sexy or not) a number, you have to be alert for years after for fake charges. One internet service started charging me monthly charges, for the first time, years after I'd canceled the free trial, and over a year after I'd canceled the CC. Few people realize that when you cancel a CC, your account may stay open for a year or more for any delayed charges to be posted. Of course, I protested these charges, and the bank reluctantly reversed them, but I don't need the hassle. What I need to make me comfortable here is an electronic money order or electronic cash. I need something that does not give the recipient any means to debit me any more money than I sent him. I'm aware of some initial efforts like this, but don't trust their operators not to take my money and run, like BCCI, the Bank of Sark, Bernie Cornfeld, Robert Vesco's IOS, etc, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:42:48 -0500 From: Ron Walter Subject: PBX or Hybrid? Is there a standard definition for when a phone system is no longer a hybrid and is instead a full PBX? Can a full PBX also be known as a hybrid? Any input on this would be a great help to me. Thank you. Ron Walter Capitol City Telephone Lincoln NE ------------------------------ From: carlosl@marte.cinv.iteso.mx Subject: Does Somebody Know the DRS (Digital Reference Sequence) ? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:00:08 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi ! I want to know the bytes that specify the DRS (Digital Reference Sequence) used in digital communications (T1). Any reference is appreciated. Best, Carlos ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 23:30:32 GMT On Thu, 27 May 1999 11:03:42 GMT, amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) wrote: > fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) wrote: >> In article , Charlie C. >> wrote: >>>> Within North America, rate distance is calculated using the "V&H" system. ... > Wouldn't it be fairer to calculate the great circle distance? Not by enough to make any difference. The V&H coordinates are based on a Lambert conformal projection that yields straight line distances that vary from the great circle distance by a couple miles or so, worst case. ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:37:18 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , LarryFinch@worldnet.att. net wrote: >> Math looks good to me. I notice that the result is off by a factor >> of about 3.1416 -- hmmmmm... Could the original presentation of the >> formula have an omitted term? > It's actually off by the sqrt of 10; the 10 belongs within the sqrt. > If you make that change you get 2380 miles. Still off, because V & H > coordinates assume a flat earth. But a lot closer. I don't think the V&H coordinates assume a flat earth -- I think this calculation assumes a flat earth. The routine that I have always used, derived from ATT FCC #10 (or did they move it to #1 now ???) has a fudge factor multiple that is built in. One calculates the difference in the V coordinates and the difference in the H coordinates, divides by 10 and then squares the result ((v1-v2)/10)**2. Add the two results together. If the total is > 1777, divide the delta-V and delta-H by 10, square that result, readd. Repeat if needed. Then having a number less than 1777, multiply by a fudge factor that ranges from .9 to over 53,000. I think that this will solve the round earth problem. ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:27:33 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > In article , John R. Covert > wrote: >> You thought Title 47 of the U.S. code would stop unsolicited FAX >> spamming, didn't you? Well, unfortunately, you were wrong. >> See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html and note that in >> the section for faxes, the award is due even for a single call, with no >> need to say "stop" and wait for another call. > I've been hit by the same thing, but the calls are all going to my > VOICE number. I went away for a week, and returned to find my voice > mailbox full of fax messages. Then I got a fax at 2:15 in the > morning, and from another company at midnight. > Do I have any recourse? > From the URL above, it looks like it's only illegal to send faxes to > a fax machine. Is it legal to keep pestering me this way? How about if you hook a fax machine to your voice phone at night? Then you could find out who is calling you. I would bet this is not a spam fax, but rather a misprogrammed machine. By finding out who sent the fax, you may be able to persuade them to fix the problem. [I am sure that PAT is going to remind us about the German couple and First Chicago Bank, or at least point us to the telecom archives.] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You already gave the reminder, so I do not need to. Thanks, and yes, see the archives for an interesting account of a bank's fax machine that was misprogrammed to the extent that international authorities, AT&T and a local telco had to get involved in correcting the problem. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1999 21:14:26 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > "Consider this: My $1,000 PC is now a personal broadcasting > station that reaches more people than the CBS affiliate in > Washington D.C. I can get more local viewers with a single > e-mail posting to the Internet than Sally Jessy Raphael can > get in sweeps month." - INTERNET FOR DUMMIES, 3RD EDITION Actually, this is a real quote from the original preface to Internet for Dummies, written in 1993, long before spam was a problem, which we stopped using several years ago. It's completely out of context here -- he was referring to regular legitimate mailing lists and usenet, not spam. This shows up in a lot of spam, and when we can figure out who the spammer is, we wave a lawyer at them to make them stop using the quote. > Remember the folks who publish the 'Dummies' book series also in > your prayers ... all my 'Dummy' books are going in the trash can > later today. Oh, humph, I'll send you nice new ones. In Croatian. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 05:08:48 GMT Quoth Matthew Black : > I'm told the US Postal Service will soon implement new rules regarding > private mailbox companies. Users will no longer be permitted the use > of "Suite" to imply a business presence. Rather, private mailbox > users must indicate something like "PPO BOX" instead of "Suite" so > customers will know that there is no business presence at the > location. The USPS will also force the private mailbox operator to > keep a photocopy of the box owners' drivers license on file for public > inspection. The law provides that anyone can ask for the box user's > registration information (drivers license). While these rules will > help stop marketing scams similar to your message, it takes away > individual privacy. The new rules have already been enacted and were supposed to take effect April 26, but they have been postponed six months. Details at: http://www.usps.gov/feedback/cmra_faq.htm John David Galt ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 18:18:27 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden On Thu, 27 May 1999 17:58:10 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Green wrote: > These idiots are long-time spammers, usually listing that address. > Left unspoken is the fact that they need to do their advertising via > throwaway accounts at other providers, since obviously anyone who > actually _uses_ their advertising method is nuked in short order. This > is something that would be demonstrated to their potential purchasers > if they were to solicit email responses instead of faxes or phone > calls: suckers trying to respond to an email address would find it > mysteriously unavailable. I imagine they bank on the fact that the > dimwits they're selling to won't notice the irony: A company > advertising about doing business on the Internet is not actually > conducting _their_ business on the Internet. Or how about the ultimate irony ... you could pay for their spamware with your credit card, and then dispute the charge when it comes in ... / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com / Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY / FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / Ever notice how irons have a setting for permanent press? I don't get / it... --Steven Wright ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:59:27 CDT From: jonw@ripco.com (Jon W.) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Oh Pat, Pat, Pat. As a Chicagoan, an old-time BBS'er and internet enthusiast, I have long appreciated the work you do. But you have fallen for one of the oldest tricks of spammers: sending your email address to their "remove" resources always results in any new addresses they didn't already have being ADDED to their next list. So then they can increase the number in their promotional garbage for next time. Good Luck JRW ------------------------------ From: Bill Godfrey Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: Thu, 27 May 99 21:28:35 TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > ** You Will Receive EVERYTHING Above for ONLY: $395.00! Strange definition of free. > We Respect YOUR Privacy and Honor ALL Remove Requests. To have > Your Email Address(es) Removed from our PRIVATE Database, feel > free to call us toll-free at our expense at: (888)352-5443. Hmmm ... I wonder if they would accept removal requests of "Please remove all email addresses ending in 'bacchae.demon.co.uk'" If they won't do that, I'd have to resort to listing each one individually. "a@bacchae.demon.co.uk. b@bacchae.demon.co.uk... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz@bacchae.demn.co.uk" I have a speech synthesiser and a C compiler. I'm not afraid to use them. Anyway, I live in England, and that would cost be international rates. Ah well! But before any of you consider responding to junk mail removal requests, try a little expriment. 1. Get an email account at a free email service. 2. Via your new email account, write to as many removal request addresses as you can find. 3. Wait a week. 4. Check your email. (Woah, what a lot of spam!) Odd, isn't it. There is no way that new address could have got onto the spammers list except by the removal request. Gosh, you don't think they just add those addresses to their main list of people to spam, do you? 5. Delete the new account. Don't waste resources. Bill, likes having unlimited email addresses. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One reason I opened the service at http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice was to provide as many email addresses as needed for *legitimate* use, to combat spam or whatever the user's requirements were. If you have some business that needs to be taken care of, you are welcome to username@telecom-digest.zzn.com as a blind address. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 27 May 1999 21:18:43 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Perhaps it is a generational thing, but I am not concerned at all about > being asked to furnish my SSN. Why the panic about government stalking? Because it makes it much easier to build large, intrusive, easily correlated databases. I'm not too worried about the legitimate functions of government, but I'm quite worried about $19,000/yr file clerks who find that selling visits to the database to their sleazy friends is a quick way to make a few extra bucks. On the other hand, I haven't been able to find any confirmation of this particular horror story anywhere else, so it's probably an urban legend. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #105 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri May 28 13:51:14 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA29498; Fri, 28 May 1999 13:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905281751.NAA29498@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #106 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 May 99 13:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Teach Yourself Microsoft Exchange Server" (Rob Slade) (NPA) NXX-ROAM Access Availability (Eric Morson) EU-US Talks Close to Collapse - Web Privacy War Ensues? (Monty Solomon) Save Those Area Codes (Monty Solomon) Myterious Intercept Message (Bill Phillips) Re: Reciprocal Compensation (The Old Bear) Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry (Bill Feidt) Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion? (Bob Ponce) Help Me With Data Switch Like ATM, FR (cychenyan) Re: Canadian CLECs (Brian F. G. Bidulock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 28 May 1999 08:36:48 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Teach Yourself Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKTYMES5.RVW 990407 "Teach Yourself Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5 in 10 Minutes", Patrick Grote, 1999, 0-672-31556-4, U$12.99/C$18.95/UK#10.99 %A Patrick Grote pgrote@i1.net %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1999 %G 0-672-31556-4 %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$12.99/C$18.95/UK#10.99 800-858-7674 http://www.mcp.com %P 292 p. %T "Teach Yourself Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5 in 10 Minutes" This is unfair, really. Exchange is a multifunctional communications system. It isn't supposed to be learned in ten minutes. However, I do not know why authors find it so hard to say what Microsoft Exchange actually is. Part one of this book is intended to give us an overview. Chapter one is supposed to provide concepts, but only talks about interrelated boxes, not what the system actually does. Features are listed in chapter two, but the basics are not explained. Ironically, we learn more about the server through the list of clients presented in chapter three. Chapter four looks at the information you would want before installing Exchange, but for the large system described initially, much more planning would be needed. Part two discusses installation. Chapter five assumes that all will go well as you proceed through the dialogue boxes. A blizzard of configuration options are listed in chapter six. Having looked at all the other clients previously, chapter seven outlines Outlook 98 in a bit more detail. Chapter eight mentions gateways and connections to other servers. Since Internet mail is of greater interest, chapter nine goes into a little more detail on installation of the Internet Mail Service. The Mail Connector, for working with older MS Mail systems, is in chapter ten. Part three reviews administration. Chapter eleven presents the user management functions, primarily listing contact information. Public folders, for groupware functions, are described in chapter twelve. Directory replication setup is in chapter thirteen. Backup issues are discussed in chapter fourteen, but some important aspects are passed over rather quickly. Part four deals with trouble. Chapter fifteen lists some quick checks for common problems the client may encounter, while sixteen looks at the server. Part five talks about advanced tools. Chapter seventeen briefly describes some encryption key management functions. Exchange forms are covered in chapter eighteen. Some considerations for making your system more reliable are in chapter nineteen. Those who are familiar with Exchange may find this to be a handy short guide to functions they do not deal with often. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKTYMES5.RVW 990407 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com I'll never be an American. When Americans think of Russia, they think of war. When Canadians think of Russia, they think of hockey. - Michael J. Fox http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:38:21 -0400 Subject: (NPA) NXX-ROAM Access Availability Most cellular carriers still have these "roamer ports" in place. In CT BAM area, you can dial 856-ROAM and hear a dial tone. Enter the 10 digit number and it immediately rings thru. There is a FABULOUS cellular resource called THE CELLULAR TRAVEL GUIDE, published by Telecom Publishing in Seattle. www.TelecomPublishing.com TelPub@aol.com. The guide is in its 5th edition, and has A-band and B-band maps for nearly every American & Canadian coverage area, as well as international cellular information for North American Subscribers, lists of MSAs and RSAs, and a complete listing of EVERY System Identifier (SID) in the WORLD, including PCS and NEXTEL SIDs. It does list roamer port numbers for nearly every service area. Try this one in your home service area: Dial *511 ... if you get a dialtone, you have found the roamer port from cellular access points. Enter the 10 digit number you are calling, and it will ring thru ONLY IF the phone you are calling is also powered on in the same SID area at the same time. Another tidbit: if you dial the roamer access number *511, it is likely a free airtime call. whatever you dial after that has no bearing since the call you dialed, *511, already "answered". Tidbit #3: Dial your potentially free call to *511, and enter your OWN 10 digit cellular number. Like any other incoming call you don't answer, it will go into voice mail if you have it ... CONGRATULATIONS ... now you can check your voice mail FREE of airtime charges or allowance usage. Voice mail retrieval in this fashion only works in your home SID. *511 may not be the access number in your area, but give it a try. If anyone knows what it is for the B-Side Bell Atlantic NY Metro area, PLEASE let me know. Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 00:39:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EU-US Talks Close to Collapse - Web Privacy War Ensues? Posted 27/05/99 9:44am by John Lettice Privacy talks between the US and Europe are close to collapse, according to US sources, and Web database hell could ensue. An EU directive last autumn banned export of personal data covering EU citizens to countries whose standards aren't deemed sufficient by Europe, and this includes the US. Nobody's been busted so far, as the two sides have been in a deep huddle and trying to avoid lighting the touch-paper, but lots of you people (The Register included, unfortunately, but that's another story) out there are currently breaching EU law by holding personal records on EU citizens. If a deal can't be reached, the likelihood of banana- or hormone beef-style escalation will increase. Plenty US, and some non-EU, companies already hold data on EU citizens, and the number of 'offences' will increase vastly as more and more business is conducted on the Web. Any registration of a product with a US company (hello Microsoft), for example, would probably be an offence unless the bare minimum of data was collected. Comments about business partners (checked the fields in the groupware you're using recently?) could also be offences. And if a deal isn't done soon, someone, somewhere, is going to press the button. The noises coming out of the US may however involve a certain amount of spinning. Negotiators are due to meet in Brussels tomorrow with a view to stitching up a deal in time for a US-European summit late next month, and we Europeans can't help noticing that US negotiating teams tend to turn up the volume just before crunch meetings. But it's a sticky one, just the same. The basic dispute is about how privacy is actually protected, rather than whether or not (or to what extent) it should be protected. The EU goes for legislation and the use of agencies to enforce standards, while the US wants to stick with voluntary codes of conduct. Letting industries regulate themselves has of course been the inclination of UK governments for the past 20 years or so, but we suspect this may be connected with why our trains (among other things) don't work. At the moment the US team seems to be digging its heels in, even suggesting that it ought to be OK if companies just made formal commitments to privacy protection principles. This doesn't seem likely to play in Brussels, so failing an extremely dubious fudge, we could be headed for a privacy war. The Register and its contents are copyright 1999, Situation Publishing. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 00:50:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Save Those Area Codes http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/19912.html Reuters 9:30 a.m. 27.May.99.PDT WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators will move to ease the area code crunch that has outraged telephone consumers who increasingly have to dial 10 digits to make a local call. The number of area codes has more than doubled in the past few years because of the skyrocketing use of cellular phones and pagers, along with the growth of competitive local phone carriers. On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a series of steps -- including doling out numbers to new companies in smaller blocks that would reduce the need for new area codes. Under the current system, when a new telephone company needs phone numbers in a particular area code for its customers, it receives 10,000 numbers at once -- from 862-0000 to 862-9999 for example. But the company may not have that many customers. Using new technology that allows phone switching centers to connect local calls more easily, the FCC plans to propose handing out numbers in blocks of 1,000. And the agency will propose limiting a company from getting a new block of numbers until it has used a certain percentage of its existing pool. The proposals will be issued for comment after Thursday's session and could be altered prior to adoption. Some state regulators have asked the FCC to go farther and grant them discretion to take more radical actions. The need for 10-digit dialing to make local calls -- a practice that particularly irks consumers -- has risen dramatically as regulators have added new area codes to the same geographic boundaries of an existing code. Known as an overlay, the practice can result in next-door neighbors having different area codes. Some state regulators, seeking to avoid an overlay, would like to segregate users of wireless or pager services into new area codes, leaving numbers in the older area code for landline customers. FCC officials say they plan to address state concerns specifically in a few months. But they add that because wireless phones will increasingly compete with landline phones to provide basic local service, they are likely to oppose area code assignments that are not technologically neutral. From the 1960s through the 1980s, new area codes were added at a rate of about one every two years. But in the last four years, the pace has increased to 20 to 25 new codes per year. In California alone, which had just 13 area codes in 1992, regulators project a need for 41 codes in 2002. The FCC Thursday is also expected to continue the lengthy and complicated process of reforming the system of subsidies that keep local phone service affordable in rural and high-cost areas. The agency's latest proposal, which affects about US$225 million of the billions of dollars of subsidies, would help determine which states are eligible for federal subsidies due to high costs of providing residential service. The FCC previously issued a computer model to determine each state's costs and a national average. States above the average by a certain, yet-to-be-determined amount would get subsidies. On Thursday, the FCC will issue for comment a list of hundreds of factors that will go into the model, ranging from the cost of buried telephone cables to the cost of borrowing to build telephone infrastructure. The entire plan to reform the $225 million high-cost fund, which goes largely to the regional Bells and GTE, is expected to be made final in September and go into effect in January 2000. Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited. ------------------------------ From: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Subject: Myterious Intercept Message Organization: ShoeString Projects, Cambridge, MA Reply-To: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:30:21 GMT My wife and her mother have this arrangement: my wife phones her mother every Tuesday and Thursday evening, and my M-in-L phones my wife every Sunday morning. This has been going on for years. Suddenly, within the past few weeks (I'm afraid I don't know exactly), my M-in-L claims she is no longer able to call our number. She lives in Queens, NY and her number is (718) 441-NNNN. Last I heard, she had MCI (having been slammed from AT&T some years ago and deciding it wasn't worth the hassle to get it changed back). We live in Cambridge, MA and our number is (617) 876-NNNN. Our LD carrier is and always has been AT&T . We are both Bell Atlantic customers. My M-in-L says that when she dials our number she gets a recording saying approximately the following: "It (or probably "This number") is not on [the/our] network. Please call the head office." This is all we can get out of her, This evening, my wife had her try this several times, to see if she could give us any more details ... however, she couldn't seem to remember the latter part of the message. I should mention that she is 84, dotty, and technophobic -- she is still using a 40+ year-old rotary phone. I have searched telecom archives high and low, to no avail, so I am now turning to you gurus: Do you have any idea at all what this message could mean, where it comes from, or anything whatever that might help? The poor woman is utterly confused by this (as are we!), and it's causing her great stress -- she is a worrier -- so any help you can give is appreciated! ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Reciprocal Compensation Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 02:07:06 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos christopher.m.arfaa@bellatlantic.COM (Christopher M. Arfaa) writes: > To the Editor: > There is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue of reciprocal > compensation for ISP-bound traffic. First, the fact that the FCC has > ruled that such traffic is not "local" does not necessarily mean that > CLECs serving ISPs are entitled to _no_ compensation; it depends on their > interconnection agreements with the ILEC. Second, the fact that > ISP-bound traffic is not local does not meen that CLECs necessarily pay > access charges on that traffic under their interconnection agreements. > . . . The unqualified payment of reciprocal compensation for ISP-bound > traffic, implicit in our October Order's construing of the 1996 > Act, does not promote real competition in telecommunications. > Rather, it enriches competitive local exchange carriers, Internet > service providers, and Internet users at the expense of telephone > customers or shareholders. This is done under the guise of what > purports to be competition, but is really just an unintended > arbitrage opportunity derived from regulations that were designed > to promote real competition. A loophole, in a word. I am not sure if Chris Arfaa views as expressed are solely his own (as he states) or more reflective of his role at Bell Atlantic. Bell Atlantic likes to use the term "loophole" when discussing reciprocal compensation and has managed to get the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Mass DTE) to even use it in their decision. But by this manner of thinking, all regulation is a "loophole" for someone or another. As yet, we do not have wide-spread competition and for many telephone users (including those many users who are paying for second telephone lines for use with their home computers) there is no rational for the the Mass DTE to see a personal data call as being any more or any less than a personal voice call. Most businesses terminate many more calls than they originate. The DTE does not choose to treat the classified ad department at the Boston Globe, or the reservation lines at Logan Airport, or "What's Showing" recording at the local cinema as different just because they receive much more incoming call traffic than they originate. In fact, one can see the impending demise of dial-up internet in a few years when broadband connections become the standard. So at most, this distortion (if there really is a distortion) is transitory. Why, one must ask, has this become such a cause for Bell Atlantic and the other RBOC incumbent local exchange carriers? Can there be more to the agenda than a couple of years of cash flow imbalance while the market undergoes a predictable sea change? Bell Atlantic has magnanimously translated this DTE ruling into a "cost savings" that will allow Bell Atlantic to reduce the 98-cent per month surcharge on their DTMF touch-tone residential customers to 49-cents. Without questioning why there should be any additional fee for DTMF signalling in this day and age, one has to ask why the soon-to-be foregone 49-cents of the charge was levied for the past 25 plus years and can now be eliminated with this ruling even though the ISP-CLEC issue only appeared on the telecom landscape within the last couple of years? Bell Atlantic is hot to roll out its xDSL service as a first step to getting into the lucrative (and unregulated) broadband side of the business -- head-to-head with the cable companies. There is no mystery about Bell Atlantic's desire to become a player in home entertainment and home shopping products. No, despite the lofty words, this is a very simple play to control and maintain the playing field -- not to level it. I'm very much in favor of competition once there are some competitors. At the moment, it's looking a lot like competition is only OK if the incumbent can make and change the rules to make sure nobody else competes too hard. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: wfeidt@cpcug.org (Bill Feidt) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:30:38 GMT Organization: Heller Information Services Wednesday (5/26) morning I observed the problem again. At 5:00 AM I called the supervisor's office number and left a message on her machine. At 11:00 AM both supervisor and technician appeared on my doorstep. The supervisor told me that they had been able to observe the line during failure and thereby locate the point of failure (as Pat suggested they would). They had found a crossed line three blocks away which they had already repaired. In addition, the tech told me that the pair had been shorting to ground at that point. He claimed the bundle shrank overnight, compressing the pairs and causing the short. The heat of the day caused expansion, resulting in a fix. For good measure, they also installed new wire from the pole all the way to my inside NID. They also installed an outside NID (I now have one both inside and outside). I have not seen a recurrence of the problem for two very cool mornings now. Thanks again to Pat and the comp.dcom.telecom readers who offered excellent advice and morale support. Kudos too to Bell Atlantic for hiring some really good people. Bill wfeidt@cpcug.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:42:16 -0500 From: Bob Ponce Subject: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Instead of making local areas that endure splits and overlays dial ten numbers for what they still think of as local calls, why can't the local companies use star and pound to at least keep these calls to eight digits? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because star and pound, or asterisk and 'octothorpe' already have other functions assigned to them. The former is used as a flag that indicates the couple digits following are not part of a telephone number, but are a service code for some feature such as call-forwarding. The 'octothorpe' or # on the other hand usually sits on the end of a 'short string' of numbers as a way to signal the switching equipment not to wait for anything further, but to process, in context, what it has already received. I should think involving * and # in any number expansion scheme would be dreadfully hard to program to say nothing of difficult to teach to telephone users. However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. Those four tones were part of the standards set many years ago. I might be inclined to change the *names* of those keys to something like F,D,V, and X as in 'fax', 'data', 'voice' and 'extra line', but keeping the same tone frequencies. Then for every four numbers in a residence somewhere, three of the four could be recovered, and people would dial eight digits on local calls, with calls most often ending with 'V'. I had an old Autovon phone a while back and plugged it in to see how it would work. The twelve 'regular' buttons worked fine, but as soon as the network heard one of the other four regardless of where they were positioned in the dialing string, the switch sent back a fast reorder tone. In any place where there were phone lines devoted to fax or data or 'a second voice line' do readers feel the recovery of up to three out of the four numbers presently assigned would accomplish much, while also considering trade-offs with user convenience and learning a new system, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cychenyan Subject: Help Me With Data Switch Like ATM,FR Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:12:54 +0800 Organization: The news server of Changzhou TeleCom Who can tell me the details of the data switches like ATM,FR,x.25,etc. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Brian F. G. Bidulock Subject: Re: Canadian CLECs Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 04:14:12 -0500 Organization: Brian F. G. Bidulock, P. Eng. How about Calgary (er... Toronto) based MetroNet? When I worked for Stentor, they were the ones in the news. Check out Angus Reid: he's the most influential telecommunications industry analyst and consultant (and professional witness) in Canada. grm wrote: > Do you have any info on who the fast moving Canadian CLECs are? > gmorriso@telcordia.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #106 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri May 28 14:29:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA01376; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:29:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905281829.OAA01376@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #107 TELECOM Digest Fri, 28 May 99 14:29:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Libel Law Has Bark, and Bite (Monty Solomon) DSL Beats Cable in Net Speed Services Test During 'Rush Hour' (M. Solomon) AOL Conditions For Giving Cops Info (Monty Solomon) Re: Airtouch in NYC? (Stanley Cline) Re: Help Needed Researching Polish Telecom (Will Roberts) Employment Opportunity: Data Warehouse/I.T. Professionals (Thomas Baer) Reed Solomon Coding (Rob Heaton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 28 May 1999 00:48:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Libel Law Has Bark, and Bite http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19894.html Libel Law Has Bark, and Bite by Matt Friedman 12:00 p.m. 26.May.99.PDT MONTREAL -- A rarely invoked Canadian law may send an Ontario man to jail for shooting his mouth off in cyberspace. Gregory Barrett was arraigned in Guelph, Ontario late last week on criminal libel charges stemming from an online campaign he has waged against a Toronto-area dog breeder since 1994. Barrett finally removed the materials from his Central America-based Web site on Wednesday. "It's mental torture," said Darla Lofranco, a breeder of rare Hungarian Kuvasz herding dogs and the target of Barrett's wrath. "I'm probably the top breeding Kuvasz kennel in the world, but if Barrett had kept this up much longer, I would have been finished." On his Web site, Barrett accused Lofranco of "depraved" practices, business irregularities, and lax animal care. Among other things, Barrett claimed that a dog he had purchased from Lofranco in 1993 suffered from crippling hip dysplasia and had to be put down. Barrett did not return phone calls. Lofranco flatly denies Barrett's allegations, but after five years of defending her reputation to prospective clients and competitors, she said she finally lost her patience. She printed out the offending Web page and in March took them to the Provincial courthouse in Guelph, requesting that criminal charges be filed. Under Canadian criminal law, in addition to civil actions, a libel defendant may face criminal prosecution, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Lofranco said she rejected the idea of pursuing a civil action because she didn't believe she would collect damages. Barrett sued her over the hip-dysplasia incident and lost three times, but she was unable to collect legal fees from those suits. Besides, she said, the dispute has lasted long enough. "The impact has been unbelievable," she said. "My competitors have jumped on it, and Barrett's allegations are often the first thing that buyers knows about me." A law professor at the University of Ottawa said that the statute in question is rarely used, but was only recently upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. "The court said the law was necessary for just this kind of case, where the complainant can't seek redress through civil law," said Michael Geist, who specializes in Internet law. While there have been numerous civil libel actions over Internet content in Canada and elsewhere, Geist said that there have been very few criminal libel cases. "The Internet provides the opportunity to respond directly to the person you believe is defaming you, so it usually doesn't escalate to this point," Geist said. Lofranco concedes that she never took advantage of that opportunity. Aside from lawyers' letters and one email from Barrett in which he said he would delete the offending material from his site if she agreed to withdraw the complaint, the breeder has had no direct contact with her alleged defamer. "I was frightened and embarrassed by all the things he was saying," she says. "I didn't particularly want to talk to him." Fearing litigation, Barrett's original Web host, Magma Communications of Nepean, Ontario, yanked his site in February -- but he soon relocated it to a server in El Salvador. Though Barrett finally removed the offending material from the Web on Wednesday morning, Geist says that the case shows that existing Canadian laws can work in virtual space. "This case merely illustrates that we have to apply existing laws even if an act occurs online. The Crown has a responsibility to bring charges where they are warranted, and they appear to be warranted." Geist added that Canadian courts have dealt with crimes that are viewed as being committed outside of Canada, but have asserted jurisdiction where a portion of the act occurred in Canada or was closely tied to Canada. Even information freedom advocates like Jim Carroll, author of The Canadian Internet Handbook, agree. "The thing here is that we have enough laws," Carroll said. "The fact is that the Net doesn't need or deserve special treatment. If it's libel, then it's libel no matter where it's published. People have to get the idea out of their heads that the Net is a free-flowing anarchist paradise." Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:23:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DSL Beats Cable in Net Speed Services Test During 'Rush Hour' http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/05/24/BU101464.DTL Deborah Solomon, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, May 24, 1999 copyright 1999 San Francisco Chronicle When it comes to getting on the Information Superhighway, the phone company may provide a faster on-ramp than the cable company. In an independent test performed by an Internet consulting firm, Pacific Bell's digital subscriber lines provided a slightly faster pipeline to the Internet than a cable connection from AtHome Corp. Keynote Systems in San Mateo tracked the two high-speed Internet services and found that during peak traffic hours, DSL users were able to access the Internet faster than those with cable modems. Cable modems were faster during the day, but that's when fewer people are trying to access the Internet, so those results have less significance for home-users. DSL allows users to connect to the Internet over traditional telephone wires at speeds up to 50 times faster than a traditional, dial-up modem. DSL uses a special digital modem and requires a visit from the phone company to install service. Cable modem service from AtHome transmits data via cable TV lines at speeds up to 100 times faster than traditional modems. In the Bay Area, customers get the AtHome service through TCI Cable. Both DSL and cable modems cost about $40 per month. The Keynote study found that in the evenings, when most people are tooling around on the Net, Pac Bell's DSL service was 11 percent faster than AtHome. However, neither technology operated anywhere near their advertised maximum speeds, said Gene Shklar, vice president of marketing for Keynote. Using a DSL line in the evenings, Shklar said, Keynote was able to download Web pages in an average of 3.55 seconds. With a cable modem, the average was 3.97 seconds. The study found that cable modem service did perform more quickly than DSL during business hours. But in the evening when usage peaks, "our figures showed that cable modem service got 8 percent slower," Shklar said. One reason for the slowdown is that cable modems share access. Instead of a dedicated line per user, as with DSL, hundreds of cable modem customers can access the Internet using the same line or 'node.' The more people on the node, the slower the service goes. The number of people watching cable TV doesn't affect the speed. One reason cable was faster during the day is that cable modem service is used primarily by residential customers, not businesses. Many businesses don't get cable and don't have cable modems. The cable pipe largely is unused during the daytime when people are at work. In the evenings, when more people log on, it slows down. Cable companies are working on ways to upgrade their systems so that shared access is not as much of a problem. Although DSL outperformed cable in this test, industry watchers said it should not signal the demise of cable modems. "Both are pretty good, and there's going to be an ecosystem where multiple technologies -- DSL, cable, wireless, are all going to coexist," said Jeannette Noyes, a researcher with International Data Corp. Noyes said that while speed is important, what's going to drive consumers to one technology over the other in the short term is availability. Not everybody can get DSL or cable modems yet. Cable companies are in the process of upgrading their cable lines to handle high- speed data. About 41 communities in the Bay Area can get AtHome. DSL has distance limitations that restrict who can get the service. A customer must be within three miles of the phone company's central switching office to get DSL. By the end of the year, about five million Californians should be able to get DSL from Pac Bell. "If only one is available, that's what a customer is going to choose. After that, you get into issues like price, performance and content," Noyes said. copyright 1999 San Francisco Chronicle Page B1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 00:38:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Conditions for Giving Cops Info http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/1999/may/27/052700248.html Las Vegas SUN Today: May 27, 1999 at 15:14:04 PDT ASSOCIATED PRESS Some of America Online's conditions for releasing information on customers to investigators: -No disclosure except under "valid legal process" such as search warrant, subpoena or other court order. -Under a search warrant, AOL may turn over any relevant e-mail, similar content and personal identifying information. -AOL says it generally keeps unread e-mail in its own system for 28 days; e-mail that has been read for two days. Customers have the option of storing it longer on the server, as well as keeping it in their own computers. In the case of a Virginia customer charged with possessing child pornography, images sent by e-mail over nearly six months were found, the FBI says. -In civil cases, AOL won't release e-mail but may give out personal identifying information in response to a subpoena or other court order. The member whose information is to be disclosed is given two weeks notice in case he or she wishes to contest the order. -Public chat rooms are monitored for inappropriate content and AOL has a detailed process for handling complaints and terminating service to members who violate rules. -AOL does not keep records of member passwords. -The FBI keeps a database containing customer complaints that have been forwarded to the bureau by AOL, federal officials say. Customers who see child pornography online may complain to AOL. When an AOL screen name is identified in an FBI investigation, the database is checked to see if any complaints exist. All contents copyright 1999 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Airtouch in NYC? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 03:01:01 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 27 May 1999 15:26:43 -0400, Jon Solomon wrote: > Patrick, I was the person in Boston who you tried this with ... You are > correct about what you have said, except for the the following: > When you told me what to dial ... (312) xxx-ROAM ... that's when the then PAT wrote: > mattered back then. I have not heard anything at all about xxx-ROAM > for many years and do not know if any carrier is using it any longer. Roamer access numbers are still quite common in the 800 MHz cellular world. Virtually all 800 MHz carriers have roamer access numbers. Most carriers don't advertise them, though. Some rural 800 MHz carriers, especially those in Alaska and the Rocky Mountain states such as CommNet (A-side systems only!) and various small carriers, are STILL NOT part of the NACN or GTE TSI's Follow-Me Roaming Plus (FMR+) systems; people roaming on such systems can be called ONLY via roamer access numbers. (For those who remember my tirades against US Cellular a few years ago -- all their systems are now part of the NACN or FMR+. :) ) And sometimes call delivery doesn't work correctly; I was in northwest Tennessee a couple of weeks ago, roaming on Yorkville Telephone/New Wave Cellular (I could not call out on GTE for some reason) with my Powertel phone (Powertel offers analog roaming) and call delivery FAILED TO WORK. It's also failed when roaming on Bell Atlantic in northeast Georgia. In these areas anyone calling me would HAVE to dial a roamer access number to reach me ... :( Telecom Publishing, formerly Communications Publishing, in Seattle recently published a new edition of the _Cellular Travel Guide_, which lists coverage information and roamer access numbers, among other things, of all 800 MHz systems in the US, Canada, and selected other countries. All that said, the new PCS (1900 MHz) wireless carriers, such as Sprint PCS and all US GSM carriers (Powertel, VoiceStream, etc.), generally do not have roamer access numbers for their systems. The GSM standard doesn't even *SUPPORT* roamer access numbers! AT&T doesn't even have roamer access numbers for their 1900 MHz systems in Chicago, Atlanta, etc., either. Customers of PCS carriers that offer analog/dual-mode roaming can still be reached by roamer access numbers *when analog roaming*, of course. But then again, the need/demand for roamer access numbers on 1900 MHz systems is decreased because many/most 1900 MHz carriers bundle long-distance in with airtime. (One exception: many GSM users who roam in Europe and elsewhere outside North America are *demanding* a solution to double international LD charges when a person in the country the GSM user's visiting dials the GSM user's number. There's movement in the GSM community toward more intelligent routing of calls, as well as **possibly** roamer access numbers.) > I know that Ameritech prides itself on being able to locate any > subscriber anywhere, anytime. As soon as any tower on God's green > earth -- or it seems like it -- sees you out there, right away the > Ameritech computer is told about it. And no more monkeying around The old *18 (Follow-Me Roaming) mess is still around too. Again, it's mainly CommNet (B-side only!) and small carriers where it's required. -SC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have noticed that *18 still seems to work, although it is not needed. The opposite condition, *19 is still available also, and it is one way to avoid roaming charges if you are out of your home area do not really want to accept any calls. If you do *19 to cancel 'Follow Me' then you do have to use *18 to get it turned back on however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:07:34 -0400 From: Will Roberts Subject: Re: Help Needed Researching Polish Telecom In TELECOM Digest (Volume 19, Issue 90), Steffen Beil wrote: > As you can see, I am a trainee in Tokyo, working for the German > HypoVereinsbank. I am working on collecting information about the East > European Telecom market, especially Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic. > Your homepage is definitely the largest and covers so much information > -- great. I've searched through it, but couldn't find anything on the > Polish market. I'm pretty good supplied with info about the other two > countries, but I still have a lack on Poland. I am sure one reason is > the underdevelopement compared to other European countries. > Do you have any information on this topic? Can you help me out? Or do > you know where I can find any information. I've checked the Polish > homepage, the largest Telecom companies. I am looking for figures > concerning future expectations, size and development of the market so > far and of companies in it. Governmental stockholding on such > companies, just any information would be fine. You may find the Polish Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications to be a useful starting place. They maintain a web site in English at < http://www.ml.gov.pl/english/e_index.htm >. One of the most comprehensive lists of online resouces about Eastern and Central Europe is maintained by the law library at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington USA. Take at look at "CEESource: Central and East European Legal, Political, Business and Economics WWW Resources" at < http://law.gonzaga.edu/library/ceeurope.htm >. There are lots of useful links there. A few years ago, I was approached by a consultant friend who was working with a major international bank in the evalutation of emerging capital markets in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I was puzzled about what I could contribute until I learned that these countries have no traditional business press, and when capitalism arrived, it arrived at the same time as the internet. Hence, much information which one would find in print in Western Europe and the US is instead being published for the first time via electronic media, either available without charge from government and public interest organizations, or for a fee from a new breed of business and economic "publishers". As an "internet guru" with a business background, I was retained to spend several weeks documenting the online resources of a dozen countries with emerging capital markets. During my work on this project, I had the pleasure of meeting George Mueller, one of the co-founders of Internet Securities Inc ("ISI") which is one of the first for-profit companies to provide market intelligence on the developing free markets in that part of the world. George and his brother had worked on a summer research project in Poland in 1994 while they were students at M.I.T. and at the Harvard Business School. They discovered that market intelligence and basic business information in Poland was available only by using good old-fashioned shoe leather and going out and meeting with business people, government officials, bankers, etc. And they figured that they could form a business providing this kind of market intelligence to clients such as your employer. And to them, back in 1994, the internet seemed like the most cost effective method of publishing and distributing information. George explains that ISI may be one of the first companies with a business model shaped by the sudden shift in computer and telecom technology from costly point-to-point leased circuits and large mainframe computers to widely-available internet connections and distributed information storage and retreival. For ISI to set up an office in a small, emerging market required only a few thousand dollars worth of desktop computers, one or two savvy local researchers/reporters, and a connection to the public internet. The incumbent competitor, Reuters, would dispatch a highly-paid bureau manager, large staff, expensive mini-computer and costly satellite uplink -- all located in prime office space. ISI was able to open its original offices in Warsaw, Budapest and Prague -- and use the internet to back-up data from one office to the other, rather than ship information to a centrally located mainframe as had been the practice of the business infomation establishment. George Meuller estimated that ISI set up its original offices at a cost of about $35,000 each -- compared with the $600,000 or more which it would have cost Reuters. Hence ISI could go into emerging markets where the economics would not justify investment by their more established competitors. Since 1994, ISI has grown and been acquired by a more established company which could provide the resources to grow. ISI's web site is at http://www.securities.com and they may be able to help you in your project. I'm sending this reply to TELECOM Digest (as well as to you directly) because this is a very interesting story of how telecommunications technology is changing the economic landscape in many parts of the world. One reads how wireless telephone is less expensive in many developing countries than wireline because there is no existing wireline infrastructure and wireless is less costly to construct when you're starting from scratch. The same is true in information publishing: the new telecom technologies are being adopted with amazing speed in the emerging markets. Regards, Will Roberts The Arctos Group Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts USA ------------------------------ From: Indego/CTC Subject: Employhment Opportunity: Data Warehouse/I.T. Professionals Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:00:43 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Indego/CTC is actively seeking to fill DATA WAREHOUSE positions we have in Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Seattle. We are actively seeking quality designers, developers, modelers, programmers, architects, and trainers. If you are interested please send your resume in word format and contact me immediately to setup an interview. Indego is one of the fastest growing I.T. firms in the Washington DC/Maryland/Virginia area. Our firm specializes in meeting unique I.T. client requirements. Our professional background and clientele are as follows: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Data Warehouse U.S. Department of Commerce - Data Warehouse Cannon Corporation of America - CTI/Telephony Target Retail Store - Customer Service CTI System U.S. Coast Guard - Information Systems Security/Computer Security U.S. Navy - Y2K, Training Development, Customer Care Systems We are family owned and operated. Leadership and professionalism is foremost with Employee Satisfaction being our number one priority. If you would be interested in learning more about this position, our firm, or other professional opportunities we have available contact us immediately at the (703) 626-9797 or email at: indego-tb@worldnet.att.net. This position will be filled by the right person only who is dedicated, loyal, and a consummate professional .... Call today so that we can talk. Regards, Mr. Thomas A. Baer Exec. VP, Indego/CTC (703) 626-9797 ------------------------------ From: Rob Heaton <114671.1317@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Reed Solomon Coding Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) Date: 28 May 1999 14:17:15 -0400 Does anyone know of any public domain software that inplements a Reed Solomon Coder and Decoder. If you can help I would be most grateful. Regards, Rob H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #107 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 29 01:48:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA26500; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905290548.BAA26500@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #108 TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 May 99 01:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Additions to Telecom Archives (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (J.F. Mezei) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Jack Hamilton) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Javier Henderson) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Eli Mantel) ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (J.F. Mezei) How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? (T. Byfield) Re: Reed Solomon Coding (Billy Harvey) Re: Smartjack and CSU (Steve Pinkston) Call Filter Needed (Dale Neiburg) WTB 14.4 Modems (das@schmo.org) Re: Big Banks Move on Net Security - Consumer Advice! (Jason Fetterolf) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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 Subject: Telecom Archives Additions Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 00:00:00 EDT Changes in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org as of this date are as follows: 1. All back issues of Telcomine Magazine are now on line in a directory by that name off of the main root directory. 2. A large number of new links were added to the 'other resources' area including Linc Madison, John Cropper and Eric Morson, Judith Oppenheimer, the FCC web site, Lockheed-Martin, and others. See if I missed any: http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html 3. The top main page was rewritten somewhat to more correctly identify some of the internal pages and their links. I also added some cross-references on the top page to some external links to make research a bit easier. For instance, the FCC section of the archives now has a pointer to the FCC web site cross-referenced from the starting page. The 'area codes' file points to the old archived historical files in the arch- ives, but also suggests to users that newer references will be found at lincmad.com and areacode-info.com I also added the weather forecast to the starting page via a form where your zip code or city (airport) code is entered. 4. Although the newest archives search engine got off to a bit of a rough start by not completely scanning all of the older files that has now been cured. All files are scanned totally, I feel certain. Also, although the search engine is a cgi-bin operation by whatuseek.com, I had been using a little javascript entrance to it until I was reminded that users with Lynx browsers were unable to use it that way. So, I rewrote it using HTML and forms. It looks exactly the same as it did before, but Lynx users can now use that service also. I would appreciate a review of both the 'other resources' page as well as the polishing done to the main page with feedback on new links to be added, dead links found, etc. Have a happy holiday weekend! PAT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:54:10 -0400 From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:53:37 -0400 TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > recovery of up to three out of the four numbers presently assigned > would accomplish much, while also considering trade-offs with user > convenience and learning a new system, etc? PAT] I think that we are going through a transition period where we are bouncing from technology to technology until something good is found. First it was fax. But quality was bad and you couldn't work with received documents. Then pagers, but you couldn't reply, and they were useless if you "disapeared" in a tunnel for a few minutes. Then cellphones. Then internet via modem. But now, we are at the stage where modern digital phones make the pager irrelevant. We are at the stage where cable modems *(and dsl service) and making modems irrelevant. We are also starting to see internet-email eclipse the FAX. The minute that ISPs will start to grant permanent IP adresses to residential customers using cable or DSL, then it *may* make the actual analogue phone quite irrelevant. You may start to see phones that plug into the ethernet backbone to which the cable modem is attached in your house. Far fetched you say? Look at how quickly technologies are being adopted ... heck, my artist sister has ethernet at home because she has a cable modem. Who would have though that ethernet would be used for folks at HOME so soon? So, when you look at the potential for market penetration on cable and DSL modems, it may releive some strain on phone numbers. And as the cost of cell phones drops, I think that we will see the end of pagers. Again, some savings. And, already, some cellphone companies in Canada (Clearnet) are advertising on TV that folks could drop their land-phone in favour of the much more versatile cell phone with voice mail etc etc , a phone you can bring with you everywhere you go. My biggest worry is the next generation Internet. It better come quickly because it is also under a lot of strain. In the future, IT will be the one connecting everyone in the world and the phone as we know it may become as obsolete as the telex is today and as the fax will be in 5 years. ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 00:03:07 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton Reply-To: jfh@acm.org > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Because star and pound, or asterisk > and 'octothorpe' already have other functions assigned to them. The > former is used as a flag that indicates the couple digits following > are not part of a telephone number, but are a service code for some > feature such as call-forwarding. The 'octothorpe' or # on the other > hand usually sits on the end of a 'short string' of numbers as a way > to signal the switching equipment not to wait for anything further, > but to process, in context, what it has already received. I should > think involving * and # in any number expansion scheme would be > dreadfully hard to program to say nothing of difficult to teach to > telephone users. One possible scheme is this: 1-916-555-1212A Reaches the old number without the 'A' 1-916-555-1212# Same as above 1-916-555-1212 Same as above, but waits a second or two to see if another digit is dialed (similar to how calls to non-NANPA are currently handled) 1-916-555-1212B Second alternate number for owner of base number 1-916-555-1212C Third alternate number for owner of base number 1-916-555-1212D Fourth alternate number for owner of base number This method has the advantage that no one would have to learn anything new, but people who *could* learn would have their calls go through faster. I suppose number portability would be required within the group; 1-916-555-1212 might go to my PacBell landline phone, but 1-916-555-1212B would go to my Sprint PCS phone. PacBell probably wouldn't like that. > However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; > remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a > system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same > number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. Those four tones were part of > the standards set many years ago. I might be inclined to change the > *names* of those keys to something like F,D,V, and X as in 'fax', > 'data', 'voice' and 'extra line', but keeping the same tone > frequencies. I wouldn't hardcode meanings into the "digits". Who knows, maybe we won't be using faxes in 20 years. And different people might want to use the extra lines for different things -- home phone, business phone, cell phone, fax phone for a person, but business phone, fax phone, data phone, emergency night phone for a business. Jack Hamilton Broderick, CA jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 01:48:02 GMT In article , Hillary Gorman wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 1999 05:12:34 +0100, wrote: >> How do (or will) these various organisations across the US (banks, >> educational institutions, state governments, and airlines) cope with people >> who (like myself) don't have a Social Security Number? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then you will have to get a number or >> the bank won't be able to work with you. PAT] > I found this at the ssa.gov website: > I do not have work permission from the INS. I need a Social > Security number. Can I get one? > ANSWER: Yes. > The operative word is need. > You can get a non-working Social Security Card when you are required > to have one by law. If you are not allowed to be employed in the US, there are no laws that require you to have a Social Security Number. > This means that if you are in the U.S. legally and someone says you > "must" have a social security number, ask for proof that you are > legally required to have one. You should submit this proof along with > your SS-5 Social Security Card Application. > This number is not valid for employment. If you ever use this number > for employment, the Social Security Administration can advise the > Immigration Service. You must show Social Security a valid reason for > this number. Reasons include identification for school or to open bank > accounts. You can change the number to a working number when you get > work permission from the INS. No law requires you to have a Social Security Number to register for school or open a bank account. You are required to have one to receive federal financial aid for college, so schools will need it for tracking grants and loans. But foreigners are never eligible for the ordinary financial aid programs. Any college aid a foreigner receives is through the State Department (Fulbright scholarships?) or private sources at the college itself. > In practice, the Social Security Admnistration will seldom, if ever, > give out non-working numbers. The SSA's position is that an Individual > Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) takes care of the needs of any > non-working Canadians. > The ITIN is a nine digit number issued by the IRS to people who need a > number, but who cannot get a social security number. If a foreigner opens a bank account that pays interest, he needs one of these numbers if he is ineligible for a Social Security Number to avoid backup witholding. I'd love to know what circumstances there were that someone was required to obtain a non-employable Social Security Number. Who would voluntarily demand to obtain yet another identification number for himself? ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Date: 28 May 1999 11:35:56 -0700 Organization: Completely Disorganized TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > But the best it seems, is yet to come. Starting October 2, 2000 you > will need to present your SSN to *board any airplane or purchase any > airplane ticket* What about the millions of tourists that visit the US every year? Are they going to be required to obtain a non-working SSN or a TIN from the IRS? -jav ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:29:52 GMT Bob Goudreau (goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote: > I doubt that most people in the US would be willing to eliminate > completely their ability to place phone calls to over a dozen > Caribbean countries (which is what your plan would do, since those > countries have no separate country codes of their own)... You must have missed the original suggestion that calls to countries other than the U.S. and Canada should require the use of the international dialing prefix. If you're placing an international call, isn't is reasonable to expect that you would use the international dialing prefix? The primary rationale for doing this is jurisdictional. If phones within the U.S. are being used for fraud, the FCC or the FTC can take enforcement action. If phones in the Caribbean are used for fraud, enforcement is far more difficult, if it's possible at all. Canada is a little on the iffy side. I expect there's both more phone traffic between the U.S. and Canada as well as a good deal more cooperation between law enforcemenet in the U.S. and Canada than there is between the U.S. and Caribbean countries, so the benefits from requiring people to dial some extra digits to reduce fraud are less compelling. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why ? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:59:50 -0400 A few years ago, the "dream" was that telcos would roll out ADSL and compete against cable. ADSL comes out and starts to be rolled out, but all of a sudden, DSL comes out and goes to comsumers. Here in Bell Canada territory, it seems that commercial customers get ADSL whereas consumers get DSL. What is the basic difference between the two? Why would telcos not choose a single technology? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:27:57 -0400 From: T. Byfield Subject: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? Greetings, I recently received an automated recording-only sales call from someone who I was able to *69 and reverse-lookup on anywho.com. Moreover, s/he's quite nearby and in the same jurisdiction for just about any purpose you can think of (Manhattan, NYC), and his/her phone has been *solidly busy* during civil hours for the last week, and ring-no-answer at uncivil hours, so it's pretty safe to assume s/he's been war-dialing for ~twelve hours/day for at least seven days. I'd really like to go after this person. any *specific* suggestions about what agencies to call and so on would be much appreciated. Bell Atlantic, of course, is absolutely useless: repeated calls to various departments has resulted in zero useful information. Cheers, Ted ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:05:35 EDT Subject: Re: Reed Solomon Coding From: Billy Harvey Rob Heaton writes: > Does anyone know of any public domain software that inplements a > Reed Solomon Coder and Decoder. If you can help I would be most > grateful. Check out Phil Kern's work at http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/code/ . Billy ------------------------------ From: steve_pinkston@adc.com (Steve Pinkston) Subject: Re: Smartjack and CSU Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:21:41 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications Reply-To: steve_pinkston@adc.com I'm not sure why my original post wasn't picked up. Here it is again: On Sat, 22 May 1999 22:22:38 GMT, Kevin Lundy wrote: > Is there any recommended maximum distance from the smartjack to the > CSU? Not really. Everything has to do, ultimately, with signal levels. Most CSUs can sync up properly on a signal as low as -22.5 dBdsx0. The telco can provide a signal that comes OUT of the smartjack at a level anywhere from 0 dBdsx0 down to -16 dBdsx0. Any CPE wiring ("extended demarc") will attenuate the signal more. > I have a new T1 voice service that is giving me hell. It's an > intermittent problem - slips, dropped calles, static, etc. That you mention "slips" is significant. Slips (or "controlled slips") generally indicate a timing conflict between your CPE and the line. Check to see if your PBX (or channel bank, or whatever) is set to derive its timing (clock) from the T1 line. If it set for internal timing, or "free-run," it could cause the problems you are reporting. A line that is heavily errored due to near-end crosstalk (NEXT) could also cause the problems you report. A telltale symptom would be that the CSU was reporting large numbers of BPVs (Bipolar Violations). > Every time we have a problem, the techs can loop up the smart jack and > stress test error free. They loop the CSU, and they see errors. So > we replace the CSU, and problem is still there. This much is > repeatable. Which to me indicates a problem of some sort with the > cable between the CSU and smartjack. A grounding problem, a distance > problem, a flakey termination, etc. But then the techs come on site > and put a test pack on the cable at my CSU and it tests fine. Everything you mention in the preceding paragraph is consistent with controlled slips, and might be consistent with a NEXT problem. > Any thoughts of wisdom out there? I don't know if it counts as wisdom or not, but I will say that a big part of troubleshooting is paying close attention to the TYPE of errors one is receiving. Slips, BPVs, and CRC-6 errors can indicate various error mechanisms. In combinations, they point to still further syndromes. A lot of the devices we hook up are very smart, but it sometimes takes a little research to be able to use all the data they give you! - steve ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Call Filter Needed Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:56:28 -0400 Way back in issue 94, "The Bug Hunter" wrote: > For a long time, I've had what I considered a neat product idea for > controlling intrusive telemarketing calls. I didn't pursue it although > I was sure that somebody someday would come up with a *low cost* > implementation for the consumer market. > Well, maybe I didn't look hard enough, I haven't seen the product show > up in the consumer market. [snip!] And PAT replied: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, your product was developed > and sold on the market about fifteen years ago under the name > 'Privecode'. It functioned almost identically to your description. It > sat on the line and answered instantly when a call was put on your > line. Your own phone never even rang. It would tell the caller, 'Enter > your privecode number please', and this would be a three digit number > you had programmed in. If the person entered the correct number, the > privecodebox would warble at you; you would pick up any phone and > speak. If the person did not enter the correct number, they went > straight to the answering machine. You could also assign a three digit > code which always went to the answering machine as well. It was > manufactured about 1975-80 by a company called 'International Mobile > Machines' in Bala Cynwyd, PA. It sold for about $200. PAT] This is exactly what I've been looking for (without success) for an application I have. Does anyone know a current source for such a unit? Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 "For I do not know who would be so stupid as to engage in arms when others are engaging in music; or to go about the streets dancing a morris dance.... I think surely no gentleman who is not a complete fool would do such things." --Baldassare Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier ------------------------------ From: das schmo Subject: WTB 14.4 Modems Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 03:33:59 GMT I need 2 modems, external style, 14.4Kbs with power supply. I prefer USR, or any good brand. I can't seem to find any at a reasonable price (> $30 each) tgsi@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 22:52:13 -0400 Reply-To: jason@itw.com From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Re: Big Banks Move on Net Security - Consumer Advice! Well, this article was really about secure web sites for online banking, but Pat's colorful experiences have called me to express my views on these sprawling oligopolistic titans like the freshly fed Bank One ... Pat's responses in brackets: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you that Bank One is having > a *horrible* problem right now with their 'online banking' since their > merger with First Chicago. First Chicago customers were able to see > all their accounts and do various things with a very high degree of > security. First Chicago insisted on browsers having 128 encryption, > and their software took complete control of the user's browser while > connected; i.e no use of history buttons or address bar allowed. > Starting May 12, Bank One took over, and First Chicago customers have > been mostly locked out, only rarely able to get through. Many of the > accounts that were previously shown on line are no longer available > that way. Most results to get through to the 'online banking' at Bank > One get stalled due to the volume of business they are trying to > handle. **There is little or no security**. If you know how to cut > and paste URLs you can roam around on all sorts of 'deep pages' at > their site.] Online banking has grown tremendously in the last few years, and there are several online (internet only) banks that, as a consumer advocate, I would recommend to Pat or anyone who is fed up with traditional brick and mortar banks. The standard behemoths such as Bank One/First Chicago, Wells Fargo, Nationsbank, etc, etc ... have impersonal, shoddy customer service, pitiful interest rates, excessive fees to get access to YOUR money, and want to charge your for online account access and online bill payment when both of those services actually cost them much less than standard processing methods. > [Most of last week, Bank One's 'Online Banking Unit' simply refused > to answer the phone at all. After endless busy signals, if you > finally reached their customer service at 800-482-3675 you got just > a recorded message saying 'time on hold will be at least six minutes' > with a lot of condescending advice on how to apply for a mortgage > or to be sure and include the 'payee phone number' when you made an > online bill payment. The 'six minutes on hold' turned into at least > 45 minutes on three separate occassions,] ... To this tale, I say, call Telebank, @ http://www.telebankonline.com/ or Netbank, @ http://www.netbank.com/ and start earinnig 3% on your checking, and up to 5% on your Money Market account ($100 balance is ALL you need at Netbank; Telebank is a little steep on balance). Telebank and NetBank offer FREE checks, FREE, online banking, and FREE bill payment in addition to their premium rates ... and Telebank has always answered the phone promptly for me (30 secs max hold time according to their propaganda.) Why settle for a measly .5 % interest from the "Mountain" (or whomever) when you can have the same FDIC insured peace of mind from a real "online" bank that *wants* your business? Why waste time by physically visting a branch when Telebank and others refund 4 ATM withdrawal fees monthly and provide free mail-in deposit envelopes? No, I dont work for either bank, just a consumer advocate that hates to see fellow consumers get "sucked in" due to the decreasing banking choices out there. I will be glad to see those brick and mortar branches erode away at the big bank's net revenue. Oh, and how are these "interent banks" doing financially? Are they getting customers? Check the stock prices (TBFC and NTBK) and news stories about them, and ye shall see .... Happy Banking! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe I will check out those two that you mentioned. I have had an account with First Chicago (formerly First National Bank of Chicago) since about 1975 -- yes, I know I sued them a year or so before that and won the case -- and they seemed pretty decent usually. They were the first bank in Chicago to offer Visa debit cards which I find quite useful, but slowly and surely things began decaying a few years ago. A regular source of income for me is the grant from ITU which is automatically sent through from Bank Suisse to my account at First Chicago every three months by wire transfer. Then they started playing games, and not making the wire transfer available for several days after it arrived. They would blame Bank Suisse for playing a 'no value' on the wire for a few days, and the bank in Switzerland would deny it totally. Then they started nipping into it for fifteen dollars at a time when it would arrive, again blaming some other bank like Morgan in New York, or the Swiss people, all of whom would deny having anything such thing happen. First Chicago, assuming they were talking to a dummy would tell me that 'the fifteen dollars was taken by the correspondent bank in the process of paying us. I would remind them that they corresponded directly with Bank Suisse and had no middle- man in New York in that case. I send them copies of faxes from Bankers in New York as well as Morgan denying it all ... and First Chicago just says tough luck. Then they got to where they would not make deposited funds available to anyone the next day as they had always done before. In fairness to the bank, they always treated me quite well in the past and honored any number of checks I wrote and 'got around to paying for later' ... one person there always okayed paying my checks even if they had to sit on them awhile ... so I cannot complain too much. Of course I paid for that priviledge also, so what the heck ... One day downtown I ran into an old friend from 35 years ago (he is older than me, and quite old now) who was employed for many years as a vice-president at First Chicago. That title basically mean nothing in banks; banks have as many vice-presidents as most large companies have supervisors or department managers. He cautioned me on a few things to watch for: when a bank suddenly quits making wire transfers immediatly available, and holds on to them a day or two before allowing draws against them; when a bank starts taking longer than before to clear checks or won't pay its own cashier's checks on presentation; when suddenly you get a little charge on your account everytime you even speak to a teller or someone in customer service; that means the bank needs money ... ie. has gotten a little 'under the weather' financially. Taking an extra day or two to pay on a check or clear a wire transfer gives the bank an extra day or two of float, which, said Old Friend, I was beginning to notice about the time I left the bank. (Now he does some kind of consulting work for the Federal Reserve). You or I would be in jail in a minute if we carried off some of the highjinks the banks routinely get away with. I may have to sue First Chicago again one of these days. Twenty- five years ago it was because their mailroom clerks were stealing cash out of the mail. This time, I dunno, we live in a more modern era. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #108 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 29 04:42:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA00705; Sat, 29 May 1999 04:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 04:42:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905290842.EAA00705@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #109 TELECOM Digest Sat, 29 May 99 04:42:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron (Monty Solomon) Re: Reciprocal Compensation (was Re: Strange Problems) (Michael Sullivan) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Big Banks Move on Net Security - Consumer Advice! (Steven J. Sobol) New Rules For Mail Drops (was: Here is Why Email Has Gotten) (Adam Kerman) Re: Ma Bell Doesn't Live There Any Longer (Thomas P. Brisco) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 00:30:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron http://www.techserver.com/noframes/story/0,2294,53760-86129-611709-0,00.html Copyright 1999 Nando Media Copyright 1999 Associated Press * Recent cases involving online investigations * America Online's privacy rules By CALVIN WOODWARD LEESBURG, Va. (May 28, 1999 2:20 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Go for a walk, drive a car or dance in the moonlight and chances are, no one notices. Journey on the Internet, and a trail is left. And police are hot on that trail in a growing number of criminal investi- gations. Armed with search warrants, police are looking into the online activities of suspects, and sometimes victims, by seizing evidence from Internet service providers and finding material that people online never dreamed would end up in the hands of the law. Private e-mail between lovers. The threatening missives of haters. The true identities of people hiding behind screen names in a medium they thought was the essence of secrecy. "Ultimately, if you break the law, it can be traced," said investigator Ron Horack of the Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's department. Horack helps police around the country apply for search warrants to get material from the county-based America Online, the world's largest Internet service provider with 18 million customers. "I know who you are and where you live," an anonymous hatemonger e-mailed a 12-year-old girl in Lancaster, Pa. By peeking into the accounts of Internet providers, police can often say the same thing: They know who the threatening people are and where they live. This week federal authorities said they had charged a northern Virginia pediatrician with possessing child pornography after investigating his AOL account and finding at least 22 explicit images sent to him via e-mail over the course of nearly six months. They said they then found more child pornography on his computer. The doctor could not immediately be reached for comment. With a warrant, law enforcement authorities can look at the electronic mail and other online communications of people suspected of a range of serious crimes, getting information not just from a home computer but often the company that provides the Internet, e-mail or chat service. They can do the same with victims, in the process seeing mail from people who corresponded with them but had nothing to do with a crime. Everything from humdrum to-do lists to love letters from illicit digital dalliances becomes potential evidence, and eventually a matter of public record. "It is a growing risk to privacy," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who says police should stick to traditional methods such as stings, informants and forensic evidence, which don't invade people's communications. Said Horack: "If they're going to use the Internet for their crime, we're going to use the Internet to catch them." Authorities turned to AOL to see some of the online activities of the two high school students who killed 13 other people and themselves in Littleton, Colo., last month. They've used it to try to track down some of the copycat threats that have closed many schools since. They took the same route, thus far with inconclusive results, after a woman in Pennsylvania was told in a chat room, "I guarantee you I will hurt you if you don't listen to me," and when a man in New York was charged with attempted murder of his wife, who, police say, was having a passionate online encounter her husband happened to see. "AOL is extremely law-enforcement friendly," Horack said. "They don't hold anything back." America Online tells its nearly 18 million customers it won't read or disclose private communication or personal identifying information except under a "valid legal process." Other major Internet service providers, or ISPs, as well as separate online e-mail services and Internet hubs like Hotmail and Yahoo, say much the same, although the disclaimers may be hard to find in screens of small print. "We have a long-standing policy of cooperation with law enforcement," said AOL spokesman Rich D'Amato. Communications such as e-mail are disclosed only in criminal investigations and with a warrant, he says. In response to orders in civil cases, AOL may give out information allowing someone's real name to be matched to a screen name. So if a spouse is found to be having an online affair with someone known only as Heart4U, the identity of that cyberlover might eventually be uncovered in a divorce proceeding. Raytheon Inc. obtained subpoenas to identify 21 people, most of them employees, said to have been spreading corporate secrets and gripes in an anonymous online chat room. It then dropped a lawsuit it had brought against the 21, each identified as "John Doe," indicating to privacy experts that the company had gone to court in the first place only to learn the identities of the chatters. Four employees quit; others entered corporate "counseling." Privacy advocates worry that authorities could go on increasingly invasive fishing expeditions. "There are simply many more events that are recorded (online) that would not be recorded in the physical world," said Rotenberg. "I think it is going to become an enormous problem as people become more and more dependent on ISPs." Meanwhile, tools continue to be developed to protect anonymity - a site called anonymizer.com, for one, will relay e-mail, stripping out the sender's identifying information. So far, at least, few warrants going to AOL look like goose chases, an impression formed after a review of the more than 100 that have been filed in Leesburg this year. Most involve alleged pedophiles, stalkers and harassers who have used the Internet to find prey and left evidence of their intentions with victims or undercover police. Horack prepares warrant applications for police from other parts of the country, some so new to digital detective work they need their children's help to get online. Once they are approved by a magistrate, he takes them to AOL and retrieves the information. It's almost a full-time job, offered by the sheriff because the company gives such a big boost to the county. The warrants are especially effective against child pornographers, Horack says. "Pedophiles are pack rats. They don't throw away anything." Even when they do delete material from their computer, it might be found at the service provider. In the case of the 12-year-old Pennsylvania girl, nothing turned up in the AOL search. Most of the time, something does. For example, police in Hendersonville, Tenn., turned to AOL to see the Internet activity of Dennis Wayne Cope, 47, shot and found dead in a crawl space of his home in February. In an affidavit seeking access to Cope's e-mail, "buddy list content" and other online activities, police said he had been corresponding online with the estranged wife of suspect Robert Lee Pattee. They also say Pattee's hand print was found at the scene. Pattee has been charged with first-degree murder. Copyright 1999 Nando Media ----------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Note one of the lines early in this report: 'AOL is extremely friendly to law-enforcement'. Gee, what did I say here five years ago, two years ago, last year and just recently? 'Friendly' isn't the word for it. I think a person has to be awfully foolish to use AOL for much more than maybe checking the local weather forecast and maybe checking the sports headlines. Want to have some fun and raise a little hell in the process? Go find yourself a kiddie porn picture somewhere, and spam it to several thousand mailboxes at AOL ... take the necessary precautions of course in how you send it. Be sure to include as many Frightened Mothers as possible, and of course screen names known to belong to AOL employees. Then contact the Federal Bureau of Inquisition, or the county sheriff in Louden under some other alias and tip them off to a 'massive child porn ring at AOL'; why, it even involves quite a few employees, etc ... make it so your mail shows up about the same time the Sheriff gets there. Maybe spam them two or three days in a row with different pictures each time; that way the Sheriff will know the stuff did not just 'accidentally' get there; why those depraved perverts must have been trading it among themselves, etc. It would help if you fix up your sendmail.cf to make it look like they were all sending it back and forth to each other, then of course ditch that sendmail.cf, restore your regular one and cleanse your syslogs of any evidence. Name your machine 'xxx.aol.com' when you spam them. See, here is all the proof we need, says one country bumpkin sheriff to the other investigators. A press release naturally to all the papers the day of the raid, announcing that child pornography was found on the computers of many employees at AOL. Indeed, it would have been found there. Maybe someone could set up a very popular web site; so popular it was getting many thousands of hits daily, and in the process of taking each call, slip a little kiddie porn down the pipe in an innocuous way to the user's cache, some dinky little .jpg which took only a second or two to get to where you wanted it. Note the IP address for each person and then call the local Sheriff and tell him about the 'massive kiddie porn ring' ... 'why, it is estimated ninety-six percent of all internet users have it downloaded on their computer. Have you checked out this one (IP address) yet?' Maybe make sure that you spam as many school teachers, priests and rabbis as possible, and whisper in the sheriff's ear about the time you are sending it out via your appropriately named computer and properly configured sendmail, or web site, etc. Remember that prank spam a few years ago allegedly sent by some poor hapless guy in Queens, NY offering child porn to everyone who wrote him? Law enforcement fell for that one hook, line and sinker. It was a couple days before they decided it must have been a prank. I am sure that properly done, you could have everything and everyone at AOL in an uproar for a week, pointing their fingers at each other. They need to be broken of their bad habits one way or another, that is for sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Reciprocal Compensation (was Re: Strange Problems) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 05:15:26 GMT On Thu, 27 May 1999 01:20:08 GMT, John McHarry wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 1999 18:31:45 GMT, Eli Mantel > wrote: >> Let's remember that the issue of reciprocal compensation doesn't >> directly affect what consumers pay for service. By the somewhat >> arcane rules in effect, reciprocal compensation is paid only on local >> calls, but classifying certain calls as long distance doesn't mean >> that consumers will be charged for those calls. It only affects what >> the phone companies involved pay each other. > It puts a per-minute charge on the call that includes a toll to local > subsidy. No. The FCC has not decided that there must be a per-minute charge on ISP traffic, and it has not ruled that such traffic is toll or "interexchange." It has only ruled that it is mostly interstate, for jurisdictional purposes. It has also said that it will be governed by existing interconnection agreements and is subject to state supervision. >> It's probably the case that the incumbent local phone companies, such >> as PacBell, made a tactical error in lobbying for reciprocal >> compensation, with the result that the competing local phone companies >> took advantage of the opportunity this created by signing up >> businesses to use their service for phone lines that made few or no >> outgoing calls, hence making them eligible to receive reciprocal >> compensation. Agreed. > They made their bed; let them sleep in it. I guess they could try to > compete for the ISP business, if they were willing to settle for > competitive rates. Most, if not all, ILECs offer ISPs rates that do not charge for incoming traffic. Business lines are typically not charged for incoming local calls. ILECs may not offer free interconnection to ISPs or pay the ISP for incoming calls, but they don't offer these features to other business subscribers, including those with heavy inbound traffic. > If the CLEC has to pay the long distance interconnect rate, cents per > minute, it will have to pass that charge to the ISPs. ISPs will have > to recover those costs, probably in per minute connect fees. I think > most of the BOCs are under rate cap regulation. They need to play > "root hog or die" on this one. Of course they have the best Congress > money can buy to bail them out. The FCC has not authorized or required payment of access charges (the "long distance interconnect rate") by ISPs. In fact, it has reiterated that they are exempt from such charges. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Date: 29 May 1999 06:29:10 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Fri, 28 May 1999 18:59:50 -0400, jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca allegedly said: > A few years ago, the "dream" was that telcos would roll out ADSL and > compete against cable. > ADSL comes out and starts to be rolled out, but all of a sudden, DSL > comes out and goes to comsumers. > Here in Bell Canada territory, it seems that commercial customers get > ADSL whereas consumers get DSL. > What is the basic difference between the two? Why would telcos not > choose a single technology? DSL comprises many different technologies: ADSL - Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (more bandwidth down than up, good for consumers surfing the web, is cheaper than SDSL) SDSL - Synchronous DSL (same bandwidth both ways, more economical than a T-1) IDSL - Don't know much about this one. Has something to do with DSL over ISDN lines... There are a couple more ... Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corporation 815 Superior Avenue, Suite 610 - Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2702 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 888.480.INET (4638) - 877.480.PAGE (7243) System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Big Banks Move on Net Security - Consumer Advice! Date: 29 May 1999 06:36:08 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Fri, 28 May 1999 22:52:13 -0400, jason@itw.com allegedly said: > The standard behemoths such as Bank One/First Chicago, Wells Fargo, > Nationsbank, etc, etc ... have impersonal, shoddy customer service, > pitiful interest rates, excessive fees to get access to YOUR money, > and want to charge your for online account access and online bill > payment when both of those services actually cost them much less than > standard processing methods. Check out Huntington, www.huntington.com. I've been a customer of the mortar-and-brick branches for almost four years and am very happy, and the web site is great, and their customer service people are great both on the phone, in person and on the Net (Yes, they DO answer e-mail!) When I was with Bank One several years ago, the customer service was top-notch, but it may have gone way downhill since then with all the mergers. And the fees have always been excessive. NationsBank is now part of Bank Of America, so who knows how they're going to turn out ... > Why settle for a measly .5 % interest from the "Mountain" (or whomever) > when you can have the same FDIC insured peace of mind from a real > "online" bank that *wants* your business? Why waste time by physically > visting a branch when Telebank and others refund 4 ATM withdrawal fees > monthly and provide free mail-in deposit envelopes? One of these days, I'm going to try one of the online banks. My Huntington statement savings account yields a piddling 4% (I think). I wouldn't use the online banks for checking, but for savings, they might be worth it. > No, I dont work for either bank, just a consumer advocate that hates to > see fellow consumers get "sucked in" due to the decreasing banking > choices out there. I will be glad to see those brick and mortar > branches erode away at the big bank's net revenue. Likewise, I don't work for any of the banks listed above, nor am I a shareholder, or a vendor. I am a satisfied customer of Huntington, and I am interested in seeing them succeed ... that's it. :) TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > everytime you even speak to a teller or someone in customer service; > that means the bank needs money ... ie. has gotten a little 'under > the weather' financially. Unless it's a Bank One or another similar bank. I am convinced that Banc One Corp finances its mergers through checking account fees. :) I've never known them to be anything other than healthy, either. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corporation 815 Superior Avenue, Suite 610 - Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2702 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 888.480.INET (4638) - 877.480.PAGE (7243) System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: New Rules For Mail Drops (was: Here is Why Email Has Gotten ...) Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 06:56:16 GMT In article , John David Galt wrote: > Quoth Matthew Black : >> I'm told the US Postal Service will soon implement new rules regarding >> private mailbox companies. Users will no longer be permitted the use >> of "Suite" to imply a business presence. Rather, private mailbox >> users must indicate something like "PPO BOX" instead of "Suite" so >> customers will know that there is no business presence at the >> location. The USPS will also force the private mailbox operator to >> keep a photocopy of the box owners' drivers license on file for public >> inspection. The law provides that anyone can ask for the box user's >> registration information (drivers license). While these rules will >> help stop marketing scams similar to your message, it takes away >> individual privacy. > The new rules have already been enacted and were supposed to take effect > April 26, but they have been postponed six months. Details at: > http://www.usps.gov/feedback/cmra_faq.htm Er, no. The new rules are in effect. The only thing that is postponed is the use of PMB [for Private Mail Box] to write to a box holder. You may read the Federal Register notice for yourself at: http://ribbs.usps.gov/files/fedreg/usps99/99-7352.txt In the standards in the Domestic Mail Manual D042.2.5, 2.6, and 2.7, mail drops are formally called commercial mail receiving agencies. These rules are tough. The toughest aspect is the new addressing requirement to send mail to a private box holder: ABC Company PMB 234 519 W. Central Ave., Ste. 314 Anytown, USA Currently, a boxholder doing business might use put his box number after the word "suite" or an individual might use "apartment". These are specifically not allowed after October 26. If either appears on the mailpiece, the post office will return it to sender. Please notice the inconvenience of putting PMB on a separate line, an entirely new style of addressing which will require software that manages mailing lists to be reprogrammed. And senders will not be able to figure this out since mail is not normally addressed this way. To become a CMRA, the owner must show the Postmaster two pieces of his ID and the Postmaster may photocopy the picture ID. No, it is optional for the CMRA photocopy the boxholder's picture ID. The current standard already required him to notify the post office of the two types of identification and the ID numbers. No, the application with the ID numbers and addresses is not shown to a member of the public unless the boxholder has notified the CMRA that he's doing business with the public or soliciting business. So an individual receiving personal mail will not have his application disclosed. The other tough new requirement: When a boxholder leaves the CMRA, the CMRA must put new postage on all mail and forward it for six months. After six months, the agent may refuse First-Class Mail and give it back to the post office to be returned to sender. However, there's no way to force the boxholder to give the CMRA his new address. This is in conflict with another provision that requires the CMRA not to do business with any boxholder who refuses to disclose his proper address or keep his current address updated. That would imply that if the CMRA does not have a correct address for the boxholder, he need not pay to forward the mail. There are companies, like shared office suites or a Kinko's, that do more for a customer than simply receive mail and shipments. Nevertheless (according to the Q&A cited above) they can fall under the CMRA definition if they hold mail in a private box for a customer even though they provide numerous other office services. But shared suites are not CMRAs if the customer has his own space -- a desk or a small office -- so he can be said to be the actual occupant. The Q&A used the excuse for PMB that automatic addressing software (including what the post office itself uses) tends to convert the word "Box" into "PO Box" which misdirects the mail. However, it is quite common for students to have boxes in college mail rooms. They will not use the PMB designation since colleges aren't CMRAs. The problem isn't solved. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:24:31 +0000 From: Thomas P. Brisco Organization: American Interactive Media Subject: Re: Ma Bell Doesn't Live There Any Longer PAT: honestly; I think you _should_ put such a thing together. Pull on the resources of the TELECOM Digest regulars, put most (all?) of the proceeds towards the funding of the Digest. Your fame and glory could come from the lecture circuit ;-). Personally; I can't claim to know much about Telecom (hell, definately _not_, compared to some of the regulars on the list), however I'd be happy to offer my eyeballs as a reader and tech checker (I've done a lot with the data side of things in telecom, since about 1984). Let me (us!) know if you're going to be moving forward on this. I don't think you'll find any shortage of volunteers ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Ma Bell Doesn't Live Here Any Longer: > The Decay of the USA Telephone Network Since 1984." Subtitled, > "One Hundred of the Best Horror Stories About Telephone Service Which > Appeared in TELECOM Digest" ... I dunno, does someone want to help me > write it? PAT] Thomas P. Brisco (v) 212 539 0706 Network Architect (f) 212 538 8380 American Interactive Media tbrisco@featfirst.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind thoughts. I will think about it, but I will not promise anything right now. I have *so many* things I would like to do, and so few resources and so little time. :( One of my favorite poets, John Milton, expressed my sentiments exactly in a poem, 'My Mind to Me a Kingdom is' when he said, 'Oppressed I am by things undone, oh that my dreams and deeds were one ... '. Later ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #109 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 31 03:38:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA12721; Mon, 31 May 1999 03:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 03:38:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905310738.DAA12721@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #110 TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 May 99 03:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (TELECOM Digest Editor) AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Babu Mengelepouti) Bell Atlantic Use of Reserved 555-01xx Numbers (Daniel Norton) UCLA Summer Short Course on "Wavelength-Division Multiplexing" (B. Goodin) TDA/SUPERCOMM99 - Invitation To Business Opportunities Lunch (P. Robinson) Number to Cause Phone to Ring Back (Richard Sobocinski) Re: Bell Atlantic & V-SPAN Allianced (Art M) Re: Canadian CLECs (Erling Lassesen) Re: PBX or Hybrid? (Erling Lassesen) Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan (steven@primacomputer) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Arthur Ross) Re: It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed (Leonard Erickson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 31 May 1999 03:00:06 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives After the mostly in jest comment the other day about language translations I got to thinking that in keeping with my own commitment of making the archives web site http://telecom-digest.org as accessible as possible to as many people as possible some foreign language translation there would not be a bad idea. We also talked about Babel Fish, the product from AltaVista which tries to interpret what it sees to and from various lang- uages. Babel Fish is included automatically in Internet Explorer 5 and there are patches available to allow it to be added to lesser versions of IE as well as all the later versions of Netscape and other browsers. For the past several days, the number of hits at the archives web site has been higher than ever. After removing hits to GIF images, sounds and things like that, the daily count still numbers in the thousands. If I remove the known search engines from the log before analyzing it, I still get about three thousand actual users each day. What I found out was that someone trying to be helpful submitted the web site to one of those 'we will submit you to 1500 search engines all at the same time' places, and indeed, all 1500 of those search engines are now prowling around the archives. Many of them I have never heard of before, and many are from countries in Europe and Asia. This same person also then went to a couple of the biggies here in the United States -- Infoseek, AltaVisa, DejaNews, etc -- and asked them to re-index telecom. That's all fine with me; I appreciate the efforts made. Now, with the above in mind, here are some assumptions I made, and how I need some quick help: Assumption One: All those search engines from other countries are going to bring people around who either do not read English or perhaps read it as a second language. Assumption Two: When those readers land at http://telecom-digest.org they are going to have at least some difficulty reading what has been written in English. Assumption Three: Those who have some installation of Babel Fish on their browser, or know of its URL otherwise, will seek assistance in reading the page. Is there anything else other than AltaVista's partnership with the Babel Fish Company at the present time doing that sort of 'on the fly' translations? Now with the above three assumptions which may be correct or may be incorrect, I worked all day Sunday with some hasty patches on my end to be as accomodating as I can be ... I wrote a small script, actually just an HTML Form, which sends anyone who uses it straight over to Babel Fish's cgi-bin. At the top of each of the 'primary web pages', ie -- http://telecom-digest.org http://telecom-digest.org/search http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice is now a single line suggesting to the user, 'translate this page?' and the option choices are (from default English) into French, German, Italian, Portugese, and Spanish, which are the five languages Babel Fish can deal with at present. If the user 'submits' the form, I send it straight to Babel Fish's cgi-bin with the URL value for that page, and the translation desired. Babel Fish tosses a screen at the user to confirm the choice, but the user need not enter any URL information; I sent that on already. The user confirms the choice, and Babel Fish a few seconds later sends back the translated page. All the user has to do is select a language from the drop down box, and punch 'translate'; off it goes and comes back with the page in the language requested. By the way, Babel Fish *does* encourage webmasters and others to include on their pages a template they provide for that purpose; I just did not like their ugly template and decided to write my own instead, making it a lot easier for users than the one they are giving out. =============================== Where you all fit into the picture: *read it to me* ... I am afraid that I can read write and speak in every possible language known in the history of man except Greek: and when you ask me to read/write or speak in some language other than native Chicago-ese, my response is "that's Greek to me ..." ... If you read or understand either Italian, French, German, Portugese or Spanish, *please* (on my hands and knees begging) go to the telecom web site http://telecom-digest.org, click on one or more of the translations, review it and let me know your findings. Of particular concern are index.html (which you should land on by default) and /linkspage.html ... I reviewed them to the best of my ability but a couple of them seemed they might be outrageous. /postoffice and /search are also important, but not as much as the first two. If the rendered translations are useless, or outrageous -- and you who read the languages will have to decide that -- then I may just remove my little script and go back to English only. I will grant you the same people can come along and push the Babel Fish button on their browser and accomplish the same thing, but then the onus is on Babel Fish if the page looks totally ignorant, rather than on me! :) As it is set up now with my 'push this button to translate' feature, it appears *I* am encouraging the use of the feature. I would rather let Babel Fish get the bum rap for it if the output is nonsensical, etc. I did not offer translation to /chat or /TELECOM_Digest_Online; the latter would involve hacking the source code for Hypermail, and then recompiling a new executable. So read the default English version first, then try whatever trans- lations you can deal with, and see if those translations have me saying more or less what I said in English. Then let me know! PAT PS: Do the same thing for http://internet-history.org please. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 13:50:29 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges I recently received a page to an unfamiliar area code, and wanted to know where it was. So I called an AT&T operator to find out; they're usually pretty accurate with that information and they've always provided it through their operators. The moment I asked for name of place, the operator pressed a button indicating "I'm sorry, that information is now provided by AT&T '00' directory assistance." When I asked whether there would be a charge for this information, the operator indicated that the call would be billed as a regular directory assistance call. This means that to find out where a number is, using AT&T at least, potentially could cost several times more than the amount of the call. Additionally, with the recent proliferation of new area codes, it's difficult to know where something is. I will be filing a complaint with my state Utilities and Transportation commission, since AT&T recently won the right to carry intralata traffic. I think that they should be forced to provide this information for intralata traffic at least. AT&T has jacked up other charges as well as instituting new ones. The rate for coin calls no longer changes based on the time of day, and it is over $3 for the first 3 minutes and about 50 cents each additional minute for all ACTS-routed AT&T calls. You still have to pay the full 3 minute charge even if you get an answering machine. It is now $19.95 for an interstate emergency interrupt, which AT&T is still the only company to provide. The collect call surcharge is $3.45, or $4.95 if operator handled. Asking for time and charges on a 1 minute call will result in a charge of $5.50, and the rate is 55 cents per minute! Person-to-person calls are billed at a surcharge of $9.95, plus a "special" rate of "only" 55 cents per minute. And when billing a call to a third number there is also $5.50 surcharge, plus the rate of 55 cents per minute. Unfortunately, AT&T is not alone in this practice. I've given one of my lines to MCI, in exchange for 10,000 frequent flier miles (reminds me of the $100 checks I used to get from AT&T!). However, they have problems of their own. For instance, they billed me for several calls to a number which was busy, and vehemently insisted that their computer could never possibly bill me for such a call. Only when I threatened to terminate my account with MCI did they issue a credit -- for a whopping 25 cents, which was all I was complaining about in the first place (I'll be terminating that account as soon as they are no longer giving me frequent flier miles). Sprint has always been awful about giving credits for improperly billed items, but they've gotten even worse. When someone stole my calling card -- which I had never previously used -- and placed about $600 worth of calls from abroad, Sprint vehemently insisted that I must have made the calls or at least authorized them. This vehemence evaporated -- but only reluctantly -- when I pointed out that the majority of the calls were to New York City, I didn't know anyone there, and my call details would prove that I don't call there. Something about mentioning New York City along with fraud shuts Sprint up in a hurry, I guess. Long distance companies seem increasingly desparate to squeeze every penny of possible revenue out of consumers. However, this attitude is self-defeating. I almost never call long distance anymore, since I can use email or online chat to stay in contact with people. And charges such as these encourage me to use long distance networks even less. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark Cuccia reported this same thing last week here, but you had a few additional details in your report. You might try switching to one of the very small -- but ethical and experienced -- carriers who want your business. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel@DanielNorton.net (Daniel Norton) Subject: Bell Atlantic Use of Reserved 555-01xx Numbers Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:17:37 GMT Bell Atlantic (BA) seems to be violating the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) by directing calls in the reserved range at 555-01xx to their own directory assistance service, for which they charge $0.45 to $0.95 per call. These numbers are reserved for "fictitious use" and may be called inadvertently or by curiosity seekers and are used frequently in film and on TV and could have considerable commercial value -- others may wish to have these numbers that are strictly reserved but that BA is hoarding for their own use. According to the NANP Administrator, "Calls to these numbers ... will not complete." If these numbers aren't actually reserved, shouldn't other directory information services have access to them? Who is responsible for regulating and enforcing the NANP and COC assignments? Background: cf. 47 CFR 52.15 http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/555_numbers.html Daniel Norton ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Summer Short Course on "Wavelength-Division Multiplexing" Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:07:16 -0700 This summer, UCLA Extension will present the following short course on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. July 7-9, 1999, "Wavelength-Division Multiplexed Systems and Technologies". The instructor is Alan E. Willner, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California, $1195. For additional information and a complete course description, please visit our website, http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/, or contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Peter.J.Robinson@interport.net Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 18:00:00 Reply-To: info@assist-intl.com Subject: TDA/SUPERCOMM99 - Invitation To Business Opportunities Lunch The United States Trade and Development Agency (TDA) invites you to a Special Business Briefing Luncheon highlighting presentations from senior executives of private telecom companies and officials from national telecom carriers in the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The purpose of this briefing is to introduce U.S. telecom operators and manufacturers of equipment to the export and business opportunites available as these countries prepare to modernize and expand their telecom operations in the near future. Take a Break Join TDA and these eight key decision-makers from the Czech Republic and Slovenia in a two-hour business briefing. Meet one-on-one with these project sponsors to discuss your company's expertise and interest in the region. Learn first-hand about millions of dollars in export and business opportunities. Join us at the Business Opportunities Briefing on Wednesday, June 9, 1999 from 12 noon to 2:00 pm at the Barrington Room of the Omni Hotel at CNN Center. Lunch is complimentary. Space is limited so RSVP by return email TODAY - to info@assist-intl.com or visit us at the International Business Center at SUPERCOMM in Hall A at the Georgia World Congress Center. Please response with the following information: The person(s) attending the TDA Business briefing on Wednesday, June 9th will be: (Please give name and title) Name: Title: Company: Address: Country: Telephone: Fax: Email: Regards Peter Robinson Assist International The United States Trade and Development Agency assists in the creation of jobs for Americans by helping U.S. companies pursue overseas business opportunities. Through the funding of feasibility studies, orientation visits, specialized training grants, business workshops, and various forms of technical assistance, we enable American businesses to compete for infrastructure and industrial projects in middle-income and developing countries. ------------------------------ From: Richard Sobocinski Subject: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:54:57 -0400 Organization: University of Pittsburgh There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used to test the ringer. Any idea what that number is or if there is a similar thing? TIA Rich sobocinski@starmail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are all over; it varies from one telco territory to another. The only thing they have in common is that telco tries to keep them secret (they are now usually seven or ten digit numbers; ie. in Chicago it is always 200-xxx-xxxx) and as soon as they become common knowledge, telco changes them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:20:36 -0400 From: Art M Organization: Never My Love Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic & V-SPAN Allianced Allianced?? ALLIANCED??? Done too many drugs, haven't you? Your brain's completely shot now :*( [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't shoot the messenger. That's the way they had it written up when the press release went out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Erling Lassesen Subject: Re: Canadian CLECs Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 22:37:52 -0700 Organization: Uniserve Reply-To: adtech@uniserve.com grm wrote: > Do you have any info on who the fast moving Canadian CLECs are? > gmorriso@telcordia.com We have one operating in our area who shall remain nameless. They shut down one customer's phones for four hours and for my customer, removed a cross-connect from a Mitel switch to a room. Not impressed. Better to leave service to the Telco's. ------------------------------ From: Erling Lassesen Subject: Re: PBX or Hybrid? Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 22:40:04 -0700 Organization: Uniserve Reply-To: adtech@uniserve.com Ron Walter wrote: > Is there a standard definition for when a phone system is no longer a > hybrid and is instead a full PBX? Can a full PBX also be known as a > hybrid? Any input on this would be a great help to me. Thank you. Hybrid as a term has been used to describe the Panasonic digital switches, as the integrate both analog and ditital telephones. ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:52:21 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer Being the proud owner of oodles of little Japanese gadgets I feel qualified to comment on this. Yes, the Japanese are infatuated with small things. They've got pocket versions of nearly every office device. Unfortunately (for video phone makers) the video phone never caught on as an office device, or home device, so its pretty much doomed to failure in its pocket version. Steven In article , kim@aol.com says... > Arthur Ross scribed: >> This seems to be a phenomenon that recurs with a cycle time of about one >> generation -- takes that long for the old generation of enthusiastic >> engineers and marketing folks to forget about the last attempt, and to try >> to sell the picturephone again. >> Seems like it must be the Japanese' turn to find this out. > One thing that should be considered before blanket generalizations be > thrown around is that different cultures have different desires and > will accept different situations. > Extrapolating AMERICAN marketing experiences to a non-American culture > can sometimes (not always) go astray. > Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) > Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro > http://members.aol.com/kim > Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo > ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 06:22:22 GMT From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote: > DSL comprises many different technologies: > ADSL - Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (more bandwidth down than > up, good for consumers surfing the web, is cheaper than SDSL) > SDSL - Synchronous DSL (same bandwidth both ways, more economical than > a T-1) > IDSL - Don't know much about this one. Has something to do with DSL > over ISDN lines... > There are a couple more ... Indeed. Generally these things are some form of DMT - Discrete Multitone Modulation - multiple carriers, up to as high a frequency as they can get away with (or want to pay for), QAM Modulated, with sophisticated adaptive receivers. Latest one seems to be VDSL - Very high speed DSL. Claims are made for > 50 Mbps downstream. The asymmetry is that other old idea -- humans are slower than computers, so upstream doesn't need to be as fast as downstream. For those of you who are saying "... but telco BW is 3 khz - how can this be?" ... the difference is whether the signal goes through the switch or not. The legendary 3 khz bandwidth is an artificial restriction, set by the various forms of processing used in old-fashioned switch fabric and channel banks - Nowdays digital PCM, FDM microwave radio in the old days. Real bandwidth in the metallic pairs is not so restricted, although the transmission function at the higher frequencies is ugly, highly variable from loop to loop, and subject to ingress interference from unrelated nearby radio transmitters (particularly hams in residential neighborhoods). The sophisticated DSP that is now readily available and cheap has made it possible to cope with all the ugliness and come up with something that works in near-remarkable ways. The DSL modem at the CO sits between the metallic pair and the switch. Generally they separate the voice service from the IP traffic at that point. Voice goes to the switch, as always; IP goes to a pre-subscribed service provider, completely bypassing the switch. I've been told there is a market trial of that 50 Mbps thing by US West somewhere here in Phoenix, but don't know anything about it. That's enough for full motion video, suitably coded. To read more: IEEE Communications Magazine, April 1999 (www.comsoc.org). -- Best -- Arthur -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 01:59:06 PST Organization: Shadownet wkyr0xwb@my-deja.com writes: > Let's have a little balance by seeing some of the ways that the sex > site purveyors screw the customers. > 1. Using a credit card to check age. How can they say this with > a straight face? Even if a CC number did this, an expired number > would do this just as well. However, they want a currently valid one. > The real reason is that, altho they say they won't charge the card, > they will later try to think of reasons to charge it. They can say it with a straight face because this is what the *law* says. The law *explicitly* states that paying via a credit card is "proof" that a caller is of legal age. The law in question being the one regulating telephone sex lines. Given that there aren't any internet specific rules, the sex sites are figuring that if they obey the sex line rules, they've got a decent defense. Blame Congress for writing such stupid laws. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #110 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 31 04:46:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA14905; Mon, 31 May 1999 04:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 04:46:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905310846.EAA14905@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 May 99 04:46:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Something Odd About Babel Fish (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Data Cabling Book (Herb Stein) Re: Reed Solomon Coding (Arthur Ross) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Barry Margolin) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Arthur Ross) Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron (Lisa Hancock) Re: Judge Freezes Funds in Internet Scam (Robert A. Rosenberg) Re: Call Filter Needed (B C Leonard) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (John Temples) Re: New Rules For Mail Drops (was: Here is Why Email Has Gotten) (J. Hines) Re: New Rules For Mail Drops (Derek Balling) Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call (J Covert) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 31 May 1999 03:55:34 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Something Odd About Babel Fish In the last issue, I asked for help by people who can speak various languages in looking over the translated pages at http://telecom-digest.org and I hope that sometime Monday I will begin getting replies. I have noticed a couple of very odd things: Consider on http://telecom-digest.org/search -- The first item is the relatively new intra-site search engine from whatuseek.com and for all I know, Babel Fish does okay repeating my English message. But then where the template appears at the bottom of the paragrah, there are two 'radio' buttons. The first one is 'search this site' and it is the default. The second button is 'search the web'. In several of the Babel Fish translation efforts, it *reverses the description of the two radio buttons* referring to the intra-lata button as 'search the web' and the button for searching the web as the one to use for telecom-archives. It does not change the default condition; the first radio button is still the one offered by default. This seems to happen in every translation except German, in which the text for each radio button remains as it was in English regards the placement. Why might that be happening? Another thing I have noticed is that sometimes Babel Fish will find some entirely different place in a line of text to use as an anchor instead of the words at the start of the line as I had them in English. The anchor appears to go to the right place, it just is elsewhere in the string than where I placed it. Finally, for this time around, what does Babel Fish mean by the expression (with asterics around it) **** TIME OUT **** which sometimes appears in a sentence. I hope all of you foreign language speakers can help with this. I really do want to provide the service to the non-American users of the web unless Babel Fish is too crazy in its translations. PAT ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Data Cabling Book Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 15:11:48 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Entering "rs232" (for instance) in the Altavista search engine produces a lot of pointers. In article , Fred Atkinson wrote: > I was wondering if any of the T. D. readers would know of a > good reference manual to document the data about various types of > cables/interfaces? Example, look up RS232 to find the pin outs, the > electrical and mechanical (type of connector, etc.) specifications, > and the maximum length an RS-232 cable can reliable be and still work. > This is the type of information I'm looking for, preferably a small > 'quick reference' guide. Then, look up the same type of info for > V.35, RS449/422, etc. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 08:51:46 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Reed Solomon Coding Rob Heaton <114671.1317@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > Does anyone know of any public domain software that inplements a > Reed Solomon Coder and Decoder. If you can help I would be most > grateful. If you don't mind doing a little work, a very accessible discussion can be found in "Theory and Practice of Error Control Codes," by Richard Blahut, Addison-Wesley, 1983. See Fig. 7-8, et seq. BCH codes, of which R-S is a subset, and decoders therefore, are hard to understand, but not very hard to implement. You might have some fun, and learn something in the process from Dick Blahut's excellent book! -- Best -- Arthur -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:47:22 GMT In article , Steven J Sobol wrote: > ADSL - Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (more bandwidth down than > up, good for consumers surfing the web, is cheaper than SDSL) > SDSL - Synchronous DSL (same bandwidth both ways, more economical than > a T-1) Are you sure? I thought A and S stood for Asymmetric and Symmetric, referring to the bandwidth provided in each direction. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 07:26:24 GMT From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote: > DSL comprises many different technologies: > ADSL - Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (more bandwidth down than > up, good for consumers surfing the web, is cheaper than SDSL) > SDSL - Synchronous DSL (same bandwidth both ways, more economical than > a T-1) Pat - Missed something in previous mail - The "A" and "S" are "asymmetric" and "symmetric," not asynchronous and synchronous. They're all synchronous signals, basically. --A ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron Date: 30 May 1999 15:07:12 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > "Ultimately, if you break the law, it can be traced," said > ... In response to orders in civil cases, AOL may give out > information allowing someone's real name to be matched to a screen name. > Raytheon Inc. obtained subpoenas to identify 21 people, most of them > employees, said to have been spreading corporate secrets and gripes in > an anonymous online chat room. It then dropped a lawsuit it had > brought against the 21, each identified as "John Doe," indicating to > privacy experts that the company had gone to court in the first place > only to learn the identities of the chatters. Four employees quit; > others entered corporate "counseling." One could argue a legitimate reason for searching (with _legitimate_ and realistic probable cause) online accounts for criminal activity. But AOL also will give _civil_ case information out. That's a completely different situation. If someone is cheating on their spouse, that's sad, but there is no public interest in violating that person's privacy. Frightening. More frightening is how Raytheon (cited above) sought out disgruntled employees. Here we have a case of people doing absolutely nothing wrong nor immoral, yet their privacy was violated. (BTW, a few years ago Proctor & Gamble demanded and received _home_ telephone records of employees to search out who was talking to newspaper reporters). When I am in my employer's workplace, they have a legal right to tap my telephone (it is really _their_ phone not mine), go through my desk or computer, or put microphones in the bathroom. And a lot of employers are doing just that. (The euphemism is "loss prevention"). But when I leave the factory gates, my life is now my own. Clearly employers are not satisfied with that. A friend of mine liked to call his wife at lunchtime every day. He went to a payphone across the street from his office. His boss saw this and said my friend didn't have to use the payphone, but was welcome to use his desk phone, even for a personal call. On the surface that seemed nice, but my friend was wary when the suggestion was frequently repeated. My friend had noted that a list of all calls made came out and he simply didn't want his personal calls appearing on that list. He also wondered if his boss was suspicious of his private calls. > Privacy advocates worry that authorities could go on increasingly > invasive fishing expeditions. As I said in a prior note, I think there's a bigger threat from the private sector -- your employer, your bank, etc. Say you apply for a car loan. The banker pulls up your credit history and finds all sorts of nasty little _personal_ things about you. True things -- maybe you had a fight with a former boss and lost your temper. Maybe you cheated on your spouse. Stuff beyond normal finances. Anyway, the banker declares you a credit risk, but will grant you the loan for two more percentage points of interest. Legalized blackmail. (And since all banks use databases, all would have the same info.) This could happen on a job search. You need a job. You apply and are interviewed. Your prospective employer declares you've had some problems in the past and are a risk. They'll still hire you, but at a longer probationary period and a lower rate of pay. Again, legal blackmail. > "There are simply many more events that are recorded (online) that > would not be recorded in the physical world," said Rotenberg. It's not only the events are _recorded_, but can be _easily_ obtained and disseminated. Paper files have always existed, but were very difficult to search and share. Computer files, esp with the web, are easy to share. TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Want to have some fun and raise a little hell in the process? Go find > yourself a kiddie porn picture somewhere, and spam it to several > Remember that prank spam a few years ago allegedly sent by some poor > hapless guy in Queens, NY offering child porn to everyone who wrote > him? Yes. What about someone doing this maliciously? We know you were kidding about AOL, but suppose some malcontent gets tired of writing viruses and tries something else? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:32:50 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds in Internet Scam At 15:22 -0400 on 05/27/99, editor@telecom-digest.org [quoting tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)] wrote about TELECOM Digest V19 #103: > U.S. telco relations to the ITU run through the State Department, > which, like the FCC, is part of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, > the FCC could almost certainly order U.S. IXCs not to allow > direct-dial calls to the areas in question, and make it stick. And > NANPA was, last I checked, run under a contract let out by the U.S. > telcos, which are, of course, subject to FCC regulation ... What does the ITU have to do with it? Do not Remove the Carribean countries from Region 1. Just require that ANY attempt to dial them from the US as 1+ be intercepted by US IXCs. To dial them from a US IXC you would need to dial the Foreign Prefix (011?) and THEN 1+. This will make it obvious that it is NOT a US (or Canadian) Area Code but one into one of the Carribean countries (PR and VI would not be subject to this Foreign Prefix requirement and would still be dialed as 1+). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:55:00 -0500 From: B C Leonard Subject: Re: Call Filter Needed Dale Neiburg asked about filtering incoming calls: I have a box called the ATDI 3000 Call Management System that does exactly what you want. ATDI is located at 620 Ella Grasso BL, New Haven CT 06519. Phone 203-865-2834. It scarfs up Caller ID or uses a caller-entered 4 digit number to route calls to its internal answering machine (only 7 minutes capability), the ringer (5 different rings), or dev/null. Can't find the invoice now, but I know I bought it out of Nuts & Volts magazine about five years ago for about $50.00 On Fri, 28 May 1999 13:56:28 -0400, Dale Neiburg wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, your product was developed >> and sold on the market about fifteen years ago under the name >> 'Privecode'. It functioned almost identically to your description. It >> sat on the line and answered instantly when a call was put on your >> line. Your own phone never even rang. It would tell the caller, 'Enter >> your privecode number please', and this would be a three digit number >> you had programmed in. If the person entered the correct number, the >> privecodebox would warble at you; you would pick up any phone and >> speak. If the person did not enter the correct number, they went >> straight to the answering machine. You could also assign a three digit >> code which always went to the answering machine as well. It was >> manufactured about 1975-80 by a company called 'International Mobile >> Machines' in Bala Cynwyd, PA. It sold for about $200. PAT] > This is exactly what I've been looking for (without success) for an > application I have. Does anyone know a current source for such a unit? > Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 18:55:46 GMT In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; > remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a > system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same > number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. . . . Please explain: I thought you'd said that such phones were only used over military voice networks and that A, B, C, and D were used to prioritize calls for purposes of national security. For instance, D, highest priority, was used to notify the General that his tee time was available ... I digress. Were such phones ever used for civilian uses or behind PBXs? > In any place where there were phone lines devoted to fax or data or > 'a second voice line' do readers feel the recovery of up to three out of the > four numbers presently assigned would accomplish much, while also considering > trade-offs with user convenience and learning a new system, etc? I would gladly trade the inconvenience of learning a new system for the convenience of dialing fewer digits. In fact, I'd like to see alpha-numeric dialing! Just think how short phone numbers could be ... In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > The minute that ISPs will start to grant permanent IP adresses to > residential customers using cable or DSL, then it *may* make the > actual analogue phone quite irrelevant. IP addresses are inappropriate for this use since they aren't meant to be reassignable from network to network. No, we'd need to use domain names. Ah, think of the new fun in divorce proceedings: "You can have the kids. I want the domain name!" ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Organization: Gulfnet Kuwait From: john@kuwait.net (John Temples) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 22:22:51 GMT In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In any place where there were phone lines > devoted to fax or data or 'a second voice line' do readers feel the > recovery of up to three out of the four numbers presently assigned > would accomplish much, while also considering trade-offs with user > convenience and learning a new system, etc? PAT] It certainly seems like a reasonable idea, but I think the biggest and most impractical "trade off" would be the obsolescence of hundreds of millions of phones. Having those new phone numbers wouldn't be very practical if no one could call them. John W. Temples, III ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: New Rules For Mail Drops (was: Here is Why Email Has Gotten) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 11:43:19 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Please notice the inconvenience of putting PMB on a separate line, an > entirely new style of addressing which will require software that > manages mailing lists to be reprogrammed. And senders will not be able > to figure this out since mail is not normally addressed this way. That is the way the PO has done it for a long time. An address is hierarchal in nature, and read bottom up. Country, State, city, street address, and then what ever further sub-dividing is done, usually department or internal mail drop, but now made official. The PO's optical scanners will handle the human conventions of putting things in different orders, but that is what they would like. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 07:43:22 GMT From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: New Rules For Mail Drops What is to stop an enterprising Kinko's operator from simply changing their method of business. Instead of being a "mail drop", why not rent out space? Space is DEFINITELY at a premium these days in many big cities, so it is entirely possible to charge exorbitant amounts for small quantities (say 1 cu. ft.) Make the customer sign a lease, etc. etc. At that point the customer is a TENANT. :) Replacing the word "Suite" with "Department" instantly allows them to circumvent the intent of the rule entirely. Then the only problem remaining is: How do you get the mail from the postman's hands into the storage units? Simple. We've all seen ads for some magazine, say "Time" ... if you see the ad in say the NYTimes, it might have the same address with "Dept NYT", and if you see it in the Tribune, it might have "Dept. CT".... that's all you're doing now, is targeted sorting of mail. Admittedly, there's probably a couple bugs in this theory to be worked out, but I'm sure that some enterprising individuals armed with a lawyer or two to check things out could probably make a nice living circumventing silly-ass laws like this. :) D ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 16:56:45 -0400 From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? Delivering commercial messages by pre-recorded voice is against the law. See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html Here's what I'm trying; just put into the mail on Wednesday: Statement of Small Claim Trial Court of Massachusetts and Notice of Trial Small Claims Session Plaintiff's Name...blahblahblah Defendant's Name...blahblahblah Plaintiff's Claim. The defendant owes $500 plus $19.00 courts costs for the following reason: On 19 May 1999 at approximately noon, defendant caused a machine to initiate a telephone call to my residential telephone line, blahblah, using a pre-recorded voice to deliver a commercial message without my prior express consent. This is a violation of USC 47 Sec 227(b)(1)(B). USC 47 Sec 227(b)(3)(B) provides for a private right of action to receive $500 damages for each such violation. /s/ 26 May 1999 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #111 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 31 15:02:16 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA05136; Mon, 31 May 1999 15:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:02:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905311902.PAA05136@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #112 TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 May 99 15:02:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #185, May 31, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Sethu Rathinam) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (David Clayton) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Leonard Erickson) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (MCSMAN) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Bill Levant) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Craig Macbride) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Dan Gillmor) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (Leonard Erickson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 31 May 1999 11:56:26 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #185, May 31, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 185: May 31, 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: ** Ottawa Sets Broadband Spectrum Auction ** Nortel to Offer Meridian PBX on a LAN ** FCC to Examine Area Code Crisis ** Ledcor Says It Is So a Carrier ** MacDonald Leaves Bell ** Stephenson to Head Lucent Canada ** CAIP Hires President from Cable Industry ** Telus TV Trial Extended ** Iridium Wins Another Debt Extension ** Telecom Networks Pass Y2K Tests ** CRTC Deregulates Fixed Satellite Services ** Price Caps for QuebecTel and Telebec ** Steinmetz Buys Tucows ** MetroNet Shareholders Okay AT&T Merger ** Failed ISP Sues MetroNet ** AirIQ Offers Combined Cellular/GPS Antenna ** Olivetti Wins Telecom Italia Bidding War ** Petro-Canada to Sell Cantel Prepaid Airtime ** Telus Moves East ============================================================ OTTAWA SETS BROADBAND SPECTRUM AUCTION: An auction of broadband wireless spectrum in the 24 and 38 GHz frequency bands will be held in Canada this fall, beginning in early October. To participate, companies must submit completed applications with financial deposits to Industry Canada by August 6. Details on the auction procedure are posted at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01797e.html. ** Potential bidders include the telephone and cable companies, which until now were not permitted to hold wireless broadband licenses. NORTEL TO OFFER MERIDIAN PBX ON A LAN: Over the next year, Nortel Networks will port its Meridian 1, Norstar, Matra and MSL100 PBX systems to open IP-LAN servers. Details will be revealed on June 8, when the company introduces 15 new IP telephony products. FCC TO EXAMINE AREA CODE CRISIS: As Telecom Update #180 reported, North America may run out of three-digit area codes by 2007. On May 27, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission issued a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to consider measures which may delay the need for a major numbering system change. ** Ian Angus analyzes causes of the Area Code crisis (and possible cures) in the June issue of Telemanagement, now available. LEDCOR SAYS IT IS SO A CARRIER: Ledcor Industries denies the City of Vancouver's claim that the company is not a "Canadian carrier" as defined by the Telecom Act and thus has no right to apply to the CRTC for access to Vancouver rights-of-way (see Telecom Update #184). Ledcor says it meets the definition, since it owns transmission facilities over which Sprint Canada provides public telecom services. MACDONALD LEAVES BELL: John MacDonald, President and Chief Operating Officer of Bell Canada, is leaving the company June 1 "to pursue other opportunities in emerging communications technology and spend more time with my family." His duties have been assumed by Bell CEO Jean Monty. STEPHENSON TO HEAD LUCENT CANADA: On July 15, former Stentor president Carol Stephenson will join Lucent Technologies Canada as President and CEO. Most recently, Stephenson has been President and CEO of the Business Services Division of Bell Satellite Services. ** Lucent Canada's current President and CEO, Jim Schram, has been transferred to the United States. CAIP HIRES PRESIDENT FROM CABLE INDUSTRY: Jay Thomson, for 10 years Legal and Regulatory Affairs Vice-President of the Canadian Cable Television Association, has been hired as President of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers. Thomson will replace Ron Kawchuk, who will stay with CAIP in another capacity. TELUS TV TRIAL EXTENDED: The CRTC has okayed Telus's application for a one-year extension of its multimedia trials in Calgary and Edmonton. The telco must limit the trial to 2,000 customers in Calgary and 1,400 in Edmonton. IRIDIUM WINS ANOTHER DEBT EXTENSION: Iridium's creditors have given the satellite telephone provider until June 30 to prove it can meet customer and revenue targets. Iridium is trying to negotiate a restructuring of its debt. TELECOM NETWORKS PASS Y2K TESTS: The Canadian Year 2000 Telecom Industry Forum says its program of 1,000 tests "revealed no errors or problems associated with processing calls across multiple networks." Tests of billing systems are still pending. CRTC DEREGULATES FIXED SATELLITE SERVICES: CRTC Telecom Decision 99-6 deregulates Telesat Canada's Fixed Satellite Services as of March 1, 2000, when Telesat's monopoly ends. The Decision defines a transitional regulatory regime, including price caps, for the intervening period. (See Telecom Update #163) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-06.htm PRICE CAPS FOR QUEBECTEL AND TELEBEC: CRTC Public Notice 99-15 invites comments on the appropriate timing for implementing a price cap regime for Quebec-Telephone and Telebec, as well as on rate rebalancing and the target contribution rate to be used in setting their going-in rates. To participate, notify the Commission by June 9. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-15.htm STEINMETZ BUYS TUCOWS: A consortium headed by Israeli-based Steinmetz Technology Holding International has bought 85% of Toronto-based Tucows Interactive Limited, which operates Tucows.com. METRONET SHAREHOLDERS OKAY AT&T MERGER: Shareholders of MetroNet Communications have voted to approve MetroNet's merger with AT&T Canada. MetroNet says the merger will result in savings of $1.8 Billion over five years. FAILED ISP SUES METRONET: Puterdudes Internet Services is suing MetroNet for losses resulting from missed deadlines and for "negligent and unworkmanlike" equipment installation. Founded last fall, the London-based ISP no longer provides service. MetroNet says the suit is without merit. AIRIQ OFFERS COMBINED CELLULAR/GPS ANTENNA: AirIQ says it will offer a credit card-sized combined cellular/GPS antenna which allows quick, hidden installation of the company's vehicle tracking technology, and reduces interference which often results when two antennas are close together. OLIVETTI WINS TELECOM ITALIA BIDDING WAR: Italy's Olivetti has paid US$33 Billion for a majority stake Europe's fourth- largest telecom company, Telecom Italia, blocking Telecom Italia's planned merger with Deutsche Telecom. PETRO-CANADA TO SELL CANTEL PREPAID AIRTIME: Cantel AT&T Pay As You Go cards can now be purchased at Petro-Canada service stations across Canada. TELUS MOVES EAST: The June issue of Telemanagement, now available, features a report on Telus's plans to build a Canada-wide fiber network and enter the Ontario market by fall. Also: Cisco Plans a Revolution in Telecom; Running Out of Numbers; What Municipalities Want for Their Rights-of-Way. http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm99c-06.html ** Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive "Tips, Tricks and Traps: Managing Business Telecom Today," an anthology of 22 recent Telemanagement articles that focuses on solving practical problems of telecom management. ** To subscribe 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Date: 31 May 1999 15:49:08 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Mon, 31 May 1999 07:26:24 GMT, a.ross@ieee.org allegedly said: > Missed something in previous mail - The "A" and "S" are "asymmetric" > and "symmetric," not asynchronous and synchronous. They're all > synchronous signals, basically. Yep. My fault. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corporation 815 Superior Avenue, Suite 610 - Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2702 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 888.480.INET (4638) - 877.480.PAGE (7243) System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: none@noplace.nom (Sethu Rathinam) Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Date: 31 May 1999 17:45:05 GMT There is an infomative whitepaper on xDSL at: http://www.3com.com/solutions/dsl/dsl_technical.html that gives basic technical information including capabilities and limitations. Sethu Rathinam rathinam AT netins PERIOD net rathinam AT att PERIOD worldnet PERIOD net ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:03:27 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Adam H. Kerman contributed the following: > In article , >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; >> remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a >> system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same >> number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. . . . > Please explain: I thought you'd said that such phones were only used > over military voice networks and that A, B, C, and D were used to > prioritize calls for purposes of national security. For instance, D, > highest priority, was used to notify the General that his tee time was > available ... I remember seeing Siemens PABX handsets in the early 1980's with the ABCD keys. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 05:42:52 PST Organization: Shadownet Adam H. Kerman writes: > In article , >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; >> remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a >> system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same >> number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. . . . > Please explain: I thought you'd said that such phones were only used > over military voice networks and that A, B, C, and D were used to > prioritize calls for purposes of national security. For instance, D, > highest priority, was used to notify the General that his tee time was > available ... > I digress. Were such phones ever used for civilian uses or behind PBXs? I don't know about that but the touch tone (DTMF) standard *includes* them. And many modems will dial them! Here's what a *full* touch tone keypad looks like. 1 2 3 A 4 5 6 B 7 8 9 C * 0 # D As far as I know, the common tone decoder chips recognize all 16 combos. And I think the standard DTMF *generator* chips will generate all of them. You just need the extra key contacts, and possibly one more crystal. I've seen a lot of "butt sets" with the 4th column, but not any desk phones. Of course, I haven't *looked* for any either. :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What happens when people in other countries want to call someone in the USA who has an A,B,C or D as part of their 'number'? I was thinking also that instead of using those letters on the end, to give everyone 'four telephone numbers for the price of one' those letters could also be used as 'meta area codes' with the USA divided in four parts, A,B,C, and D, thus allowing the existing area codes to be eventually repeated four times around. So instead of your phone number being 123-456-7890-B it might be B-123-456-7890. PAT ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:50:22 GMT In article , john@kuwait.net says: > In article , >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In any place where there were phone lines >> devoted to fax or data or 'a second voice line' do readers feel the >> recovery of up to three out of the four numbers presently assigned >> would accomplish much, while also considering trade-offs with user >> convenience and learning a new system, etc? PAT] > It certainly seems like a reasonable idea, but I think the biggest and > most impractical "trade off" would be the obsolescence of hundreds of > millions of phones. Having those new phone numbers wouldn't be very > practical if no one could call them. Here's where the ILEC's could make a bundle. If they're WE 2500 sets it's a simple modification to enable A,B,C & D. Charge the customer $25 bucks a phone. But seriously, what happened to all those real WE 2500 sets? Are they warehousing them somewhere? == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone remember when touch tone phones only had *ten* keys, ie. no # or *, those were just blank spots with nothing there. Then one day the phone man came around to each house and swapped out the old key pad for a new one with all twelve buttons. When asking him why he was doing that, he said 'one of these days those keys will be used for special functions.' At that time of course, pressing them did nothing, or possibly caused a reorder tone but nothing else. That would have been in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Occassionally, rarely, you still see a ten button touch tone phone. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1999 13:44:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: mcsman@aol.com (MCSMAN) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back > There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make > that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used > to test the ringer Here in GTE-land, we just dial the number assigned to the phone, wait, and get a recording "the number you have dialled is on your party line. Please hang up and allow sufficient time for them to answer", even if you are not on a party line (is anybody, anymore?). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you never take the receiver off the hook again, does it just go on ringing forever, or does it time out at some point? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:57:27 EDT Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back > There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make > that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used > to test the ringer. Any idea what that number is or if there is a > similar thing? Here in suburban Philadelphia, it always varied from CO to CO. When I was a kid, about twenty-five years ago, it was either 579 (wait for dial tone) 6 (and hang up) or, less often 531 (wait) 6 (hang up). Both of those codes are now legitimate NXX's in this area, and for a while, they were using 550. I dunno what they are using, but I know that 958-xxxx is reserved here for various telco purposes. Could be something in that range. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 579 - wait for dial tone - 6 was the way it happened here for many years. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 08:49:01 GMT Our editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think that is what it is going to > come to eventually; users being 'charged' some nominal amount to > send email This is just not going to work. Some of the big ISPs and free email places already have the same effect by simply limiting the number of email messages that may be sent by one person over a period of time. The vast majority of UCE that I receive comes inserted into the net through some misconfigured machine which is allowing email forwarding from unknown sources, or has been inserted by some fake user at some small ISP. The email charge would, in most cases, never even be able to find its way to the actual spammer. If it lands on the lap of a small ISP which can't afford to pay and also can't find the perpetrator, then what? Of course, were such a system to be set up within America, the spammers would continue to find and abuse machines that will relay email and would move (even more of) their operations overseas. Already, we are starting to see various net abuse coming out of various places in South East Asia where the sys admins are too cretinous to even set up DNS properly, thus making even the task of _tracking_ the source of the abuse harder, let alone actually do something about it. Craig Macbride --------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig--------------- "It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nothing is perfect. A combination of approaches simply helps reduce the problem. Would you like to know how to send letters through the US Postal Service for free? There is one technique which works quite well: Usually, you put your return address as the sender in the upper left corner on the front of the envelope, the addressee information in the center of the front of the envelope, and your postage stamp in the upper right hand corner. Put your name and address in the center. Put the name and address of the person it is going to in the upper left corner. Forget about the postage stamp totally. Drop it in a mailbox. They will take the letter to the other person, thinking him to be the sender, and tell him he forgot to put a stamp on his mail. Only occassionally they will bring it to you as the 'addressee' and ask if you are willing to pay, but of course you refuse, telling them to get the money from the person who wrote you. The 'sender' (but really the intended recipient) will get the letter 'back' in his box with a notice to start over with the correct postage. It actually works, and years ago someone had a 'business report' they used to sell which was entitled, 'How to Reduce Your Postage Costs' with the above information on a single sheet of paper which they mailed to anyone who sent them ten dollars to *their* post office box. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:08:27 PDT From: Dan Gillmor Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Pat, I loved your piece deconstructing that spam, but I'd bet any amount of money that most or all of those "quotes" from major/minor newspapers and other publications were either forged or taken totally out of context. This is a standard trick. In fact, I'm going to be doing a column on how spammers not only make up quotes but sometimes make up publications (i.e. " 'A great product, says the New York Times Tribune.' ") or, in the case of stock fraud email, "research firms" ("Rated AAA by XYZ Research of Palo Alto, California"). Dan Gillmor, Tech Columnist San Jose Mercury News 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 Voice: +1-408-920-5016 Fax: +1-408-920-5917 www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/columns/gillmor ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 03:47:27 PST Organization: Shadownet JF Mezei writes: > I have a pocket organizer with modem and an accoustic coupler. I limit > the modem to 2400 baud (with compression). > I have very few problems connecting from Australian pay phones back to > my server in Canada via long distance. > And in the past, I had no problems connecting at Honolulu airport. Well, it's a minor miracle that you *ever* got it to work. Acoustic couplers are generally *barely* adequate for 300 bps. There were a few made for 1200 bps Racal-Vadic. But I've *never* heard of them being reliable at 2400. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #112 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 31 16:38:30 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA09644; Mon, 31 May 1999 16:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:38:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905312038.QAA09644@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #113 TELECOM Digest Mon, 31 May 99 16:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Art Kamlet) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Art Kamlet) Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? (J. Knox) Re: PBX or Hybrid? (Jan Ceuleers) Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron (Art Kamlet) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Hillary Gorman) Telco Unlimited Local Calls (chuck@xyz.nl) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Joel B. Levin) Archives Links to Telecom-Related Sites (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: New Rules For Mail Drops (Art Kamlet) UCLA Summer Short Course on Satellite Communication Design (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: 31 May 1999 14:45:09 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > In article , >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: >> However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; >> remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a >> system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same >> number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. . . . > Please explain: I thought you'd said that such phones were only used > over military voice networks and that A, B, C, and D were used to > prioritize calls for purposes of national security. For instance, D, > highest priority, was used to notify the General that his tee time was > available ... Well, on the autovon phone I had, it worked the other way round. If I tried a high priority call to the general and he was busy, I would just get a busy. But if the general wanted to call me and I was busy, the call I was on would be dropped and the general would come on. So it allowed the general to make a high priority interrupt of my call but didn't allow me to make other than a normal low priority call to him. This dates me, however, to about circa 1967. Today, intelligent network protocols allow businesses to set up VPNs (virtual private networks -- networks with nifty features that actually piggyback physically on other networks, but appear to the business as if there is a single dedicated netwrok.) In a VPN, these types of autovon priority interrupts can be programmed for the phone line and also by using passcodes, the company president who is visiting a low ranking peon or is in the company dining room can call a colleague using a high priority interrupt and passcode. (Do presidents really know how to make phone calls or do their secretaries do all that for them?) No matter -- the technology is now available to build an IN VPN that can outdo the autovon features. But autovon was also a separate, secure, redundant physical network, and the software INs may get you 1/3 or 2/3 of those today. > I would gladly trade the inconvenience of learning a new system for > the convenience of dialing fewer digits. In fact, I'd like to see > alpha-numeric dialing! Just think how short phone numbers could be ... Or just voice dialing: "Call Home." That's here today. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Date: 31 May 1999 14:57:49 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > The moment I asked for name of place, the operator pressed a button > indicating "I'm sorry, that information is now provided by AT&T '00' > directory assistance." When I asked whether there would be a charge for > this information, the operator indicated that the call would be billed > as a regular directory assistance call. > AT&T has jacked up other charges as well as instituting new ones. The > rate for coin calls no longer changes based on the time of day, and it > is over $3 for the first 3 minutes and about 50 cents each additional > minute for all ACTS-routed AT&T calls. You still have to pay the full 3 > minute charge even if you get an answering machine. It is now $19.95 > for an interstate emergency interrupt, which AT&T is still the only > company to provide. The collect call surcharge is $3.45, or $4.95 if > operator handled. Asking for time and charges on a 1 minute call will > result in a charge of $5.50, and the rate is 55 cents per minute! > Person-to-person calls are billed at a surcharge of $9.95, plus a > "special" rate of "only" 55 cents per minute. And when billing a call > to a third number there is also $5.50 surcharge, plus the rate of 55 > cents per minute. I really don't think AT&T wants to make money on these operator handled services. I think they want to charge so outrageously high costs that no one will use those services, and they will then petition to have those services closed down, no longer provided. They will use actual decreases in calling volume to justify discontin- uing those services, and will piously state that the calling public no longer wants them either. Then they can eliminate whatever remaining operator jobs still exist. If I'm right it means that collect and bill to third party and emergency interupt and similar operator handled services are money losers. Drop them. The old pre-divestuture AT&T (Pre 1984) stressed service. Operators were measured on service. So were installers, and others. "Service" as the goal of all employees somehow disappeared in the post divestiture market and money took its place. I'm not so sure money is a bad goal in our society, but I do miss the days when service was actually important -- the most important thing. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: Jaquelyn Knox Subject: Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:59:44 -0500 Organization: U S WEST Interprise John Covert wrote about a claim he is pursuing. Here are some things to watch for (I am by no means associated or knowledgeable of the legal system, but if I can come up with this, I'm certain their legal team can do the same or better): * "defendant caused a machine to initiate a telephone call to my residential telephone line" Can you prove that a machine initiated the call? A person may have initiated the call and activated the recording. * It is not illegal for a machine to initiate a call. Per USC 47 Sec 227(a)(1)(A) an "automatic telephone dialing system" can "store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator" Can you prove the number they dialed was randomly or sequentially stored or produced? The point here is that they may have gotten your number from a database. The Code does not prohibit this because it is not randomly or sequentially generated. * "using a pre-recorded voice to deliver a commercial message" Well, it's possible it was prerecorded and not a person that wouldn't shutup. It could also be a commercial message, depending on the content. Do you have a copy of the message? * The caller may be covered by Sec 227(a) Definitions (3) term "telephone solicitation" (B) "to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship" If you've been in their store, purchased anything, had them act as an agent on your behalf, sold something to them, subscriptions, services such as phone or utilities, financials such as savings & checking accounts, mortgages, auto loans, etc., this will constitute a "established business relationship." * The caller may also try Sec 227(b)(2)(C) claim they were calling a number they thought was a cellular number, "calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party" * They may try to counter by saying the number on their list gave their consent. This could be by application, contest entry, or the person submitting the request made a typo or was malicious or fraudulant (this could be posed as an explanation without having to prove it), the data entry introduced a problem. * Since it was a single call, it does not constitute harassment. The best you can probably expect is to have them comply with your request to remove your name from their list. However, there is no regulation that they cannot buy another database list from the same, or different, source which contains your number again. "John R. Covert" wrote: > Delivering commercial messages by pre-recorded voice is against the law. > See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html > Here's what I'm trying; just put into the mail on Wednesday: > > Statement of Small Claim Trial Court of Massachusetts > and Notice of Trial Small Claims Session > Plaintiff's Name...blahblahblah > Defendant's Name...blahblahblah > Plaintiff's Claim. The defendant owes $500 plus $19.00 courts costs > for the following reason: > On 19 May 1999 at approximately noon, defendant caused a machine to > initiate a telephone call to my residential telephone line, blahblah, > using a pre-recorded voice to deliver a commercial message without my > prior express consent. > This is a violation of USC 47 Sec 227(b)(1)(B). USC 47 Sec 227(b)(3)(B) > provides for a private right of action to receive $500 damages for each > such violation. ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: PBX or Hybrid? Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 19:54:47 +0200 Organization: the Experimenter Board Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org Erling Lassesen wrote: > Hybrid as a term has been used to describe the Panasonic digital > switches, as the integrate both analog and ditital telephones. I beg to differ. A hybrid system is a system that acts as both a PBX and a key system. In other words: external telephone connections can either be set up by dialing a prefix in order to seize a trunk (PBX functionality), or by pressing a dedicated key on the telephone set in order to do so (key system functionality). Jan ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron Date: 31 May 1999 14:22:10 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > More frightening is how Raytheon (cited above) sought out disgruntled > employees. Here we have a case of people doing absolutely nothing > wrong nor immoral, yet their privacy was violated. Last year, a major telecommunications equipment company, the one who makes the things that makes communications work or something like that, notified all employees who accessd the company netwrok from the outside that every time they accessed the network, the company would examine the contents of their PCs. Why? To make sure (make sure?) all of the programs were y2k compatible. Needless to say many employees didn't think much of this idea, and after a week or two of trying to justify it, the company backed down and said only those who connect from the outside at more than ISDN rates would have their PCs searched. The company still searches the contents of internal PCs that log onto the internal network but that's probably going to continue and employees just have to watch what's on their PCs. One positive reason given is to be able to periodically download the new VirusScan files to all PCs. And it got used and got some positive publicity when Melissa and friends came along. From what I hear there is still much mistrust, and people who ordinarily do lots of work from home and used to contribute to the efficiency of the company, will no longer use their own PCs to call into the company. Others insist they will not work from home unless the company issues them a laptop or PC to use at home, as they will never connect to the company network with their own (or their spouses or friends) PC. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Date: 31 May 1999 18:38:02 GMT Organization: Debugging our net or deworming your pet... On Sat, 29 May 1999 01:48:02 GMT, wrote: > In article , Hillary Gorman > wrote: >> I found this at the ssa.gov website: >> I do not have work permission from the INS. I need a Social >> Security number. Can I get one? >> ANSWER: Yes. >> The operative word is need. >> You can get a non-working Social Security Card when you are required >> to have one by law. > If you are not allowed to be employed in the US, there are no laws that > require you to have a Social Security Number. Hey, don't tell me -- tell the people who wrote the FAQ at ssa.gov! Apparently they think there ARE such laws, and they "infrequently" issue SSN #s to non-citizens because of them. hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone remember the old Negro Spiritual song, the one which went, 'sometimes I feel like a motherless child' ??? Perhaps in a few years a new set of words can be found for it to the title, 'sometimes I feel like a NUMBERLESS child' ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: chuck@xyz.nl (Chuck) Subject: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: 31 May 1999 18:42:50 GMT Organization: EuroNet Internet Hi, I live in Europe and was under the impression no US local telcos offer free local calls. A colleague says that many include free, unlimited local calls as part of the basic subscription. Could someone settle this? If free calls are still possible, how widespread is this? Please reply to this group as I am afraid to use a real email address. Thanks for your help. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, 'Chuck', lots of USA telcos offer unlimited calling at no extra charge in the subscriber's local area. In smaller towns and villages, usually the entire thing is included. In larger cities, some segment of the city surrounding the subscriber will be part of his basic area in some cases. For example, in Chicago the basic area is a distance of eight miles in any direction, or normally, the subscriber's central office and the offices next adjacent to him in any direction. The calls are not 'free'; but they are untimed. As an example, for about three or four cents you can make such a call and talk as long as desired, where calls to places beyond the local or basic area are timed, at three or four cents for each timed interval. This applies in Chicago to residential subscribers only. Business subscribers get no basic or local area: they pay three or four cents for each timed interval regardless of where the called party is located within the 'local area' or LATA. In many smaller towns, there is no business versus residential dis- tinction made; your monthly charge allows unlimited use of the phone to call anywhere in the local area, which typically means the town in which you are located. More important question of you: why are you 'afraid to use a real email address'? If spam, or an invasion of privacy is your main concern, that is the reason we have http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice so that you can be who you want to be with no further concern. Quite a few people have signed up just in the past week. No obligation of any sort, and no identification required to open a new email box. PAT] ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 19:14:59 GMT In , Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) wrote: > Here in suburban Philadelphia, it always varied from CO to CO. When I > was a kid, about twenty-five years ago, it was either 579 (wait for > dial tone) 6 (and hang up) or, less often 531 (wait) 6 (hang up). > Both of those codes are now legitimate NXX's in this area, and for a > while, they were using 550. I dunno what they are using, but I know > that 958-xxxx is reserved here for various telco purposes. Could be > something in that range. Much of New England used to be (and still is, I think) 981-xxxx where xxxx is the last number of the number you're calling from. Dial-tone would be returned, at which point you would dial a digit ( 5 or 6 ) or flash the hook -- this varied from town to town -- receive a response (stutter or a different tone) and hang up. /JBL Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | or jbl/at/levin.mv.com| or levinjb/at/gte.net | "I gotta go." ARS: KD1ON | -- I. Shoales ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:23:02 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Archives Links to Telecom-Related Sites I guess I mentioned a couple days ago that the repository or collection of telecom-related links in the archives has been recently purged of bad links, and about a dozen new links added. Many of those I have added in turn have links to lots of additional places. One, which leads to a netizen at the University of Michigan in turn has links to *several hundred* telecom-related web sites and publications, both print media and online e-journals. I am going to be added an automated 'submit a new telecom site' form to that page in the near future, so that links you find which are not already included can be quickly added. This form will also be a way of deleting, after confirmation, a link on the page which is dead. http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html PAT ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: New Rules For Mail Drops Date: 31 May 1999 16:19:52 -0400 Organization: InfiNet In article , Derek Balling wrote: > What is to stop an enterprising Kinko's operator from simply changing > their method of business. I would assume the law prevents private mailbox agents from going off willy nilly doing whatever they want, if they want the Postal Service to deliver mail to them? Otherwise, why are they complying with the new PMB standard now? > Then the only problem remaining is: How do you get the mail from the > postman's hands into the storage units? Simple. We've all seen ads for > some magazine, say "Time" ... if you see the ad in say the NYTimes, it > might have the same address with "Dept NYT", and if you see it in the > Tribune, it might have "Dept. CT".... that's all you're doing now, is > targeted sorting of mail. The Dept XYZ thingies do not direct the mail elsewhere -- they are used to tell the recipient where the ad was read -- it identifies the mazagine or city where the ad appeared, and measures the effectiveness of advertising in that magazine or city. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Summer Short Course on Satellite Communications Design Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:27:44 -0700 This summer, UCLA Extension will present the following short course on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. July 21-23, 1999, "Satellite Communications Design and Engineering". The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, MSEE, MBA, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Hughes Space and Communications International; and Robert C. Perpall, MSEE, Satellite Engineer, Socit Europenne des Satellites (SES), Luxembourg, $1195. For additional information and a complete course description, please visit our website, http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/, or contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #113 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 2 22:38:35 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA09183; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:38:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906030238.WAA09183@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #114 TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Jun 99 22:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: Dictionary of Multimedia & Internet Applications (Rob Slade) Cisco/MIND CTI Press Release (Andrea Dray) High Finance, High Intrigue (Monty Solomon) Cops Covet DNA Chip (Monty Solomon) PacBell Drops StarTac Phones (Mike Pollock) 212 Overlay Has 7D Intra-NPA Dialing? (Robert McMillin) Seeking a PABX (mcastle@hotmail.com) I Need an ATM Card That Does AAL1 (Tony Esporma) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:22:54 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Dictionary of Multimedia and Internet Applications" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKDCMMIA.RVW 990415 "Dictionary of Multimedia and Internet Applications", Francis Botto, 1999, 0-471-98624-0 %A Francis Botto %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1999 %G 0-471-98624-0 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 362 p. %T "Dictionary of Multimedia and Internet Applications" It might be thought that the title is just an attempt to jump on the latest bandwagon. However, the material does seem to concentrate on terms related to network based multimedia applications and standards. On the other hand, I had a full page of error notes before I got out of the "A"s. Frankly, the cover's insistence on "total accuracy" is a bit misplaced, since the best you can say about some of the material in the book is that it isn't verifiably wrong, mostly because of the difficulty in determining just exactly what the passage is supposed to mean. Your humble reviewer, world's worst copy editor that he is, even found some typos. Caxton invented the printing press? Vannevar Bush helped found the Internet? Many entries have bits and pieces of relevant information, but are not really complete. "Absolute addressing" speaks only of CD-ROM blocking, there is no entry for the associated concept of relative addressing, and the definition for "address" itself is rather confusing in its jumps from topic to topic. Under 2B+D, the D (data) channel seems to be identified as the ISDN link, while "ISDN" itself starts with a BRI (Basic Rate Interface) of two 64 kbps B channels (ignoring the North American standard and the D channel) and then, without transition, talking about the full T-1 PRI (Primary Rate Interface) bandwidth. "BRI" is defined (somewhat, but not entirely, better) but there is no listing for PRI. There is an entry for "Java Unicode" (which talks about it being "used exclusively by Windows NT at the system level"), but not Unicode itself. Some inclusions are bizarre and rather pointless. There is an entry for "15 in," citing it as a "standard display size." "1000" tells us that it is "The number of bits transferred in one second, using the unit Kbps." Another listing reads, in its entirety, "AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences) An American organization dedicated to the sciences." The material is extremely biased in favour of Microsoft. "Cabbing" gets a listing (compression into .CAB files), but not archiving or compressing. There is, for crying out loud, an entry for "ActiveX security!" (Of course, it isn't very long.) For those in the know it is fairly obvious, but the definition of "Active Desktop" never mentions Microsoft at all, making it seem to be an accepted standard. "ActiveX" is defined as a reincarnation of OCX, while "OCX" is stated to be a forerunner of ActiveX. There is more detail on ActiveX, mostly a list of pedestrian guidelines for developing ActiveX controls. Some definitions, while not exactly wrong, seem to miss the essential point. For example, the entry for "Architecture" seems to imply that two of the most important considerations are whether multimedia functionality is built in and how big the internal cache is. Others use terms in ways that simply do not make sense in the context of the technology under discussion. "Bookmark" ignores its use as a personal directory of Web pages in Netscape. In talking about cryptography, we are told, of the mathematical underpinnings of public key encryption, that it is "achieved through a one-way function which describes the difficulty of determining input values when given a result." Certainly all of those concepts belong in cryptology, but the sentence itself does not use them properly. The standard mistakes are all there, such as crediting Grace Hopper with the invention of the term "bug." (Hopper herself only said it was the first *recorded* case of an *actual* bug being found as a cause.) Moore's Law initially stated that the number of components would double every eighteen months, and has subsequently been updated to nine months. It never stood at one year. (And "a single silicon" what?) The listing for viruses starts out well by mentioning propagation, but then degenerates. "Known viruses are said to be `in the wild'." (Many known viruses have never been `in the wild'.) "Michelangelo [...] alters the size of the DOS COMMAND.COM file." (Michelangelo is a boot sector infector.) "[V]iruses may be removed from a system or DSM ..." (DSM apparently means disk: digital storage media.) Email attachments are apparently "removable media." It is refreshing to see, for once, a work that is not specifically US-centric. It is disappointing to note that authors outside of the States can be every bit as provincial as the worst of their American colleagues. References to outside sources are few: so few that the author can't seem to keep to a consistent format. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are included in such a manner as to be confused with internal links to other terms in the dictionary. Book citations are in a wide variety of formats, and even different typefaces. (Of those few texts that are mentioned, an astonishing number seem to be written by one "Botto, F.") While quite up to date, in some areas, the material in this text is neither complete enough, nor reliable enough, to recommend as a sole source. Despite its age, Stevens' "Quick Reference to Computer Graphics Terms" (cf. BKQRFGRP.RVW) remains a much more useful guide if you want to know about multimedia. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKDCMMIA.RVW 990415 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. - Andrew Tanenbaum http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Andrea Dray Subject: Cisco/MIND CTI Press Release Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:08:13 +0300 MIND Announces Two Customer Wins Deploying Combined Cisco Systems and MIND VoIP Solution NexBell Communications, World Wide Net Telecom Successfully Deploy Solution Yoqneam, Israel - June 2, 1999 - MIND CTI Ltd. today announced that US VoIP start up Nexbell Communications, LLC. and Australian ITSP, World Wide Net Telecom have succcessfully deployed the MIND-iPhonEX IP Telephony Billing and Customer Care system along with Cisco AS5300/Voice Gateways. Important to these customers' decision was the close collaboration between MIND and Cisco to ensure interoperability for prepaid voice services. "As a new IP telephony infrastructure provider with ambitious plans, including local presence in 132 major US and international markets by the beginning of next year, gateway and billing system performance as well as time to market were critical for us," said Andre Temnorod, president & CEO of Nexbell . "The simplicity of installation and integration of the products was very important. We also like the direction that MIND and Cisco are taking with regards to prepaid solutions." "In continuing our close working relationship with MIND, we have the opportunity to provide our customers with real time, flexible solutions for VoIP service," said Larry Lang, vice president of marketing for the Service Provider Line of Business at Cisco Systems. "Cisco is committed to working with members of the New World Ecosystem program to deliver best-in-class end-to-end solutions. We value MIND as a New World Ecosystem member that delivers billing and customer care solutions within the Cisco Open Packet Telephony framework. Cisco and MIND will continue to cooperate closely in the development of industry leading, scalable VoIP solutions for customer success." "With the high performance Cisco AS5300/Voice Gateway and the MIND-iPhonEX Billing & Customer Care system, we have a reliable, robust solution," said Gennady Volchek, Managing Director of WWN Telecom. "We can easily manage our day to day customer care service and perform advanced billing functions, and this has helped in putting us ahead of our competitors. We look forward to expanding the services we can provide to our rapidly growing subscriber base by using the prepaid solution from MIND and Cisco." "Our alliance with Cisco, the worldwide leader in networking for the Internet, will enable MIND to maintain our leading position in VoIP Billing," said Monica Eisinger, president & CEO at MIND CTI. "MIND's solutions for billing and management compliment Cisco's whole range of products, those aimed at the enterprise market as well as those for ISPs and the Next Gen Telcos." Cisco's New World Ecosystem is an open and flexible program composed of partners committed to working with Cisco to create profitable and integrated solutions for the service provider, their customers and suppliers. About MIND-iPhonEX MIND-iPhonEX deploys a real time, carrier grade billing system supporting millions of customers, that provides a scalable, highly reliable solution. MIND provides web interfaces that allow for easy customer care, registration and subscriber verification of real time balances and call details. MIND-iPhonEX Support Systems for call management, traffic analysis and fraud detection provide the tools to analyze call and network activity and implement effective strategies. About MIND CTI: MIND CTI, the market leader for VoIP billing solutions, supplies the telecom industry with software for billing and management. With over one hundred customers worldwide, MIND CTI has the largest install base in IP Telephony Billing. MIND CTI was the first to release a real time VoIP billing and customer care product integrated with all major gateway and gatekeeper vendors. For information on MIND and its products visit the company web site: http://www.mindcti.com About World Wide Net Telecom In June 1998 WWN Telecom launched its first link between Melbourned, Australia and Los Angeles in the USA using Cisco platforms. In August the same year the company opened new POPs in Moscow (Russia) and Odessa (Ukraine). The full project presently accounts for over 26 POPs worldwide. Information is available at wwn@wwntelecom.com.au About Nexbell Communications, LLC. Nexbell Communications, LLC is a new start up VoIP company based in Aurora, Ohio. Nexbell offers low cost domestic and international IP calls to small and medium size business customers, enterprise customers and residential customers. At the present time they have points of presence in 32 major cities throughout the US. For more information contact: Barbara Frank MIND CTI Ltd. Tel: +972-4-993-6666 Fax: +972-4-993-7776 barbara@mindcti.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:43:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: High Finance, High Intrigue http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/19938.html by Polly Sprenger 2:35 p.m. 28.May.99.PDT It's the case that has twisted and turned more times than Chubby Checker. It all started when Christian Curry, who worked for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in New York, was fired last August soon after being featured in the buff on the cover Playguy, a gay man's magazine. The company said they axed him for playing loose with his expense reports. He in turn threatened the company with a discrimination suit. Curry, who is black, also allegedly started searching for someone to help him plant phony email messages that made derogatory comments about blacks and gays in the company's computer system. He supposedly approached one Joseph Luethke about the conspiracy, who then told employees at Morgan Stanley and the police about the plot. Curry was arrested after he allegedly tried to hire an undercover cop for the task. But last week, letters between Morgan Stanley and Luethke outlining a US $10,000 payment to the would-be cracker surfaced. The company admitted sending the letter, and charges against Curry were dropped. Now it's Morgan Stanley's turn to be back on the defensive. As soon as he was cleared of the charges, he re-filed his suit, asking for higher damages than before. The company, saying it made an error in judgment in offering Luethke the money, this week suspended with pay two members of its legal staff, and handed the internal investigation over to an outside law firm. Morgan Stanley representatives declined to comment on whether or not the two employees suspended Thursday played a part in delivering the $10,000 payment to Luethke, relying on their public statement. Morgan Stanley said the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison which is now handling the investigation, will make public comments about developments in the case as they arise. Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:44:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cops Covet DNA Chip http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19878.html by Vince Beiser 12:10 p.m. 1.Jun.99.PDT Cops may soon be able to analyze the DNA of crime-scene blood or hair without having to send it to the lab, and that power is scaring civil libertarians. Testing begins this summer on a postage-stamp-sized chip being developed by Nanogen, a San Diego biotech company. The chip is designed to perform DNA analysis within minutes on drops of saliva, semen, or other left-behind human remnants. A portable computer unit can then look for matches from the FBI's national database of felons' DNA. As almost anyone with a TV knows, a person's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which is detectable in everything from saliva to hair to a semen stain on a blue dress, contains a unique genetic "fingerprint." Nanogen is one of several companies working on developing fast, chip-based DNA testing for law enforcement, backed by millions of dollars in federal grants. In June, Nanogen is sending its system to the Bode Technology Group -- one of the nation's largest forensic labs -- for testing. Nanogen hopes to get it on the streets within the next few years, according to company vice president Kieran Gallahue. An effective chip would be a boon to police, cutting the time for DNA testing from weeks to minutes and the cost to a fraction of its current level. The use of DNA in criminal justice also got a boost last October, when the FBI's national DNA database went online. The National DNA Index System already contains roughly 150,000 genetic profiles of convicted offenders as well as DNA samples from the scenes of over 8,000 unsolved crimes. The FBI says its database has helped to solve hundreds of cases while a similar system in England, online since 1995, has linked nearly 30,000 suspects to crime scenes. But DNA use has been hobbled by the slow, expensive process of testing samples. State law enforcement agencies have already collected 620,000 samples from various lawbreakers, but have analyzed fewer than half. Money is a major bottleneck: Testing crime-scene evidence costs an average of US$1,200, according to Chris Asplen, executive director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. "With chips, those numbers will go down incredibly," says Asplen. "We'll be able to do more, faster and cheaper." Privacy advocates, however, see instant DNA testing as a further acceleration of government intrusiveness. "DNA harbors our most intimate secrets," says Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It contains the markers for over 4,000 diseases and might be able to indicate a predisposition to being gay or [to being] a substance abuser. In the wrong hands, it can and will lead to abuse and discrimination." Gallahue argues that Nanogen's chip, like the FBI's database, reads only tiny sections of the DNA molecules called short tandem repeats, or STRs. Like fingerprints, the 13 sets of STRs logged for each tested individual provide only identifying information, without revealing anything else about the person such as health status or genetic predisposition. But the capacity to obtain more DNA data only seems to whet the authoritarian appetites of many in law enforcement. Howard Safir, a New York City police commissioner, recently recommended that anyone arrested for a crime -- whether subsequently convicted or not -- should have to provide a DNA sample. Louisiana already allows this kind of DNA testing, and other states take samples from juvenile offenders and parolees. Involuntary DNA collecting has been unsuccessfully challenged in the courts at least three times in recent years. But the technology can work the other way too. Since the late 1980s, criminal investigators have used DNA testing to exonerate at least 56 wrongfully convicted people in the United States, including 11 on death row. Still, technology, no matter how advanced, won't make the process foolproof. According to DNA expert Barry Scheck, a law professor who served on O. J. Simpson's defense team, DNA evidence is lost or destroyed 70 percent of the time. Evidence can also be easily mishandled or contaminated, especially when it's being analyzed on the street. "We've identified a significant lack of training of law enforcement around this DNA stuff," Asplen said. "The greatest impediment now to the expansion of coerced testing is cost," says Steinhardt. "As these chips bring that down, we fear the expansion of these programs." But Nanogen's Gallahue trumpets the possibility of reducing crime as worth the investment. "When you think about the power of this to identify repeat criminals and get them off the streets and to release innocent individuals, it's a very powerful argument for doing testing." Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: PacBell Drops StarTac Phones Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:01:16 -0400 LOS ANGELES (AP) Motorola Inc.'s StarTac cellular phones have been plagued by severe technical glitches, prompting Pacific Bell Wireless to quietly stop selling the popular phones for several months. Motorola said the problems which include dropped calls and the phone abruptly shutting off are limited to the StarTac 7000 model, which uses digital technology known as global system for mobile communications, or GSM. PacBell Wireless, the largest GSM carrier in the country, and Motorola refused to disclose exactly how many of the phones were affected. Neither company would say how many model 7000s are in use. The companies also never told customers about the problems and only admitted the problems to customers who complained. PacBell and Motorola officials said they have worked closely to fix the problems by replacing the phones' software when customers bring them in for service. ``We're taking this very seriously, and we've taken steps to make sure that StarTac customers have a phone that will perform up to par,'' said PacBell Wireless vice president Steve Krom. Motorola, meanwhile, has upgraded PacBell Wireless' entire inventory of StarTac 7000s with the new software, said Denise Gibson, vice president and general manager for Motorola's U.S. strategic operations. The problems come as Motorola tries to regain market share lost to rivals Nokia and Ericsson when phones shifted from analog technology to digital. The StarTac has been a key part of Motorola's rebound. Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:05:42 -0700 From: Robert McMillin Organization: Now with 25% more Evil! Ask Me How! Subject: 212 Overlay Has 7D Intra-NPA Dialing? If I read the NANPA planning letter correctly, the 212 overlay will feature 7-digit dialing within the same NPA. I think that makes it a first, to my knowledge. Robert McMillin | Slackin' at home, agin' | rlm@netcom.com "I'm sorry, Bill, I'm afraid we can't build that." -- Development team, Windows 2001 ------------------------------ From: mcastle@hotmail.com Subject: Seeking a PABX Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 23:53:41 GMT Organization: @Home Network Canada Does anyone know of a 1024 port pabx with a good price? ------------------------------ From: Tony Esporma Organization: evil genii for world domination Subject: I Need an ATM Card That Does AAL1 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:45:46 GMT That's my problem folks (amongst others). The FORE card we got, an HE622 Forerunner does not do AAL1. At least that's what I was told by FORE. I'm looking for an ATM card that will plug into a Sun Workstation (PCI, S-Bus) that will do at least OC3 and allow me to create PVCs that use AAL1. This is because I need to support CES. Do any of you have any idea where I can get such a card? And I need it PRONTO! Thanks a priori, Tony Esporma esporma@pacbell.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #114 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 2 23:29:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA11132; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:29:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906030329.XAA11132@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #115 TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Jun 99 23:29:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP-Caribbean Now Supposedly All Unique in its NPAs (Mark J Cuccia) Sobering News for Drunk Drivers (Monty Solomon) Sex Sites Stiffed in Credit-Card Wrangle (Monty Solomon) Re: PBX or Hybrid? (Wrong Number) Re: Myterious Intercept Message (Alan Boritz) Re: AT & T New charges (Ken M.) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Robert Berntsen) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (James Wyatt) Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance (Russell Blau) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Robert A. Rosenberg) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back ("bob") TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 1 Jun 1999 15:23:40 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: NANP-Caribbean now supposedly all unique in its NPAs Well, it is now Tuesday 1-June-1999. St.Vincent/Grenadines in the (non-US) NANP-Caribbean (+1) has "supposedly" gone mandatory with its 784 NPA code. Dialing any 809-NXX which _USED_ to be for St.Vincent, via AT&T, goes to an AT&T new-NPA-mandatory recording (male voice again), from the Cedar Knolls NJ #4ESS (CDKNNJCK04T, 127-T). On Monday nite, I dialed (via AT&T) the St.Vincent 784 NPA test validation recording number, 784-485-TEST, but used 809 instead of 784. 809-485 USED to be a "valid" NPA+c.o.code for St.Vincent. But I got the AT&T "intercept" indicating that 784 is now mandatory. Via Qwest (101-0432+1+_809_-485-TEST), I went thru to the NPA Test announcement in St.Vincent. Unfortunately, their test-number SUPES for billing! :-( One of our list members in Toronto last nite three-wayed 1+ to 809-485-TEST via Sprint-Canada, and got thru to the SUPING test number. It will probably take a little while before all carriers involved make 784 "mandatory". But I do wonder if there are any carriers routing 809-NXX codes to non-DR locations! BUT ... on PAPER at least, Telcordia-TRA, NANPA, AT&T, and I guess the ITU, considers there NOW to be _NINETEEEN_ UNIQUE NPA CODES for EACH of the NINETEEN individual geo-political locations of the NANP-Caribbean, with 809 and the Dominican Republic to be perfectly IDENTICAL - 809 is EXCLUSIVELY the Dominican Republic. Directory Assistance calling to the NANP-Caribbean is a different matter, though ... Even though 809-555 "should" indicate GTE-Codetel's Directory operator in Santo Domingo DR "only" (who would ask in English? Spanish? "what city"), AT&T and some other carriers might still be routing to an AT&T OSPS switch thus attaching an AT&T OSPS Operator, with the auto-prompt, "AT&T, What Island, Please?" ... AND, _SOME_ (non-US) NANP-Caribbean NPA's + KL.5-1212 (via AT&T and some other carriers), while they "should" have unique "inward" directory operator locations in specific NANP-Caribbean countries, might still route to "AT&T, What Island, Please?". Reason ... some C&W or GTE-Codetel TOPS systems are combined local/toll/inward operator _AND_ Directory operator. However the operator might not have an indication on her TOPS terminal that the directory request came in from off the island or out of the country. She might then offer to complete a call to the requested number (as a directory operator) for an "extra whatever island/country currancy amount", which couldn't really be charged back to the calling US/Canada customer! AND that US/Canada calling customer is only paying the flat directory cost to NPA+KL.5! By having an AT&T (or maybe Bell Canada / Teleglobe) operator ANNOUNCE the call, the C&W or GTE-Codetel operator KNOWS that the directory request is coming from off the island! Here is a summary (numerically) of the NPAs for the (+1) NANP-Caribbean: 242 Bahamas 246 Barbados 264 Anguilla 268 Antigua and Barbuda 284 British Virgin Islands 340 U.S.Virgin Islands - US/Domestic rated with the (continental) US 345 Cayman Islands 441 Bermuda (not actually "Caribbean", but _was_ part of +1-809) 473 Grenada and Carriacou 649 Turks and Caicos Islands 664 Montserrat (whatever still is left since the volcano errupted) 758 St.Lucia 767 Dominica 784 St.Vincent and the Grenadines 787 Puerto Rico - US/Domestic rated with the (continental) US 809 Dominican Republic ONLY (was all of the NANP Caribbean; GTE-Codetel is the incumbent LEC rather than Cable & Wireless or an affiliate) 868 Trinidad and Tobago 869 St.Kitts and Nevis 876 Jamaica Many of the numericals for the above NPAs were chosen to "spell out" the name of the island or its capital city ... i.e. 758= 'SLU' for St.Lucia. This is outlined in many NANP-Caribbean articles I had posted to TELECOM Digest in the 1995-1997 timeframe. The _OLD_ (pre-mid-80's) 809-NNX ranges for the NANP-Caribbean were as follows ... 809-29X Bermuda 809-3NX Bahamas (except - at that time - 809-38x, 39x) 809-4NX "British West Indies" (British Virgin Islands down to Grenada) 809-5NX, 809-68X Dominican Republic 809-6NX (62X thru 670, but not 68X nor 69X) Trinidad & Tobago 809-7NX (except 77X) and 809-8NX Puerto Rico 809-77X U.S.Virgin Islands 809-9NX Jamaica, with 947/8/9 Cayman Island and 946 (inlcuding later 941) Turks & Caicos Further details on the history of Caribbean numbering/routing/etc. can also be found in posts I sent to TELECOM Digest in the 1995-97 timeframe, and can be obtained from the TELECOM Archives. Some additional history and specifics on the NANP-Caribbean: AT&T "reserved" or "assigned" the 809 area code for the Caribbean area, particularly for the US possessions of Puerto Rico and the (US) Virgin Islands, back in 1958. While I don't really have much in the way of "specific" historical documentation on this, I have been told that the intent was for 809 was to cover _ALL_ of the Caribbean, as far back as 1958 when the concept of a Caribbean area code was conceived. At that time, this would probably have included Cuba and Haiti, as well as some additional French and Dutch islands in the Caribbean. For various political and "cultural" identity reasons, those other islands have since been assigned their own ITU/CCITT _COUNTRY_ codes. But in 1958, the ITU/CCITT had _NOT_ yet developed a worldwide country code scheme for international/overseas dialing. It wasn't until 1960 when a European / North African / Middle Eastern and Southern Asian Country Code scheme was coneceived! The idea of a WORLDWIDE country code format was finalized in 1964. The other areas of the "non-NANP" Caribbean, with their CCITT/ITU Country Codes include: +297-8- Aruba (prior to circa 1986, Aruba was both politically and telephonically a part of Dutch Antilles as +599-8-) +508- St.Pierre & Miquelon (actually off the coast of +1-709, Newfoundland Canada. In the 1970's, AT&T and Canada reached St.Pierre & Miquelon via the St.John's NF Inward Operator as 709+121; the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU country code was by 1984) +509- Haiti (the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU country code was by 1976) +53- Cuba (In the CCITT/ITU list of 1964, Cuba did have its own Country Code) +590- Guadeloupe (French Antilles) +596- Martinique (French Antilles) (The first reference to these CCITT/ITU country codes was by 1976) +599- Dutch Antilles (the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU country code was by 1968) The French Antilles also includes the islands of St.Barthelemy and the French side of St.Martin, all of which are geographically grouped with the "upper" Dutch Antilles. I've seen these smaller French islands at different times as part of either country code +590- or +596. The Dutch Antilles are geographically separated into two groups- The "upper" Dutch Antilles includes: +599-3- St.Eustacius +599-4- Saba +599-5- St.Maarten (Dutch side; the French side is spelled St.Martin and is part of +590- or +596-) The "lower" Dutch Antilles (off the coast of Venezuela) includes: +599-6,7- Bonaire +599-9- Curacao (and prior to circa 1986, +599-8- was for Aruba, until it became politcially and telephonically independent, and is now +297-8-) And while Greenland isn't part of the Caribbean, it is close to Canada in North America, and has its own CCITT/ITU Country Code of +299-, since circa 1984. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:47:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sobering News for Drunk Drivers http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19900.html by Dan Cox 3:00 a.m. 27.May.99.PDT An at-home breathalyzer offers corrections officers a cheaper way to monitor the behavior of repeat drunken drivers. The monitoring device, developed by SecurityLink, a division of Ameritech, promises to reduce corrections agencies' expenses and alleviate overcrowded jails. Ameritech said that jail costs corrections agencies between US$40 and $50 per inmate per day. Its system, however, cuts the cost by two-thirds. The company said one-third of those arrested for drunk driving are repeat offenders. Offenders are required to blow into an alcohol-sensitive straw several times per day to prove they are staying sober. The system uses a modem to transmit a snapshot of the offender, plus the time of day and blood alcohol level to SecurityLink, which reports offenders whose levels exceed .08 to the corrections agency. Corrections officers in Wells County, Indiana, started using the service this week to remotely monitor 11 offenders. The monitoring tool could also be used to watch the behavior of offenders who have just come out of jail. "Being able to monitor offenders 24 hours a day gives corrections agencies a way to ensure that an offender stays clean if he or she is released" said Ed Maier, director of SecurityLink's electronic monitoring solutions group. The technology could save lives as well as reduce costs. According to Derse Smith Todd, executive director of Business Against Drunk Drivers, the technology could help slow the rate of fatalities caused by drunk driving, which account for up to 40 percent of all road deaths. "We need stricter enforcement for repeat offenders. It would be better to incarcerate these people at home or on the job, than not at all," Todd said. Todd noted that state laws vary in their severity, which could prevent widespread deployment of the system. "There is no uniformity in the 50 states' legal stance toward drunk driving offenses, they'll have to overcome a logistic nightmare." Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:36:37 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Sex Sites Stiffed in Credit-Card Wrangle May 28, 1999 By Lessley Anderson Are online billing firms stiffing the porn industry? DMR, a third-party processing company that handles credit-card transactions between adult sites and Visa, has imposed fines and new customer billing rules that have its adult-site clients fuming. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,4729,00.html ------------------------------ From: Wrong@home.net (Wrong Number) Subject: Re: PBX or Hybrid? Date: 2 Jun 1999 03:42:37 GMT Organization: Your Organization Reply-To: badams@infi.net In today's world it is almost impossible to get a true "KEY" or "PBX" system. Virtually everything is "hybrid" systems ... just because you only use it as a key or PBX makes no difference ... it is still a hybrid. Bill ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Myterious Intercept Message Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:42:59 -0400 In article , wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) wrote: > My wife and her mother have this arrangement: my wife phones her > mother every Tuesday and Thursday evening, and my M-in-L phones my > wife every Sunday morning. > This has been going on for years. Suddenly, within the past few weeks > (I'm afraid I don't know exactly), my M-in-L claims she is no longer > able to call our number. > She lives in Queens, NY and her number is (718) 441-NNNN. Last I > heard, she had MCI (having been slammed from AT&T some years ago and > deciding it wasn't worth the hassle to get it changed back). > We live in Cambridge, MA and our number is (617) 876-NNNN. Our LD > carrier is and always has been AT&T . > We are both Bell Atlantic customers. > My M-in-L says that when she dials our number she gets a recording > saying approximately the following: "It (or probably "This number") is > not on [the/our] network. Please call the head office." I've heard a similar intercept on the horrible long distance service that my office uses. They were blocking all calls to new AT&T Wireless PCS numbers in the Boston market, when that system went on line last year. However, in my case, I was able to reach an additional intercept that identified a Cambridge tandem office as the source. Your mother-in-law may have been slammed again. She should try dialing 00 to see which LD company's operator picks up. There's a chance that it may not be MCI (1-700-555-5151 may not be enough, since not all carriers identify themselves). ------------------------------ From: Ken M. Subject: Re: AT&T New charges Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 07:20:25 -0400 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com R. Derr wrote: > Today I received a letter from AT&T that my monthly phone bill > will be increased $3.00 for AT&T charges; whether or not I use AT&T > has nothing to do with it. > If I do use their services, for example $2.50 per month,then the > added charge will be 50 cents. > I am served by Bell Atlantic, do not use AT&T for anything because > their rates are excessive, any long distance calls I make are by one > of the 10 cent per minute carriers. > There is no way out of these AT & T charges, there are options, but > all are to the benefit of AT & T, with the customer getting the shaft > as usual. > How do they get away with this banditry? if all the phone customers > in the US get the same charges, AT&T will have to get a fleet of > tractor trailers to carry the money to the bank. > Maybe time for a class action suit against these greedy corporate bandits. Blame the FCC. They wanted to deregulate everything, including cable prices, and you should see my cable TV bill rising every year! I have avoided all this by using prepaid calling cards for my long-distance calls. They are available at Sam's Club and the rate is 10 cents per minute ... and my intrastate calling is now much cheaper, too. When you can find a REAL bargain, let me know. (ken) See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at: http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, excuse me here a minute ... We in the Digest did not get the original of this letter that I am aware of, unless I was asleep when it got approved, and I have seen or heard nothing of some mandatory AT&T charge for all phone customers everywhere. Perhaps 'R. Derr' or 'Ken M.' would not mind sending along a copy of the actual letter or notice received. Has anyone here on the mailing list heard of such a thing? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:02:55 GMT >> I doubt that most people in the US would be willing to eliminate >> completely their ability to place phone calls to over a dozen >> Caribbean countries (which is what your plan would do, since those >> countries have no separate country codes of their own)... > [...] If you're placing an international call, isn't is reasonable > to expect that you would use the international dialing prefix? If it were up to me, I would require that telco's charge roughly the same rates (say +/- 25%, maybe even 50%) to every area within an area code, or warn the customer about charges when a call is more expensive. I don't expect a call to Zurich to cost 10 times what a call to Geneva does, so would should a call to +1 cost 20 times what another call to +1 does? Telco's could then charge $.10/min or so to the Caribbean (the way they do with ENGLAND now!) or warn the customer of higher rates. It's pretty simple, doesn't require changing the NANP, and doesn't single out the and doesn't single out the Caribbean unless rates are exceedingly high. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why ? Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:23:28 +0200 J.F. Mezei wrote in message ... > What is the basic difference between the two? Why would telcos not > choose a single technology? ADSL stands for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line xDSL is Digital Subscriber Line technologies -- ADSL, DSL-lite, HDSL/SDSL, VDSL -- that use twisted copper pair to support broadband transmission rates. So DSL must be one of these. ADSL has lower up-stream speed than down-stream (towards customer). Can be 0,.6 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/sec as an example, again dependant on distance. Other DSL versions are symetric. Regards R. ------------------------------ From: James Wyatt Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:59:06 -0500 Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!) On Mon, 31 May 1999, Leonard Erickson wrote: > JF Mezei writes: >> I have a pocket organizer with modem and an accoustic coupler. I limit >> the modem to 2400 baud (with compression). [ ... ] > Well, it's a minor miracle that you *ever* got it to work. Acoustic > couplers are generally *barely* adequate for 300 bps. There were a few > made for 1200 bps Racal-Vadic. But I've *never* heard of them being > reliable at 2400. A 300/1200bps modem sould easily get to 2400b with *compression*. They are still sending 300/1200bps data, it just has all the air squeezed-out. 8{) The only true 2400b modems I know were Bell 201 *Bisync* modems. (Actually Sync modems w/Bisync protocol) When converting EDI gateways two years ago during a railroad merger, we found a customer with one! It was so reliable that their personnel hadn't used the (forgotten) manual fall back in 3-5 years ... When they (frequently) needed to order railcars, their console operator would hand-dial our 800-number, put the handset in the cradle, and hit 'start'. When the lights stopped blinking, they would hang-up. Sometimes you turn-over a rock and find some new (or old and forgotten) species in the IT world. Sometimes it's best to smash it with that rock so it never shows-up again ... Jy@ ------------------------------ From: Russell Blau Subject: Re: Using V&H to Calculate Distance Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:45:27 PDT Scott Prugh wrote: > I found the following in TELECOM Digest: > Within North America, rate distance is calculated using the "V&H" system. > V stands for "vertical" (north-south position) and H for "horizontal" > (east-west position). Each exchange is represented by a location expressed > as a V&H co-ordinate. A rate distance can be calculated from two V&H > co-ordinate sets based on Pythagorean Theorem, i.e. rate distance = > sqrt((V1-V2)^2+(H1-H2)^2)/10 where (V1,H1) is the V&H for one end of a > call, and (V2,H2) represents the other end of a call. > Seems pretty easy. So I pulled out my LERG and took the switch > coordinates for two switches: > SW1 = 'PSWYNJPIDS5' (v1,h1) = (5080,1444) -- PISCATAWAY > SW2 = 'ACMEWAXARS1' (v2,h2) = (6102,8901) -- SEATTLE > And plugged away: > rd = sqrt( (5080-6102)^2 + (1444-8901)^2 )/10 > rd = sqrt( -1022^2 + -7457^2)/10 > rd = sqrt( 1044484 + 55606849)/10 > rd = sqrt( 56651333)/10 > rd = 7526/10 > rd = 752 > This is obviously wrong, since Seattle is more that 752 miles from > Piscataway. > What's wrong here? Is the formula I have dated? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not a matter of the formula being > 'dated', since mathematical truths remain true regardless of when they > are pronounced. Two plus two has always equalled four. And I do not > really the earth has expanded *that much* if at all since the above > formula was given. Perhaps some readers can look it over and examine > your work to detirmine what went wrong. PAT] Yes, our world is getting smaller every day, but not *that* small. :-) Here's my non-expert but simple explanation of what went wrong -- a missing set of parentheses. Here's Scott's calculation with my correction shown by square brackets: rd = sqrt [( (5080-6102)^2 + (1444-8901)^2 )/10] rd = sqrt [( -1022^2 + -7457^2)/10] rd = sqrt [( 1044484 + 55606849)/10] rd = sqrt [( 56651333)/10] then sqrt(5665133.3) = 2380.15...; since airline mileages always get rounded *up* to the next integer, the answer is 2381, which sounds like it is in the right ballpark. Scott mistakenly based his calculation on a unit of .1 miles, which is understandable since the article he used as his reference got it wrong. You can't get from Piscataway to Seattle by going 102.2 miles in one direction and then 745.7 miles at a right angle to that. The actual unit is the square root of 0.1 miles, or about 0.316 miles per "coordinate." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:24:32 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back At 15:02 -0400 on 05/31/99, Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant)wrote: >> There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make >> that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used >> to test the ringer. Any idea what that number is or if there is a >> similar thing? > Here in suburban Philadelphia, it always varied from CO to CO. When I > was a kid, about twenty-five years ago, it was either 579 (wait for > dial tone) 6 (and hang up) or, less often 531 (wait) 6 (hang up). > Both of those codes are now legitimate NXX's in this area, and for a > while, they were using 550. I dunno what they are using, but I know > that 958-xxxx is reserved here for various telco purposes. Could be > something in that range. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 579 - wait for dial tone - 6 was the > way it happened here for many years. PAT] When I lived in the Bronx (NYC) in the 50s and early 60s (and had a 212-882 exchange), it was: 660 (wait) 6 (hang up) Looks like the number to get the section differed in the COs but the Function (6) was the same once you accessed it. There was also another Function (I think off the same menu) to have the phone number read back to you (used to make sure that the new line was assigned the correct number). ------------------------------ From: bob Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:19:21 -0400 Ah yes, bill memories of driving my parents crazy in Delco ... Five Seven Nine, Dialtone Six!! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What did you do, dial that, then run and hide while your mother had to run out of the shower to try and get the phone 'before it stopped ringing' only to find out that no one was there ... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #115 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 3 00:27:23 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA14553; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:27:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:27:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906030427.AAA14553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #116 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jun 99 00:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Andy Yee) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Ed Ellers) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Anthony Argyriou) Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan (Doc Wonmug) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (Thomas Reuben James) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Eric Morson) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Steve Uhrig) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (MCSMAN) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (L. Winson) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (L. Winson) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Joel Hoffman) Re: New Rules For Mail Drops (Derek Balling) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Anthony Argyriou) Re: It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed (Anthony Argyriou) Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Call (R. Rosenberg) Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Call (S. Pinkston) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: AXYXeXeX@XjXaXsXcX.XcXoXmX (Andy Yee) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Organization: Jasc Software, Inc. Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:42:17 GMT In article , nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home. com(Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does anyone remember when touch tone > phones only had *ten* keys, ie. no # or *, those were just blank spots > with nothing there. Then one day the phone man came around to each > house and swapped out the old key pad for a new one with all twelve > buttons. When asking him why he was doing that, he said 'one of these > days those keys will be used for special functions.' At that time of > course, pressing them did nothing, or possibly caused a reorder tone > but nothing else. That would have been in the late 1960's or early > 1970's. Occassionally, rarely, you still see a ten button touch tone > phone. PAT] Yes. My parents in Minneapolis, MN had such a phone downstairs. Our main phone in the kitchen however, had the 12 key pad. 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! ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:56:39 -0400 Pat, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: "The 'octothorpe' or # on the other hand usually sits on the end of a 'short string' of numbers as a way to signal the switching equipment not to wait for anything further, but to process, in context, what it has already received." It was also used in the Picturephone system to prefix a call -- pressing # first told the switch to set up all three connections (voice and two video pairs), while if you just dialed as usual you got only a voice connection. Western Electric made a few Touch-Tone pads in the 1960s with the octothorpe key -- marked V in this case -- but not the * key, for use in the Picturephone sets. Also, in the custom calling market trial on the Succasunna ESS in 1965-66 they had special 1500-type sets with a * key but not a # key! I believe 12-button 2500 sets were available back then at an extra charge for those who needed them for special applications; there were also external 12-key pads that could be added to a rotary dial phone to allow tone signaling in an area where Touch-Tone wasn't being offered yet. (Another adjunct was a Touch-Tone Card Dialer unit which, again, attached to a rotary phone for use in areas where Touch-Tone wasn't available; Western Auto had Touch-Tone Card Dialer phones in its stores for credit card authorization, and in non-Touch-Tone areas they had rotary Card Dialer sets with Touch-Tone Card Dialer adjuncts that were the same size as the phones themselves!) ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 01:17:57 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com chuck@xyz.nl (Chuck) wrote: > I live in Europe and was under the impression no US local telcos offer > free local calls. A colleague says that many include free, unlimited local > calls as part of the basic subscription. > Could someone settle this? If free calls are still possible, how > widespread is this? Please reply to this group as I am afraid to use a > real email address. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, 'Chuck', lots of USA telcos offer > unlimited calling at no extra charge in the subscriber's local area. > In smaller towns and villages, usually the entire thing is included. > In larger cities, some segment of the city surrounding the subscriber > will be part of his basic area in some cases. > For example, in Chicago the basic area is a distance of eight miles in > any direction, or normally, the subscriber's central office and the > offices next adjacent to him in any direction. The calls are not 'free'; > but they are untimed. As an example, for about three or four cents > you can make such a call and talk as long as desired, where calls to > places beyond the local or basic area are timed, at three or four > cents for each timed interval. This applies in Chicago to residential > subscribers only. Business subscribers get no basic or local area: > they pay three or four cents for each timed interval regardless of > where the called party is located within the 'local area' or LATA. In PacBell Land (Oakland, California, to be specific), you can get "Residence Flat Rate Service", which costs $11.25/month. All calls within "Zone 1 & 2" (which is about a 12 mile CO to CO radius) are "Included in your Flat Rate Service". Zone 3 includes the entire LATA (which extends from Campbell to Crescent City along California's Coast), and calls are priced by the minute, with first minute higher. Our "Flat Rate Service" sounds a better deal than Ameritech's equivalent. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: Doc Wonmug Subject: Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:58:26 +0900 Organization: Wonmug's World Steven wrote ... > Being the proud owner of oodles of little Japanese gadgets I feel > qualified to comment on this. Yes, the Japanese are infatuated with > small things. They've got pocket versions of nearly every office > device. Unfortunately (for video phone makers) the video phone never > caught on as an office device, or home device, so its pretty much > doomed to failure in its pocket version. Not so fast. Recalling the recent PuriKura fad here in Japan, and watching the young kids everywhere walking or even biking around with their little cellular phones, I fully expect them to adopt the pocket video phones as their next Big Thing. Although my 14-year-old daughter disagrees. Americans wrote off the video; the Japanese turned it into a regular part of daily life. History will repeat itself. Doc Wonmug, Tokyo http://wonmug.com ------------------------------ From: trj1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Thomas Reuben James) Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: 1 Jun 1999 13:04:45 GMT Organization: Mississippi State University Leonard Erickson (shadow@krypton.rain.com) wrote: >> I have a pocket organizer with modem and an accoustic coupler. I limit >> the modem to 2400 baud (with compression). > Well, it's a minor miracle that you *ever* got it to work. Acoustic > couplers are generally *barely* adequate for 300 bps. There were a few > made for 1200 bps Racal-Vadic. But I've *never* heard of them being > reliable at 2400. There's a company out there called Konexx that's selling a portable accoustic coupler "for travelers" nowdays at $128, and they claim that it can connect at 26000bps (look at http://xcom.site.yahoo.net/xcom/konaccoup.html). The problem with this is that even though the coupler CAN handle going this fast, America, specifically the payphones that most travelers might be using to connect cannot support things going this fast. In the US, the couplers rarely get to 2400bps, and as you said, are only reliable up to 1200. In the limited experience that I've had connecting from Europe, however, I have always been able to connect at 26000bps. I'm told that the fault in the American phone system is due to the use of carbon-packed diaphrams in the handset of the payphones, and that the European phones and their handsets are all digital. --------------------- |Thomas Reuben James| |trj1@ra.msstate.edu| |Cogito, ergo doleo.| --------------------- ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:26:51 -0400 Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back In SNET Connecticut-land, you dial 991, 992, or 994 depending on your local NXX, followed by your own XXXX. For example, for your number 768-2564 you would dial 991-2564. You will hear a dial tone. Then FLASH the switch-hook. A higher frequency single note tone will remain on the line. Hang up. Your phone will ring back, and when you answer you will again hear the single-note tone. Hang up again to cancel the procedure. Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:46:09 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio MCSMAN wrote: >> There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make >> that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used >> to test the ringer > Here in GTE-land, we just dial the number assigned to the phone, wait, > and get a recording "the number you have dialled is on your party > line. Please hang up and allow sufficient time for them to answer", > even if you are not on a party line (is anybody, anymore?). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you never take the receiver off the > hook again, does it just go on ringing forever, or does it time out > at some point? PAT] Pat, It times out just like normal ring. The Office no longer allows any line to ring indefinitely. That includes normal calling as well. I think the time-out value is somewhere around three minutes. ------------------------------ Date: 01 Jun 1999 22:51:44 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: mcsman@aol.com (MCSMAN) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back > Here in GTE-land, we just dial the number assigned to the phone, wait, > and get a recording "the number you have dialled is on your party > line. Please hang up and allow sufficient time for them to answer", > even if you are not on a party line (is anybody, anymore?). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you never take the receiver off the > hook again, does it just go on ringing forever, or does it time out > at some point? PAT] I believe it just times out after about thirty seconds. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It had to be longer than thirty seconds. My mother was never able to get out of the shower to answer the phone in that little time. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: 01 Jun 1999 23:21:46 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are all over; it varies from one > telco territory to another. The only thing they have in common is > that telco tries to keep them secret (they are now usually seven or > ten digit numbers; ie. in Chicago it is always 200-xxx-xxxx) and > as soon as they become common knowledge, telco changes them. PAT] Why does the telco keep them secret? In the old days perhaps, but now since we have to service our own phones and need to test them ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only do they keep them secret, if you use that as an excuse to get a ringback ('I have to fix my own phone') most telco repair clerks offer to help by calling you back themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Date: 01 Jun 1999 23:20:45 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > this information, the operator indicated that the call would be billed > as a regular directory assistance call. > I will be filing a complaint with my state Utilities and Transportation > commission, since AT&T recently won the right to carry intralata > traffic. I think that they should be forced to provide this information > for intralata traffic at least. I agree that the information should be available for free as it used to be. But I don't think AT&T should be obligated to provide it unless ALL carriers, large and small, are required to provide free (IMHO they should be.) > AT&T has jacked up other charges as well as instituting new ones. Everyone says competition has lowered long distance rates tremendously. Apparently that is not true. If we had true competition (in the economic sense), another player would step in and offer those services at a cheaper price. But I doubt that will happen. IF others offer those services, I suspect they'll be at the same price as AT&T. IMHO we consumers were better off before so-called "competition". Every time I make this claim I get flamed about the great bargains available now and the horrible conditions under the old Ma Bell. But the examples of the original post show it isn't true. > Unfortunately, AT&T is not alone in this practice. > Long distance companies seem increasingly desparate to squeeze every > penny of possible revenue out of consumers. Need I say more? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 02:23:43 GMT > If I'm right it means that collect and bill to third party and > emergency interupt and similar operator handled services are money > losers. Drop them. Though I've said it before, this is a perfect case in point, and so I'll repeat myself: This is the problem with thinking that telco service should be commercially viable. Telco service should be part of the infrastructure that a government provides its people, along with such items as a transportation network, law-enforcement, border defense, and so forth. Imagine if someone started complaining that, say, the fire department was losing money and so it would first be privatized and then deregulated, so that consumers could choose the fire-fighters of their choice! How would that be different than the current telco fiasco? -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not be a lot different, except perhaps for the immediacy of the circumstances if your neighbor's house caught on fire and he had never bothered to select some fire department to respond. Obviously you would have to call yours instead, and then attempt to get him to pay the bill for it later. I strongly and sincerely believe the *ONLY* legitimate function of government is to perform those services which the people being governed would find too inconvenient or impractical to perform for themselves. Protection against fires is one such task and other natural disasters. I would place most utility services in this same category. Arrangements for water, electrical and gas distribution on an individual basis would be very difficult or impossible. I am almost ready to say telephone networks should be in that category, but if telephones, then why not ISPs, the computer equivilent of the 'phone company'? But as things are going now, it may not be long before ISPs are in fact regulated in much the same way telcos are regulated by federal and state agencies. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 11:26:11 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: New Rules For Mail Drops > I would assume the law prevents private mailbox agents from going off > willy nilly doing whatever they want, if they want the Postal Service > to deliver mail to them? > Otherwise, why are they complying with the new PMB standard now? Because until now, there's never been any reason to NOT tell the USPS to go to hell. :) >> Then the only problem remaining is: How do you get the mail from the >> postman's hands into the storage units? Simple. We've all seen ads for >> some magazine, say "Time" ... if you see the ad in say the NYTimes, it >> might have the same address with "Dept NYT", and if you see it in the >> Tribune, it might have "Dept. CT".... that's all you're doing now, is >> targeted sorting of mail. > The Dept XYZ thingies do not direct the mail elsewhere -- they are > used to tell the recipient where the ad was read -- it identifies the > mazagine or city where the ad appeared, and measures the effectiveness > of advertising in that magazine or city. Agreed, but to do that there must be some sort of sorting or counting mechanism in place. And frequently it IS used for sorting (where Dept S might be subscriptions, and department C might be collections, but all sharing the same physical address). Regardless, it becomes a method that the lessor of storage space can use to allow his tenants to continue to receive mail. :) D ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 23:31:24 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com John David Galt wrote: > Quoth Matthew Black : >> I'm told the US Postal Service will soon implement new rules regarding >> private mailbox companies. Users will no longer be permitted the use >> of "Suite" to imply a business presence. Rather, private mailbox >> users must indicate something like "PPO BOX" instead of "Suite" so >> customers will know that there is no business presence at the >> location. This sounds eminently reasonable - it's just a truth-in-labelling law. >> The USPS will also force the private mailbox operator to >> keep a photocopy of the box owners' drivers license on file for public >> inspection. The law provides that anyone can ask for the box user's >> registration information (drivers license). While these rules will >> help stop marketing scams similar to your message, it takes away >> individual privacy. This is scary -- not only does it violate individual privacy, it also gives the USPS an unfair competitive advantage. Under current PO Box rules, the post office has to give out the names of businesses which have PO Boxes, but they will not give out the information on private individuals without a court order. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: It Goes Two Ways, was Re: Sex Sites Getting Screwed Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 23:38:17 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com wkyr0xwb@my-deja.com wrote: > One internet service started charging me monthly charges, for the > first time, years after I'd canceled the free trial, and over a year > after I'd canceled the CC. The Microsoft Network tried that with me -- I signed up after getting a modem for my shiny new Windows 95 computer, and never managed to stay connected for long enough to cancel after I had given them my CC#. It took several complaints to the bank, a letter disclaiming any further authorization, and a threat to Microsoft to sic the local DA on them for fraud to get it to stop. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:30:04 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? At 16:38 -0400 on 05/31/99, Jaquelyn Knox > John Covert wrote about a claim he is pursuing. Here are some things > to watch for (I am by no means associated or knowledgeable of the > legal system, but if I can come up with this, I'm certain their legal > team can do the same or better): > * Since it was a single call, it does not constitute harassment. The best > you can probably expect is to have them comply with your request to > remove your name from their list. However, there is no regulation that > they cannot buy another database list from the same, or different, > source which contains your number again. If I remember correctly, the law requires them to parse all lists against "Do not Call" lists. Thus they are allowed to call you ONCE (or until you say to remove your name). Once you make the request, they are in violation if you are called again even if the number came from a new list they acquired not the one used to place the original call. ------------------------------ From: steve_pinkston@adc.com (Steve Pinkston) Subject: Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:49:53 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications Reply-To: steve_pinkston@adc.com On Sun, 30 May 1999 16:56:45 -0400, John R. Covert wrote: > Delivering commercial messages by pre-recorded voice is against the law. > See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.text.html I have no desire to make a federal case out of a petty annoyance. However, I'm not against having a little bit of anarchic fun with it. Here's what I do: Once the pitch starts, I start recording the pitch using the MEMO function of my answering machine. When the pitch stops, and the machine is waiting for my response, I quickly rewind and start playing back the pitch to them. The idea is that the marketers will listen to their tape, find the outgoing pitch where they expect to find a sucker's response, and they will take the machine offline for a little while, thinking it's malfunctioning! Yeah, they will be back on line soon, but I like thinking "made ya look!" - steve ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #116 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 3 01:37:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA17175; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:37:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906030537.BAA17175@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #117 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jun 99 01:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T New Charges (Derek Peschel) Re: Something Odd About Babel Fish (Steve Cogorno) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Jerry Mendes) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Brian F.G. Bidulock) Making The Phone System Tell You YOUR Number (Eric Morson) Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam (Bob Goudreau) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Tony Toews) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Al Iverson) Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron (John David Galt) Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron (Alan Boritz) Re: Online Privacy? (Eric Florack) CSU and PBX Compatibilty Issues (Kevin Lundy) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (Derek Peschel) Subject: Re: AT&T New charges Date: 3 Jun 1999 04:18:12 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article , Ken M. wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, excuse me here a minute ... We in > the Digest did not get the original of this letter that I am aware > of, unless I was asleep when it got approved, and I have seen or > heard nothing of some mandatory AT&T charge for all phone customers > everywhere. Perhaps 'R. Derr' or 'Ken M.' would not mind sending > along a copy of the actual letter or notice received. Has anyone here > on the mailing list heard of such a thing? PAT] Yes. I got the same letter. I'm pretty sure I threw it away but I can check later tonight. In my case the letter is more justified since AT&T is my long-distance carrier. Note I said "more justified", not "justified". Also in the envelope came a sign-up sheet allowing me to choose from AT&T's various payment plans (flat-fee, non-flat-fee, etc.) The letter clearly explained the $3 charge with examples. It ought to have also said, "Choosing a payment plan will not affect the $3 minimum charge in any way," but I don't believe it did. Because of the lack of that statement, the combination of the sign-up sheet and the letter could mislead a very gullible person, it seems to me. I should also note that the letter offered no real explanation of the purpose of the policy or who benefits. The charge could be banditry but I would also call it a subsidy. Derek [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a charge for EVERYONE who is a phone subscriber? I do not believe that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Cogorno Subject: Re: Something Odd About Babel Fish Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:59:16 PDT TELECOM Digest Editor said: > The first item is the relatively new intra-site search engine from > whatuseek.com and for all I know, Babel Fish does okay repeating > my English message. But then where the template appears at the bottom > of the paragrah, there are two 'radio' buttons. The first one is > 'search this site' and it is the default. The second button is > 'search the web'. In several of the Babel Fish translation efforts, > it *reverses the description of the two radio buttons* referring to > the intra-lata button as 'search the web' and the button for searching > the web as the one to use for telecom-archives. It does not change > the default condition; the first radio button is still the one > offered by default. > This seems to happen in every translation except German, in which the > text for each radio button remains as it was in English regards the > placement. Why might that be happening? I suspect this is because it is confused about the word order. In most European languages, the order of adjectives and nouns is opposite English. Babel Fish is probably reading both of those buttons as a single sentence and reversing the words. German uses the same ordering as English, so that might explain why German looks OK. > Another thing I have noticed is that sometimes Babel Fish will find > some entirely different place in a line of text to use as an anchor > instead of the words at the start of the line as I had them in > English. The anchor appears to go to the right place, it just is > elsewhere in the string than where I placed it. This is again probably is related to word order issues. ------------------------------ From: Jerry Mendes Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Date: 02 Jun 1999 23:28:08 PDT Organization: DataComm Insights Barry Margolin wrote: > In article , Steven J Sobol > wrote: >> ADSL - Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (more bandwidth down than >> up, good for consumers surfing the web, is cheaper than SDSL) >> SDSL - Synchronous DSL (same bandwidth both ways, more economical than >> a T-1) > Are you sure? I thought A and S stood for Asymmetric and Symmetric, > referring to the bandwidth provided in each direction. The difference is essentially in the modulation and coding schemes used to send data over the telco cables. xDSL is based on the premise that data transmission speeds in the megabit range are possible over the existing local loop plant (the UTP cables going to everyone's house and office) by using relatively new, innovative ways of driving the cable. There are many types of xDSL: ADSL, RADSL, VDSL, IDSL, SDSL, HDSL, and DSL Lite. None are line compatible with the others. Best place to read about the different types is at the ADSL Forum: http://www.adsl.com/site.html And then go to the glossary you find there. Jerry Mendes, Principal Consultant Voice: (415) 381-5500 DataComm Insights FAX: (415) 381-5502 150 Seminary Drive Email: mendes@datacomm-insights.com Mill Valley, California 94941 http://www.datacomm-insights.com ------------------------------ From: Brian F.G. Bidulock Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 01:56:48 -0500 Organization: Brian F. G. Bidulock, P. Eng. The `A' stands for Asymmetrical. Other DSL's are symmetrical (in uplink and downlink speeds) and do not rate the `A'. "J.F. Mezei" wrote: > A few years ago, the "dream" was that telcos would roll out ADSL and > compete against cable. > ADSL comes out and starts to be rolled out, but all of a sudden, DSL > comes out and goes to comsumers. > Here in Bell Canada territory, it seems that commercial customers get > ADSL whereas consumers get DSL. > What is the basic difference between the two? Why would telcos not > choose a single technology? Brian F. G. Bidulock, P. Eng. bidulock@dallas.net ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 09:28:38 -0400 Subject: Making The Phone System Tell You YOUR Number > From ANY phone in Connecticut, dial 970#, or 970 and wait.... The system will play an automated recording telling you the number you are calling FROM. Does this work anywhere else? If so, what is the dialing procedure? Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the Chicago area, it is one of the various 200-xxx-xxxx numbers telco uses for testing, ringbacks, etc. Like its ringback relative, it stays in secret. Try looking over the tech's shoulder as he dials it when working at your demarc, etc ... that's all I can suggest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:39:58 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Judge Freezes Funds In Internet Scam Eli Mantel wrote: >> I doubt that most people in the US would be willing to eliminate >> completely their ability to place phone calls to over a dozen >> Caribbean countries (which is what your plan would do, since those >> countries have no separate country codes of their own)... > You must have missed the original suggestion that calls to countries > other than the U.S. and Canada should require the use of the > international dialing prefix. No, actually, I didn't miss that (see my earlier articles), though it appears that you have missed the subsequent development of this thread. The poster I was responding to above had specifically suggested that the NANP Caribbean countries be completely kicked out of the NANP, area codes deallocated by NANPA, etc. This would render such countries uncallable from anywhere else in the world, until the ITU allocated new country codes to them. > If you're placing an international call, isn't is reasonable to > expect that you would use the international dialing prefix? Except that people who keep making this argument seem to feel that Canada doesn't qualify as "international", and have never met my earlier challenge of enumerating exactly what objective criteria should be used for deciding which NANP countries should be dialable using 1+10D and which should not. Absent such clear rules, the only fair thing to do would be to require 011-1- on calls to *all* international destinations, Canada included. Yet for some reason, some people seem to feel that it would be a Bad Thing to make it as difficult to dial those rich white Canadians as it they'd like for it to be when dialing those poorer, predominantly-black NANP countries in the Caribbean. I find the attitude somewhat remin- iscent of the way that certain long distance carriers disable calling-card calls to specific countries when the calls originate from certain "red-lined" ethnic neighborhoods. > Canada is a little on the iffy side. I expect there's both more phone > traffic between the U.S. and Canada Not surprising, since the US has most of the NANP's population, and Canada has a majority of the remainder. But on a percentage-of- total-outgoing-international-call-minutes basis, I suspect that some of these Caribbean countries would even outrank Canada, since the US tends to be far more important a trading partner to them than it is even to Canada. > as well as a good deal more cooperation between law enforcemenet > in the U.S. and Canada than there is between the U.S. and Caribbean > countries Again, another slippery, non-objective criterion, and one that is probably false for many of those Caribbean nations anyway. As far as law enforcement goes, remember that some of these countries actually request that US law enforcement authorites (Coast Guard and DEA, IIRC) patrol their own territorial waters to help limit the flow of drug traffic. And the prime minister of one Carribbean NANP country (Eugenie Charles of Dominica) was the leader of the delegation of Caribbean leaders who asked the US to invade Grenada after the coup there in the early 1980s. I don't think that even Canada, great friend and partner though it is, matches that level of "cooperation". Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you brought up the redlining comparison; I was thinking the same thing myself. I think the only way to legitimatly phrase this argument would be to say that almost every other country in the world has its own 'country code'; even very tiny places; so why should the USA have to share a country code, and let it go at that. If you start getting into the 'Canada is okay, but those people in the Caribbean have got to go elsewhere' you are going to have people looking sort of askance at your suggestion. It would come off sounding like 'the south side of Chicago should have a different area code for 'whatever' reason. A way to solve a couple problems at one time might be to sub-divide '1' into a few parts. With '12' through '19' not only would the USA get a few more ways of solving its area code crunch (recall my mention here awhile back of dividing us into two or three 'zones' allowing all existing area codes on each side to be duplicated on the other side -- or what the heck, give us four zones 12, 13, 14, 15 -- with Canada getting 16 and those warm-weather trouble makers on the little islands getting 17. Now, all the 'ones' would be in North America just as the 'threes' are mostly in Europe, etc. People now become alert to additional charges because 'that is in a different zone than I am'; so you have both a warning flag on the one hand and a huge expansion of area codes on the other. I would avoid '10' and '11' because of the confusion with 011+, 01+, 1010xxx, 0, 00, and 911. People would dial seven digits locally as now, ten or eleven digits for an area code within their zone, and 011-12-AC-xxx-xxxx for any call outside their 'zone' but in the NANPA. The only people who would see anything extra to dial would be the folks calling long distance *outside their zone*. People who make a lot of international calls would see no difference at all. Very few programming changes would have to be made, and no hardware mods at all I don't think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 05:17:04 GMT chuck@xyz.nl (Chuck) wrote: > I live in Europe and was under the impression no US local telcos offer > free local calls. A colleague says that many include free, unlimited local > calls as part of the basic subscription. Here in Canada, and I'm talking from personal experience, in the provinces Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the North West Territories, all local calling is free and unlimited. Unlike Pat's description of eight miles for local calling this is the total city such as Edmonton and out to all the suburbs. Now some of the suburbs can't call each other unless they're physically adjacent or "nearby". We pay an additional $.30 or $.50 called "Extended Flat Rate Calling" for this privilege. $1 if it's a business line. Vancouver is a bit different but even there the "nearby" suburbs, I think within 50 miles of the shoreline, are all local calls. In my small town I can call villages 20 miles north, 15 miles east and 30 miles west at no extra charge. However villages 25 miles north east and north west are long distance. What is also interesting is that I have free incoming calls from my clients are in a nearby big city outside that EFRC zone. There is one village of 400 people who have this EFRC to both that city and my small town. The provincial telco setup a call forwarding line in that village which forwards all calls to my phone here. In essense they have forfeited a bunch of long distance revenue for my fixed monthly fee for that call forwarding line. Do note that phone calls in the North West Territories outside your town/village are charged upwards of $3 per minute and sometimes use radio. The quality on some of those calls is obviously terrible. What is also interesting is looking at the phone book for some of the villages. Once you strip out the national companies ads, such as Air Canada, banks and whomever, the local RCMP, the local nursing station, and the telco bumpf, all you're left with is "Chiefs house". Message posted to newsgroup and, if appropriate, emailed. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or thousands of volunteers for special events. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of skinny phone books, that reminds me of Nevada Bell, which had almost the entire state in one fairly small book, for a number of years, sometimes with four or five communities all on the same page. After all, the only two entries for the place may be 'toll station 1' and 'toll station 2'. In a slightly bigger example, the phone book for Junction City, KS is about 80 pages in total, including a dozen nearby smaller towns in their own separate sections, of sometimes a single page. And of those 80 or so pages, more or less in the middle is one single 'subscriber' -- Fort Riley, a large military base -- with 39 consecutive pages of listings for every department, every facility, every barracks, etc, including their dialing instructions, procedures for that telephone exchange, etc, but only for military numbers. 'Tenants' at Fort Riley are listed in the Junction City part of the book, with 'FTR' given as part of their address, and '784' being the main clue to their location. PAT] ------------------------------ From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Organization: See sig before replying Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 01:15:40 GMT In article , chuck@xyz.nl (Chuck) wrote: [snip] > Thanks for your help. Telecom Digest editor wrote: > More important question of you: why are you 'afraid to use a real > email address'? If spam, or an invasion of privacy is your main Uh ... what? chuck@xyz.nl looks perfectly real to me. I went to http://www.xyz.nl and it's there. I assume that it's an ISP in the Netherlands. Al Iverson radparker.com Al Iverson -- Web: http://al.radparker.com/ -- Home: Minneapolis, USA Visit the Radparker Relay Spam Stopper at http://relays.radparker.com. STOP! Include SWANKY99 in email replies or they may be tagged as spam. Send me no unsolicited advertising, as I will always return it to you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I was doing was quoting from his letter. Apparently however, a lot of people like the idea of a new anonynmous email address; http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice has seen a large number of subscribers in the past week. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 01:23:13 GMT > Raytheon Inc. obtained subpoenas to identify 21 people, most of them > employees, said to have been spreading corporate secrets and gripes in > an anonymous online chat room. It then dropped a lawsuit it had > brought against the 21, each identified as "John Doe," indicating to > privacy experts that the company had gone to court in the first place > only to learn the identities of the chatters. Four employees quit; > others entered corporate "counseling." This sounds like an open-and-shut case of invasion of privacy, misuse of legal process, and maybe even malicious prosecution. I hope these people have a good lawyer. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Search Warrants Make 'Online Privacy' an Oxymoron Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:50:53 -0400 In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: >> "Ultimately, if you break the law, it can be traced," said >> ... In response to orders in civil cases, AOL may give out >> information allowing someone's real name to be matched to a screen name. >> Raytheon Inc. obtained subpoenas to identify 21 people, most of them >> employees, said to have been spreading corporate secrets and gripes in >> an anonymous online chat room. It then dropped a lawsuit it had >> brought against the 21, each identified as "John Doe," indicating to >> privacy experts that the company had gone to court in the first place >> only to learn the identities of the chatters. Four employees quit; >> others entered corporate "counseling." > One could argue a legitimate reason for searching (with _legitimate_ > and realistic probable cause) online accounts for criminal activity. > But AOL also will give _civil_ case information out. That's a completely > different situation. If someone is cheating on their spouse, that's sad, > but there is no public interest in violating that person's privacy. > Frightening. Simple economics. If AOL defied the enraged complainants, they'd be constantly fighting expensive lawsuits. However, if they abuse some of their customers, they'll just lose a little income when they leave. AOL has little to lose by abusing their customers, since they're able to attract many replacements for ones they chase away. > More frightening is how Raytheon (cited above) sought out disgruntled > employees. Here we have a case of people doing absolutely nothing > wrong nor immoral, yet their privacy was violated. Raytheon is a government contractor with powerful influence. With AOL's eager please-don't-sue-me corporate policy, it's a natural match. > (BTW, a few years ago Proctor & Gamble demanded and received _home_ > telephone records of employees to search out who was talking to > newspaper reporters). Proctor & Gamble is another company with powerful government influence. It took some heavy influence to convince them to give up the idea of building a new corporate headquarters on one of the most photographed scenic areas in the US, in Scottsdale, Arizona. > When I am in my employer's workplace, they have a legal right to tap > my telephone (it is really _their_ phone not mine), go through my > desk or computer, or put microphones in the bathroom. And a lot of > employers are doing just that. (The euphemism is "loss prevention"). There are differing legal opinions on that issue. One hold that since the phone belongs to the employer, and the employee may be on employer's time, then the conversation belongs to the employer, too. another holds that the employee is entitled to reasonable privacy and therefore the conversation can not be recorded without the employee's permission. ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Online privacy? Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:40:10 -0400 > Last year, a major telecommunications equipment company, the one who > makes the things that makes communications work or something like > that, notified all employees who accessd the company network from the > outside that every time they accessed the network, the company would > examine the contents of their PCs. > Why? To make sure (make sure?) all of the programs were y2k > compatible. > Needless to say many employees didn't think much of this idea, and > after a week or two of trying to justify it, the company backed down > and said only those who connect from the outside at more than ISDN > rates would have their PCs searched. This has nothing at all to do with privacy, I suspect, but has more to do with the amount of time needed to execute the inspection routines and send the data back through a 28.8kb connection. The users generally don't scream too loud about 'invasion', as much as they do about the length of time it takes to run a login script. We ran into the same sitrep at Xerox where I was employed until a couple years ago. > The company still searches the contents of internal PCs that log onto > the internal network but that's probably going to continue and > employees just have to watch what's on their PCs. One positive reason > given is to be able to periodically download the new VirusScan files > to all PCs. And it got used and got some positive publicity when > Melissa and friends came along. You're overblowing this whole thing, just like the various virus attacks which few people ever see anymore in this country. (You, in the editorial sense.) The fact is that the 'inspection" routine is likely as not, an off the shelf package such as Clicknet, or Asset Insight, which get used to collect config information, as well as serial number info from the PC's BIOS (Inventory control) and software config. Makes it easier to develop inhouse software solutions if you have some idea of what the equipment population is like. And that's about all such things are going to get. I've used several over the last few years ... I've been in PC/Lan support for several years. Sorry, I simply don't see this as as big an issue as it's being made into. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Lundy Subject: CSU and PBX Compatibility Issues Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:55:49 GMT Organization: @Home Network Has anyone ever heard of compatibility issues between a CSU and PBX equipment? I've always thought a CSU was a CSU (features, programma- bility, price ignored). But I seem to have an issue with a Lucent T1 DS card and an ADTRAN CSU, that seems to point at compatibility. Any thoughts? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #117 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 3 13:47:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA12284; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906031747.NAA12284@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #118 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jun 99 13:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 118 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoIP via Cable Runs Into QOS (John Stahl) What is favicon.ico ??? (TELECOM Digest Editor) Acoustic Couplers (was Re: payphone is HNL) (David Scheidt) Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) (Someone) Cable Telephony (Ed Ellers) High Court Tunes Out CNN Ride-Along Appeal (Monty Solomon) Another Entry For the Business Directory (David Chessler) Looking For Business Usage Statistics (Lance Ware) Employment - You're Invited! (Michael MacDonald) Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? (Isaac Wingfield) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (Alan Fowler) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Joseph T. Adams) Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan (Arthur Ross) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Daniel Norton) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Jeremy Pickett) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Brian C. Kohn) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 03 Jun 1999 09:43:17 From: John Stahl Subject: VoIP via Cable Runs Into QOS The following telecom related article describes the status of QOS on the companies who are contemplating providing telephone (VoIP) via their cable tv systems to the vast multitude of potential customers. Seems the VoIP advocates who propose to use cable to get to their potential customers have found QOS ("Five nines") life-line requirements a definite challenge when related to their system's components from the switch to the customer modem. According to this article from Inter@ctive magazine, even AT&T, with it's recent multi-billion dollar acquisitions of TCI and Media One, is rethinking their approach to this service proposal. AT&T should know what the 'standards' for life-line service are! Wonder if the cable telecom advocates will ever be able to meet the same standards as the incumbent telco's? --------------------------- Cable Reaches For A Voice Service Lifeline By Fred Dawson, Special To Inter@ctive Week May 27, 1999 4:37 PM ET The cable industry is being forced to rethink the all-or-nothing approach to launching Internet Protocol telephony services amid increasing evidence that something in between will be the only option for service rollouts next year. Not only have engineers determined that the most immediately available voice-over-Internet Protocol (IP) architecture will not meet the reliability standard for first-line service set by Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bell Communications Research) and endorsed by AT&T, but service planners also recognize that the power requirements of modems to be used to connect voice subscribers to the packet cable channel stand in the way of meeting first-class performance metrics. Observers say it will take another two generations of silicon for those power requirements to come down to meet those metrics. "It will take roughly another 18 months before we see external modems that consume only one [watt] or two watts of power, which is the power level you need if you're going to be able to back up voice-over-IP in providing a lifeline service," says Rouzbeh Yassini, executive consultant to Cable Television Laboratories, the testing arm of the cable industry. Settle down Industry insiders say vendors are working on compromises that would toggle down modem functions to accommodate lower power consumption at something less than first-class performance levels during power outages, thereby allowing battery backup power to keep lifeline service operating. This would leave just enough wiggle room for cable companies to offer first-line services in residential markets. With the newly released specifications for version 1.1 of the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) cable modem standard, operators will be able to deliver quality-of-service (QOS), multiple lines and enhanced features for IP telephony that match or surpass today's residential analog toll service, Yassini says. A growing number of cable operators plan to begin trials of IP voice services before the year is out, with commercial launches following in early 2000, says John Burke, vice president of marketing for the advanced networks and telecommunications systems group at cable equipment maker General Instrument. GI recently signed a deal with Telcordia that will make Telcordia's call control and other operations management technologies available over GI's hardware. "There are some operators who want to move as quickly as they can and will deploy services in advance of completion of some of the formal standards," Burke says. "Our intention is to move very quickly to commercial availability by the end of the year." GI's DOCSIS 1.1 modem, based on chips from Broadcom, is set to ship toward the end of next month, even though software needed for full compliance with the DOCSIS 1.1 standard isn't available yet. "We believe the software will be available for downloading in the third quarter," Burke says. CableLabs expects to begin certification testing for DOCSIS 1.1 modems this fall, with the first vendors likely reaching compliance in April 2000, Yassini says. Because the key interoperability issues are software-related, cable operators can deploy precertified modems and then download software to achieve DOCSIS 1.1 compliance later, he says. Back and forth at AT&T The realization that IP telephony technology won't be fully toll-service-compliant until sometime in 2001 has affected planning at AT&T. While AT&T Chief Executive C. Michael Armstrong clearly wants to offer first-line quality service that's scalable to millions of users before moving to the IP platform, he has stressed the need to begin making the transition to IP in 2000, away from the much more expensive circuit-switched proprietary systems used to deliver cable telephony. AT&T's preferred IP telephony architecture - known as Distributed Open Signaling Architecture - is incompatible with the Multimedia Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) approach that is likely to be ready for deployment before DOSA. "MGCP offers an easy path to getting started in IP telephony, but it may not be the architecture that would allow us to evolve as our market base expands and we add new services," says Chuck Kalmanek, an engineering executive at AT&T Labs. "You want to be able to offer the customer the benefits of functionalities offered from the network side, where we can do things in a more cost-effective manner. But you have to be in a position to give the user a choice between network-based and premises-based functionalities." DOSA offers a means for end-user authentication that protects against fraud in a more robust fashion than is possible with MGCP, Kalmanek says. AT&T wants to make sure that when users take advantage of special QOS parameters, they can't bypass the registration of such use with the network management system. AT&T also is seeking to make dynamic allocation of QOS an element of DOCSIS 1.1, says Dave Bukovinsky, director of the CableLabs Packet Cable initiative, which is responsible for setting the specifications for IP telecommunications. Dynamic allocation, in which QOS is assigned based on the requirements of a particular application when that application is in use, should be defined as part of the 1.1 draft specs within the next two months, he says. Packet Cable has made DOSA a part of its phase-one specifications agenda and plans to issue most of the specs in August, Bukovinsky adds. "AT&T has had the effect of accelerating the inclusion of solutions in the specifications that we otherwise would have addressed later," he says. Bukovinsky acknowledges, however, that DOSA is trailing the MGCP-based architecture in the development process. Given the breadth of industry commitment to MGCP and the speed with which DOCSIS 1.1 implementations are coming to market, it appears that even AT&T won't be willing to sacrifice a year or more in the waiting process to begin the transition to IP telephony, even if the first iteration isn't everything the carrier is hoping for. ----- submitted by ------ John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:04:19 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: What is favicon.ico ??? Something about the telecom-digest.org website has bugged me for awhile now; maybe someone knows the answer ... I review the error logs each day, seeking errors on links, and people looking for things that no longer exist (like older messages from TELECOM_Digest_Online which have been moved around or removed, etc) as well as visits from bots of one kind or another. Every now and then, maybe 2-3 times per week, I will see someone looking for something totally off-the-wall, a file I do not have at all, never did have, etc ... and I assume they just plugged in the URL, went to look for it, found their error and went on their way, etc. One that shows up quite often is 'favicon.ico', always called by different sites, never so far as I can tell the same place ... and sometimes the error report says they looked for it in the root directory, or sometimes in one of the archives sub-directories. I thought nothing much of it, but Wednesday I pulled the error log specifically to look for my own entries, having had sort of a hard time gettting a couple of things placed where I wanted them, etc ... and guess what? The error log had *me* trying to pull 'favicon.ico' six or eight times! I have never heard of such a file, never had it on line here, and I know for a fact what I did and did not type in this morning that created some of my own errors. In my case, it had me looking for favicon.ico about five or six times over a two or three minute period. What runs things in the background at lcs.mit.edu is Netscape 1.1 server. I did a search using Infoseek for 'favicon.ico' figuring maybe some site with a collection of freeware icons or similar might have such a thing. All Infoseek came up with was five or six websites in total, none of which, let's say, appealed to me. Even scanning a couple of them, I saw no apparent reference to 'favicon.ico'. As I actually edit this to go out early Thursday afternoon, another quick check of the log shows it appearing a couple times today also. Suggestions, ideas? PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 19:55:20 CDT From: David Scheidt Subject: Acoustic Couplers (was Re: payphone is HNL) Leonard Erickson writes: > JF Mezei writes: >> I have a pocket organizer with modem and an accoustic coupler. I limit >> the modem to 2400 baud (with compression). > Well, it's a minor miracle that you *ever* got it to work. Acoustic > couplers are generally *barely* adequate for 300 bps. There were a few > made for 1200 bps Racal-Vadic. But I've *never* heard of them being > reliable at 2400. You haven't been keeping up. Acoustic couplers are alive and well, if useful for a somewhat limited market segment. I used to have one I travelled with. It worked very well to 9600 bps, as long as the line was good. One of the catalogs of over-priced stuff for travelers that I get had one that claimed to be able to do 28.8 Kbps. David Scheidt dscheidt@enteract.com "[C]ows are extremely mammalian." -- Dr I. A. York ------------------------------ From: "Someone" Subject: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:01:34 -0700 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions here! I see that beginning 3/15/99, US West is charging all telephone subscribers 53 cents per line for "Service Provider Number Portability." Great! Now that I'm paying for it, where can I get it? There are no alternative companies from which I can get dialtone! Is this just another "hidden tax?" We are compelled to pay the phone company as a de-facto tax-collection arm of the federal government, while getting nothing in return. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Cable Telephony Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:59:21 -0400 J.F. Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote: > You may start to see phones that plug into the ethernet backbone to which > the cable modem is attached in your house. The plan that cable companies are talking about involves a separate box, attached to the cable TV drop line, that then provides one or two RJ-11 jacks to connect to normal telephone devices. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:49:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: High Court Tunes Out CNN Ride-Along Appeal By Jonathan Ringel Fulton County Daily Report June 2, 1999 The U.S. Supreme Court has turned a deaf ear to CNN's attempt to undo a lower court ruling exposing it to liability for invading a Montana couple's privacy. In part two of a closely watched case dealing with media ride-alongs, the justices on Tuesday denied the cable network's request for certiorari from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. CNN v. Berger, No. 97-1914 (U.S. June 1, 1999). http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A1949-1999Jun1.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:54:59 -0400 From: David Chessler Subject: Another Entry for the Business Directory [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David Chessler sends along still another entry for the 'Telecom Digest Business Directory' that I published here a couple months ago. Do these things never come to an end? PAT] ------------------ Attached find a SPAM. This is the third or fourth I've received from this bunch, judging by the phone number (only the extension is different). I generally call about 11 at night from a payphone and leave a nice, long message on their voicemail, one message for each new extension, so I haven't actually talked to these people. Received: from 210.161.155.2 [208.157.20.10] by nm195 via mtad (2.6) with ESMTP id 796DFBsFd0012M19; Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:05:30 GMT Message-ID: <79402.62880@210.161.155.2> From: sandra12547@postchi.com Bcc: Reply-To: Subject: YOU KNOW ITS TIME (178371) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ACCEPT CREDIT & DEBIT CARDS OVER THE INTERNET, HOME, OR OFFICE > - NO SET-UP FEES - > Good Credit/Bad Credit/No Credit You will still get a merchant account. > ***FAST AND EASY*** > You will summons you customer's impulse buying through a secured service. > They will simply enter their credit card information and will > receive an a pproval within 5 seconds. > That's all there is to it!!! > From that point on the sale is complete and the money will be > directly deposited into your checking account within 24 to 48 hours. > LIQUID CASH! > Call the following number NOW and Get Started > Guaranteed!! 1-800-242-0363 Ext 1675 ************************************************************* 90737 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh great! Just what we need, a little more credit card fraud on the net. We don't have enough of that already? It is going to get to where no one believes anything anyone says online, or has it already gotten that way? Follow the routine for him please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lance Ware Subject: Looking For Business Usage Statistics Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:09:20 -0700 Can anyone point me to some general business phone usage statistics? Spefically, I'm looking for the average cost (per employee would work) on local and long distance calls. I realize it will change significantly per industry, and would love to see those numbers, but I'm looking for a baseline. I've seen the FCC report that has some numbers on residential usage, but that doesn't help. Thanks, Lance ------------------------------ From: global35@iname.com (Michael MacDonald) Subject: Employment - You're Invited! Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:14:24 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, here is a new variety of spam I don't think I have seen before. Notice how he 'saw my presence on the Internet' ... Lord, I would hope he saw it, I have been around long enough. Do you think his thing below is for real, or is it just a way of verifying a few more addresses or spam purposes? PAT] ------------------------ Hello, Employment - You're Invited! My name is Michael MacDonald, manager of 3-DNET. I noticed your presence on the Internet. Massive layoffs and downsizings of the early 1990's may be behind us, but rightsizing is here to stay. Did you know that the average employee remains in his/her job just for 2-3 years ! It would be an honour to include your background on our active database. If interested in further details please let me know via global35@iname.com Please do NOT send your resume YET. Membership in 3-DNET is by invitation ONLY ! Thank you, Michael [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By invitation only! My, aren't we the lucky ones, to have been invited! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:57:32 -0700 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Re: ADSL and DSL, What is the Difference and Why? J.F. Mezei asked about it on Fri, 28 May 1999 18:59:50 ... > A few years ago, the "dream" was that telcos would roll out ADSL and > compete against cable. > ADSL comes out and starts to be rolled out, but all of a sudden, DSL > comes out and goes to comsumers. > Here in Bell Canada territory, it seems that commercial customers get > ADSL whereas consumers get DSL. > What is the basic difference between the two? Why would telcos not choose > a single technology? DSL stands for "Digital Subscriber Line (or Loop)". The "A" means "Asymmetric"; that is, different data rates to and from the subscriber. High bandwidth delivery to you, lower bandwidth return. There are so many flavors of DSL that you often see "xDSL" as a generic descriptor. There may be underlying technology differences, but that's not the fundamental reason for the various names. I have a suspicion that consumers didn't like having the low-bandwidth upstream rate made so obvious, so the telco simply stopped saying it. All of the DSL schemes use sophisticated modulation techniques and serious signal processing to jam a high bitrate onto a standard telco loop. To some extent, what you use for one direction gets taken away from what you can use in the other -- there's only a certain amount of "room" on the wire. They all use frequencies well above the voice range, so they work on an existing pair without compromising the "POTS" function -- you can add DSL onto your existing analog service, on the same pair. The telcos are still trying to figure out which technology give them the best performance on the worst lines at the lowest cost, not at all an easy analysis, especially with signal processing power getting cheaper every day. Isaac Wingfield ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 10:35:56 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia James Wyatt wrote: > The only true 2400b modems I know were Bell 201 *Bisync* modems. > My recollection is that the NASCOM data network for the Apollo Project > were all 2400 bit/s 4-wire modems using 800 symbols/s with three > bits/symbol. I thought the ones we used were Western Electric not Bell. Regards, Alan ------------------------------ From: joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: 3 Jun 1999 12:02:45 GMT Organization: Quality Data Division of JTAE Tony Toews (ttoews@telusplanet.net) wrote: > Here in Canada, and I'm talking from personal experience, in the > provinces Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia > and the North West Territories, all local calling is free and > unlimited. > Unlike Pat's description of eight miles for local calling this is the > total city such as Edmonton and out to all the suburbs. We have the same thing in the greater Cleveland, Ohio area. The city, all of its older suburbs, and many of the newer suburbs in outlying counties all are in one more or less free, unlimited local calling area - among the largest yet remaining if I understand correctly. (Cleveland with its suburbs is a little less than half the size of Toronto or Chicago - about a thousand square miles and 2-3 million people.) We also have a relatively sane area code split: 216 inside city limits and most adjacent suburbs, 440 for everything else north of a geographical line, and 330 for everything south of that line. Thus far, no overlays. A few suburbs such as Parma are split between 216 and 440. People within the metro area but outside the area local to Cleveland can extend their local calling area to include it for a monthly fee of (I think) US $20 or so. On the negative side: no DSL; no cable modem access in the city or inner suburbs (to my knowledge); switching facilities are 50 years old and don't consistently support high-speed modems, and it's a nightmare to try to get any of the the telcos (Ameritech, GTE, and Alltel) to install new capacity. Joe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:09:10 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan Doc Wonmug wrote: > Not so fast. Recalling the recent PuriKura fad here in Japan, and > watching the young kids everywhere walking or even biking around with > their little cellular phones, I fully expect them to adopt the pocket > video phones as their next Big Thing. Although my 14-year-old daughter > disagrees. > Americans wrote off the video; the Japanese turned it into a regular > part of daily life. History will repeat itself. Can't resist ... This reminds me of the hot stock market tip from one of Peter Lynch's books. He's the guy who made something like $20 billion as manager of the famous Fidelity Magellen Fund (not to be confused with David Lynch, who is the director of strange movies). He suggests, as a clue as to which retailers are going to make it big, "Follow your teenager around the mall." Best, Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ From: Daniel@DanielNorton.net (Daniel Norton) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:36:33 GMT On 31 May 1999 13:44:13 GMT, mcsman@aol.com (MCSMAN) wrote: > ...even if you are not on a party line (is anybody, anymore?). Today it's re-marketed as "distinctive ring", but generally only wired into a single household. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Pickett Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:15:56 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises At one time in several northeast Florida area BellSouth exchanges, we used 551-XXXX (the last four digits of the number you're calling from), waited for second dial tone, depressed hookswitch, waited for a third dial tone, then hung up the phone. Within a few seconds the phone would ring. However, now since moving to northeast Georgia, in ALLTEL-land, I've been unable to determine the code. The telco, for obvious reasons, will not give out this code. If anyone else has had any luck with an ALLTEL switch (Greater Jackson-Banks Counties), please post here, or send via email. Thanks, Jeremy jer76@hotmail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 02:14:14 GMT >> I've been hit by the same thing, but the calls are all going to my >> VOICE number. I went away for a week, and returned to find my voice >> mailbox full of fax messages. Then I got a fax at 2:15 in the >> morning, and from another company at midnight. >> Do I have any recourse? > I would bet this is not a spam fax, but rather a misprogrammed machine. I know it's more than one number, because just in the past week, two have come up on caller id, and a third hasn't. One of the companies told me they got my "fax" (really, voice) number by buying a list from a company they refused to disclose. I believe them, because all of sudden lots of people are trying to fax me stuff. So the question is, is it illegal to fax unsolicted material via an automatical dialer to a voice number? I thought the automatic dialer part might make it illegal. I'd like to be able to call the company back and tell them that in return for giving me the company from which they bought my number I'll do them the favor of not suing them. Joel ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:05:19 GMT Organization: Road Runner On 31 May 1999 14:57:49 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom, kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote in : > The old pre-divestuture AT&T (Pre 1984) stressed service. It also stressed increasing cost, since profit was regulated to be directly proportional to cost. > "Service" as the goal of all employees somehow disappeared in the > post divestiture market and money took its place. You say this as if it is a surprise; I don't believe it should be. Previously, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, operating under the auspices of the federal regulators who, ostensibly exerted their control in the public interest. After the marketplace and the courts insisted that AT&T abandon that model and operate on a competitive model, it should be not-at-all surprising that AT&T operates just like any other for-profit enterprise. just bicker ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #118 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 3 17:49:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA23682; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906032149.RAA23682@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #119 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jun 99 17:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 119 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Newly Opened Webpage About Mauritius Phonecards (Joseph) Autovon (was Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion) (Arco1@aol.com) Analog and Digital Line Differences (alcazar3@my-deja.com) Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (Massimiliano Scagliarini) Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (Robert Bonomi) Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (user@telecom-archives.org) Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (John David Galt) Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives (Clive Dawson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Joseph Subject: Newly Opened Webpage About Mauritius Phonecards Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:20:02 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I am writing to inform you that I have opened recently a new webpage about phonecards of Mauritius. There you will be able to find information about the phonecards of my country including pictures of the phonecards. You will also be able to find phonecards on sale mint and used. A discount of 5% is given to whoever comes from WPD and refers to it. Other discounts are also offered. Please come and visit my webpage you will not be disappointed. http://www.geocities.com/rodeodrive/outlet/4690/ I am a Mauritian, of Chinese origin. My birth country Mauritius is an island situated in the Indian Ocean near Malagasy, and also near Reunion island. My country has many beautiful beaches. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This message comes close to being Spam, but I think it is the first time I've ever received correspondence to the Digest from this far-away land, and because phone cards are a topic of interest to many, I decided to publish it here. Obviously before ever sending your browser to any geocities location, be sure to turn on your 'pop-up windows' filter; use some kind of software to kill pop-ups dead on sight, because you sure will get plenty of them. I honestly would love to visit Mauritius sometime, like so many other places in the world I will probably never see. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Arco1@aol.com Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:14:54 EDT Subject: Autovon (was Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion) > However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon > days; remember those? I have an old touchtone pad somewhere that had the designations FO, F, I, and P on the four extra buttons. "Flash-Override," "Flash," "Immediate," and "Priority," were the hierarchy of priorities for the Autovon. Most central-office equipment and much other touch-tone equipment recognizes the higher frequency tone of the last column, and most are programmed to give some sort of "reject" message when they receive it. Seems like we ought to fix the real problem: An enormous amount of unused numbers being reserved by phone service providers (and users) at very low cost to them and at very high cost to the other telephone network users/subscribers/PAYERS. Jim ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com Subject: Analog and Digital Line Differences Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:10:08 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. What is the difference between analog and digital data lines? I mean both of them transmit thru analog signals don't they? Another unrelated question: What is bursty loss? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 12:17:38 +0200 From: Massimiliano Scagliarini Subject: Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives Mr. Moderator, I just had a look at the Italian translation of the Telecom Archives ... well, I think they are just useless that way. Unfortunately Italian is a very difficult language, and can't be effectively translated by electronic programs. I suggest you to remove the translation entirely. For example: > First of all, with millions of places available to visit on the World > Wide Web these days, thank you very much for choosing to stop in and > share with me. (is translated) Irstdi F di tutti, con milioni di posti disponibili da visitare sul World Wide Web attualmente, grazie molto per la scelta arrestarsi dentro e la parte con me. (which, back in English means) the part "arrestarsi dentro", which should be the equivalent for "to stop in", is also very hilarious: it means that you should be making attention to your ass :)))))))))))) I suggest you to remove the translation entirely. Yours, m ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:35:50 CDT From: Robert Bonomi Subject: Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives Organization: Not Much In article TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > After the mostly in jest comment the other day about language > translations I got to thinking that in keeping with my own commitment > of making the archives web site http://telecom-digest.org as > accessible as possible to as many people as possible some foreign > language translation there would not be a bad idea. We also talked > about Babel Fish, the product from AltaVista which tries to interpret > what it sees to and from various languages. Babel Fish is included > automatically in Internet Explorer 5 and there are patches available > to allow it to be added to lesser versions of IE as well as all the > later versions of Netscape and other browsers. > Is there anything else other than AltaVista's partnership > with the Babel Fish Company at the present time doing that > sort of 'on the fly' translations? *LOTS* go to somewhere like yahoo.com, and plug in 'on-line language translation'. Last time I did this (I needed Finnish -> English) I found at least a dozen alternatives to babelfish [.. snip ..] > If the rendered translations are useless, or outrageous -- and you > who read the languages will have to decide that -- then I may just > remove my little script and go back to English only. I will grant > you the same people can come along and push the Babel Fish button > on their browser and accomplish the same thing, but then the onus > is on Babel Fish if the page looks totally ignorant, rather than > on me! :) As it is set up now with my 'push this button to translate' > feature, it appears *I* am encouraging the use of the feature. I > would rather let Babel Fish get the bum rap for it if the output is > nonsensical, etc. I have *NOT* checked out your pages, but, in general babelfish translates lots of stuff _badly_. It is *especially* bad on anything "technical". > So read the default English version first, then try whatever trans- > lations you can deal with, and see if those translations have me > saying more or less what I said in English. Note: I'll suggest that this is a 'non-issue'. anybody who gets -to- your site, *particularly* through a foreign search engine, =must= have a 'minimal' knowledge of English -- otherwise they can't read the 'pointer' description as returned by the search-engine. > Finally, for this time around, what does Babel Fish mean by the > expression (with asterics around it) **** TIME OUT **** which > sometimes appears in a sentence. It means _exactly_ that. the actual word/phrase look-up is being handled by a -separate- machine than the web-server. There was no response from the look-up engine in a sufficiently timely manner for the word/phrase being examined. Hence a time-out occured. ------------------------------ From: user@telecom-digest.org Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 12:29:21 EDT Subject: Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Name withheld at user's request, but comment is important in evaluating Babel Fish. PAT] PAT, [NOT FOR PUBLICATION - JUST FYI] I can only speak for the French translation ... honestly, it's gawd-awful (the best description I can find for it is the somewhat pejorative "immigrant-talk", although most of it is still somewhat understandable -- for the reader who speaks no English, it would make it possible to guess as to what is going on quite well. SYSTRAN does a similar job translating from French to English, BTW, so that might be a good way for you to find out the style of the output ... I suggest that you try looking at a bilingual page (try http://www.gov.on.ca, http://www.sympatico.ca, http://www.ville.mont-royal.qc.ca and http://www.bell.ca for pages that are likely to be bilingual) -- that way, you'll be able to look at the English, and at the translated French-to-English, to get an idea of what SYSTRAN does to it. Let me just say that I wouldn't drop out of a translation course on account of the results, but the system *is* useful regardless. If you like, I could compose a small message for you (in French) explaining that the translation is done by Babel Fish, and may leave something to be desired, etc). That being said, it's quite thoughtful of you to put in provisions for translating the page - people will appreciate it regardless of how well it works, considering what it's like to navigate the Internet without speaking English (nearly impossible). I'd guess that most people looking at the page would probably speak at least basic English, which I'm saying as someone who lives in a non-English- speaking [part of a] country. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for your detailed comments. So far, I have heard nothing *good* about the translations, and several things which were bad. I feel sort of in a pinch here, between a rock and a hard place as the saying goes ... the Internet is by and large an American creation, with huge amounts of the net written by Americans serving other Americans (or sometimes just self-serving the author of the page, if you want my opinion, but you did not ask for my opinion so I will keep it to myself; I mean, talk about the world's largest vanity press operation ... with every author and creator on the web certain that at least *his* pages could stand alone and pay their own way, even if network resources and email -- especially email! -- were not 'free' or dirt-cheap to all. I feel the same way about telecom, so hey, I should talk huh? Alright, I will. Talk, I mean ...) As much as we Americans are fond of saying that 'when foreigners come to this country, they should learn to speak our language and get a job and pull themselves up by their bootstraps', etc and how 'if I went to their country I would learn to speak their language and get a job and not go on welfare ...' the fact is that Americans land in other (non English-speaking, unfamiliar cultures) countries then sit there and expect to be waited on hand and foot, just as we accuse the 'foreigners' of doing when they get here. I would like to try being a citizen of the world first, and a citizen of the USA second. And we do, after all, call it the 'World Wide Web', not the 'USA-web'. With that in mind, automatic page translation would seem to be an admirable goal. But if the translation is so bad that it would be better not to be done at all, then I do not know where to turn next with it. Maybe I will see if Yahoo's service is better, and if it is, can I push the page directly into their cgi-bin as I have been doing with AltaVisa/Babel Fish. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:54:53 -0700 From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Responses by me to his specific comments are flushed to the left side, interspersed with his remarks which are indented. PAT] Here's what I see in French: - The dialog boxes asking your name, and whether you want to hear music, come up in English (and are repeated even though I got there _from_ http://telecom-digest.org/ and already set those options). The music option is part of the script which gets passed through each time the page is loaded, whether you load the page from massis.lcs.mit.edu or whether you load the page from AltaVisa's cgi-bin. Each time the script reaches that 'on confirm then music' (meaning confirm has a positive value because you clicked okay) you will get that question. The cookie setter/collector also activates each time you go past that part of the script, and it looks on your end for the presence of a cookie from 'the host I am running on' and the values associated with it. If 'telecom-archives' is running the script, it sees you have a cookie from same, and uses the values. But when you come out of the AltaVisa cgi-bin, then 'telecom-archives' is not supplying you the page any longer, and the cookie looks for a cookie from 'cgi-bin' and not finding one, assumes you have never been around before. I have also seen this happen sometimes when viewing the page via a search engine which directed me there, or if I reached telecom through a 'target=_blank' link from someone else's page, where the cookie somehow thought the other guy was supplying this page. - Most boxed text such as "Telecom Digest and Archives" translates properly, but subtitles such as "Patrick A. Townson, Editor/ Publisher" are in English. I think it does okay with 'editor/publisher' in most cases; but my name is my name. I noticed that in a link to John Cropper the Spanish translation referred to him as Juan; I do not know what the various translations do to my name. The ones I have seen do nothing. - The two lines beginning "Good Evening" are in English. Sure, because they are added to the page after the fact. They are added using 'document.write', a javascript thing which says gather up the present circumstances, whatever those may be, and when you see this page coming past, add whatever. The script at that point literally says, document.write('greeting') and 'greeting' was assigned its value based on parsing values it found in the clock in the user's computer. For those people who have asked me 'how do you know what time zone I am in?' my answer is I do not care what zone you are in or what time it is; the script looks at *your* computer and you tell me what time it is, then I respond on the page. Test this by setting your computer clock to whatever time you like or date, etc, then call http://telecom-digest.org if you say it is midnight on January 18, that's fine with me. So by the time we get around to document.write the greeting, the page has long since left Babel Fish in its new language. - Where lines begin with a fancy capital, Babelfish does not treat it as part of the word that follows it. Thus "First" becomes "Irst de F", which is gibberish, rather than the literal translation "Premier(e)" or the more reasonable "Ensuite". Every paragraph of the main text has this problem. And I love 'fancy capitals' to start the paragraphs there don't I ... - Buttons such as "Weather" are in English; and of course, image files such as the Matthew Shepard icon are unchanged. - A few words such as "non-commercial" and "Webmaster" are left in English. The buttons and icons never get changed, but if there are a few options one can change in the form of 'radio' buttons, Babel Fish frequently will label those however it wants. - The lines "Latest Digest Released 12/31/69 16:00:00 _read_it_now_" and "This page last updated 12/31/69 16:00:00" read as shown, in English. Oddly enough, other text in that typeface is in French. Any 'document.write' entries on the page occur after the page has left Babel Fish and on its way back for display. Javascript can look at the date and time a file was created and display that information on the page with the command 'document.write(document.last.modified)' and that is how you get the item at the bottom giving the date and time the page was last updated. How I get it to document.write when the last issue of the Digest was released is very simple. I just tell the script to: document.write("'Latest Digest Released: '+document.last.modified+'<a href='+'http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/back.issues/recent.single.issues/latest-issue.html'+'>'+' read it now'+'</a>'") The presence of XMP in brackets above and the cancellation of XMP is to prevent what I wrote above from being acted on by people who read this Digest in HTML. In HTML, an e'XMP'le is never acted on but begins quoting literally what follows it until it is cancelled. The XMP does not go in the script itself. What I said above was to add to the printed page that the latest issue of the digest was released at (time) and then provide a hyperlink to where it is located if someone wants to read it. As to how it knows when the latest issue was released, well, I cheat a little. I have a little script I to push these messages out to comp.dcom.telecom (I call it 'nntpxmit' which basically telnets around to several sites around the world on their NNTP socket where I have posting privileges; I rattle at that socket, and when answered proceed to tell the site IHAVE telecom.number; he says 'send it' or 'seen it'; I dump my load and move on to the next site on my list.) Part of the process is to then to tell sendmail where my secret list is hidden, to fetch it and start the mailing. One of the 'names' on the mailing list is merely a pipe to a script of my creation which takes the stream and places it where I want it as an archives file. All I did was add one little extra step in the process: I also tell the computer, 'touch /common/pub/telecom-archives/index.html' and we all know that 'touch' is unix parlance for stamping the current date and time on a file. Since 'http://telecom-digest.org' is just an alias which points to '/common/telecom-archives/index.html' at this site, the next time the page gets passed to someone, the javascript happily tells the visitor/ viewer that it just got updated, only instead of saying that the page got updated, I tell it to lie and say 'latest digest issued' instead, offering a hyperlink. If you read all the way to the very bottom of the page and the tiny print at the bottom, bingo, 'by coincidence' the page itself was 'last updated' at the same time, but no one ever reads that far down the page ... :) Now when you get the page back via cgi-bin from Babble Mouth, for whatever reason 'document.last.modified' looks at Babble to find out what it should say, I guess because that is who is 'hosting' the page at the moment. The reason it says 'last updated' (or 'latest digest released' earlier) is 12/31/69 16:00:00 is because we all know that the Internet was invented on January 1, 1970 at zero hours Greenwich Mean Time, and apparently AltaVista has their site set up with an 0800 GMT offset. - As soon as you follow any link away from the main page, you're back in English. Thus archived messages are not translated. I do not keep sending additional pages to the translator. The user needs to ask for it on each page. In order to add that option to each page (or message) in the archives, I guess I would have to hack the Hypermail code, then recompile it so that statement would occur at the top of each page ... hmmm ... not a bad idea. - The music is nice, but it stops if you leave the main page. The only way that I know of around that problem of the music stopping when you leave the page is to work with frames. Your main frame would have 100 percent of the space, and the music frame would get zero percent of the space; in other words be invisible. The user would always work from the frame which had all the space. Trouble is, when he left my site totally and went on to go visit some other site, my music would still be looping repeatedly. I could fix it where one frame had one percent of the space and the other frame got 99 percent of the space. In the tiny frame, put a little 'control panel' to start and stop the music. But I do *not* like frames! And when you get them, it is hard to get rid of them if the webmaster does not leave you a way to close the frame totally. Too much bother for me. May I suggest that you put the language question in the name-entry dialog box, and save the answer in a cookie? Not a bad idea, but I am sorta thinking the translation thing is going to be gone totally after I finish this issue and do some editing work on the archives. I am getting too many reports I don't like. John David Galt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 06:21:26 CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Now I Really Need Help in the Archives Hi Pat, In response to your request, I took a look at the Spanish translations of a couple of TELECOM Digest pages using the Babel Fish translator. My basic assessment is that while the Babel Fish translations are not totally useless, they *are* pretty outrageous. If you would like to get some feel for what I'm talking about, try an experiment: Cut and paste some of the translation output back into Babel Fish, and ask for a translation back to English. You'll see what I mean. In my experience, the Altavista translation service is good for individual words or short phrases, but comes up short when you feed it more extensive text. I'm sure you've heard the old joke: What do you call somebody who speaks three languages? (Answer: Tri-lingual.) What do you call somebody who speaks two languages? (Answer: Bi-lingual.) What do you call somebody who speaks one language? (Answer: American.) So here's what I would add to your assumptions: Assumption Four: Most readers from other countries who would have occasion to access the Telecom pages probably know English better than you think, and/or are already well familiar with the Altavista translation service. My bottom-line suggestion is: Let Babel Fish take the rap and don't bother with this. Now if you decide to keep the feature (other languages may fare better) then I suggest that you modify your script so that the invitation to translate does not appear in English. At the very least, the menu should say Francais, Deutsch, Italiano, Portugese, Espanol. Better would be for these words to appear on the page without the need to click, so that non-English speakers can spot the name of their language and get a clue about what to do. Or even: Traduction a/Ubersetzung zu/Traduzione a/Traducao a/Traduccion a : (I did not include an assortment of diacritics and special characters in the above; just feed "Translation to" to the translator for the correct versions.) Let me also say that I would be happy to produce a good Spanish translation of selected Telecom pages for you. The downside of this is that you would probably want to do the same for other languages, and would then be dependent on a bunch of people for changes every time you updated the pages. So here's another suggestion: You could produce a page entitled "Greetings to our xxxx-speaking Readers". After some suitable words of welcome and basic description of the site, you could make mention of the Altavista translation service, apologize for its inadequacy but hope it is at least of some use, etc. etc. This would be a static page which seldom, if ever, required updates. Then you obtain good translations into various languages (not just limited to the five above) which would omit the translation reference if not relevant. I would be happy to supply the Spanish translation for such a page. Hope this helps! Regards, Clive Dawson Austin, TX [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards Spanish, on the bottom of the main page was (I have since removed it) a picture of the Three Stooges with a message saying 'visit these links' ... I translated the page into Spanish, then from the translated Spanish page back into English. The comment about the Stooges in English -- when it came back to me via Babel Fish from English to Spanish to English made some comment about the 'Revolutionary Army' ... In the next issue of the Digest, an answer to the question, 'what or who is favicon.ico ...' and my intentions for it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #119 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 3 21:48:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA03678; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:48:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906040148.VAA03678@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #120 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Jun 99 21:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 120 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who? (Joey Lindstrom) Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Kim Brennan) Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together; Screening Wish List (B Templeton) Where Do I Sign Up? (Richard Shockey) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Brian C. Kohn) Re: AT&T New Charges (Tony Pelliccio) Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? (Dennis Metcalfe) Re: Seeking a PABX (rodeocomm@aol.com) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Bill Godfrey) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Roger Fajman) All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: What is FAVICON.ICO? (Toby Nixon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 12:36:50 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: So Now I'm a Racist? Says Who? On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:37:11 -0400 (EDT), Bob Goudreau wrote: >> If you're placing an international call, isn't is reasonable to >> expect that you would use the international dialing prefix? > Except that people who keep making this argument seem to feel that > Canada doesn't qualify as "international", and have never met my > earlier challenge of enumerating exactly what objective criteria > should be used for deciding which NANP countries should be dialable > using 1+10D and which should not. Absent such clear rules, the only > fair thing to do would be to require 011-1- on calls to *all* > international destinations, Canada included. This was, in fact, planned at one point, or at least a variation on it - according, that is, to an old friend (who I've since lost touch with) who worked at the local telco here in Calgary, Alberta (Canada). The long-range plan, which obviously was later abandoned, was to, iirc, dial Canadian numbers as 1-2-NPA-NXX-XXXX, and US numbers as 1-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. That particularly dialing plan is now precluded for several reasons, but I see nothing wrong with going to 011 dialing between the two countries. > Yet for some reason, some people seem to feel that it would be a Bad > Thing to make it as difficult to dial those rich white Canadians as it > they'd like for it to be when dialing those poorer, predominantly-black > NANP countries in the Caribbean. I find the attitude somewhat remin- > iscent of the way that certain long distance carriers disable > calling-card calls to specific countries when the calls originate from > certain "red-lined" ethnic neighborhoods. Oh, get bent. I've been following this thread and never once did it occur to me that there might be any racist intent -- and that IS what you're accusing people of. The issue is SOLELY one of excessive rates charged to unsuspecting people. Think it through: if I read an ad in the paper and it tells me to dial a particular phone number, with an area code I'm not familiar with, I likely won't have a clue where it is. And if I live in the USA, then apparently (according to Mark Cuccia) I'm going to have to pay a buck just to find out -- assuming I'm savvy enough to even suspect that such a step is necessary. Most people (that don't subscribe to this list) don't even know that these Caribbean countries have "regular" NANPA area codes and automatically assume that the number dialed will be in the USA, or possibly Canada - but they're certainly not expecting to pay 1-900 like rates for the call. 011 serves as a "toll alert" of sorts -- if you preface your call with 011, you KNOW you're calling outside your country, and you're far more likely to look up the rates before calling if you're not familiar with them. Calls to Canada are more expensive (from the USA) than are calls within the USA, but GENERALLY speaking the price increase isn't that huge, and it's certainly quite reasonable when you think about it -- so Canada therefore "deserves" to share the same national dialing plan as the USA. But calls to some of these Caribbean nations, which APPEAR to most people to be calls within the USA, can be as high as 5000% of the cost of a within-the-USA call. That's simply too great a disparity. That's the only issue here, Bob. The skin colour of the people being called isn't the issue -- and I think it could be argued that most of the scam operators who do operate these Caribbean-based sex-lines and whatnot are, in fact, rich AMERICAN white people. You have chosen to make a connection between our resentment towards paying these usurioius rates and the fact that lots of "po' black folk" happen to live in these countries. If you're going to make that connection, then you better be prepared to back it up, because you are making a VERY serious charge. Bob, I remember in my old FidoNet days, we only had two rules. You shall not be excessively annoying, and you shall not be too easily annoyed. Both were grounds for removal from FidoNet. You have CLEARLY fallen into the both categories -- you've as much as accused us all of being closet racists. Some people here may indeed be racists -- hell, I'm no mind reader -- but some others of us resent the accusation. In fact, I resent it quite a lot. I'm not advocating your removal from our presence, but I do believe you owe us all an apology. From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU I went to a fancy french restaurant called "Deja Vu." The headwaiter said, "Don't I know you?" --Steven Wright [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Even though '011' should serve as a very good toll alert, there are still ways to parse a fourteen, fifteen or sixteen digit resulting number in such a way as to trick the average user. Consider those guys who run the hot chat bridges in the Netherland Antilles, Guyana and other places (or at least that's how it appears; I don't know how AT&T actually disposes of the calls). They run their ads depicting scenes from whatever it is the callers will chat about when they call in, and they stress the point that the service is free. 'FREE! All you pay is toll charges' and b'golly, people fall for that all the time. They will display the number as 1010288-0-11-535-2941-36 and that is enough to confuse even hardened old-time telephone people like us, let alone some innocent kid home alone after school who wants to meet some new friends, etc. AT&T should absoutely insist that the conference bridges they are co-branding (and that is essentially what it amounts to; they get some guy who wants a cash cow and let him run the bridge in his name while they route the calls, and kick back to him a few cents for every caller/minute people spend on the bridge) have to be labeled honestly as to the location of the bridge and the amount per minute the 'free' service will cost. So while 011 is no guarentee people will know what they are calling, it might help. If it happens though, watch the charletans start parsing it up in funny ways to add more confusion to the mess already out there. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 03 Jun 1999 23:25:03 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. The {Washington Post} had an article in today's paper (Thursday 3 June, 1999) about Sprint converting all of their Sprint Spectrum (GSM) users over to Sprint PCS (CDMA) by November 1999. More information is available on Sprint Spectrum's web page (http://www.sprintspectrum-apc.com.) Of course, Sprint's take on this is that it's an "upgrade." I tend to disagree. While I'm not intimately familiar with the Sprint PCS capabilities I do know that my current GSM phone converage works far down the Shenandoah Valley (a drive I do on weekends), and is local coverage. The coverage maps of the SprintPCS don't come anywhere near that Virginia landmark. A miniscule line mentions that this conversion is due to a "class action suit." Somehow my inclusion(?) in that class action wasn't reported to me. I'll probably go with Sprint PCS, due to a number of factors (keeping my existing telephone number, ability to continue using a Motorola Startac) but primarily because the alternative AT&T is hardly attractive. Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: bt@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) Subject: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish List Date: 03 Jun 1999 16:20:51 PDT Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad Having just purchased an answering machine phone with caller-ID I was surprised to find out the caller-ID is just for the phone (which keeps a memory of the last 50 calls) but is not associated with the answering machine -- ie. the digital answering machine doesn't store the caller-id info with the call, just the date and time. That seems stupid. One would like to be able to respond to one's messages with a "return call" button that dials the ID, if present on that call. I just looked at the lit for the gigaset, which supposedly tries to be cream of the crop, and it doesn't do this either. Does anybody make a two line answering machine with this feature? In addition has anybody yet made an answering machine combo that can really do proper call screening? For this I mean ... a) Intercepts main trunk, so phones don't even ring if screening parameters dictate. b) Allows indepenent programming for: a) Identified number b) Unidentified number c) Private (blocked) call d) Unavailable call The goal here is to have most callers come right through, to reject calls from known annoyances, and to direct private and unavailable calls to different AVR systems which can say things like. "Hello. (3 seconds) Your caller-ID record shows your call is unavailable. If you are a phone solicitor please place me on your do-not-call list for all companies you solicit for, and mail me your written do-not-call-list policy. If you are not a phone solicitor, but instead somebody calling from an old or foreign PBX or phone system, press 1 to leave a message or press 2 to ring through." The PRIVATE item would say: "Hi. We screen calls with blocked caller-ID. If you are a phone solicitor or charity, press 1. If you are not press 2." 1 -> Place me on do not call list 2 -> In future, you'll get through faster by disabling the blocking of caller-id. Now ringing through. Almost all phone solicitor calls are unavailable, but some other calls are, so you can't just block unavailables. Of course many more options are possible, including asking callers to key in their number or passcode etc. Frankly most people don't have a problem that bad. The main thing you want to do is screen Unavailable calls. Does anybody do this? Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/ ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Where Do I Sign Up? Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:02:41 GMT Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC ATLANTA (AP) -- BellSouth Corp. plans to test a new type of fiber-optic data line at 400 suburban Atlanta homes this fall in what the company hopes will be its key to providing high-speed Internet access affordably. The test, which was announced today, involves 400 houses already selected in Dunwoody, BellSouth spokesman John Goldman said. In theory, the fiber can deliver data at 100 megabits per second, faster than the digital subscriber lines (DSL) BellSouth has been marketing. DSL, which transfers data at about 1.5 megabits per second, has encountered some technical difficulties because many homes are in areas not equipped to receive it. The fiber technology also would allow Atlanta-based BellSouth to compete with cable companies who offer high-speed Internet access. The company expects the fiber technology to be as cheap as copper wire in two years as demand grows, Goldman said. The new fiber, called passive optical networking, doesn't require a power source between the company and a customer's home. ``This is the next logical step,'' Goldman said. ``What we are doing in Dunwoody is getting ready for the future.'' Telephone and cable companies are scrambling to find ways to deliver increased speed for Internet connections as consumers turn to video and other data-heavy applications online. BellSouth will price the service at $59.95 per month, the same as its DSL service. Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet E-Mail/IFAX rshockey@ix.netcom.com eFAX 815.333.1237 ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:12:00 GMT Organization: Road Runner A 01 Jun 1999 23:20:45 GMT, en comp.dcom.telecom, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) escribi en el mensaje de noticias : >> this information, the operator indicated that the call would be billed >> as a regular directory assistance call. > I agree that the information should be available for free as it used > to be. But I don't think AT&T should be obligated to provide it > unless ALL carriers, large and small, are required to provide free Right on. It would be horribly unfair to expect one provider to provide something that another is not compelled to. >(IMHO they should be.) I'm not so sure. If there is a cost for this type of information, and some people have greater need for that service than others, then it makes sense to have each person pay for the service to the extent that they use it; and that would be accomplished best with a per-inquiry fee. >> AT&T has jacked up other charges as well as instituting new ones. > Everyone says competition has lowered long distance rates tremendously. > Apparently that is not true. It certainly is true. I'm paying 10c per minute for cross-country calls now. I remember paying more than double that at some point in the past. > If we had true competition (in the economic sense), another player > would step in and offer those services at a cheaper price. But I > doubt that will happen. IF others offer those services, I suspect > they'll be at the same price as AT&T. That doesn't really make sense. If others offered those services and charged the same as AT&T charged, I'd suspect that either there's illegal collusion going on, or that's precisely how much the regulators feel is a fair prices for those services, based on the costs to provide them and an appropriate level of profit. > IMHO we consumers were better off before so-called "competition". I just don't see it that way at all. > Every time I make this claim I get flamed about the great bargains > available now and the horrible conditions under the old Ma Bell. Hey it was great under the old Ma Bell; I worked there then. It was great for Ma Bell, not necessarily for the customer. >> Unfortunately, AT&T is not alone in this practice. >> Long distance companies seem increasingly desparate to squeeze every >> penny of possible revenue out of consumers. > Need I say more? It is called "the profit motive." It is one of the foundations of business. just bicker ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: AT&T New charges Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:44:36 GMT In article , pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com says: > Blame the FCC. They wanted to deregulate everything, including cable > prices, and you should see my cable TV bill rising every year! > I have avoided all this by using prepaid calling cards for my > long-distance calls. They are available at Sam's Club and the rate is > 10 cents per minute ... and my intrastate calling is now much cheaper, > too. The problem with some phone cards is that if your line isn't PIC'd to any long distance carrier it somehow thinks you're at a pay phone and deducts minutes at twice the rate. At least that's how Bell Atlantic does it. > When you can find a REAL bargain, let me know. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, excuse me here a minute ... We in > the Digest did not get the original of this letter that I am aware > of, unless I was asleep when it got approved, and I have seen or > heard nothing of some mandatory AT&T charge for all phone customers > everywhere. Perhaps 'R. Derr' or 'Ken M.' would not mind sending > along a copy of the actual letter or notice received. Has anyone here > on the mailing list heard of such a thing? PAT] Yes, I've been a victim of it. Even thought I was PIC's to Sprint, AT&T kept thowing their little charges in. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone *please* pass on a copy of the 'letter from AT&T' about this? Third request. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:15:22 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Wed, 26 May 1999 00:14:26 -0400, Richard Shima wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: >>> This page has the definitive list: >>> http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/carrier_id_codes.html >> What I've been wondering is if anyone has compiled pricing details for the >> 10-10 codes, so that consumers can compare them easily to find the ones >> that best match their calling patterns. > Try looking at this interesting new site for 10-10 comparisons: > http://www.10-10Phonerates.com/ Very limited information ... I use http://www.abelltolls.com for both domestic and international rates. Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 1999 22:37:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: rodeocomm@aol.com (Rodeocomm) Subject: Re: Seeking a PABX A few more details would probably help; e.g., what features, new vs used, trunking, phones, etc. There are all sorts of options if you can provide additional information. rodeocomm ------------------------------ From: Bill Godfrey Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Date: Thu, 3 Jun 99 22:48:14 Javier Henderson writes: > What about the millions of tourists that visit the US every year? Are > they going to be required to obtain a non-working SSN or a TIN from > the IRS? Hmmm ... Last time I was in the US, I tried to join a video rental shop. They were happy with my British passport as identification, but they insisted on a social secuity number. "I don't have one." I said, to blank look on the droid's face. Fortunately, the supervisor came along and entered by number as 11-11-11-11-11. (Or something like that.) Bill, with freedom to move without let or hindrance. ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:17:16 EDT Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls > I live in Europe and was under the impression no US local telcos offer > free local calls. A colleague says that many include free, unlimited local > calls as part of the basic subscription. The Washington, DC area has a large metro calling area in which all calls are free if you are on an unlimited calling plan or a single message unit on most other plans (there are plans offering timed local calls, but I can't imagine many people using them). While the area is not perfectly circular, it's on the order of a 15-mile radius from the center of the city. If you live outside the metro calling area, your local calling area is more limited, but still large in comparison to some other areas in the US. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:53:55 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Well! The mail certainly came pouring in on that one ... a couple dozen replies in a matter of an hour after that issue of the Digest was sent out, all saying about the same thing, that it was part of Internet Explorer 5 (and maybe 4?) which provided the user with an icon to mark a 'favorite site'; what Netscape refers to as bookmarking. A couple people wrote me saying 'if you find out what it is, please let me know; my log has several of those in it each day'. Everyone else wrote saying that when a user with Internet Explorer 5 bookmarks a page (in other words, makes it a favorite), the browser attempts to find a 'favorites icon' -- or favicon.ico -- on the site where the user has been visiting, and if such is found, then it is used as an icon on the user's 'favorites' file instead of the default which is the little blue letter 'e' in a circle or globe. It looks first in the directory where the user had been when he requested the bookmark, and if not found there, it then looks in the 'root' for the web site. I do not know for sure if that means 'root' as in the root of the web server at lcs.mit.edu, i.e. /common/pub where all anonymous ftp requests start their existence or it means the root the current web site being visited, i.e. /common/pub/telecom-archives. Actually, in the /common at massis.lcs.mit.edu there is a link to telecom-archives anyway, so going through /pub is immaterial, but if you are in /common -- or let's say you did this: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu or http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu -- and stopped at that point -- not only would you see a link to telecom-archives but you would also see a link to my machine neighbor, Info-Mac Archives. Most visitors just say http://telecom-digest.org which is aliased to /telecom-archives/ index.html ... there are still some very, very old links in the world which point to me via ftp, gopher, etc as 'mirror.lcs.mit.edu/pub/ telecom-archives which make it here okay. Anyway, IE-5 looks various places trying to find 'favicon.ico' and if found, stamps the user's bookmark entry with that icon. Readers ans- wering the question reported to me that some webmasters have designed icons which make crude remarks about Microsoft; others have made up scripts designed as icons to wreak havoc on the user's computer, and the list goes on. 'Everyone', it seems, has told Microsoft that this was a Bad Thing to do, but that Microsoft has paid no heed to anyone, and continues to do as it pleases. Not only is this a security problem, say the critics of favicon.ico because an Evil Webmaster can pass his germs -- err, virus -- along to the users who favored him with a visit in the first place, but the same Evil Webmaster has a hard time sleeping at night, so anxious is he for the sun to rise that he can go to his office, grep his logs looking for 'favicon.ico', do lookups on all the numbers he finds there, and send spam to the people who visited him the day before. Makes sense to me! (smile) ... user comes to visit your site and the way you thank him is by sending him something nasty back by return mail, and subsequently spying on him and spamming him. So from the user's perspective, this function of IE-5 both causes security problems and invasion of privacy problems, according to the critics. From the webmaster's side, it does nothing except in the absence of favicon.ico at their site, in which case it adds to the error log: GET favicon.ico ... can't find it ... tell the webmaster about this 'error'. So I think I will make a 'favicon.ico' and place it around where it can be found, both in the root directory and maybe a few most-often visited pages at telecom, such as /linkspage.html, /search/index.html, /postoffice/index.html and wherever. I wonder if it can be a .gif/.jpg file or if it has to be a .bmp, since .bmp easily converts to an icon, and vice-versa? I have not decided yet what to use, but I am pretty certain I will use the one called operator.gif that so many of you have said you like. I call her 'Operator Pat', except that she also has a part time job down at the post office on the night shift and there I call her 'Postmaster Pat' ... I do not have her in .bmp style but I have a little postage- stamp size picture of myself as .bmp so I will use that if I must. But I use Operator Pat as the linkback image for whatuseek.com and also in the email area, so I would like to use her to mark the favorites file of IE-5 users as well. Or should I use the little postage-stamp size .bmp of yours truly? Oh heck, maybe I will just tune my browser to the Public Icon Library on the net, rip off a few generic goodies, a telephone maybe, and use that instead of wasting time converting Operator Pat into the proper format and making her work even longer hours than she does now. So to those who answered the question -- all two dozen of you the last time I checked new mail -- thank you! To those of you who asked me to let you know if I found out anything, the above is your answer. The last message in this issue comes from Toby Nixon at Microsoft, who, while not speaking for the company, still can give a good reply to the 'what is favicon.ico' question. PAT ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: What is FAVICON.ICO? Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:21:33 -0700 Our Esteemed M2oderator inquired as to what is the "favicon.ico" file that he keeps seeing failed requests for in his web server logs. Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 contains a feature that allows web site administrators to customize the icon that is used when IE5 users add a site to their Favorites or to the Links bar (instead of seeing a "generic" link icon). Each time you see this hit in your log, it means someone has added your site to their Favorites. To have users receive a custom icon when they add a web site to their favorites or Links bar, a web designer can use one of two methods: 1. Place a favicon.ico file (the custom icon) in the root of the domain, or 2. add to particular pages. This feature is described in greater detail at http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/essentials/versions/ICPIE5.asp. Toby L. Nixon Program Manager, Windows Networking and Embedded Products Group Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #120 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 4 04:18:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA16869; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:18:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906040818.EAA16869@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #121 TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Jun 99 04:18:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 121 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson California To Sell Individuals' Data (Monty Solomon) Billing - Integrated IP Networks (Bruce Larrabee) BellSouth Fiber (Ed Ellers) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Toby Nixon) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Matt Gebhardt) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Art Kamlet) Re: CSU and PBX Compatibility Issues (Jaquelyn Knox) Re: AT&T New Charges (John R. Levine) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (J.F. Mezei) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Herb Stein) Re: High Court Tunes Out CNN Ride-Along Appeal (Herb Stein) Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry (Mike Lieman) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)(H Stein) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (Herb Stein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 3 Jun 1999 23:28:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: California To Sell Individuals' Data http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Privacy-Sales.html June 3, 1999 Filed at 7:55 p.m. EDT By The Associated Press LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California will join a growing number of states that sell confidential information about their residents' income to banks, lenders and car dealers. The programs are designed to speed up processing of loan applications and reduce fraud by allowing lenders to quickly verify information provided by people seeking credit. The states are not supposed to release the data unless the consumer gives written consent. But privacy advocates caution that the electronic disclosures could allow private information to fall into the wrong hands. ``Once you establish electronic access to a large-scale database there are going to be illegitimate uses of the information,'' said Beth Givens, director of the San Diego-based Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Under a law passed quietly last year, lawmakers authorized the state to give financial companies access to private income data the state collects on nearly 14 million employed people. The information is normally used to calculate worker compensation and unemployment insurance payments employers make to the state. Banks and other lenders hope to see similar systems in every state. Programs already are operating in Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas and one is being implemented in Pennsylvania. Legislatures in Florida, Indiana, Oregon and Colorado authorized such systems in recent weeks. ``It appears that our lawmakers are acting in a policy vacuum,'' said Givens. ``They don't appear to be looking at the long-term implications and the unintended consequences of allowing private companies to be vendors of this personal data,'' she said. Michael Bernick, director of the California Employment Development Department, which collects income data, declined to comment Thursday except to say plans to implement the new law were under study. The department is required under the new law to complete the evaluation by July 1, 1999. If California follows the lead of other states, the data will be released through Verification of Income and Employment, a joint venture of Norwest Mortgage and First American Financial Corp., a company that provides mortgage-related services like title searches to lenders. Verification, which is negotiating to run the California program, headed the lobbying campaign for the new law. In the other states, Verification takes requests from lenders and relays them electronically to the state, which will retains control of the database, said Verification president William Skowronnek. The state sends requested information to Verification, which releases it to the lender, said William Skowronnek, president of Verification. The company, under contract to operate nearly identical systems in Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas, never has the state database in its possession. ``It's one of our greatest safeguards, the fact that we don't store the information,'' he said. Lenders who use the program get a report containing the consumer's name, name of the employer and quarterly income. Verification can release two to four years worth of data, depending on local laws. Before requesting information, the lender must get the written consent of the consumer. However, neither the state nor Verification try to confirm that consent has been granted. Instead, Verification auditors make random checks of the records of lenders, looking for those written consent documents. The accounting firm Peat Marwick audits Verfication to confirm that checks are being made, Skowronnek said. The program has worked well in Iowa, which began selling income data in 1995, said Joe Bervid, attorney for the state's unemployment insurance division. ``It's kind of a win-win situation,'' he said. Employers no longer have to respond to income verification letters from lenders and lenders don't have to wait for a response. The time needed to verify employment and income information has dropped from about two weeks to an hour, he said. Income verification, along with credit reports, have benefitted both consumers and lenders. Widespread use of such information by lenders began in the early 20th century, and enabled millions of middle- and low-income people to borrow money to buy cars, homes and other big-ticket items, said Solveig Singleton at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank. The concern about the California plan is whether consumers are voluntarily providing information in the loan process. They have no choice in what the government collects. Also, by getting into the information business, state governments provide one more potential means for information to be accessed illegally, she said. ``I'm skeptical this is a good idea. Ordinarily the traffic in information can be an extremely good thing. Having information that is not a part of the public record being sold by the government makes me uncomfortable,'' said Singleton. Related Information From Hoover's Inc. First American Financial Corp ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 1999 02:07:25 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: larb0@aol.com (LARB0) Subject: Billing - Integrated IP Networks Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the technology. But, regarding billing for usage on an IP network when voice applications are integrated. Voice is normally charged on a per minute basis. Data (packets) are typically charged on a per-packet basis. We used to charge per kilosegment. Aren't these two methods essentially incompatible? Or, will data be charged on a per minute basis (makes no sense) or will voice be charged on a kilosegment basis? Will VoIP OS systems allow for billing voice per minute? Bruce Larrabee larb0@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: BellSouth Fiber Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:26:52 -0400 Richard Shockey (rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com) quoted from an AP wire story: "In theory, the fiber can deliver data at 100 megabits per second, faster than the digital subscriber lines (DSL) BellSouth has been marketing. "DSL, which transfers data at about 1.5 megabits per second, has encountered some technical difficulties because many homes are in areas not equipped to receive it." And those areas are usually equipped with fiber-connected subscriber carrier systems, which not only prevent the use of V.90 but often distort the connection so much that modem connections become extremely unreliable. BellSouth has so far refused to give me the same service that 65% of my metro area gets -- namely, a copper pair running back to the CO -- and claims that as long as I can get a dial tone they have met their obligation, and if I want something better I should pay for ISDN. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:21:10 -0700 Responding to a couple of points Pat passed along in V19 #120: There's no way a "script" can be embedded in an icon file and cause any damage. ICO files contain no executable code; they are nothing more than specially-encoded bitmap files. There is no way to embed any kind of virus. There is no "security" problem, any more than with GIFs or JPGs. Some people have raised concerns that the favicon.ico lookup could be a privacy issue -- that somehow knowing the fact that someone bookmarked your site could be of interest. Maybe so, but the fact is that the web server gets no more information about someone because IE5 tried to open favicon.ico than it gets about them looking at the default html page at the root of the site. The HTTP GET function conveys exactly the same information in each case. If a site gains enough info from the favicon.ico lookup to send you spam, then they would have gotten that same information by you simply browsing the site without bookmarking it. If you want this level of privacy, you can't browse the web at all. And the increased "traffic" from failed favicon.ico lookups is vanishingly small; a typical page load uses many, many GETs, and how often do you bookmark something compared to how often you load a page? By the "root" of the web site, we mean the DNS name in the URL the user provided. In your case, that would be "http://telecom-digest.org". The URL for the file itself would be "http://telecom-digest.org/favicon.ico". If "telecom-digest.org" gets aliased to something else, just put the ico file in that directory, the same place you store your default page. ICO files are, as I mentioned before, a special format -- not the same as a BMP, GIF, or JPG, but not too much different. To create an ICO file, you need an icon editor. There is one in the resource editor of Microsoft Visual Studio, of course, but a web search on "icon editor" turned up a bunch of others. I think you can also use PhotoDraw to turn any BMP or GIF into an ICO. Grabbing a generic telephone icon would work, too. Toby L. Nixon Program Manager, Windows Networking and Embedded Systems Group Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Or should I say Evil Webmaster's Note?) It is not a question of 'telecom-digest.org' getting aliased to some- thing else, it is a situation where 'something else' gets aliased to telecom-digest.org -- in this case the true 'root' is known as massis.lcs.mit.edu://common, with the alias kicking in at that point to further burrow down into the directories starting with /telecom- archives. Having favicon.ico in /telecom-archives for 'root purposes' will not work; I tried it. Having it there, it will service those files in the same directory such as index.html and linkspage.html, but it will not service those files in downstream directories, who, when IE-5 goes looking, have nothing to offer, so IE-5 jumps all the way back up to /common -- the level above me! -- and looks in there. I have no authority to write in /common; my privileges only begin with the level below that, ie /telecom-archives. And even if I could write in /common, I would not want to put favicon.ico there since that would mean visitors to Info-Mac Archives and the Linux source pages who chose to bookmark one of those would get the favicon.ico of mine. What I wound up doing was using a little red telephone I found somewhere, placing it in /telecom-archives, setting the permissions so others could read it, then copying it into several other places up and down my side of the tree, so that anywhere a user happens to be when he wants to bookmark me, a copy of the favicon.ico is right in the browser's path. And it works! I tried bookmarking myself and my favorites list had lots of little red telephones up and down the list of favorite sites. I have noticed something else interesting about IE-5; it seems not to care what you give it to eat; call it by whatever name is fine, etc. For instance, I have one .jpg which for some reason had inadvertently been suffixed as .gif ... I would do IMG SRC=thatfile.gif and IE says fine, pulls it up and puts it on display. I never could figure out why Netscape was stalling on me, refusing to display it. Finally someone looked at it for me almost under a microscope and sneers at me saying, 'who told you this was a .gif? Change its name back to .jpg which is what it is! I did so, and suddenly Netscape was happy to see it also, and IE did not act like it knew the difference either way, it just kept right on eating and rendering. Toby Nixon seems to imply that the 'security concerns' expressed in my earlier article about favicon.ico were of my own making; to the contrary, I was merely quoting what I had been given in numerous replies, and I had hoped that my phraseology was such that it was apparent I was not too convinced by the presentations given. Perhaps I failed on that point. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Matt Gebhardt Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:11:31 -0800 Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Jeremy Pickett wrote: "At one time in several northeast Florida area BellSouth exchanges, we used 551-XXXX (the last four digits of the number you're calling from), waited for second dial tone, depressed hookswitch, waited for a third dial tone, then hung up the phone. Within a few seconds the phone would ring." What you're referring to is a "station ringer" test. The telco's I&R crew would typically dial the appropriate prefix/code and the 4 or 7 digits of the subscribers phone number. The test is designed to test the ringer as well as the digits on the keypad. After receiving the "second dialtone," the craft person would dial 1234567890. If any key gave an inappropriate tone the test should fail. Assuming it passed, then depress the hookswitch momentarily, and the "third dialtone" (distinctly different tone then "normal" dialtone) is heard. Now hang up and the station's bell is rung. Station ringer tests can include tones and LEDs on Centrex and ISDN business sets, etc. It's a handy tool for determining whether your own set is working correctly. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Date: 3 Jun 1999 22:24:10 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Brian Charles Kohn wrote: > On 31 May 1999 14:57:49 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom, kamlet@infinet.com > (Art Kamlet) wrote in : >> The old pre-divestuture AT&T (Pre 1984) stressed service. > It also stressed increasing cost, since profit was regulated to > be directly proportional to cost. Sure, although the regulators did take upon themselves the task of approving their capital budgets. >> "Service" as the goal of all employees somehow disappeared in the >> post divestiture market and money took its place. > You say this as if it is a surprise; I don't believe it should be. Read the MFJ -- Judge Greene seems to have overlooked service and the Justice Dept also did not mention service, except in cases of national security. I have to wonder if Judge Greene really understood service as a goal would be abandoned? > Previously, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, operating under the > auspices of the federal regulators who, ostensibly exerted their > control in the public interest. After the marketplace and the courts > insisted that AT&T abandon that model and operate on a competitive > model, While still being regulated as if it were still a monololy, which the FCC renamed "dominant carrier." After divestiture the FCC said all DOminant Carriers *AT&T was the only one) would continue to be regulated. > it should be not-at-all surprising that AT&T operates just like > any other for-profit enterprise. Not now. Disclaimer: I own stock in AT&T. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: Jaquelyn Knox Subject: Re: CSU and PBX Compatibility Issues Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:31:15 -0500 Organization: U S WEST Interprise Any more info available? A lot of "PBX" use D4/AMI. The Adtran is capable of supporting this, or ESF/B8ZS. Check that setting. Kevin Lundy wrote: > Has anyone ever heard of compatibility issues between a CSU and PBX > equipment? I've always thought a CSU was a CSU (features, programma- > bility, price ignored). But I seem to have an issue with a Lucent T1 > DS card and an ADTRAN CSU, that seems to point at compatibility. > Any thoughts? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 1999 22:59:24 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone *please* pass on a copy > of the 'letter from AT&T' about this? Third request. Thanks. PAT] AT&T is phasing in a $3 monthly minimum charge. I didn't get a letter, since I haven't been an AT&T customer for a long, long time, but it was widely reported in the press. The intent is clearly to get rid of the grannies who make 47 cents worth of LD calls a month. >> When you can find a REAL bargain, let me know. I currently get LD from Planet Earth Communications, www.pecld.com. They charge 7.9 cpm, no monthly minimum. There's a minimum billing of $5, which means that if you owe them less than $5 they charge you $5 but the extra carries over as a credit to future months, so a very low volume customer might get billed $5 every three months or so. The rate is 6.9 cpm if you pick the plan with a $10 monthly minimum. They also have very cool on-line call details, with most calls posted the day after you make them. (They have commissioned salesmen, but I'm not one of them.) 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: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:06:11 -0400 Kim Brennan wrote: > I'll probably go with Sprint PCS, due to a number of factors (keeping > my existing telephone number, ability to continue using a Motorola > Startac) but primarily because the alternative AT&T is hardly > attractive. Will Sprint exchange your phone for free? If Sprint is converting its GSM to match the rest of its network, I wonder if Vodaphone will convert Airtouch to GSM so that it matches all of its network. I am surprised that a company such as Omnipoint (GSM in north east) didn't buy the GSM infrastructure of SPRINT's GSM island in Washington. This would allow Omnipoint to extend coverage quite a bit. (Or are they already present in the DC area? ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:08:10 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) In article , anthony@alphageo. com wrote: > John David Galt wrote: >> Quoth Matthew Black : >>> I'm told the US Postal Service will soon implement new rules regarding >>> private mailbox companies. Users will no longer be permitted the use >>> of "Suite" to imply a business presence. Rather, private mailbox >>> users must indicate something like "PPO BOX" instead of "Suite" so >>> customers will know that there is no business presence at the >>> location. > This sounds eminently reasonable - it's just a truth-in-labelling law. Many people do many things with a private mail box that are neither illegal or in violation of the post office rules. The federal government has NO business deciding how I form my address. >>> The USPS will also force the private mailbox operator to >>> keep a photocopy of the box owners' drivers license on file for public >>> inspection. The law provides that anyone can ask for the box user's >>> registration information (drivers license). While these rules will >>> help stop marketing scams similar to your message, it takes away >>> individual privacy. > This is scary -- not only does it violate individual privacy, it also > gives the USPS an unfair competitive advantage. Under current PO Box > rules, the post office has to give out the names of businesses which > have PO Boxes, but they will not give out the information on private > individuals without a court order. This is why Email, FAX, UPS, FEDEX, etc. are so popular. I clearly have no reason to trust a government that does not trust me. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: High Court Tunes Out CNN Ride-Along Appeal Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:09:32 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) That is as it should be. The cops were dumb to invite them and CNN was even dumber to take them up on it. In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > The U.S. Supreme Court has turned a deaf ear to CNN's attempt to undo > a lower court ruling exposing it to liability for invading a Montana > couple's privacy. > In part two of a closely watched case dealing with media ride-alongs, > the justices on Tuesday denied the cable network's request for > certiorari from a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. CNN v. > Berger, No. 97-1914 (U.S. June 1, 1999). Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: mikelieman@albany.net (Mike Lieman) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Service Problem Inquiry Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:29:42 GMT Organization: Lieman Systems Development Reply-To: mikelieman@albany.net Generally, Hell Titanic (I *like* that!) has really been a disappointment. (Most recently, we moved a branch office THREE doors down, and (FRIDAY) and as of this morning, they still havn't run the lines to the new office. It is demoralizing. BUT In a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION, about a year ago on a 56K DDS Line that went down, I too have had great results once I got to a Bell Atlantic Supervisor. I guess that once you run the gauntlet of Idiotic Front End CSR's there *ARE* some really bright people. (Unfortunately, they're not working on the lines that are being moved now, well not being moved... Maybe tomorrow! (And of course, as a CLEC'd line, *I* can't call Bell Atlantic) ______________________________________________________________________ Please Read: HEMP & THE MARIJUANA CONSPIRACY -The Emporor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer ISBN# 1-878125-00-1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I Miss Jerry | TECHNOLOGY: | PGP Key & Tapelist are - | No Place for Wimps! | at my web site - ___ _______ ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:29:10 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Here in St. Louis, Mo. in SBC-land it appears to be 48 cents on a "normal" residential line. I say normal because I'm retired from there and get the service free except for that kind of crud. However, I just looked at my ISDN bill and I don't have that charge. But I'm blessed with a Special Municipal Charge of $5.06, A Federal End User Charge of $1.59, a Federal End User Common Line Charge of $5.00 and a Special E911 Tax of 35 cents. None of these show up on my home line unless my former employer is eating them without telling me. I'm getting ripped for $12 on the ISDN line so I guess they don't need the 48 cents. Can someone (Linc?) explain what all this crap is? I can see what's happening. I'd just like to get kissed once in a while! Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:33:34 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Western Elecric WAS Bell. Prior to 1/1/84 they were a wholy-owned subsidiary of AT&T. WE also owned 50% of Bell Labs and AT&T owned the other 50%. In article , amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) wrote: > James Wyatt wrote: >> My recollection is that the NASCOM data network for the Apollo Project >> were all 2400 bit/s 4-wire modems using 800 symbols/s with three >> bits/symbol. > I thought the ones we used were Western Electric not Bell. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #121 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 4 16:19:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA12995; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:19:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906042019.QAA12995@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #122 TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Jun 99 16:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 122 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech (Monty Solomon) Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound) (J. Hoffman) Re: AT&T New Charges (Michael W. Gardiner) Re: AT&T New Charges (Andrew Green) Re: AT&T New Charges (jjs@eudoramail.com) Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Call? (Linc Madison) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Fred Atkinson) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Barry Margolin) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Marc Haber) Re: What is favicon.ico ??? (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 3 Jun 1999 23:25:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/cyberlaw/28law.html May 28, 1999 By CARL S. KAPLAN For the past eight months, Ken Hamidi, a former employee of Intel Corp., has carried out a lonely and poorly financed legal crusade in California State Court. He is trying to uphold what he believes is his right to send Intel workers unsolicited mass e-mail criticizing the giant semiconductor company. By contrast, Intel has long maintained that the gadfly's e-mail represents an illegal and harmful trespass on its private computer property -- or, in the ancient legal lingo, "trespass to chattels." Related Articles Intel E-Mail Ruling Raises Free Speech Questions (April 4, 1998) A Case of Spam and Free Speech at Intel (December 11, 1998) House Backs Away From Regulating Spam (September 28, 1998) Spam Wars Where do you stand on spamming -- and what do you consider "spam"? Should spam be protected under free speech laws? So is the Hamidi dispute chiefly about free speech or private property rights in cyberspace? The answer could well determine the outcome of the case, which has received a lot of attention from watchers of cyberspace law. An article in one of the nation's most prestigious legal publications weighs in on the side of Hamidi's free speech argument. In the May issue of the Harvard Law Review, William M. McSwain, a Harvard law student and an editor of the review, wrote that Hamidi's e-mail messages to Intel employees are speech of "public concern" -- a category of speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Courts should not seek to block Hamidi or others like him from sending e-mail unless they first balance the competing rights of the speaker against those of the property owner and find that the balance tips in favor of the latter, McSwain argued. "Should the courts continue to prove receptive to the theory of electronic trespass, this trend of censoring unwanted speech will no doubt accelerate in the future, because almost every conceivable 'trespass' in cyberspace carries a message," said McSwain in his article, "The Long Arm of Cyber-Reach," which discussed the Hamidi case in detail. Intel sued Hamidi last October and sought a court order to stop him from sending messages to Intel employees at work. According to legal papers, Hamidi sent e-mail messages to more than 30,000 Intel employees in six bursts between 1996 and 1998, detailing what he considered to be abusive and discriminatory employment practices at the company. Hamidi refused Intel's request to stop sending the messages, and he managed to circumvent the company's efforts to block them. Last month, Judge John R. Lewis of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, granted Intel summary judgment in the case, finding that Hamidi's messages trespassed on Intel's proprietary computer system and caused harm. Lawyers for both sides say the judge will soon sign a legal order barring Hamidi from sending any more e-mail to Intel. Hamidi, 52, was dismissed from Intel in 1995 after a disability leave and lives outside Sacramento. He is the founder and spokesman for Face Intel, which he says is an organization of former and current Intel employees. In an interview, Hamidi said that he plans to appeal the court's decision immediately after the order against him is filed. Asking a court to enforce a private-property law does not turn a dispute into a major First Amendment issue. "We'll appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, and if we lose there I will go to the California Supreme Court," he said. "If necessary I will go to the United States Supreme Court. I am in a position to set a legal precedent and I take that responsibility seriously." In his article, McSwain dealt head-on with the main legal puzzle in the Hamidi case. He explained that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech, but that it does not apply to individuals or corporations. For that reason, he said, most people who think about the Hamidi case naturally assume that because Intel is a private company, and Hamidi is a private citizen, then the First Amendment has no role. Not so fast, McSwain argued. Because Intel went to a judge and got him to stop Hamidi from sending e-mail, the government became involved in censorship. In other words, it is one thing for Intel to try to block unwanted e-mail to company employees. But it's another thing to ask a court to ban Hamidi from sending his missives in the first place. "[T]he judicial enforcement of trespass laws in order to censor Internet speech constitutes state action," or action by the government, McSwain wrote. McSwain thinks Hamidi's rights would come out on top in any fair balancing test of speech rights versus property rights, given the serious purpose of his messages and the minimal harm they cause to Intel's computers. In issuing a summary judgment in favor of Intel, Judge Lewis "basically did one-half of the analysis," McSwain said in an interview. "He took out the scales, found that there was a trespass, and said, 'That's it, Hamidi can't speak.'" The court really did not engage in any First Amendment analysis at all, McSwain said. He added that a Harvard Law professor, Charles R. Nesson, sent Judge Lewis a draft of his article in early April as an aid to his decision. McSwain is not the only cyberlaw thinker who believes Judge Lewis got it wrong. Jonathan Zittrain, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, helped supervise McSwain's article. He said in an interview that the center "is considering further participation in the case, which may take the form of an amicus brief," to express support for Hamidi's position. "I think the Hamidi case is a great vehicle from which to explore whether and how the First Amendment applies when you've got putatively private actors going about their business in cyberspace," Zittrain said. He added that the landmark case Times v. Sullivan provides a good guide. In that case, which also involved private parties, the Supreme Court found that judicial enforcement of state libel law brought the First Amendment into play. Michael A. Jacobs, a lawyer with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco who represents Intel in the Hamidi case, said he had read the Harvard Law Review article but did not agree with it. For one thing, he thinks the trespass claim is rock solid. "On appeal, we will invoke a number cases that have already held that unwanted electronic signals to a private server under the right circumstances are trespass to chattels," he said. He added that a 1997 Federal case is squarely in his corner. In that case, CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions Inc., a Federal District Court in Ohio held that Cyber Promotion's delivery of unwanted commercial e-mail, known as "spam," to CompuServe's subscribers was a trespass. In his article, McSwain said that the CompuServe case should not influence the judge's decision in the Hamidi dispute, because Hamidi sent politically charged messages, not spam. Jacobs also said that asking a court to enforce a private-property law does not turn a dispute into a major First Amendment issue. "Over the last 20 years, courts have made it clear that when they are involved in the enforcement of neutral private-property rights, they do not balance speech against property interests," he said. "Otherwise every time someone stepped on your front lawn and started screaming at you, the case could be constitutionalized," he said. For Jacobs, the most fascinating aspect of the Hamidi case is not the state action issue but rather the implications of "cheap speech," which is made possible by the Internet. "The reason this case arose, and the reason the trespass to chattels doctrine is so important, is because Ken Hamidi, at the push of a button, can bombard Intel with thousands of messages, no matter how hard Intel tries to block them," he said. That possibility did not exist before cyberspace came along. Hamidi agrees. "What is the meaning of the Internet? It means that for the first time someone like me can communicate en masse instantaneously," he said. "I want to support that freedom." Carl S. Kaplan at kaplanc@nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. ------------------------------ Subject: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:58:02 GMT > DSL modems, it may releive some strain on phone numbers. And as the > cost of cell phones drops, I think that we will see the end of > pagers. Again, some savings. And, already, some cellphone companies Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone for the whole trip. The second I crossed the border into the US, I lost the signal. I've travelled in Israel, Norway (100 miles north of the artic circle!), Geneva, and London, and seen five bars of signal almost everywhere. But here in the US, I can't drive from Boston to NY without losing signal. This is obviously not a technology problem. What politicial or economic forces are making it impossible to create a good digital phone network in the US? (I would add that even when I >have< signal, as often as not I can't receive calls when roaming on AT&T.) -Joel ------------------------------ From: mwg@mail.msen.com (Michael W. Gardiner) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: 4 Jun 1999 13:43:33 GMT Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI. John R. Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone *please* pass on a copy >> of the 'letter from AT&T' about this? Third request. Thanks. PAT] > AT&T is phasing in a $3 monthly minimum charge. I didn't get a letter, > since I haven't been an AT&T customer for a long, long time, but it was > widely reported in the press. The intent is clearly to get rid of the > grannies who make 47 cents worth of LD calls a month. >>> When you can find a REAL bargain, let me know. > I currently get LD from Planet Earth Communications, www.pecld.com. > They charge 7.9 cpm, no monthly minimum. There's a minimum billing of > $5, which means that if you owe them less than $5 they charge you $5 > but the extra carries over as a credit to future months, so a very low > volume customer might get billed $5 every three months or so. The > rate is 6.9 cpm if you pick the plan with a $10 monthly minimum. They > also have very cool on-line call details, with most calls posted the > day after you make them. I had MCI dump a $5/MO minimum on all my lines, the Cellular (Detroit Market) got switched over to Ameritech LD, as I don't do much LD, and after some research and following up on an advertising insert I found in a newspaper, I settled on PT-1 Communications, dial-around ID 16868 (the 10-10 stuff is driving me crazy, the dial-around trigger is 10, the next five digits are the carrier code). After some test calls that verified their claim of 7.9 CPM 24x7 to the US, Canada and the UK, I switched over. I am still trying to decode all of it, but it seems that they have a very small, if it exists at all, minimum charge. They are certainly better than having my annual LD bill more than tripled by the MCI charges. MCI called a couple of weeks offering wild deals for my return, even a plan with no minimum charge. I asked them to send me the whole thing in writing, I'm still waiting. In the meantime, my home phones are still on PT-1, so they at least avoided that blunder. Mike Gardiner |"The game is never over, Doctor, and the prize is mwg@mail.msen.com | never won. Broken doors, broken dreams, it's all mwg@pobox.com | the same thing. A doors' purpose is to conceal mwg@wwnet.com | the contents of a room, and dreams are the doors http://www.msen.com/~mwg | of the mind." - Mysterious Figure, _Broken Doors_ Unsolicited commercial E-mail subject to $500 processing charge. Sending such messages constitutes agreement to pay. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: RE: AT&T New Charges Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:01:25 -0500 johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes: > AT&T is phasing in a $3 monthly minimum charge. [...] > The intent is clearly to get rid of the grannies who make > 47 cents worth of LD calls a month. Our recent experience was that they were dinging us for $5/month for the privilege of not making LD calls through their fine network. Calling to complain got them to waive the charges for the current month, but the charges returned the next month. Shortly thereafter, a letter arrived announcing the monthly minimum charge as if it was something new, rather than something already in effect. We called and cancelled AT&T LD service on our line. Shortly thereafter I noticed that I could no longer do any 0+ calling-card dialing either, having to resort to (ironically) AT&T's (800) access number in order to make business calls from home with my office AT&T card. Attempts to make a 0+ call yield a completely misleading intercept of something like, "We cannot complete your call at this time; please try again later." A few weeks later, we received a check for $50 from AT&T, who want us to sign up again by cashing it. Sigh ... Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: jjs@eudoramail.com Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 18:08:04 GMT Organization: @Home Network > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone *please* pass on a copy > of the 'letter from AT&T' about this? Third request. Thanks. PAT] Copy of the letter I got follows, along with my comments. Dear (name deleted) Keeping you informed is important to us. I'm writing to you today to make you aware of a policy change that may affect you and to give you a choice to consider. Beginning in June 1999, AT&T will apply a usage minimum when your AT&T calling charges are less than $3.00 In any month in which your AT&T calling charges fall below $3, the difference will be added to your bill. We are making this change to help recover the cost of providing basic service, which includes billing, account maintenance, and customer service. On average, this cost exceeds $3 per month even if no calls are made. You can consolidate your residential phone lines onto one bill to help meet the usage minimum. If you have a second phone line such as a fax line, a computer line, or an additional line for your family you may want to combine all your lines onto one bill. That way your combined lines will be subject to only one usage minimum. Call 1 800 293-9465, and we'll be happy to consolidate your lines. Low-income customers can get help with the usage minimum. If you are enrolled in or eligible for a telephone support program such as Lifeline assistance, which helps customers pay for their local phone service, please call 1 800 293-9465. You will be enrolled in our enhanced AT&T Lifeline Program for your long distance service. AT&T will waive the usage minimum, as well as the Carrier line and Universal connectivity items, on your bill. When you call, an AT&T representative will provide complete AT&T Lifeline enrollment information. We will continue to deliver the quality service and innovation that you've come to expect from AT&T. If you have any questions or would like to inquire about other choices, please visit our Web site at http://www.att.com/usage...min/ or call 1 800 293-9465. For customers using text phones, call 1 800-833-3232. Sincerely, (signed) George Burnett Vice President Consumer Markets Division *AT&T calls that apply toward the minimum are: direct-dialed domestic and international tong distance, AT&T Local Toll, AT&T Calling Card, operator-handled, directory assistance calls, and AT&T Wireless Services when billed in combination with AT&T Long Distance. Taxes, Carrier line charge, and Universal connectivity charge do not apply to the usage minimun,. ----end of letter---- As soon as I recieved this "gem" I called ATT. After going through several layers of recording, I hear one that tells me if I have more than one line, call my local phone company first to have the bills consolidated. Sooooooo, I call Bell Atlantic (I'm in Rhode Island) and speak to a nice woman that explains that they do NOT consolidate bills YET. Maybe in the future they will. She recommended I take LD service off one of my two line, this would eliminate the additional $3.00/month charge. For now this is what I have done. But I can see it's getting to the point where I'm going to start using 10-10 dial arounds, or really search the internet for a better Long Distance phone company (if there is such a thing in this day and age.) One of the many problems of being part of the "older generation", I'm 65 is I can remember Ma bell when she really was MA BELL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 01:26:46 -0700 From: postmaster@LincMad.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: How to Throw the Book at Automated Recording-Only Sales Call? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > At 16:38 -0400 on 05/31/99, Jaquelyn Knox >> John Covert wrote about a claim he is pursuing. Here are some things >> to watch for (I am by no means associated or knowledgeable of the >> legal system, but if I can come up with this, I'm certain their legal >> team can do the same or better): >> * Since it was a single call, it does not constitute harassment. The best >> you can probably expect is to have them comply with your request to >> remove your name from their list. However, there is no regulation that >> they cannot buy another database list from the same, or different, >> source which contains your number again. > If I remember correctly, the law requires them to parse all lists > against "Do not Call" lists. Thus they are allowed to call you ONCE > (or until you say to remove your name). Once you make the request, > they are in violation if you are called again even if the number came > from a new list they acquired not the one used to place the original > call. You remember incorrectly. It is a violation of the federal law to use an automated device to place even a single sales call to anyone who has not specifically opted *IN* for such calls. see specifically paragraph (b)(1)(B) I've been getting a series of calls that are triply abusive -- they are illegally using an automated device to initiate the call, they are calling at unreasonable hours (2 a.m., 4:45 a.m., etc.), and they are calling on my 800 number (also specifically illegal). Unfortunately, they are out of state, so I can't file in my local small claims court. ** 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: as an anti-spam measure, replies are set to "postmaster"; >> however, replies sent to "Telecom" will be read sooner. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:05:02 CDT From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Pat, This presents an interesting possibility. Could someone make an icon of Bill Gates face and put that red emblem in front of it (the one that means 'no')? Or perhaps something a little more creative. I'd like to put something up that would get rid of all those error messages I get. Are there any graphics folks out there among the digest readers that could handle this one and share the icon with us Webmaster types? Aren't I awful? Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Excuse me if I sound a little rude here, but if you want to get rid of 'all those error messages you get' then your site must be a lot more popular than mine; the error message about favicon.ico only shows up once every few days here, which I would hardly consider a large amount of errors. I get far many more 404 errors the first day or two after I purge the oldest stuff in TELECOM_Digest_Online as people look for messages they bookmarked which have been renumbered or sent to the deep archives than I ever got as a result of favicon.ico. If your complaint seems to be that you are getting so many people attempting to book- mark your site, then I would say if that is all you have to complain about you are doing okay in life. When I found out what was going on (yesterday), I immediatly found a little red telephone icon and put it around where it could be found. Now I eliminated 'all my errors' (I wish I were so well- trafficed here; I do *not* consider 3000-4000 hits per day by actual persons to be successful) and at the same time provide a little reminder (the red phone) to visitors of where I am located. In other words, as they say, 'win/win'. Why do you want to pick on Bill Gates? Basically he took his product, on which he has no obligation to provide you five pixels of visual space and essentially lets you 'co-brand' it if you wish to do so with some representation of yourself and your site. I can tell you there are more users with IE browsers than there are visitors to your site and mine put together. I wish I could get my little red telephone on one percent of them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 14:48:27 GMT In article , Toby Nixon wrote: > Some people have raised concerns that the favicon.ico lookup could be > a privacy issue -- that somehow knowing the fact that someone > bookmarked your site could be of interest. Maybe so, but the fact is > that the web server gets no more information about someone because IE5 > tried to open favicon.ico than it gets about them looking at the > default html page at the root of the site. The HTTP GET function > conveys exactly the same information in each case. If a site gains > enough info from the favicon.ico lookup to send you spam, then they > would have gotten that same information by you simply browsing the > site without bookmarking it. If you want this level of privacy, you > can't browse the web at all. And the increased "traffic" from failed > favicon.ico lookups is vanishingly small; a typical page load uses > many, many GETs, and how often do you bookmark something compared to > how often you load a page? The information that someone has bookmarked your site *is* of interest to the web site owner. This indicates that you're probably more interested in the site's topic than other visitors, and thus a better target for spam. I think people would find it very disturbing to receive a message saying "We noticed that you have expressed particular interest in our products...." I imagine that all the people who worry about the ad banner sites that use cookies to correlate all the sites that you visit (they can't tell who you are, but they can tell that the same user is visiting a particular set of sites, and can then tailor the ads to their profile) would find this very disturbing. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But why is favicon.ico necessary to do this? Can't a webmaster put something on the page himself saying 'bookmark this site', and then give instructions for doing so when a vistor clicks on that link? If I, or any webmaster was that interested in spamming his visitors -- and I am not saying some don't do it -- then why couldn't I do a sophisticated job of grepping my logs each day, making little lists of pages visited, recombining the results by the IP address which used them, and in essence create all sorts of very detailed studies? Why couldn't I count up and identify all the people who clicked on my link to 'bookmark this page' or 'make this your home page'. How does favicon.ico cause anything to happen that could not already happen? Are you saying I cannot grep my logs for 'bookmark this site' as easily as I can grep for calls to favicon.ico? This is really, as Shakespeare wrote, 'much ado about nothing'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Marc.Haber-usenet@gmx.de (Marc Haber) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:11:03 GMT Organization: posting from University of Karlsruhe, Germany Toby Nixon wrote: > Some people have raised concerns that the favicon.ico lookup could be > a privacy issue -- that somehow knowing the fact that someone > bookmarked your site could be of interest. Maybe so, but the fact is > that the web server gets no more information about someone because IE5 > tried to open favicon.ico than it gets about them looking at the > default html page at the root of the site. The HTTP GET function > conveys exactly the same information in each case. I have to contradict this. A simple page impression tells the webmaster that somebody has viewed the page. It doesn't tell the webmaster if the user was disgusted by the page and closed it immediately. A GET on the favicon.ico tells the webmaster that somebody found the page that useful that he decided to visit the page again in the future. This could be important for webmasters to sell banner advertising. This is a clear privacy issue. Also, I object that users don't know about this additional electronic trail they're leaving and that IE5 cannot be configured to not ask for favicon.ico. This practice is highly disputed. I have heard reports of webmasters linking favicon.ico to /dev/random which makes bookmarking these sites with IE5 impossible. In fact, this is the reason why I refuse to install this particular product on any machine under my control. Greetings, Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would a webmaster want to make it impossible for someone to bookmark his site? And I must say the same thing to you I said to Barry, above: favicon.ico is one single thing a webmaster who wants a sophisticated analysis of his traffic can look for; there are plenty of things to look for and ways to sort out the log each day. Handing favicon.ico to your visitors is one way of giving them a visual 'souvenier' of their visit to the site if they wish to have one, nothing more or less. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 99 09:12 CDT From: kevin@kray.com (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: Re: What is favicon.ico ??? Organization: KRAY In article you wrote: > Something about the telecom-digest.org website has bugged me for awhile > now; maybe someone knows the answer ... > [ ... ] > One that shows up quite often is 'favicon.ico', always called by > different sites, never so far as I can tell the same place ... and > sometimes the error report says they looked for it in the root > directory, or sometimes in one of the archives sub-directories. And what browser were you using when you showed up in the logs? What the SERVER is (in this case) is not relevant. favicon.ico is most likely a browser dependant quirk -- and without even thinking about it I would have to say Microsoft. They, once again, were trying to do things their way and not follow any sort of standard that has already been set out there. I will say in checking my logs back to 1996 I see -0- reference in any of my logs here. Of course your volume in one week is my volume in one year ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was using my personal copy of IE-5. My problem was the browser had crashed on me, due to something I had done. While it was stalled, it seemed to think I wanted to bookmark some things. For all the places I found favicon.ico errors in the log at that time, I found corresponding 'favorite' entries on the browser later when I cleaned it all out a bit later. Regards who has more traffic, I try to err on the conservative side and make several adjustments to the log before 'counting' the entries. I start with the master log at massis.lcs.mit.edu and grep telecom- archives into file 'weblog'. Then I grep -v (in other words find everything except) GIF/ from weblog into file 'purelog'. Then I grep -v the clock digits from purelog into 'cleanlog'. Then I grep -v my own IP address and the IP addresses of known robots from cleanlog into 'purelog'. Then I grep -v /MIDI from purelog into 'weblog' but do 'wc' to arrive at a 'memo total only' of music listeners. Then I take the greatly pruned and cleaned weblog and sort it in order by IP address. Each *unique* IP address counts as one 'hit'. So the person could look at five pages in one session, I count that as one visitor. I assume a 'session' to be about ten minutes, so if an otherwise unique IP address has a 'split session', i.e. they come at 10 AM and look at four or five pages in six or eight minutes that is one visitor. They come back in the afternoon and look at something else then it is a second visitor. Then I grep through weblog counting hits to individual pages, etc. Then I take my finished, purified log and hand it to a Netscape program called 'analyze' and let it organize the stats for the hourly traffic; how many calls in the five busiest seconds, the five busiest minutes, etc. Actually I do not do this personally; its just a little script I put together sort of on the fly, and I have a crontab entry for it. I have it run at 10 minutes past each hour, and an abridged set of results are then displayed on the main page in the link called 'stats', which anyone is free to view. You can always see how many visitors (based on the above definitions) Telecom Archives has accumulated on the present day as of ten minutes past the last hour by clicking on 'stats' on the main page. LCS/MIT cuts the log at 4:00 AM Eastern each day and starts over. At the same time, all open FTP connections are dropped and there is a sort of general reset of everything. Some people think nothing of opening an FTP connection early in the morning then walking away leaving it there all day. That gets cured at 4:00 AM also. Then about 5:00 AM Eastern each day, my crontab runs a script which updates the index handed out to email requestors; and the Netscape 'analyze' program is run against my purified logs for the entire day and the past week. I do NOT do DNS lookup against the IP addresses because I feel that would be an invasion of privacy. I may modify the public 'stats' display to include a line saying 'X callers created a bookmark of this site today'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:53:51 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; > remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a > system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same > number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. Those four tones were part of > the standards set many years ago. I might be inclined to change the > *names* of those keys to something like F,D,V, and X as in 'fax', > I had an old Autovon phone a while back and plugged it in to see > how it would work. The twelve 'regular' buttons worked fine, but as > soon as the network heard one of the other four regardless of where > they were positioned in the dialing string, the switch sent back >a fast reorder tone. In any place where there were phone lines Most modems will generate the other four tones, with something like: atdt ABCD used to generate the tones A, B, C and then D. I tried this in Israel once ten years ago, a few months before touch-tone dialing was introduced (and so, I thought, what harm could it do). Turns out it did not harm at all, but either the codes I sent, or, more like, the presense of the tones, turned on touch tone dialing for me, months before it was announced or made available! -Joel ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #122 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 4 17:19:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA15825; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:19:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906042119.RAA15825@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #123 TELECOM Digest Fri, 4 Jun 99 17:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 123 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T New Charges (Art Kamlet) 10-10-220 (MCI) (jjs@eudoramail.com) Standard Symbols and Diagrams (Patricio Boric) Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion (Art Kamlet) Re: NANP-Caribbean Now Supposedly All Unique in its NPAs (David Charles) Re: Billing - Integrated IP Networks (John R. Levine) Re: CSU and PBX Compatibility Issues (K. Lundy) Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? (Barry Margolin) Re: Analog and Digital Line Differences (Robert Berntsen) Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data (Herb Stein) Channel Extender (Alonzo Alcazar) Router Information? (Andrew L. Meier) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Jason A. Lindquist) Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? (Tim Shoppa) Last Laugh! (was Re: Do You Feel Like a Number?) (Pete Weiss) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: 4 Jun 1999 16:28:01 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Michael W. Gardiner wrote: > after some research and following up on an advertising insert I found in a > newspaper, I settled on PT-1 Communications, dial-around ID 16868 (the > 10-10 stuff is driving me crazy, the dial-around trigger is 10, the next > five digits are the carrier code). Are you sure? I thought the Alternate IEC select code was now 101 and the 4 digits (currently the only first digit allowed is 0 or 6 but that could be expanded) were the carrier code. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Tony Pelliccio : >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, excuse me here a minute ... We in >> the Digest did not get the original of this letter that I am aware >> of, unless I was asleep when it got approved, and I have seen or >> heard nothing of some mandatory AT&T charge for all phone customers >> everywhere. Perhaps 'R. Derr' or 'Ken M.' would not mind sending >> along a copy of the actual letter or notice received. Has anyone here >> on the mailing list heard of such a thing? PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone *please* pass on a copy > of the 'letter from AT&T' about this? Third request. Thanks. PAT] I got it, and promptly changed my PIC on the phone I use just for local access to my ISP to NO-PIC. Ameritech charges me $1.50 for NO-PIC but there are no Gore charges! I didn't save the letter, Pat. It was sent to everyone who uses AT&T as their PIC, and says there will be a minimum $3 / month fee. So if you use $10 per month you never see this. If you use $1 per month you see a $2 charge that month for the minimum charge. As I said my solution was to go NO-PIC for that phone line. I can still call 800/888/877 numbers but cannot call 101+4 to choose any IEC! Ameritech's NO-PIC locks out the 101-4 IEC carrier selection. Not sure why. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: jjs@eudoramail.com Subject: 10-10-220 (MCI) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:42:05 GMT Organization: @Home Network After getting some info on web sites to search (Thanks Pat and everyone) I have been looking at various state to state, and in state dial around LD companies to determine which might be best for me. If I make more than one LD call a month, I'm talking too much, so I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. No monthly fee No monthly minimum .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional minute is 10 cents After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, which is not unusual in the long distance business these days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Patricio Boric Subject: Standard Symbols and Diagrams Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:25:57 -0400 Organization: ENTEL S.A. I am looking information about standards for symbols in telecommunication and networking diagrams. ( i.e. a standard for the symbol of a router, a switch, a P.A.B.X., a multiplexer, a transmiter, and so on.) Ideally generic, non-vendor specific symbols. Any help will be appreciated. Regards, Patricio Boric ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Use of Star/Pound in Number Expansion Date: 4 Jun 1999 16:43:02 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > However, there is always the old A,B,C, and D keys from Autovon days; > remember those? It might be fun to see what could be done with a > system which gave every person four telephone 'numbers', i.e. the same > number but with A,B,C, or D on the end. . . . By the way, Pat, now that I think of it, the actual Autovon phone on my desk was labeled (top to bottom, right row) FO Flash Override F FLash I Immediate P Priority Beats DefCon 1-5 anyday :^) Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: NANP-Caribbean Now Supposedly All Unique in its NPAs Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:11:52 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Well, it is now Tuesday 1-June-1999. ..... > +508- St.Pierre & Miquelon > (actually off the coast of +1-709, Newfoundland Canada. In the 1970's, > AT&T and Canada reached St.Pierre & Miquelon via the St.John's NF > Inward Operator as 709+121; the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU > country code was by 1984) > +509- Haiti > (the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU country code was by 1976) > +53- Cuba > (In the CCITT/ITU list of 1964, Cuba did have its own Country Code) > +590- Guadeloupe (French Antilles) > +596- Martinique (French Antilles) > (The first reference to these CCITT/ITU country codes was by 1976) > +599- Dutch Antilles > (the first reference to its own CCITT/ITU country code was by 1968) > The French Antilles also includes the islands of St.Barthelemy and the > French side of St.Martin, all of which are geographically grouped with > the "upper" Dutch Antilles. I've seen these smaller French islands at > different times as part of either country code +590- or +596. It is not only within the NANP that the difference between a domestic call and one that is effectively international is not obvious. It is possible to dial French overseas departments (DOMs) including Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Pierre & Miquelon from France by dialling what appears to be a normal domestic call despite the fact that they have separate country codes. (Note that the DOMs are formally part of France and therefore technically these are domestic calls). Calls from France to French overseas territories are dialed as international calls. The sequence to dial a DOM from France is: 0 (3 digits) (6 digits) Normal numbers in France, as dialled within France, are 0 followed by 9 digits, starting 01 to 06 depending on the region. Thus 05 96 XX XX XX is in Martinique whereas 05 56 XX XX XX is in South-west France. The charges for calls from France to the DOMs are higher than within France, but not as high as to other Caribean destinations. The examples of rates below are for France Telecom - the ranges are for different times of day and in the case of calls within France distance. Within France 0.20 to 1.00 FRF/min ($0.02 to $0.16) To DOMs (except Mayotte) 1.75 to 2.63 FRF/min ($0.27 to $0.41) To Mayotte 3.58 to 5.36 FRF/min ($0.56 to $0.84) To USA 1.60 to 2.00 FRF/min ($0.25 to $0.31) To US Virgin Islands 7.50 to 9.40 FRF/min ($1.18 to $1.48) David Charles ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 1999 10:01:22 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Billing - Integrated IP Networks Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Voice is normally charged on a per minute basis. Data (packets) are > typically charged on a per-packet basis. We used to charge per > kilosegment. Aren't these two methods essentially incompatible? These days, data is usually charged by connection bandwidth. You get ADSL or a T1, you pay a flat rate. I believe some NSPs have a scheme sort of like the way that industrial electrical users are billed, by a combination of connection size and daily peak usage. > Or, will data be charged on a per minute basis (makes no > sense) or will voice be charged on a kilosegment basis? > Will VoIP OS systems allow for billing voice per minute? I don't see how they can avoid charging voice per minute on calls to regular telephones. On most voice calls, the largest single cost is the per-minute access charge paid to the local telcos on each end of the call. VoIP from your PC on the public Internet is a toy, so there's litle economic incentive (not to be confused with RBOC paranoia) to segregate it out and bill it like real long distance, but the VoIP networks that provide normal phone service all charge per minute. It looks to me like VoIP makes a lot of sense on internal corporate networks, which usually have a lot of unused existing data bandwidth, and as a multiplexing technology on voice networks. It makes much less on the public Internet which is chronically slow and congested. The main incentive to use it on the Internet is to make international calls to avoid paying overpriced settlements. But now that I can make a real voice call to England for 9 cents/minute, I don't see much reason to put up with cruddy VoIP, and I expect that as other international rates fall into line, VoIP will disappear from public view, turning into an internal technology to deliver POTS. 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: klundy@my-deja.com (K. Lundy) Subject: Re: CSU and PBX Compatibility Issues Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:27:50 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. The PBX is set to ESF/B8ZS, as is the network. The Adtran I was using was the ACE model - which is "smart" and detects the line coding - you can't force the setting. We have had 3 of the ACE units on the circuit. I have since put a Paradyne and an XTel, and all my problems went away (at least so far, after 8 hours). We temporarily put 2 of the original ACEs back on line and we were taking slips within minutes! So there does appear to be some compatibility issue between the ADTRAN ACE, and the Lucent DS1 card, or the particular MCI line configuration (although MCI tell's me they use this particular Adtran on most of their T1 voice circuits) Interesting indeed. In article , Jaquelyn Knox wrote: > Any more info available? > A lot of "PBX" use D4/AMI. The Adtran is capable of supporting this, or > ESF/B8ZS. Check that setting. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 15:02:04 GMT In article , Dennis Metcalfe wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 1999 00:14:26 -0400, Richard Shima > wrote: >> Try looking at this interesting new site for 10-10 comparisons: >> http://www.10-10Phonerates.com/ > Very limited information ... I use http://www.abelltolls.com for both > domestic and international rates. Although the latter site is much more complete, the former has a nice table showing the total costs of 1-, 15-, and 60-minute calls via each carrier, with the cheapest ones in each category marked in red. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: Analog and Digital Line Differences Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:09:07 +0200 alcazar3@my-deja.com wrote in message ... > What is the difference between analog and digital data lines? Data meaning information, can be pure analog (voice). Data meaning digital information must be modulated on an analog channel. But a channel can be delivered in a digital form (ISDN, DSL) hiding the modulation - demodulation (modem) from the user. > I mean both of them transmit thru analog signals don't they? Yes, nature is analog, except for quantum mechanics, where you find quantum leaps between f.instance electron energy levels. > What is bursty loss? Noise tends to come in bursts, triggered by lightning or similar energy sources. During a burst of noice you will probably loose more information than else. Hence info loss comes in bursts. Regards, R. ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:14:22 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Privacy-Sales.html > LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California will join a growing number of states > that sell confidential information about their residents' income to > banks, lenders and car dealers. This should be criminal. The only way that the states get this information in through the form of blackmail known as income tax collection. Certainly no private organization should EVER be allowed access to that information. > The programs are designed to speed up processing of loan applications > and reduce fraud by allowing lenders to quickly verify information > provided by people seeking credit. The states are not supposed to > release the data unless the consumer gives written consent. My loan applications are between me and my lender. The state has no reason to even know that I have a loan. > But privacy advocates caution that the electronic disclosures could > allow private information to fall into the wrong hands. > ``Once you establish electronic access to a large-scale database there > are going to be illegitimate uses of the information,'' said Beth > Givens, director of the San Diego-based Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. I believe the rule of "unintended consequences" applies here. > Under a law passed quietly last year, lawmakers authorized the state > to give financial companies access to private income data the state > collects on nearly 14 million employed people. The information is > normally used to calculate worker compensation and unemployment > insurance payments employers make to the state. > Banks and other lenders hope to see similar systems in every state. > Before requesting information, the lender must get the written consent > of the consumer. However, neither the state nor Verification try to > confirm that consent has been granted. If the state "must" have written consent, why aren't criminal charges filed regarding the lack of same in 100% of the cases? > Instead, Verification auditors make random checks of the records of > lenders, looking for those written consent documents. The accounting > firm Peat Marwick audits Verfication to confirm that checks are being > made, Skowronnek said. > The concern about the California plan is whether consumers are > voluntarily providing information in the loan process. They have no > choice in what the government collects. Also, by getting into the > information business, state governments provide one more potential > means for information to be accessed illegally, she said. See my first comment. The state only has information about because of various threats which they can, of course, back up. Be it income tax data, drivers license number, license plate number or anything else. This data should NEVER, under ANY circumstances, be released to private parties. > ``I'm skeptical this is a good idea. Ordinarily the traffic in > information can be an extremely good thing. Having information that is > not a part of the public record being sold by the government makes me > uncomfortable,'' said Singleton. As well it should. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar) Subject: Channel Extender Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:01:30 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. What is a channel extender and how does it work? Alonzo Alcazar ------------------------------ From: Andrew L. Meier Subject: Router Information? Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:42:30 -0400 I am currently doing some preliminary research for my MQP (senior design project) and I am looking for a good book which describes the role of a router in a computer network. I understand the basic principle of them, but I need to completely understand how they operate I hope to look at how the routing tables are formed or something along those lines. If you know of any book or technical publication that might be of use to me please let me know. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Andy Meier ------------------------------ From: jlindqui@enterprise.uiuc.edu (Jason A. Lindquist) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: 4 Jun 1999 16:19:47 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign JF Mezei writes: > Kim Brennan wrote: >> I'll probably go with Sprint PCS, due to a number of factors (keeping >> my existing telephone number, ability to continue using a Motorola >> Startac) but primarily because the alternative AT&T is hardly >> attractive. > Will Sprint exchange your phone for free? According to the web page Kim cited (http://www.sprintspectrum-apc.com), they'll swap phones, accessories, and let you keep your current service plan if you want to. > If Sprint is converting its GSM to match the rest of its network, I > wonder if Vodaphone will convert Airtouch to GSM so that it matches > all of its network. Heheheh ... you *do* know that Vodaphone was a participant in the GSM-over-CDMA trials last year? :-) The way things seem to be going with the ITU, it appears that in the future, as all restaurants will be Taco Bell, so all cellular networks will be CDMA. Jason Lindquist <*> "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope, linky@see.figure1.net That there can always be a new beginning. KB9LCL Even for people like us." -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light" ------------------------------ From: Tim Shoppa Subject: Re: Do You Feel Like a Number? Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:08:06 -0400 Organization: Trailing Edge Technology Bill Godfrey wrote: > Javier Henderson writes: >> What about the millions of tourists that visit the US every year? Are >> they going to be required to obtain a non-working SSN or a TIN from >> the IRS? > Hmmm ... Last time I was in the US, I tried to join a video rental shop. > They were happy with my British passport as identification, but they > insisted on a social secuity number. > "I don't have one." I said, to blank look on the droid's face. > Fortunately, the supervisor came along and entered by number as > 11-11-11-11-11. (Or something like that.) I lived and worked in Canada for two years, and still made frequent trips back to the US. I particularly enjoyed store policies (most notably Radio Shack's) which required clerks to get the name and address of every purchaser. We'd be going along fine, right up until the cashier tried to put "BC" in their computer system as a state. Then the computer would, for some reason unknown to the cashier, refuse to accept the address. I usually made a few impatient remarks such as "Can you legally sell this to me? Am I going to have to buy it somewhere else?" before the clerk found a workaround. Then we got to have some fun with the Canadian six-character postal code... It was refreshing, while in Canada, to not have to ever give my social security number to anybody there. And the only folks who ever asked for my Canadian equivalent, the Social Insurance Number, were my employer and the tax people. Compare this policy to what's happening in much of the US, where long-time customers are having their electricity and gas turned off because they refuse to give their social security number to the utility company. Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa@trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927 ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Last Laugh! (was Re: Do You Feel Like a Number?) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:49:32 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Thu, 3 Jun 99 22:48:14 , Bill Godfrey wrote: > Fortunately, the supervisor came along and entered by number as > 11-11-11-11-11. (Or something like that.) Hey that's my SSN -- don't foulup my credit rating or SS benefits ;-) Pete ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #123 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 7 19:06:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA04426; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:06:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906072306.TAA04426@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #124 TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jun 99 19:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 124 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Ken M.) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound)(T.Simon) The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers (net_demon@my-deja.com) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Arthur Ross) Re: 10-10-220 (Barry Margolin) Re: 10-10-220 (James Gifford) Re: 10-10-220 (Joel B. Levin) Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data (Barry Margolin) Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together-Screening Wish (R. Schomaker) Re: NANP-Caribbean Now Supposedly All Unique in its NPAs (Mark Brader) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Ken M. Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:00:22 -0400 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still > haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. > I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to > Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone > for the whole trip. The second I crossed the border into the US, I > lost the signal. Maybe you have a "bad" phone. I use ATT digital and whenever my service begins to roam, I am automatically connected to Cell One's frequency. I doubt if I have had more than five (5) dropped calls in the past year. (ken) See some sample photos taken with my Olympus digital camera at: http://www.theupperdeck.com/digitcam/ ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound) Date: 7 Jun 1999 17:03:35 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >> DSL modems, it may relieve some strain on phone numbers. And as the >> cost of cell phones drops, I think that we will see the end of >> pagers. Again, some savings. And, already, some cellphone companies > Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches of Wyoming to to Idaho to California to Las Vegas and finally home to New York; except for within the boundaries of a few national parks, a brief stretch in the Tetons, and a few days near Almo, ID (population a hundred at most, accessible only by dirt road) with a dual-band analog/digital Sprint phone I had pretty much continuous coverage. I didn't always roam seamlessly -- in fact, I did go through one or two places where I couldn't roam *at all*; to make other than emergency calls would have required me to open an account with the local cell company -- but if you don't plan to travel to Lander, WY in the near future that probably won't concern you. I used to travel in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan quite a bit and I found pretty good coverage there, too. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: net_demon@my-deja.com Subject: The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:39:42 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Anyone else get this junk fax? It advertises a Richo 4727 copier for $1995. Their number to place an order is 1-800-633-3304, and if you want to be removed from the database you can fax 818-576-0898. I've tracked down more information about these people: http://www.copierdirect.net/ 1-800-300-6693 Factory Direct Copiers (COPIERDIRECT2-DOM) 9348 De Soto Chatworth, CA 91311 Ames, Ken (KA4728) ken@COPIERDIRECT.COM 818-717-9790 (FAX) 818-717-9790 As you know, junk faxing is illegal under federal law. Check out http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html So, to deal with this problem, 1. I called them up and acted like I wanted to order one of their crappy copiers. 2. They arranged for FedEx to come by and pick up my "company check" at their expense. 3. I had a demand letter waiting, quoting US Code 47 and threatening to sue them if they don't send me some money in a week. 4. I sent the letter priority overnight, because I knew they were anxious to get it (which also happened to be the most expensive option). 5. They called me back today, and, how should I put this, didn't sound very happy at all. Keep in mind when suing junk faxers, that you don't have to file in a court where they are located. Since the event you are suing over occured at YOUR home or office (where the fax machine is), that means you can file in your jurisdiction, forcing them to come to where you are to defend themselves. Also, since they know junk faxing is illegal, the court can raise the amount of damages to three times the original amount. This means you should ask the court to raise damages to $1500 instead of $500. If you win a court judgment because they don't show up, or they just don't feel like paying, you can just turn the judgment over to a collection agency and let them deal with it. It's kind of like winning the lottery! This one should be a slam dunk. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck, and let us know how it turns out. Maybe you could share your good fortune with this impoverished editor in the form of donation. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:12:29 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would not be a lot different, except > perhaps for the immediacy of the circumstances if your neighbor's > house caught on fire and he had never bothered to select some fire > department to respond. Obviously you would have to call yours instead, > and then attempt to get him to pay the bill for it later. > I strongly and sincerely believe the *ONLY* legitimate function of > government is to perform those services which the people being > governed would find too inconvenient or impractical to perform for > themselves. Protection against fires is one such task and other > natural disasters. I would place most utility services in this same > category. Arrangements for water, electrical and gas distribution > on an individual basis would be very difficult or impossible. I am > almost ready to say telephone networks should be in that category, > but if telephones, then why not ISPs, the computer equivilent of > the 'phone company'? But as things are going now, it may not be > long before ISPs are in fact regulated in much the same way telcos > are regulated by federal and state agencies. PAT] Pat - I tend to agree about ISPs, etc, but when it comes to the Ether, I think it's more like water, sewer, etc. See attachments (3 pdf files total), which I submitted to the FCC last fall in response to their request for comments on "IMT-2000" spectrum policy. The point is that the new SSMA wireless access techniques present some new, creative ways to do this kind of thing. They probably won't, of course. One of my FCC buddies told me that even they had not thought this creatively (meaning the notion of LEASING, not selling, spectrum, which is what they have been doing so far). Of the 31 responses they got to this, 29 were from big corporations. The other two were from me and one other guy, who works at another government agency. I'm a citizen of the US, and as entitled as anyone else to have an opinion. Figured, among other things, that it was a God-given self-marketing opportunity, as every big-shot telecom law firm in the world would probably read the responses. Decided I must have been doing something right when, a few weeks later, I got a large envelope from a big-shot DC FCC-type law firm, including some sort of affadavit that "I have served this notice on the following ... " and I was one of those parties named. What it was, was a complaint about something Lucent had said in their response, but they had sent the complaint to all of the respondees. Cool! Must have gotten their attention! -- Best -- Arthur PS: Supposedly, this is available for public inspection at the FCC somewhere, IAW their usual policies. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dr. Ross sent along a large file attachment worth your review, and I have placed it in the Telecom Archives under the title IMT-2000 Spectrum Issues. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:00:40 GMT In article , wrote: > After getting some info on web sites to search (Thanks Pat and > everyone) I have been looking at various state to state, and in state > dial around LD companies to determine which might be best for me. > If I make more than one LD call a month, I'm talking too much, so > I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, > which is not unusual in the long distance business these days. PAT] They usually describe it differently: 99 cents for the first 20 minutes, then 10 cents/minute after that. You could also consider it 99 cents for the first 10 seconds and the next 19:50 are free. They all add up to the same thing. They've been advertising this plan heavily on TV for months. Why does there have to be a catch? They probably make out like bandits on people who make calls less than 10 minutes long, in which case they're more expensive than all the 10 cents/minute services. Think about all the times you reach an answering machine -- if it takes you two minutes to listen to the greeting and leave a message, you paid 50 cents/minute for that call. I'm sure these short calls make up for all the 20 minute calls that are only 5 cents/minute. I only make 4-5 LD calls a month (my mother and I talk about once a week). If I reach my mother we usually talk for 10-15 minutes, so 10-10-220 would be OK; but frequently I get her machine, so I won't risk it. I have been using 10-10-457 (10 cents/minute), but I recently found 101-6868 (7.9 cents/minute) in the 10-10PhoneRates chart (I can't find it in the ABellTolls chart) so I'll switch to that. The break-even point with 10-10-220 is about 13 minutes. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:01:57 GMT jjs@eudoramail.com wrote: > After getting some info on web sites to search (Thanks Pat and > everyone) I have been looking at various state to state, and in state > dial around LD companies to determine which might be best for me. > If I make more than one LD call a month, I'm talking too much, so > I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. You're not looking at it quite right. All of your calls up to 20 minutes cost you 99 cents. A one-minute call is 99 cents. A five-minute call is 99 cents. A 20-minute call is 99 cents. Unless you know that each and every call is going to be at least 20 minutes long, you're going to be losing money on the deal. IMHO, 10-10-220 is a ripoff aimed at people (the 7-11 crowd) who have only the vaguest notion of how much phone calls cost and fall for the idea that a flat buck for a call is a good deal. I've always kept AT&T for my primary carrier, but I've frequently used 10-10-321 for LD in the past year or two. They're 10 cents per minute unless you go past 20 minutes, at which time the overall cost drops to 5 cents per minute. This is a *much* better deal than 10-10-220, as calls up to 9 minutes long and 20 minutes and over are cheaper (proportionately so), while only calls between 11 and 19 minutes will be more. James Gifford Associate Editor, Computer Telephony Magazine = Speaking only for myself in this case = ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:31:58 GMT In , jjs@eudoramail.com wrote: > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, > which is not unusual in the long distance business these days. PAT] That's just a restatement of the pricing as advertised: "Any call up to 20 minutes for 99 cents, then ten cents a minute." The catch is that it's a great rate when the call is over 12 minutes, but very expensive to make a couple of one minute calls with. If you plan to talk for 20 minutes, and get the answering machine instead, you're screwed for the whole 99 cents anyhow. /JBL Nets: levin/at/bbn.com or jbl/at/levin.mv.com or levinjb/at/gte.net ARS: KD1ON ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:10:52 GMT In article , Herb Stein wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Privacy-Sales.html >> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California will join a growing number of states >> that sell confidential information about their residents' income to >> banks, lenders and car dealers. > This should be criminal. The only way that the states get this > information in through the form of blackmail known as income tax > collection. Certainly no private organization should EVER be allowed > access to that information. When you apply for a large loan, just about every lender asks for income information. So it seems that the state is just selling them their copy of information that you would have given the lender already. It seems that there would only be an issue if you lied about your income on one of the forms. When I applied for my mortgage, they asked me for a copy of my most recent Form 1040 (I don't think they asked for any of the detailed schedules). I agree that this does seem to set a bad precedent. In the above limited cases, it seems somewhat reasonable, but once the government gets a taste of this income, they'll surely look for other ways to sell all the data they've been collecting. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish List From: Rupa Schomaker Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:41:36 GMT Organization: @Home Network bt@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes: > Having just purchased an answering machine phone with caller-ID I was > surprised to find out the caller-ID is just for the phone (which keeps > a memory of the last 50 calls) but is not associated with the > answering machine -- ie. the digital answering machine doesn't store > the caller-id info with the call, just the date and time. That seems > stupid. One would like to be able to respond to one's messages with a > "return call" button that dials the ID, if present on that call. > I just looked at the lit for the gigaset, which supposedly tries to be > cream of the crop, and it doesn't do this either. The Gigaset does do this. If you are using the console the screen displays the caller id info. If you are using a handset or calling remotely you can press a key (I htink 9) to play back the callerid info. > In addition has anybody yet made an answering machine combo that > can really do proper call screening? For this I mean ... > a) Intercepts main trunk, so phones don't even ring if screening > parameters dictate. Lower the number of rings and turn off the ringers of your phones. > b) Allows indepenent programming for: > a) Identified number > b) Unidentified number > c) Private (blocked) call > d) Unavailable call The gigaset can have a different OGM for c, but I don't know how it behaves with b or d. Also, I can't remember if it will record in case c or if it is a message only. I'd have to look at the manual again. My biggest problem with the gigaset is that if I screen all calls I can only "break in" on a recording message from the console. The handsets don't seem to have the option to break into someone leaving a message. Very very annoying. -rupa ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: NANP-Caribbean Now Supposedly All Unique in its NPAs Date: 7 Jun 1999 19:03:23 -0400 David Charles writes: > It is not only within the NANP that the difference between a domestic > call and one that is effectively international is not obvious. > It is possible to dial French overseas departments (DOMs) including > Guadeloupe, Martinique and St. Pierre & Miquelon from France by dialling > what appears to be a normal domestic call despite the fact that they > have separate country codes. (Note that the DOMs are formally part of > France and therefore technically these are domestic calls)... According to the 1997 edition of the World Almanac, Guadeloupe and Martinique are indeed DOMs, but the third is not. St. Pierre & Miquelon gave up DOM status in 1985 to become a Collectivite (acute accent on the last letter) Territoriale. This is an intermediate status between a DOM, which is part of France, and an overseas territory (TOM). Perhaps it would be like Puerto Rico as opposed to Hawaii, though I don't know if that's a fair comparison. Mark Brader, Toronto "Whatever you are, be out and out, msbrader@interlog.com not divided or in doubt." -- Ibsen My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #124 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 7 20:07:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA07031; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906080007.UAA07031@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #125 TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jun 99 20:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 125 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #186, June 7, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (Greg Monti) Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (Brian O'Donoghue) Phone Bill Robbery! (David Szlucha) Re: 10-10-220 (Matthew Black) Re: 10-10-220 (Mike Desmon) Re: 10-10-220 (David E. Sheafer) Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data (Matthew Black) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 7 Jun 1999 12:09:53 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #186, June 7, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 186: June 7, 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: ** AT&T Canada Sells Residential LD Business ** AtlanticCo Becomes Aliant ** Price Caps Cut Business Rates ** NewCo to Launch This Month ** CRTC Explains Futureway Ruling ** MTS Locks Out Unionized Employees ** Microcell Files CLEC Tariff ** Fido Offers Wireless Data ** Ameritech Completes Bell Purchase ** Ameritech Execs Join BCE Mobile ** AT&T Canada/MetroNet Merger Closes ** Banks, BCE Join for Electronic Bill Presentment ** Telus Offers Group Wireless in Alberta ** Survey Shows 41% Use Wireless Phones ** Cogeco Offers High-Speed Business Internet ** Newbridge Records Loss ** Information and Communication Statistics Released ** AT&T Canada to Offer IP Fax Service ** Quebec 9-1-1 Coverage Expanded ** Bonus Explains Telecom's "Tips, Tricks & Traps" AT&T CANADA SELLS RESIDENTIAL LD BUSINESS: Primus Canada is paying $57 Million to acquire AT&T Canada's 450,000 residential long distance and Internet customers. Primus, which says it now has about 650,000 Canadian customers, will buy wholesale service from AT&T. (See Telecom Update #177) ATLANTICCO BECOMES ALIANT: The Atlantic region's new telco, formed by the merger of Bruncor, Island Tel, MTT, and NewTel, has taken the name Aliant Inc. BCE owns 41.6% of the new company. (See Telecom Update #175, 184) PRICE CAPS CUT BUSINESS RATES: The CRTC has approved virtually all of the tariff changes filed by the major telcos in March to comply with the price cap regime. The primary effect is to reduce rates for various business services as of June 1. (See Telecom Update #177) ** The Commission rejected NBTel's interpretation of its price cap requirements and directed the company to reduce some rates further than proposed. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1999/o99497_0.txt NEWCO TO LAUNCH THIS MONTH: The Bell Canada/MTS joint venture to offer local, long distance, and data services in BC and Alberta, provisionally called NewCo, will announce its name, business strategy, and rollout plans in the week of June 21. (See Telecom Update #167b) CRTC EXPLAINS FUTUREWAY RULING: On June 1, the CRTC explained why it rejected applications by Bell Canada and Shaw Communications for access to common utility trenches in a subdivision that has given exclusive access to Futureway Communications (see Telecom Update #169, 178). The Commission said that Futureway is not conferring an unjust preference on itself, since other carriers may lease and resell Futureway services and may also apply to the municipality for access to construct their own facilities. ** Commissioner Stuart Langford issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Bell/Shaw appeals should be approved to meet Telecom Act objectives of affordability, efficiency, and competitiveness. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8690/s9-01.htm MTS LOCKS OUT UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES: Manitoba Telecom Services has locked out 1,400 members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union in a contract dispute. MTS says sporadic rotating strikes disrupted customer service. MICROCELL FILES CLEC TARIFF: Microcell Connexions has filed a tariff for interconnection with other carriers, for which it requests approval by June 30 so that it can begin operating as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier "as soon as possible thereafter." Microcell expects to be the first wireless CLEC in North America. FIDO OFFERS WIRELESS DATA: Microcell Solutions has introduced FidoData, which enables customers to access the Internet or corporate database and to send wireless faxes from a laptop. Price: $225 start-up, plus $5/month and regular airtime charges. (See Telecom Update #179) ** Microcell has raised US$150 Million through the sale of discount notes. AMERITECH COMPLETES BELL PURCHASE: Ameritech Corp. has finalized its $5.1-Billion purchase of a 20% interest in Bell Canada. (See Telecom Update #175b, 178) AMERITECH EXECS JOIN BCE MOBILE: Ameritech Cellular executives Walter Catlow and Mark Eckhout have joined BCE Mobile: Catlow (President of Ameritech Cellular and Paging) as a Board member, and Eckhout as Senior VP and CFO. ** Concurrently, Jean Monty has been appointed Chairman of BCE Mobile, replacing Robert Ferchat, who is retiring. AT&T CANADA/METRONET MERGER CLOSES: MetroNet Communications and AT&T Canada have completed their merger, and shares of the new AT&T Canada are now trading on Canadian exchanges. ** Philip Ladouceur, Chairman of MetroNet, has left the company to become Executive Chairman of Calgary-based FutureLink Distribution, a business software supplier. BANKS, BCE JOIN FOR ELECTRONIC BILL PRESENTMENT: E-Route Inc, a consortium of six major Canadian financial institutions, has given BCE Emergis a 10-year contract to provide electronic bill presentment. The E-Route companies aim to begin delivering bills via the Internet by spring 2000. TELUS OFFERS GROUP WIRELESS IN ALBERTA: Telus Mobility has launched Tango, a wireless service that provides individual and group calls, text messaging, and wireless data over an Alberta-wide circuit-switched analog network. SURVEY SHOWS 41% USE WIRELESS PHONES: A Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association survey reports that 41% of Canadian households now have access to a wireless phone. Penetration ranges from 52% in Alberta to 27% in Quebec. Among handset owners, 46% make more than 10 calls a week (last year: 41%). http://www.decima.ca/non_css/reports/cwta/final.doc COGECO OFFERS HIGH-SPEED BUSINESS INTERNET: Cogeco Cable has launched a high-speed business Internet service, the SOHO Package, which uploads at 128 Kbps and downloads at 2 Mbps. It is available in several of Cogeco's Ontario coverage areas. NEWBRIDGE RECORDS LOSS: Newbridge Networks reports revenue of $457 Million for the quarter ended May 2, up 16% from last year. One-time charges of $74 Million resulted in a net loss of $29.8 Million. (See Telecom Update #182) INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION STATISTICS RELEASED: Industry Canada has released the 1999 edition of its Information and Communications Technologies Statistical Review, which reports 1997 statistics. Sector revenues grew 5.4% in 1997, and employment was up 9.8%. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it00957e.html AT&T CANADA TO OFFER IP FAX SERVICE: AT&T Canada has agreed to market an Internet/IP-based fax transmission service from Interfax, a subsidiary of Calgary-based Interprovincial Satellite Services. QUEBEC 9-1-1 COVERAGE EXPANDED: 9-1-1 service is now provided in 58 additional Quebec municipalities, bringing total coverage to 95% of the Quebec residents in Bell Canada territory. BONUS EXPLAINS TELECOM'S "TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS": Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement receive a bonus: "Tips, Tricks and Traps: Managing Business Telecom Today," by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans (edited by John Riddell). 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. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:15:14 -0500 From: Greg Monti Subject: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? For some time now, stories have appeared in the consumer and trade press regarding whether cable TV providers of internet access must 'open' the access of their cable systems to competitor ISPs and content providers. First, a little background: When a consumer gets internet service for their home PC via dial-up, the service really consists of two parts, which are paid for separately: (a) the cost of the phone line that's connected to the computer, including the incremental cost, if any, of dialing the Internet Service Provider (ISP); and (b) the cost of internet access provided by the ISP. Typically, (a) costs $10 to $30 per month; (b) costs $20 per month. In the world of cable TV internet access, there is only one service to purchase: the cable company's internet access, which includes use of the 'local loop' of coaxial cable from their premises to yours. The two are bundled into one price and cannot be separated. The bundled price may be $40 or $50 per month for the lowest-speed service. If you switch from a dial-up ISP to a cable company ISP, you must give up your e-mail address (in effect, your 'phone number on the internet') because the cable operator will assign you a new one in their address space. (You have no right to carry your e-mail address to a new provider.) If you want to keep your old e-mail address, you must pay for both services ($20 for the old ISP, plus $40 or $50 for the cable internet service, for a monthly total of $60 or $70). This works technically because, once you are connected to the internet you can reach, and retrieve mail from, any pop mail server on the internet as long as you know the server name, your username and password. I assume from the debate, that the scenario outlined above, in which the consumer 'pays twice', is NOT considered to be 'open access.' Because it is a disadvantage to the consumer to pay twice. So, just what does 'open access' consist of? (1) The ISP can send any data it wants to a customer of the cable TV company who requests it, via the cable, at no charge other than the cost of a data circuit to reach from the ISP to the cable headend. In essence, the cable operator must provide access to the old ISP for free. (2) The ISP can send any data it wants to a customer of the cable TV company who requests it, via the cable, at a flat, wholesale rate (which the cable operator charges the ISP) plus the cost of the data circuit to reach from the ISP to the cable headend. This flat rate is NOT regulated by a government agency. (3) The ISP can send any data it wants to a customer of the cable TV company who requests it, via the cable, at a flat, wholesale rate (which the cable operator charges the ISP) plus the cost of the data circuit to reach from the ISP to the cable headend. This flat rate IS regulated by a government agency. (4) Other. I suspect that what the historical dial-up ISPs want is number (3), although I've never heard one of them say it in public. Now, I could see several variations, such as the cable ISP allowing its own traffic into the downstream cable at a composite rate of, say 20 Mbits/sec, while throttling back the other ISPs data rate to only 1 Mbit/sec. I assume that would also be considered NOT 'open access.' That barely touches on what I believe is the real, underlying issue, which the lobbyists are purposely not discussing. Someday, all television, including cable television, will be digital. There will be no more 6 MHz radio frequency channels, each occupied by one analog NTSC color video signal with sound. Instead, there will be an assembled, groomed, managed stream of bits flowing from the cable headend to the consumer premises, probably on the order of several BILLION bits per second. Cable systems typically have analog bandwidths of 500 or 750 MHz today, which will probably have increased to 1,000 MHz in the next 10 years. With a data efficiency factor of, say, 10 bits per Hertz, such a system could handle a downstream data rate of 10 billion bits per second.) This stream could contain a mix of any kind of video, audio, still pictures, text, e-mail, web pages, anything. Since internet and video services will be mixed in the same bit stream, they might be statistically multiplexed, with each getting bandwidth dependent upon its needs at the moment. Bandwidth will be so high that a consumer could view video from a web site that would be nowhere near the poor quality of the jerky, postage-stamp-sized Real Video we have today. It will be just as good as the regular digital TV of that time, which will be better than the NTSC video of today. When we reach that point, how will Home Box Office or NBC or a Riddick Bowe pay-per-view boxing match be any different than a web site or America OnLine's opening page? They won't be. What is fair and 'open access' then? Does the cable operator first allocate bandwidth to the video services it has a contract to carry, and then sell or give the leftover bandwidth to the ISPs who historically served the area? Or does it first give bandwidth to the historical ISPs and then get the leftovers for itself? Suppose there are 40 historical ISPs in the area, and each wants 1 Gbit/sec. The cable company only has 10 Gb/sec to offer and it needs 8 Gb of that to run its own services. How does it divide up the remaining 2 Gb, which is oversubscribed by a factor of 20:1? If each historical ISP gets only 50 Mb/sec (one fortieth of 2 Gb/sec), does the cable operator have to 'dumb down' its own ISP service to only 50 Mb/sec so that it's 'equal' to the other ISPs? Is that fair? I've always thought of cable operators as being sleazy monopolists, but in this case, I see their (albeit, unpublicized) point. Am I washed up here or have I hit some nail on the head? I'd be interested to hear what others think. Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: verwirrt@erols.com (Brian O'Donoghue) Subject: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:21:32 GMT Organization: Must I? [Proposals to remove 'expensive' island NPAs from NANP deleted.] If you want to make it absolutely clear that calls to non-US islands are expensive international calls, require the IDDD prefix and country code 1 for calls from US points to non-US islands within the NANP. E.g., Direct dial to the Bahamas becomes 011 + 1 + 242 - NXX - XXXX. The Feds could use this as a bargaining chip with each country: "Lower your rates, or we'll take away your easy 1+ dialing from the US." Advantages: 1) IDDD prefix alerts the caller that the call is international. 2) A domestic regulation has no effect outside the US; therefore no new country codes and no ITU cooperation are needed. 3) There are no permanent toll alerting messages. After the permissive dialing period ends, 1+ calls fail to go through. Disadvantages: 1) IDDD to country code 1 will break various bits of software (LCR, toll restriction, call accounting) and Telco/IXC routing. 2) Complaints about discrimination against small nations. ------------------------------ From: dszlucha@hotmail.com (David Szlucha) Subject: Phone Bill Robbery! Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 18:13:03 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Ok, I'll probably open up a can of worms here, but I'm really fed up with my local phone bill. I have Bell Atlantic and my long distance is billed on a separate bill. This month my local phone bill, for ONE phone line was $30.43! A new charge that showed up this month is called Local Number Portability which came to $.73. After reading about LNP I feel that I'm being charged $.50 too much for this. Actually, I think the entire $.73 is a scam since I can not change local phone service providers. My bill breaks down into: Flat Rate Service $8.47 Flat Rage Usage $13.56 Surcharges and Taxes $8.40 BA Optional Services $.04 (another unlabeled surcharge) Of the various surcharges and taxes, after FCC line charge, 911 surcharge, LNP, federal and state taxes are accounted for, $1.11 is simply labeled "Surcharge(s)"! This is getting to be ridiculous! Should I complain to the PSC, or would that be a waste? Thanks, David Szlucha ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: 7 Jun 1999 14:12:14 GMT In article , jjs@eudoramail.com says: > After getting some info on web sites to search (Thanks Pat and > everyone) I have been looking at various state to state, and in state > dial around LD companies to determine which might be best for me. > If I make more than one LD call a month, I'm talking too much, so > I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, > which is not unusual in the long distance business these days. PAT] PAT, I think you misunderstood. MCI's ads state 99 cents for all (US state to state) calls up to 20 minutes. That's the same as $0.99 for the first minute, $0.00 for minutes two through twenty, and ten cents for additional minutes beyond the first twenty. -----------------------------(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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:57:19 -0700 From: Mike Desmon Reply-To: mdesmon@gate.net Organization: Cybergate Subject: Re: 10-10-220 (MCI) jjs@eudoramai.com wrote: > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. This has got to be one of the biggest scams around. How many times have you called someone and got an answering machine? Or been told the person you're calling is not available? You're still getting charged for an extra nineteen minutes. Now instead of those calls costing 10 cents per minute, they cost 99 cents. I guess they have to figure out some way to pay for all those obnoxious ads ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:24:15 -0400 From: David E. Sheafer Subject: 10-10-220 There's no hidden charge, but the charge is 99 cents whether the call lasts one minute or 20 minutes, so if you make a call and reach an answering machine and the call lasts only a minute or less you will still be charged 99 cents for that call, as well as 99 cents for calls that lasts upwards of twenty minutes. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: California To Sell Individuals' Data Date: 7 Jun 1999 14:15:07 GMT In article , herb@herbstein.com says: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Privacy-Sales.html >> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California will join a growing number of states >> that sell confidential information about their residents' income to >> banks, lenders and car dealers. > This should be criminal. The only way that the states get this > information in through the form of blackmail known as income tax > collection. Certainly no private organization should EVER be allowed > access to that information. A Los Angeles Times artical last weekend stated that Governor Gray Davis was blocking the release because of concern over privacy issues. -----------------------------(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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #125 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 7 23:06:36 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA14225; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:06:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906080306.XAA14225@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #126 TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jun 99 23:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 126 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T New Charges (Stanley Cline) Re: AT&T New Charges (Paul Gray) Re: 10-10-220 (wdg@hal-pc.org) Re: 10-10-220 (Anthony Argyriou) Re: 10-10-220 (John R. Levine) Re: BellSouth Fiber (Alan Boritz) Re: BellSouth Fiber (Stanley Cline) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (J.F. Mezei) Re: Router Information? (Wulf Losee) Hell Atlantic (Babu Mengelepouti) Need Drivers For Telecor T/Port Serial Card (S. Ehrmann) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:02:04 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 4 Jun 1999 16:28:01 -0400, kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote: > Are you sure? I thought the Alternate IEC select code was now 101 and > the 4 digits (currently the only first digit allowed is 0 or 6 but > that could be expanded) were the carrier code. 0, 5, and 6. e.g. 1010288 (AT&T) 1015124 (BellSouth intra-LATA) 1016868 (PT-1) > I didn't save the letter, Pat. It was sent to everyone who uses > AT&T as their PIC, and says there will be a minimum $3 / month > fee. I didn't receive any letter from AT&T. :( Then again, maybe I thought it was junk mail and threw it away. > As I said my solution was to go NO-PIC for that phone line. I can > still call 800/888/877 numbers but cannot call 101+4 to choose any > IEC! Ameritech's NO-PIC locks out the 101-4 IEC carrier selection. > Not sure why. They probably equate "no-PIC" to toll restriction, which they shouldn't. (Can you dial 0+ calls from your no-PIC line? Usually, toll restriction blocks 0+ as well as 1+ ...) Here in BellSouth land, no-PIC lines can still use dial-arounds. SC ------------------------------ From: Paul Gray Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:18:50 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Also, some Local carriers will hit you with a charge equal to or in excess of $3 for being a "no-pic". Mine, Bell South is one of them. I don't like it, but I suppose the only way to stop it is to complain to Washington. BTW AT&T isn't the only one charging a "non-use" fee. ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org Subject: Re: 10-10-220 (MCI) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 04:45:29 GMT Organization: You only wish you were this organized On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 19:42:05 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom jjs@eudoramail.com wrote: > After getting some info on web sites to search (Thanks Pat and > everyone) I have been looking at various state to state, and in state > dial around LD companies to determine which might be best for me. > If I make more than one LD call a month, I'm talking too much, so > I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. The "catch" is that you pay 99 cents for the 1st 20 minutes ***OR FRACTION THEREOF*** Meaning if you place the LD call, the moment the answering machine (or wrong person/wrong number) picks up, you get nailed 99 cents for the priviledge. MCI is playing the odds on you -not- reaching your party. Ergo you've got to ask yourself, before I call so and so, what are the odds of them actually being there vs the odds of my reaching someone at that number that I **DIDN'T** want to waste a buck talking to for 15 seconds, like their answering machine. MCI's 10-10-220 is arguably the best deal for in-state LD in Texas PROVIDED you reach your party. If you DON't reach your party it becomes a damned expensive attempt. Therein lies the catch. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 (MCI) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 14:48:31 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com jjs@eudoramail.com wrote: > MCI's 10-10-220. > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > After reading it, more than once, my question is, is their a hidden > "catch", or is that all you pay per call. Plus taxes etc of course. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, > which is not unusual in the long distance business these days. PAT] Not necessarily -- that's a dollar a call. MCI is gambling that half or more of the calls will be less than 10 minutes. After all, a long distance call to grandma's answering machine won't run much more than 3 minutes, but MCI will still get $0.99, which is 33c/minute. And they're hedging by charging a normal rate after 20 minutes. With almost everyone having an answering machine these days, there's probably a lot more one to three minute LD personal calls than there used to be, when you either talked for a while, or didn't get through at all. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 1999 23:09:18 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 (MCI) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > No monthly fee > No monthly minimum > .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional > minute is 10 cents > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars, The 99 cents is the catch. Most calls are under three minutes long, but you pay 99 cents apiece for them. 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: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: BellSouth Fiber Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:19:58 -0400 In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > Richard Shockey (rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com) quoted from an AP wire > story: > "In theory, the fiber can deliver data at 100 megabits per second, > faster than the digital subscriber lines (DSL) BellSouth has been > marketing. > And those areas are usually equipped with fiber-connected subscriber > carrier systems, which not only prevent the use of V.90 but often > distort the connection so much that modem connections become extremely > unreliable. BellSouth has so far refused to give me the same service > that 65% of my metro area gets -- namely, a copper pair running back > to the CO -- and claims that as long as I can get a dial tone they > have met their obligation, and if I want something better I should pay > for ISDN. It may not be that simple. There are technical specs in most state tariffs, you just have to know where they are, and have the test equipment to verify them. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: BellSouth Fiber Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:20:08 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:26:52 -0400, Ed Ellers wrote: [areas where DSL is not available] > And those areas are usually equipped with fiber-connected subscriber > carrier systems, which not only prevent the use of V.90 but often > distort the connection so much that modem connections become extremely Not in all cases! Universal DLCs will do what you describe. I used to have a line on a universal DLC that would only handle 26.4 v.34 modem connections (I usually got just 21.6) AND that had really crummy voice quality (calls sounded like the old "microwave" MCI, with hiss and hum.) Integrated DLCs, OTOH, handle v.90/56k just fine -- better than many copper-to-the-CO loops in many cases, since the distance from the modem to the DLC is usually quite short, and because there is no extra analog->digital conversion done in the CO. (Integrated DLCs must be connected to a digital switch such as a 5ESS; analog switches can use only universal DLCs.) Both of my lines here are on an integrated DLC connected to a 5ESS, and I consistently get stable 49333-52000 v.90 connections. > unreliable. BellSouth has so far refused to give me the same service > that 65% of my metro area gets -- namely, a copper pair running back > to the CO -- and claims that as long as I can get a dial tone they > have met their obligation, and if I want something better I should pay > for ISDN. BellSouth almost certainly has more lines served by DLCs than any other US RBOC. (Independents, including GTE, tend to have more DLCs than RBOCs because they tend to serve rural areas, where DLCs are used extensively to extend the reach of rural COs.) I have heard estimates from several sources that over half of all lines in metro Atlanta are served by DLCs. Of course, most lines in the areas where people most want DSL -- new suburban subdivisions and apartment complexes -- are all served by DLCs. :( Sometimes I wonder if BellSouth/DLCs/DSL have contributed to the boom of new housing intown, where DLCs are rare and DSL is easy to get ... Many SBC and US West cities, such as Houston and Phoenix, also have relatively high concentrations of DLCs, but none appears to be as high as metro Atlanta. DLCs are not as common in Bell Atlantic and Ameritech cities or even in very dense cities in BellSouth, SBC, and US West territory (NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, the Bay Area, Seattle, etc.) -SC ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: 8 Jun 1999 01:37:57 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On 3 Jun 1999 12:02:45 GMT, joe@apk.net allegedly said: > We have the same thing in the greater Cleveland, Ohio area. The city, > all of its older suburbs, and many of the newer suburbs in outlying > counties all are in one more or less free, unlimited local calling > area - among the largest yet remaining if I understand correctly. > (Cleveland with its suburbs is a little less than half the size of > Toronto or Chicago - about a thousand square miles and 2-3 million > people.) Hi, Joe! I beg to differ. Roughly 1.5 million people live in the metro area, and it's not quite 1000 square miles. From the western edge of I-480 (Cuyahoga County/Lorain County border) to the Geauga County border on US 422 is about 32-33 miles, and from downtown to the edge of Medina County, about 25-30 miles. So, about 800-900 square miles (but that's a very rough estimate). The local calling area is quite large, though. As much as people complain about Ameritech, their rates are quite reasonable in this area. > On the negative side: no DSL; There are people working on that :) > no cable modem access in the city or inner suburbs (to my > knowledge); That's not the phone company's fault, of course. The vast majority of Greater Cleveland is served by Cablevision, which only now is starting to roll out cable modems around their corporate home in the New York City tri-state area. The city of Cleveland itself is also served by Cablevision. Cox and MediaOne are also in certain suburbs. MediaOne has broadband access in Bay Village. Don't know about Mentor (the other suburb they serve). Cox serves Lakewood, but AFAIK that's the only suburb they do serve. They probably don't want to introduce the service in a market where they have only a small piece of the action, I imagine. Time Warner is all over southeast and Central Ohio, so people in Akron, Canton and Columbus can get broadband access. > switching facilities are 50 years old > and don't consistently support high-speed modems, and it's a nightmare > to try to get any of the the telcos (Ameritech, GTE, and Alltel) to > install new capacity. Don't I know it :) One of the local ISP's had to wait *four* *months* to even get a delivery date on a couple T-1's from Ameritech. And heaven forbid you're working with a CLEC (which I think they might have been). If Ameritech has to get involved ... well ... you may be in for a pretty big hassle. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET 815 Superior Avenue, Suite 610 - Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2702 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org I'm the #1 poster to NANOG and the #8 poster to SPAM-L. This scares me ... ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: 8 Jun 1999 01:40:47 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 02:14:14 GMT, joel@exc.com allegedly said: > So the question is, is it illegal to fax unsolicted material via an > automatical dialer to a voice number? I thought the automatic dialer > part might make it illegal. I'd like to be able to call the company > back and tell them that in return for giving me the company from which > they bought my number I'll do them the favor of not suing them. There is legislation, part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Title 47, Section 227 of the U.S. Code), which states that it is illegal for someone to send junk faxes to you if they do not have a prior business relationship. It also specifies that they must identify who they are on the banner at the top of the fax. You can sue violators for $500 per incident, or $1500 per incident if you can prove that they were already aware of the law. Generally you'll sue in small claims court. You may want to talk to your attorney for more details. IANAL. I am just familiar with this particular law. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET 815 Superior Avenue, Suite 610 - Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2702 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org I'm the #1 poster to NANOG and the #8 poster to SPAM-L. This scares me... ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:41:07 -0400 "Jason A. Lindquist" wrote: > Heheheh ... you *do* know that Vodaphone was a participant in the > GSM-over-CDMA trials last year? :-) > The way things seem to be going with the ITU, it appears that in the > future, as all restaurants will be Taco Bell, so all cellular networks > will be CDMA. GSM currently uses TDMA. AT&T uses IS-136 which is also TDMA SPRINT uses IS-95 which uses CDMA. The next generation GSM will use CDMA as modulation technique. It will not be compatible with the proprietary USA "CDMA" networks. (IS-136) CDMA and TDMA are just transmission METHODS. GSM, IS-136 and IS-95 are the full suite of protocols which make use of one of these methods to get their data across. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:45:56 -0700 From: Wulf Losee Subject: Re: Router Information? Andrew L. Meier wrote: > I am currently doing some preliminary research for my MQP (senior > design project) and I am looking for a good book which describes > the role of a router in a computer network. Radia Perlman's _Interconnections: Bridges and Routers_ (Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series) is probably the best place to start. Her book is the classic text. Christian Huitema's _Routing in the Internet_ (Prentice Hall) also comes to mind. John Moy's: _OSPF: Anatomy of an Internet Routing Protocol_ (Addison-Wesley) will give you an understanding of one of the most popular routing protocols based on open standards. Finally, Bassam Halabi's _Internet Routing Architectures_ (Cisco Press) is a great overview of BGP -- the routing protocol of the Internet backbone (unfortunately John Moy's title is a little bit misleading ;-). > I understand the basic principle of them, but I need to completely > understand how they operate. Ah the confidence of youth! I've worked with routers for close to ten years now, and they're still a source of surprise and amazement for me. I'm afraid I'll have to be blunt: unless you can quote Huitema and Perlman chapter and verse, you haven't reached the level of understanding "the basic principle of them." To completely understand how they operate (heh, heh) you'll need to start picking apart source code, and hack your own. I suggest you start with routed (the Unix RIP routing daemon). I think that's in the public domain. Most of the good stuff is not, however, in the public domain. Once you understand the basic algorithms, then you'll need to understand the specialized hardware that routers use to optimize their performance. I don't know the best sources for that sort of information. Are you an EE? > I hope to look at how the routing tables are formed or something > along those lines. At it's simplest, every router has to have a way to figure out who its neighbors are, and then have a way of learning to whom its neighbor's can route (not including the neighbor's routes back to itself, of course). In theory there are two broad classes of routing protocols -- or maybe three, if you're a BGP bigot, like I am. The way they're implemented is what makes them interesting, though. The best way to understand routing from a practical standpoint is find a lab were you've got a dozen or more routers to play with, and start building routed networks from scratch. Of course, routers are expensive specialized pieces of hardware, so this sort of lab might be difficult to find. Good luck! --Wulf ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 23:58:28 GMT From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Hell Atlantic This also references the previously printed "Get a cable modem, go to jail" story... http://www.stevenet.net/2600/BellAtlantic.htm#BellAtlantic_Mobile ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 16:25:26 +0200 From: S. Ehrmann Subject: Need Drivers For Telcor T/Port Serial Card HI EVERYONE ! I'm looking for the WIN 95/98 or NT drivers for: The TELCOR SYSTEMS T/PORT (TWIN) SERIAL PORT CARD. I own a T/PORT CARD that I bought three years ago that only has WIN 3.1 drivers on disk that can take advantage of the built-in processor onboard. Does anybody know where I can download WIN 95/98/NT drivers for this card? I have searched everywhere on the net without success inlcuding all those drives www sites. Does TELCOR have a URL? Does anybody a recent phone number? Any help appreciated! Regards, SVEN ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #126 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 7 23:42:22 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA16281; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906080342.XAA16281@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #127 TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jun 99 23:42:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 127 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EnGenius, If You Can't Beat em ... (support@sellcom.com) Re: AT&T New Charges (Monty Solomon) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (L. Winson) Re: AT&T New Charges (Michael W. Gardiner) Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (John R. Levine) Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (Brian Belfert) Re: Router Information? (Reed H.) Re: Long Distance Junk Faxes Advertising www.copierdirect.net (Alan Boritz) Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport (James Wyatt) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (L. Winson) Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish (Alan Boritz) Re: 10-10-220 (Peter Marks) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: support@sellcom.com Subject: EnGenius, If You Can't Beat em ... Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:36:10 GMT Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com I really was concerned with all that I was hearing about the EnGenius long range phone that it might be illegal, but it is VERY legal and even passed several safety tests. There are substantial differences in features between it and the Siemens, but I have been testing the EnGenius phone and I am astounded with the range. I'm not getting any five miles, but in the same environment that the Siemens 2420 is giving me about 200 feet, I am getting a good half mile with the EnGenius and that is in a hilly residential area (I do have the outside antenna installed). The EnGenius is a few more dollars and is only one line, but where range is the main consideration, it apparently has no peer. I've never seen anything like it before. I am impressed! In another test I took a pair to a shopping center and I was in one office supply store across a large parking lot from another store and we were able to call each other back and forth. Steve http://www.sellcom.com (Opinions expressed, though generally wise and accurate are not officially positions of SELLCOM) Cyclades / EnGenius / Siemens / Y2K ODIU support / Zoom / Palmer Safes (Tech assistance provided without warranty express or implied) Check us out at http://www.thepubliceye.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:00:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, excuse me here a minute ... We in > the Digest did not get the original of this letter that I am aware > of, unless I was asleep when it got approved, and I have seen or > heard nothing of some mandatory AT&T charge for all phone customers > everywhere. Perhaps 'R. Derr' or 'Ken M.' would not mind sending > along a copy of the actual letter or notice received. Has anyone here > on the mailing list heard of such a thing? PAT] http://www.att.com/press/item/0,1193,418,00.html FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1999 AT&T extends usage minimum to basic rate customers, offers low-usage callers service options NEW YORK - AT&T today announced it will extend its $3 monthly usage minimum to customers currently on its basic residential service to help cover the costs for billing, account maintenance and customer service. It also introduced a 10 cent per minute "block of time" calling plan for customers who make 30 minutes of long distance calls a month. Customers on the company's basic residential service, which offers the lowest basic rates in the industry, will have to meet a monthly usage minimum of $3 beginning with their July 1999 bills. AT&T instituted a similar usage minimum for all new customers last August. Based on current spending levels, AT&T estimates that 85 percent of its customers spend more than the minimum each month. Customers subject to the minimum will pay only for those months when their long distance and local toll charges are less than $3, and they will pay only the difference between $3 and what they spend during the month. For example, someone who spends $2.50 in a given month will pay just 50 cents more to meet the minimum requirement. AT&T said usage minimums are becoming more common throughout the industry. The minimum is similar to the $6-15 monthly service charge customers pay the local phone companies for local service whether they use it or not. Included in the local companies basic rates are the inherent costs for billing, account maintenance and customer service. In addition, AT&T said customers qualifying for state lifeline programs will be able to enroll in an improved AT&T LifeLine Program and receive an exemption from the $3 monthly minimum. The company also said it would waive $1.78 in monthly fees these customers are currently paying to maintain Universal Service and other programs. The company's enhanced lifeline program allows customers in all 50 states to "self-certify" for the program, making it as easy as possible for customers to enroll. "We wanted to be as fair as possible to all our customers, including those with low incomes, while covering our basic cost of doing business," said George Burnett, vice president, AT&T consumer markets. "AT&T's new 'block of time' calling plan and progressive 'self-certifying' lifeline program are specifically designed to meet the needs of our customers." AT&T basic residential customers - those not enrolled in a calling plan -- can choose from these service plans: AT&T Monthly Minutes. This plan was specifically designed to meet the needs of low-usage customers. For a $3 monthly charge, customers will get a 30-minute block of direct-dialed long distance calls from home at any time, in effect a low rate of just 10 cents a minute. After 30 minutes, state-to-state calls will be billed at 20 cents per minute. AT&T One Rate (sm) Plan. With this option, consumers get a flat rate of just 15 cents a minute that is good for 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week on all direct-dialed, state-to-state AT&T long distance, calls from home. Since this plan has no monthly fee, the minimum will apply when monthly long distance charges are less than $3. AT&T customers may consolidate all their residential phone lines and wireless lines on a single account, which will make it easier for people having more than one line to reach the $3 minimum. AT&T local toll calls also apply toward the minimum. Additionally, as AT&T begins offering local service through its cable relationships with TCI and Time Warner, or is finally able to provide local service economically through the local telephone monopolies, customers signing up for AT&T local service will also be exempt from paying a long distance minimum. "All customers are important to us," said Burnett. "While we've made significant strides in providing high quality service at reduced costs, we have no choice but to recover our basic costs in a highly competitive market." The costs of serving customers who spend less than $3 a month on long-distance calling cause AT&T to lose approximately $300 million annually. On average, the cost of providing billing, account maintenance and customer service exceeds $3 per month for each customer - whether they make calls or not. The new minimum, combined with aggressive expense reduction, is part of the company's overall effort to cover these costs. For more information, reporters may contact: Ritch Blasi - AT&T 908-221-3790 (office) rblasi@att.com Ellen Zundl - AT&T 908-221-4011 (office) ezundl@att.com ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Date: 6 Jun 1999 03:01:48 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS >> The old pre-divestuture AT&T (Pre 1984) stressed service. > It also stressed increasing cost, since profit was regulated to > be directly proportional to cost. That's not true. Under AT&T, Long Distance rates were constantly being decreased. By 1984, short-distance toll calls (e.g. 25 miles) off peak were extremely cheap, just a few cents a minute. Today, those short distance calls (eg 100 miles across a LATA line) are more expensive. And as discussed in another post, service fees have skyrocketed. >> "Service" as the goal of all employees somehow disappeared in the >> post divestiture market and money took its place. > You say this as if it is a surprise; I don't believe it should be. I believe the general public and legislators expected lower costs but no decline in quality or service. In other words, everything would stay the same but simply would cost less. > Previously, AT&T was a regulated monopoly, operating under the > auspices of the federal regulators who, ostensibly exerted their > control in the public interest. After the marketplace and the courts > insisted that AT&T abandon that model and operate on a competitive > model, it should be not-at-all surprising that AT&T operates just like > any other for-profit enterprise. ------------------------------ From: mwg@mail.msen.com (Michael W. Gardiner) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: 7 Jun 1999 17:58:23 GMT Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI. Art Kamlet (kamlet@infinet.com) wrote: > In article , Michael W. Gardiner > wrote: >> after some research and following up on an advertising insert I found in a >> newspaper, I settled on PT-1 Communications, dial-around ID 16868 (the >> 10-10 stuff is driving me crazy, the dial-around trigger is 10, the next >> five digits are the carrier code). > Are you sure? I thought the Alternate IEC select code was now 101 and > the 4 digits (currently the only first digit allowed is 0 or 6 but > that could be expanded) were the carrier code. OK, now I'll have to research this, but as I remember it, the 3-digit table filled up so fast, they decided to bypass 4 digits and jump directly to 5 to avoid having to re-do the whole thing five years later. I thought the 101+4 was a temporary setup to alert the switches to the longer codes until all the old 3 digit codes could be removed, at which point it was suppossed to become 10+5, with the old carriers keeping the resulting 10xxx ID code. It wouldn't be the first time I'd misunderstood this sort of thing. Does anyone have a reference they can point me to that is definitive on this point? Mike Gardiner |"The game is never over, Doctor, and the prize is mwg@mail.msen.com | never won. Broken doors, broken dreams, it's all mwg@pobox.com | the same thing. A doors' purpose is to conceal mwg@wwnet.com | the contents of a room, and dreams are the doors http://www.msen.com/~mwg | of the mind." - Mysterious Figure, _Broken Doors_ Unsolicited commercial E-mail subject to $500 processing charge. Sending such messages constitutes agreement to pay. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jun 1999 21:58:53 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > E.g., Direct dial to the Bahamas becomes 011 + 1 + 242 - NXX - XXXX. How do you propose to dial operated assisted calls? 01 + 1 + 242 + oops. I recall that the US has abrogated several bilateral toll agreements already. Maybe they should just blow them all away. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Belfert) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 02:48:50 GMT verwirrt@erols.com (Brian O'Donoghue) writes: > Disadvantages: > 1) IDDD to country code 1 will break various bits of software (LCR, > toll restriction, call accounting) and Telco/IXC routing. > 2) Complaints about discrimination against small nations. If they are separate nations, why are we treating them any differently than nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and the other continents? Brian ------------------------------ From: Reed H. Subject: Re: Router Information? Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 15:55:27 -0600 Organization: None whatsoever Try Radia Perlman's book "Interconnections: Bridges and Routers" ISBN 0-201-56332-0 > I am looking for a good book which describes the role of a > router in a computer network. I understand the basic principle of them, > but I need to completely understand how they operate I hope to look at > how the routing tables are formed or something along those lines. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Long Distance Junk Faxes Advertising www.copierdirect.net Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 15:59:11 -0400 In article , hillary@hillary.net (hillary gorman) wrote: > On 25 May 1999 15:33:00 GMT, wrote: >> This time I called the Bell Atlantic Annoyance Call Center, and the >> person I spoke with insisted that junk faxes were perfectly acceptable >> -- "just another telemarketing technique", and that my only recourse I >> had was to fax back the sender asking they remove me from their >> database. >> Any suggestions or comments? > Yes, Mark, I have a comment. Here it is: the Bell Atlantic tech with > whom you spoke was an ignoramus. Assuming you got its name, call back > and tell its supervisor what it told you! But leaving aside the issue > of the ignorant Bell tech, you still have the issue of the junk > faxing. I think you might find it worth your while to file a claim. You're not exactly correct. "Ignoramus" suggests that the subject of your criticism doesn't know they're stupid. I can assure you that Bell Atlantic employees are snotty and arrogant on purpose, not by accident. Speaking to a "supervisor" will do no good, since you won't get one. This entire routine, however, appears to have a silent corporate approval, since it's now very common. I've gotten far more bizarre responses from CSR's in Bell Atlantic's annoyance call bureau, who give the standard aliases. One of the snotty morons in the annoyance call bureau who covers northern New Jersey told me that it's perfectly ok for telemarketers to call as early as 7 a.m. A NJ PUC analyst with whom I spoke, who had heard more than his share of complaints about B-A's annoyance call bureau, said that they needed to see a written complaint to follow with an investigation. It's unfortunate that more people don't file written complaints against Bell Atlantic. ------------------------------ From: James Wyatt Subject: Re: Payphone Quality - Honolulu Airport Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:50:29 GMT Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!) Actually mine were Racal Vadic in the old days, but Motorolla UDS now. 'Bell 201' refers to the 'standard', not the modem. 201 was a sync modem standard that transmitted 2400bps (and 2400baud, IIRC) half-duplex. Bisync allows for line turnaround so such schemes work. WECo also made zillions of 201/202/208/etc... modems (Datasets?) used all over the US. Later, the bell 202 1200baud/1200bps standard was around and this was taken for CID transmission years later because 1) it worked well, 2) was *very* cheap to implement, and 3) had existing chips. There were some very odd modem protocols back then ... - Jy@ btw: I still have Bell 201 and 208 (4800bos) modems online for EDI work, but am trying to get several dozen customers on them converted to v.32 9600bps. One of them went from Bell201 to FTP when they finally upgraded their system, representing about 20 years of improvement in one step... On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Alan Fowler wrote: > James Wyatt wrote: >> The only true 2400b modems I know were Bell 201 *Bisync* modems. [ but James didn't write the next 3 lines ] >> My recollection is that the NASCOM data network for the Apollo Project >> were all 2400 bit/s 4-wire modems using 800 symbols/s with three >> bits/symbol. > I thought the ones we used were Western Electric not Bell. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! Date: 8 Jun 1999 02:14:06 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Every three months they provide a detailed breakdown of the charges, which may provide more information. You can also call the Business Office. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish List Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:24:03 -0400 In article , bt@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote: > Having just purchased an answering machine phone with caller-ID I was > surprised to find out the caller-ID is just for the phone (which keeps > a memory of the last 50 calls) but is not associated with the > answering machine -- ie. the digital answering machine doesn't store > the caller-id info with the call, just the date and time. That seems > stupid. One would like to be able to respond to one's messages with a > "return call" button that dials the ID, if present on that call. > I just looked at the lit for the gigaset, which supposedly tries to be > cream of the crop, and it doesn't do this either. > Does anybody make a two line answering machine with this feature? Yes, someone does. Unfortunately, it was a few years since I saw it last in Hello Direct's catalog. Not only did it record the callerid, but it gave you the option of how to handle certain specific callers, anonymous callers, and privacy-blocked callers. For anonymous callers, there was a mini-ACD to allow the caller to navigate prompts to do things, like leave a message or pick up a message, however it was not a simple as voice mail. You can do the same thing with a fancy voice mail system that allows custom scripts, such as the type that runs on a PC. As strange as this may seem, a perfect match for your application may be an OS/2 fax/voicemail product that has a powerful programmer's interface, but it is not user-friendly, at all. The problem with most fax & voice (it's usually a matched set) applications that run on Windows platforms is that the authors usually assume you're sitting at the machine with a mouse, and have no interest in making their program do tricks. ------------------------------ From: marks@halcyon.com (Peter Marks) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 ( Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:18:49 GMT Pat, >> I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. >> No monthly fee >> No monthly minimum >> .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional >> minute is 10 cents > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next *nineteen* minutes are free? > There has to be some catch, or else they are just outright liars. PAT] Why do you say this? It would be very daring of them to reneg, since this plan is _very_ heavily advertised on TV (via utterly obnoxious ads), always in the form "$1 for 20 minutes, then 10c/minute for any additional minutes". For many (most?) folks that's still better than their PIC's rate for their longer LD calls.. It's an intriguing formula because of its reaching a minimum at 20 min, but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual usage stats average close to $.10/min. P-) ___o - o Peter Marks _-\_<, - _\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072 (*)/ (*) - (*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #127 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 01:37:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA21246; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:37:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906080537.BAA21246@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #128 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 01:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 128 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech (Alan Boritz) Re: 10-10-220 (Joel B. Levin) Re: 10-10-220 (jjs@eudoramail.com) Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish (Bruce Robin) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Marc Haber) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Fred Atkinson) Re: What is favicon.ico ??? (Monty Solomon) Re: Making The Phone System Tell You YOUR Number (John Nagle) Re: Channel Extender (Reed M.) Wireless Networks Question (Alonze Alcazar) V-SPAN and Comcast Sign Deal (Josh Cartagenova) Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money (Roy Smith) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:18:20 -0400 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/cyberlaw/28law.html > For the past eight months, Ken Hamidi, a former employee of Intel > Corp., has carried out a lonely and poorly financed legal crusade in > California State Court. He is trying to uphold what he believes is his > right to send Intel workers unsolicited mass e-mail criticizing the > giant semiconductor company. > By contrast, Intel has long maintained that the gadfly's e-mail > represents an illegal and harmful trespass on its private computer > property -- or, in the ancient legal lingo, "trespass to chattels." I think there's an increasing common misconception that email is "public." Nothing could be further from the truth. ... > An article in one of the nation's most prestigious legal publications > weighs in on the side of Hamidi's free speech argument. In the May issue > of the Harvard Law Review, William M. McSwain, a Harvard law student and > an editor of the review, wrote that Hamidi's e-mail messages to Intel > employees are speech of "public concern" -- a category of speech that > lies at the heart of the First Amendment. The media is hardly a credible source for 1st Amendment references. No one has "rights" to email, except the service provider who provides the physical resources to transport it, and the customer who pays for the service. That's it. There is no one else, beyond a valid law enforcement agency's court order or other legal instrument used by a law enforcement agency. ... > "Should the courts continue to prove receptive to the theory of > electronic trespass, this trend of censoring unwanted speech will no > doubt accelerate in the future, because almost every conceivable > 'trespass' in cyberspace carries a message," said McSwain in his > article, "The Long Arm of Cyber-Reach," which discussed the Hamidi case > in detail. Balancing property rights against censorship is absurd. Email systems belong to those individuals who spend the money to purchase the equipment on which it runs, and who benefit by it's continued operation. A corporate email system belongs to the corporation, not individual users, and it's the corporation who decides whether or not the traffic handled is in the best interest of the owner. Mr. Hamidi's intrusion the first time could be compared with an unwanted visitor who enters through your open front door. Most people would not be terribly rude to someone who were not aware they were not welcome (even if the door was open), although in this case, it was fairly obvious Mr. Hamidi knew he was not welcome from the start. If the visitor was warned not to enter, but he returned anyway, pushing past a guard at the door, it would be fairly obvious to a reasonable person that the intent was to trespass. In a real life example, where a visitor intends to trespass, and the property owner is aware of the intent, and the unwanted visitor enters, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a judge who would not convict on a tresspass complaint, even if the unwanted visitor sustained physical injury as a result of his unwanted visit. > Hamidi, 52, was dismissed from Intel in 1995 after a disability leave > and lives outside Sacramento. He is the founder and spokesman for Face > Intel, which he says is an organization of former and current Intel > employees. In an interview, Hamidi said that he plans to appeal the > court's decision immediately after the order against him is filed. > Asking a court to enforce a private-property law does not turn a dispute > into a major First Amendment issue. > "We'll appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, and if we lose > there I will go to the California Supreme Court," he said. "If necessary > I will go to the United States Supreme Court. I am in a position to set > a legal precedent and I take that responsibility seriously." Perhaps Mr. Hamidi's efforts would be better served by finding another job, assuming that any employer would consider hiring him. Instead, he appears to be lazy, regardless of what his obsession would suggest. He could have battled Intel head-on, addressing the issues of HIS situation, but as far as we can tell, he didn't. He could have written paper letters to all Intel employees at their home addresses, and would have been certain of reaching all of them outside of Intel's direct view, but apparently didn't. He couldn't possibly expect any Intel employee to accomplish anything by speaking up on his behalf without fear of being fired, themselves, so personal gain can't possibly be what he's after. ... > In his article, McSwain dealt head-on with the main legal puzzle in the > Hamidi case. He explained that the First Amendment prohibits the > government from restricting free speech, but that it does not apply to > individuals or corporations. For that reason, he said, most people who > think about the Hamidi case naturally assume that because Intel is a > private company, and Hamidi is a private citizen, then the First > Amendment has no role. > Not so fast, McSwain argued. Because Intel went to a judge and got him > to stop Hamidi from sending e-mail, the government became involved in > censorship. In other words, it is one thing for Intel to try to block > unwanted e-mail to company employees. But it's another thing to ask a > court to ban Hamidi from sending his missives in the first place. McSwain makes a huge leap to suggest that getting a court involved in a physical trespass dispute = censorship. If you push past the guard at the door, at a place of business where you have no employment or legal rights to be (such as at Intel's headquarters), it's still physical trespass. It makes no difference if the trespasser is Hamidi, or a street preacher. > "[T]he judicial enforcement of trespass laws in order to censor Internet > speech constitutes state action," or action by the government, McSwain > wrote ... Beyond this, it's pointless to discuss Hamidi, or McSwain's twisted imaginary "free speech" arguments. Hamidi has no "free speech" rights within Intel's physical or electronic facilities. Period. If you don't accept that premise, there are no issues left for a court to decide (besides the decision already made). ... > Hamidi agrees. "What is the meaning of the Internet? It means that for > the first time someone like me can communicate en masse > instantaneously," he said. "I want to support that freedom." It isn't a freedom or a right, it's a privilege that depends upon a lot of people cooperating to PERMIT it to happen. The sooner that freeloaders like Hamidi learns this concept, the better for everyone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for telling it as it is. As you point out, the media is hardly in a position to be telling other people how they have to 'obey the First Amendment' and all that rot. Someone should have suggested to the Harvard Law Review that fine, then *they* could provide the necessary resources for Mr. Hamidi to send letters or email to the people of his choice. It always amazes me how many people are completely confused about the ten amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights. All those things address is what the *government* can and cannot do. The *government* cannot forbid Mr. Hamidi from speaking. The government does not have to provide him with the means of speaking, nor does anyone else. Certainly he has no right to impose his speech traffic on a privately owned comp- uter network intended for company business. A point in his favor might be made if he wrote to employees at their private, off-premises email addresses. Then it becomes a matter of him, the ISP he has contracted with, and his correspondents and the ISP they contract with. I still do not see why Intel does not just block him with filters and let it go at that. Either send it all straight to /dev/null or perhaps return it to the postmaster at Hamidi's site defining it as spam and asking them to take action they feel appropriate. The newspapers love dictating to the net what our standards ought to be. Try making demands on the editors of newspapers about what they should print and who should be allowed to write, etc. They would just laugh at you. So much of the 'established' media i.e. the papers, magazines, television, and radio are still in denial where the Internet is concerned. The net is badly eroding the monopoly on free speech that the established media held for many years. The news- papers thought it was really bad news in the early 1950's when tele- vision first got underway. Well, if they thought that was bad news for their enterprise, wait until they see how the net has hacked away at it over the next few years. To you who have been around here a few years and remember the 'old net' from the 1980's and think it is really big now, you ain't seen nothing yet. I am stressing that point right now in an editorial comment at http://internet-pioneers.org that the next several years will bring a crunch on this net as we have never seen. All kinds of people, all kinds of cultures, all kinds of ideas, all kinds of scams and spams. The established media has not missed any of it, and they do not like it. We don't play by their rules; we do not follow their gentlemen's unspoken agreements; there is very little censoring or santizing of the messages on the net; in summary, it all sort of just hangs out. This is why they do things like endorse junk email, and print their pious little lectures about freedom of speech, etc. Not that they would ever turn their presses over to every nut case that comes along as we here do quite frequently, good heavens no. Why do you suppose that every story you read in the papers about the Internet is always negative? This has been the case since Joe Abernathy forward, with his ridiculous commentaries in the early 1990's and continuing to this day. The papers will always talk about the kiddie-porn, the fraud, the hate groups, and all that stuff whenever they can. Let a chat room conversation turn into a real-time meeting which ends with tragic consequences and the media will jump all over it. (Of course they never want to talk about their 'personals' ads and how many nuts show up at your door when you place one of those ads in their paper.) When is the last time your newspaper had a story about a (non-pornographic or hate-mongering) Usenet newsgroup? When is the last time they interviewed a newsgroup moderator, a chat-room host or one of the many GOOD information providers on the net? They never have and they never will. That would cut things a bit too close for comfort, with their preference for telling about all the bad things that happen here. The newspapers are not your friends. Take what they say with a grain of salt, especially where 'freedom of speech' is concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 03:11:51 GMT In , James Gifford wrote: > I've always kept AT&T for my primary carrier, but I've frequently used > 10-10-321 for LD in the past year or two. They're 10 cents per minute > unless you go past 20 minutes, at which time the overall cost drops to > 5 cents per minute. This is a *much* better deal than 10-10-220, as > calls up to 9 minutes long and 20 minutes and over are cheaper > (proportionately so), while only calls between 11 and 19 minutes will > be more. Really?? Not my experience, admittedly limited, but should be adequate. About three month ago my daughter (without asking me) made some calls using -321; one was less than ten minutes and one was quite long. When I got the bill I noticed that the latter call was certainly cheaper per minute than the shorter one, but I recall that all the calls were more than the 10 cents per minute AT&T would have charged. /JBL ------------------------------ From: jjs@eudoramail.com Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:06:10 GMT Organization: @Home Network Many thanks to "gifford" and others that made comments about 10-10-220. I have to admit you're right. I never really looked past the idea that a 20 min call is 99 cents. Looks like I going to have to research the entire matter some more and check out a few of the other 10-10 so called deals. I'm starting to think they all are rip offs in one way or the other. The problem is to find the one that rips you off the least. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Robin Subject: Re: Caller-ID and Answering Machine Together - Screening Wish List Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:52:05 -0500 Organization: Sprynet News Service Reply-To: "Bruce Robin" Check out the Nortel answering machine. It does most of what you're looking for. ------------------------------ From: Marc.Haber-usenet@gmx.de (Marc Haber) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:59:37 GMT Organization: posting from University of Karlsruhe, Germany TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Marc.Haber-usenet@gmx.de (Marc Haber): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would a webmaster want to make it > impossible for someone to bookmark his site? Some people hope to make their visitors use a different browser. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But why is favicon.ico necessary to do > this? Can't a webmaster put something on the page himself saying > 'bookmark this site', and then give instructions for doing so when a > vistor clicks on that link? This would only count bookmarks set by non-computer-knowledgeable people that don't know how to use their browser's bookmark feature. If a page uses a "bookmark this site" button, I frown and usually don't bookmark that site. Greetings, ------------------------------------ !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I cannot imagine why a webmaster would care what browser was used. The last thing I -- as a user -- would do is change browsers in order to view some web page, unless it had some extremely interesting graphic or something and specifically said 'you need browser X to see this' and I wanted to see it. I will not even wait more than a few seconds for a web page to load before abandoning it, unless I know there is an overall network problem rather than just a web page bloated with graphics, etc. As a webmaster, I just try to make my pages as close to equal as possible for all browsers. Who am I to tell the users what they must or must not do? I had a case like that over at http://internet-history.org recently. There, I have when possible, pictures of the early pioneers on the net which I display next to the link which discusses them. In the case of Tim Berners-Lee, all I had was a .bmp file and although IE browsers will display .bmp files, Netscape refuses to do so. I asked John Levine to convert it to a .gif for me so that everyone could see the picture. I also have a picture of Jon Postel and a picture of the Hauben's book 'Netizens' on that page. I want to get a picture of Vint Cerf and a few others if anyone knows where to find them. Although I do not personally add 'bookmark this site' notations to any pages I maintain, I am curious to know what you have against it. Despite the number of very advanced users on the net, many of whom are far more knowledgeable than myself in Unix and java scripting, etc, the number of newcomers at kindergarten level is increasing at such a rate that I suspect the overall 'average accomplishment level' of netters these days is somewhere around third-grade. Many of them literally have to have *everything* explained; even how to bookmark a page. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:23:20 CDT From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Pat, It is not that I am complaining about the hits. It's the fact that I get a warning email in my box every time someone hits my site saying that there is a missing file. That would get a bit annoying to you, too. As for picking on Bill Gates, why not have a little fun? Lately, he's been the target of a lot of picking that is going on in the media and I'm sure he is laughing about it all the way to the bank. Besides, it *was* his company that is the cause of this. My intent was for someone to create (or share) some generic 'favicon.ico' files so I could include them on my site and get rid of these annoying messages that keep popping up in my mailbox. I'm afraid you didn't sense my humorous mood. Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I guess I missed your humor, sorry. Then again, I do not have error messages sent to my email box. Several hundred emails daily not including the mailer-daemons which come in by the droves as sendmail dutifuly reports its progress on each issue is quite enough, thank you. Why do you like those things going into your mailbox anyway? I get 300-400 errors per day usually, and I just deal with it when I review the log. All the errors here do go into a separate file to start with. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:13:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Re: What is favicon.ico ??? Excerpt from TBTF for 1999-04-21 ... http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-04-21.html .. My favorite icon Puzzled by the appearance of "favicon.ico" in your Web log? News emerged this week to clear up a mystery I had been wondering about for some time. Beginning last year my Web log showed several attempts per day to download a file named "favicon.ico". My site has no such file nor any links to one. This Wired story [11] reveals that the call for favicon.ico is yet another Internet Explorer "feature" that opens up yet more privacy holes. IE5 offers site builders a way to "brand" their site in users' browsers -- simply place a Win- dows icon file with the proper name at the site's top level, and Windows users who bookmark the site will see that icon in their Fav- orites list. IE5 is requesting the file "favicon.ico" without the knowledge of the user. Microsoft doesn't exactly trumpet this fea- ture, which has been present in IE5 betas as far back as June 1998 [12]; they bury documentation about favicon.ico deep within their developers' site [13]. The feature raises two privacy concerns. First, Web site owners can now see when an IE5 user bookmarks their site. This expression of interest could be misused by avid marketers. Second, since almost nobody knows about the feature, most attempts to download favicon.- ico will fail. A simple HotBot or Alta Vista search leads to hun- dreds of Web log files with "favicon.ico -- 404" errors. Web logs should not be visible to the search spiders, but nonetheless many are. The logs may contain expressive URLs that display usernames and passwords for databases or other secure parts of the sites. Wired [11] sums up the concerns in a quote from a privacy advocate: > The browser's privacy implications are becoming so com- > plicated that you almost need a separate privacy manual > when you log on. [11] http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/technology/story/19160.html?wnpg=all [12] http://www.cooldoctor.com/wusage5.0/10040.html [13] http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-online/workshop/delivery/desktop/actdeskie5/actdeskie5.asp#addchan ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Making The Phone System Tell You YOUR Number Organization: Netcom Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:25:45 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted in responded to Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the Chicago area, it is one of the > various 200-xxx-xxxx numbers telco uses for testing, ringbacks, etc. > Like its ringback relative, it stays in secret. Try looking over the > tech's shoulder as he dials it when working at your demarc, etc ... > that's all I can suggest. PAT] There really should be some officially-supported way for a device attached to a phone to find out its number. It's suprising that the fax industry didn't get this mandated years ago, so fax machines could self-configure. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Reed H. Subject: Re: Channel Extender Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 15:51:43 -0600 Organization: None whatsoever One definition is at: http://www.wcom.com/cgi-bin/search?placetosearch=term&searchfilter=contains&searchstring=channel+extender&pagenum=0&page=1 Alonzo Alcazar wrote: > What is a channel extender and how does it work? ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonze Alcazar) Subject: Wireless Networks Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:08:54 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Is there any web resource that discusses problems associated with wireless networks? Thanks for any answers, Alonze Alcazar ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:29:21 -0400 From: Josh Cartagenova Subject: V-SPAN and Comcast Sign Deal Contact: V-SPAN Joshua Cartagenova Marketing Manager 610-382-4056 joshc@vspan.com V-SPAN SECURES $10 MILLION IN EQUITY FINANCING FROM CONSORTIUM OF STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL PARTNERS New Funds Solidify V-SPAN's Position as the Communication Gateway for Dissimilar Technologies King of Prussia, PA (June 7, 1999) - V-SPAN, the largest privately held videoconferencing network management and gateway service solutions provider, announced today the closing of a $10 million private equity investment by a leading group of strategic investors focused on broadband application deployment. The group includes Comcast Interactive Capital, Edison Venture IV, and others. V-SPAN will utilize the capital to create and stimulate new business opportunities in the broadband service arena including gateway services, continued global expansion, and complete Internet conferencing automation. "By leveraging the capability of new broadband networks coupled with our vision of facilitating connectivity between dissimilar technologies and transport mediums, V-SPAN is changing the way businesspeople will communicate anyplace at anytime," said Ken Hayward, president of V-SPAN. In addition to further automation and global expansion, the financing will be used to continue development of broadband gateway services which utilize and interconnect networks such as the Internet, XDSL (Digital Subscriber Lines), cable modems, wireless, private and switched digital carrier networks, and POTS (plain old telephone service). "Comcast invests in companies that demonstrate vision in implementing applications and services that drive broadband deployment. We have been impressed with V-SPAN's growth, industry leadership and management. We are optimistic about V-SPAN's future and excited to strategically partner to make that vision a reality," said Julian A. Brodsky, chairman of Comcast Interactive Capital and vice chairman of Comcast. About V-SPAN: V-SPAN is a worldwide leader in the delivery of "virtual meeting management services" to corporations, government, and educational institutions. The organization is primarily engaged in providing seamless multipoint videoconferencing connectivity and gateway services to the interactive visual communications marketplace. V-SPAN services include: gateway connectivity between traditional (ISDN) and new media networks (i.e.: Internet, wireless, cable modems, XDSL, POTS & public/private switched), videoconference network management, award-winning Managed Conference Services Group, multipoint bridging services, Internet streaming, Web-Enhanced Teleconferencing, worldwide scheduling & reservations and help desk services. V-SPAN Corporate headquarters is located in King of Prussia, PA with offices nationwide. For additional information about V-SPAN services and unrivaled customer dedication, please contact 1-888-44V-SPAN or visit our Web site at www.vspan.com. About Comcast and Comcast Interactive Capital: Comcast Corporation (www.comcast.com) is principally engaged in the development, management and operation of broadband cable networks and in the provision of content through principal ownership of QVC, Comcast-Spectacor and Comcast SportsNet, a controlling interest in E! Entertainment Television and through other programming investments. Comcast Interactive Capital is a new independent unit of Comcast Corporation that functions as a venture capital fund to seek out, consummate and manage investments associated with the Internet. Comcast's Class A Special Common Stock and Class A Common Stock are traded on The NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbols CMCSK and CMCSA, respectively. Joshua Cartagenova Marketing Manager V-SPAN Virtual Connectivity...Anyplace @ Anytime 1100 First Ave, Ste 400 - King of Prussia, PA 19406 Ph: 610-382-4056 Fx: 610-382-1099 E: joshc@vspan.com ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money Organization: New York University School of Medicine Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 20:53:27 -0400 I made a call from a Hell Atlantic pay phone (I think it was an HA, could have been a COCOT, but I don't think so) this afternoon and got a surprise. I didn't know whether the call would be $0.25 or more than that, so I just dialed the number and waited to get the "please deposit XXX cents" message to tell me how much it should be. Instead, I got a message that said that I needed to deposit some change, but instead of telling me how much, it told me to consult the front of the phone to figure out how much I needed to deposit. Bizarre. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #128 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 03:57:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA26039; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:57:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906080757.DAA26039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #129 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 03:57:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 129 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (TELECOM Digest Edtr) Superscalar Processors (reda@tinyonline.co.uk) Toshiba Perception2 DEKT Station Card Modifications For a DSS (dbk227) ... And Now, a Drum Roll Please! (Donald E. Kimberlin) Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) (Eli Mantel) Re: 10-10-220 (Bruce Robin) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (Kim Brennan) Visit Us at Supercomm (Andrea Dray) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Jack Hamilton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 8 Jun 1999 03:23:55 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! What would you say if I told you there was now software available and being distributed which allows users to change the contents of a web site, adding their own remarks to it as desired, and that there was *no way* the webmaster was able to prevent it; in fact the webmaster might not even be aware it was happening? You would say I was nuts probably, but then, that is because you have not heard of a new company on the net called Third Voice, which is understandable, because they just began distributing their 'browser application' in May. Third Voice http://www.thirdvoice.com has a new treat for all the webmasters ... and you are going to love it! Their browser application lets you mark up any web site you visit with your own commentary, anywhere on the page you feel like. *Your copy* of the page is then stored on a server at Third Voice. Anytime you set your browser to some URL, a search is made of the server at Third Voice at the same time ... if a copy of the page is found at Third Voice, then **that copy is sent to you instead of the one at the actual web site** and what you see is the marked up copy by whoever did it. Its sort of like when a government web site gets hacked, everyone wants to rush over and look at it before the damage gets cleared. If those government and large corporate websites which get hacked did not have such dumb webmasters who gave up root so easily it would not happen, but that's not my point here today. If Third Voice does not have a copy of the page on file, then they just let you take the webmaster's actual copy instead, and they copy it from you. For the user, it is all quite transparent. All the user has to do is indicate a desired URL, and the browser will go off in two directions: one to the actual site, and two, to the Third Voice server. If it finds a copy at Third Voice, then that is the copy you receive, however defaced or marked up it may be by the time you get around to looking at it. In most cases, unless the webmaster himself happens to view his page using the Third Voice browser application, he won't even know his page was defaced and rewritten or whatever ... because anyone without the Third Voice browser application will merely see the page as the webmaster wrote it. Third Voice users will have sort of their own 'secret club'; they will see a web site with whatever comments and remarks, however crude or ignorant they may be, which were embedded there by other Third Voice users. Everyone else just stays in the dark about it. Now if that news does not please all the fine webmasters who read my words each day, I do not know what would. 1. Your page gets marked up by users with their own commentaries and you cannot stop them from doing it; 2. You cannot see what they did unless you use the Third Voice browser application to 'review' their work, and even if you do see it you are helpless to stop it. 3. User asks for your page, but gets it served from the cgi-bin or whatever of Third Voice instead. According to Third Voice, they will check to see if you changed your page or not before sending their copy of it. If your page is newer, then your copy will be the one delivered. This is necessary since they want to make certain that user 'commentaries' about your site stay in the same place on the screen where the user originally put them, etc. I guess you could sub-title this, 'Users get revenge on webmasters by marking up their sites for all other users to see', and I have a feeling a few people are going to say that this is taking the concept of 'free speech' just a bit too far. Third Voice says they see no problem with it at all; in fact they believe it will improve the net by allowing everyone to comment on whatever web sites they visit, and to have their comments available to all other visitors as well; sort of like Usenet: you say one thing then I come along and add my two-cents worth. Third Voice users will be anonymous. The only registration required to get your free browser application is by going to their web site and giving them some name and email address, of someone, somewhere, and maybe you are not a very good typist and got the address wrong. Enter a name and email address, download your free software on the spot, install it on your browser (a simple job which takes five minutes or less total) and get busy defacing the web sites of your choice so that other passers-by can see and appreciate your work. The Third Voice browser application is currently available only for IE-4, but IE-5 is coming in a few days I am told, or by the end of June. Then they will begin working on a version for Netscape. The example I saw of it makes use of the 'search box' on the left side of the IE screen, in the space where the favorites go, or the various search engines to pick, etc. With Third Voice installed, that same space will be where you find the commands used by Third Voice, such as what to click on when you wish to position your cursor at a certain point on the screen to begin your 'markup' or commentary or whatever. Another command there will be to transmit your marked up version of the web site over to the Third Voice server, where it will be indexed and made available to the next person who comes to that webmaster's site. Third Voice says this is just a way to 'make the web a little more democratic by allowing users to speak out' ... and while that may be all well and good, I see a few problems: An anti-abortion web site is visited in large numbers by pro-choice people who completely render the site useless for its intended audience. Ditto in reverse of course; some anti-abortion people are as hateful and mean-spirited as you can find anywhere. And what about sites like Black Voices, a combination web site and chat room (via AOL) for the black community. I suppose the white-racists can go visit them. Sites which are usually family-oriented discover suddenly they have become x-rated based on pornographic comments added to their pages. Adult sites with sexually oriented material get visited by folks from the Bible Church who leave admonitions and scriptural references questioning the salvation of the users of that site. Anti-government extremists should have a great time with whitehouse.gov and other federal agency web sites. Homophobic visitors to gay web sites should provide us all with a real laugh when we read their crude remarks. Of course, editors and columnists at {New York Times} are likely to go spastic when they find out how free speech really works, and discover 'editorials from the people' written all over their web site. So anyway, for further reading on this latest challenge to the net, take a look at: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19722.html then go pick up your free, anonymous software patch for your IE-4 browser which lets you become your very own 'web-spammer' at the sites of your choice at http://www.thirdvoice.com Is there anything at all webmasters can do to prevent this desecration of their sites? Not a lot; it seems now it is the users' turn to abuse the webmaster rather than the other way around, if news reports are to be believed. Probably -- I cannot say this for sure, and webmasters need to investigate this closely -- the damage to your sites can be mitigated by refreshing/rewriting your pages on a frequent basis. If the Third Voice server does not find your page exactly the way it was the last time it looked, my understanding is it will not serve up its bastardized version. Also, the Third Voice browser application may be sending out its own navigator.strings, i.e. identifying itself, but I do not know that for sure. If so, you could look for those and act on them. You may be able to get away with just having a newer time stamp on the file than the one that Third Voice will issue. The other thing you might be able to do is if Third Voice does indeed serve the actual page, and not just a 'transparent overlay' of user's remarks is copyright your page and forbid its being served from any location other than your own. If they send a transparent overlay of just things users have done to the page, you cannot very well get them on copyright violations, nor can you get them for misrepresenting your page and your work since they will claim all they are doing is giving their customers access to things written by other customers, which of course is all Usenet ever was about. Anyway webmasters, pass the word around, and get yourself a copy of the Third Voice browser application so that if nothing else you can see what they are saying about you behind your back. Users started picking up the patch as of last weekend. PAT ------------------------------ From: reda Subject: Superscalar Processors Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:01:33 +0100 Hi, Can anyeone help me build a simulation of a superscalar processor? Many thanks, E.MAIL: reda@tinyonline.co.uk ------------------------------ From: dbk227 Subject: Toshiba Perception2 DEKT Station Card Modifications For a DSS Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:39:38 -0700 Does anybody out there remember what the modifications are? Or perhaps knows where I can locate a modified card? I've exhausted all my local resources with no results. Toshiba doesn't support the P-2 any longer, and friends on the inside can't find any documentation. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:07:11 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: ... And Now, a Drum Roll Please! ... Here it is: Something I could have done 15 years ago something I should have done 10 years ago, and finally something I got the Round Tuit to do now -- getting it all together to obtain certification as a Class One Telecommunications and Radio Engineer. It just took a lot of doing to get together all the threads of a story that resulted not only in the recognition of NARTE, but also the endorsements you can read in the fine print at Master Level in both Radio and Wire communications ... and there, not only items of technology, but also regulation, administration, management and marketing. ... To those of you who helped by responding to the forms of the NARTE Certification Committee -- thanks! To those of you who have put up with me for all these years -- thanks, too! ...To my doting daughter, now Daddy can put some letters after his name, too. They are NCE. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Congratulations from all of us here at the Digest. I know you worked hard and deserve it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Erroneous 101-0321 Rtes (was Re: 10-10-220) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 04:28:11 GMT James Gifford (gifford@nitrosyncretic.com) wrote: > ...I've frequently used 10-10-321 for LD in the the past year or > two. They're 10 cents per minuate unless you go past 20 minutes, at > which time the overall cost drops to 5 cents per minute. If you check your phone bill more carefully, I think you'll see you're being charged quite a bit more than this. For interstate calls of 10 minutes or less, the first minute costs 30 cents. Additional minutes cost from 16 cents to 28 cents, depending on the time of day. Interstate calls longer than 10 minutes cost half this amount, so the best rate you can possibly get is 15 cents for the first minute and 8 cents for each additional minute. According to Telecom USA Customer Service at 1-800-476-1234, the half-price break for intrastate calls occurs at 20 minutes. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Robin Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:53:14 -0500 Organization: Sprynet News Service Reply-To: "Bruce Robin" Actually, the average call duration is 4.7 min which provides a yield to MCI of just over 20 cents per minute on average. ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 08 Jun 1999 05:38:34 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! David Szlucha pens: > Of the various surcharges and taxes, after FCC line charge, 911 > surcharge, I have a weekend house in WV. In a locale that does not even HAVE a 911 service (and you thought that didn't exist still in this country). Yet, I'm charged for 911 on my phone bill. (for police I dial a 7 digit number, for ambulance/fire I dial a different 7 digit number.) Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: Andrea Dray Subject: Visit Us at Supercomm Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:17:13 +0300 Visit MIND at Supercomm '99 June 8th - 10th , Georgia Convention Center in Atlanta, GA MIND representatives will be demonstrating the MIND-iPhonEX Internet Telephony Billing solution at two different locations: ADC Telecommunications Booth: # 4739 Cisco New World ECOmmunity Booth: # 7467 We look forward to seeing you there. ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 01:46:39 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton Reply-To: jfh@acm.org Toby Nixon wrote: > If a site gains enough info from the favicon.ico lookup to send you > spam, then they would have gotten that same information by you simply > browsing the site without bookmarking it. If you want this level of > privacy, you can't browse the web at all. At one time there was a service which provided web browsing "pass through"; it would do all the lookups for you, so the destination site would never know who was looking at it; all it would see would be the pass-through sites address. Do such services still exist, and do the work well? I've heard of similar services for telephone calls; you call a number which gives you a dial tone from somewhere in Iowa, so the called party can't trace who called, or even find out what area of the country the call came from, without a court order. Jack Hamilton Broderick, CA jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #129 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 12:33:22 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA15053; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:33:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906081633.MAA15053@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #130 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 12:33:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 130 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LCI, Bell Atlantic, Slamming, and the FCC, a Year Later (Jeremy M. Posner) GTE Potential Impact on AT&T to Open Cable Network to ISP's (John Stahl) TV Over ATM at Supercom 99 (Andrew Pearson) Seeking Automated Attendant System (Gary Marsh) Wanted Wyse 60 or Executone / Isoetec CRT's (Joseph Elichaa) Wanted Headset Software (Joseph Elichaa) 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Steven J. Sobol) Adjunct Processors, Billing Systems, NGN Service Platforms (K Morten Dahl) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: LCI, Bell Atlantic, Slamming, and the FCC, a Year Later Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:08:19 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Tomorrow will mark one full year since I sent off a complaint letter (included below) to various parties about being slammed by LCI. I posted that letter to this group at the time, and received some supporting words from some of the readers. So, a year later, I wanted to let everyone know what had happened with my complaint: Nothing. Okay, not quite, but more or less. In February, I had a disturbing experience with a telemarketer, who called on my main line asking for the person who used to have my fax line. (See the letter for the details on how I even got this person's name.) Since those numbers have only been associated with each other in my billing records, I asked where they got the information. This resulted in several days of finger pointing by several telecoms. So, I decided to call the FCC, to amend this information to my complaint. After finally tracking down a number at their Washington offices that would get me a real live human (or at least a civil servant), I told them that I wanted to add some information to a complaint. They asked when I had sent it. Upon telling the woman on the line that I had sent the complaint 9 months earlier, I was actually laughed at. When she stopped laughing, I was told that it would be at least another 6-9 months before they even opened my letter. The only thing worse than an embarrassingly inefficient civil servant is one who thinks being inefficient is funny. I called my various elected officials. I pointed out that if the NYS PSC can get a response to me from Bell Atlantic within six hours of my filing a complaint with them, that it is not unreasonable to expect the FCC to have taken action within 8 months. I also asked the NYS Attorney General's Office to try and help (especially since the AG who took office after the November elections was more likely to actually do something in such a case), hoping that they could convince the FCC to take action. The FCC finally did send off a round of letters to all of the involved telecoms in March, after some pushing from one State AG, one Congresswoman's office, and two Senators' offices. (I also called the NYS PSC again and stretched the truth a bit. I said that the FCC wasn't taking action on issues of local phone service, so that it was their problem. The PSC insisted that they were not responsible because it was a LD issue. I told them that if that was the case, they would have to convince the FCC to take action. I believe they made such a call.) A few weeks ago, I got a letter (dated May 13) from a "Tariff Analyst" at LCI. She said that the account was established on October 28th 1997 by Gabriel Delgado, and that Mr. Delgado never notified LCI to disconnect it, so that it was still PIC'd to them when it was assigned to me. After three weeks of leaving voice mail messages for her, I finally reached her to point out that the number was assigned to me in June of 1997, and my problem is that the October 1997 switch should never have been authorized. She admitted that there is absolutely no checking done to insure that the name on a request to change LD carrier matches the billing info for that line. Also, upon speaking to Bell Atlantic about some of my original problems, I was told that they had destroyed the records of any calls I made to their reps more than 18 months ago. I pointed out that there was a Federal investigation pending regarding those records, and that there could be serious repercussions. The rep was not convinced, saying that they had never been formally notified of any investigation, so there was no wrongdoing. I suggested that they had reason to believe that an investigation was coming from the moment they got my letter, which was addressed to both them and the FCC. Maybe, just maybe, if the FCC worked a little faster, there would still be information left to discover when they got around to investigating a case. So, here I am a year later without any more answers than I had a year ago. I put a call into a human at the FCC this morning, and am hoping to press them for some answers at this time. I'm not too hopeful. Tomorrow, on the one year anniversary of the original complaint, I plan to send copies of that letter, along with my analysis of what's wrong with the system to every elected official who supposedly represents me in any way shape or form. One change I plan to suggest is in the checking procedures for changing carriers. Bell Atlantic told me a while ago that they merely receive a computer tape with a list of numbers to be switched. If each number were accompanied by the first three letters of the last name on the bill, it would allow for basic data checking, preventing the majority of cases like mine. I doubt there is any way other than legislation to get this to happen, and I am not hopeful of getting any legislation to that effect passed. -JMP Original complaint letter: President's Office Bell Atlantic Corporation 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Executive Team LCI International 6000 Parkwood Ct. Dublin, OH 43016 Informal Complaints Branch Federal Communications Commission 2025 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20554 Consumer Services Division NYS Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection NYS Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 3rd Flr New York, NY 10271 Tuesday June 9, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: I am sending this letter to several agencies in the hopes that one or more of you can resolve this issue. This past week, I received my latest telephone bill from Bell Atlantic, from which I discovered that my long distance carrier for one of my phone lines had been switched without my consent. In trying to uncover exactly what happened, I discovered some alarming details about the collective negligence of several companies involved in the illegal action of 'slamming.' It is my belief that there may be one or more parties involved who should be prosecuted for fraud, and that some of the 'standard procedures' of Bell Atlantic should be reviewed and changed. Upon opening my phone bill dated June 1, 1998, I discovered that all long distance calls made from my secondary phone line (212-426-8001, which I use primarily as a fax and data line, as well as for a backup in case of problems with my ISDN line) had been billed through LCI, rather than my preferred long distance carrier, Sprint. I immediately called Bell Atlantic to restore my service to Sprint, and inquire who had authorized the switch. I was told that the request for a change had come directly from LCI and that I would have to call them to find any additional information. I called LCI, and was told that the request for a change in carrier had come from a telemarketing firm, which had supposedly called me on October 25, 1997 and received a verbal authorization to switch the carrier. (Had they really called, they would have gotten a fax machine, not a person.) However, their records showed that the authorization was made by Gabriel Delgado, who I informed them was not authorized to make changes on my phone service. The LCI representative then told me that both the phone number to be changed and the billing information they had received (in this case, the name Gabriel Delgado) were sent to Bell Atlantic when the change was made, and that Bell Atlantic was responsible for cross-checking that the information was consistent with their billing records. Gabriel Delgado was listed in the NYNEX 1996-97 White Pages as having the number 426-8001. Upon confronting Bell Atlantic on the claim that they were responsible for confirming the billing information, they told me that they never receive anything more specific than a number to be switched, so they could not have verified that the change was requested by an authorized party. When I called LCI again, I was given a different story. They told me that the previous owner of the phone number (presumably Mr. Delgado) had used LCI as his long distance carrier, and that NYNEX had failed to notify them that the account was no longer active. They then claimed that when my phone service at that number was initiated in June 1997, they never actually set my long distance carrier to any company other than LCI. When pressed, the representative I spoke to did confirm that their records showed that they switched my service to LCI on October 25, 1997 as they had previously told me. It is of note that the story about NYNEX neglecting to inform long distance carriers that the previous owner of the phone number had closed his account did sound familiar, as when I received my first bill after the phone line in question was activated, I found that it contained a monthly fee from AT&T for an international calling plan that the previous owner of the phone line had used. AT&T said that according to their records, NYNEX had never informed them that Mr. Delgado closed his account. As far as I am concerned, there are several problems at play here. There is the fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Telemarketing firm that claimed to have received permission to change my long distance carrier to LCI. Then there was the lack of a functioning mechanism to confirm that the person listed as authorizing the change is indeed authorized to make such a change. (In the latter case, the rules of the system may have been followed, but the rules are clearly inadequate.) Finally, it seems that there was a failure on the part of NYNEX back in June 1997 (or whenever Mr. Delgado cancelled his phone service) to notify the long distance carriers that they should suspend billing as the account had been closed. I expect that a criminal investigation for fraud will be opened in the case of the telemarketing firm, as they clearly made fictitious claims of speaking to a person at 212-426-8001, and further claimed that the person they spoke to was Gabriel Delgado. I also expect that there will be a review of the procedures for verifying billing information on requests to change long distance carriers, as the current system rewards telemarketers and long distance carriers when a fraud such as the one in my case takes place. Finally, I expect that there be a review of Bell Atlantic (former NYNEX) procedures regarding the recycling of phone numbers in the 212 area code. The first issue seems to be whether or not the number sat idle and unused for long enough before it was assigned to me. (The phone book which expired in August 1997 listed Mr. Delgado at that number, even though the number was asssigned to me in June 1997.) The second issue seems to involve removing any outside billing to that number before reassignment, as I have now dealt with two separate long distance companies that claimed not to have been notified of the number's reassignment. I would appreciate it if your offices could forward copies of any public documents (including criminal complaints and legal filings) relating to these issues to my address. I would also appreciate it if you could keep me informed of any action taken against any of the companies involved in my complaints. Thank you for your help. | Jeremy M. Posner | "The internet? Is that thing still around?" | | jposner@panix.com | -Homer Simpson | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:05:45 From: John Stahl Subject: GTE Potential Impact on AT&T to Open Cable Network to ISP's An article from Inter@ctive Magazine, attached below, relates that "GTE favors opening cable systems like AT&T's for competing Internet providers, such as America Online, to use." Some might remember that this issue of opening the cable to competition came up during the early stages of the AT&T/TCI deal and AT&T indicated that it would sooner give up the acquisition than to spend the money to then have competition given open-access to the new cable 'network'. GTE might be in a position to 'force' the issue with many of the controlling states and perhaps the FCC on this issue. Wonder if AT&T will be happy with these developments? Do you think the consumer will be happy? ------------------- GTE Well-Placed To Push Cable Access By Louis Trager; Inter@ctive Magazine June 7, 1999 5:46 PM ET GTE favors opening cable systems like AT&T's for competing Internet providers, such as America Online, to use. Unlike other mandatory-access advocates, however, GTE is in a powerful position to advance that outcome using its position as a small cable operator. The company today said that it might make a voluntary deal with one or more Internet service providers (ISPs), thereby undercutting arguments by AT&T and most of the cable industry that access isn't feasible. An access deal would blunt access opponents' arguments politically and perhaps legally, and carrying it out could create even bigger headaches. "I wouldn't be surprised if GTE cable properties made open-access or leased-access deals to set an example for the rest of the industry," said Legg Mason Precursor Group's Scott Cleland. "If GTE cable systems could offer open access, why couldn't other cable systems?" It's just one front in a battle that has burst back into the limelight after a federal judge ruled June 4 that Portland, Ore., was within its rights to make the transfer of Tele-Communications Inc.'s cable franchise to purchaser AT&T conditional on opening the system to competing ISPs. AT&T is vowing to fight the decision. The Federal Communications Commission, which has avoided the issue in the name of keeping hands off the Internet, may have to take up the question, if only to keep cities from creating a national patchwork of regulation. Los Angeles and Seattle reserved the right to review their franchise transfers to AT&T if another city succeeded in imposing an access requirement. Cities served by MediaOne Group, which AT&T is trying to buy, also may require access. The possibility of GTE's throwing a monkey wrench in the works for fellow cable operators isn't entirely hypothetical. Internet Ventures Inc. has been talking behind the scenes with GTE, IVI President Don Janke said. He said IVI approached GTE about gaining access to its Ventura County, Calif., cable system, and GTE sent a form contract in response. After several weeks' delay getting a needed insurance quote, IVI is eager to proceed with GTE, Janke said. A source close to the dealings said GTE's initial response to IVI was considerably warmer than the reception the ISP has received from AT&T on comparable requests. GTE refused to comment specifically on dealings with IVI or other ISPs. The company prefers all cable operators to open their systems at the same time. For instance, AT&T affiliate Excite@Home couldn't force its way onto GTE systems while AT&T kept GTE off its cable systems, GTE spokeswoman Briana Gowing said. But she added that GTE's doing a voluntary ISP deal to knock the underpinnings from opponents was "an option." GTE also owns a cable system in Pinellas County, Fla., near Tampa, and a wireless video service on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. IVI is the ISP that late last month asked the FCC to determine if online providers can take advantage of federal rules that require cable systems make some channels available for lease to video programmers. The FCC is expected Tuesday to accede to IVI's plea to put its request on a fast track; comments and responses from interested parties are expected to be wrapped up before August. IVI, meanwhile, followed up on the court ruling today by pressing AT&T directly for information relating to such leased access in four areas of Oregon and Washington - including Portland - that are served by former TCI systems. IVI has formally applied for access in a number of other places. The ISP wants to offer 75 broadcast TV channels at up to 256 kilobits per second for $29.95 monthly - including cable modem rental - and up to 10 megabits per second for commercial users. Cable systems don't have to be upgraded to provide the service, which uses telephone return at up to 33.6 Kbps or frame relay at up to 128 Kbps. ------------------submitted by -------------------------- John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Andrew.Pearson@uk.ecitele.com Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:27:53 +0000 Subject: TV Over ATM at Supercom 99 If you want to see the reality of TV - telecomms convergence visit the ECI Telecom booth at Supercom 99 in Atlanta. The Hi-TV transports compressed video, voice and IP over ATM. This is the future and it works. Andrew Pearson ECI Telecom UK andrew.pearson@telematics.com. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supercom 99 is going on now through June 10 in Atlanta, if you happen to be in that area. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gmarsh@housewarez.roadrunner.nf.net (Gary Marsh) Subject: Seeking Automated Attendant System Date: 8 Jun 1999 12:40:15 GMT Organization: The Zone [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was not a single word of text which came with this. Perhaps he feels his subject line says al he needs to say. PAT] - Gary Marsh, gmarsh@thezone.net - Programmer, Cable Atlantic MIS Group ------------------------------ From: Joseph Elichaa Subject: Wanted Wyse 60 or Executone / Isoetec CRT's Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:31:29 -0400 Organization: TWC Portland, Maine I am looking for a Schematic or anybody selling Wyse 60 CRT and keyboard. Thank, Joseph Elichaa joee@mainresource.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Elichaa Subject: Wanted Headset Software Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:38:01 -0400 Organization: TWC Portland, Maine I understand that there is a software package that will tell you if a headset is compatible with different phone systems. What you do is enter the parameters for the headset and it compares it the parameters of the telephone system, I belive this is how it works. I am intrested in buying this software if anyone can help me. Thanks, Joe Elichaa joee@mainresource.com ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: 8 Jun 1999 13:33:57 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? Anyone know of any new area codes pending in Ohio? Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org "Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address?" (Me, on IRC) "No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers." (Heller, in reply to me) ------------------------------ From: Karl Morten Dahl Organization: Clustra, http://www.clustra.com Subject: Adjunct Processors, Billing Systems and NGN Service Platforms Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:07:12 GMT Hi there! I need all the info I can get on these topics. Companies offering these services and the like. I will be ever thankful! If you can help out, please mail me at karlmort@clustra.com or karlmort@stud.ntnu.no Thanks, Karl Morten Dahl - Computer Science, NTNU - Trondheim, Norway E-mail: karlmort@stud.ntnu.no || bumbee@online.no Web: http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~karlmort/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #130 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 14:01:31 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA19387; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:01:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906081801.OAA19387@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #131 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 14:01:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 131 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "Third Voice" and Web Site Alteration Issues (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Tracy Waldon) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Bill Ranck) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Bob Natale) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Barry Margolin) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Michael D. Jones) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Bern. Evenepoel) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Alan Boritz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: "Third Voice" and Web Site Alteration Issues Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 09:22:03 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Greetings. I initially looked into these issues regarding "Third Voice" ("T.V.") a couple of weeks ago, in my auspices as the PRIVACY Forum Moderator. The number of potential problems with their "service" is significant. Interestingly, their own white paper points out quite a number of them. One of the biggest is that any popular page would be likely so quickly amended with so much "dueling garbage" from so many people (all with different motivations--personal, commercial, harrassment, whatever) as to render it all into a meaningless mess that nobody will ever bother to read. My analysis also does suggest that there may well be defenses that sites could use if they do not desire to participate in the T.V. system. T.V. takes pains to say that they do not actually keep copies of remote server pages -- that instead the actual page content is always served from the original site, and that "Third Voice" only adds the "overlay" of pointers to the "Third Voice" added content. This does suggest that in an automated environment (i.e., where this isn't being done by hand), the overlay material can only be used if it exactly matches the original version of the page that was used as the basis for user comments. T.V. could be using page timestamps (which would be the most straightforward approach) or even a checksum system to establish page changes. In either case, if pages appear to have changed, it would seem to force T.V. to invalidate all existing comments and "start from scratch" for that page. Depending upon the exact method T.V. is using for this determination, sites can easily keep their pages "updated" either through simple bumping of the current page timestamps, or if necessary, very minor automatic content changes. These procedures could be performed at whatever intervals a site felt were appropriate to provide them with a sufficient "comfort level" regarding "Third Voice" page fetches. Such procedures would have the unfortunate side-effect of invalidating web caches and increasing overall network traffic. However, since only the actual text html pages would be involved, not graphics or other non-textual multimedia content, it might not be as big an increase as might otherwise be expected. Also, it might be possible (depending upon T.V.'s access method) for sites to completely disallow access to their pages by T.V. servers or T.V. browser applications, if sites choose to do so. There may of course be some sites who would happily participate in the "Third Voice" system, perhaps in hopes of greater exposure. However, for sites who are less enthusiastic about the system, it appears that there are some alternatives. --Lauren-- Moderator, PRIVACY Forum Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy http://www.vortex.com Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report and Unreality Trivia Quiz" -- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:55:57 +0200 From: Tracy Waldon Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Pat, I'll admit to being slightly suprised by your reaction (unless I misread your tone). The product isn't mandatory, users have to choose to use it (although maybe Micro$oft will choose to steal the idea and bundle it in a few years, though let's hope not). So they know exactly what they are in store for. It may include ... > An anti-abortion web site is visited in large numbers by > pro-choice people who completely render the site useless > for its intended audience. > Ditto in reverse of course; some anti-abortion people are > as hateful and mean-spirited as you can find anywhere. > And what about sites like Black Voices, a combination web > site and chat room (via AOL) for the black community. I > suppose the white-racists can go visit them. > Sites which are usually family-oriented discover suddenly > they have become x-rated based on pornographic > comments added to their pages. It also may include other businesses offering the same product at a lower price. Wouldn't some of your readers like to put up a note on the sites of junk faxers/spammers? The sites would only become "useless" when you use the product. I'm curious about how the product actually works as well. I think you're right on target with the copyright analysis. If it takes and holds and modifies a copy of a web page, then it would seem to be clear that it would violate copyright law on copyrighted pages (maybe even be libelous). On the other hand, if it simply sends out a template that is overlaid on the original page at the users PC, it seems to not run afoul. Me, I like the idea. Fortunately, as a fellow target, visits to my web page are so low that I'm not worried. As I'm sure I've seen you mention more than once, web pages are part of ego trips. It's nice to have a little fun deflating a few egos. T ------------------------------ From: (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: 8 Jun 1999 13:30:04 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT > THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING > THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! > Their browser application lets you mark up any web site you visit with > your own commentary, anywhere on the page you feel like. *Your copy* > of the page is then stored on a server at Third Voice. Anytime you > set your browser to some URL, a search is made of the server at Third > Voice at the same time ... if a copy of the page is found at Third So, it's only going to affect people using this Third Voice product, right? > page was defaced and rewritten or whatever ... because anyone without > the Third Voice browser application will merely see the page as the > webmaster wrote it. Third Voice users will have sort of their own > 'secret club'; they will see a web site with whatever comments and Just so. Sounds like great fun for some sophomoric yahoos, but who else is going to be using this product anyway? In fact, what sort of business plan do these folks have, I wonder. Where is the profit in this concept? I don't see it. What if they aren't interested in profit you say? Well just ask yourself this, how long would it take, say, Disney to have about a few dozen lawyers waving copyright suits in Third Voice's face if they found a copy of one of their pages there. How much money does Third Voice have to defend such a suit? Now, how many other big corporations would do the same thing? In my opinion, these folks don't stand a chance of being in business for very long. > Third Voice says they see no problem with it at all; in fact they > believe it will improve the net by allowing everyone to comment on > whatever web sites they visit, and to have their comments available > to all other visitors as well; sort of like Usenet: you say one > thing then I come along and add my two-cents worth. Let's see what they say after the first few corporate heavyweights have pounded them a little. It won't matter if they are on solid "first amendment" ground unless they have a legal war-chest bigger than Bill Gates'. ***************************************************************************** * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ***************************************************************************** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I have no doubt you are correct about their legal problem. I think they are fixing to get sued by one or more of the big media sites the first time users start editorializing right on the page itself. Imagine Disney or CNN or New York Times allow- ing that sort of desecration to take place right there at their alters. I should imagine the Scientology people will be outraged also, and if you recall how easily offended they are, it is easy to imagine them being one of the first to litigate. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:47:13 -0400 From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Hi Pat, > Anyway webmasters, pass the word around, and get yourself a copy of > the Third Voice browser application so that if nothing else you can > see what they are saying about you behind your back. Users started > picking up the patch as of last weekend. I understand (and entirely agree with) your antipathy toward ThirdVoice. However, I believe the secret to defeating it is to ensure that it has the smallest possible distribution among netizens. Frankly, I don't think many of us want to double the time and bandwidth to download each home page we visit each time and I don't think many of us want to have to skirt around more drivel [i.e., the scribblings of the morons who would bother to "mark up" web pages for our "benefit"] to get to the info we are looking for on the web. Let's let this thing die a quiet death ... or at most enjoy a niche infamy along the lunatic fringes. Cordially, ---------- ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier ----------- Bob Natale | ACE*COMM | 301-721-3000 [v] Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f] bnatale@acecomm.com| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com ----------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com ------------- ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:48:09 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT > THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING > THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! > What would you say if I told you there was now software available > and being distributed which allows users to change the contents of > a web site, adding their own remarks to it as desired, and that > there was *no way* the webmaster was able to prevent it; in fact > the webmaster might not even be aware it was happening? This description is highly misleading. I am not a member of Third Voice, and I don't have any intention of joining them. But the simple fact is that this "defacing" is only visible to web surfers who make the conscious decision to view the web through the Third Voice filter. Third Voice users are not modifying the web pages in the way that crackers do -- they don't have any effect on what normal visitors see. An analogy would be a video store that allows customers to re-edit the tapes before returning them, and advertises this fact prominently. It wouldn't affect what people see when they rent from ordinary video stores. However, this analogy points out a different, potential problem with Third Voice: it seems to me that these annotated pages are derivative works. Doesn't that make them copyright violations? Does Third Voice just store the annotations, not the modified pages? Still, the page that it sends over the net is presumably the combination of the original and annotations. I suspect it will not be too long before someone with deep pockets takes them on for this. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought I had said in my original message at some point that only those people with the TV application in their browsers would see the changes, and for everyone else the page would remain the same as always. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: 8 Jun 1999 09:23:34 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Users *cannot* deface "the page", merely a copy of it served through a third party. Only other users also using the third party can see it. ...snip... > Third Voice says this is just a way to 'make the web a little more > democratic by allowing users to speak out' ... and while that may > be all well and good, I see a few problems: > An anti-abortion web site is visited in large numbers by > pro-choice people who completely render the site useless > for its intended audience. ... other examples deleted ... And the primary negative effect of this will be to ... Third Voice. If I were to start using this service (which I couldn't in any case without switching browsers) and discovered that access to various web sites was *worse* with it than without it, I'd drop the service. Please give me equal time for your opening paragraph, Pat: USERS CANNOT ACTUALLY DEFACE WEB SITES, THEY CAN MERELY GRAFFITI *COPIES* OF THE SITE SERVED BY A THIRD PARTY. THE GRAFFITI CAN ONLY BE SEEN BY OTHER USERS ALSO CONNECTING VIA THE THIRD PARTY, AND ABOUT HALF THE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE IT WITHOUT SWITCHING BROWSERS IN ANY CASE. IMO, this is a tempest in a teapot. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Programmers are terribly bothered when they must play a game without knowing the rules. When they know there *are* rules, some of which are not stated, most programmers will work that much harder -- trying to discover the hidden rules. But once they feel there are no rules, or that the rules can be arbitrarily changed, programmers tend to get hostile and quit the game. - Gerald Weinberg, Understanding the Professional Programmer ------------------------------ From: Bernard Evenepoel Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:03:15 +0200 Organization: Alcatel ETCA TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT > THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING > THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! (see original message for details) I do not see any problem with that. If a user agrees to use the Third Voice patch AND(1) has been informed about the peculiar effects of its use (i.e. he will probably be unable to see any 'official' page in the future), then it is THIS USER's responsibility. He got the tool to 'deface' a page, but he is penalizing himself ... If I have clearly understood, his defacing copy can only be only put on the Third Voice server, NOT on the 'official' server. So, why would the webmasters worry? Why should they worry about what stupid guyz are doing with their page on an other server? The real problem could only exist if Netscape or Microsoft would implement such a behaviour in their own official browser, because almost everyone would see the Third Voice copy and no longer the official page. Anything I have overlooked? Bernard (1) I have here taken the assumption that Third Voice warns explicitely about the peculiar effects (I have not checked their site); but maybe it is not true. I guess a lot of companies (like those offering money for Web surfing) do NOT tell the user about the particular effects (cookies, mailing lists ...) and suddenly you start getting a lot of unexpected emails or whatever. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:44:41 -0400 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > What would you say if I told you there was now software available > and being distributed which allows users to change the contents of > a web site, adding their own remarks to it as desired, and that > there was *no way* the webmaster was able to prevent it; in fact > the webmaster might not even be aware it was happening? And what would you say if I showed you that the web browser you, and most of the world, is currently using, has absolutely no protection against a malicious individual accessing directory listings, and literally any file on your computer with a little Java app less than a dozen lines long? As much you think your web site is at risk, your desktop machine is at a much higher risk. Netscape is very much aware of the issue, with Netscape Navigator and Communicator, but is also silent on a solution. IBM is also very much aware of the issue, with the OS/2 version of Netscape, but also will not respond to questions about the potential security breach (OS/2 is particularly vulnerable, since there are no "helper" applications available that can intercept or monitor Java transactions, such as McAfee's Webscan). And I'm sure that Microsoft wouldn't comment about it, or plan a fix, until just after someone creates a web site to advertise their programming bug, as usual. The nasty thing about a Java security breach is that it's completely out of the view of the user, so the user has absolutely no clue what is going on. In the case of the OS/2 version of Netscape Communicator, there is no indication that a file is being transmitted, or that there is a transaction in progress. > You would say I was nuts probably, but then, that is because you > have not heard of a new company on the net called Third Voice, > which is understandable, because they just began distributing their > 'browser application' in May. > Third Voice http://www.thirdvoice.com has a new treat for all the > webmasters ... and you are going to love it! > Their browser application lets you mark up any web site you visit with > your own commentary, anywhere on the page you feel like. *Your copy* > of the page is then stored on a server at Third Voice. Anytime you > set your browser to some URL, a search is made of the server at Third > Voice at the same time ... if a copy of the page is found at Third > Voice, then **that copy is sent to you instead of the one at the actual > web site** and what you see is the marked up copy by whoever did it. > Its sort of like when a government web site gets hacked, everyone > wants to rush over and look at it before the damage gets cleared. If > those government and large corporate websites which get hacked did not > have such dumb webmasters who gave up root so easily it would not > happen, but that's not my point here today. I wouldn't worry too much about this. All it would take is a libel suit or two to put the web site owner (and perhaps the host) out of business. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You raise a good point about the way javascript, when uemployed in an unethical way by a webmaster can be used to spy on the contents of a user's computer. In fact, I think I will set up a demonstration of this on a web page. You will be invited to visit the web page that I set up. I will not just start the exam without warning; I will let you know that on mouseover a particular place, the examination will commence, and I will print out on your screen all the files I found on your C: directory. Don't worry; I will give you the only copy of your examination and will not keep a copy for myself. And before you come for your exam you will be warned so that you have a chance to give Computer a nice, cleansing bath and change its soiled undergarments. But I will show you that it can be done and how an unethical or snoopy webmaster might do such things as capture your IP address, browser type, the contents of your hard drive and more, in one easy pass. If you use the telecom web site at http://telecom-digest.org you know that all I look for now is whatever time your computer thinks it is and for any evidence that you gave me your name on a previous visit. This page will be *for demonstration purposes only* and will serve as a Naked Lunch as William Burroughs (of punch the keys and yank the crank adding machine fame; besides which, he wrote a couple of books) would describe it, a chance to see what is on the end of each other's forks as we fellowship together. I'll strip you naked alright. Give me a couple days to set it up, as sort of an adjunct to the main telecom-archives pages. Other webmasters will be invited to present the demonstration at their own sites afterward. Ah, the miracle of javascripts! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #131 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 16:18:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA26345; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:18:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906082018.QAA26345@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #132 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 16:18:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 132 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Long Distance Companies Have Decent Service to Hungary? (Paul Rubin) Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) (James Gifford) Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (Lou Coles) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: AT&T New Charges (Ron Walter) Re: AT&T New Charges (Dennis Metcalfe) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bart Z. Lederman) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Brian C. Kohn) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Michael David Jones) Re: What is favicon.ico ??? (Daniel W. Johnson) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (nospam@elmhurst.message.net) 10-10-220: How to Make it Work For You (Will Middelaer) NANP Site Missing (Tom Lager) Automated Web Page FAXing (Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Subject: What long distance companies have decent service to Hungary? Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc. Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:08:27 GMT I have a friend in Budapest who I like to call once a month or so. I've found that every long distance carrier I've tried compresses the hell out of the audio, and suppresses silent passages so the first syllable after a pause gets clipped off. Intelligibility is seriously impaired. I've been using AT&T since their audio is considerably better than other companies I've tried. I don't know what "True Voice" really means, but the difference is noticible and significant. The quality is still awful, but it's better than the others. However, AT&T is quite a bit more expensive than other carriers (.52/minute under One Rate International) and I want to switch away from them because of their conduct in the "Safe" affair (see Wired news). Plus, the audio is still lousy enough that I constantly have to ask my friend to repeat herself, so I'd like to find something better. Any suggestions? Does anyone know why the phone companies mess up the audio so much? Is there any reason it should be more expensive to move bits in and out of Hungary than, for example, Austria? The domestic Hungarian phone system isn't bad -- calls placed within Hungary itself sound fine. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can see a detailed analysis of True Voice in http://telecom-digest.org/archives/technical/truvoice.dsp.analysis where a report presenterd here a few years ago is stored. PAT] ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:45:52 GMT Eli Mantel wrote: > James Gifford (gifford@nitrosyncretic.com) wrote: >> ...I've frequently used 10-10-321 for LD in the the past year or >> two. They're 10 cents per minuate unless you go past 20 minutes, at >> which time the overall cost drops to 5 cents per minute. > If you check your phone bill more carefully, I think you'll see you're > being charged quite a bit more than this. As several of you have pointed out, I was way off on the per-minute charges. Sorry ... However, I used 10-10-321 for about a year for frequent, relatively lengthy calls and it did drop my LD costs by more than 50% overall. I think it's the best compromise among the 10-10 services; your mileage may vary. 10-10-220 still stands in my book as a ripoff, though. | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:24:54 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises > I've always thought of cable operators as being sleazy monopolists, > but in this case, I see their (albeit, unpublicized) point. Hi Greg, 1) the digital cable which I had TCI install at one time was interactive and did involve a POTS line right along side. 2) When CBS was halted in it's attempt at a cable monopoly by CATV it did not mean there would never be another attempt at creating one 3) You might be drawn to the pleadings of AT&T/TCI's Armstrong but ... > Am I washed up here or have I hit some nail on the head? I'd be > interested to hear what others think. I wouldn't say washed up I'd say sucked in. Look who has been "affected", ATT/TCI, if the ruling survives it will be a consumer win, if not AT&T's vision of per second internet access billing could become an expensive reality. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:27:14 GMT >> So the question is, is it illegal to fax unsolicted material via an >> automatical dialer to a voice number? I thought the automatic dialer > There is legislation, part of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act > (Title 47, Section 227 of the U.S. Code), which states that it is > illegal for someone to send junk faxes to you if they do not have a > prior business relationship. It also specifies that they must > identify who they are on the banner at the top of the fax. Right, but it looks like it's only illegal to actually send the faxes, which means faxing to a fax machine. If they keep trying to send a fax to a VOICE number, what law have they broken? It looks like it's illegal to call a voice number with a computer or recorded voice, and it's illegal to actually fax an unsolicted fax, but it's not illegal to keep trying to send a fax to a voice number. Am I right? I hope not. -Joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:13:12 -0500 From: Ron Walter Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Paul Gray wrote: > Also, some Local carriers will hit you with a charge equal to or in > excess of $3 for being a "no-pic". Mine, Bell South is one of them. I > don't like it, but I suppose the only way to stop it is to complain to > Washington. BTW AT&T isn't the only one charging a "non-use" fee. A complaint to Washington won't help. That fee for "no-pic" came as a result of the FCC's restructure of access fees paid from the long distance carrier to local exchange companies. The LEC's were to reduce per minute fees and start charging carriers on a per-line basis for every phone line PIC'ed to that carrier. If the number is not PIC'ed, the LEC can charge the end user directly. In defense of some carriers (something I rarely do), if they are not charging a per-line PIC fee also, a no-use fee is justified, since they are getting charged for your line getting PIC'ed whether you have any traffic on the line or not. The other side of the story is, how many people saw their per-minute rate actually decrease when the PIC charges were added? Typical of what happens when government tries to simplify things -- it just gets more complicated. Ron Walter Capitol City Telephone ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:56:12 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:18:50 GMT, Paul Gray wrote: > Also, some Local carriers will hit you with a charge equal to or in > excess of $3 for being a "no-pic". Mine, Bell South is one of them. I > don't like it, but I suppose the only way to stop it is to complain to > Washington. BTW AT&T isn't the only one charging a "non-use" fee. I am in Bell South territory (Florida) and do NOT see the charges you are talking about. The $3 AT&T (and others) charge is a minimum usage charge. In addition to that charge, AT&T assesses a line access charge and a flat rate universal service fee ... the total is just shy of $5/month for a residential line with little to no LD usage. If you drop your PICC'd LD carrier, the FCC mandates a line access charge of 53 cents/month be charged by the local carrier for a single residential line and $1.50/month for additional residential lines (I believe business lines are charged higher rates). What I will NEVER understand is why the LD carriers ever got involved in collecting the line access charge ... the LD carriers claim they cannot know if a person has more than one residential line which is correct ... most have settled into a charge of around a dollar/month which defeats what the FCC tried to do (overcharging those with a single residential line and undercharging those with three or more residential lines)... I still think all lines should be charged one rate but that is a different story; the FCC knows best - NOT. My lack of understanding also extends to the universal service fee ... why the heck is it not a certain percentage of usage? ... again, we see many LD carriers now charging a flat rate for this which overcharges the low to no volume user and undercharges the heavy user... and for those who collect a percentage fee, the percentage varies all over the board from 4.8 to 6.2% (probably the range is even worse than I have seen personally). You have to wonder if all these taxes and fees get sent to the correct governmental bodies/funds or if some of the charges wind up in the pockets of the carriers themselves. Regardless, it certainly is a confused mess and opens the door to all sorts of weird pricing while claiming it is mandated by the government - what a ripe opportunity for consumer fraud. I just dumped my Qwest plan because the bill I received from Bell South in June had some retroactive flat rate charges for the "universal service fee" for February and March charged at $1.93/month in addition to the 93 cents per month they have been charging for line access ... At the end of January they sent a marketing letter extolling the wonders of their new "Q.home" plan but failed to mention they were going to change from charging a percentage for the universal service to this flat rate. Had they been upfront, I would have canceled them right then but they decided to play the dishonest game of slipping the charges onto my bill retroactively, probably with the hope most people have no idea what is going on with all these charges and fees. When I switched to Qwest last year, they tape recorded my understanding of our agreement; what they just tried to bill is not the deal to which I agreed. I find the Baby Bells have to expend great effort to communicate with their customers before changing anything but the LD carriers seem to be under no obligation to inform their users of changes in their plans BEFORE implementing them. That dishonesty has turned me off to all of the major LD carriers - I no longer trust any of them without first verifying what the rates are periodically and making contemporaneous notes with the time, date and name of the person with whom I talked. Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound) Date: 8 Jun 1999 13:29:49 GMT Organization: Personal Opinions Only Reply-To: lederman@eisner.decus.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.org To add another data point: I have an 'old fasioned' analog cell phone (Motorola). I've taken a number of trips across the U.S. by train. The train goes through some rather sparsely populated areas in Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and (on another trip) Texas. I've also been through some nearly as isolated areas of California, Louisiana, and other states. I had the cell phone sitting inside the (metal) car next to the window. I only briefly lost signal in a couple of areas: either the train was going through a tunnel, or it was in mountains and cut off on all sides. And, as I said, this was only for very short amounts of time. Even when I couldn't see a building or other sign of 'civilization' in any direction out to the horizon, my signal strength indicator said I had contact. My experience is that there is good cellular coverage within the U.S. B. Z. Lederman Personal Opinions Only Posting to a News group does NOT give anyone permission to send me advertising by E-mail or put me on a mailing list of any kind. Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have a legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post. ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:45:07 GMT Organization: Road Runner A 6 Jun 1999 03:01:48 GMT, en comp.dcom.telecom, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) escribi en el mensaje de noticias : >>> The old pre-divestuture AT&T (Pre 1984) stressed service. >> It also stressed increasing cost, since profit was regulated to >> be directly proportional to cost. > That's not true. Under AT&T, Long Distance rates were constantly > being decreased. Perhaps I should have said, "It also stressed increasing *expense.*" Rates decreased because the cost of equipment and the cost of maintenance decreased. Since profit was a percentage of *expense* (including cost of equipment and maintenance) the only way to keep profits high was to increase other expenses to compensate (somewhat) for decreases due to better technology. The point is that, while improving the technology was encouraged, so was increasing non-technology operating expenses, so as to keep profits high. >>> "Service" as the goal of all employees somehow disappeared in the >>> post divestiture market and money took its place. >> You say this as if it is a surprise; I don't believe it should be. > I believe the general public and legislators expected lower costs but > no decline in quality or service. In other words, everything would > stay the same but simply would cost less. They believed that about the *local* service, not the long-distance service. Remember what we're talking about here. We're talking about divestiture ... but WHY was there a divestiture? Because AT&T wanted to compete in an unregulated market. The "price" for that deregulation (or really, lessening of regulation) was that they'd have to divest the local telephone companies, which would remain regulated. With regard to the "competitive" long distance service, the expectation was that competitive forces would keep the prices low and the service high. Actually, that is precisely what has happened. The prices *are* low, and the service *is* as high as the market demands. (Just compare AT&T quality to Joe's Long Distance quality, and you'll see a big difference!) Some of us have a really hard time understanding assertions that the prices are high. This "nickel-and-diming" folks talk about is a clear sign that the prices for the basic service (actual telephone calls) are very inexpensive ... VERY inexpensive. There isn't much margin in 9c/minute, so the only way to be a highly profitable business is to charge for other services. just bicker ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: 8 Jun 1999 09:15:28 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Marc.Haber-usenet@gmx.de (Marc Haber) writes: > TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Marc.Haber-usenet@gmx.de > (Marc Haber): >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would a webmaster want to make it >> impossible for someone to bookmark his site? > Some people hope to make their visitors use a different browser. And some people only want visitors to be able to bookmark a "gateway" page and not other pages in their site. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Ice cream is an absolute good. - Wallace Stevens [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I can sort of empathize with those webmasters who want all entries to be via the 'front page' instead of at random elsewhere. It is an aid to a much better presen- tation, IMO. But I do not see now you can insist on that since different parts of your site appeal to different people. I have many users who just want to come and read the latest issue of the Digest each day via http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online and others who just want to come and check their email then leave by going to http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice and I prefer to give them this convenience if that is what they want. The Digest and Archives 'front page' only receives a few hundred hits each day of the total. Three or four times that many go directly to the section where individual messages posted each day are retrieved. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What is favicon.ico ??? From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:26:45 -0500 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > I may modify the public 'stats' display to include a line saying > 'X callers created a bookmark of this site today'. PAT] To be accurate, that would have to say "... used IE5 to create a bookmark ..." Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: 4 Jun 1999 18:24:38 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. In article , Toby Nixon wrote: > Responding to a couple of points Pat passed along in V19 #120: > There's no way a "script" can be embedded in an icon file and cause > any damage. ICO files contain no executable code; they are nothing > more than specially-encoded bitmap files. There is no way to embed any > kind of virus. There is no "security" problem, any more than with > GIFs or JPGs. Actually, you are incorrect. There _is_ a security problem with MSIE 5 and favicon.ico. MSIE does not check that the file from the web server is valid, causing a stack overflow. Stack overflows _can_ be used to execute malicious code on the client machine, Microsoft specifically states that MSIE 5 has this vulnerability, see http://www.geek-girl.com/bugtraq/1999_2/0580.html > Toby L. Nixon > Toby Nixon seems to imply that the 'security concerns' expressed > Program Manager, Windows Networking and Embedded Systems Group > Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond WA 98052 USA An employee of Microsoft should be aware of Microsoft security bulletins, specifically MS99-018 covers this issue. Released May 27, 1999. > Toby Nixon seems to imply that the 'security concerns' expressed > in my earlier article about favicon.ico were of my own making; > to the contrary, I was merely quoting what I had been given in > numerous replies, and I had hoped that my phraseology was such > that it was apparent I was not too convinced by the presentations > given. Perhaps I failed on that point. PAT] Actually, you were correct, Toby Nixon was wrong- I emailed you earlier that BugTraq contains discussions on this exact issue. ------------------------------ From: Will Middelaer Subject: 10-10-220: How to Make it Work For You Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:26:59 -0400 If you are really interested in using this service, and you fear the $0.99 (+tax) one minute call, try this method. Make a very short call on your preferred standard LD carrier to confirm that the person you are calling is available for a long duration conversation. Call back using 10-10-220, being sure to talk at least ten minutes. Decide at 20 minutes if you have 10 or more minutes left in the call. If yes, hang up and call back on 10-10-220 If no, finish up the call no worse off than if you finished the call on your normal dime a minute line. Of course, none of this is worthwhile if: 1) This is a business call and these shenanigans would not be tolerated, or; 2) You are calling someone with whom you would never want to speak more than 10 minutes, and/or; 3) You already pay close to a nickel per minute for LD, and/or; 4) You pay unreasonable high rates for the initial quick call to confirm the presence and availability of the party you are calling. I figure that if you really want to take advantage of the nickel a minute rate implied in this service (which is better than the rates I have been offered given my meager LD usage) you need to try something like the above. Disclaimer: Given that I get itchy at about the 10 minute mark on any personal call, (Hot ear sets in) I came up with the above in an attempt to explain how they could make money selling LD apparently for $0.05 a minute, but really 10-10-220 was making most of its money on the short calls billed for the whole $0.99 of the first minute. "Is this the party to whom I am speaking?" Will Middelaer Long time lurker ------------------------------ From: pteng@ptd.net (Tom Lager) Subject: NANP Site Missing Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:32:50 -0400 Pat, Do you know where the NANP site went? I can't seem to contact it. The only thing I can find on Lockheed Martin's site is a news release stating that they sold their data operations to E.M. Warburg, Pincus & amp co. Do you know where I can look up a CIC code now?? Thanks. Tom Lager Palmerton Telephone Company Serving the Beautiful Blue Mountain Valley Since 1900 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the resources page at our website, http://telecom-digest.org/linkspage.html the listing for NANP shows them at http://www.nanpa.com but when I tried this several times after getting your mail, I was unable to get any response from them at all. If some reader is able to reach them or finds a new location for them, please let us know. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX Subject: Automated Web Page FAXing Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:29:42 -0400 Organization: Totally Disorganized I have been asked to try to find a solution that would allow a user to request a document via the phone (a FAX back solution). The problem is that the document would be in the form of a dynamic web page. The users touch tone request would be translated into a document identification number. In the Internet environment, where the document lives, this document id is a parameter to a script which generates the web page. What I am looking for is some kind of software that would accept a URL and phone number, would retrieve and render the page, and send it to the specified phone number. We want to be able to send the exact same web page via FAX that we would see if we were using a browser. Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX +1.516.759.4314 mailto:rschaffrath@acm.org http://www.schaffrath.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #132 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 8 21:50:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA11081; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:50:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906090150.VAA11081@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #133 TELECOM Digest Tue, 8 Jun 99 21:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 133 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Third Voice Review (James Bellaire) Call Accounting Software Needed (Steve Bauer) Does Internet Society Censor the Press? (Rhonda Hauben) Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money (David Perrussel) Re: 10-10-220: How to Make it Work For You (Roy Smith) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (Jeff Colbert) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Seymour Dupa) Conversion Box (Jeff Colbert) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Donald Seeley) Re: All About favicon.ico (Bill Levant) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 08 Jun 1999 17:35:22 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Third Voice Review Well, now that you have given Third Voice a lot of publicity, let's see what it can and cannot do. First - to read notes you do not need to register. So if you are just curious to see what others are saying about your page, then install. To post notes you will need a VALID email address - the password is sent by email. The system requires IE4.0 - not 5.0 or Netscape, so if someone has upgraded their browser then they can't see the notes. It is also a voluntary (for the reader) service - I can't force you to read TV notes unless you choose to be a TV 'member'. While I was trying it the graphics server seemed to be down. So their menus were a bunch of IE error X's. I also noted that the Third Voice site had a lot of markups on it. Seems fitting! The system is NOT using the 'Last Modified' date of the page to verify that nothing has changed. My server side pages don't send a last modified date (as they are modified at the second you retrieve them). I modified the page to send a last modified date and still got the notes. I tried to outfox their system by using a page with a server side include of the current date and time - the notes still appeared, so it cannot be checksum verified. I moved a few things around on my homepage and the notes followed the correct text, so there must be some sort of 'SED' type work going on. If you move the keyed text around the note follows the keyed text, the only way to remove the note is to remove the text (or alter it in such a way that it no longer matches the key). The notes themselves consist of small icons. To read a comment you click on the icon. It does not actually change the text on the page, so you need not worry about improper corrections being made. Hitting REFRESH on the browser seems to remove the marks, but they are there the next time you visit the url. The comments are text only. There does not seem to be a way for even the author to remove a note, so I suggest that parents monitor their children's internet usage and prevent them from installing Third Voice. It would be an excellent way to put pornographic links on 'good' sites. Third Voice has a long privacy and copyright statement. Seems that they 'own' the comments submitted to the system. If this system does not die a quiet death then I expect it to die a noisy one in court. How can they claim copyright on the altered pages while refusing to protect the copyright on the originals? All in all I see it as a gimmick and a waste of time. I'm not paranoid enough to worry about what notes people leave about my site. If I come up with a way to thwart Third Voice, I'll let you know. James Bellaire Telecom Indiana and Chicago Updated 6/4/99 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So you are saying that adding something to the page or removing something from the page does not trick TV? If a TV note is embedded on some text on a page the only way to get rid of the TV note is by removing or completely altering the text? If you just rearrange the page, the user's notes follow the text around? Well, this certainly does test the webmaster's commitment to 'free speech', doesn't it! If it is using some form of 'grep' as you suggest, or perhaps 'sed' (a stream editor) to examine what it sees to make sure none of the text has changed, perhaps quietly placing an extra space or two in the lines might confuse it. In the case of a page that is mostly text, is one single place where the text has been changed near the top enough to do it or must one go line after line, etc? One other thing which might work is to use hex values for certain things, rather than the ascii representations. For example to get a blank space you can either tap your space bar once (which would be like the ascii representation, or you could at the right place in the text enter '&32;' (without the quotes) since 32 is the numerical value for the ascii character we call a 'space'. Anything you can type on the keyboard in a direct straight-forward fashion can be made to appear on the same page by using '&(value)'. I am not sure off hand if you use the hex value or the decimal value, but can find out soon enough. You can also insert spaces into text with things like ' ' (again without the quotes which means 'no break space' and you have &lnsp;   and similar things which ought to make your page appear exactly as always, but perhaps confuse anyone who was grepping the source. I believe you always have to have a semi-colon following any '&(value)' entry. Jim, perhaps in your tests you will experiment with here and there replacing some 'actual letter of the alphabet' which appears in your text with an &ascii; thing and see what happens. Like yourself Jim, I strongly suspect either this will die on its own quietly, or else there will be litigation by some one or more of the big time players when they find they no longer hold the podium in an undisputed way. Let us know the results of your continued testing, and thanks for this first report. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sbauer@southwind.net (Steve Bauer) Subject: Call Accounting Software Needed Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:11:52 -0500 I am Telecommunication Manager for a bank holding company. We qexclusively use Centrex at all of our locations in Kansas and Oklahoma. For the past eleven years, I have used Telemate for all of my call accounting. This is a DOS program that works great, however, they are not upgrading it to be y2k compliant. I upgraded to the Windows 95 version and have not had a good experience. In fact, I'm still processing all data on the DOS product as the Windows version is not functioning properly at all. Many configurations of the program and "Call Data Record" file have been tried with no success. My assistant and I have spent many hours on the phone with tech support to no success at all. So you understand where I'm coming from, I am totally blind and running certain Windows programs is indeed a challenge. Add to that one that appears not to work properly the frustration level is very high. can anyone suggest a DOS based call accounting program that does work and is y2k compliant? Even though my company has spent $2,000 on this new package, I'm willing to loose that in favor of something that will work. I have approximately 2000 stations on my network. Soon, will be adding at least 100 more. I know that building the database in a new program will take some time and effort, but at this point, I can not afford to spend several more hours trying to make the Windows Telemate work. Any suggestions are welcome. Please e-mail me at: sabauer@intrustbank.com Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 1999 00:22:08 GMT From: rh120@WATSUN.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Does Internet Society Censor the Press? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This item came from a recent issue of Computer Underground Digest over this past weekend. CuD had its beginnings here in telecom back in 1990 with a big spate of messages which overflowed me entirely about the infamous 'hacker raids' that year. Jim Thomas suggested pushing them off into a new mailing list. He and his associates have maintained CuD in a most admirable way since. It is hard to imagine that nearly ten years has passed since CuD sent out its first issue after notice was given here. Ronda Hauben has been around the net a number of years also. Co-author with her husband Michael of the book 'Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet', she has written us many times in the past, and many of her papers and excerpts from her book are in http://telecom-digest.org/archives/history for your review. She raises a delicate subject today, and I debated whether to use her item or not. I am not going to personally take sides, because I did not witness the incident or hear about it from anyone else. Like Rhonda though, the direction the internet is going is troubling to me. Here is her report, as published in CuD. PAT] ============================ Sadly the Internet Society doesn't seem to value a diversity of viewpoints and is penalizing our newsletter and its editors by denying us press passes this year. I want to bring to your attention the Internet Society's (ISOC) refusal to grant editors of the Amateur Computerist a press pass for this coming INET '99. We wrote a criticism of what happened at the IFWP meeting last year and also an article about INET '98 pointing out that there was a narrow agenda for the topics for the conference which left out consideration of library issues, community networking issues and other such public concerns about the current and future state of the Internet. Apparently, those in the press who are critical of ISOC's narrow agenda lose the right to press passes to their functions. We were encouraged to apply for the press pass and to send an issue of the Amateur Computerist. After the issue was received, our application was rejected. Editors of the Amateur Computerist have attended two previous ISOC conferences on a press pass INET '96 and INET '98 and reported on both conferences in the Amateur Computerist and in accounts that went out over the Internet and are in various other online or periodical journals. We have more than fulfilled any criteria given by ISOC to be entitled to a press pass, but are being denied press passes. ISOC's narrow agenda of support for e-commerce as the present and future of the Internet is a deliberate effort to deny the public their ability to have public purposes and public participation on the present and future Internet. Also several of those in the Internet Society leadership have been active promoting ICANN to take over essential functions of the Internet in the interests of some hidden private sector entities. One of the reasons that I have been told that a press pass was denied is for participating in the IFWP meetings (chaired by David Maher) after the INET '98 meeting. At the INET '98 press conference all the press were invited to participate in and cover the IFWP meeting which followed INET '98. Also after talking with Jon Postel after the press conference last year about that users were being disenfranchised by the plan creating ICANN, he said to go to the IFWP meeting and to make these concerns known. There was an effort to do so. The response by an official of ISOC was to tell an editor of the Amateur Computerist that she wasn't allowed to participate in the IFWP meeting or that she would have to give up her press pass. That was a criteria distinctly different from what had been announced at the press conference and also from a criteria applied to anyone else from the press. ISOC it seems has enpowered people to make up the rules as they go along and to try to deprive the press of any right to a critical reporting of what happens or else one will lose ones press pass. The Internet Society is supposedly created to educate the public about the Internet. However, it has done all it can to hide what is happening with the creation of ICANN to take over essential functions of the Internet from the cooperative and public way they were previously owned and controlled. We have asked for a way to appeal this denial and have not been given any procedure to do so. Ronda ronda@panix.com For the issue of the Amateur Computerist reporting on INET '98 see http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt About ICANN, See Cone of Silence by John Horvath URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will be honest and say that my first reaction is to accept Ronda at her word for the events as she describes them. If someone from Internet Society or ICANN wishes to respond, I will be more than happy to print it all here ASAP on reciept. I said above I do not personally like the way I see things going on the net, the direction things are moving, but I do want to make sure I understand it all. Replies are quite welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Perrussel Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:48:34 EDT Reply-To: David Perrussel Subject: Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money > I made a call from a Hell Atlantic pay phone (I think it was an HA, > could have been a COCOT, but I don't think so) this afternoon and got > a surprise. I didn't know whether the call would be $0.25 or more > than that, so I just dialed the number and waited to get the "please > deposit XXX cents" message to tell me how much it should be. > Instead, I got a message that said that I needed to deposit some > change, but instead of telling me how much, it told me to consult the > front of the phone to figure out how much I needed to deposit. > Bizarre. If it were a true BA owned and Central Office controlled pay phone (note that Bell Atlantic now has COCOTS in areas not served by them for wireline service), I do not find that bizzare at all. If you attempted to make a local call (which as I recall is now 35 cents, not 25) and you do not deposit enough change, you will get a recording to deposit the amount of money that is listed on the placard on the phone itself. In times past, the recording told you exactly how much to deposit, but with ever increasing pay phone prices - my guess is that they used a "generic" style recording so they wouldn't have to change it each time they decide to raise pay phone rates. Just my 2 1/2 cents. Dave Perrussel Webmaster - Telephone World http://members.xoom.com/phworld ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: 10-10-220: How to Make it Work For You Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:31:37 -0400 Will Middelaer wrote: > 1) This is a business call and these shenanigans would not be tolerated, I could imagine a pair of properly programmed PBXs could cooperate to sequentially place multiple LD calls over various carriers (or even several ones over the same carrier) and do the appropriate switching at the local ends to disconnect/reconnect the end parties almost seamlessly. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine ------------------------------ From: Jeff Colbert Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:09:41 GMT Sometimes I feel real lucky! I am with a small rural Co-op. We are on a state wide fiber loop and have all the SS7 goodies that the big boys have. I connect to my ISP at 49k, and we are supposed to get ADSL in a few months. Service Qty Cost Ea Amount Resident Access Line 2 $7 $14 Sgl Line Sub Line Chg 2 $3.50 $7 911 2 $0.25 $0.50 Selective Call Reject 1 $1 $1 Monthly Charges (2 lines) $22.50 Federal Tax $0.66 State Tax $0.75 Total $23.91 In addition ... One time charge to have second line added Service order $3 C/O W/Drop $9 Trip Charge $3 Total $15 It is great to see that the local Co-op really is a Co-op. Low profit, and the profits go back into improving service without increasing costs. I believe when I talked to them a while back they said they have about 800 trunks. Jeff ------------------------------ From: Seymour Dupa Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:24:29 GMT Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Right, but it looks like it's only illegal to actually send the faxes, > which means faxing to a fax machine. If they keep trying to send a > fax to a VOICE number, what law have they broken? Harassment. > It looks like it's illegal to call a voice number with a computer or > recorded voice, and it's illegal to actually fax an unsolicted fax, > but it's not illegal to keep trying to send a fax to a voice number. > Am I right? I hope not. If You Always Do the Things You've Done, You'll Always Have the Things You Got. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Colbert Subject: Conversion Box Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:43:14 GMT We are looking for something that would allow us to have rj11 loopback in, ISDN etsi-pri, R2 and the assorted variants of in. Currently we are using an onsite PBX to perform that function, but would like to have something portable and not too pricey. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks, Jeff Please remove removethis. if you reply to mail. ------------------------------ From: Donald Seeley Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: 8 Jun 1999 21:36:17 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Michael David Jones wrote: >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why would a webmaster want to make it >>> impossible for someone to bookmark his site? >> Some people hope to make their visitors use a different browser. > And some people only want visitors to be able to bookmark a "gateway" > page and not other pages in their site. One common rationale is to force the viewer through a page containing legal disclaimer information (copyright, trademark, etc.). Don Seeley Daring Designs Typography - Graphics - Layout http://www.daringdesigns.com/~dschi/ dschi@daringdesigns.com ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:44:00 EDT Subject: Re: All about favicon.ico > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I cannot imagine why a webmaster would > care what browser was used ... Oh, come on, PAT. You know better than that. Imagine this one: You run a popular site on the web, like (for example), AltaVista, ESPN Sportszone, or naked-chicks-r-us.com A certain software company wants to make an equity investment, PROVIDED THAT you only allow site access (or access to certain key portions of the site) to users of the prospective investor's inferior-but-built- into-the-operating-system browser. And what do *you* do ? Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sigh ... I guess what I would do would depend on how hungry I was. Quite honestly, your example above did not occur to me at the time I published my original response, which I guess goes to show how far out in left field I am at times; or maybe like Haley's Comet I am in some sort of orbit that comes past RealWorld once every 79 years or so. Seriously, despite the fact that there are some *very old time* netters around that I do not really care for; in many cases grievances long since past that should be long forgotten if two simple phrases were not so difficult for all of us to say, one being 'I am sorry' and the other being 'Lets forget it about'; it still would not occur to me to sell them out in the way you are suggesting. A 'certain software company' did give me a (to me, relatively) large sum of money a few years ago. They made not a single demand of any kind. I guess I would have tried to deal with it one way or another if they had made demands, but they did not. You might suggest that perhaps they were expecting me to read their minds, or their lips, but if that was the case, I guess I did a rather poor job of that also. In any event, when the money they gave me was all gone, they did not offer any more money. At that time, I told everyone here what had happened, and in turn I made no demands on the participants and only one suggestion: please do not embarass me in the presence of my patron. My other principal patron, the ITU, apparently could care less what anyone has to say as long as you do not deliberatly trash them on a repeated basis. As for me, I follow Oscar Wilde's advice: I could care less what you have to say about me as long as you spell my name correctly. I suspect but cannot be certain, that a 'certain software company' not only does not give a damn what you have to say, they don't even give an iota of a damn, if such is measurable. By now I hope people realize that if I was really in the selling mood, this Digest would have been gone years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #133 ****************************** Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA17537; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906091937.PAA17537@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #134 TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jun 99 15:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 134 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telcomine: Summary for June 1999 (Seema Dhawan) Book Review: "GSM: Switching, Services, and Protocols" (Rob Slade) Re: In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech (Jack Hamilton) Patch Panel for RJ11 (Alan Wong) Circuit ID List? (Michael Gray) Your Cool 'favicon.ico' (Fred Atkinson) WTF: AMX/81A Hardware Docs (Eric Wampner) Re: Automated Web Page FAXing (Tony Toews) Last Laugh! Computer Virus Shuts Down Corporate America (Joey Lindstrom) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: From: Seema Dhawan Subject: Telcomine: Summary for June 1999 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:14:55 +0530 *************************************************** Telcomine (http://www.infozech.com/telcomine.html), a monthly newsletter from Infozech. Telcomine brings you the latest trends and developments in frontline IT Technologies. To subscribe send a mail to nl@infozech.com To advertise in Telcomine send a mail to telcomine@infozech.com ************************************************** *****TELCOMINE************ Wealth of Information about Telecommunications Volume 2,No 6, June 1999 IN THIS ISSUE 1. TALENT HUNT TRIPLES AMERICA'S INTERNET "VENTURE" INVESTMENT; HI-TECH EXPERTS SCARCE Scarcity of hi-tech experts and the quantum leaps in Internet use induce American Telecom giants to triple their venture capital investment in hundreds of small high tech companies started by some of the highly qualified people in the industry. 2. SILICON VALLEY THE HOTTEST FAVOURITE More and more investors with even greater amounts of cash are chasing after the limited supply of Internet startups concentrated around the Silicon Valley. Internet related companies in the Bay area garnered more than five times the amount invested in the same quarter a year ago. 3. EUROPE - A VENTURE CAPITAL HAVEN FOR NEW HI-TECH FIRMS With plenty of investment money sloshing around in Europe, big Telecom operators of the region are rushing to invest in startups in the telecommunication, media and Internet sectors. 4. CELL PHONES MAY SOON EXCEED WIRED PHONES IN EUROPE Within the next two to three years wireless mobile phones may carry more voice traffic than wire-line phones do in Europe today. Forecasts for wireless services predict a major growth in wireless revenues, with an increase from $195 billion in 1998 to $361 billion by year-end 2002. 5. TWO STUDIES LINK MOBILE PHONE USE WITH BRAIN TUMORS Two independent studies warn that increased use of mobile phones can augment the risk of diseases like brain tumor by almost two and a half time. These studies could pose a problem for the mobile industry. 6. KYOCERA OF JAPAN MAKES MOBILE VIDEOPHONE Launching the next revolution in telecommunications, Japanese Kyocera Company, has come out with its mobile Visual phone VP-210, a product which the company claims is the first of its kind, to transmit video images at a rate of two frames per second along with voice signals. 7. CENTRALIZED ELECTRONIC BILLING AND PAYMENT DRIVE BY US FIRMS CheckFree of Atlanta,Georgia, and TransPoint, two major "electronic bill payment and presentment" companies that handle all the bills of their clients are vying with each other to persuade Telecom companies to send electronic bills. However researchers find that over 70% of all US customers still prefer to pay their bills by cheque. 8. IS YOUR PRIVACY UNDER THREAT? A sudden spurt in spying incidents leads one to wonder if one is safe from prying eyes. In the following three stories Telcomine probes the vicious circle where hackers spy on big corporates, ordinary citizens and governments who in turn can also resort to international spying. A. CLINTON ALLOWS CYBER-SPYING IN YUGOSLAVIA President Clinton gives the go-ahead for a cyberattack on Yugoslavian Leader Milosevic's bank accounts, reports the Newsweek Magazine. B. DEVASTATING PROGRAMS TO HACK GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATES Keep the viruses aside. There exist some dangerous programs which can take complete control of your system and allow hackers to wreak havoc. Netbus, Back Orifice, Deep Throat, Masters Paradise are just some of these deadly programs. C. EUROPE VOTES FOR COMPULSORY SPYING BY ISPs In a move, which has caused a major uproar in the ISP camps in Europe, the European Parliament has accepted as lawful, an "interception of communications" resolution by a European Council, requiring ISPs and telecommunication companies to provide law enforcement agencies with full and real time access to their Internet traffic. 9. INDIA LAUNCHES CABLE TV-INTERNET SERVICE IN BANGALORE Bangalore, the Silicon Valley of India, becomes the first Indian City to put Internet services on Cable. 10. HARDWARE GOES SOFT: CAN RECONFIGURE ITSELF "Reconfigurable hardware" - computer chips that can rewire themselves to perform different functions is on the way of taking the "hard" out of the hardware. Having already gained an entry into telephone exchanges,televisions, and mobile phones, these chips are promising to bring up significant performance gains in the field of cryptography and top of the range graphic processing. 11. EYE RECOGNITION RATED HIGHER THAN DNA IDENTIFICATION Setting standards in biometrics identification a breakthrough technology called "Iris Recognition" has been rated higher than even the ultimate identification technique - the DNA test. 12. IMTGLOBALTEL "HAPPY" WITH WEB-BASED EBILL FROM INFOZECH IMTGlobaltel, a leading callback provider - voted as one of the top 10 fastest growing hi-tech companies - in Florida, has praised the web-based version of eBill, Infozech's billing and customer care solution. 13. TELCOMINE DONNES A NEW LOOK Telcomine has donned a new look with improved features and more purposeful stories. Visit Telcomine at http://www.infozech.com/telcomine.html 14. MAILBOX Telcomine Gets a Home in "Telecom Digest" Archives ****************************************** If you have found Telcomine useful, please consider telling somebody else about it. Executive Editor: Seema Dhawan E-mail: Telcomine@infozech.com To subscribe send a mail to nl@infozech.com Internet: http://www.infozech.com/telcomine.html Fax: 408-490-2840; Voice Mail: 408-490-2842 Please visit us at http://www.infozech.com ------------------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telcomine is now a regular feature in this Digest, and all the back issues are available in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org/archives/telcomine and as new issues come in from the publisher, they are placed in the directory as yy-mm where yy is the year and mm is the month of issue. I hope Digest readers will appreciate this new resource. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:17:41 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "GSM: Switching, Services, and Protocols", Jorg Eberspac Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKGSMSSP.RVW 990502 "GSM: Switching, Services, and Protocols", Jorg Eberspacher/Hans-Jorg Vogel, 1999, 0-471-98278-4 %A Jorg Eberspacher joerg.eberspaecher@ei.tum.de %A Hans-Jorg Vogel hans-joerg.voegel@ei.tum.de %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1999 %G 0-471-98278-4 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 274 p. %T "GSM: Switching, Services, and Protocols" Chapter one reviews the number of mobile standards worldwide, and the protocol genealogy of GSM from Groupe Special Mobile to Global System for Mobile Communication. Radio frequency considerations and access methods are discussed very clearly in chapter two. Addressing scheme problems are amply demonstrated by chapter three, not only in regard to the technical protocols required, but also by the enormous alphabet soup provided. (Some of the acronyms are never fully expanded; the expansion of others occurs only on pages that are not referenced by the index.) Services provided are covered in chapter four. For those from the North American telephony community, it is recommended that you brush up on your ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) protocols. Chapter five looks at the air interface, which corresponds to the physical layer of a networking model. There is a great deal of detail to be examined, and this is the second longest chapter in the book. A fair amount of data processing takes place in chapter six, for compression, authentication, and other encryption purposes. Chapter seven outlines the overall architecture, and interlocking protocols, of GSM. For true global mobility number portability is an important consideration. Chapter eight describes the roaming standards, and the related topic of handover. With the strong links to ISDN, data communications is quite possible, and the provision for data is discussed in chapter nine. Chapter ten looks at network management. The book closes with a look to a future with universal mobile telecommunications service protocols. While the awkwardness of a translated work sometimes comes through, in general the text is clear and readable. The style and structure of the book make clear the fact that it is intended as a course text, but it is also quite usable as a professional reference. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKGSMSSP.RVW 990502 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Why do so many of America's young schoolchildren kill each other? We asked Charlton Heston! http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: In Intel E-Mail Case, Property Rights vs. Free Speech Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:52:15 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton Reply-To: jfh@acm.org >[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > It always amazes > me how many people are completely confused about the ten amendments > we refer to as the Bill of Rights. All those things address is what > the *government* can and cannot do. The *government* cannot forbid > Mr. Hamidi from speaking. The government does not have to provide > him with the means of speaking, nor does anyone else. This particular case is problematic, but it is not true that the free speech requirements apply only to the federal government, and, by extension, to state governments. (1) Individual states may have stronger free speech laws; since the case is being tried in a California state court, federal law might be irrelevant. (2) There have been several "shopping center" cases in which the courts have decided that some privately owned spaces must be open to free speech. See, for example, . It is you, Pat, who is confused. The law is pretty clear, and it's not what you think. > Certainly he has no right to impose his speech traffic on a privately > owned computer network intended for company business. That's what the court case will decide; perhaps he does have such a right. Companies don't like it that unions have a right to organize on company property either, but it's important, as a matter of public policy for the common good, that union activity not be unreasonably suppressed. There may be similar issues with Intel. Suppose it's for the common good that someone be able to reach employees of a particular company; how can it be done nowadays without using email? Lots of people telecommute, so you can't stand outside the gates and hand everyone a flyer as they come in. Not everyone has home email (even, probably, at Intel). The closest modern equivalent to picketing is sending email, with the difference that email is much less disruptive. Pat, please reconsider your stance. Company towns where the benevolent (or not so benevolent) employer controls what can be said were not a good thing. (I'm not saying, by the way, that this particular speech has merit; I simply don't know. I also don't think that the right to send unlimited or unwanted mail would be good; all I'm saying is that the right to make contact is important.) > I still do not see why Intel does not just block him with filters and > let it go at that. Intel might be afraid that taking such action would result in massive defections, and it might. There are enough employers who don't treat their employees like children that Intel would run the risk of losing some highly skilled workers. I don't want someone in corporate headquarters deciding what is appropriate for me to read. I think it's a sign of bad management -- don't they have better things to do than spy on email? > Either send it all straight to /dev/null or perhaps return it to the > postmaster at Hamidi's site defining it as spam and asking them to > take action they feel appropriate. I suspect that they'd rather have it decided by the court in their favor. If both sides think they're right, neither side is likely to settle out of court. I suspect that lots of other companies are backing Intel. Jack Hamilton Broderick, CA jfh@acm.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Shopping centers are a very grey area, and you are correct that courts have ruled that people may stand in the common areas at shopping malls and distribute literature. They may NOT however enter the actual stores to do so, nor is anyone ever allowed to physically block the entrance/exit to someone else's premises as part of their speech-making, preventing persons who wish to do so from entering or exiting the premises. To prevent someone who wishes to enter the premises from doing so is one matter; to prevent them from leaving the premises is a criminal matter called 'unlawful restraint'. Unlawful restraint occurs any time one or more persons acting without legal authority impair the locomotion of one or more other persons by preventing them from moving about freely. When a shopping mall, or a government-owned public facility (such as a town square) has either historically or by specific designation become known as a 'public forum' the management of that place does have the right to make certain demands both as a matter of administrative convenience and to protect the rights of those persons whose own activities might be disrupted by the speech makers. The management can demand that the speech makers stand in one certain location or another. It can require a reasonable payment to offset its costs in re-arranging its own affairs for the occassion. A mall for example can require that a speech maker pay the salary of a person employed to clean up litter left behind or the salary of a person employed to direct traffic into and out of the parking lot if the speech maker's activities have created traffic problems. Even in 'purely public' areas i.e. on streets owned by the city or in a park, the government has the right to make the same demands. For instance, consider the federal plaza in downtown Chicago, where on any given day there is *always* at least one group demonstrating or speech making; as often as not there are two such groups with no relationship to each other engaged in speech making activities. No advance reservation or permission to use the federal plaza is re- quired, except for these conditions: if the speech makers wish to use amplified sound equipment or musical instruments they must obtain a reservation, and only one such group will be accomodated on any given day; they will be given a written permit showing their authority to be there on the date and at the time specified. When more than one hundred persons are expected to be present, the speech maker will designate one or more persons as 'marshalls' to oversee the assembly; the marshalls are the designated contacts with the management of the plaza (the General Services Administration). The marshalls will oversee the assembly and insure that laws are obeyed. They will cooperate with law enforcement officers as needed. It is assumed the rights of office workers nearby to be able to do their work free of the cacaphony of several musical instruments and sound systems all in use at the same time are of equal importance, as are the rights of workers to move about the plaza without a lot of hinderance. If a speech maker wishes to have a parade, he will obtain a permit for same from the city of Chicago and if the parade is to take place on a street used by busses, an additional permit is required to be issued by the Chicago Transit Authority. The same rules apply regarding amplified sound, musical instruments and 'marshalls' who are designated as managers of the speech maker. The speech maker will obey traffic signals at intersections (or obey police officers directing traffic); will peaceably disburse for emergency vehicles which need the street; will confine its parade to one lane of traffic if requested; will stop and silence all music and/or amplified sound in the event a funeral procession passes by; will silence all music and amplified sounds and walk silently past any church or synagogue where services are going on; no alcoholic beverages, animals must be kept on leashes, no lewd displays, no nudity, etc. Neither City nor Transit Authority may unreasonably deny any permit, and denial can *never* be based on the content or nature of the speech. Any denial must be even-handed and apply equally to all speech makers, for example no parade will take place on a street used by busses during the morning and evening 'rush hours' (assumption is commuters using busses that must be re-routed to other streets have equal rights); no parade will ever take place on certain major streets in the downtown area (assumption is traffic congestion problems are of equal concern); in one large downtown park speech makers will *always* obtain a permit (not required in most smaller neighborhood parks) and in that particular park speech makers will congregate only in the location the government says they will congregate, and they will disperse peaceably at the time their permit expires. Speech makers can always be required to post a **reasonable** financial bond to insure that expenses incurred by the government, or the shopping mall management or whatever in the process of accomodating the speech are met. The bond payment cannot be so high that as a defacto thing, small and or poor speech makers of one pursuasion or another are automatically eliminated from speaking. This point, of a bond payment to guarentee expenses are met is frequently challenged in court. If the government or the mall management incurs no significant extra expense as a result of the speech, then it is expected to write it off. For example a mall might already have a janitorial staff to clean the parking lot of litter; it might already have employees to direct traffic and manage the common areas. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sammy@skip-the-spam.newsguy.com Alan Wong) Subject: Patch Panel for RJ11 Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 03:12:55 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Hello, I'm remodeling my basement and would like to centralize all the "incoming" cables that come into my house. Coaxial.. One for TV Two for my DSS Dish Three Phone lines from my NIC In order to organize my telephone wiring setup, I would like to put each telephone line on a separate patch panel and take it from there. Does such a thing exists like they do for RJ 45's. Any and all info is greatly appreciated, Thanks, Alan please remove the "skip-the-spam" from my email address ------------------------------ From: Michael Gray Subject: Circuit ID List? Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:36:52 GMT Organization: @Home Network Does anyone know if there is a list of the circuit id codes ( i.e isbd) for isdn, 56k, T1, etc. for Bell South? Thanks, Michael ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Your Cool 'favicon.ico' Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:25:57 -0400 Hi, Pat, I see that you've added a 'favicion.ico' to your Web site. Did you make it yourself, did you find it as a 'freebie' on a Web site, or did someone make it for you? If on a Web site, could you share the URL with us. If someone made it for you, could you tell us who? Thanks in advance. The 'favicon.ico' on your site looks pretty cool. Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I found that little red phone on my own computer in a file (as originally supplied with Windows 95) called 'icons'. At least I think it came with Windows 95, maybe I got it in some icon library at some point, I just do not remember. In a few days I am going to put up a page saying 'cast of characters' and it will be all the various icons and midi files used in presenting http://telecom-digest.org, including the little red telephone, and anyone who wants one of the .gif, .jpg or .mid files will be free to just right click on their choice and take it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Wampner Subject: WTF: AMX/81A hardware docs Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:19:32 -0400 Organization: Orlando Software Group, Inc. Hi, I am looking for hardware level documentation on an obsolete Dialogic product, the AMX/81A. I have several of these boards available to me along with obsolete D41B boards, and I am writing a custom PBX application which does not use the DOS driver. Note, this would be documentation describing the port layout in memory, not dos driver documentation which describes loading registers for a driver call. I have the hardware level specification for the D41B and am nearing completion of its system, but I need the AMX/81A documentation to make a useful product. The documentation I am using for the D41B is the Dialog/4x User's Guide ver 2.31, which was published circa 1989. If anybody has the companion AMX/81 or AMX/80 documentation, I would like to talk about buying/trading/copying it from you. Eric Wampner Orlando Software Group, Inc. eww@kataent.com Software Engineer (407) 366-0909 wampner.e.w@orlsoftgrp.com Systems Administrator fax (407) 366-2721 eww@iag.net ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Automated Web Page FAXing Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:59:49 GMT Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX wrote: > What I am looking for is some kind of > software that would accept a URL and phone number, would retrieve and > render the page, and send it to the specified phone number. We want > to be able to send the exact same web page via FAX that we would see > if we were using a browser. In the DOS based BBS world BGFAX is very successfully used to send and receive faxes. You give it a PCX file and the phone number via command line parameter and it sends the fax. Now maybe using VB you can have a web browser control hit the webpage in question and create the PCX file. OTOH if you can do this in VB then why not visit www.electrasoft.com which have fax OCXs which they say work just fine in VB. Hope this helps a little. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or thousands of volunteers for special events. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:57:57 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America I thought you might enjoy this, Pat. ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== A new computer virus is spreading throughout the Internet, and it is far more insidious than last week's Chernobyl menace. Named Strunkenwhite after the authors of a classic guide to good writing, it returns e-mail messages that have grammatical or spelling errors. It is deadly accurate in its detection abilities, unlike the dubious spell checkers that come with word processing programs. The virus is causing something akin to panic throughout corporate America, which has become used to the typos, misspellings, missing words and mangled syntax so acceptable in cyberspace. The CEO of LoseItAll.com, an Internet startup, said the virus has rendered him helpless. "Each time I tried to send one particular e-mail this morning, I got back this error message: 'Your dependent clause preceding your independent clause must be set off by commas, but one must not precede the conjunction.' I threw my laptop across the room." A top executive at a telecommunications and long-distance company, 10-10-10-10-10-10-123, said: "This morning, the same damned e-mail kept coming back to me with a pesky notation claiming I needed to use a pronoun's possessive case before a gerund. With the number of e-mails I crank out each day, who has time for proper grammar? Whoever created this virus should have their programming fingers broken." A broker at Begg, Barow and Steel said he couldn't return to the "bad, old" days when he had to send paper memos in proper English. He speculated that the hacker who created Strunkenwhite was a "disgruntled English major who couldn't make it on a trading floor. When you're buying and selling on margin, I don't think it's anybody's business if I write that 'i meetinged through the morning, then cinched the deal on the cel phone while bareling down the xway.' " If Strunkenwhite makes e-mailing impossible, it could mean the end to a communication revolution once hailed as a significant timesaver. A study of 1,254 office workers in Leonia, N.J., found that e-mail increased employees' productivity by 1.8 hours a day because they took less time to formulate their thoughts. (The same study also found that they lost 2.2 hours of productivity because they were e- mailing so many jokes to their spouses, parents and stockbrokers.) Strunkenwhite is particularly difficult to detect because it doesn't come as an e-mail attachment (which requires the recipient to open it before it becomes active). Instead, it is disguised within the text of an e-mail entitled "Congratulations on your pay raise." The message asks the recipient to "click here to find out about how your raise effects your pension." The use of "effects" rather than the grammatically correct "affects" appears to be an inside joke from Strunkenwhite's mischievous creator. The virus also has left government e-mail systems in disarray. Officials at the Office of Management and Budget can no longer transmit electronic versions of federal regulations because their highly technical language seems to run afoul of Strunkenwhite's dictum that "vigorous writing is concise." The White House speechwriting office reported that it had received the same message, along with a caution to avoid phrases such as "the truth is. . ." and "in fact. . . ." Home computer users also are reporting snafus, although an e-mailer who used the word "snafu" said she had come to regret it. The virus can have an even more devastating impact if it infects an entire network. A cable news operation was forced to shut down its computer system for several hours when it discovered that Strunkenwhite had somehow infiltrated its TelePrompTer software, delaying newscasts and leaving news anchors nearly tongue-tied as they wrestled with proper sentence structure. There is concern among law enforcement officials that Strunkenwhite is a harbinger of the increasingly sophisticated methods hackers are using to exploit the vulnerability of business's reliance on computers. "This is one of the most complex and invasive examples of computer code we have ever encountered. We just can't imagine what kind of devious mind would want to tamper with e-mails to create this burden on communications," said an FBI agent who insisted on speaking via the telephone out of concern that trying to e-mail his comments could leave him tied up for hours. Meanwhile, bookstores and online booksellers reported a surge in orders for Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style." ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU "You can learn whatever you like." --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #134 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 9 16:49:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA21371; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:49:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906092049.QAA21371@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #135 TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jun 99 16:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 135 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money (Stanley Cline) Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money (Eric Bohlman) Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Craig Williamson) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Hillary Gorman) Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (Stanley Cline) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Star/Pound) (Robert Bonomi) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Eric Friedebach) Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back (Ronnie L. Grant) Re: 10-10-220 (John Temples) Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges (Art Kamlet) Re: AT&T New Charges (Art Kamlet) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (Anthony Argyriou) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Paul Joslin) Re: Seeking Automated Attendant System (Gary Marsh) Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (John McNamee) Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) (Onenetnut) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:01:58 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 20:53:27 -0400, roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > Instead, I got a message that said that I needed to deposit some > change, but instead of telling me how much, it told me to consult the > front of the phone to figure out how much I needed to deposit. > Bizarre. One of the weird results of payphone deregulation ... BellSouth, GTE, and Southwestern Bell have done the same thing. (Of course, it's difficult to find a BellSouth CO-controlled payphone anymore, and getting more and more difficult to find CO-controlled payphones in GTE areas! They have for all practical purposes turned their payphones into COCOTs -- unlike SWB!) They had to change the "please deposit 25c" message to a generic "see the instruction card" recording in order to accommodate COCOT owners that wish to use CO coin control instead of "chips in the phone" and wish to charge a different rate than the LEC's payphone subsidiary. Very few COCOT owners use CO coin control, though; I've seen only TWO COCOTs (both in the Atlanta area, FWIW) using CO control. Most COCOT owners dislike CO coin control because of higher rates for the phone line, the much higher risk of fraud (the colored boxes), and the fact that 1+ coin calls go to AT&T ACTS/OSPS with high AT&T rates (no "4 minutes for $1 if you use coins" deals.) -SC ------------------------------ From: ebohlman@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman) Subject: Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money Organization: OMS Development Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:05:55 GMT David Perrussel (dmine@mnsinc.com) wrote: > If you attempted to make a local call (which as I recall is now 35 > cents, not 25) and you do not deposit enough change, you will get a > recording to deposit the amount of money that is listed on the placard > on the phone itself. > In times past, the recording told you exactly how much to deposit, but > with ever increasing pay phone prices - my guess is that they used a > "generic" style recording so they wouldn't have to change it each time > they decide to raise pay phone rates. This explanation really doesn't make sense. Which costs less: A) Having a professional voice-over artist spend a minute or two talking into a digital recorder. B) Printing up a couple thousand decals and having one or more persons drive out to a couple thousand pay phones to change the decals. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Here is Why Email Has Gotten So Spam-Ridden Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:16:52 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nothing is perfect. A combination of > approaches simply helps reduce the problem. Would you like to know how > to send letters through the US Postal Service for free? There is one > technique which works quite well: > Put your name and address in the center. Put the name and address of > the person it is going to in the upper left corner. Forget about the > postage stamp totally. Drop it in a mailbox. They will take the letter > to the other person, thinking him to be the sender, and tell him he > It actually works, and years ago someone had a 'business report' they > used to sell which was entitled, 'How to Reduce Your Postage Costs' > with the above information on a single sheet of paper which they > mailed to anyone who sent them ten dollars to *their* post office > box. PAT] It works, and carries a fine of up to $10,000 if you get caught, I seem to recall. Probably not worth it. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Craig Williamson) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: NCR Date: Wed, 09 Jun 99 14:18:57 GMT In article , Seymour Dupa wrote: > Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >> It looks like it's illegal to call a voice number with a computer or >> recorded voice, and it's illegal to actually fax an unsolicted fax, >> but it's not illegal to keep trying to send a fax to a voice number. >> Am I right? I hope not. If it is illegal to call a voice number from a computer, why do I keep getting sales calls with silence till the computer switches over? "I'm not SURE that that makes sense, DM." Craig Williamson "Well, it is a CARTOON, sir..." Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM -Dangermouse craig@toontown.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (home) ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: 9 Jun 1999 14:34:30 GMT Organization: Debugging our net or deworming your pet... On 4 Jun 1999 16:19:47 GMT, wrote: > JF Mezei writes: >> Kim Brennan wrote: >>> I'll probably go with Sprint PCS, due to a number of factors (keeping >>> my existing telephone number, ability to continue using a Motorola >>> Startac) but primarily because the alternative AT&T is hardly >>> attractive. >> Will Sprint exchange your phone for free? > According to the web page Kim cited (http://www.sprintspectrum-apc.com), > they'll swap phones, accessories, and let you keep your current > service plan if you want to. But what about people who had modems for their GSM phones? Will they compensate these people in some way? hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:02:02 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 7 Jun 1999 21:58:53 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> E.g., Direct dial to the Bahamas becomes 011 + 1 + 242 - NXX - XXXX. > How do you propose to dial operated assisted calls? 010 + + + number. IMO this is the way it should have been all along, with 01 as an "international access" code then 1 or 0 to identify direct-dial vs. operator-assited. -SC ------------------------------ From: bonomi@ns2.agresource.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (was Re: Use of Star/Pound) Date: 9 Jun 1999 01:17:57 GMT Organization: Not Much In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >> DSL modems, it may releive some strain on phone numbers. And as the >> cost of cell phones drops, I think that we will see the end of >> pagers. Again, some savings. And, already, some cellphone companies > Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still > haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. The answer to _any_ question that is of the form "why don't (or _can't_) they ..." is always "money". > I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to > Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone > for the whole trip. I've taken the train across Canada, and had no cell-phone signal available for an ENTIRE DAY, and more; a dual-mode phone, too. > The second I crossed the border into the US, I > lost the signal. I've travelled in Israel, Norway (100 miles north of > the artic circle!), Geneva, and London, and seen five bars of signal > almost everywhere. But here in the US, I can't drive from Boston to > NY without losing signal. This is obviously not a technology problem. > What politicial or economic forces are making it impossible to create > a good digital phone network in the US? (I would add that even when I > >have< signal, as often as not I can't receive calls when roaming on It's 'money'. cost of deploying the technology is not cheap. And it is simply *not* "enough better" that existing analog customers are shifting to it _en_masse_. If the existing technology is 'good enough' in the eyes of the customer, there has to be a "compelling reason" to switch to some- thing else. "somewhat better' is _not_ compelling. This is why all the _insane_ promotional offerings (e.g., "free nites/weeknds for 2 years) are out there -- to make the deal *enough* better that people _will_ switch. Also, it does *NOT* meet the needs of _all_ the customers that use analog phones. Example: when I go traveling, the office requires that I take a 'leash' along -- even when I'm on 'vacation' (small office, and there is _nobody_ in the office with the skills to function as back-up.) Now, when I'm camping in the middle of nowhere in the Rocky Mountains -- seventeen miles (literally!) off the nearest paved road, one of those flea-powered digital 'in your shirt pocket' units doesn't cut it. I carry an old-style 'bag phone' with the _legal-limit_ three-watt output *and* a big external antenna. *IT* lets me stay in contact. even in those conditions. AFAIK, the only other technology that would be effective in such a situation are INMARSAT, or Irridium. They are cost-prohibitive, however. *particularly* relative to "simple" cell-phone. ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:40:34 -0400 Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland In TELECOM Digest V19 #130, sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) mentioned that: > I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get > a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. Steve is in the Cleveland area, but I can also do the same in AC 330 from my home, which is in a rural area about 30 miles south of Youngstown. Until 1996, we were also part of the 216 AC. > Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just > that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? A customer service rep from Ameritech told me that they just updated the system now that everyone is used to the 330 and 440 Area Codes. The 440 Area Code surrounds the Cleveland area. I specifically asked about required 10-digit dialing, by the way. The rep seemed to know what she was talking about. But then this is the same company that keeps including inserts in my bill offering enhanced services, like voice mail. Whenever I try to sign up, I am told it is not available in my area. That is the price I pay for living in the country, I suppose. Several years ago, if I wanted to call Cleveland, or any other toll call within AC 216, I would just dial 1+seven digits. But then there was nothing like analog StarTacs for $0.01 with a one year contract either. Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ From: ronnie.grant@iname.com (Ronnie L. Grant) Subject: Re: Number Which Causes Phone to Ring Back Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:02:56 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On Sun, 30 May 1999 21:54:57 -0400, Richard Sobocinski wrote: > There was once a number that one could dial into a telephone to make > that phone ring. I think it was something that phone service men used > to test the ringer. Any idea what that number is or if there is a > similar thing? With GTE in Los Angeles, you can dial *your own phone number*. Dial it, listen to some soft beeping, then hang up. Your phone will ring. When you answer you get the same soft beeping. Ronnie ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: Gulfnet Kuwait From: john@kuwait.net (John Temples) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 03:21:41 GMT In article , Bruce Robin wrote: > Actually, the average call duration is 4.7 min which provides a yield > to MCI of just over 20 cents per minute on average. Consumer Reports (May 1999), in its article on 101 services, states the average long distance call is eight minutes. Even so, 101-0220's "average" price is 25% higher than a 10-cent plan. The article's recommendations: Use 101-6868 (PT-1) for calls up to 12 minutes and calls 57 minutes or longer. Use 101-0220 for 13-56 minute calls. PT-1's effective rate after USF is 8.2 cents/minute, but the service apparently isn't available in all areas. John W. Temples, III ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T Now Charges For Place Name; Raises Other Charges Date: 8 Jun 1999 23:20:41 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Brian Charles Kohn wrote: > Perhaps I should have said, "It also stressed increasing *expense.*" > Rates decreased because the cost of equipment and the cost of > maintenance decreased. Since profit was a percentage of *expense* > (including cost of equipment and maintenance) the only way to keep > profits high was to increase other expenses to compensate (somewhat) > for decreases due to better technology. Which is exactly why the Justice Department, in their antitrust filing, asked that Western Electric be split off from the telephone companies, which included some 23 operating companies plus the "long lines" division of AT&T. The reasoning was just what you alluded to: If Western Electric can make equipment and sell it for a price arrived at not via a hands off relationship, then Western's prices could go through the roof and the phone companies' allowed recovery became a political figure not a true cost figure. Charlie Brown threw them a curve ball by offering to spin off the telephone companies: Independent telephone companies would not be forced to buy from Western and only the little rinky dinkie Long Lines division ( would be left to buy Western equipment. Charlie Brown figured Long Distance was the growth area and the RBOCs would be saddled with nongrowth, no new technologies. He was wrong. When AT&T finally came to their senses over a dozen years later and split off Western (now known as Lucent), they did what Justice tried to make them do in 1979. But they no longer had the RBOCs. They had turned RBOCs into competitors, though Justice never asked for this. The 1996 Congressional competition rules were a political after thought to this whole process. > They believed that about the *local* service, not the long-distance > service. Remember what we're talking about here. We're talking about > divestiture ... but WHY was there a divestiture? Because AT&T wanted to > compete in an unregulated market. Why did the Justice Dept. want divesiture? As I said above, to prevent the vertical integration aspect of a monopoly phone company from costing its subscribers big bucks. Solution: Spin off Western. Why did AT&T want to keep Western, which allowed a large degree of vertical integration in what h=they saw as the grwowth part of the business, and got rid of RBOCs which they saw as gthe old fuddy duddy part? I gave away the answer already. They saw RBOCs as the nongrowth portion, the portion not likely to buy much more Western stuff. Competition was not a big part of the MFJ -- that came many years later. > The "price" for that deregulation > (or really, lessening of regulation) was that they'd have to divest > the local telephone companies, which would remain regulated. With Why do you believe regulation played such a role back in 1982 when the agreement was issued? It didn't. > regard to the "competitive" long distance service, the expectation was > that competitive forces would keep the prices low and the service > high. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: 8 Jun 1999 23:32:29 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Ron Walter wrote: > PIC fee also, a no-use fee is justified, since they are getting > charged for your line getting PIC'ed whether you have any traffic on > the line or not. I don't understand. Ameritech chages me $1.50 to have no-pic on my line, and will not allow me to use 101+4 to select a carrier code. So I cannot call any IEC on that line. Now why is the charge justified? Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:00:01 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com dszlucha@hotmail.com (David Szlucha) wrote: > This is getting to be ridiculous! Should I complain to the PSC, or > would that be a waste? That would be a waste. Complain to your state legislator _about_ the PSC -- they put those surcharges there, not the phone company. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: Paul Joslin Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:26:37 -0400 Organization: MIS Infrastructure and Planning Steven J Sobol wrote: > I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get > a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. > Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just > that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? > Anyone know of any new area codes pending in Ohio? Not yet, but soon. According to my hazy recollection of an article I saw, 216 had less than a year. 513 was expected to last until 2001 or so. http://www.enquirer.com:80/editions/1999/06/08/loc_state_plans_how_to.html Paul R. Joslin paul.joslin@weirdness.com +1 513 576 2012 "The biggest reward for a thing well done is to have done it." -- Voltaire ------------------------------ From: gmarsh@housewarez.roadrunner.nf.net (Gary Marsh) Subject: Re: Seeking Automated Attendant System Date: 9 Jun 1999 17:30:37 GMT Organization: The Zone Gary Marsh (gmarsh@housewarez.roadrunner.nf.net) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was not a single word of text > which came with this. Perhaps he feels his subject line says all he > needs to say. PAT] Whoops, I hope this message works. If it doesn't, blame tin.. Message I wanted to post: Hello, We're seeking an Automated Attendant system that meets the following criteria: - 16 analog lines - Uses hook flash / dial extension to transfer calls (this system will sit behind our PBX) - Easy to use GUI for desigining menus and messages - Can change messages/menus without shutting down system - Date messaging, eg. if a person calls after hours, they're told that customer service is not available. - Y2K ready We don't need voice mail, fax on demand, CTI or other features, we have existing systems for that already. However if the price is good for the system, we'll gladly not use the features. All we really need is a system that will ask someone to pick from a menu, and either get messages played (eg. our mailing address) or get forwarded to other extensions within our business. Also, a system that uses Dialogic D41/H boards would be nice, as we can salvage them from our existing system. If anyone sells or knows of such a system, please e-mail me. Thanks., - Gary Marsh, gmarsh@thezone.net - Programmer, Cable Atlantic MIS Group ------------------------------ From: John McNamee Organization: MicroWizards Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:02:42 -0500 Subject: Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? The real problem with the bundled Internet service from the cable companies is that it sucks. TCI @Home is the biggest cable Internet provider, and their backbone and peering points are seriously overloaded. The service often goes down, sometimes for days at a time. Their technical support is also very poor. I know there are real technical problems with opening the cable infrastructure to multiple ISP's, but as a consumer, I *really* want a choice. The "last mile" of wire to the home might be a natural monopoly; Internet service and other digital content clearly are not. ------------------------------ From: onenetnut@nospam.hotmail.com Subject: Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:53:31 GMT On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 15:45:52 GMT, James Gifford wrote: > However, I used 10-10-321 for about a year for frequent, relatively > lengthy calls and it did drop my LD costs by more than 50% overall. I > think it's the best compromise among the 10-10 services; your mileage > may vary. > 10-10-220 still stands in my book as a ripoff, though. Chuckle ... same company does both services. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #135 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 9 18:32:35 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA27196; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:32:35 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906092232.SAA27196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #136 TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Jun 99 18:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 136 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Reciprocal Compensation - Pac Bell Influence? (concerned1234@my-deja.com) Re: AT&T New Charges (Dennis Metcalfe) FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless (Monty Solomon) Extra Digits to Mark Cell, Home Phone (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Peter Marks) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (John Nagle) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Bill Godfrey) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Michael Maxfield) Re: Wed Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Joe Clark) Re: Third Voice Review (James Bellaire) Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America (jjs@eudoramail.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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: concerned1234@my-deja.com Subject: Reciprocal Compensation - Pac Bell Influence? Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:06:25 GMT As many of you know, there is a big decision on reciprocal compensation coming before the California PUC. Here's some interesting news regarding what may be some influence that Pac Bell wields with on ot the commissioners. Commissioner Neeper may have a conflict of interest in matters related to Pac Bell. It's apparent that Neeper votes for Pac Bell quite often. That's not a surprise. What might be a surprise is that he gets an unfunded pension from his old law firm in San Diego. And for those of you who don't know, that means that his pension depends on the revenue the law firm generates from its clients. The firm's name is Gray, Cary, Ware & Friedenrich. Guess who the firm includes on it's client list??? You guessed it. Pacific Bell. Can he do this? I don't know about you, but that seems awfully suspicious to me. If nothing else, it gives the appearance of conflict. I sure hope my Internet rate doesn't go up because this guy isn't completely impartial! ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:39:36 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On 8 Jun 1999 23:32:29 -0400, kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote: > I don't understand. > Ameritech chages me $1.50 to have no-pic on my line, and will not > allow me to use 101+4 to select a carrier code. So I cannot call any > IEC on that line. Now why is the charge justified? I assume that is on your second residential line, right? Have you blocked all outgoing LD service somehow? Up to now I have not heard of people not having access to dial-around carriers when they dropped their PICC'd LD carrier. Have you talked with Ameritech to see why this happened? Perhaps your switch is not programmed right? Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:43:49 -0400 Commission may also force building owners to allow wireless antennas. By DAVID ROHDE Network World, 06/09/99 The Federal Communications Commission may soon change the way cellular and wireless calls are billed. At its open meeting on Thursday morning, the FCC is expected to propose a national system of "calling party pays" (CPP), a scheme under which the caller to a cell phone pays the airtime charges rather than the cell phone's owner. In addition, the FCC is expected to request comment on a proposal to mandate that commercial building owners give wireless local loop carriers access to their rooftops to place antennas and other equipment. http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/0609wireless.html ------------------------------ Subject: Extra Digits to Mark Cell, Home Phone, etc Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:08:46 GMT >> On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose a >> series of steps, including doling out numbers to new companies in >> smaller blocks, that would reduce the need for new area codes. > I'd much rather add digits on the other end. I'd have my base number, > add 1 for my pager, 2 for my cell phone, etc. This suggestion has come up more than once (using number or letters at the end of a number to mark cell phone, pager, etc.). I don't like it, because it means that people can guess my cell-phone number once they know my home phone. I give everyone my home phone (and never answer it), use a second ("ring-mate," or "IdentiRing)" number for my friends, and only my favorite people get my cell phone number. Using the same number plus one added digit for all of these would make my system impossible. -Joel ------------------------------ From: marks@halcyon.com (Peter Marks) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 03:45:45 GMT Bob Natale writes: > I understand (and entirely agree with) your antipathy toward > ThirdVoice. ... > Let's let this thing die a quiet death ... or at most enjoy a niche > infamy along the lunatic fringes. There is a historical precedent for this expectation, since the NCSA browser at one time implemented a similar protocol for annotating web pages. For those of you who don't remember, they supported both private annotations (stored on the browser's machine) and shared annotations (in conjunction with an accomodating server). I know that the private annotation mechanism was actually used by SCO Unix, which kept the NCSA browser around past its prime just so folks could annotate their online Unix manuals. But I'm not aware of the shared annotation mechanism ever making it to public usage. P-) ___o - o Peter Marks _-\_<, - _\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072 (*)/ (*) - (*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks ---------------------------- More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology! ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Organization: Netcom Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 04:12:15 GMT (Bill Ranck) writes: > What if they aren't interested in profit you say? Well just ask > yourself this, how long would it take, say, Disney to have about a few > dozen lawyers waving copyright suits in Third Voice's face if they > found a copy of one of their pages there. How much money does Third > Voice have to defend such a suit? Now, how many other big > corporations would do the same thing? > In my opinion, these folks don't stand a chance of being in business > for very long. Actually, I doubt they're really storing modified copies of the web pages of others. That would be a copyright violation. They're probably just storing the markup information, and merging it with the original data in their browser plug-in. This isn't a new idea; someone previously had a plug-in that put mustaches on pictures of people during browsing. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Bill Godfrey Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: Wed, 9 Jun 99 07:04:21 TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT > THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING > THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! *snip* PAT! Relax ... I think you are a tad over-reacting here. If you don't want to read the comments, don't use the software! The files on the original web server do not get changed. You get the choice to see the unmodified documents, or with the comments, if you really want to. > 3. User asks for your page, but gets it served from the cgi-bin > or whatever of Third Voice instead. Well, if they made the choice to get the software installed, they don't "ask for your page", they ask for the page+comments. > Probably -- I cannot say this for sure, and webmasters need to > investigate this closely -- the damage to your sites can be mitigated > by refreshing/rewriting your pages on a frequent basis. That would seriously interfere with caches and the red coloured "visited link" mechanism. Bill (take a stress pill and relax). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:51:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) In article James Bellaire writes: > I'm curious about how the product actually works as well. I think > you're right on target with the copyright analysis. If it takes and > holds and modifies a copy of a web page, then it would seem to be > clear that it would violate copyright law on copyrighted pages (maybe > even be libelous). On the other hand, if it simply sends out a > template that is overlaid on the original page at the users PC, it > seems to not run afoul. I'm thinking, based upon a clue in Pat's original posting, that there is no storage of the actual web site copy, just the comment section, which might be served up side by side with the real page (or perhaps some sort of overlay, as it does require special software rather) The clue ... and my quote is not exact, has to do with the part about if the original page is newer than the one marked with comments ... "so that the comments appear in the proper place", they will not send the "marked up page" if the original site is newer. Think about it for a second ... if the original site was newer and yet they still served up the old, marked and cached version, the comments WOULD still be in the same place. I'm guessing that it's some sort of overlay technology, and that the browser only pulls the comment overlay from Third Voice ... sure would save a lot of bandwidth for them. > Me, I like the idea. Fortunately, as a fellow target, visits to my > web page are so low that I'm not worried. As I'm sure I've seen you > mention more than once, web pages are part of ego trips. It's nice to > have a little fun deflating a few egos. Makes me almost want to install IE so I can use Third Voice to check out the Dr. Laura web site. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Had your share of stoopid(tm) people? | | | View the "Contra Costa Whines" at | [This space for lease] | | http://www.io.com/~tweek/cocowhine/ | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:04:21 -0400 From: Joe Clark Reply-To: jclark@supernet.net Organization: Florida State University Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Computer Underground Digest (tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu) reprinting TELECOM Digest wrote: > USERS NOW CAN GO TO A WEB SITE, DEFACE THE PAGE SECRETLY, HAVE WHAT > THEY DID VIEWABLE BY OTHER USERS, WITHOUT THE WEBMASTER EVEN KNOWING > THAT IT HAPPENED, AND HELPLESS TO CORRECT IT OR STOP IT IN ANY EVENT! > What would you say if I told you there was now software available > and being distributed which allows users to change the contents of > a web site, adding their own remarks to it as desired, and that [snip] > Their browser application lets you mark up any web site you visit with > your own commentary, anywhere on the page you feel like. *Your copy* [snip] > 1. Your page gets marked up by users with their own commentaries > and you cannot stop them from doing it; [snip] I've been hearing about this app lately -- and, while still not sure how I feel about it, I can't help thinking that inflammatory and possibly misleading statements like the above can't much help the debate. The websites I create are files stored on webservers. Unless Third Voice can hack the server, no one is writing anything "on my site", anymore than a user who selects a different standard font in their browser is changing my site. They're not "changing the contents" of my website or "marking it up" in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, a more valid objection is that TV is in effect a framed view of my site, adding secondary information I may not know about or want. I can see an objection based on that argument. I can also see an objection that most users -- already clueless about, say, the difference between Edit | Find and Search the Web -- won't know (or care) that the TV comments aren't "part of" the site. Yet the strident warnings I've seen push the "it will modify your site" button hard. Whassupwitdat? I can't help thinking Milady doth protest too much. Madison Ave types worried that the type of info the Better Business Bureau provides will now be even *closer* than a phone call away? Sure, I'd hate to think that somewhere out there someone's griping about my site and I can't see it. But that's no doubt ALREADY going on; I'm probably on more than one "Check out this sucky page: " list of links. It's called public commentary. Third Voice may be the latest Death of the Net: Film at Eleven, but could we at least cut the inflammatory stuff? Why not look hard at the possibility of someone influencing, broadly, the tenor of website commentary to influence web-clueless public opinion in negative ways? For example: IE, CyberSitter, et cetera ad nauseum. Joseph S. Clark http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jsclark information architecture | usability | visual design Office of Technology Integration * Florida State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:59:48 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Third Voice Review At 09:50 PM 6/8/99 -0400, I wrote: > I tried to outfox their system by using a page with a server side > include of the current date and time - the notes still appeared, so it > cannot be checksum verified. I moved a few things around on my > homepage and the notes followed the correct text, so there must be > some sort of 'SED' type work going on. > If you move the keyed text around the note follows the keyed text, the > only way to remove the note is to remove the text (or alter it in such > a way that it no longer matches the key). And Pat asked: (so many questions!) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So you are saying that adding something > to the page or removing something from the page does not trick TV? If > a TV note is embedded on some text on a page the only way to get rid > of the TV note is by removing or completely altering the text? If you > just rearrange the page, the user's notes follow the text around? Say there is a note on my homepage keyed to "Chicago Telephone Info". I can remove every piece of information on the page (and I did!) and the TV system still keyed in on "Chicago Telephone Info". The only way to make sure that the 'key' is not found is by removing the wording "Chicago Telephone Info" from the page. Possibly by changing it to "Chicago Telecom Info". > Well, this certainly does test the webmaster's commitment to 'free > speech', doesn't it! If it is using some form of 'grep' as you > suggest, or perhaps 'sed' (a stream editor) to examine what it sees > to make sure none of the text has changed, perhaps quietly placing > an extra space or two in the lines might confuse it. In the case of > a page that is mostly text, is one single place where the text has > been changed near the top enough to do it or must one go line after > line, etc? I suggested SED. The change MUST be within the key text. A blank line or changing date before or after the key has no effect. You can change every piece of text on the page (except the keyed text) and still get the note. > One other thing which might work is to use hex values > for certain things, rather than the ascii representations. For example > to get a blank space you can either tap your space bar once (which > would be like the ascii representation, or you could at the right > place in the text enter '&32;' (without the quotes) since 32 is the > numerical value for the ascii character we call a 'space'. Anything > you can type on the keyboard in a direct straight-forward fashion can > be made to appear on the same page by using '&(value)'. I am not sure > off hand if you use the hex value or the decimal value, but can find > out soon enough. You can also insert spaces into text with things like > ' ' (again without the quotes which means 'no break space' and > you have &lnsp;   and similar things which ought to make your > page appear exactly as always, but perhaps confuse anyone who was > grepping the source. I believe you always have to have a semi-colon > following any '&(value)' entry. I tried a   and broke the key, but: > Jim, perhaps in your tests you will experiment with here and there > replacing some 'actual letter of the alphabet' which appears in your > text with an &ascii; thing and see what happens. a is the lowercase letter 'a'. I tried "Chicago Telephone Info" and the note appeared, even though the key is "Chicago Telephone Info". > Like yourself Jim, I strongly suspect either this will die on its own > quietly, or else there will be litigation by some one or more of the > big time players when they find they no longer hold the podium in > an undisputed way. Let us know the results of your continued testing, > and thanks for this first report. PAT] The second key in the equation is the URL. I tried a different URL and it seems to follow the FULL text of the URL. So something keyed to http://telecom-digest.org/ would not come up if one used the URL http://telecom-digest.org/?hi . The biggest problem is not being able to delete notes, even if you are the note writer, or page author. The page author seems to have more control, as they CAN remove the key. But the note writer is under the spell of once written, always there. James Bellaire Did I mention that there is Chicago Telephone Info on my site. :) http://tk.com/telecom/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if the URL is involved, then one day I could, for example, set my internal links in various ways: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/index.html http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives (+/- 'index.html') http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives (+/- 'index.html') and last but not least, http://telecom-digest.org (+/- 'index.html') all point to the same place. So where the pages make internal refer- ences to each other, the exact URL can be swapped around to confuse the TV people, is that correct? I am not quite sure what '/?hi' would do, I will have to check that part. Usually a question marked followed by something takes whatever follows the question mark as a value to be considered on the next page, such as a form being filled in, etc. Also, if ' ' broke the TV software, I assume those could be sprinkled around the page without too much hassle, then re-arranged the next day, etc. If you combined for a space followed with  for a backspace (traditionally the job of 'control-H' or ascii 8 is that of a backspace) then the line would appear to the human eye as it always had, but for SED or GREP purposes it would quite different wouldn't it? Many, many years ago, working with my old Apple ][+ it was always fun to write a paragraph of text then at the end include as many control-H or CHR$(8) as there were total characters in the paragraph and then type the paragraph again. The end result for a person who viewed the paragraph was seeing it written there, then totally erased backwards style character by character, and then re-written, all in a matter of a couple seconds, unless you added a few 'for' loops in there to delay it a little so the person could see it happening a little easier. And we as webmasters know that if our own name and email address appear on our pages we can usually prevent address-collecting spam bots from seizing up on those names by writing them out totally in ascii values rather than actual letters. The human reader will see the same thing on the page, but the bot cannot understand what to make out of all those ampersands and numbers it sees so it passes it by. For instance, this is how you would write 'mailto:ptownson@telecom-digest.org' using numerical values instead of actual letters of the alphabet: <!------------- BEGIN GARBLED EMAIL ADDRESS ------------> <a href="mailto:&#112;&#116;&#111;&#119;&#110;&#115;&#111;&#110;&#64;&#116;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#111;&#109;&#45;&#100;&#105;&#103;&#101;&#115;&#116;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;">&#112;&#116;&#111;&#119;&#110;&#115;&#111;&#110;&#64;&#116;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#111;&#109;&#45;&#100;&#105;&#103;&#101;&#115;&#116;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;</a> <!------------- END GARBLED EMAIL ADDRESS ------------> Use eXMPle to start an illustration like above and then cancel the eXMPle when finished to prevent adverse affects on your page. I had to put those left brackets and exclamation symbol at the start and end to keep the above from acting out on readers who use HTML on this Digest each day. All you have above are the ascii values for the letters 'ptownson@telecom-digest.org' and if you cut and paste the above into a web page, you will see what I mean -- yet bots that go around getting names off of web sites won't be able to understand it at all. Whenever you include someone's name and email address on your web site, including your own, use the above technique to keep spammers away from it. I suspect you could write your entire page up in the same way -- what a pain in the keister that would be! -- and fool the bots the TV people are running also. The TV people do say to their users "if you ever find a web site which 'does not work the way it should' then let us know so we can investigate", meaning, I suspect, that they would go snoop on the source code and see what sort of tricks the webmaster was playing on them, trying to hide, and all that ..." PAT] ------------------------------ From: jjs@eudoramail.com Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:38:38 GMT Organization: @Home Network On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:57:57 -0600, Joey Lindstrom wrote: > A new computer virus is spreading throughout the Internet, and it is > far more insidious than last week's Chernobyl menace. Named > Strunkenwhite after the authors of a classic guide to good writing, it > returns e-mail messages that have grammatical or spelling errors. It > is deadly accurate in its detection abilities, unlike the dubious > spell checkers that come with word processing programs. Some PLEASE tell me this one is a joke, or God forbid, it's true. If it is true I can see where I'm going to be in deep manure. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course it is true. I am in the same situation here as the newspapers; if something was not true, I would not be allowed to print it. And the manure gets sort of thick around here some afternoons anyway, so don't be embarassed to wade right in and join the rest of us as we sling it at one another. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #136 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 10 19:28:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA20106; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:28:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906102328.TAA20106@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #137 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jun 99 19:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 137 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Eric Morson) FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls (Mike Pollock) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (John R. Covert) Re: AT&T New Charges (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: AT&T New Charges (Art Kamlet) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Michael J. Kuras) What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 10 Jun 1999 15:35:52 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Eric@areacode-info.com wrote: > Well, > It looks like it's on it's way. Caller pays cellular service in > the US. > I DO hope they make it an OPTION for the cellular subscriber to > choose. > Personally, I prefer to pay for incoming minutes, since I have > elected a plan that includes enough allotted time to render it a > non-issue. I forward my home and business lines to my cellular number > on a daily basis. > If I were FORCED to pay 0.30 per call from ME to ME effectively, > I would be VERY upset! > We need to make sure it is introduced as an OPTION.... Not as a > broad platform mandate. > Point 2: the article indicates the exploration of Service Area Codes > for "Caller Pays" service. Well now, isn't THAT a step backwards! http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/mobilephones990610.html Eric: **** AGREED ONE HUNDERED PERCENT!!! **** There are MANY of us who have our home phones forwarded to our cellular/wireless phones! I can purchase a package of minutes from BellSouth Mobility, and (as long as I'm not roaming), I have "free" two-way airtime on overnites and all weekend long. For "Caller-Pays Airtime" to be introduced "effectively" (and I'm trying not to laugh or gag here -- note that "effectively" is in QUOTES), a SAC (Special Area Code) would HAVE to be introduced! Even though there are some "geographic POTS-like" NPA+c.o.codes used for caller-pays cellular in some locations, such codes are frequently BLOCKED from access by the usual ... LD Carriers routing in from outside the local or LATA area, by payphones, by PBX's, by other cellular companies, connecting CLECs in the area, etc. MOST cellular/wireless arrangements here in the US and Canada, where the called cellular customer pays some form of airtime, are numbered/dialed/switched/routed based on "geographic POTS-like" NPA+c.o. codes, based on established tariffed ratecenters. A secondary "caller-pays-airtime" set of SAC "Nzz" would be "okay" (but also a WASTE of numbering resources -- and the FCC is 'supposed' to be investigating waste of NANP resources right now as well ... how IRONIC of them -- but then again, things are so ack-bassward these days), however, I can see some form of Nzz (200? 300? 400?; maybe all of the 4zz's, 400, 422, 433, 444, ... 488 -- and you'd NEED a rather large range of them to offer such dual options of charge/rate possibilites for every cellular/wireless phone in the US) ... I could see such "Nzz" Special Area Code for caller-pays the airtime to turn out to be the SAME as the failure of 500 for "personal numbering"!!! Canada has SAC 600 for "Canada Services". It is historically a "swap code" that had been 610, which had been the SAC for TWX in Canada from 1962. In the early 1980's, Telecom-Canada (and its member local/toll provincial LECs) began to offer DataLink services on SAC 610, using dedicated 610-NXX codes. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Unitel (now AT&T-Canada) and some other new entrants into Canadian telco services, as well as Teleglobe and Telesat requested some 610-NXX codes for various data or mobile services. In 1993, Bellcore-NANPA and Stentor finalized a "swap" of 610 for 600. 610 became reassigned to the split of 215 in southeastern PA in early 1994. 600 was thus assigned to "Canadian Services", which includes Data, formerly any remaining TWX (which was discontinued by Stentor circa 1994/95), "satellite fixed/mobile phones using NANP-like numbers for such TMI (Telesat Mobile Inc) phones in the remote parts of the northern/Arctic territories, and ALSO, for introduction of optional _CALLER-PAYS-AIRTIME_ wireless/cellular. There are several 600-NXX codes assigned to the cellular/wireless subsidiaries (of Stentor member telcos)- these wireless subsidiaries coming togather as "Mobility Canada"... as well as Cantel-AT&T, and some of the newer "digital" cellular/wireless providers. But I don't know if 600-NXX codes are actively being used/promoted within Canada. I don't think _I_ can dial to a Canadian (+1)-600 number as of yet. Some non-NANP countries overseas _MIGHT_ be able to dial to some +1-600 numbers, but AFAIK, from the US, _NONE_ of the (major) LD carriers allow calling to Canada's 600-NXX codes! While the new (SAIC) Canadian Number Administrator maintains the assignment list of Canada's 600-NXX codes, neither LM-IMS-CIS-NANPA nor Telcordia-TRA identifies these 600-NXX codes for basic number/ code assignments nor for switch-CLLI's / routing purposes. So, _IF_ the wireless entities in Canada are already actively allowing optional/dual numbers on 600-NXX for "caller-pays-airtime" and that happens to be the ONLY number given to me by friends in Canada for me to call them on their cellular phone, then I'm S***-out-of-luck to try to call them! Again, WHATEVER, if the FCC requires caller-pays airtime in the US, it should be an OPTIONAL DUAL SAC type of area code, which would NOT (hopefully) prevent a "traditional, geographic POTS-like" NPA+c.o. code type of numbering and dialing string that I could give to people instead, so that _I_ can pick-up the airtime at MY choice, and take advantage of MY package of "free" incoming airtime minutes!!! 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: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:58:08 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server > It looks like it's on it's way. Caller pays cellular service in the > US. > Point 2: the article indicates the exploration of Service Area Codes for > "Caller Pays" service. Well now, isn't THAT a step backwards! Sounds like a damn good idea to me. At least the caller is notified. If we go to an NANP-wide NPA for this, let's hope the FCC forces any existing Caller-Pays pagers to change to it. Another advantage: More efficient use of numbering space. Of course, we'd need two NPAs: Caller-pays interLATA toll charge and called party pays interLATA toll charge. Paying for air time is one thing, but we don't want any long-distance surprises. Let's apply the toll charges simply: Only to and from the LATA in which the called party is physically located. Let's get rid of the ridiculous notion of rating points for wireless service. And the long distance charge is ALWAYS billed by the pre-subscribed interLATA carrier of the billed party's choice at plan rates. Of course, if both parties are in the same LATA, bill airtime only. Along the same lines, if the billed party subscribes to the same wireless provider, bill air time on his plan, or at pre-arranged roaming rates. This is hardly too much to ask of modern billing software. ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:46:39 -0400 Subject: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? It looks like it's on it's way ... Caller pays cellular service in the US. I DO hope they make it an OPTION for the cellular subscriber to choose. Personally, I prefer to pay for incoming minutes, since I have elected a plan that includes enough allotted time to render it a non-issue. I forward my home & business lines to my cellular number on a daily basis. If I were FORCED to pay 0.30 per call from ME to ME effectively, I would be VERY upset! We need to make sure it is introduced as an OPTION ... Not as a broad platform mandate. Point 2: the article indicates the exploration of Service Area Codes for "Caller Pays" service. Well now, isn't THAT a step backwards! http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/mobilephones990610.html Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:53:35 -0400 By KALPANA SRINIVASAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) One woman was attending class an hour away from her home when the call to the entertainment line supposedly was made from her phone number. Another woman, a 74-year-old paraplegic who lives alone and has one wireless phone attached to her wheelchair, was billed for dialing the 900 number at a time when she didn't have access to the phone. And a company got charged for a toll call allegedly made from a phone in the elevator of its building, even though the phone had no dial pad. These three cases were among hundreds received by the Federal Trade Commission from consumers who insisted they did not make the toll call charges to receive the audio entertainment services provided by American TelNet. In an agreement announced today, the company said it would forgive $37 million in charges and reimburse $2 million to customers who were unfairly forced to pay for the calls. The commission effectively accused the company of ``cramming'' or placing unauthorized charges on consumers' bills. In an unusual twist, these calls apparently were made, but by third parties who gained access to the lines by crossing telephone wires, clipping onto the phone line or stealing telephone signals from cordless devices. The case highlights the problem known as ``phreaking.'' The Internet is filled with sites instructing hackers on how they can gain access to someone's phone line, enabling them to make unauthorized long-distance calls. In this case, the FTC said American TelNet deprived consumers of their right to contest such charges and billed them according to the phone number, even though the calls had not been made from the consumers' phones. ``Consumers are frustrated when phantom charges for services they didn't authorize appear on their phone bills,'' said Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection. The FTC says one problem with the way such phone entertainment services are billed is that providers use a device similar to a ``caller ID'' box to determine what number is making the call. The companies then submit their charges to local phone carriers, who send the bill to consumers. But the device cannot tell whether the call actually was initiated from the consumer's telephone. According to the FTC complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Miami, American TelNet receives ``tens of thousands complaints from consumers every year as a result of its deceptive and sloppy marketing practices.'' On top of that, when consumers called the company to contest the charges they were assured the matter would be investigated and a reply would be issued in a week. But according to the FTC, the company simply generated a form letter saying the bill was accurate and should be paid. Some consumers supplied the company with information to show the calls could not have been made from their homes, according to the commission. For example, the woman who was attending a surgical preparation class furnished a letter from her doctor confirming her location at the time of the call. Under the agreement announced today, American TelNet would have to suspend billing while it investigated charges and establish a way to determine whether charges were correctly tracked to consumers. Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a perfect example of what I have tried to say here for the longest time about newspapers and their bias toward the Internet and the Usenet newsgroups. 'Reporter' Kalpana Srinivasan in paragraph seven of the article tells us that this 'highlights the problem with phreaking ...' and that the internet is 'filled with sites that tell hackers how to rip off phone service ...' No Kalpana, the internet is not 'filled with sites' devoted to hacking and phreaking. Far, far from it. But a lot of good it does bothering to write anyone in the print media to tell them about their constant errors and their bigotry toward the internet. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:35:50 -0400 From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. We've had some interesting discussion in TELECOM Digest about the shutdown of the GSM system in Washington, D.C., but I'm amazed that no one has pointed out the real serious lossage that the planned shutdown causes. According to Larry McDonnell, Director of Public Relations at Sprint PCS, their entire GSM network will be shut down shortly after November 1. See the press release at http://www.sprintspectrum-apc.com/news.html. Washington is our Nation's Capital. It's one of the places that many international visitors go. These people take their dual-band GSM phones with them, or have or rent 1.9GHz phones and swap the SIMcard. Today, these people are able to visit or work in Washington and use their service with their home provider -- and GSM roaming is wonderful. Calls are delivered almost instantaneously; all features work seamlessly; text messages including internet email can be BOTH _sent_ and _received_ while roaming. After November 1, if it is really true that Sprint-APC will shut down and no one else will be ready at that time to operate a new GSM system, then we will have the national embarrasment of being the only capital city in a developed country where international visitors cannot roam with their GSM phones. And for the existing customers of Sprint-APC the switch to Sprint-PCS is horrible. They will lose their SIMcards and thereby lose all the SIMcard features including international roaming, storing of text messages received and to be sent, storing of personal numbers in the SIMcard which can be moved from phone to phone without reprogramming, and sending text messages from their phones. All of these GSM features are not provided by Sprint's CDMA-AMPS network. Although some people have written to say that GSM is going to go to CDMA anyway, even when this happens, GSM will continue to use SIMcards, and will remain incompatible with CDMA-AMPS because of the lack of SIMcards and the rest of the GSM standard features that make GSM the most popular mobile phone system in the world, with many more phones than all of the various different AMPS, TDMA-AMPS, and CDMA-AMPS systems combined. Sprint has done a great disservice to their customers, and by removing GSM from our nation's capital, has done a disservice to our entire country. Again we are those stupid Americans who won't use a worldwide standard. How embarrassing. Shame on Sprint. I obtained a copy of the notification of the class action suit involving the shutdown of Sprint-APC's GSM network in Washington, D.C. The case is in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 97-188027/CC3879, filed July 7, 1997. An extract of the short history: Plaintiffs claim that Defendants engaged in various acts and made various misrepresentations or omitted to disclose information which was intended to, did, and/or had the tendency to deceive purchasers of Sprint Spectrum TDMA/GSM handsets and services to believe that those handsets and services would be useable in the future throughout the United States on a Sprint- brand national network. ... Plaintiffs allege that as a result of these misrepresentations, omissions, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the Sprint Spectrum TDMA/GSM handsets and services sold to consumers, were worth less than the amounts Class Members paid for [them]. The notice goes on to say that the parties had entered into a settlement as of April 29, 1999 followed by an amended Settlement Agreement on May 17th. The settlement consists of credit towards Sprint-PCS phones or services for anyone in the class, which consists of those who purchased GSM service from Sprint-APC prior to the introduction of Sprint-PCS CDMA/AMPS service on April 2, 1998. Sprint has also agreed to pay the attorneys bringing the class action suit an amount not exceeding $1,190,000 plus interest since March 25th. There is a fairness hearing in Baltimore on August 4, 1999. /john ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:37:10 GMT > NEW YORK - AT&T today announced it will extend its $3 monthly usage > minimum to customers currently on its basic residential service to help > [...] > just 50 cents more to meet the minimum requirement. AT&T said usage > minimums are becoming more common throughout the industry. First of all, "becoming common" means they are not common. > "We wanted to be as fair as possible to all our customers, including > those with low incomes, while covering our basic cost of doing > business," said George Burnett, vice president, AT&T consumer markets. Once again, this is the problem with requiring that an infrastructure provider make money. The goal should be serving all customers. Period. -Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a quaint, old fashioned notion, that customers are the purpose of your business rather than an interuption of it. Gee, are you living in the past, or what? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges Date: 9 Jun 1999 20:47:57 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Dennis Metcalfe wrote: > On 8 Jun 1999 23:32:29 -0400, kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) wrote: >> I don't understand. >> Ameritech chages me $1.50 to have no-pic on my line, and will not >> allow me to use 101+4 to select a carrier code. So I cannot call any >> IEC on that line. Now why is the charge justified? > I assume that is on your second residential line, right? Yes. > Have you blocked all outgoing LD service somehow? Up to now I have No. When I called Ameritch to drop my IEC they told me of the $1.50 charge and that I would no longer be able to call any of the 101-XXXX carrier select numbers. WHen I asked why they just said this is the only option they offer with No-PIC. This is in Columbus OH. Our 5ESS has reasonable stuff on it -- I have call waiting plus Caller ID with Name. Plus Ameritech has added stuff like leave a message on busy (75c), Automatic redial on busy (75c) and automatic third-party calling on flashing switchhook, (75c) so I have to believe the switch isn't the issue. > not heard of people not having access to dial-around carriers when > they dropped their PICC'd LD carrier. Have you talked with Ameritech > to see why this happened? Perhaps your switch is not programmed > right? Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:20:38 -0400 From: Michael J. Kuras Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still > haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. > I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to > Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone > for the whole trip. The second I crossed the border into the US... I don't know if this is the exact answer you're looking for, but I found this to be very interesting nevertheless. I stumbled across this in my recent attempts to discover more about wireless data services, a truly maddening endeavour. This is taken from Grant Taylor's excellent website at http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/ : Some of the newer "free roaming" plans like ATT's One Rate require the use of specific phones, with firmware custom-tailored by the provider to always use the cheapest in-range network. The caveat here is that these phones will sometimes insist on using an unusably weak digital signal when there is a perfectly decent analog signal present. Some people complain that they are unable to make calls from tri-mode phones because of this. Perhaps what you're experienceing is that the phone recognizes that there's a cheaper wireless service available upon entering the US and it tries to use it, although there's stronger, albeit more expensive serivce from which to choose. I belive more advanced phones allow you to force a certain mode (e.g. AMPS vice digital), so that may be worth investigating. As part of my search for wireless data, my local telco (Bell Atlantic) promises me that doing so won't affect my monthly free minutes or incur roaming fees in any way (i.e. if I'm in my 'free area', forcing AMPS won't change anything). I certainly hope they're right, because I'm about to go buy a new dual-mode phone and plan to do just that where necessary. michael j kuras finger for pgp key ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers" Subject: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:56:10 -0400 Greg Monti (gmonti@mindspring.com) wrote: "When a consumer gets internet service for their home PC via dial-up, the service really consists of two parts, which are paid for separately: (a) the cost of the phone line that's connected to the computer, including the incremental cost, if any, of dialing the Internet Service Provider (ISP); and (b) the cost of internet access provided by the ISP. Typically, (a) costs $10 to $30 per month; (b) costs $20 per month." That only applies if one chooses to have an additional line for modem use; many people (including me) don't do this and only pay for the ISP. One alternative you didn't mention is the one where the cable company, either through a resale deal with the ISP or directly to the customer, provides *only* pure Internet connectivity and the ISP then provides email, Web hosting, Usenet and/or other services. This might involve two bills, one from the cable company (perhaps $8 less per month than the usual bundle) and one from the ISP (perhaps $8 per month; I believe AOL has a service in this range), or it could involve the ISP simply reselling the cable company's connectivity in the same way that incumbent LECs' telephone service is now being resold. (An analogy is that you might order both local and long distance service from an IXC, with the local service actually provided by the ILEC; in this case you might order cable modem service from your choice of ISPs with the connectivity portion being provided by the cable TV company.) "Someday, all television, including cable television, will be digital. There will be no more 6 MHz radio frequency channels, each occupied by one analog NTSC color video signal with sound. Instead, there will be an assembled, groomed, managed stream of bits flowing from the cable headend to the consumer premises, probably on the order of several BILLION bits per second." Well, yes and no. All the industry standards for both digital TV and other things like cable modems, cable telephony and so on assume 6 MHz channels in the downstream path. If you think about it, this is a lot more efficient than trying to receive one incredibly wide "channel;" if something else is needed the receiving device just tunes to a different RF channel. At present each 6 MHz digital cable channel can usually carry around 38 Mbps. "Cable systems typically have analog bandwidths of 500 or 750 MHz today, which will probably have increased to 1,000 MHz in the next 10 years." That terminology is somewhat misleading to the uninitiated; since the lowest U.S. TV channel starts at 54 MHz cable systems are normally designed for downstream operation from about 50 MHz to their upper limit, so a "750 MHz" system really has 700 MHz of downstream bandwidth rather than 750. Upstream usually operates from about 5-10 MHz up to 40 MHz, with a pair of gentle filters to separate the two bands (since 8-10 MHz is left as a "no man's land" of sorts). Another point is that, since digital QAM or VSB signals can tolerate far worse carrier-to-noise ratios than analog signals, it's easier and cheaper to build a system that handles part analog and part digital than one that has analog TV filling the entire bandwidth. On a typical 750 MHz hybrid fiber/coaxial system the 54-552 MHz band will be occupied by analog TV (between 77 and 83 channels) and 552-750 MHz will be split between digital TV and non-video digital services. If and when analog TV goes away (there's some doubt that it will die off that soon) it may be possible to change the bandsplit filters to expand the upstream bandwidth, which is one of the biggest constraints in a cable telephony setup. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #137 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 10 20:08:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA22019; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:08:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906110008.UAA22019@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #138 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jun 99 20:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 138 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP-Caribbean Rates (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless (Tony Harminc) 58th UCLA Technical Management Program (Bill Goodin) Re: Patch Panel For RJ11 (Christopher Zguris) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Alan Boritz) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Leonard Erickson) Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money (Terry Kennedy) Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA (Danny Bateman) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (Adam H. Kerman) Area Code Quiz (Phil Smiley) Dial Cards Wanted (Joseph Singer) Wireless Comm Theory Website (jcheah@my-deja.com) Student Seeking Research Help (Huang Jiehua) Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) (Robert Bononno) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Steven J. Sobol) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 10 Jun 1999 17:53:04 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NANP-Caribbean Rates Yes, most of _us_ who read TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom) would be aware of the new NANP-Caribbean area codes, and also aware that the rates to the NON-US points of the NANP-Caribbean, when priced at "full tariffed" rates, can be _VERY_ expensive. Puerto Rico (NPA 787) and the US Virgin Islands (NPA 340), when dialed from the (continental-only?) US have been billed at "domestic" rates for about fifteen years now, and depending on the domestic discount plan one might be on, could be as low as (depending on the carrier, time-of-day, day-of-week, etc.) 5-cents or 10-cents per minute - or even part of a package of "free" minutes! Even though I really have no need to call down there, I have been checking the rates to the non-US but-still-NANP Caribbean countries, via different carriers and discount plans. These discounted-plan rates HAVE come down recently, probably due to the various FCC and ITU/GATT/whatever rate and "settlements" restructurings in the past couple of years. From LCI/Qwest website (http://www.qhome.net/ld/international.jhtml) on their "Q-Home" plan, rates to the non-US but-still-NANP Caribbean are as follows: NPA Island/Country Per-min rate (24-Hrs / 7-Days) 242 Bahamas 32-cents/min 441 Bermuda 40-cents/min 809 Dominican Republic 46-cents/min 345 Cayman Islands 50-cents/min 268 Antigua & Barbuda 55-cents/min 284 Br. Virgin Islands 60-cents/min 767 Dominica 60-cents/min 264 Anguilla 62-cents/min 868 Trinidad & Tobago 63-cents/min 876 Jamaica 65-cents/min 649 Turks & Caicos 65-cents/min 869 St.Kitts & Nevis 65-cents/min 246 Barbados 66-cents/min 664 Montserrat 70-cents/min (see note below *) 784 St.Vincent/Grenadines 75-cents/min 758 St.Lucia 80-cents/min 473 Grenada & Carriacou 85-cents/min (* note regarding 664 Montserrat, 70-c/min ... that is if there's anyone still there with a telephone or telephone connections, switches, etc ... maybe there's a lot still in disrepair due to the volcano!) I _THINK_ that AT&T's One-Rate-International/Global and Personal Network Plans have "similar" type rates ... I don't know offhand what Sprint Sense International rates are nor any MCI International discount plan rates are. Also, while the above are DISCOUNT plan rates rather than "full tariffed" rates, the amounts are comparable to what the various (full tariffed) rates from the US to various parts of Canada, based on V&H distances between the US and Canadian ratecenters, had been back in the 1980's. Today, one can get on a discount plan with one or another carrier for calling to Canada at nine to twelve cents per minute! True, calls to the UK, most of Europe, and Australia (when under a discount plan) can be as low as ten-to-thirty cents a minute, but these discount plan rates to the Caribbean are lower than any full-tariffed rates have been! I only listed the non-US but-still-NANP Caribbean locations and rates, but the rates to many other parts of the world via Qwest's "Q-Home" plan are within the same ranges. There are still some countries in different parts of the world with rather HIGH rates even under the Q-Home plan, and Inmarsat rates are just under $10.00 per min with this plan, but MANY international and overseas rates, _when_signed_up_with_a_discount_plan_, HAVE come down in price! Oh, there _IS_ a monthly fee for various Qwest discount plans; same goes for various discount plans from AT&T, Sprint, etc. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: tzha0@ibm.net (Tony Harminc) Subject: Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:21:18 GMT On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:43:49 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: > At its open meeting on Thursday morning, the FCC is expected to > propose a national system of "calling party pays" (CPP), a scheme > under which the caller to a cell phone pays the airtime charges rather > than the cell phone's owner. Oh great -- another scheme to make it difficult to call the US from other countries! US telcos will quickly realize that they can't bill callers from outside the US and will disallow such calls. I thought those ridiculous "Easyreach" 500 numbers were bad enough a few years ago - now this. Yeah -- I know CPP is already used in Europe, and calls go through. But that's because they figure overseas rates are enough of a disincentive to callers; Canada to US LD rates are so low that no one thinks twice about dialling a call to the US. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: 58th UCLA Technical Management Program Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:37:56 -0700 September 19-24, 1999, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Technical Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals (engineers, scientists, and software professionals) with high advancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? The program advisory board, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, Seagate, Viewlogic, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Amgen, Beckman Coulter, Boeing, Walt Disney Imagineering, 3D Systems, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Tanner Research, 3-D Systems, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses and instructors. Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program fee of $2,295 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For additional information and a complete program booklet, please contact Joon Lee at: Phone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815 e-mail: jlee@unex.ucla.edu Web: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses ------------------------------ From: Christopher Zguris Subject: Re: Patch Panel for RJ11 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:49:41 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Yes, they do exist. ICC -- and a variety of other companies -- make keystone-compatible snap-in jacks for F connectors (Coax, CATV), RJ45 (Cat3 & Cat5) and telephone. Once you've got the connectors, you can get a standard aluminum blank patch panel and snap modules into it since the modules are interchangeable. If you go that route, you're probably going to need a bracket to mount the blank patch panel, which will probably be 4-6" deep. Another option, if you're not talking about _a_lot_ of connectors, is to get a couple 4-6-port face plates to flush-mount in the wall, then route the wires in the wall to the plates. The advantage of this is is cheaper, works _very_ well for smaller installations, and looks clean. Keep in mind video isn't going to bend too much, so you're going to need depth _behind_ the panel. Home Controls Inc. (http://www.homecontrols.com/) offers a free catalog that includes a bunch of this stuff. Chris czguris@christopherzguris.com / http://www.christopherzguris.com ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:56:46 -0400 In article , Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Craig Williamson) wrote: > In article , Seymour Dupa > wrote: >> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >>> It looks like it's illegal to call a voice number with a computer or >>> recorded voice, and it's illegal to actually fax an unsolicted fax, >>> but it's not illegal to keep trying to send a fax to a voice number. >>> Am I right? I hope not. > If it is illegal to call a voice number from a computer, why do I keep > getting sales calls with silence till the computer switches over? It's probably something like a Davox dialer that calls a bunch of numbers at the same time with the assumption that the operator will only get a live person on one line from that group. The object is to maximize the efficiency of the call center agent at the expense of all of the people who get either what appears to be a phantom disconnect (phone rings and no one's there), or a recording asking the person who answers to hold for the next representative. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:43:27 PST Organization: Shadownet chuck@xyz.nl (Chuck) writes: > I live in Europe and was under the impression no US local telcos offer > free local calls. A colleague says that many include free, unlimited local > calls as part of the basic subscription. > Could someone settle this? If free calls are still possible, how > widespread is this? Please reply to this group as I am afraid to use a > real email address. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, 'Chuck', lots of USA telcos offer > unlimited calling at no extra charge in the subscriber's local area. > In smaller towns and villages, usually the entire thing is included. > In larger cities, some segment of the city surrounding the subscriber > will be part of his basic area in some cases. > For example, in Chicago the basic area is a distance of eight miles in > any direction, or normally, the subscriber's central office and the > offices next adjacent to him in any direction. The calls are not 'free'; > but they are untimed. As an example, for about three or four cents > you can make such a call and talk as long as desired, where calls to > places beyond the local or basic area are timed, at three or four > cents for each timed interval. This applies in Chicago to residential > subscribers only. Business subscribers get no basic or local area: > they pay three or four cents for each timed interval regardless of > where the called party is located within the 'local area' or LATA. And in places like Portland, Oregon the local calling area is something like 50 miles across (if I'm reading the map correctly). If you've got "standard" phone service, there's no per call charge for your calls inside most of that area. For an extra $3(?) a month you get all of the area. All for a fixed monthly rate of around $25. While we do have "measured service" available, state law forbids making it mandatory. There are various plans available for the folks on measured service. They pay a lower monthly fee, but pay some sort of per call fee based on distance and possibly on time. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Please Deposit an Unknown Amount of Money Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:12:48 GMT Stanley Cline writes: > They had to change the "please deposit 25c" message to a generic "see > the instruction card" recording in order to accommodate COCOT owners > that wish to use CO coin control instead of "chips in the phone" and > wish to charge a different rate than the LEC's payphone subsidiary. I don't follow you. If they're using CO coin control, doesn't the CO have to known when sufficient value has been deposited in order to complete the call? Also, given the ever-increasing amount of per-number data (feature sets, PIC, etc.) it should simply be a new field and a new table with the coin rates for a particular COCOT customer. In any event, it's a simple matter to access the existing recorded digit table to speak the reqired deposit amount -- after all, even the LEC charges variable rates depending on where one is calling. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Danny Bateman Subject: Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:44:53 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Reply-To: bateman@NOSPAM.shani.net I will be visiting the US from Israel this summer. I own a Nokia 2160 CDMA cellphone. My cell provider here ("Cellcom") can give me a number in the US (another NAM). Calls will cost me $1.45/minute to anywhere in the US. Could I get a cheaper option by directly going to a cell phone provider in the US? The main reason I want it is for emergency use (911), can I get just this service? I will be on the East coast travelling from Maryland via NJ to upstate NY, if this matters. Thanks, Danny Bateman bateman at shani.net ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:35:26 GMT In article , Jeff Colbert wrote: > Sometimes I feel real lucky! I am with a small rural Co-op. We are > on a state wide fiber loop and have all the SS7 goodies that the big > boys have. I connect to my ISP at 49k, and we are supposed to get > ADSL in a few months. [Details of disgustingly low recurring and nonrecurring charges snipped.] > It is great to see that the local Co-op really is a Co-op. Low profit, > and the profits go back into improving service without increasing > costs. I believe when I talked to them a while back they said they > have about 800 trunks. I'm so pleased that you enjoy the modern switch paid for by all those Supplemental Line charges on the phone bills of big city customers. As long as all that money went for a good cause. ------------------------------ From: Phil Smiley Subject: Area Code Quiz Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:36:45 GMT Area code splits, LEC routes interlata calls to customer's PIC. Customer forgot to fix their internet NPA and now those calls go to the IXC who routes them after permissive dialing period. Who screwed up? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:49:53 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Dial Cards Wanted Do you have any idea where I might find dial cards to use in rotary dial phones? Seems to me that poking around in the telecom-digest.org site I found it at one time, but can't seem to locate it. By dial cards I mean those cards that used to say "please wait for dial tone" or dial cards with the Bell System logo or similar. Thanks, Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: jcheah@my-deja.com Subject: Wireless Comm Theory Web Site Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:32:42 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Please visit http://www.jcheahtechtalk.com for discussion on phase noise analysis for telecom equipment designs; spectrum analysis for SMR in FCC Pt. 22 rule and eye pattern generation. ------------------------------ From: Huang Jiehua Subject: Student Needs Help With Research Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:25:42 +0800 Dear Mr. Townson: Would you please do me a favor to sent some information about how to integrate DCOM and TMN? I need to use it as reference for beginning my graduate paper three days later. Thanks a lot! Best regards Huang Jiehua [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will readers with knowledge please respond directly to this person. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Bononno Subject: Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:07:55 -0400 Organization: New York University James Gifford wrote in message: > However, I used 10-10-321 for about a year for frequent, relatively > lengthy calls and it did drop my LD costs by more than 50% overall. I > think it's the best compromise among the 10-10 services; your mileage > may vary. > 10-10-220 still stands in my book as a ripoff, though. Have you tried 10-10-297. They charge 10 cents a minute (not the lowest I guess) and 25 cents to France (which I use) but there are no hidden fees. I've used it on and off for a couple of months now. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: 9 Jun 1999 23:58:39 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:40:34 -0400, eric1@telecom-digest.zzn.com allegedly said: > The rep seemed to know what she was talking about. But then this is > the same company that keeps including inserts in my bill offering > enhanced services, like voice mail. Whenever I try to sign up, I am > told it is not available in my area. That is the price I pay for > living in the country, I suppose. It surprises me that, in your area (between Youngstown and Steubenville ... right?) -- in a rural part of the state -- Ameritech even provides service. Alltel and GTE service most of the outlying areas around Cleveland, except for the county seats of the rural counties (Ravenna in Portage Co., Burton in Geauga Co., etc.). > Several years ago, if I wanted to call Cleveland, or any other toll > call within AC 216, I would just dial 1+seven digits. I remember being able to do that. :) Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org "Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address?" (Me, on IRC) "No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers." (Heller, in reply to me) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #138 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 10 21:27:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA25148; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:27:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906110127.VAA25148@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #139 TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jun 99 21:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 139 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Digest Business Directory, Summer 99 Edition (Babu Mengelepouti) Hospitalization Phone Experience (Lisa Hancock) Third Voice/Copyright (Duncan Long) Re: Third Voice Review (James Bellaire) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Mike Bradley) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (John David Galt) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Leonard Erickson) ADPCM vs/ PCM (Alonzo Alcazar) Salon Technology: Should Hackers Spend Years in Prison? (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America (John Nagle) Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America (Arthur Ross) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 10 Jun 1999 15:30:43 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Telecom Digest Business Directory, Summer 99 Edition Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:31:51 -0600 (MDT) From: cult hero To: DC-Stuff Subject: Updated 800 Spam list X-Copyright: This e-mail copyright 1999 by jericho@dimensional.com Sender: owner-dc-stuff@dis.org Reply-To: cult hero X-Comment: Lonely? Need a friend and lover? email jeffy@defcon.org X-Comment: tired of typing? call the Defcon Voice Bridge 801-855-3326 People often ask me what to do with these spammer's phone numbers. 1. Please know that every call to an 800# cost someone money. Since it is a free call to you.. guess who pays? There ya go. So.. if posted to a mail list of 1000 people, and even 100 call, the spammer gets to pay. So listen to the entire message when you call. Call from payphones, courtesy phones, etc. One call to each number from each phone you have access to. Any more than that is potential harassment and WE are law abiding citizens. Of course, some of these ask you to leave your name or number and they will get back to you. Be creative :) 2. There's probably a few of these type reverse lookup pages, with this one if they don't have the 1 800 number in their directory you can submit your own co. name details etc. (G) Give them some believable disinformation and screw up the 1 800 no. The page says it takes a day or two for the listing to appear (I have yet to see my entries appear) When listing make sure all the options for giving out their info are ticked :> http://inter800.com/search.htm 3. The good old prank call/message. =-= 06.09.99 achieve your dreams 1-800-242-0363 ext. 2131 06.09.99 home based business 1-800-811-2141 Code #64225 800 226 0633 8am-10pm CST 06.07.99 free business package 800-71-OSCAR 6002 06.06.99 secure voice mail 1-800-242-0363 Ext. 1960 06.06.99 accept credit cards 1-888-264-9272 06.06.99 remove 1-800-409-8312 06.04.99 merchant account 1-800-409-8302 Ext. 7301 06.03.99 personal atm 1-800-71-OSCAR x6002 06.03.99 accept credit cards 1-888-735-1730 06.03.99 digital networks 1-800 Helpline 06.03.99 remove from list 1-800-242-0363 ext 8157 06.01.99 attention business 1-888-717-4756 05.31.99 internet spy 1-800-242-0363 Ext. 1960 05.31.99 callers on hold 1-888-546-5348 remove from list 1-800-409-8312 05.31.99 tips/tricks/portfolio 800-242-0363, Extension 1622. 05.31.99 bulk email (800) 242-0363 EXT. 2427 05.31.99 merchant accounts 1-888-249-7928 05.31.99 home business 1-800-811-2141 Code #85386 05.29.99 kupplar graphics 1-800-810-4330 05.28.99 ecommerce low price 1-800-242-0363 x 1732 05.27.99 merchant account 1(800) 600-0343 ext. 1261 05.26.99 quit smoking 1-800-328-7103 05.25.99 printer supplies 800.586.0540 (dead 05.26.99) email removal 800.650.5062 05.24.99 MLM 1(800) 899-8164 05.20.99 earn 500/day (800) 811-2141, Code 71746 (800) 588-9786, Code 71746 05.19.99 on hold advertising 1-888-546-5348 05.19.99 increase sales 1500% 1(800) 242-0363 ext. 2047 05.19.99 remove from spam 1 (800) 409-8312 05.18.99 increase sales 1(800) 899-8164 05.17.99 credit 1-800-242-0363 x1754 05.16.99 5k/week 1-800-636-6773 ext. 3886 05.15.99 quit smoking 1-800-328-7103 05.14.99 work from home 1-888-281-6067 ^- tells you to call 800.300.0253 ^- tells you to call 800 344 4826 (new #: 800.464.5446) ^- tells you to call 800.900.4036 1078 ^- tells you to call 800.811.2141 4049 ^- tells you to call 800.226.0633 05.14.99 remove from spam 1-800-409-8312 05.13.99 increase sales 1-888-248-7073 05.12.99 increase sales 1(800) 600-0343 ext. 1261 05.12.99 1mil email addys 1-800-341-3047 05.11.99 captor ads 1-888-546-5348 unsub from captor ads 1-800-409-8312 05.09.99 language force 888-837-8887 05.08.99 broadcast email (888)352-5443 (ANAC!) 05.07.99 accept credit cards 1-888-714-9474 05.07.99 trim fat 1-800-242-0363 ext:1637 05.07.99 postmaster direct 877-PERSEUS 05.06.99 email addys for sale (800) 242-0363 EXT. 2427 05.03.99 psychic hotline 1-800-372-3384 05.03.99 stop smoking 1-888-725-8419 05.01.99 make money fast 1-888-206-4506 04.30.99 buzzwords 800-308-9395 04.28.99 take credit cards 1-888-264-9272 04.25.99 5k weekly! 1-800-858-2540 04.25.99 increase sales 1-888-869-5520 ext: TKM 04.23.99 (800)899-8849 04.22.99 weight loss 1-888-240-2779 04.22.99 " 1-888-861-5357 04.22.99 " 1-800-242-0363 ext. 2460 04.22.99 LD calling 800-400-8532 04.21.99 meet girls 1-800-750-GIRL (4475) 04.19.99 make money 1 800 345-9688 ext 9630 04.19.99 make money 1-800-636-6773 ext. 3886 04.19.99 credit cards 1-888-264-9272 04.19.99 merchant accounts 1(800) 600-0343 ext. 1234 04.16.99 canada vacation 1-888-682-0043 04.12.99 MLM 888-386-4290 refcode JDC 0411 04.12.99 retire early 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 7777 04.12.99 cable descramblers 800-242-0363 ext.2748 quit smoking 1-800-328-7102 quit smoking 1-888-725-8419 www.casino-help.com 1-800-636-6773 ext.7635. avoid irs/money spam 1-888-217-2894 1-888-217-3291 marketing (800) 242-0363 EXT. 2427 computers/bulk mail (800) 242-0363 Designs In Life 1-800-340-0162 credit rebuilding (800) 337-5812 vmb/calling solutions (888) 546-5348 search engine spam (800) 771-2003 spam 1-888-445-0206 to be removed.. 1-888-829-1943 MLM 1-800-345-9688 ext. 4718 MLM 1-888-713-7210 height increase 1-888-829-1943 weight loss 1-800-345-9688 #3305 From: corporate@tssolutions.com 1-888-357-1852 To: gideqoo12@mci2000.com 800-600-0343 ex. 1256 (to leave a message) From: worldly55@hotmail.com 1-800-401-0209 PKirch1179@aol.com 800 607-6006 Ex 2492# press 1 stop smoking 1-888-725-8419 misc spam 800-242-0363 Ext.1659 Commercial Copier Sale 800-300-6693 Photo Sticker machines 888-386-4290 Reference code V462 From: rise7813w@yahoo.com (800) 771-2003 http://www.software602.com 888-468-6602. stop smoking 1-800-328-7103 web hosting spam 1-800-242-0363 x2361 www.hakai.com 1-800-668-FISH (3474) Commercial Copier Sale 800-300-6693 From: mailer@mail2.powercall.ca 800.427.6937 phone spam 800.473.9199 FAT-LOSS SPECIALIST 1-888-689-3097 spam 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 7777 Multilevel Marketing 1-800-600-0343 ext. 2310 associate mentor program 1-888-248-6850 psychic spam 1-800-372-3384 From: "Thomas" 1-800-248-1137 Online Fufillment Orginization 800-771-2003, "we do not send unsolicited email" 3.20.99 mailbox full From: z2jd@ibm.net 1-800-345-9688 Ext. 4500 From bessey678@systemage.co.jp 800-242-0363 Ext. 1457 weight loss crap 1-800-631-3299. unknown spam 1-800-242-0363 x2361 From: URTI3318@yahoo.com Email removal 800-771-2003, unknown spam 888.403.5601 unknown spam 800.242.0363 x2428 unknown spam 1-888-248-7073 From: 1-800-328-7103 From: JCh7649460@aol.com 800-607-6006 box 2666# Cyber Advertising Systems 1-800-409-8302 Extension 1284 From goldbrg6@usa.net Thu Mar 4 CALL 1-888-264-9272 From: 1-877-449-Rocket From: SPhil79466@aol.com 1 800-607-6006 ex 2492# call now! From: pbhy@msn.com 1-800-593-3645 From: loqaswe@pvtnet.cz 1-800-320-9895 Ext 7040 From: amscott@hamkk.fi 1-800-320-9895 Ext 7040 From: Call now (800)811-2141 800.226.0633 (second number) From: JVERDUCE@aol.com 1-800-350-9692 From: y2kreport@altavista.net 1-888-248-1529 From: hotbusiness@tu.koszalin.pl 1-800-322-6169 Ext. 1882 From: blueink8@hotpop.com 1-800-810-4330. unknown spam 800.929.3576 From: DOBBIE2ME@aol.com Call some of the following toll-free numbers and listen to what other people say about this business: *1-888-703-5389 (Gay Dietch almost didn't join) *1-888-269-7961 (Brenda Cook quit her job in 1 month) *1-888-446-6951 (Big Mac made $10,000 his first month) *1-888-731-3457 (Jeff Gardner makes $1,000/week) *1-888-256-4767 (Tim Nelson made $3500 his 1st week) *1-888-438-4005 (Paul & Deb made $2000 1st two weeks) *1-888-715-0642 (Steven F. made $50,000 in 12 months) Call the Top Secrets Information Hotline: *If you live in the US or Canada: *Call 1-800-811-2141 Code# 63128 (thanks to the dc-stuff denizens for their continued help) ---------------------- [TELECOM Digest Business Editor's Note: This late, last minute arrival to the above list comes from Frederic J. Salchli in email I received a couple days ago. Fred is NOT the originator of the spam, he simply sent it along knowing Digest readers would be interested in getting full details of the offer: Do You Currently Accept Credit Cards From Your Customers? THEN STOP BEING RIPPED OFF! Reduce your processing fees NOW with the LOWEST Discount rates available anywhere! Call our toll free number 1-888-735-1730 ============== The real rip off of course is done by spammers who think nothing of ripping off all the email and other network resources they need to promote their worthless and foolish schemes and businesses. Readers will recall that the 'phone the spammer into bankruptcy' concept originated here in this Digest several years ago when I made the suggestion it might help little Jeff Slaton learn about the meaning of life on the net, and all that. I am really glad to see that others on the net are practicing this philosophy regularly. It is just too much for one small group like ours to do alone. I recommend that henceforth, additions to the above list be sent directly to the list maintainers rather than me. I'll continue to publish the compilation when it comes out of course. I won't repeat the instructions; everyone knows what to do, and to refresh your memory, just read the opening paragraphs in this current issue of the 'business directory' which you may want to print out and keep near your phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Hospitalization Phone Experience Date: 11 Jun 1999 00:21:41 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS My mother was recently suddenly hospitalized. (Thank goodness she is home now and should be ok.) I'd like to share my telephone experiences during that time. The hospital was an hour from my home, 90 minutes from my job. My sister lives 1,000 miles away. The telephone was vital in keeping informed. We take the telephone for granted -- talking about good dates, bad dates -- but this time the telephone was critical, and I never appreciated as much. I could not physically be in two places at once and had travel time, so the telephone helped me assess the situation so I could be where best needed. 3-way calling: Bell Atlantic now offers a pay-as-you-go (75c) 3-way call. It was very useful in connecting my mother, myself, and my sister at the same time, especially when my mother didn't have regular access to a phone. 1-800-CALL-ATT: This drove me crazy. I often called my sister from the hospital pay phones. The pay phone was already an AT&T phone and it seems totally ridiculous to me to have to dial an extra 12 digits before making the call. Further, if I made a mistake on my calling card number, I had to redial from the very beginning. 10-digit 215: The weekend she went in, Philadelphia went to mandatory ten digit for local calls (one must dial 215 or 610 even for local calls). This in itself wasn't too bad, though a little annoying (it bugs me because it's unnecessary.) One thing that bothered me a lot -- if I forgot the 215, the intercept recording took about 10 rings to come on, wasting time (I thought the party was merely ringing.) I don't know why an intercept message can't be instanteous. Cell phone use while driving: I was on the road a lot. I was nearly hit twice by drivers distracted while talking on their cell phone. I see this all the time. It should be illegal to be talking on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, it is too dangerous and unfair to other motorists and pedestrians. Two lines: My mother's house has two lines, one is mine. I've thinking of pulling the 2nd line (mine) due to increased costs. After she came home the second line came in very handy -- I could make outgoing calls on it while keeping the other line open or enabling her to be on phone at the same time as me. My own cell phone: To my surprise, I used it only once (and then only because I was running late.) Communicating with the hospital/doctors: Going off topic, I was not satisfied with neither the hospital nor her doctors in keeping me informed about where I should be. I got notice of her discharge at the last minute and had to rush down. I can understand the hospital not wanting its nurses take time to answer calls from anxious relatives. But when the responsible family is out of area, as many people are today, more accomodations will be necessary. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for sharing, and we shall all keep your mother in our thoughts. The thing you said about your appreciation of the telephone under the circumstances is perhaps the main reason AT&T grew to be the largest and richest corporation in the world: precisely because none of us can imagine life without having at least one or two of their instruments at our disposal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Duncan Long Subject: Third Voice/Copyright Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:52:34 -0500 I don't think any copyright notice is necessary to protect your rights as per current US and International law. Just because a copyright is missing doesn't make it public domain (it did many years ago - but the law is changed). So ANYTHING that is copied and stored at the Third Voice site without permission would technically be in violation of copyright laws if they didn't secure permission to store it ahead of time. Of course if their program creates and overlay (and the comment that they don't serve up a page if it has been updated for fear comments would be "in the wrong place" suggests this), then it is another matter. Then it becomes a pain, but a legal one. The other catch in addition to the one you mention of having folks sabotage sites they disagree with is this: Do I really care what Joe Blow thinks about such and such a site? Especially if I have no idea who he is or what his qualifications are? Suddenly the mark-up info goes from being something like reading your favorite movie critic to reading graffiti on walls. It may be entertaining, but you can't judge whether or not it is factual or accurate and therefore will end up totally disregarding it after the "new" wears off. And if folks do dare to put their names on it, you open up the road for civil lawsuits, etc., etc., from big corporations -- leaving only the small fry to be critiqued by whoever wants to. All in all, this sounds about as attractive as an amateur paint can wielder operating in the dead of night without benefit of a flashlight. Duncan Long See 1st Encounters, an online gallery of artwork that will amuse, amaze, and sometimes terrify: http://www.kansas.net/~duncan/Artpage/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:01:21 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Third Voice Review Pat, Maybe I didn't say it clear enough -- M type characters do not hinder Third Voice -- it treats that like an 'a' - so whether I send 'a' or 'M' to make an 'a' appear on your screen, Third Voice will still see the 'a'. If the note author chose the first occurance of the letter 'a' (even if it was in the middle of a word) that would mean that as long as the character 'a' showed up on any page served with that URL the note would show up, tied to that letter 'a'. You could erase your entire webpage and send the single character 'a' and the note would show up, because you are transmitting the keyed text from the keyed URL. Or you could send just 'M' and the note would be there. Peppering   around the page have no effect UNLESS the note author chose to highlight that particular space as part of the key. So as long as note author's keep their reference anchors short (one word, one character) you are stuck with their comments. The only way to prevent a Third Voice message from being on the screen is to break the text string that Third Voice is keyed into. In this case (first occurance of letter 'a' served from that URL) don't use any 'a' characters on the page. Easy right? :-) BTW: You CAN encode a link into a note, but I have not been able to encode a picture. According to Third Voice's TOS it is not permitted to be used for commercial use or for spamming. But you know how easy TOS's get tossed. James Bellaire ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:57:33 -0800 From: Mike Bradley Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Hi, I saw your article in Computer Underground Digest. I had a thought that you might find helpful. Republishing a Web page is copyright infringement. When Third Voice sends a user the marked-up copy of the page, it is infringing the Web site owner's copyright. And since it is infringing for purposes of commercial gain (even if it's giving the software away, it's making money somehow), the infringement is criminal. Further, if the Web site owner registers the Web site with the Copyright Office before the infringement occurs or within 90 days of first publication, he can sue not only for actual damages, but for costs and statutory damages, as well. For reference, see the US copyright law: 17 USCS Sects. 501-511. Tell everyone you know! Mike Bradley National Writers Union-UAW ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 22:23:23 -0700 From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It From your description of Third Voice, it does not alter people's actual web sites at all. The only people who will see the "alterations" are those who choose to use the Third Voice browser. Sort of like a filter in reverse. How is this different in principle from a service such as Babelfish? John David Galt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The difference between the two is that Babel Fish takes the original content as it appears and simply trans- lates it into a different language. If I include a 'form' on my page inviting users to make this translation if they find it helpful, then I have authorized Babel Fish as my agent to translate the page and return it from their server. With TV, the content returned is *in addition to* the original work; it becomes like a derivative of the original, a work that was not authorized by the original writer, and a work that does not aid in the understanding of the original content as Babel Fish would do (in theory at least). PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:51:05 PST Organization: Shadownet sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) writes: > I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get > a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. > Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just > that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? More likely, they just got around to configuring the system in the manner recommended by the FCC and various industry groups. According to such recommendations, 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX should *always* go thru. This is so you can set up dialers in a uniform manner. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar) Subject: ADPCM vs/ PCM Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:52:52 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi! HWat is the difference between PCM and ADPCM ? Thanks, Alonzo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 20:22:17 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Salon Technology: Should Hackers Spend Years in Prison? Suggested reading: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/06/09/hacker_penalties/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: IMO, I do not think *anyone* -- hackers or bank robbers or anyone else -- except perhaps persons convicted of the most violent crimes should spend years in prison. All that does is clutter up the prisons and force an ever increasing budget to build and staff new prisons. May I suggest that if a person does not know what prison is about the day he first gets there, it is quite doubtful he will know what it is about ten or twenty years later. All prison terms should range from three to six months for first offenders; maybe in violent cases, two or three years. Very extreme and long sentences do nothing at all except virtually insure that rehabilitation of the incarcerated person becomes next to impossible, but of course, what good police officer would want it any other way? We can't be having people coming out of prison being reformed and rehabilitated and all that now can we? First thing you know, they are going to be acting like model citizens, and that outlook does not bode well for the corrections industry. If there is ever any real, sincere interest in putting penitence back into the penitentiary, or in having prison be the therapeutic experience it could and should be, then the entire existing system needs to be dumped and built from scratch. I cannot imagine anything but complete resistance to such a plan by the corrections industry and its 'street level agents', the police. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America Organization: Netcom Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 04:18:50 GMT jjs@eudoramail.com writes: > On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 07:57:57 -0600, Joey Lindstrom NU> wrote: >> A new computer virus is spreading throughout the Internet, and it is >> far more insidious than last week's Chernobyl menace. Named >> Strunkenwhite after the authors of a classic guide to good writing, it >> returns e-mail messages that have grammatical or spelling errors. It >> is deadly accurate in its detection abilities, unlike the dubious >> spell checkers that come with word processing programs. I would be interested in buying an anti-spam mail forwarder with this feature. I realize the article was a joke, but it has potential. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 04:21:32 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Computer Virus Halts Corporate America > A new computer virus is spreading throughout the Internet, and it is > far more insidious than last week's Chernobyl menace. Named > Strunkenwhite after the authors of a classic guide to good writing, it > returns e-mail messages that have grammatical or spelling errors. It > is deadly accurate in its detection abilities, unlike the dubious > spell checkers that come with word processing programs. > vulnerability of business's reliance on computers. "This is one of > the most complex and invasive examples of computer code we have ever > encountered. We just can't imagine what kind of devious mind would > want to tamper with e-mails to create this burden on communications," > said an FBI agent who insisted on speaking via the telephone out of > concern that trying to e-mail his comments could leave him tied up for > hours. Meanwhile, bookstores and online booksellers reported a surge > in orders for Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style." Pat - Once again, the anglo-cber geeks and TD are way ahead of me. Recently I bought, out of my own pocket, a Seattle bookstore's entire stock of said classic EoS and distributed them, gratis, to a wireless telecom standards meeting ... this will save me a lot ... a fine bit of work! -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #139 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 11 13:09:27 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA25946; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:09:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906111709.NAA25946@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #140 TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jun 99 13:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 140 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Portland, Oregon Calling Areas (Babu Mengelepouti) Netscape JavaScript Security hole (Monty Solomon) ISP Reveals Scientology Critic (Monty Solomon) Real Hackers Needed For Documentary Film (Stig-Lennart Sorensen) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Joseph T. Adams) Re: AT&T New Charges (Dan Lanciani) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Craig Williamson) Unsolicited Automated Calling (was Re: Unsolicited FAX (Jack Decker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 10 Jun 1999 23:52:14 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Portland, Oregon Calling Areas Pat Townson wrote: >> For example, in Chicago the basic area is a distance of eight miles in >> any direction, or normally, the subscriber's central office and the >> offices next adjacent to him in any direction. The calls are not 'free'; >> but they are untimed. As an example, for about three or four cents >> you can make such a call and talk as long as desired, where calls to >> places beyond the local or basic area are timed, at three or four >> cents for each timed interval. This applies in Chicago to residential >> subscribers only. Business subscribers get no basic or local area: >> they pay three or four cents for each timed interval regardless of >> where the called party is located within the 'local area' or LATA. Then Leonard Erickson (shadow@krypton.rain.com) wrote: > And in places like Portland, Oregon the local calling area is something > like 50 miles across (if I'm reading the map correctly). If you've got > "standard" phone service, there's no per call charge for your calls > inside most of that area. For an extra $3(?) a month you get all of the > area. All for a fixed monthly rate of around $25. > While we do have "measured service" available, state law forbids making > it mandatory. There are various plans available for the folks on > measured service. They pay a lower monthly fee, but pay some sort of > per call fee based on distance and possibly on time. Surprisingly, it is even farther across than that. It is actually a local call from Yamhill, Oregon (at the foot of the Coast Range) to Hoodland, Oregon (at the base of Mount Hood beyond Zigzag), a distance of over 80 miles. It is substantial north to south as well; from north Portland to Canby is about 30 miles. Prior to the 1994 expansion of the Portland Extended Area Service area, the total local calling area was, according to {The Oregonian}, in excess of 3,500 square miles -- second largest in the country behind Atlanta. I think that Portland is still in second place, but am not sure of the new extent of the local calling area. The additional territory (Hoodland, Canby, Aurora and Yamhill) was substantial. It is worthy of note that in the Portland area, it is a local call from anywhere within the Extended Area Service area to anywhere else in that area. Therefore, even if you are on the "edge" (in places such as Yamhill, Hoodland, Crown Point or Canby) you can still call anywhere locally that someone in downtown Portland could call. However, this does come at a price -- the farther from Portland you are, in general, the higher the monthly rate for telephone service. There are two dominant LECs in the Portland area, and a couple of independents and cooperatives which participate in the calling zone. GTE has most of the suburbs to the west and east of Portland, such as Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Gresham. USWest has the city of Portland, and the suburbs to the south and southeast, including Lake Oswego and Gladstone (hello Tonya Harding!). However, they do not have *all* of the southern suburbs; Tualatin is serviced by GTE (and is, interestingly, the only GTE city in the Portland area which operates [operated?] a Western Electric switch, a 5ESS -- GTD5 is the switch of choice in GTE's Portland territory). GTE also *used* to operate B-band cellular service in the Portland area until early 1995, when they traded their Portland territory for USWest Cellular's San Diego territory (USWest Cellular is now Airtouch). The largest independent is Cascade Utilities, which serves the depressed former timber town of Estacada and some small towns in the scenic Columbia Gorge (which are also local to Portland until you hit Sprint United Telephone's territory about halfway to Hood River). PTI Communications serves the small towns of Aurora and Charbonneau, which are on the southern outskirts of the Portland area, and also on the southern outskirts is the Canby Telephone Association, a cooperative that serves the town of Canby. There is also a cooperative which has as service area east of Oregon City called something along the lines of the Glorious People's Mutual Telephone Republic of Redlands, although the exact name escapes me at the moment. And yes, they are in the local calling area. :) As for measured service, it is *optional* but *not* required (in fact, the LECs prefer not to sell it). For a long time, it was not possible to have a measured service line in addition to an "unlimited" line, but the tariff changed in 1994 (after I and several other BBS sysops complained to the Oregon Public Utility Commission). This is important, because an "unlimited" line is useful but also quite expensive, ranging from about $18 per month in Portland to over $30 on the outskirts of the metropolitan area. For the price, though, unlimited means just that: unlimited. You may make any number of calls to anywhere in the local calling area for a flat monthly rate. There are no per call or per minute charges of any kind with this plan, which is called "EAS calling." There are two types of measured lines available: one, called "measured service," charges per minute for *all* local calls, measured by zone (which is based on mileage). Some of the per-minute zone calls can be over 7 cents per minute, when calling from one end of the metropolitan area to the other. There is another type of measured service called "community calling," which allows you to call any exchange in your own city (usually a central office) for no per-minute charge, but calls outside of your "community" are billed per minute as with a regular measured service line. There is *no* charge to receive *any* calls, so if your friend has "EAS calling" service and you do not, there is no reason not to make a very brief call and have him call you back immediately; some people do this in order to save money. However bizarre it may seem, even though Portland has such a huge local calling area, it's a long distance call across the river to Vancouver, Washington -- a flat, ugly but bustling bedroom community to Portland and a city in its own right (in fact the fourth largest and most religious-right Republican city in Washington state). It is also an *intralata* toll call to/from Portland, and the toll charges can be quite expensive; historically calls to/from Vancouver have been more expensive than coast-to-coast calls at the same time of day (though with intralata PIC in Washington this is slowly changing)! Many people who live/work in Vancouver "beat" this by maintaining cellular service. Every cellular carrier in the Portland area charges calls to and from Vancouver (and some as far as Longview, about 60 miles away) as a "local" call, at only the regular airtime charge (which is often less than the intralata toll charge). Portland is an interesting telephone market, and I wish more cities followed its example. Actually, I wish more cities followed the example of the Portland area in general. But I digress ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:52:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Netscape JavaScript Security Hole MacInTouch ... Kurt Kohler yesterday noted a JavaScript security hole in Netscape browsers that allows a site to gain access to personal information on your computer: "A new Javascript hole has been discovered in Netscape. It allows a web site to get various information from your browser including your email address. An example script is at [George Guninski's site], which also describes the attack. Although the site doesn't mention the Macintosh, the script does work with Netscape 4.6 at least on my Mac. The page suggests disabling Javascript, however I discovered that setting the application for displaying text/html files to an application other than Netscape also prevents the attack from succeeding." [The JavaScript security demo may lock up your computer.] http://www.nat.bg/~joro/viewsource.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:42:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ISP Reveals Scientology Critic by Polly Sprenger 2:15 p.m. 8.Jun.99.PDT In response to a subpoena, AT&T on Monday released the identity of a WorldNet subscriber to Bridge Publications, a corporate arm of the Church of Scientology. The subscriber, known as "Safe," had posted portions of the church's doctrine to a newsgroup critical of Scientology. The church claims that these postings violate its copyright, and under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act obtained a subpoena to induce AT&T to reveal Safe's personal information. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20087.html ------------------------------ From: Stig-Lennart Sorensen Subject: Real Hackers Needed For Documentary Film Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:59:39 +0200 Organization: University of Troms Hackers needed for documentary film fall 1999/spring 2000 Location (preferabely, not necessary) NYC or California area. My name is Stig-Lennart Soerensen, and I am a Norwegian hovedfags-student (university degree roughly equal to a PhD in the US) in visual anthropology and I am going to make a film about hackers, from their viewpoint. You tired of seeing hackers being criminalized by the state? This is your chance to tell your story to the world about hackers, the true story unaltered by media or goverment. The film will be of 30 minutes length, and be available fall of year 2000. Contact me for more information. A webpage will be put up in the next week with more information about the project. Stig aka AtomSmurf, Stig-Lennart Sorensen. Visual Anthropology, UiT, Norway. +47.776.46.348 (office) +47.776.46.541(film) stigls@stud.isv.uit.no ICQ:22567435 http://www.isv.uit.no/student/stigls ------------------------------ From: joe@apk.net (Joseph T. Adams) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: 11 Jun 1999 05:55:50 GMT Organization: Quality Data Division of JTAE Steven J Sobol (sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net) wrote: > On 3 Jun 1999 12:02:45 GMT, joe@apk.net allegedly said: >> We have the same thing in the greater Cleveland, Ohio area. The city, >> all of its older suburbs, and many of the newer suburbs in outlying >> counties all are in one more or less free, unlimited local calling >> area - among the largest yet remaining if I understand correctly. >> (Cleveland with its suburbs is a little less than half the size of >> Toronto or Chicago - about a thousand square miles and 2-3 million >> people.) > Hi, Joe! I beg to differ. Roughly 1.5 million people live in the metro > area, and it's not quite 1000 square miles. From the western edge of > I-480 (Cuyahoga County/Lorain County border) to the Geauga County > border on US 422 is about 32-33 miles, and from downtown to the edge > of Medina County, about 25-30 miles. So, about 800-900 square miles > (but that's a very rough estimate). OK Steve, nitpicking time. :) Actually the SMSA includes the six surrounding counties as well, yanking in Lorain, Elyria, Akron, Kent, Ravenna, Chardon, Mentor, and Painesville, more than doubling the population and multiplying the area around sixfold. Plus, people commute from well outside even the seven county area, although, generally, not in great numbers and only if they live *very* close to relatively good highways like I-80, I-76, or I-90. Now, I don't think it's entirely fair to put Akron and Lorain/Elyria, which if not for Cleveland would be considered separate metro areas, into the pie (even though the fedgov does). Nor is it fair to count entirely rural areas such as much of Portage, Geauga and southern Lorain Counties as being suburban. So I've made mental adjustments to exclude those areas, and come up with about 2.7 million population (that might be a little high now -- it's always decreasing due to Sun Belt migration) and a thousand square miles which is almost certainly a little low. Note that except for Lake and Summit, most of the population in outlying counties live either in the two largest cities or towns, or within a town or two of the Cuyahoga county line. I consider all of northern and western Lake County suburban, and therefore virtually all of its population, but none of Summit except the northernmost towns which are a very small part of Summit's population. > The local calling area is quite large, though. As much as people > complain about Ameritech, their rates are quite reasonable in this > area. About the only good thing about Ameritech. >> On the negative side: no DSL; > There are people working on that :) Please elaborate? We must be among the largest metro areas in the U.S. not to have any kind of broadband access. Certainly the largest (and I think only) one in Ohio. >> no cable modem access in the city or inner suburbs (to my >> knowledge); > That's not the phone company's fault, of course. The vast majority of > Greater Cleveland is served by Cablevision, which only now is starting > to roll out cable modems around their corporate home in the New York > City tri-state area. The city of Cleveland itself is also served by > Cablevision. > Cox and MediaOne are also in certain suburbs. MediaOne has broadband > access in Bay Village. Don't know about Mentor (the other suburb they > serve). Cox serves Lakewood, but AFAIK that's the only suburb they do > serve. They probably don't want to introduce the service in a market > where they have only a small piece of the action, I imagine. > Time Warner is all over southeast and Central Ohio, so people in > Akron, Canton and Columbus can get broadband access. Even Youngstown has it, which is embarrassing. Youngstown in most respects makes even Cleveland seem safe, prosperous, and high-tech by comparison. But they have broadband access. We don't, and I have no idea when we'll get it. >> switching facilities are 50 years old >> and don't consistently support high-speed modems, and it's a nightmare >> to try to get any of the the telcos (Ameritech, GTE, and Alltel) to >> install new capacity. > Don't I know it :) > One of the local ISP's had to wait *four* *months* to even get a > delivery date on a couple T-1's from Ameritech. And heaven forbid > you're working with a CLEC (which I think they might have been). If > Ameritech has to get involved ... well ... you may be in for a pretty > big hassle. The irony is that they seem to me to be doing this in order to protect what little business their ISP service gets, but, as far as I know, they get virtually none from this area (as opposed to metro Detroit and Chicago, where they are fairly big). Their ISP service, according to everyone I know who uses it at least in/near Detroit, sucks most grievously. I don't know anyone locally who's even gotten it to work. Joe ------------------------------ From: Dan Lanciani Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:25:12 EDT Subject: Re: AT&T New Charges dmet@flatoday.infi.net wrote: > What I will NEVER understand is why the LD carriers ever got involved in > collecting the line access charge ... the LD carriers claim they cannot > know if a person has more than one residential line which is correct ... Are you certain about this? The two carriers I'm currently considering (Matrix Telecom and Earth Tones) both claim to charge different PICC fees for the first and subsequent residential lines. The reps are unclear on whether this refers to multiple lines on one of _their_ accounts or in total. Can't they simply look at the PICC bill from the LEC to adjust their charge-back? Now, if I could be certain that the LD carriers can't tell how many lines I have then the optimization of PICC charge-backs is obvious: for two lines take the two lowest-charging carriers. But if they can tell then I should instead arrange my "first" line to go to one of the low, variable-charge carriers while my "second" line goes to a fixed-average-charge carrier like AT&T. But how do I tell my LEC which line I want them to consider "first?" With my luck they would contrive to pessimize my arrangement. And what about ISDN lines? They are always charged the higher, "second" line rate, but what if you have one analog and one ISDN? Does the analog line become "second" so that both lines are charged maximally? > My lack of understanding also extends to the universal service fee ... > why the heck is it not a certain percentage of usage? For the two carriers I mentioned above, it is a percentage. > You have to wonder if all these taxes and fees get sent to the correct > governmental bodies/funds or if some of the charges wind up in the > pockets of the carriers themselves. I don't wonder; I'm sure there is a net profit for the carriers. Besides, the PICC isn't even supposed to go to a government fund, right? On a related note, below is some "explanatory" text from one LD carrier's web site. I was referred to this site as having a particularly good and clear statement of the fee structure. It certainly seems to start with an unusually clear statement of the standard lie that most other carriers just try to imply. It then embellishes with additional multi-line and high-usage penalties that I had never heard of before. Anybody know if these additional numbers have at least some relation to something the LD companies are supposed to be paying? Or are they making them up completely? (begin quote) *Effective February 1st, 1998, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that we collect a MONTHLY "Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge" (PICC) as follows: Residential and Business Users that have only one phone line - 0.53" cents per month. Residential and Business Users that have two phone lines - 0.53" cents per month for the first line, and $1.50 per month for the 2nd line IF previous months' billing is LESS than $60.00. If previous months' billing is MORE than $60.00, the charge is $2.75 per month for the first line, and $2.75 per line (and per month) for EACH line thereafter. Residential and Business Users that have three or more lines will be charged $2.75 per month for the first line and $2.75 per line (and per month) for EACH line thereafter. Also, effective January 1st, 1998, the FCC has mandated that ALL long distance carriers levy a "Universal Service Fund Surcharge" (USF) as follows: 1) .72% (or .0072) on all inter-state, intra-state, and international traffic (proceeds are contributed to Schools, Libraries, and Rural Health Care). 2) 3.19% (or .0319) on all interstate and international traffic (proceeds are contributed to Lifeline, Link-Up and the High Cost Fund). For more information, please go to www.fcc.gov (end quote) Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Craig Williamson) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Organization: NCR Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 12:43:11 GMT In article , aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > In article , > Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Craig Williamson) wrote: >> In article , Seymour Dupa >> wrote: >>> Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >>>> It looks like it's illegal to call a voice number with a computer or >>>> recorded voice, and it's illegal to actually fax an unsolicted fax, >>>> but it's not illegal to keep trying to send a fax to a voice number. >>>> Am I right? I hope not. >> If it is illegal to call a voice number from a computer, why do I keep >> getting sales calls with silence till the computer switches over? > It's probably something like a Davox dialer that calls a bunch of > numbers at the same time with the assumption that the operator will > only get a live person on one line from that group. The object is to > maximize the efficiency of the call center agent at the expense of all > of the people who get either what appears to be a phantom disconnect > (phone rings and no one's there), or a recording asking the person who > answers to hold for the next representative. That may be true but that sounds like a computer calling to me. Also it takes several seconds to switch over if you are the one selected by the computer so even if you do get a person you might hang up thinking no one is there. I hang up knowing it is a sales call. Most of the time I do not get a recording telling me it is transferring the call, but rather several seconds of nothing and then someone comes on. "You know the rules. Either you tell -Craig Williamson us everything, or on your next date, Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM we follow you in a van." craig@toontown.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (home) - Harry Stone, Night Court ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:38:30 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Unsolicited Automated Calling (was Re: Unsolicited FAX aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > It's probably something like a Davox dialer that calls a bunch of > numbers at the same time with the assumption that the operator will > only get a live person on one line from that group. The object is to > maximize the efficiency of the call center agent at the expense of all > of the people who get either what appears to be a phantom disconnect > (phone rings and no one's there), or a recording asking the person who > answers to hold for the next representative. IMHO, calling and then just hanging up if no agent is available ought to be considered illegal nuisance calling, and the people who use these devices in this manner should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. After all, it is one thing to acidentally call someone and then hang up (because you got a wrong number perhaps) - it's rude to not apologize, but at least it's not illegal. However, the telemarketing scum are placing calls knowing full well in advance that a certain significant percentage will end with the called party being hung up on. That is not accidental. That is deliberate harassment. What these filthy scumbags may not appreciate is how upset a "hang-up" call makes some people, especially elderly people who live alone. Many elderly folks worry that it is a potential burgalar or rapist calling to find out if anyone is home before they actualy come over and do their dirty deed. Thus a single "hang-up" call can result in a night or two of lost sleep for the victim, as they lie awake worrying at every noise they hear. And even for those of us who are younger, an unwanted phone call can be a real nuisance, especially if you jump out of the shower or run in from outside to answer the phone, only to hear the hangup "click". I think devices of the type mentioned ought to be illegal to manufacture, import, or sell in this country. Any organization that wants to telephone people (for whatever reason) ought to be willing to pay for sufficient employees to listen to the unanswered rings and the busy signals, if that's what it takes to avoid deliberately hanging up on people. I would even find it less offensive (note I said LESS offensive) if the machine were programmed to deliver an automated sales pitch whenever a live agent was not available -- at least that way the called party would know that it wasn't an important call that they missed, nor someone calling to determine whether anyone is home for some evil purpose. But it should not just hang up on people, because that is extremely irritating to almost everyone, and more than a little frightening to many. Jack (To reply via e-mail, please make the obvious midification to my e-mail address.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #140 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 11 15:48:27 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA03904; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:48:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906111948.PAA03904@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #141 TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jun 99 15:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 141 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM (Steve Hayes) Re: NANP-Caribbean Rates (Nick Robson) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Ron Walter) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (Patrick Tufts) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (John David Galt) Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless (Walter Dnes) Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless (Bruce Robin) Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM (Wrong Number) Re: Billing - Integrated IP Networks (Renee Corley) Re: Area Code Quiz (Art Kamlet) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Favicon.ico (Bill Levant) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (John R. Levine) Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? (ken@postperfect.com) FS: Panasonic Phone System and Voice Mail (Timon Sloane) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:20:31 +-100 Hi all, In Telecom Digest V19 no. 139, Alonzo Alcazar asks: > What is the difference between PCM and ADPCM ? Hi Alonzo. I'm not sure how much detail you want but here goes: Most phone switching and transmission these days uses PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). With this, the instantaneous voltage of the analog voice signal is sampled 8000 times a second. Each sample is independently converted to a binary code of 8 bits and transmitted, giving a total data rate of 64000 bits per second. The phone system uses a non-linear scheme for converting the samples which uses smaller steps near zero volts and improves the dynamic range. There are two different non-linear systems used, Mu law (USA) and A law (Europe) but they are quite similar and it isn't a problem to convert between them. ADPCM is Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation. The signal is sampled in the same way but the differences between successive samples are encoded rather than individual samples themselves. This is the Differential part. The Adaptive part refers to a system for changing the step size in the conversion to binary code according to the overall loudness of the signal over a period. The advantage of ADPCM is that you can get a subjective quality on voice similar to standard PCM using 4 bits per sample which reduces the data rate to 32000 bits per second. However, equipment such as modems and faxes will certainly know the difference! ADPCM is also used at lower sampling rates (e.g. 6000 samples per second) and fewer bits per sample (e.g. 3) for less critical applications such as storing voice messages. These days, there are much more efficient coding schemes for voice such as those used on digital cellphones. These are much more complicated but can give good quality with less than 10000 bits per second. PCM (not necessarily non-linear) and ADPCM can also be used for stuff such as video but the details will obviously be different from above. To drift onto another topic: Whereas I actually know what I'm talking about above, I could also hazard a guess about the ADSL versus DSL question that was going here a while back. Normal ADSL requires filters to be installed at the customer end to keep the data signals away from the standard phones on the same line but there is a lower speed version of ADSL which works without the filters. This is a saving for the telco since they don't need to send someone out to fit them. My guess is that the marketing types are going to sell this as DSL and tell people that ADSL with filters is Advanced DSL or some such. Of course the terminology isn't right but when did they ever care about that? Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NANP-Caribbean Rates Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:30:02 -0500 From: Nick Robson Having just read Mark J. Cuccia's posting on the rates to the NON-US points of the NANP-Caribbean, when priced at "full tariffed" rates, being very expensive, I thought it may be interesting to the list to know what we pay from the Cayman Islands to the United States. Cayman Islands to US Full Rate US$1.70 per minute Reduced US$1.46 per minute Economy US$1.20 per minute The joy of a monopoly ... Nick Robson SCI Ltd. Grand Cayman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:21:35 -0500 From: Ron Walter Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It John David Galt wrote: > From your description of Third Voice, it does not alter people's > actual web sites at all. The only people who will see the > "alterations" are those who choose to use the Third Voice browser. > Sort of like a filter in reverse. That's my understanding as well. To me, it's something akin to grafitti using a special 'invisible paint' that could only be seen when wearing glasses designed to see that paint. Who would want to wear those glasses? After awhile the vandal is going to find out that the only people that will see his handiwork are other vandals. If that's the case, why buy the special paint? It appears that this thing will die a slow natural death. Ron Walter Capitol City Telephone ------------------------------ From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: 11 Jun 1999 17:00:59 GMT Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA Mike Bradley writes: > Republishing a Web page is copyright infringement. When Third Voice > sends a user the marked-up copy of the page, it is infringing the Web > site owner's copyright. And since it is infringing for purposes of > commercial gain (even if it's giving the software away, it's making > money somehow), the infringement is criminal. I believe Third Voice is supplying its users with the comments, not the original. This is no more "republishing" the original than if someone sold plastic transparencies with images that home users could tape over their TV set screen. --Pat ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:50:24 GMT Mike Bradley says: > Republishing a Web page is copyright infringement. When Third Voice > sends a user the marked-up copy of the page, it is infringing the Web > site owner's copyright. And since it is infringing for purposes of > commercial gain (even if it's giving the software away, it's making > money somehow), the infringement is criminal. One could equally argue that if I make notes in the margin of my textbook in class, then sell it, I've violated its copyright; or that if I share with my friends the notion of watching Star Wars through a distorting lens for fun (or we pass the lens around while seeing it on video), I've violated the copyright on the film. A preposterous theory. If it stands up, then the law needs changing. The copyright law is there to ensure that authors get paid IN ORDER to put more creative works in the hands of the public. In my view, the law should stop right there, and deny them ANY right to prevent others from obtaining copies or making derivative works so long as the author gets paid for each copy. This especially goes for software, my own field of authorship; I'm tired of reinventing the wheel. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless Date: 11 Jun 1999 00:12:34 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Tony Harminc wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:43:49 -0400 Monty Solomon > wrote: >> At its open meeting on Thursday morning, the FCC is expected to >> propose a national system of "calling party pays" (CPP), a scheme >> under which the caller to a cell phone pays the airtime charges rather >> than the cell phone's owner. > Oh great -- another scheme to make it difficult to call the US from > other countries! US telcos will quickly realize that they can't bill > callers from outside the US and will disallow such calls. I thought Of course they can. What makes you think they can't? Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:24:26 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 23:21:18 GMT, tzha0@ibm.net (Tony Harminc) wrote: > Oh great -- another scheme to make it difficult to call the US > from other countries! US telcos will quickly realize that they > can't bill callers from outside the US and will disallow such > calls. I thought those ridiculous "Easyreach" 500 numbers were > bad enough a few years ago - now this. Yeah -- I know CPP is > already used in Europe, and calls go through. But that's because > they figure overseas rates are enough of a disincentive to callers; > Canada to US LD rates are so low that no one thinks twice about > dialling a call to the US. What worries me is the potential for 809/664-type scams using ordinary phone numbers. The main question I have is whether the reverse-charges will apply to a recognizable "areacode" or prefix like 1-900-XXX-XXXX or 1-XXX-976-XXXX. If so, no problem. If ordinary phone numbers are eligible, watch for voters to vote for any politician promising to dismantle the scheme. 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: Bruce Robin Subject: Re: FCC May Reverse the Charges For Wireless Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:40:18 -0500 Organization: Sprynet News Service Reply-To: Bruce Robin This ought to be a neat trick ... It ought to be interesting to see by what means the FCC extends it authority to 'regulate' private property rights! Monty Solomon wrote in message: > Commission may also force building owners to allow wireless antennas. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is not that much of a trick. In lots of places -- almost everywhere -- various courts have ruled that easement rights (the legal authority to cross someone else's property with underground conduits for example) are more important than the property owner's rights to be left alone. This was litigated extensively years ago when telco wanted to dig a trench across some farmer's field to get phone service to the people on the other side. It was litigated in the earliest years of cable television when cableco had to run a master line into an apartment complex and then terminations into each apartment therein. Easement -- essentially the right to cross someone else's property when necessary to accomplish some task is a long established thing. In some cases the owner can demand compensation (for example, if a small sliver of land is being taken away from him permanently, or if what occurs on that small area would somehow detract from or deface or devalue the rest of his property -- example, a street is being widened and each property owner along the street must give up two feet of his front yard). In other cases where the utility company has agreed to completely replace any grass or soil which was removed, to replace plants, to reconstruct a sidewalk which was removed, then the property owner gets nothing or perhaps some small token amount for his inconvenience or out of pocket expenses during the excavation, etc, i.e. his power or phone service had to be temporarily interupted, it was necessary to reroute traffic through his parking lot, he had to remove to some other location for a short time during the work. Cablecos which had to enter onto an apartment complex with master wiring to serve perhaps only a few tenants in the complex who wanted cable television were required to carefully conceal their wires when possible, to patch up and paint any holes in walls, to insure that wires attached to the outside walls of buildings did not cause any structural damage as they were being bolted in place, and more. They had to consult with the property owner's maintainence staff and use when possible existing conduits from telco. But the catch is, the property owner *could not forbid them access to do the work*, nor demand 'rent' for the space they were occupying, etc. Had they reneged on any repairs or replacements needed afterward, he could have sued them I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wrong@home.net (Wrong Number) Subject: Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM Date: 11 Jun 1999 02:18:06 GMT Reply-To: badams@infi.net In article , alcazar3@my-deja.com says: > What is the difference between PCM and ADPCM ? About 4 bits. ------------------------------ From: Renee Corley Subject: Re: Billing - Integrated IP Networks Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:35:55 -0500 Likely answer is that some will charge for one or the other or both. CDRs can easily document per call statistics on time of call, bandwidth utilized, average (estimated) latency, average jitter, duration of call, total number of packets transmitted/received at each site, supp service (fwd, hold,conf, transfer) invoked for any call reference leg, etc. New IP telcos are likely to continue to use charge by minutes for awhile, but based upon data that can be delivered to a customer, they will be able to charge against a service level agreement tied to these parameters. So the savvy customer can buy service based upon service levels with alot more granularity than today. Dave Corley ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Area Code Quiz Date: 10 Jun 1999 22:34:17 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Phil Smiley wrote: > Area code splits, LEC routes interlata calls to customer's PIC. > Customer forgot to fix their internet NPA and now those calls go to > the IXC who routes them after permissive dialing period. Who screwed > up? NANP administration (Telcore?) generates CIF "tapes" at least weekly, and all LECs and IECs and maybe others (e.g.,wireless carriers) are responsible for gettong and applying the CIF data on time. The CIF data contains all of the dates (start of permissible dialing period, end of pdp, etc) for the NPA-NXXs (I am not sure how CIF database gets changed with the advent of Number Pooling) the carrier needs to apply to all of its switches, billing and admin systems. How they get the CIF data and how their own systems apply the data is up to each LEC/IEC/other carrier. Maybe customer was supposed to register a change somewhere, but I doubt it. Look, would anyone really be surprised if in not that many years, NPA will no longer specify any particular geographical area and the whole NANP wsill be overlayable anywhere, and true number portability (maybe not a traditional telephone number; more like an extended IP number?) will be here. The technology to do this in a pretty kludgy way is here already but even kludges cost lots of money, so won't be here right away. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: 11 Jun 1999 00:17:15 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , John R. Covert wrote: > We've had some interesting discussion in TELECOM Digest about the > shutdown of the GSM system in Washington, D.C., but I'm amazed that no > one has pointed out the real serious lossage that the planned shutdown > causes. > According to Larry McDonnell, Director of Public Relations at Sprint > PCS, their entire GSM network will be shut down shortly after November > 1. See the press release at http://www.sprintspectrum-apc.com/news.html. [...] > After November 1, if it is really true that Sprint-APC will shut down > and no one else will be ready at that time to operate a new GSM > system, then we will have the national embarrasment of being the only > capital city in a developed country where international visitors > cannot roam with their GSM phones. So? The European PTT-industrial complex shouldn't have chosen frequencies for GSM that it knew would never be available for use in the U.S. in a vain effort to ensure market share for European, often wholly or partly state-owned, telecom equipment manufacturers in the phone/cell switch market, thus setting the stage for the development of competing, arguably technically superior standards in the U.S. So it backfired. So the Europeans pay. Try to play cutesy politics in the free-market world, using dominance over standards processes to restrain competition, and watch what happens ... I say if you do that you deserve what you get. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA Date: 11 Jun 1999 00:18:55 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Danny Bateman wrote: > I will be visiting the US from Israel this summer. I own a Nokia 2160 > CDMA cellphone. My cell provider here ("Cellcom") can give me a > number in the US (another NAM). Calls will cost me $1.45/minute to > anywhere in the US. Note that this puts the lie to the "GSM is the only way to do international roaming" nonsense which recently reared its head in this forum. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:51:00 EDT Subject: Re : Favicon.ico > By now I hope people realize that if I was really in > the selling mood, this Digest would have been gone years ago. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. If so, I'm sorry; I surely didn't mean to. And I've been around here long enough to know about that contribution from the big software company; I didn't mean to imply that you'd sell out; I was only trying to (humorously) point out a scenario I thought you'd missed. My wife says I shouldn't quit my day job for comedy. Perhaps she's right. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, you did not hurt my feelings, and the issue you raised is a good one. Things are changing so rapidly on the net that people always have a right to question what appears to them as 'obvious' conflicts of interest. All one can do is try to explain why that is not the case. Is there anyone reading this who remembers when {Reader's Digest} first began accepting advertising in its magazine, back in the middle 1950's? When DeWitt Wallace and Lila Acheson first started the magazine in 1920 in a small room in the Greenwich Village apartment they shared in New York City, they were adamant that the Digest would never carry any advertising, because advertising would be a conflict of interest with their stated goal for the publication, which was to review large numbers of magazines and select only the finest articles, of enduring significance for their busy readers who would not have the time to go looking for all these articles on their own. Lila Acheson once commented, "I sit at my kitchen table at night and type all the articles which will be used in the next issue; advertising would only cause the reader to think that somehow I had selected an article for the Digest based on the advertiser's desires." They published the Digest out of their small apartment for several years, always advertising free, usually 20-25 pages stapled together (saddle- stitched actually) with a table of contents to the issue, and sold it for fifteen cents per copy to whoever would buy it. They began using pictures after their second or third issue, and began having it printed on a web-press someplace in New York. Each issue had articles by well know religious people of the time such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, condensations of longer articles from {Atlantic Monthly}, {Harpers}, and the {Christian Science Monitor}. Never a single advertisement. By the 1930's they had moved their publication into new headquarters in Pleasantville, NY, and it was a full time job for both Mr. Wallace and Ms. Acheson. Sometime in the early 1950's, after more than thirty years of being advertising free, Mr. Wallace wrote in an 'open letter to readers' saying that because of financial circum- stances, they had to make a choice: either raise the price of each issue of the Digest from fifteen cents per copy to 'at least 25 or 30 cents' **or** keep the price as it was but start taking in advertising. Which would the readers and subscribers prefer? The results of the poll were a couple months later announced that readers overwhelmingly preferred to pay more for the Digest, but have it continue to remain free of advertising. So the price went up the next month, and by now the little magazine which started out with 25 pages and a stiff cardboard cover on each issue was closer to a hundred pages with glossy photos and nice cover illustrations, etc. Lila Acheson said they wanted to make sure the readers 'got their money's worth' after the increase in cost for subscriptions. For some reason however, within about a year they had started taking advertising anyway, and that acceptance of ads was followed shortly thereafter by still another price increase. Mr. Wallace and Ms. Acheson retired from any active participation in {Readers Digest} about that time, and the Reader's Digest Corpor- ation took over everything. Wallace and Acheson have both been deceased for many years now, so they obviously do not know how their little magazine is now published in dozens of languages each month; has long since abandoned the editorial format of its early days, and runs more pages of advertising each month than it does articles, the 'enduring significance' of which is highly questionable. Then, like American Family Publishers, the Digest got involved in the 'magazine sweepstakes' racket, i.e. 'you may have already won one million dollars, just mail in the coupon enclosed ...' and its reputation sank even further from a point in the 1940's when the Digest, was considered, along with the {Christian Science Monitor} to be one of the most honest, truthful, and well-written publications in America. I do not think that DeWitt Wallace and Lila Acheson would be at all happy today to see what has happened to their little Digest magazine, but, as 'they' say, money talks, everyone else walks. And I suspect fifty years from now, yours truly will not be very happy to see what TELECOM Digest is like; I am sure by that time it will be long out of my hands; I just hope the next person takes good care of it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? > Point 2: the article indicates the exploration of Service Area Codes for > "Caller Pays" service. Well now, isn't THAT a step backwards! It's essential. If you can't tell from the NPA-NXX how much a call is going to cost, the only reasonable thing for a PBX owner to do is to block it. This is one of the reason that 500 numbers are dying a well-deserved death -- depending on where the number's user had forwarded it, it might cost 25 cents (which these days is already too much) or it might cost a whole lot more for an international call. And in-band warnings don't help, since PBXes can't understand them. Without a special SAC, you'll quickly find that cell prefixes are blocked like 976 and 500 calls are, and I doubt that's what any cellular users want. But anyway, there's no need for a new SAC, since we already have a perfectly good SAC for calls that have an extra charge for the benefit of the recipient: 900. Or if you don't like that, reuse 500. Yes, this means that callers at many businesses won't be able to call you if you have a cell number that costs extra to call. What did you expect? In the long run, I agree that charges for cellular airtime will go away, and the whole issue will become moot. The 500 minute/month packages that PCS providers offer are already pretty close to that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: ken@postperfect.com (ken) Subject: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:51:08 GMT Planning on purchasing a Siemens 2420 system for home use Property size 1.5 acres Main requirements are: 2 line capability on all extensions Intercom capability between any and all extensions Clear audio - not noisy - no breakup Extended range - Must reach 500 feet from inside house to back garage with NO problems Handset should be comfortable to use with extended time. Any thoughts regarding this system?? Does anyone know of any bugs with this system?? Thanks, Ken ------------------------------ From: Timon Sloane Organization: FlowWise Networks Subject: FS: Panasonic KX-T123211D Phone System and Voice Mail Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:33:15 GMT I'm selling a Panasonic small office phone system on EBay. This system can handle 32 extensions and 12 outside lines. If you are interested, the auction can be found using the following link: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=113587336 I'm selling a Panasonic Voice Mail System also. The system can handle up to 4 simultaneous users, and can be programmed to provide auto-attendant and numerous other functions. This is a great system for running a small to medium sized office. The auction can be found on EBay using the following url: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=113590903 timon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #141 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 11 17:19:16 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA09013; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:19:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906112119.RAA09013@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #142 TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jun 99 17:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 142 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AOL Subscribers Can Be Sued in Virginia, Judge Rules (Monty Solomon) National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Matthew Black) Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (James Wyatt) International Signaling? (Andy Etherington) Re: Phone Bill Robbery! (Jeff Colbert) Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It (nospam) GSM vs CDMA/TDMA (James Gifford) Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear (Matthew Black) Bell Atlantic Response to CPP (Eric B. Morson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: AOL Subscribers Can Be Sued in Virginia, Judge Rules Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:04:40 -0400 Suppose you are engaged in a vicious online debate with an opponent in Virginia. Imagine, too, that you have just written an insulting message about your foe while hunched over your home computer in another state. With the help of your America Online account, you post the message to a typical no-holds-barred Usenet newsgroup, a kind of electronic bulletin board that can be read by Internet users all over the world. Soon after, your opponent reads the message and decides that you have crossed the line and libeled him. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/cyber/cyberlaw/11law.html Ruling Has AOL Members On Alert June 11, 1999 Patricia Fusco, InternetNews.com Assistant Editor ISP News Archives Virginia's long-arm of the law has reached out and grabbed the attention of America Online Inc.'s members nationwide. Late last month, a federal district court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that AOL members can be hauled into a Virginia court to answer for lawsuits, no matter where they live. http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_136521,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 11:31 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Greetings. The author of the following netnews item hits a number of quite salient points regarding this issue, with which I am largely in agreement. It is forwarded with his permission. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum -- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report and Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ---- Forwarded Item Begins ---- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:28:15 -0400 From: Mike Fox Newsgroups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm Subject: Re: U.S. FCC offers calling party pays rules Marcus AAkesson wrote: > It's interesting to see how different views You can have on this > subject. Since CPP is the norm here in 99% of all calls, I just think > Your way is equally incomprehensible. If someone calls me, why the > heck should I pay for that? This discussion comes up like clockwork every month or two on the cellular newsgroups. The key fact that everyone overlooks is that Europeans, who usually argue for CPP on this newsgroup, are used to paying metered rates for EVERY CALL THEY MAKE. In the U.S., local landline phone calls are almost always flat-rate, i.e., we don't pay for local calls we make OR receive on a landline. We only pay metered rates for long-distance. The U.S. consumer does not pay metered rates for calls from landlines that are not long-distance, and does not want to! The other key fact that everyone overlooks is that in the U.S., cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here like it -- they have bitterly fought any and all efforts to set aside special area codes for wireless, and are still fighting it today. So I have no sympathy for them when they have a hard time getting CPP accepted because it's hard to tell if you're calling a cell phone. Cell-phones are seen as a convenience item, with the cell phone owner paying for all the airtime associated with the convenience of being able to call or be called anywhere. If cell-phones are truly going to compete with landlines, then they are going to have to behave like landlines to callers, i.e., no charge to dial them if the phone number is local. Europeans on alt.cellular.gsm like to accuse Americans of being parochial because we did not embrace GSM like they did. They may have a point there. But they are being parochial by assuming that the phone billing paradigm that works in Europe would be accepted here. It will not. You Europeans are used to paying out the nose every time you dial the phone, so CPP is perfectly sensible to you. Americans are not, and CPP will be seen as yet another ripoff against consumers by the telecom industry. Some Americans are pushing this idea here, no question. But they fall into mainly two groups: 1. Heavy cell phone users who are deluding themselves into thinking that they can get someone else to pay for some or most of their airtime. 2. Cell phone companies, who are looking for more ways to squeeze more money out of people -- what better group than those who aren't their customers? Are they going to waive the CPP charges if the cell phone being called still has unused package minutes? Of course not. What if it's a "one-rate" phone? Don't fool yourself. Will there be promotional rates or discounts for CPP charges? NOT! CPP charges are the "foreign ATM" charges of the cell-phone industry -- a way for companies to increase their revenue without providing any additional service, all the better if they can squeeze it from those who are not their customers and cannot shop around for a provider when they call a person's cell phone number. The FCC is pushing this for no other reason than because #2 above is a very powerful lobbying force. Mike ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Date: 11 Jun 1999 20:16:57 GMT Thanks for describing this problem so succinctly. Appears to me that that the Usenet members asking for "caller pays" are cell phone owners. It seems odd that I would have to pay above and beyond toll charges for their convenience. I would be happy to reach an answering service when the phone owner is not near his/her land line. If my company can't predict the cost of a call before placing it, they'd block ALL outbound calls just like we block the Caribbean. Does anyone else see the problem here? -----------------------------(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 ------------------------------ From: James Wyatt Subject: Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:44:38 -0500 Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!) On 9 Jun 1999, John McNamee wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > The real problem with the bundled Internet service from the cable > companies is that it sucks. TCI @Home is the biggest cable Internet > provider, and their backbone and peering points are seriously > overloaded. The service often goes down, sometimes for days at a > time. Their technical support is also very poor. I know there are > real technical problems with opening the cable infrastructure to > multiple ISP's, but as a consumer, I *really* want a choice. The > "last mile" of wire to the home might be a natural monopoly; Internet > service and other digital content clearly are not. Do you *have* a CableModem? Do you know how to spell 'traceroute'? While I personally have DSL and am *thrilled* with it, I have several friends with CableModems on Marcus and TCI (in Fort Worth and 'burbs) that like them. Working for the leading DSL ISP in the area and having years of telecom experience/bias, I expect better service from DSL. My DSL rides the same last mile as my 911 service, so I expect that to be fixed quickly. CM support also requires more cable plant upgrade than DSL, but can cover more folks. While CMs are cheaper and have more potential 'exposure' to attack and last mile outages than DSL, @Home seems to be trying hard to keep the INet connection fed well. While a friend had his disconnected for ten days, it has so far proven to be the exception. There were complaints some time ago about TCIs proxy, but it was optional. (I don't know if it's better yet) Remember, it is *cheaper* and fine for many folks 'Net surfing. The "real problem", IMHO, is that the service is provided only by cable companies and single sourced. If you are in an older neighborhood with little utility contruction and have a good cable company, you may love it. If you are in a area with unstable cable plant (newer 'burb or apartment), your inet will suffer. DSL can have these same problems, but hasn't so far in my experience. (see 911 reference above for why I think so) While you can change your ISP if their backbone connection isn't up to it, you can't with CMs. That said, backbone doesn't seem to be a problem with the CMs here yet - only one user reporting light afternoon slowdowns that may be eBay's fault. I have never heard of @Home being down for 'days at a time', so I would *really* suspect the local cable company. I don't 'like' our local provider much, but I can't complain much about them as I've elected to avoid their services. I also know of two folks tossed-off of @Home for 'abuse' when they put up a server - and they lost their install fees, of course. I know of no one kicked-off of DSL for that yet - and you can still change ISPs on DSL if it happens without losing your $200 install investment. I have seen some folks get pretty rabid against @Home when they were told they couldn't run a server. I guess the point of all this is: Make sure it isn't last-mile problems before you blame @Home. If there are last-mile issues with your cable provider, they will kill the service of any ISP you chose to interchange your packets with The Net anyway. Another point might be: Check your facts and post a bit more detailed analysis rather than conjecture. If you have a cable modem and can prove that @Home, not your local provider is at fault, I'd like to hear more about it. - Jy@ ------------------------------ From: Andy Etherington Subject: International Signaling? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:21:02 -0500 Organization: OnRamp, http://www.onramp.net/ I'm looking for information regarding the outdialing of country codes in an inband Feature Group D trunk. The latest specification that I have says that the protocal will look like this (pardon the ASCII graphics): Originator Terminator Seize ---------------> <--------------- Wink KP+0ZZ+NNNN+CCC+ST ---------------> <--------------- Wink KP+II+ANI+ST+KP+DN+ST ---------------> <--------------- Wink This indicates that the country code is 3 digits, padded with 0s on the left (i.e. country code 7 is padded to 007). It is my understanding that country codes are expanding to accomodate 4 digits (Iridium, for example, is listed as country codes 8816 and 8817). I cannot find anywhere what the protocol changes are. Is it just padding the country code to 4 digits instead of 3 in the 0ZZ string, or is it something else? Are existing switches programmed to accept either 3 or 4 digit country codes, or will they reject dialing patterns they don't recognize? Help! I need this information by this afternoon! Thanks, Andy Etherington ------------------------------ From: Jeff Colbert Subject: Re: Phone Bill Robbery! Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:00:01 GMT Actually, the loop was paid for by the state of Iowa taxpayers. Its prime purpose is to provide connectivity to all of the schools in the state. A side use was to upgrade phone service in rural communities. It has been controversial, but there has been much benefit. The benefit to dollars spent has not been good. Jeff > I'm so pleased that you enjoy the modern switch paid for by all those > Supplemental Line charges on the phone bills of big city customers. As > long as all that money went for a good cause. ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) Subject: Re: Web Sites Defaced; Webmasters Unaware; Can't Stop It Date: 11 Jun 1999 13:50:29 -0500 In article , Mike Bradley wrote: > Republishing a Web page is copyright infringement. When Third Voice > sends a user the marked-up copy of the page, it is infringing the Web > site owner's copyright. And since it is infringing for purposes of > commercial gain (even if it's giving the software away, it's making > money somehow), the infringement is criminal. Technically, they are _not_ republishing, only providing an 'overlay' onto the real page when it's displayed on the browser of a user who chooses to run Third Voice plugin on their browser. No infringement. > Tell everyone you know! > National Writers Union-UAW Tell everyone what? I'd tell them that the Internet changes everything. If I buy a copy of 'Time' magazine and write comments in the margins then try to resell it, that would be a derivative work, and thus infringe on copyright. If I make a special set of transparencies that, when you overlay them on the pages of 'Time' cause my witty comments to appear in the appropriate area of the page -- you still need to buy your own copy of 'Time' for it to work -- then I do not infringe. This is what Third Voice does. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find your one sentence paragraph above to be particularly true: 'the internet changes everything'. Indeed, nothing is going to ever be the same again as a result. You perhaps cannot appreciate this unless like some of us older people you can sit on a fence between the new and the old and how we did things 'way back when'; an examination of that is when you truely begin to understand that 'the internet changes everything'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:57:00 GMT I understand the standards and general usage pattern of GSM and CDMA, but I've been having some trouble understanding why either is preferable. Is there any genuine advantage to either, or is it a VHS/Beta kind of argument? (I have access to both types of network where I live, so it's not an entirely theoretical question.) Thanks. | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear (was Unsolicited FAX) Date: 11 Jun 1999 20:05:26 GMT Organization: Your Organization Recently I a string of calls with just a beep tone and nobody there. Hello ... hello? No hang up and no response. About half an hour later I received a call from the California Relay Service. Turns out that a hearing impaired person was calling my number with his TTD and couldn't get through to a friend. Of course, I relayed through the operator that he had the wrong number ... he (the caller) never bothered to apologize or thank the Relay Operator for trying. ----------------------------(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 ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric B. Morson) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:59:58 -0400 Subject: Bell Atlantic Response To CPP Thought this might interest all of you ... Bell Atlantic Mobile Applauds FCC Action on 'Calling Party Pays' June 10, 1999 Media contact: Nancy Stark, (908) 306-6762 BEDMINSTER, N.J. -- Bell Atlantic Mobile praised today's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) action to move Calling Party Pays (CPP), an option allowing wireless customers to choose to have callers pay for the call, one step closer to reality. Currently in the US, wireless customers pay for both outgoing and incoming calls. "The leadership of Chairman Kennard and the Commissioners on Calling Party Pays is a giant step forward for wireless consumers, who today number one out of every four Americans and growing," said Dennis F. Strigl, President of Bell Atlantic's Wireless Group and CEO of Bell Atlantic Mobile. "CPP will make wireless immediately more valuable for current consumers, more affordable to those who do not yet have wireless, and more competitive with landline service." Strigl and Bell Atlantic have long been proponents of CPP, which is the norm for wireless service outside the US. The company has offered the option on a local basis for several years through a wireless subsidiary it operates in the Phoenix area. Bell Atlantic Mobile plans to offer CPP by the end of the year. Bell Atlantic Mobile owns and operates the largest wireless network in the East, covering 120,000 square miles, and the largest chain of retail outlets devoted exclusively to wireless voice, data and paging. Based in Bedminster, NJ, Bell Atlantic Mobile has 6.4 million customers and 8,000 employees from Maine to Georgia and, through a separate subsidiary, in the Southwest. Through its "Wireless at Work ..." community service program, the company uses its technology to help individuals and communities improve security and emergency communications. Bell Atlantic Mobile's parent, Bell Atlantic Corporation (NYSE:BEL) is one of the world's largest wireless communications companies, with domestic operations in 25 states and international investments in Mexico, Europe and the Pacific Rim. For more information on Bell Atlantic Mobile visit: www.bam.com; on global operations visit: www.bellatlantic.com/worldwid. Copyright (c) 1999 Bell Atlantic Corporation Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #142 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 13 22:04:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA03358; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:04:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906140204.WAA03358@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #143 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jun 99 22:04:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 143 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America (Tom Wheeler) FCC Press Release on CPP (Eric Morson) Re: Hospitalization PS - Phone Solicitors (Lisa Hancock) Canadian Privacy Law Dying (Monty Solomon) FTC Critics: Go Slow on Privacy (Monty Solomon) MCI Secret Taxes (Robert Freimer) GSM vs CDMA/TDMA (Rich Osman) AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (Alan Boritz) Hiding an Originating Phone Number (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex" (Alan Boritz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Tom Wheeler Subject: US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:28:21 -0700 US West's predecessor Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph started providing service in Arizona in 1911. The company was founded on the principle of "SERVICE, FIRST AND FOREMOST." One of its original founding fathers, Howard Vaille explained this principle by stating "On the one hand was the policy of our building exchange and toll lines only in the most thickly settled territory where an immediate adequate return could be expected, in other words SKIMMING OFF THE CREAM. On the other hand was the spirit of the Colorado Pioneer boldly pushing lines into sparsely settled sections because of a supreme faith on our part in the future of our state, and a fixed purpose to thoroughly and faithfully perform our duty as a public service corporation. Had our company turned down the appeals of the business interests of the state to weave its wires all over the state, it would have been doing nothing more than many other businesses would have done. But our people have always felt that as they had the Telephone business in their hands they were responsible as public servants to see that every nook and corner of the Commonwealth was served by us and that we must do our part." That vision of pushing lines into ALL corners of the state was responsible for making Arizona what it is today. An additional benefit of being a Bell System customer was that all customers had an equal chance of receiving state of the art improvements, no matter where you lived. In fact the first dial office in 1921 wasn't placed in Phoenix, Denver or Salt lake City, the high growth centers of that time, but instead was placed in Laramie Wyoming. It's too bad that the present CEO of US West Sol Trujillo has lost the vision so dearly held by our forefathers. Just listen to Sol's comments made February 3 of this year when he explained why we were acting like our competitors and cherry picking our best customers and selling 500,000 rural lines. "It makes no sense for us to increase investments in areas where we are prohibited from entering new markets-such as long distance and interstate data-that could help offset losses and provide money for investment in high-cost areas. Competition from companies focusing only on our high volume customers and the major investments needed to provide for the advanced telecommunications services that customers are demanding are driving our investment services." Too bad Sol had also forgotten his speech from December 1998 when he talked of the importance of high speed data communications to rural areas. Sol said, "Without High-Speed data services, Rural America will fail to retain existing businesses and attract new business and investment. Urban Americans who find themselves outside the high-end business corridors of cities will find themselves relegated to the status of second class citizens. When we deny citizens access to state of the art telecommunication services, we do more that deprive them of infrastructure. We deprive them of opportunity -- opportunity to learn and use the technologies of the information age. This is especially important to our young people. "The vast majority of Rural Americans face the very real potential of finding themselves on the wrong side of the Digital Divide, being deprived of essential telecommunications infrastructure." Sol followed that up with a Feb. 22, speech reaffirming the importance of infrastructure improvements to Rural America by saying, "Americas strength and economic vitality have been built on providing the infrastructures-like the Interstate Highway System-that provided access to everyone. We must not exclude the select few from their contribution and participation." These statements were made after US West had already announced the sale of 154,000 lines in 40 Rural exchanges in Arizona. Louise Rebholz, area marketing manager for US West, appeared on the local radio station and tried to explain how the sale would be a good deal for all involved. She stated that US West officials had decided that its rural customers could get better service from a small phone company because the new company would be eligible for money from the high cost fund, a portion of the Universal service Fund.20 To tell customers that "LIFE IS BETTER HERE" by selling them to a smaller phone company where they will be eligible for HIGH-COST MONEY from the Universal Service Fund fails to paint the whole picture of the Universal Service, and how those customers will be dependent on "Telephone Welfare" [Universal Service fund] from then on as a subsidy on their rates. She also fails to explain that the Universal Service Fund, [Telephone Welfare] is a limited fund, and what the effect would be by doubling its size by adding 154,000 more customers. FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, in a statement dated April 10, 1998 warns that Universal Service Funds are limited and that too many promises of funding have already been made. Selling rural exchanges seems to have become the preferred method to finance the improvements needed to stave off competition, especially when US West has spent over $15 Billion in outside business ventures, such as spending over $2 Billion in overseas investments and $10.8 Billion to purchase Continental Cablevision in 1996. How ironic that the $400 Million received from the sale of antiquated rural exchanges will be used to provide state of the art improvements for cities such as Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.20 The residents of Rural Arizona, abandoned by US West, will find that instead of cruising down the information superhighway that they will be rumbling down the telephone dirt road. Life certainly isn't better here. Tom Wheeler 102a Tombstone Canyon Bisbee Az. 520-432-4353 ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:36:08 -0400 Subject: FCC Press Release on CPP Here's the FCC press release on CPP: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/1999/nrwl9021.html Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Hospitalization PS - Phone Solicitors Date: 12 Jun 1999 02:38:10 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS P.S. I forgot one other thing -- phone solicitors. While I was waiting, most anxiously, for a call from my mother from the hospital for a status update, I got a telephone sales pitch call. I had to run for the phone from the bathroom. Normally I let the machine pick up when I'm indisposed, but this time I wanted to get the phone immediately for obvious reasons. Let me explain what happened and why. It was from the AT&T Universal Card. They wanted to sell me travel accident insurance. I don't her I wasn't interested. She kept on talking. I told her again I wasn't interested. She kept on talking. I then screamed at her at the top of my lungs "I TOLD YOU I'M NOT INTERESTED, YOU ^%$#%@(!!". Now, normally when I get a phone solicitor, I simply immediately hang up, or mumble "not interested", and then hang up immediately. But I wasn't thinking straight this time -- rushing from the bathroom plus being worried. Further, I do have the AT&T Univ card so I assumed this was an appropriate business call -- perhaps my card had been stolen or there was a problem with it! It took me a minute to register it was a sales call. I regretted losing my temper, but only because it got me more upset. I don't give a hoot for these solicitors. I think they've gotten way out of hand. I'm pissed about it. People do have lives, and most of us aren't sitting around just waiting for the phone to ring. It does represent a disturbance and interuption to my routine. Further, it often happens during dinner, while I'm in the bathroom, or anxiously awaiting an important call, as this time. While home during the day either at my place or my mother's, the phone rang a lot with sales calls. What is with these sellers? While I'm on my rant, allow me two other complaints. One company called me THREE TIMES -- they had my name from three different lists, saying my name different each time (ie different initials, asking for my (non existent) spouse). Another company keeps calling me at my job. It was my former bank credit card, sold to another company, and the card is now expired and closed. I've told them a million times not to call me at work, yet they still do. I think the nusiance for us consumers is that many sales lists are sold and sold again. I doubt it was really AT&T Universal Card (Citibank?) but maybe some company who licensed the list and their name. Controlling these releases becomes next to impossible as sellers get lists from widely different sources. Pat, thanks for your good wishes. My mother seems to be fine now. She is blessed to have good neighbors who keep an eye out for her -- they noticed she didn't look right and took her to the hospital -- turned out a couple of things did need attention. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While telephone solicitors cannot be blamed for calling at inconvenient times -- they have no way of knowing that there is a personal family crisis at the moment -- at the very least, they should listen carefully to the first couple things someone says to them on the phone. Like you, I normally just say I am not interested, then hang up. There is no need to be unnecessarily rude to the poor people on the other end of the line. As a study in contrasts, there were two such calls when I was at my mother's house a number of years ago helping attend to my father's funeral. He had passed away the day before. One telemarketing call came in, and of course I answered right away because it was possible the funeral home or some distant relative was calling, etc. It turned out to be a telemarketer. I cut him off in his first sentence and explained that I was at the present time dealing with funeral arrangements for a family member. He paused, was silent a second and then said, "I am sorry to have bothered you at a time like this; you understand of course I had no way of knowing. Will it be alright if I call back in a week or two?" His courtesy was impressive enough to me that I actually said yes, he could call again later in the month if he wished. That was about ten in the morning; shortly afterward I went to the funeral home so that I could greet visitors until the service later that afternoon; someone from the funeral home staff would go by the house later in the day to get my mother and bring her over in their car. I had been at the funeral home about an hour when they called me in the office for a phone call. My mother was on the line, on one side of a three-way call to tell me there was a man on 'the other line' demanding to speak to Mr. Townson about an urgent matter. I had her click the switch to bring him on the line, and after detirmining *which* Mr. Townson he wanted to speak with so urgently (he wanted my father) I told him that would be quite impossible under the circumstances. He was selling Home Improvements, roofing and shingles, that sort of thing. I told him my father had passed away the day before, and that at the moment I was attending to his funeral arrangements. This guy just kept on chattering and had the nerve to ask if, 'since your father is now deceased, are you going to be taking over the house, would you like to have a salesman call with no obligation?' That one, I admit, received a good tongue lashing before I dropped the receiver from a distance back on the cradle. Not only was he crude in his sales pitch, but he was deceptive. My mother switched the call over to me at the funeral home because the way he had first talked to her, she thought he was from a government agency reporting a building code violation. They get tricky that way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:07:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Canadian Privacy Law Dying by Matt Friedman 2:20 p.m. 11.Jun.99.PDT MONTREAL -- A Canadian law that aimed to bring Canadian companies into line with Europe's strict consumer data privacy laws has all but died. Bill C-54, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, failed to pass a third reading before the House of Commons broke for its summer recess Thursday. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20175.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:08:25 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Critics: Go Slow on Privacy by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. 11.Jun.99.PDT The US Federal Trade Commission moved too hastily in drafting new privacy regulations and failed to consider how the rules could harm small Web sites, Congressional leaders charge. In a Friday letter threatening hearings unless the FTC reconsiders, the legislators say that the proposed restrictions on what information Web sites may collect about minors did not include discussions of alternatives and may sharply raise the costs of online firms. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20159.html ------------------------------ From: Robert Freimer Organization: Caliper Corporation Subject: MCI Secret Taxes Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:16:08 GMT I recently discovered that MCI charges an additional tax on your bill if you have their supposedly free Delta Airline miles offer. I don't recall seeing anything on either Delta or MCI's site about this. I had complained on principal about a recent $.05 bill two months after I had switched carriers. Their response was that they would issue a credit for the past two invoices, for taxes relating to the Delta promotion, which had been lumped in with other taxes and surcharges. I'm curious how large this Delta "tax" is and if it might actually cover their cost of miles. Robert Freimer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:01:39 -0500 From: Rich Osman Subject: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA Disclaimer: I work for Nokia, we sell phones for both of these standards, but I work for Nokia Telecom, a major GSM supplier. I speak for myself NOT Nokia. If your concern is service for you, ignore the technology and buy service that suits your needs in coverage and features. The operator of the system makes or breaks the value to the customer. Coverage area and quality of service are influenced by the technology, but *set* by the operator. GSM and CDMA are tools, you need to look who's using them. If anyone tells you one is better than the other based on one fact or the other , wait a week, the race will have changed. CDMA has been described as superior to GSM because of better spectrum efficiency (only the operator cares) and better voice coders. You'll find folks on both sides of the argument. Both technologies have gone through several revs of the voice coders. New approaches to spectrum reuse have blurred the performance differences between the technologies. Me? I use GSM in Europe (the only way to go there) and IS-136 (USTDMA) from AT&T Wireless in the US. I have lots of friends that are Primeco CDMA users (and employees) and it works well because they generally use conservative system design criteria. Buy the service and features you need. Nokia's 6100 series phones are available for all three standards. 8-) gifford@nitrosyncretic.com wrote: > I understand the standards and general usage pattern of GSM and CDMA, > but I've been having some trouble understanding why either is > preferable. Is there any genuine advantage to either, or is it a > VHS/Beta kind of argument? > (I have access to both types of network where I live, so it's not an > entirely theoretical question.) mailto:Rich@Osman.com http://www.rich.osman.com Rich Osman POB 93167; Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) ARS: WB0HUQ ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:21:47 -0400 Seems to be a new feature of the "One-Rate" service. It prevents you from bypassing the "AT&T Connect" information service that will extend calls without your permission with no regard to the time of day and not give you the phone number they dialed, and prevents you from bypassing whatever network problems AT&T may be having that prevent getting a normal busy signal. It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up equal access -- completely. ------------------------------ Subject: Hiding an Originating Phone Number Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:34:12 GMT > I've heard of similar services for telephone calls; you call a number > which gives you a dial tone from somewhere in Iowa, so the called > party can't trace who called, or even find out what area of the > country the call came from, without a court order. Many 800-number LD services do this. You call the 800-number, enter the phone number and the pin, and the resuling call is untracable unless the company runnign the LD service cooperates. If you really want to hide your call, use one 800-number to call another 800-number service. If one of both of these services is of the pre-paid calling card sort -- so they have no information about you on record -- I think the call is completely untracable. In other words, you call one 800-number, enter an anonymous PIN, and then call another 800-number, where you do the same. Even if both companies keep records of incoming calls and CID (do any do this?), without precise clock synchronization there's no way to trace the call. All the recieving party knows is that they got a call from the second 800-number. All that company knows is that they got a call from the first 800-number. Joel ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex" Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:27:58 -0400 Got this response, when I called in a problem to Bell Atlantic that prevented callers from Jersey City, NJ, from reaching my home phone in Mahwah, NJ. Seems that the central office repair guy didn't know what a centrex was, or that he was responsible for maintaining it, and he was calling from the CO where that particular centrex lives. Gee, I wonder who B-A allows to come in to their CO's to service the centrex portions of their switches. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #143 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 13 22:51:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA05139; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:51:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906140251.WAA05139@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #144 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Jun 99 22:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 144 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Alan Boritz) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Adam H. Kerman) Re: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls (Ron Bean) Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Marcus AAkesson) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Arthur Ross) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: GTE Potential Impact on AT&T to Open Cable Network to ISP (F Goldstein) Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? (Richard O. Jones) Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? (Steve Winters) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:42 -0400 In article , lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) wrote: > Greetings. The author of the following netnews item hits a number of > quite salient points regarding this issue, with which I am largely in > agreement. It is forwarded with his permission. ... > ---- Forwarded Item Begins ---- > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:28:15 -0400 > From: Mike Fox > Newsgroups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.gsm > Subject: Re: U.S. FCC offers calling party pays rules > Marcus AAkesson wrote: >> It's interesting to see how different views You can have on this >> subject. Since CPP is the norm here in 99% of all calls, I just think >> Your way is equally incomprehensible. If someone calls me, why the >> heck should I pay for that? > This discussion comes up like clockwork every month or two on the > cellular newsgroups. > The key fact that everyone overlooks is that Europeans, who usually > argue for CPP on this newsgroup, are used to paying metered rates for > EVERY CALL THEY MAKE. In the U.S., local landline phone calls are > almost always flat-rate, i.e., we don't pay for local calls we make OR > receive on a landline. We only pay metered rates for long-distance. Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've encountered in the past 25 years of reading and auditing phone bills has been in GTE or Rochester Telephone territories where the carrier chose not to install sufficiently sophisticated equipment to to pick up and calculate the charges. Every RBOC I've encountered used a graduated method for charging local calls, but NONE were open-ended flat-rate. > The U.S. consumer does not pay metered rates for calls from landlines > that are not long-distance, and does not want to! US consumers pay metered rates for landline service in the largest markets in the US, whether they want to or not. Choice has nothing to do with it. > The other key fact that everyone overlooks is that in the U.S., > cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is > no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a > cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here > like it ... And that's the way consumers like it. Some people operate their daily business entirely on cellphones with no desire to call attention to it. Other people like it because it's none of your damn business whether it's mobile or not. > -- they have bitterly fought any and all efforts to set aside > special area codes for wireless, and are still fighting it today. So I > have no sympathy for them when they have a hard time getting CPP > accepted because it's hard to tell if you're calling a cell phone. I'd love to see your sources on this one. The identity of at least one cellular carrier who has "bitterly fought" against seperate area codes for mobile services (with an area code full of available numbers) should be enlightening. The single best argument for CPP, however, might be in support of telemarketers. If a teleslime operator chose to blanket mobile phone customers, his expenses might double or triple if his rotaries ran over blocks of mobile numbers. That, by itself, is a powerful incentive for CPP, IMHO. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 From: ahk@chinNYETSPAMet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:40:27 GMT > Marcus AAkesson wrote: >> It's interesting to see how different views You can have on this >> subject. Since CPP is the norm here in 99% of all calls, I just think >> Your way is equally incomprehensible. If someone calls me, why the >> heck should I pay for that? > This discussion comes up like clockwork every month or two on the > cellular newsgroups. > The key fact that everyone overlooks is that Europeans, who usually > argue for CPP on this newsgroup, are used to paying metered rates for > EVERY CALL THEY MAKE. In the U.S., local landline phone calls are > almost always flat-rate, i.e., we don't pay for local calls we make OR > receive on a landline. We only pay metered rates for long-distance. > The U.S. consumer does not pay metered rates for calls from landlines > that are not long-distance, and does not want to! > The other key fact that everyone overlooks is that in the U.S., > cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is > no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a > cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here > like it -- they have bitterly fought any and all efforts to set aside > special area codes for wireless, and are still fighting it today. So I > have no sympathy for them when they have a hard time getting CPP > accepted because it's hard to tell if you're calling a cell phone. Of course I agree with this point. Calling party pays wireless should never be allowed from geographic area codes. Nevertheless, we do have some CPP pagers in America. Was this done as an exception to FCC rules, or has FCC ignored their existance? Is it possible to place an international call to a CPP number? While domestic callers can be expected to be aware of a CPP service code, it's hardly fair to expect international callers to be aware of this. Maybe we need a special country code. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:44:30 CDT From: Ron Bean Mike Pollock writes: > WASHINGTON (AP) One woman was attending class an hour away from her > home when the call to the entertainment line supposedly was made from > her phone number. I got a similar billing from them a few years ago, for a call supposedly made when I wasn't home. I wrote them a letter saying so, and never heard from them again (the charge was only about $10). Now my line has 900 blocking. > In an unusual twist, > these calls apparently were made, but by third parties who gained > access to the lines by crossing telephone wires, clipping onto the > phone line or stealing telephone signals from cordless devices. How do they know that? I called Ameritech and they claimed that they could not tell me whether my line was off-hook at a particular time. But when I said "I got this bill ..." they said "Oh, then a call **must** have been made from your phone." Yeah, right. Either they can tell, or they can't. I still find it a little odd that someone would tap into my line to make a 2-minute call at 8:20am on a Thursday. I think it's more likely that it was a simple billing error. "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." There ought to be a device you could install at the demark that would notice if your line went off-hook outside the demark, when everything was on-hook on your side of the demark, and put some kind of "howler" on the line to make it unusable in that case. In any case, Ameritech dropped the charge and said it was between me and this company I had never heard of, and had never done business with. Do other telco's not do this? How were those other people "forced" to pay the bogus charges? Anyone can send you a bill and claim you owe them money, but that doesn't mean they can collect. And now they want caller-pays cellular? And they wonder why I want it blocked on my line? I don't need some cellular company I've never heard of claiming I called one of their customers when I wasn't home. I'll be surprised if that *doesn't* happen to someone (or a lot of people). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'They ought to make a device to let you know ...' ... actually there is such a device at Radio Shack, as well as a few mail order telecom places. Mike Sandman might be a good person to ask at http://telecom-digest.org/sponsorlinks.html about this. All it is is a small LED which sits anywhere you put it in the line and it glows red when the current is at a certain level indicating a phone off hook 'somewhere' on the line. Although its basic purpose is to prevent interupption of a phone call by someone otherwise (legitimatly) picking up an extension elsewhere, it can be used in the manner you suggest also. It does not even have to be out at the demarc; it can be anywhere on the line. If you wanted to build another attachment which would emit a loud noise or dial a preset number anytime it was activated off of this thing, I am sure you could do it easily enough. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Erroneous 101-0321 Rates (was Re: 10-10-220) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:53:50 GMT In article , Robert Bononno wrote: > Have you tried 10-10-297? They charge 10 cents a minute (not the > lowest I guess) and 25 cents to France (which I use) but there are no > hidden fees. I've used it on and off for a couple of months now. I've found 1010-297 has the best international rates, though AT&T's personal network rates are close, and have the added advantage of better quality. Joel ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: What Is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? Date: 13 Jun 1999 02:44:20 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:44:38 -0500, jwyatt@RWSystems.net allegedly said: > On 9 Jun 1999, John McNamee wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> The real problem with the bundled Internet service from the cable >> companies is that it sucks. TCI @Home is the biggest cable Internet >> provider, and their backbone and peering points are seriously >> overloaded. The service often goes down, sometimes for days at a >> time. Their technical support is also very poor. I know there are >> real technical problems with opening the cable infrastructure to >> multiple ISP's, but as a consumer, I *really* want a choice. The >> "last mile" of wire to the home might be a natural monopoly; Internet >> service and other digital content clearly are not. > Do you *have* a CableModem? Do you know how to spell 'traceroute'? I have a shell account on a Linux box connected to a friend's cable modem account in Murfreesboro TN (20 minutes outside Nashville). Telnetting or SSH'ing to the box is like connecting to a box sitting on a 14.4 modem. My friend says it's because their routing sucks. We'll see; I'll be in Nashville on June 25th and will be staying down there, so I will be able to tell whether it's his LAN or the cable company. > I also know of two folks tossed-off of @Home for 'abuse' when they put up > a server - and they lost their install fees, of course. I know of no one > kicked-off of DSL for that yet - and you can still change ISPs on DSL if > it happens without losing your $200 install investment. I have seen some > folks get pretty rabid against @Home when they were told they couldn't run > a server. People get annoyed when they get told that about modem dialups too. There is more justification for saying this with a phone line that is supposed to be shared by many people, then there is for a cablemodem connection used by one customer, I think, but I'm sure @Home has their reasons for the policy. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address? IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers. ------------------------------ From: marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se (Marcus AAkesson) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:35:52 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On 11 Jun 1999 00:17:15 -0400, tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: > So? The European PTT-industrial complex shouldn't have chosen > frequencies for GSM that it knew would never be available for use in > the U.S. in a vain effort to ensure market share for European, often > wholly or partly state-owned, telecom equipment manufacturers in the > phone/cell switch market, thus setting the stage for the development > of competing, arguably technically superior standards in the U.S. Well, they couldn't choose frequencies that weren't available in Europe, could they? It was hard enough to find space that all the European nations could allocate, so what should they do? After all it was a European standard to begin with, and there was really no other choice at that time. The manufacturers though, should have marketed GSM800 equipment for the US market. By the way, what's in the 930 and 960 MHz bands in the US? As far as "wholly or partly state-owned", what are You talking about? Neither Ericsson, Nokia or Siemens are state owned or controlled, and they are the real giants in this field. Please explain this statement. > So it backfired. So the Europeans pay. No, we don't pay, we perhaps lose service in DC, which means no more fat charges to roaming guests for the US networks. You pay. > Try to play cutesy politics in the free-market world, using dominance > over standards processes to restrain competition, and watch what > happens ... I say if you do that you deserve what you get. What we got was superior mobile connectivity, with close to 100% coverage in populated areas all over Europe, with competing operators but with compatible networks. What we got was a mobile system that has been so successful that we now can bring our phones to over 100 countries and be reached on the same number whether we are in our homes, or half way around the world. /Marcus ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 04:25:57 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: > So? The European PTT-industrial complex shouldn't have chosen > frequencies for GSM that it knew would never be available for use in > the U.S. in a vain effort to ensure market share for European, often > wholly or partly state-owned, telecom equipment manufacturers in the > phone/cell switch market, thus setting the stage for the development > of competing, arguably technically superior standards in the U.S. So > it backfired. So the Europeans pay. > Try to play cutesy politics in the free-market world, using dominance > over standards processes to restrain competition, and watch what > happens ... I say if you do that you deserve what you get. Frequencies have (almost) nothing to do with it. But Thor has the story pretty close to correct with respect to Euro motives, except that the effort has NOT been vain -- it is, alas, very successful in a business sense. GSM was designed not only as a technical standard, but also as a continent-wide business enterprise, leveraged by the EU regulatory regime, expressly designed to favor European industry. In the EU countries operators are REQUIRED to run an ETSI-approved standard, of which right now there is one: GSM. They have leveraged this into world-wide dominance -- the GSM organization has more than 300 operator members in something like 130 countries. There are far more GSM subscribers world-wide than CDMA, even though the latter is a far-superior technical standard. Even with different frequency plans, it would not be difficult to run the same air interface and network protocols if they really wanted to. I personally think this is an appalling situation. And so does the US government. There have been nastygrams exchanged between Washington & Brussels over the last few months regarding this Euopean use of its regulatory regime to exclude competition and manipulate markets. This is all in regard to what the Wall Street Journal called "World War 3G" -- the international catfight over the so-called third generation of wireless standards, GSM and IS-95 CDMA (aka "cdmaOne" now, a trademark of the CDMA Development Group) being 2G (digital) standards. In belated recognition of the techical superiority of the SSMA techniques, the major 3G competitors are all based on some flavor of CDMA. WW-3G is not quite over. There was the well-publicized legal settlement between Qualcomm and LM Ericsson over their patent dispute, but, IMHO, the expression of that settlement was sufficiently ambiguous that it is not yet clear exactly what it means for the industry. That debate is going now. Actually, a GSM sub can roam here through the use of the SIM card, which WILL work in at least some of the US DCS-1800 phones. DCS-1800 is an up-banded version of GSM that is used by some US PCS operators (e.g. Omnipoint here in the NYC area). -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:46:45 GMT > In the long run, I agree that charges for cellular airtime will go > away, and the whole issue will become moot. The 500 minute/month > packages that PCS providers offer are already pretty close to that. I doubt it. Once airtime charges disappear, you can bet that I'll use my laptop/cell-phone combination to stay on-line for hours on end while still working outside in the Spring and Fall. I'll use up my 500 minutes before a week is out, much less a month. Joel ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@wn.do-not-spam-me.net (Fred Goldstein) Subject: Re: GTE Potential Impact on AT&T to Open Cable Network to ISP's Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:16:24 GMT Organization: dis On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:05:45, John Stahl wrote: > An article from Inter@ctive Magazine, attached below, relates that > "GTE favors opening cable systems like AT&T's for competing Internet > providers, such as America Online, to use." Some might remember that > this issue of opening the cable to competition came up during the > early stages of the AT&T/TCI deal and AT&T indicated that it would > sooner give up the acquisition than to spend the money to then have > competition given open-access to the new cable 'network'. Very cute. GTE, of course, is one of AOL's dial-up providers, and AOL has traditionally had pretty bad relations with AT&T. (Worldcom is AOL's largest dial-in provider, while Sprint also has some numbers.) GTE's cable business is negligible (107k subs?) and is basically a toy which they have done little with. Now, Bell Titanic is trying to buy GTE, so GTE's tune is largely, it seems, being called by the BEL cabal in Arlington. Bell sees AT&T as its strongest competitior. So they're tweaking AT&T's nose via this little CATV gig. Cute but fundamentally meaningless. Where AT&T's going wrong is in assuming that an exclusive deal with @Home (which they largely own) is in their best interest. They'd make more money and help get traffic off of Bell faster if they opened up the cable plant to all comers, inviting every ISP to become its own sales agent. Their greed is misplaced. Bell, of course, wishes AOL would go away. But they realize now that AOL has political Clout (with a capital C), so they only make indirect hits on AOL (fighting AOL's providers, for instance) while trying to migrate AOL's busiest users to DSL. Weird acts of mutual convenience. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" wn.net These are my own opinions. You expect anyone else to agree? ------------------------------ From: Richard O. Jones Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:27:11 -0700 I used two of these systems (1 personal, 1 business) for about six weeks. Finally, I returned them both. Here's why: 1. Constant call drops -- from the base and from the cordless handsets. When using the base, we were constantly asked: "Are you using a portable phone?" 2. The answering machine part has a bug -- it doesn't always notice when the caller hangs up during the out-going message. The result is that the Gigaset records a minute of the telco "squawks" and, on several occasions, all the lights came on and I had to reboot the system by un-plugging the wall wart. Even worse, during the time that the system was "hung", it still held the line! I talked, eventually, to Siemens' technical support. They said that they know about the answering machine problem and they are not going to do anything about it. I also e-mailed them from their web page but they didn't bother to reply. 3. Other thoughts. Programming numbers into any phone is a pain if one can't use a keyboard! So, I was initially impressed with the ability of handsets to send and receive memorized numbers from each other. However, the handsets cannot send or receive numbers from the base station! My suggestion: wait for the next version! Richard ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:01:53 GMT Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com ken@postperfect.com (ken) spake thusly and wrote: > Planning on purchasing a Siemens 2420 system for home use > Property size 1.5 acres > Main requirements are: > 2 line capability on all extensions > Intercom capability between any and all extensions > Clear audio - not noisy - no breakup > Extended range - > Must reach 500 feet from inside house to back garage with NO problems > Handset should be comfortable to use with extended time. > Any thoughts regarding this system?? 500 feet? I would be very very surprised if the range of the 2420 was adequate for your needs. The 2420 is an excellent phone with many great features, but range is definitely NOT one of them. We are now recommending the EnGenius phone system to those who need long range coverage. Steve http://www.sellcom.com (Opinions expressed, though generally wise and accurate are not officially positions of SELLCOM) Cyclades / EnGenius / Siemens / Y2K ODIU support / Zoom / Palmer Safes (Tech assistance provided without warranty express or implied) Check us out at http://www.thepubliceye.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #144 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 14 00:08:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA08011; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906140408.AAA08011@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #145 TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Jun 99 00:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 145 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Fred Goldstein) Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls (Steven J. Sobol) Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA (J.F. Mezei) Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA (Kim Brennan) Re: Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA (Juha Veijalainen) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (William H. Bowen) Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Bob Hogue) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (J.F. Mezei) Re: Patch Panel for RJ11 (Anton Johnson) Re: 10-10-220 (Rich Greenberg) Re: Automated Web Page FAXing (steven@primacomputer.com) Re: Standard Symbols and Diagrams (Denis McMahon) IP Telephony - Players? (Phil Schuman-OLexp) 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs (Dave Corley) Re: The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers (Steve Winters) Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond (Steve Winters) Re: Employment - You're Invited (Shannon Jacobs) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: fgoldstein@wn.do-not-spam-me.net (Fred Goldstein) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:44:59 GMT Organization: dis As this thread indicates, local calling across the US varies "all over the map". In most places residential is unlimited free calling within some area or other. (New York City is the exception, though they now have a weird LATA-wide plan in the $50/month range, I think based upon your personal historical toll usage; also, Chicago and some other Ameritech areas are untimed/metered in 8 miles, and Vermont is all metered, albeit with caps on the maximum bill.) Business usage is flat rate in some states, measured in others. SOmetimes measured is timed, sometimes just counted. Local calling radii range from "your town only" (a lot of rural areas) to Atlanta's huge (50+mile radius) area, with common variations including " your county" (usually in the South, where counties matter), "contiguous rate centers" (MA, CT, and probably some other states), and "12 mile radius" (CA). There's huge pressure in Europe for flat-rate (unmeasured) local calling, at least for Internet access, though it may be that widespread (unmetered) xDSL is offered as a substitute. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" wn.net These are my own opinions. You expect anyone else to agree? ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Telco Unlimited Local Calls Date: 14 Jun 1999 02:37:22 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On 11 Jun 1999 05:55:50 GMT, joe@apk.net allegedly said: > OK Steve, nitpicking time. :) Heh. OK. You win. :) >> The local calling area is quite large, though. As much as people >> complain about Ameritech, their rates are quite reasonable in this >> area. > About the only good thing about Ameritech. I could get dual channel ISDN for $37/month here. I pay $55 (flat rate instead of metered service, and I have call waiting, caller ID and "additional call offering" -- call bumping on one of the B channels on an incoming or outgoing call.) >>> On the negative side: no DSL; >> There are people working on that :) > Please elaborate? We must be among the largest metro areas in the > U.S. not to have any kind of broadband access. Certainly the largest > (and I think only) one in Ohio. Oh, Joe ... the proper description of what is available is not *no* broadband access, but instead *very little*. ISDN is great and is VERY reasonably priced for those of us who have access to it. It was nice living in Cleveland Heights, less than 1,000 feet from the central office... :) Here in Euclid, at 260th and Lake Shore, I'm about 1.4 miles away from the CO that services my new lines. So I personally am set, and there are a lot of other people in the area who are capable of using ISDN without needing a repeater. I also know of two people -- one in Broadview Heights, the other one in Wickliffe -- who would otherwise need a repeater, but Ameritech set them up so they didn't need one ... the solution was ... well, it had something to do with a virtual circuit, I didn't get all of the details. Both ISDN lines use directory numbers in 216-263-XXXX. The 263 exchange is serviced downtown, if I'm not mistaken. (Ameritech is pretty cool that way. Although I know people who have had some technical problems getting their ISDN lines set up, I've *never* had anything but good service from the ISDN customer service, repair, and billing people. Quite a pleasant surprise, actually.) As I've mentioned recently, Cablevision is the cable provider for the city of Cleveland and most of its suburbs, and they suck. >:-) Technology? What's that? They told my then-roommate it was going to take two years for them to get the Game Show Network when we asked for it. :) And unfortunately, the cable companies who do have a clue about broadband -- Time Warner, MediaOne and the various companies affiliated with @Home -- don't service the area. > Even Youngstown has it, which is embarrassing. Youngstown in most > respects makes even Cleveland seem safe, prosperous, and high-tech by > comparison. But they have broadband access. We don't, and I have no > idea when we'll get it. Don't hold your breath. :) ISDN is a good solution NOW, if you need broadband. DSL is coming. I've heard a couple things from APK, on apk.general, but nothing close to an official announcement. NACS is looking at its options for DSL, but the talks are preliminary and I can't say anything about them. NACS is working under an NDA. (I work for them, so it was no big deal for the president of the company to talk to me. I'm just not allowed to say anything to anyone else.) All I *can* say is that the infrastructure is being prepared, and DSL *is* coming. Be aware, though, that the distance restrictions are more severe for DSL than for ISDN, and from what I understand, you can't use repeaters. (Someone please correct me if that is not the case ...) > The irony is that they seem to me to be doing this in order to protect > what little business their ISP service gets, but, as far as I know, > they get virtually none from this area (as opposed to metro Detroit > and Chicago, where they are fairly big). Their ISP service, according > to everyone I know who uses it at least in/near Detroit, sucks most > grievously. I don't know anyone locally who's even gotten it to work. I got *really* steamed recently, after dealing with angry calls from people who couldn't get online due to the fact that Ameritech was dragging their feet on installing some new lines, when I got an insert advertising Ameritech.net -- "No busy signals," they said. I was almost angry enough to call Chicago ... not that I think yelling at them would have done any good. The worst thing is, NACS gets all of their lines *from* ICG, but there are some areas where you have to get service from Ameritech (Ravenna, for example). Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address? IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:54:42 -0400 James Gifford wrote: > I understand the standards and general usage pattern of GSM and CDMA, > but I've been having some trouble understanding why either is > preferable. Is there any genuine advantage to either, or is it a > VHS/Beta kind of argument? There are a lot of aspects to compare. GSM uses time division multiplexing. If you get a line, you'll have a garanteed bandwidth. CDMA allows more users, but as more use the line, voice quality degrades and you get interruptions. GSM uses smart card technogy whcih makes switching phones easier and has better security. GSM, being a more established technology has more services available for it. For instance, SMS allows sending and receiving of short messages. It depends on your service provider. Data communications have been available for a very long time in europe and the rest of GSM world, but North American GSM networks have been slow to install/start the software. When you travel with GSM, your smart card is your key. You can insert it in an GSM phone aorund the workd and that phones becomes "you" instantly and you receive/send calls and SMS messages as if you were home. Remember that the rest of the world was way ahead of north america in implementing digital telephony. So GSM has a lot more software/systems available to the network operators. But this is a religious issue for many, so I'll put on my asbestos suit now ... ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 14 Jun 1999 01:49:43 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA James Gifford inquires: > I understand the standards and general usage pattern of GSM and CDMA, > but I've been having some trouble understanding why either is > preferable. The one feature I like on GSM phones, is that they have a SIM card. Basically it deals out this way. Everything that makes a phone "yours" phone number, phone books, etc. is store (or mostly stored) on the SIM card/chip. Move that card to a different handset and that handset is your phone. If someone calls you, the new handset will ring. You can literally destroy a handset, and as long as the SIM card/chip is still good, be instantially back up with a new handset. Theorectically, this extends right across the ocean. You take your SIM chip/card put it in a European handset and you can use your phone in Europe. In practice, you probably will have to notify your phone company to enable use of the chip/card overseas (normally disallowed to reduce fraud.) Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: juhave@zdnetmail.com (Juha Veijalainen) Subject: Re: Using CDMA Cellphone From Israel in USA Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 21:49:03 +0300 Organization: Jkarhuritarit In article , tls@panix.com says... > In article , Danny Bateman > wrote: >> I will be visiting the US from Israel this summer. I own a Nokia 2160 >> CDMA cellphone. My cell provider here ("Cellcom") can give me a >> number in the US (another NAM). Calls will cost me $1.45/minute to >> anywhere in the US. > Note that this puts the lie to the "GSM is the only way to do > international roaming" nonsense which recently reared its head in this > forum. Israel only? Maybe not, but something that requires a new local number is not really roaming, in my opinion. It is more like a new subscription to circumvent technical difficulties. How would people call me if they only knew my orginal number and not the new 'roaming' number? With GSM you just take your phone (or SIM card and a rental), switch the phone on and you are connected. Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer ** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect ** ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:22:59 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote: > sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) writes: >> I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get >> a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. >> Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just >> that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? > More likely, they just got around to configuring the system in the > manner recommended by the FCC and various industry groups. > According to such recommendations, 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX should *always* go > thru. This is so you can set up dialers in a uniform manner. Leonard, We've had permissive 11 digit dial here in CA for the last five years -- glad to see it is spreading across the country. Besides dialers, it also makes it easier for travelers when setting up laptops for remote access and such. BTW, used to live in Cleveland back in the late 60s/early 70s: any of you from that area remember when Mayor Perk burned his hair at that ribbon cutting ceremony at the lakefront in '71? Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com Daly City, CA ------------------------------ From: bob@cis.ysu.edu (Bob Hogue) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: 14 Jun 1999 01:59:33 GMT Organization: Youngstown State University Steven J Sobol (sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net) wrote: > I can dial 1+216+number from my AC 216 home phone, and I no longer get > a message that I shouldn't be dialing the area code. > Does this mean we're looking at an overlay in the near future, or just > that we are looking at required 10-digit dialing? > Anyone know of any new area codes pending in Ohio? The PUC just announced that they will be studying the 330 area code (Youngstown, Akron, Canton, et al.) for new area code(s) since they expect 330 to run out of numbers by October 2000. I really wish these folks would cut up area codes once and make it stick. We just went through a switch from 216 to 330 in 1996. When splits/overlays are needed, why not split/add codes to last more than just a couple of years?? Bob Hogue Computer Science & Information Systems e-mail: bob@cis.ysu.edu Youngstown State University Phone: 330-742-1775 Youngstown, OH 44555-3134 For PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.ysu.edu/~bob/ ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:58:16 -0400 FYI, In Australia, from what I understand, it is caller-pays. And all cell phones are in "dedicated" area codes, so it is obvious to the caller that it is a toll call. However, the rate is the same from anywhere to anywhere in Australia. (If I am in Sydney and am called by someone in Sydney, it will cost that person the same amount as if he were in Perth trying to call me). However, due to better national integration, Australia has few mobile telcos, so it is easy to implement. In the USA with millions of small regional phone companies, it would not be so easy to implement. ------------------------------ From: Anton Johnson Reply-To: jun99@sonjohn.com Organization: http://www.sonjohn.com Subject: Re: Patch Panel for RJ11 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:20:13 GMT Greetings, Patch panels exist for just about any telco application. I would recommend that you check the yellow pages for the location of your nearest Graybar office. They will have just about anything you need and can make suggestions. A very easy and simple method is to use 66 bocks and then use cross connect wire. This would be less expensive than patch panels and will do exactly what you want. The folks at Graybar can provide any of the information you need. Another source may be to look for different local telephone companies and see if you can purchase materials from them. Regards, Anton Johnson We earn over $2,000 a month from the Long Distance Telephone Industry Sign up and earn your share today! http://ld.net/?johnson ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: Organized? Me? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:46:15 GMT > In article , jjs@eudoramail.com > says: >> I narrowed it down to MCI's 10-10-220. >> No monthly fee >> No monthly minimum >> .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional >> minute is 10 cents What if the call lasts less than one minute, an answering machine or some such? Still 99 cents? Rich Greenberg Work: Rich.Greenberg atsign worldspan.com +1 770-563-6656 N6LRT Marietta, GA, USA Play: richgr atsign netcom.com +1 770-321-6507 Eastern time zone. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val(Chinook,CGC,TT),Red(Husky,(RIP)),Shasta(Husky,TT) Owner:Chinook-L Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. Adopt a homeless Husky. Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com Subject: Re: Automated Web Page FAXing Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:30:38 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer A bit of chewing gum and string could turn IE and Winfax into a device like this. The Browser control and fax SDK could do it in a bit more professional way with some industrial strength chewing gum (AKA chick McNuggets) Steven In article , Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX says... > I have been asked to try to find a solution that would allow a user to > request a document via the phone (a FAX back solution). The problem > is that the document would be in the form of a dynamic web page. The > users touch tone request would be translated into a document > identification number. In the Internet environment, where the > document lives, this document id is a parameter to a script which > generates the web page. What I am looking for is some kind of > software that would accept a URL and phone number, would retrieve and > render the page, and send it to the specified phone number. We want > to be able to send the exact same web page via FAX that we would see > if we were using a browser. ------------------------------ From: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon) Subject: Re: Standard Symbols and Diagrams Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 01:46:22 GMT Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:25:57 -0400, Patricio Boric wrote: > I am looking information about standards for symbols in telecommunication > and networking diagrams. ( i.e. a standard for the symbol of a router, > a switch, a P.A.B.X., a multiplexer, a transmiter, and so on.) > Ideally generic, non-vendor specific symbols. > Any help will be appreciated. The only thing that comes anywhere near standard that I've ever seen is the "cloud" used to represent the network, and the little telephone used to represent "a subscriber". Regards, Denis McMahon denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk | All mail from some domains is Mob+44 802 468949 Tel/Fax+44 1705 698221 | deleted due to high UCE levels AXE-10 Engineer / Switch Tech? Join the AXE-10 Technical Mailing List. mailto:denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk for invite. No Agencies / Advertising. ------------------------------ From: Phil Schuman-OLexp Subject: IP Telephony - Players? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:56:28 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server I was wondering: What do the new IP telephony players like LEVEL 3 or QWEST offer to either the normal business world (like us) or the residential market (like me) or maybe even the CLEC or ISP markets? Is it just potentially better pricing or are there services that just can't be created or offered using circuit switching CO's? Phil ------------------------------ From: Dave Corley Subject: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:53:30 -0500 Howdy, I'm a product manager for an IP PBX product and am looking for source reference material on new regulations for 911 service. The federal government and many states have either drafted or are considering drats of legislation to mandate that new PBXs pass phone location identification information when a user dials 911 from a PBX phone. We've looked at Telident and others but their solution doesn't really apply to the IP world. Can anyone point me to source reference material on state-by-state or federal requirements for delivery of location information to E911 service providers on any 911 service call? Dave Corley ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com Subject: Re: The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:01:51 GMT Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com net_demon@my-deja.com spake thusly and wrote: > Anyone else get this junk fax? It advertises a Richo 4727 copier for > $1995. Their number to place an order is 1-800-633-3304, and if you > want to be removed from the database you can fax 818-576-0898. > I've tracked down more information about these people: I suggest that you do what we did. Call the FCC and make arrangements to FAX them copies of the spam FAXes with a cover sheet to the effect that you are filing a complaint. I have asked and they do NOT want me to publish their FAX number out here; as they want to speak with people first and then make arrangements for you to FAX them. They DO take action and are very interested in the spam FAXing which is highly illegal. And if your own FAX header is not in "speck", they will even nicely let you know about that too. :O) Steve http://www.sellcom.com Check us out at http://www.thepubliceye.com ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) Subject: Re: All About favicon.ico - Readers Respond Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:01:55 GMT Organization: www.sellcom.com Reply-To: support@sellcom.com jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) spake thusly and wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I can sort of empathize with > those webmasters who want all entries to be via the 'front page' > instead of at random elsewhere. It is an aid to a much better presen- > tation, IMO. But I do not see now you can insist on that since > different parts of your site appeal to different people. I have > many users who just want to come and read the latest issue of the I can see how a frames site could be awkward if only parts of the site were viewed which contained links that "assumed" one was viewing the site from the main page. But how does one "insist" on anything on the web? Steve http://www.sellcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One way of insisting that people only enter through your front or starting page rather than on a deeper page is by checking the document.referrer on those internal pages. If document.referrer shows that you can from anyplace other than the main page, then you are re-routed to the front or main page. A way of insisting that a certain IP address or site not be allowed to view your pages at all is by looking at the IP address of the site in question then when it meets certain specs you have established you re-route that caller to a new page which has only the text 'get lost' on it or similar in large, bold, H1 type font. For example, one very creative and brilliant person I am familiar with who has a large web site finally got tired of the people who continually ripped off his art work. I do not mean a casual right click here and a right click there on an interesting icon, I mean wholesale thievery by outfits who would send bots around to grab every file they could find with his art and his work. He has his own bot to now monitor the site all the time; if you pluck more than the allowable number of files in a visit, or visit too often in the same day, etc, then the bot just automatically adds you to a 'denied' list. He has thousands of midi files and other interesting things, and is quite generous about their use, however a bot grabbing a dozen files in a minute's time and absconding with them, then coming back a couple minutes later for a dozen more is a bit outrageous, don't you think? He said his site has been raped three or four times like that, and now the bot is quite stern about it. He says if he knows your IP address you will be banned; if you come through an ISP where he cannot figure out who it was entirely, then his attitude is he will ban the entire Class C ... and once he and the ISP in question have had a chance to chat about it, he will remove the ban but leave the site for a period of time on a 'watch list' which if violated again, results in a perm- anent ban of the ISP, with subsequent visitors seeing a text file which states that he cannot serve that site due to the problems, etc. That's a difference in our philosophies; he says if you want his work you pay for it, which is fair ... but my understanding of the general mentality of the net is, 'if it is out there, it is free for the taking', so I adjust to that attitude as part of the net. As for myself, I believe the net has been good enough to me over the years that I do indeed want to give something back, which is why I invite people to take my icons and scripts, etc as they see fit. I suppose there is room for both attitudes on the net. I have been told there is going to be a 'dark day' on the net sometime in September or October; many artists and creative people who resent the copyright violations which go on routinely (I am speaking now from their per- spective and not necessarily my own) and the ripoffs of the things they create to sell on the net are going to demonstrate their unhappy feelings by turning off their sites on the 'dark day', or setting them entirely to black color. This will resemble the thing a couple years ago in the free speech protest which was done on the net. Anyway Steve, that is how you insist on things on the net. I cannot force you to view/use my site on my terms, but I can prevent you from using my site unless you agree to my terms. Shortsighted perhaps, but it happens. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Shannon Jacobs Subject: Re: Employment - You're Invited! Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:28:53 +0900 Organization: Tokyo Institute of Polytechnics > Membership in 3-DNET is by invitation ONLY ! > Thank you, > Michael > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By invitation only! My, aren't we > the lucky ones, to have been invited! PAT] How did YOU get a copy of MY special invitation!?! I'm amazed and astounded. However, I'm less amazed and astounded that he's already been booted from the net (for this week, anyway). .a/ssig Spam not unto me! I shall decode thy email headers and trace thy routes, and smite them, and I shall pursue thy provider and thy provider's upstream link. Yea, unto the seventh generation shall I pursue thy links, and thou shall spam no more. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, be quiet, or we will put you on trial like we did Adrian a few weeks ago, and find you guilty of something, one way or another. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #145 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 14 12:49:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA01760; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:49:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906141649.MAA01760@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #146 TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Jun 99 12:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 146 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (Danny Burstein) Corporate America and the Internet Culture (J.F. Mezei) Re: 10-10-220 (Joel B. Levin) 4K Ports Intelligent Peripheral Required! (Jinbong Choe) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Brian Charles Kohn) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Mike Fox) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (Larry Finch) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (Ron Walter) Re: IP Telephony - Players? (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (Steve Hayes) Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA (Arthur Ross) Re: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls (Andrew Green) Re: Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear (Mark H) Re: Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear (Matthew Black) Re: Automated Web Page FAXing (Daniel Norton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:30:39 -0400 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction Two years ago a Haitian immigrant [1] was brutally tortured en route to, and then in, a NYC police station. During the trial one of the officers plead guilty, and last week two others were convicted (three were acquited). [1] for all you PC types about to jump on me for describing his nationality, be advised that seemed to be a key reason why the officers attacked him. The telecom angle, which led to one of the convictions, is described as follows in a column by Jim Dwyer in the {NY Daily News} of 13-June- 1999, excerpts follow: Louima Jury Still Wonders Jim Dwyer: As she sat in the front row of the jury box, the thought fell on her like a two-by-four. The young juror wrote on a notepad: Testimony readback re: Schwarz. Charles Schwarz was the cop accused - and ultimately, convicted - of taking Abner Louima to the 70th Precinct stationhouse bathroom for his ungodly appointment with Justin Volpe. [snip] When two or three jurors wavered on convicting Schwarz, what convinced them of his guilt was a phone call charged to his calling card number. The call was made from a Brooklyn College pay phone on Aug. 11, 1997, two days after the attack on Louima. It was placed to Volpe's home at 6:16 a.m., just an hour or so after Schwarz had seen Internal Affairs investigators searching the 70th Precinct stationhouse for the stick used on Louima. The phone call was the only one on record between the two men. "That convicted him," said the woman in the front row. "The smoking gun," said Juror No. 5. No mention was made of the call by me or any reporter. [snip] Original Publication Date: 06/13/1999 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It will be good to see all those police officers going to prison, where they belong. Hopefully they will go to a prison where there are inmates who are there as a result of being arrested by these same officers; and I sincerely hope that their occupations prior to their own con- viction is made known to the other inmates in any event, whether or not there happen to actually be some inmates there who had personal dealings with these officers in earlier times. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Corporate America and the Internet Culture Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 01:03:21 -0400 Those of us who have "lived" on the internet for some time are fully aware of many of the "cultural" issues of the internet. Now that most companies have hooked up their own systems to the internet, I am wondering if the established cultural rules "still apply". For instance, I have reason to beleive that some high ranking bank executives I sent emails to do not know about ":-)". I am therefore wondering how widespread this lack of knowledge is, and how long we could expect it to take before *everyone* is truly familiar with the standard symbols and practices (for instance, how rude it is to send WORDxx documents when you don't know if the recipient has WORD or if the recipient has a version of WORD that can read your WORDxx documents). [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: Yes, the old rules still apply. We are not the newcomers here, they are. If they had their way, you and I would be out of here entirely, and the net would be their exclusive tool. Does anyone remember about ten years ago in this Digest when several people expressed dissatisfaction with some corporation on account of its customer service practices, and an email address was published where people could write to the president of the company to complain? This was about the the time when many companies were first beginning to tie their internal email networks in with the overall internet, and they were shocked and dismayed to find out that the general public could write to them about things. Apparently some people did send email to the president of the company because, as you may recall, we got back for publication a most hateful letter from a secretary to the president who informed us that the email sent was 'unauthorized' and 'illegal' and that any further attempts to correspond with the company would result in Big Trouble for the letter-writers. I got such a laugh out of that one. We debated here for awhile exactly what was the definition of 'unauthorized and illegal email' and I even got a letter from one reader who said that 'we should not cause hassles for large companies who were starting to connect their email systems to the internet, because they may get angry and pull the plug and not connect with us ...' my response was 'promises, promises' ... I mean, its not like we would be missing much. There are still a large number of companies who have no idea at all how to handle email correspondence they receive from customers and prospective customers. They will put a place on their frames-loaded, gif-image ridden, wait two minutes to load web pages where customers can write to them, as long as you do not expect to get an answer back (if they bother to read it in the first place). Then some companies hope we will do business with them but fail to place even a modicum of security on their site. Consider Bank One as an example ... anyone who knows how to cut and paste can get into any of their deep pages by using social security numbers and passwords as part of the URL where customer account information is to be found. They can rarely keep their site up for a day at a time without it crashing; but boy oh boy do they think they are hot stuff. And calling their attention to their total and abysmal lack of security regards customer online transactions only offends them and produces responses like, 'you must be some sort of hacker! How could you possibly know anything about this, we have experts in charge of our data-processing.' I am reminded of the situation with Craig Neidorf back in 1990 when telco was on the warpath about 'secret plans for 911 stolen from our computer; cost to repair damage was seventy thousand dollars' and then in mid-trial someone produces a printed brochure from telco with the *same identical information* available to anyone who requested a copy. Government of course dismisses the charges then and there, and someone who used to chat with me occassionally in those days said that prosecutors were absolutely livid because of the way telco mislead them in the case, and told telco 'do not ever pull that ##$%# on us again if you expect any further assistance with prosecutions.' But you see, that's what you can expect from Corporate America and its relationship with the net community. They showed up here one day in the middle nineties, their noses in the air, and their noses have been stuck out of joint ever since for the most part. You talk about arrogance ... and this is one reason Rhonda Hauben and others have written with concern about the Internet Society and its so-called 'secret plans to turn the net over to big business interests'. I have no proof either way, and so cannot comment even though I wish that ISOC or Vint Cerf or someone would comment about it sometime soon. I know a lot of large companies already act like they own the place, and I think it is going to get worse. So don't you worry about what 'culture' they do or do not understand. Just keep doing your thing and hope that at least some of them get the hint eventually. PAT] ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 06:08:44 GMT In , richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) wrote: >> In article , jjs@eudoramail.com >> says: >>> No monthly fee >>> No monthly minimum >>> .99 after 1st minute, then next 19 are free, then each additional >>> minute is 10 cents > What if the call lasts less than one minute, an answering machine or > some such? Still 99 cents? You bet. That's the catch that makes this profitable for MCI. /J ------------------------------ From: Jinbong Choe Subject: 4K Ports Intelligent Peripheral Required! Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:27:39 +0900 Organization: Inet Internet Services Can anybody let me know where can I find the system in the world? Any mentions will be appreciated. Best regards, looker ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:31:04 GMT Organization: Road Runner A Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:42 -0400, en comp.dcom.telecom, aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) escribi en el mensaje de noticias : > Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones > in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 > years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered > "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large > geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've > encountered in the past 25 years of reading and auditing phone bills > has been in GTE or Rochester Telephone territories where the carrier > chose not to install sufficiently sophisticated equipment to to pick > up and calculate the charges. Every RBOC I've encountered used a > graduated method for charging local calls, but NONE were open-ended > flat-rate. I have never paid a metered rate for local telephone calls, despite having moved seven times in the last 15 years. Here in Massachusetts, there is a low flat-rate for local calls, and for about $35/month more, you get flat-rate for half the state...no metered usage whatsoever. just bicker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:43:05 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Alan Boritz wrote: >> -- they have bitterly fought any and all efforts to set aside >> special area codes for wireless, and are still fighting it today. So I >> have no sympathy for them when they have a hard time getting CPP >> accepted because it's hard to tell if you're calling a cell phone. > I'd love to see your sources on this one. The identity of at least one > cellular carrier who has "bitterly fought" against seperate area codes for > mobile services (with an area code full of available numbers) should be > enlightening. Search the TELECOM Digest archives and you will see plenty of documentation of this claim. Look for keywords like "class of service discrimination." Use http://telecom-digest.org/search Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:39:33 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net Alan Boritz wrote: > Seems to be a new feature of the "One-Rate" service. It prevents you > from bypassing the "AT&T Connect" information service that will extend > calls without your permission with no regard to the time of day and > not give you the phone number they dialed, and prevents you from > bypassing whatever network problems AT&T may be having that prevent > getting a normal busy signal. > It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a > mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up > equal access -- completely. As AT&T is paying your LD charges on the one rate plans, they probably want some say over what carrier you use ;) Larry Finch ::LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com PDCLarry@aol.com ::(whew!) N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:45:39 -0500 From: Ron Walter Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Alan Boritz wrote in Digest V19 #143: > Seems to be a new feature of the "One-Rate" service. It prevents you > from bypassing the "AT&T Connect" information service that will extend > calls without your permission with no regard to the time of day and > not give you the phone number they dialed, and prevents you from > bypassing whatever network problems AT&T may be having that prevent > getting a normal busy signal. > It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a > mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up > equal access -- completely. My understanding of the one rate service is that you pay the same for the call whether local or long distance. If you were to be able to access another carrier, you would have your normal airtime charges for that call PLUS long distance charges from the other carrier. Unless I am mistaken about the plan offering local and long distance at the same rates, it seems to me that using equal access would increase the cost of the call no matter how cheap the other carrier is. Ron Walter Capitol City Telephone ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 14 Jun 1999 12:34:06 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: IP Telephony - Players? My read on the whole IP deal -- so far -- is that the benefits have been rate/tariff arbitrage. The low rates offered by IP are disappearing as larger circuit switched providers lower rates. The value added services (integration and other features) are yet to come. ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:41:35 +-100 As lots of people have pointed out, Caller Pays is used in Europe. As someone who has to cope with this, I thought I'd throw in a few observations from personal experience. At the moment, we have a price war here in the UK between the various mobile (cellular) phone networks. Many of them have off-peak (evening and weekend) rates for outgoing calls which are similar to or even lower than calls from normal landline phones. The phones are being marketed aggressively to young people and one network is even suggesting that if you have one of their phones, you don't need an ordinary phone at all. Of course, what they don't point out is the cost for anyone else to call one of these phones or, for that matter, for phones on different mobile networks to call one another. These rates are often very high -- higher than many international calls! In fact, it is usually cheaper to call a UK mobile from the USA than it is for us to call it from down the street. Some alternative long distance companies here are advertising cheap rates to call mobiles and I suspect that they are routing the calls through the USA. One member of our household (who I won't name at the moment) has a friend with a mobile and no ordinary phone. He has run up enormous bills calling her. There were several calls on our bill where it would have cost less for him to take a taxi to see her and for them to have gone out to the pub. He promised to mend his ways and to pay for the calls but neither ever happened. Eventually, we arranged to have the "Call Barring" service from our (cable) phone company and set it up to block calls to mobiles. Unfortunately the Call Barring service is badly designed and we have had to block all long distance calls as well - inconveniencing everyone in the house. There are arguments which can be made for Caller Pays and it is more sensible than tying a mobile phone to a geographic phone number but anyone who thinks that their friends will still be friends if they have to call them on a Caller Pays mobile number had better look closely at the incoming call rates. By the way: any thoughts on the finding that the radiation from mobile phones is physically addictive? I certainly believe it when I see the number of people gabbling inanely on the things. Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:06:53 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: GSM vs CDMA/TDMA At 9:08 PM -0700 6/13/1999, J.F. Mezei wrote: > James Gifford wrote: >> I understand the standards and general usage pattern of GSM and CDMA, >> but I've been having some trouble understanding why either is >> preferable. Is there any genuine advantage to either, or is it a >> VHS/Beta kind of argument? > There are a lot of aspects to compare. > GSM uses time division multiplexing. If you get a line, you'll have a > guaranteed bandwidth. CDMA allows more users, but as more use the > line, voice quality degrades and you get interruptions. Right facts, but interpretation a bit off-base. CDMA uses closed-loop control of power to maintain a grade-of-service setpoint, in the sense of error rate. The whole idea is "equitable" distribution of the Shannon channel capacity. Every technology degrades as the system is loaded. The audible manifestations of that degradation depend on the specifics of the air interface. CDMA does a very good job of error detection -- you don't hear the bad speech frames. This has the sometimes odd-seeming effect of making the call go silent when the propagation has deteriorated - perceptually disconcerting to most of us who are familiar with radio systems that used to get NOISY when the channel is bad. Too long of a dropout will cause the system to drop the call tho. GSM attempts to do similar things, but not as effectively, IMHO. The loading results in more inter-cell interference in both systems, but CDMA copes with it gracefully; GSM does not. The question of quality-of-service metrics is, alas, not a simple one. Lots of debate, alternative proposals as to how to measure it. > GSM uses smart card technology which makes switching phones easier and > has better security. It's not clear to me how this contributes to security. Also you have to distinguish between authentication and privacy. Authentication is the process by which the system ensures that a particular phone that is attempting to obtain service is indeed a registered unit (basically making sure that there is someone to pay the bill). Privacy is the hiding of content. CDMA has a fairly strong authentication procedure that should ensure that technology-based fraud is somewhere between small and absolutely nonexistent (I've never heard of any), unlike the analog systems that are rampant with cloning fraud. GSM has a sortof odd operator-specific authentication that, I have heard, is not very strong cryptographically (I was also told that the reason the algorithm is not uniform across all of GSM is that it was one of those British-French not-invented- here sort of arguments -- can't swear to that, but it makes a good story, just like the one that ascribes the difference in which side of the street they drive on to the foibles of Napoleon's horse -- may not be true, but if it isn't, it SHOULD be!). While CDMA has a "privacy" feature, it is pretty much of a joke cryptographically. Cryptographically strong security could be provided via the service option concept, but it hasn't been (to the best of my knowledge). But CDMA is still inherently quite secure because of the basic way it works. The combination of spectrum spreading and closed loop power control results in a minimal signal, within a couple of dB, at all times. The normal operating point is on the order of 10-15 dB BELOW the thermal noise level of a typical receiver front end. If all you are doing is looking with a spectrum analyzer it may not be obvious that there is any signal present at all. And the forward link uses different modulation from the reverse link. You can't convert a handset to listen directly to another handset. A potential eavesdropper would have to a) have a very sophisticated, very expensive, not-commercially-available, receiver similar to those used in the cell sites, b) have to be no farther from the victim subscriber set than the cell he's talking to, and c) know, or deduce from the signal, the various sequence generator states involved in the spreading. Not impossible, but difficult and economically dis-favorable to the sort of enterprising thieves who have been so successful at analog fraud. They would be better off boosting cars, mugging little old ladies, or maybe running a modern wireline Telco. > GSM, being a more established technology has more services available > for it. For instance, SMS allows sending and receiving of short > messages. > It depends on your service provider. Data communications have been > available for a very long time in Europe and the rest of GSM world, > but North American GSM networks have been slow to install/start the > software. CDMA has SMS too, but I think the same observation is true -- it is not widely used or promoted by the operators. There are also standards in place that support wireless IP - ditto as to support though. > When you travel with GSM, your smart card is your key. You can insert > it in a GSM phone around the world and that phones becomes "you" > instantly and you receive/send calls and SMS messages as if you were > home. This is one of the things, IMHO that they really did right. The true key to roaming is the SIM card, or a notion like that. Pick up any phone, in any country, and once your card is in it, it is "you" for purposes of call delivery. Right thing! It's not that important that you actually be able to take the handset from country to country. > Remember that the rest of the world was way ahead of north america in > implementing digital telephony. So GSM has a lot more software/systems > available to the network operators. This came about because they were way BEHIND N.A. in implementing ANALOG wireless, with the possible exception of NMT. They rushed out a very conservatively-designed digital system that, while very successful because of the business & regulatory things they did, is pretty clunky technically. The few remaining NMT operators are now, mostly, migrating to GSM, at least the ones at 900 MHz. There are still quite a few NMT 450 MHz systems in eastern Europe (old Warsaw Pact countries, including Russia). They are currently having their unique version of WW-3G as to how to digitize those (small) bands. > But this is a religious issue for many, so I'll put on my asbestos > suit now ... Aw ... we CDMA-philes (it's my Arizona license plate) always try to be nice :-) BTW, the old VHS versus Beta story is often cited in this CDMA versus TDMA argument. It is, IHMO, not an inappropriate analogy! -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: RE: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:24:01 -0500 Ron Bean writes: > I called Ameritech and they claimed that they could not tell me > whether my line was off-hook at a particular time. But when I said "I > got this bill ..." they said "Oh, then a call **must** have been made > from your phone." Yeah, right. Either they can tell, or they can't. Huh? Of course they can; for quite some time I was paying $3/month for their Call Detail service, listing Date, Time, Number Called, Minutes and Band (A, B or C distance zones). My company then reimbursed me for all business calls listed. I'm looking at one such printout as I type this. Perhaps the rep you talked to was referring to retroactive lookups; if you had an ongoing problem, temporarily ordering Call Detail would be the first thing I'd do. > I still find it a little odd that someone would tap into my line to > make a 2-minute call at 8:20am on a Thursday. I think it's more > likely that it was a simple billing error. I don't. In my experience it's trivially easy to locate an open pair either at a household demarc or a neighborhood box; perhaps a lineman somewhere wanted to make a quick call. In any event, we quickly gave up bothering to contact Ameritech every time they left the neighborhood box ajar; I resigned myself to just checking it whenever I was in the vicinity, and closing its door as necessary to keep the rain out. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:26:57 -0700 From: Mark H Subject: Re: Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear Organization: My Deja Email (http://www.my-deja.com:80) black@csulb.edu wrote in issue 142: > Recently I a string of calls with just a beep tone and nobody there. > Hello ... hello? No hang up and no response. About half an hour later > I received a call from the California Relay Service. Turns out that a > hearing impaired person was calling my number with his TTD and > couldn't get through to a friend. Of course, I relayed through the > operator that he had the wrong number ... he (the caller) never > bothered to apologize or thank the Relay Operator for trying. This is actually the correct etiquette for a relay call. As far as the deaf caller is concerned, the relay operator ("Communications Assistant") isn't there, in the "personal" sense of the term anyway. Same with speaking to a deaf person through an interpreter: speak to the deaf person directly, as if the other interpreter wasn't there. Admittedly it takes some getting used to, but thats the culture. Mark --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 07:45:16 PDT From: Matthew Black Subject: Re: Phantom Calls Not Always What They Appear On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Mark H wrote: > This is actually the correct etiquette for a relay call. As far as > the deaf caller is concerned, the relay operator ("Communications > Assisant") isn't there, in the "personal" sense of the term anyway. > Same with speaking to a deaf person through an interpreter: speak to > the deaf person directly, as if the other interpreter wasn't there. > Admittedly it takes some getting used to, but thats the culture. Mark, thanks for the advice. Actually, I did say, "You have the wrong number," which was what I wanted relayed. After which, the relay operator told me that the caller hung up. The operator was very polite and explained the process very well. matt ------------------------------ From: Daniel@DanielNorton.net (Daniel Norton) Subject: Re: Automated Web Page FAXing Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:04:12 GMT On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:30:38 +0800, steven@primacomputer.com wrote: > The Browser control and fax SDK ... Which? Black Ice? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #146 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 14 13:37:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA04128; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:37:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906141737.NAA04128@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #147 TELECOM Digest Mon, 14 Jun 99 13:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 147 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #187, June 14, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Complaint About the Digest's Business Directory (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number (John R. Levine) Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (John R. Levine) For Sale: Rhetorex 8-bit ISA Card (mutuee@hotmail.com) Wish to Purchase Tellabs Shelves (John Smith) To Our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 14 Jun 1999 11:59:23 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #187, June 14, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 187: June 14, 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: ** Wireless Firms Propose World 3G Standard ** Call-Net Wants Interconnection Charges Rationalized ** Cablecos Reject CAIP Charges ** New Melissa-Style Virus Spreads ** Newco to be Intrigna? ** Nortel Unveils Internet Product Plans ** Ottawa to License 2500 MHz Spectrum ** Worldwide Fiber to Become Telecom Carrier ** Bell to Charge More for Calling Features ** Rogers, Scotiabank Offer Wireless Financial Data ** AT&T Wins Billing Dispute With BC Tel ** MTT Offers Carriers Hosted Services ** Teleglobe Extends High-Speed Video Network ** No Answers, No Approval ** Intersat Offers Remote Site Control ** New Faces in CWTA Board ** Telecom Execs in the News Women in Technology International TSB Cannect ** Running out of Numbers? WIRELESS FIRMS PROPOSE WORLD 3G STANDARD: A Toronto conference of wireless carriers and equipment makers has agreed on a worldwide standard for third-generation broadband wireless. The new IP-based standard must still be approved by the International Telecommunication Union and other standards bodies. CALL-NET WANTS INTERCONNECTION CHARGES RATIONALIZED: Call-Net Enterprises has asked the CRTC to launch a comprehensive review of the patchwork of rules and fees governing interconnection between carrier networks. Call-Net says that three recent Commission decisions, when taken together, "have reversed the evolution of competition." http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8643/c25-01.htm ** Call-Net has also asked the CRTC to reconsider Telecom Order 99-340, which allows incumbent telcos to offer line side connections to long distance competitors at different rates than retail customers pay for the same lines, and to charge them an LNP termination fee. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8662/c25-02.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0340.htm CABLECOS REJECT CAIP CHARGES: The Canadian Cable Television Association says there is "no basis in either fact or law" for an application by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers to have the CRTC order cablecos to provide immediate access to cable facilities by third-party Internet Service Providers. CCTA denies that it has deliberately delayed negotiations with CAIP and says the project is proceeding well. (See Telecom Update #181) NEW MELISSA-STYLE VIRUS SPREADS: A new virus called ExploreZip appears as a .zip file attachment to an e-mail from a known source. When the attachment is opened, it destroys files with such common extensions as .doc, .ppt, or .xls. Several anti-virus programs, such as Norton AntiVirus or McAfee, have downloadable upgrades that include protection against this virus. NEWCO TO BE INTRIGNA? A Telecom Update reader sent us the results of his research on the Bell-MTS "Newco" joint venture. Newco is registered with the CRTC as a CLEC under the name 3554546 Canada Ltd. That company has registered three trademarks, which it has also registered as Internet domain names: Telerium, Intrigna, and Sonum. Only www.intrigna.com is actually working on MTS's internet network. So, he says, "I'm putting my money on Intrigna as Newco's name." NORTEL UNVEILS INTERNET PRODUCT PLANS: Nortel Networks says its Internet Communications Architecture (Inca) will "unify the worlds of telephony and data." PBX products such as Meridian 1 will be available in IP versions, and data products such as Passport will be "telephony enabled." Availability ranges from the third quarter of 1999 to late 2000. OTTAWA TO LICENSE 2500 MHz SPECTRUM: Industry Canada plans to issue 13 regional Multipoint Communications System (MCS) licenses, which may be used to offer voice, data, multimedia, and broadcasting services. Applicants must demonstrate support for lifelong learning. Expressions of interest are to be filed by July 9, with detailed applications due by October 11. Full information is available at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01708e.html WORLDWIDE FIBER TO BECOME TELECOM CARRIER: Vancouver-based Worldwide Fiber Inc, a subsidiary of Ledcor Industries, says it is evolving "from contractor to developer to telecommunications operator" by lighting its dark fiber between Vancouver and Toronto and expanding its network into the downtown cores of five major Canadian cities. Worldwide intends to market fiber capacity to carriers, ISPs, and businesses. ** Worldwide is also forming a joint venture with Canadian National and Illinois Central to build fiber links from Toronto/Buffalo to Halifax and from Chicago to New Orleans. BELL TO CHARGE MORE FOR CALLING FEATURES: CRTC Telecom Orders 99-512 and 99-513 approve increases in the price of several Bell Canada calling features including Last Call Return (to 75 cents/call from 50 cents) and Call Answer (to $6/month from $5). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0512.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0513.htm ROGERS, SCOTIABANK OFFER WIRELESS FINANCIAL INFORMATION: Users of Rogers Cantel's Interactive Messaging Device will soon be able to receive bank account balances, stock quotes, and other financial information. (See Telecom Update #182 and 183) AT&T WINS BILLING DISPUTE WITH BC TEL: The CRTC has ordered BC Tel to refund $325,000 in past overcharges to AT&T Canada. The telco had offered to settle for $125,000, claiming it was not required to pay a refund because AT&T had accepted the original bills. www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0507.htm MTT OFFERS CARRIERS HOSTED SERVICES: MTT has launched Mpowered Office Solutions, which makes its Mpowered line of network-based business software available to other carriers. TELEGLOBE EXTENDS HIGH-SPEED VIDEO NETWORK: Teleglobe Communications is extending its GlobeSystem high-speed video transmission network to Toronto, Vancouver, and Washington, DC. (See Telecom Update #150) NO ANSWERS, NO APPROVAL: The CRTC has rejected tariff applications from independent telcos Dryden Municipal Telephone System (for a Centrex volume discount) and People's Telephone Company (for a dark fiber special assembly). In both cases, the CRTC says it "has not received any response" to interrogatories sent to the telco a year ago. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0518.htm http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0524.htm INTERSAT OFFERS REMOTE SITE CONTROL: Interprovincial Satellite Services has launched IP Anywhere, which provides continuous wireless monitoring and control of operating oil wells and other remote sites. NEW FACES IN CWTA BOARD: The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association has added three new members to its Board of Directors: Mickey McDonald of DownEast Newfoundland, Jerry Sedmak of Omega Communications, Graham Smith of ICO Global Communications. TELECOM EXECS IN THE NEWS: ** Women in Technology International: Claudine Simson is the first Canadian woman to be inducted into the Women in Technology International Hall of Fame. Simson is Nortel Network's VP Global Technology Research and Intellectual Property. http://www.witi.com ** TSB: Toronto-based TSB International, which makes telecom network management software, has named Reid Drury its Chairman, President, and CEO. Drury is a principal of Polar Enterprise Partners, which took an 18% stake in TSB in February. ** Cannect: Cannect Communications has appointed John Cameron, formerly a VP of sales for ACC TelEnterprises, as Vice-President of Sales Central Canada. RUNNING OUT OF NUMBERS? In the June issue of Telemanagement, Ian Angus explains why the North American Numbering Plan Administration is predicting exhaustion of the present numbering system as early as 2005. Ian surveys possible conservation measures that could postpone "exhaust date" until late in the century. http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm99c-06.html ** Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive "Tips, Tricks and Traps: Managing Business Telecom Today," an anthology of 22 recent Telemanagement articles that focuses on solving practical problems of telecom management. ** To subscribe 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: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:30:44 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Complaint About Digest's Business Directory In email to Babu Mengelepouti regards the latest issue of the TELECOM Digest Business Directory, America4US@aol.com wrote: > I am always concerned about "spammers" and what can be done to stop them. > However, your latest posting concerns me in respect to the "illegal" > fraudulent activity members of the telecom digest espouse. >>I won't repeat the instructions; everyone knows what to do, ... PAT > ~~~~~WINK WINK ~~~~ > The "time and effort" to dial up a spammers 800 number is NOT worth it. > I happen to own several 800,888 numbers associated with my business. I pay > less than 6 cents per minute. There is a 20 second min. billing associated > with each call. Let's assume that a hate campaign begins against a spammer > and he receives 200 calls each lasting 1 minute. (Assuming you find that > many who care) You may be lucky to cost a spammer $12 dollars. As a business > owner, I factor that cost into the sale of my product the same way any > business owner would. It costs 30 cents extra to the spammer each time their number is called from a payphone. That's why I always make sure that my inquiries are from payphones. And I make sure that I call a few times before I leave my message to make sure that I got the right number, and that I leave my message a few times to make sure that they got it. > Additionally, most business who advertise an 800 number have a threshold of > calls being accepted by any originating number. Therefore you may call an 800 > number up to 2 or 3 times then be blocked for 24 hours. I have not encountered this problem. And besides, even if this is the case ... there are lots of payphones in the world. > Most importantly, there are significant FEDERAL FRAUD crimes that > you can be charged with if you are caught. My office works regularly > with federal prosecutors. In fact, there are on going investigations > of some of the people associated with your telecom digest mailing list > for illegal activity regarding the kind of "activity" you promote. Go ahead, find me and prosecute me. It's not hard to find me, but it's hard to prove anything since I never call from home. I call from payphones, and I make sure that I am calling for a legitimate purpose. I always want to inquire about the product being sold, even if I have trouble remembering my name and address sometimes. Besides, there are state fraud charges I can file against spammers, since I'm a resident of Washington state. > I hate spam! I hate opening it with a passion! However, if spamming > is totally useless as an advertising media, most spammers will stop > due to the lack of response. What causes a spammer to stop is not > harassment from a few nasty time consuming phone calls to an automated > voicemail, but from a lack of sales. It certainly doesn't hurt if they have a whopping phone bill to boot. Ask Jeff Slaton. > A better approach is to notify the states Attorney General office > both where the email originated and where it was received. Some > states like Virginia, prosecute spammers for unsolicited email. The AGO is a joke. They are so busy they don't have time to pursue spam complaints, even though spamming is actually illegal in this state (provided that the header info is forged, which is ubiquitious). > Good Luck on your Crusade, but keep it legal! There isn't anything illegal about encouraging people to call for information about products advertised by bulk email. Calling to harass, or calling with an autodialer -- that's illegal. But calling about the products, even if I take a long time to ask my question and I have to leave my address a few times because I can never remember where I live, isn't illegal. Even if it costs them $3.00 or so in payphone surcharges. Wow, at least that payphone surcharge is finally good for something. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have no further comments. You know what has to be done. Keep your copy of the Business Directory handy by your phone so that you can contact these business people on the net who have written to us asking us to send money. Instead of us sending money, how about causing them to spend some money? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 1999 11:37:02 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Many 800-number LD services do this. You call the 800-number, enter > the phone number and the pin, and the resuling call is untracable > unless the company runnign the LD service cooperates. If you really > want to hide your call, use one 800-number to call another 800-number > service. If one of both of these services is of the pre-paid calling > card sort -- so they have no information about you on record -- I > think the call is completely untracable. If they get a subpoena, they'll roll over and give all the records to the cops (as they should, for a valid subpoena.) Two levels of call make it somewhat but not extremely harder to trace. Some of the evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing trial was based on prepaid calling cards. The card company couldn't tell who was making the calls, but they easily could find all the calls made using a single card, which pointed to one of the defendants. 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: Mon, 14 Jun 99 11:36 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number Sure, but if all you know is that calling card user A made a dozen calls to an 800-number, I don't see how you can match up the calls without precise clock synchonization. Not that it matters. There are better ways to hide your tracks if you care to ... >> Many 800-number LD services do this. You call the 800-number, enter >> the phone number and the pin, and the resuling call is untracable >> unless the company runnign the LD service cooperates. If you really >> want to hide your call, use one 800-number to call another 800-number >> service. If one of both of these services is of the pre-paid calling >> card sort -- so they have no information about you on record -- I >> think the call is completely untracable. > If they get a subpoena, they'll roll over and give all the records to > the cops (as they should, for a valid subpoena.) Two levels of call > make it somewhat but not extremely harder to trace. > Some of the evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing trial was based on > prepaid calling cards. The card company couldn't tell who was making > the calls, but they easily could find all the calls made using a > single card, which pointed to one of the defendants. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 1999 11:41:37 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Every RBOC I've encountered used a graduated method for charging > local calls, but NONE were open-ended flat-rate. Bell Atlantic offers flat rate unmetered resi service in most of its territory outside metro NYC. I had flat rate when I lived in Ithaca. I also had flat rate when I lived in Cambridge, Mass, and at my beach house in southern NJ. Even in NYC, local calls are charged a fixed amount per call, not metered per minute, which is a significant difference. 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: otto Subject: For Sale: Rhetorex 8-bit ISA Card Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:52:08 -0400 Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. fs Rhetorex 8-bit ISA card Card has two RJ-11 connectors & a 3-pin connector on the card edge. FCC ID: KZ5-RDSP-MINI Reg.Nl: 1A9USA-75391-VM-E (c) 1992 raw pc-board part #: 40-08-0008- If interested email larafmos@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: John Smith Subject: Want to Purchase Tellabs Shelves Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:05:11 GMT Looking to buy Tellabs 1013U and 1013UC shelves. tgsi@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:02:21 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back Some time ago, MCI Mail decided to block TELECOM Digest from delivery to mcimail.com sites thinking that it was 'spam'. It was explained to me by someone at wcom.com at 'one of our operators thought it was spam and put a block on the Digest which has now been removed.' Readers may obtain missing issues of the Digest from the telecom web site at http://telecom-digest.org/back.issues/recent.single.issues and because of this inconvenience, I won't charge you anything for them, you can have them for free! :) PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #147 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 15 02:18:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA03100; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:18:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906150618.CAA03100@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #148 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jun 99 02:18:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 148 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers (Clarence Dold) Re: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls (Bill Meek) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability)(Bartley) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (David Scheidt) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (Alan Boritz) Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (Leonard Erickson) Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam! (Jack Decker) Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (Carl Moore) Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (The Bakers) Re: Calling Party Pays (Bill Levant) Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? (David Clayton) Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? (Robert) Re: What is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company? (Babu Mengelepouti) For Sale: Dialogic D240/SC-T1 (Jose Perez) Policy.com Special Report: Telecom Deregulation (Arun Baheti) Want to Buy cp 4 sc (Al Niven) Re: Hospitalization PS - Phone Solicitors (A.E.Siegman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: dold@94.usenet.us.com (Clarence Dold) Subject: Re: The Spam Never Stops! CopierDirect Junk Faxers Date: 14 Jun 1999 17:36:09 GMT Organization: a2i network Reply-To: dold@network.rahul.net support@sellcom.com wrote: > I suggest that you do what we did. Call the FCC and make arrangements Hello, FCC? Where do I send this fax? Could you give us the contact information at the FCC? Clarence A Dold - dold@network.rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: billmeek@enteract.com Subject: Re: FTC, Phone Co. Agree on Fake Calls Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:14:53 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:24:01 -0500, Andrew Green wrote: > Ron Bean writes: >> I called Ameritech and they claimed that they could not tell me >> whether my line was off-hook at a particular time. But when I said "I >> got this bill ..." they said "Oh, then a call **must** have been made >> from your phone." Yeah, right. Either they can tell, or they can't. > Huh? Of course they can; [snip] Actually, I think the Ameritech person should get two bonus points for answering your initial question correctly. If you truly asked if a switch knows when your line is *off hook*, the answer, from a billng perspective, is no. There are switch based utilities that allow technicians etc. to see the on/off hook status of a line. I'm guessing that the person you asked didn't have access to the Permenant Signal/Partial Dial List (e.g.). On the other hand, I suspect that what you were really asking about involved going off hook *and* making a call ;->. Bill ------------------------------ From: someone@teleport.com (John Bartley) Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Reply-To: johnbartley3.yahoo.com@teleport.com (at ) ( dot ) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:45:58 GMT OK -- what are the alternative carriers to US Worst in the Portland metro area (NPA-NNX = 503-282)? On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:01:34 -0700, "Someone" wrote: > I see that beginning 3/15/99, US West is charging all telephone > subscribers 53 cents per line for "Service Provider Number > Portability." Great! Now that I'm paying for it, where can I get it? > There are no alternative companies from which I can get dialtone! Is > this just another "hidden tax?" We are compelled to pay the phone > company as a de-facto tax-collection arm of the federal government, > while getting nothing in return. ------------------------------ From: David Scheidt Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Date: 14 Jun 1999 22:45:49 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Ron Walter wrote: > Alan Boritz wrote in Digest V19 #143: >> It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a >> mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up >> equal access -- completely. > My understanding of the one rate service is that you pay the same for > the call whether local or long distance. If you were to be able to > access another carrier, you would have your normal airtime charges for > that call PLUS long distance charges from the other carrier. Unless I > am mistaken about the plan offering local and long distance at the > same rates, it seems to me that using equal access would increase the > cost of the call no matter how cheap the other carrier is. Yes, it would. But if you want to call a number that AT&T is incapable of routing to, or use a carrier that routes 555-1212 calls to the LEC information operator instead of to the crappy contractor AT&T uses, it is handy. Additionally, if you placing an international call, it is possible that another carrier would be cheaper, even having to pay for air time + charges. (I haven't investigated if this is true or not.) David Scheidt dscheidt@enteract.com Ketchup, therefore, shows both thixotropic and pseudoplastic rheological properties. -- John Schmitt, in AFU ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:01:28 -0400 In article , Larry Finch wrote: > Alan Boritz wrote: >> Seems to be a new feature of the "One-Rate" service. It prevents you >> from bypassing the "AT&T Connect" information service that will extend >> calls without your permission with no regard to the time of day and >> not give you the phone number they dialed, and prevents you from >> bypassing whatever network problems AT&T may be having that prevent >> getting a normal busy signal. >> It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a >> mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up >> equal access -- completely. > As AT&T is paying your LD charges on the one rate plans, they probably > want some say over what carrier you use ;) No, AT&T doesn't pay, *I* pay. And since I pay, regardless of how the calls are placed, they shouldn't have a say. In article , Ron Walter wrote: > Alan Boritz wrote in Digest V19 #143: >> Seems to be a new feature of the "One-Rate" service. It prevents you >> from bypassing the "AT&T Connect" information service that will extend >> calls without your permission with no regard to the time of day and >> not give you the phone number they dialed, and prevents you from >> bypassing whatever network problems AT&T may be having that prevent >> getting a normal busy signal. >> It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a >> mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up >> equal access -- completely. > My understanding of the one rate service is that you pay the same for > the call whether local or long distance. If you were to be able to > access another carrier, you would have your normal airtime charges for > that call PLUS long distance charges from the other carrier. Unless I > am mistaken about the plan offering local and long distance at the > same rates, it seems to me that using equal access would increase the > cost of the call no matter how cheap the other carrier is. Your understanding appears to be correct, however I never said that I didn't expect the 1010XXX calls to be more expensive. The not-so-obvious features we lose with this service are equal access, the ability to bypass bad local trunking, the ability to select an alternative cellular carrier (for markets in which there is no PCS system), and the ability to force analog mode where the digital TDMA coverage is engineered poorly. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:12:24 PST Organization: Shadownet belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Belfert) writes: > verwirrt@erols.com (Brian O'Donoghue) writes: >> Disadvantages: >> 1) IDDD to country code 1 will break various bits of software (LCR, >> toll restriction, call accounting) and Telco/IXC routing. >> 2) Complaints about discrimination against small nations. > If they are separate nations, why are we treating them any differently > than nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and the other > continents? Same reason that the USSR had country code 7. There was *one* authority for telephones in the area. Both the USSR and the NANP were each *one* unified system. In our case it was mostly AT&T's doing. The Caribbean countries that are in country code 1 were direct dialable and assigned area codes *before* the ITU came up with country codes. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:00:16 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam! See the article at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/279768.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:35:02 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction While advising that this is not a legal forum, a general observation is that special arrangements end up being made when anyone who works in the criminal justice system (as police or judge or prosecutor) himself/herself becomes an inmate. A recent case of this is Thomas Capano, former assistant prosecutor who was held without bail and later received a death sentence for murder in Delaware. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite correct that when it becomes too late to cover up their misdeeds and they have to go on trial, even then they -- how shall I say it? -- 'get special favors and conditions' given to them as members of the fraternity. "And which country club would you like to stay at judge, as part of your six months of incarceration?" They should get no special favors as police officers but just be treated as scum, the way most police officers treat the public, especially the ones they arrest and put on trial. Rolando Cruz, a Latino fellow in his early thirties in the Chicago area was unjustly accused of rape and murder when he was eighteen years old and in an effort to make the charges stick, three prosecutors and four police officers in Dupage County, IL (suburban Chicago) concocted an incredible collection of lies. Cruz was sentenced to death and held for over twelve years on death row. Finally, not only did evidence come to light showing he was not guilty, but the absolutely monstrous tale put together by the law enforcement officers who got him convicted was exposed also. Cruz was released and on investigating the 'evidence' a little further, the claims made by the police officers totally fell apart. Cruz filed suit, as to be expected, and the stench became so bad after the {Chicago Tribune} started working on it that the seven law enforcement guys had to be put on trial. After all these years, one cop is now the Chief of Police in one of the suburbs, two of the prosecutors are now private attornies, and one of the prosecutors is a judge. All seven will likely be convicted. And Rolando Cruz has laid it right on the line: an eighteen year old minority kid in Chicago does not stand a chance when a police officer decides to lie about something and get him convicted. Cruz has stated that if any or all of them go to prison, he will find out *which* prison, and he will make it his business to be certain the other inmates know about the new arrival(s), what his occupation was, and what he did to bring him where he is. Cruz stated to the Tribune, "they certainly will not spend twelve years on death row as I did, but there may be many times while they are in prison they wish they were dead ... to the best of my ability I will do what I can to make it a living hell for them; after all, that was good enough for me wasn't it ... " And I am told by a person in New York that when Justin Volpe gets incarcerated sometime in the next month, 'certain people' are going to pay off one or two corrupt record clerks in the corrections department and find out where he is at so that other inmates there can be notified. PAT] ------------------------------ From: The Bakers Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:08:43 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It will be good to see all those > police officers going to prison, where they belong. Hopefully > they will go to a prison where there are inmates who are there > as a result of being arrested by these same officers; and I > sincerely hope that their occupations prior to their own con- > viction is made known to the other inmates in any event, whether > or not there happen to actually be some inmates there who had > personal dealings with these officers in earlier times. PAT] You are such a bitter old man. I'm sorry you've led such an unfulfilling life that all your energies are directed towards seeing that people "get what's coming to them". [Bitter Old Man's Obligatory Answerback: Thank you for expressing how you feel. In the past ten years in Chicago, I have seen *seven* men who were on death row get freed when it was found that prosecutors had lied or coached their witnesses to lie under oath. I have seen *twenty-one* judges of the Cook County Circuit Court be placed on trial for accepting bribes to throw cases. Three of the judges were high-ranking in the criminal division, and they threw cases based on bribes. Many of the cases handled by those three are now on appeal for new trials, etc. None of them came close to going to the sort of prison a two-bit drug pusher would go do. Rather, they all went to a country club environment somewhere where they could play golf, pal around with federal politicians also in jail and continue to drink their martinis dry ... I have seen seven Chicago Police Officers placed on trial because they tortured people they had under arrest in order to obtain a conviction. They all got to go to a little half-way house thing and report to probation officers; people they had all been chummy with before they got arrested and put on trial. Carl Moore, in the message just before yours was quite correct in saying 'they make special arrangements for them' ... you bet they do! Professional courtesies and all that ... (snicker) ... Thank you for writing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:21:22 EDT Subject: Re : Re : Calling Party Pays > Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones in the largest market in > the US were a thing of the past almost 30 years ago, and do not exist > now. This, unfortunately, is ALSO absolute nonsense, at least for residential service. In Philadelphia and vicinity, one can get unlimited local service, unlimited extended-area service (in some locations) or unlimited metropolitan area service, the last of which offers unlimited, untimed calls to Philadelphia and those suburbs within about a 20 mile radius of the city limits. It costs about $45.00 a month, at last report, but if you need it, it's a good deal. From one end to the other, that's about 55 miles ! Bill ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Caller Pays Cellular & New Area Codes For It? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:54:36 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au J.F. Mezei contributed the following: > FYI, In Australia, from what I understand, it is caller-pays. > And all cell phones are in "dedicated" area codes, so it is obvious to > the caller that it is a toll call. However, the rate is the same from > anywhere to anywhere in Australia. > (If I am in Sydney and am called by someone in Sydney, it will cost that > person the same amount as if he were in Perth trying to call me). Yes and no, the major carrier (Telstra) charges two rates for landline calls to their mobiles, one rate for calls under 145 KM, (I think), and a rate for calls over that distance. The other "major" mobile operators seem to have a simpler flat rate charging system. The rates are totally dependant on the interconnect agreements between the various networks, and these are basically too high and are an impediment to competition (but that's another story). The rates are high enough for some smart operators to offer calls to mobiles routed via N.Z. because the overall charges are less, (it can be cheaper to call from Australia to the U.S. than to another mobile in Australia!). > However, due to better national integration, Australia has few mobile > telcos, so it is easy to implement. In the USA with millions of small > regional phone companies, it would not be so easy to implement. In the last year or so there has been an Australia wide auction of RF spectrum with the prospect of allowing many more "minor" operators to enter the market. Some of these are going to be very innovative with plans to offer a mobile phone service which is charged like your normal landline service while you are in your "home" area and then is charged like a mobile service when you move about. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Robert Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:25:08 -0700 Organization: SouthWest Cable of San Diego, CA Given your distance requirements, you might consider a new digital cordless telephone system that has a range of 5 miles in open terrain, and over 11 floors through an office building. We distribute this new product and you can find an image and details on our web site at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rciautomation/p32.htm This system allows up to 9 cordless handsets to be registered with up to each of 4 base units (36 handsets total) and up to 4 telephone lines (using 4 base units). The unique part about this system is that each of the handsets can be used as a two-way full duplex radio to talk to each other on a secure (digital frequency hopping) channel. When you use the two-way radio feature, the phone line is not being tied up and when a call comes in any of the cordless handsets can answer the call. One other very nice thing about using the handsets as a two-way radio is that they do NOT have to be within the range of the base unit. You can take two (or more) handsets with you to the park, ball game, etc. and can use them as a two-way radio with the same long range operation. The cordless handsets use their own secure communication channel so you won't hear the "chatter" your hear using the recreational two-way radios you see in all the stores. The handsets even come with a leather pouch and belt clip to make it easy to take with you. Other features: Caller ID, 3 line illuminated display and keypad, 90 minute fast charger, call transfer, hold, mute, flash, redial, any key answer, voice volume control, vibration and ring selector and volume, and more. Robert RCI Automation rciautomation@csi.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rciautomation ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:48:15 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: What is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company John McNamee wrote >> I also know of two folks tossed-off of @Home for 'abuse' when they put up >> a server - and they lost their install fees, of course. I know of no one >> kicked-off of DSL for that yet - and you can still change ISPs on DSL if >> it happens without losing your $200 install investment. I have seen some >> folks get pretty rabid against @Home when they were told they couldn't run >> a server. And sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) replied: > People get annoyed when they get told that about modem dialups too. > There is more justification for saying this with a phone line that is > supposed to be shared by many people, then there is for a cablemodem > connection used by one customer, I think, but I'm sure @Home has their > reasons for the policy. Actually, it is a shared medium. The way that the @home cable service is designed is that it essentially performs like a LAN within your neighbourhood. The problem with this is that if you have a kid in your neighbourhood running a ftp server with "0 d4y w4r3z d00d!&($*@&(!$&" or some sex hound running a porn server, it diverts an unfair share of the available bandwidth to those applications. This makes the service difficult to use for normal customers. DSL providers are less concerned, because the bandwidth is (in theory) not shared. Actually that isn't the case in USWest territory -- they operate a packet-switched network in each metro area that they serve for their DSL service. When they start having similar problems to @home their policy may change. Incidentally, despite the written policy, @home doesn't care if you're running servers if you aren't using an unreasonable amount of traffic. They don't even notice, and don't actively seek it out. A friend of mine who works in @home's NOC told me that the only reason they would ever look for a server is if someone complains about performance, or if they suspect that you are selling shell accounts (another no-no). As for why the performance sucks ... home.net refuses to pay any other backbone for peering. As well they should refuse--they're a Tier 1 backbone running at OC-48. However, some backbones think that they're too cool to privately peer with @home (*cough* uunet *cough*) since the "value equation" is, to them, not good enough (a "value equation" presupposes that some types of customers are more valuable than others, so therefore backbones serving "less desirable" customers should have to pay to peer with "more desirable" backbones. I personally think that this concept is asinine). Therefore, @home is forced to peer at the public peering points (MAE EAST, MAE WEST, SprintNAP, CIX, etc.). These peering points are extremely congested, and packet loss can sometimes average over 60%. On my cablemodem, I get great performance between me and anything else on home.net. Unfortunately, performance tanks when I'm hitting any other network *cough* uunet *cough* cw.net *cough*. Internet peering is almost in the anarchic state which the Bell System was in with respect to "peering" with independents in early telecommunications history. Right now, the system works--but only just. And some of the larger backbones are throwing around their weight just the same way that the Bell System did. Time will tell if history will repeat itself in this regard. ------------------------------ From: Jose Perez Subject: Dialogic D240/SC-T1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:59:01 -0400 Organization: CyberGate, Inc. For sale D240/SC-T1 Dialogic Voice Cards. We have 4 cards available. Send offer by E-mail at: firstel@gate.net First Telephone Company 11060 SW 88th Street Miami, FL 33176 (305) 279-0067 Attn: Jose Perez Note: Remove x from e-mail address on header ------------------------------ From: Arun Baheti Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:42:32 -0700 Subject: Policy.com Special Report: Telecom Deregulation POLICY.COM POLICY UPDATE Week of June 14, 1999, Volume 2.44 http://www.policy.com In this Issue: + Issue of the Week - Telecom Deregulation I s s u e o f t h e W e e k TELECOM DEREGULATION http://www.policy.com/issuewk/ The pace of technological advance has made government regulation of the telecommunications industry increasingly difficult in recent years. Recognizing the increasing obsolescence of existing regulatory structures, policy-makers have embraced efforts to deregulate the telecom industry, starting with the AT&T breakup in 1984, and continuing with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This Issue of the Week examines the results of the deregulatory wave. After June 21, this Issue of the Week moves to Policy.com's IW Archive at http://www.policy.com/issuewk/issuewkarc.html. ------------------------------ From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Wanted to Buy: cp 4 sc Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:04:54 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: alniven@earthlink.net Please respond via email. Thanks, http://www.GlobalNetTelecom.com ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A.E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Hospitalization PS - Phone Solicitors Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:46:19 -0700 Organization: Stanford University > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While telephone solicitors cannot > be blamed for calling at inconvenient times -- they have no way of > knowing that there is a personal family crisis at the moment -- at > the very least ... I have some sympathy for the probably poorly paid underling who's making the telephone solicitation calls; but little sympathy for the system he's serving. My tactic is to say immediately something like "Oh, hey, I've got something on the stove -- can you wait a minute ..." or "Can you hold just a minute, I've got to turn something off here ..." -- then set the phone down and go about my business until the line clears. Of course, maybe experienced telephone solicitors are smart enough to see through this, and drop me right away. I'll note once again that there's a technologically trivial solution for the whole telephone solicitation problem that preserves everyone's rights, will cost essentially zero to implement, and be totally self-enforcing: Simply require (legislatively) that all telephone solicitations be set up to come with Caller ID from some specially designated area code (like 500, 800, whatever). Radio Shack can sell $10 boxes that block that ID, and no one who doesn't want telephone solicitation calls need ever receive them. Will never happen, of course -- because it would work. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #148 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 15 11:59:34 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA21471; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906151559.LAA21471@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #149 TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jun 99 11:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 149 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Leonard Erickson) Qwest vs. Global Crossings in "Battle" for Frontier and US West (J. Stahl) Frontier: Tangled Web (David Esan) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 101-XXXX Calls (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls (Ron Walter) Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM (Brian Carlson) 555-1212 From Cell Phone (was Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking) (Joel Hoffman) Composite Ringing (Paul Wills) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 15 Jun 1999 03:52:17 CDT From: Mark J. Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Toll Alerting to the Islands (was NANP-Caribbean) verwirrt@erols.com (Brian O'Donoghue) wrote: >> Disadvantages: >> 1) IDDD to country code 1 will break various bits of software (LCR, >> toll restriction, call accounting) and Telco/IXC routing. If the routing and rating software were _PROPERLY_PROGRAMMED_, then allowing _permissive_ intra-NANP-wide dialing as 011+1+ten-digits would be (IMO) no different as having 1+ intra-NANP calls including the Caribbean from the US and Canada. In many parts of the NANP, you already have permissive (and in a some cases, mandatory) 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX dialing for _LOCAL_ or untimed calls. Even calls to 800/888/877 in most places _MUST_ be dialed as 1+800/888/877-etc. So, if 1+ dialing can include dialing, translating, switching, routing, and rating calls which are of various categories: local/free, inTRA-LATA toll, domestic inTER-LATA toll (including calls to AK/HI, PR/USVI, Guam/CNMI), Canada terminations, and the NON-domestic NANP-Caribbean ... Then why can't 011+ include all of the above as well as non-NANP destination calling! In other words, _ALL_ inTRA-NANP calls could be permissively dialed as 011+1+ten-digits. Of course, it "could" be mandated by regulatory at some point that calls to the NON-domestic NANP-Caribbean be dialed as 011+1+ rather than "just" 1+. And in a similar matter, even if 011+1+ for non-domestic Caribbean points isn't "mandated" by regulatory, a PBX manager could program their PBX to _REQUIRE_ 011+1+ for such destinations. But all of this would mean that the "special services" (operator and card) prefix for "international and overseas from the NANP" be changed from 01+ to 010+. Trying to dial "01+ country-code-1+" for a collect/3d-pty/card/etc. inTRA-NANP call would _REALLY_ be dialing 011+, a SENT-PAID call to a possible point OVERSEAS! But, of course, the need to change 01+ to 010+ _might_ be more of a "moot" point, _IF_ 0+ and 01+ dialing were ultimately abolished since more and more carriers in the NANP (INCLUDING THE LECs) are pusing 1-800- dialup access numbers for operator/card services (1-800-CALL-ATT, 1-800-321-0ATT; 1-800-BELLSOUTH; Stentor/Canada's 1-800-555-1111; Sprint's various dialup numbers for FON-Card: 1-800-877-8000, 1-800-210-CARD, etc; MCI's 800-COLLECT, 800-950-1022, etc; ETC. True, some of the LEC-branded 800- card/operator dialups don't really go to/thru that LEC's LATA-based TOPS/OSPS but rather via a "contract" co-branding company (BellSouth's dependence on Dis ... I mean TelTrust, and most other US LECs using Sprint) ... and also you have to then TOUCHTONE enter the destination number unless you want to pay EXHORBITANT operator-handled rates for the operator to key-in the destination number ... but with AT&T's better discount plans for card, you MUST use 1-800-CALL-ATT access -- any other AT&T-handled 800- card/operator access number, as well as (101-0288)+0+/01+, and (101-0288)-00 (followed by DTMF keying-in the destination number at the prompts) will be billed at a HIGHER rate than your 1-800-CALL-ATT card discount plan! Leonard Erickson (shadow@krypton.rain.com) wrote: > verwirrt@erols.com (Brian O'Donoghue) wrote: >> If they are separate nations, why are we treating them any >> differently than nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, >> and the other >> continents? > Same reason that the USSR had country code 7. There was *one* authority > for telephones in the area. Both the USSR and the NANP were each *one* > unified system. In our case it was mostly AT&T's doing. > The Caribbean countries that are in country code 1 were direct dialable > and assigned area codes *before* the ITU came up with country codes. Well ... it was in 1958 that AT&T "assigned" or "reserved" NPA 809 for "Bermuda and the Caribbean Islands". It was sometime in 1964 that the ITU/CCITT came up with a true WORLDWIDE plan of telephone country codes. But NONE of the NANP-Caribbean countries were dialable for a LONG time. Sometime in the early 1960's, most Bell System operator toll centers were able to dial to Puerto Rico (and maybe the US Virgin Islands), AFTER an undersea cable was installed. And it wasn't until the later 1960's when CUSTOMERS were able to 1+809+ to PR/USVI. It wasn't until the early 1970's until customers in the US (and maybe Canada) were able to dial 1+809+ to call the Bahamas. It was circa 1975 when customers could dial 1+809+ to call Bermuda. And the other non-NANP Caribbean points didn't become customer dialable from the US until the later 1970's and early 1980's! (Grenada wasn't customer dialable from the US until around 1986!) However virtually _ALL_ of the "British" NANP-Caribbean was customer dialable from the United Kingdom around the mid-to-late-1970's! And Canadian customers could dial to Grenada well before US customers could. Even many parts of the NANP-Caribbean weren't even OPERATOR dialable back in the later 1960's and most of the 1970's. A Bell System toll operator might have needed to get an AT&T International/Overseas GATEWAY operator (preferable in the Jacksonville FL IOC) to call certain points down there, or else the originating Bell System operator could call an "inward" operator on one of the Caribbean islands, to complete the call. And the plural "area codes" for the Caribbean countries under +1 didn't become "plural" until 1995. Prior to that, ALL of the NANP-Caribbean was under +1-809-. Also, there are _NON-NANP_ Caribbean countries down there: +53 Cuba +509 Haiti +599 Dutch Antilles +297 Aruba +590/+596 one for Guadeloupe, the other for Martinique, and one of these for the other smaller French Antilles ... AT&T might have intended in 1958 for all of these to be included in Area Code 809, but for various reasons (POLITICAL, as well as "cultural"), each got their own ITU/CCITT _country_ code, some as early as 1964 (the year of the first "worldwide" ITU country-code scheme), others throughout the 1960's and 1970's. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think if memory serves me, there was an international center (but they did not call it that) in Miami, which was similar to the one in White Plains, NY. The one in Miami did all the islands down there as well as South America. An aquaintence of several years ago discussed with me once his visit to Cuba in the early or middle 1950's, prior to the blockade imposed by the US gover- ment. He was in the cigar business, and had investments there which had to be moved to some other nearby island with identical conditions for the growing of tobacco once the blockade started. He said that on calls from Cuba to the USA in those days, which were quite common, the local operator in Havana would connect the call to operators who always answered 'Southern Bell, Miami' or sometimes just 'Miami' or "Miami Inward' and the operator in Cuba, using her best English, would request from them a connection to the desired number in the USA. Sometimes the operators in Miami were quicker to answer than other times, and he said on one call back to Chicago from Havana, the oper- ator in Havana let it ring about 25-30 times -- at least two or three minutes -- then finally said to him, "I am so sorry, senor, but the United States is not answering me today. Try another time." Apparently Miami was quite busy that day for some reason. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:41:28 PST Organization: Shadownet aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> The key fact that everyone overlooks is that Europeans, who usually >> argue for CPP on this newsgroup, are used to paying metered rates for >> EVERY CALL THEY MAKE. In the U.S., local landline phone calls are >> almost always flat-rate, i.e., we don't pay for local calls we make OR >> receive on a landline. We only pay metered rates for long-distance. > Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones > in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 > years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered > "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large > geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've > encountered in the past 25 years of reading and auditing phone bills > has been in GTE or Rochester Telephone territories where the carrier > chose not to install sufficiently sophisticated equipment to to pick > up and calculate the charges. Every RBOC I've encountered used a > graduated method for charging local calls, but NONE were open-ended > flat-rate. So? You live in an area where the public allowed that to happen. It's not true for all of the US, and I rather suspect that the areas where it happens are in the minority. >> The U.S. consumer does not pay metered rates for calls from landlines >> that are not long-distance, and does not want to! > US consumers pay metered rates for landline service in the largest > markets in the US, whether they want to or not. Choice has nothing to > do with it. Sure it does. Here in Oregon we chose to pass a law forbidding mandatory measured service. So people can have it if they want it. But given a choice, most people *don't* want it. The fact that in some areas the phone company has managed to remove the choice between flat rate and measured service is actually a sign that they don't *want* customers to have the choice. They make more money from measured service. And as a matter of fact, the measured service *charges* don't match up at all with actual *costs* to the phone company. It just that it's easy for them to track distance and time, so those are what they charge on. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:03:25 From: John Stahl Subject: Qwest vs. Global Crossings in "Battle" for Frontier and US West According to a June 14, 1999 late breaking news article from Inter@ctive magazine, a new "player" has entered the arena for the ownership of Frontier and US West: Qwest Communications. It was just a short time ago that the 'buzz' of the communications industry was that, a relative newcomer on the scene, Global Crossings, was making a move on Frontier and, a short time later, US West, to merge them into a new communications mega-corporation. Now Qwest Communications, is making a similar move on these same two companies. Wonder who the next bidder will be? All Signs Point To Qwest By Louis Trager, Inter@ctive Week E-magazine, June 14, 1999 The early betting is that Qwest Communications International will best Global Crossing in the bidding war for U S West and Frontier. Despite a big swoon in Qwest stock Monday in reaction to the company's announcement of hostile bids, telecommunications analysts and consultants said they would hate to be in Global Crossing's shoes, and trying to beat Qwest Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio and his initially superior offers, valued Monday at $66.4 billion total. "I would say Qwest has a pretty good shot at it," said Mark Bacurin, a telecom analyst at J.C. Bradford & Co. securities. He said that because Qwest and U S West are both U.S.-based carriers, they would have better opportunities to take advantage of each other's distribution channels than U S West and Global Crossing, an intercontinental and foreign fiber-cable operator. Because Qwest and U S West both are headquartered in Denver, the companies also could save more money in corporate consolidation, Bacurin said. Frank Dzubeck, president of Communications Network Architects in Washington, D.C., said Qwest probably could clinch the deal by guaranteeing Frontier and U S West shareholders a firm price, in place of the initial one whose value dropped with Qwest's share price Monday. Qwest lost almost one-quarter of its value on the day, dropping $10.75 to $34.13, erasing most of the premium Qwest had offered over the prices that Frontier and U S West had agreed to from Global Crossing. Global Crossing fell slightly, too, closing at $50.38, down from a high of $64.25. ------------------Submitted by --------------- John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Frontier: Tangled Web Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:03:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Long ago, there was Rochester Telephone, an independent telephone company that served the Rochester, NY area. It grew, buying other smaller companies. Eventually, it changed its name to Frontier. Earlier this year it accepted an offer from Global Communications, who then went on to merge with US West. Over the weekend, Qwest entered the picture, offering to buy both Frontier and US West. To add to the misadventure, the value of Qwest stock dropped so much on the news that its offer is now lower than Global's. Local analysts think that there may be more bidders for Frontier, and this is not yet done. Just to add an additional twist, Frontier owns a piece of Qwest's long distance network. You can read more about it at: http://www.rochesternews.com/0615frontier.html David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:23:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 101-XXXX Calls It seems to be COMMON for wireless service providers to block 101-XXXX+ (CAC) carrier access code dialing! :-( On my analog cellular phone with BellSouth Mobility, I can't use 101-XXXX+ codes, except for calling the operator of a carrier other than my primary toll carrier. All I can dial following the 101-XXXX+ is a '0+send'. I don't even think that BSMobility allows me to dial 101-XXXX+0+nanp or 101-XXXX+01+intl calls to be billed card/collect/3d.pty/etc. And while 500 numbers are "flaky" in many other ways, I can't reach a 500 number from my cellular phone if the 500-NXX is assigned to a carrier other than my primary toll carrier. AT&T is my primary toll carrier on my cellular phone. .. if I'm trying to call a 500-NXX-xxxx where the 500-NXX is assigned to MCI, BellSouth Mobility is going to hand the call (and _ALL_ 500 numbers dialed from my cellular) over to AT&T. Of course, AT&T isn't going to recognize a 500-NXX which is assigned to MCI. Also, use of 101-XXXX+ codes won't work, but even on LANDLINE service switch translations, calls to 500 and 900 numbers are NOT supposed to be dialed by a customer with a 101-XXXX+ CAC. Presently, the 500 and 900 service numbers are competitively provided based on the "c.o.code" assignments within the 500 or 900 Special Area Code. A landline switch will look at the 500-NXX or 900-NXX and then hand the call off to the specific carrier. 800 was handled like this from about 1985 thru 1993. Full database portability took over (in the US, at least) in May 1993. And, speaking of 800/etc ... 800 and 888 calls from my cellular are first routed to the New Orleans BellSouth (landline) LATA tandem. They are then database-dipped into the toll-free portability database node in my LATA, and then routed to the proper long distance carrier (or rejected) according to instructions from the database. This is identical to calls to 800/888/etc. numbers from a landline phone. However, last year when 877 took effect, BellSouth Mobility was sending all 877 calls (from my phone, at least) over to AT&T (my own toll carrier), regardless of the fact that the 877 number I dialed MIGHT not be one handled by AT&T. Of course, AT&T will REJECT such a call and is under NO obligation to attempt to hand it over to the proper carrier. Calls to BellSouth Mobility got no-where ... until I spoke with a BSMobility translations-tech in Baton Rouge (customer service was a bunch of AIRheads), and a (BellSouth landline/corporate) translations guru in Birmingham. It was eventually corrected. I also posted all over the telecom groups on the internet on how incompetant BSMobility had been in that matter. Incidently, the reason BSMobility says that they don't allow 101-XXXX+ dialing (except to dial the '0' operator of that carrier), as well as not allowing six-digit translation and routing to the ACTUAL carrier on 500-NXX-xxxx calling (900 is blocked from cellular, so that situation would be moot), is that Mobility "doesn't have the same kind of billing and settlements" contracts as the landline side of BellSouth (South Central Bell and Southern Bell) has. Also, it seems that the FCC has never required 101-XXXX+ CAC dialing from cellular. Even "cellular-toll" calling within my LATA ... I have NO choice ... BellSouth Mobility hands such calls over to South Central Bell inTRA-LATA toll service, rather than my chosen (inTER-LATA) primary toll carrier AT&T. Dialing 101-0288+(1)+(504)+NXX-xxxx for such calls will be REJECTED at BellSouth Mobility's New Orleans MTSO! :-( Of course, if one has a good card-plan from a particular carrier, and doesn't really care about touchtoning in their card number "over the air", you can always dial an 800- dialup for card from your cellular phone, and use the carrier of your choice (if you have an account/card from them). So, you can try to reach REAL distant-end-Bell directory on NPA-555-1212, rather than AT&T's CRAPPY contract company "NONexcellance". But you'll need a card account with a carrier that routes to genuine directory, as well as dial-up the 800 number as well as card number from your cellular in addition to NPA-555-1212. Just about all of the above could even happen with LANDLINE competitive LECs! And some of the inconsistancies in translations, routings, ratings, etc. happens with INCUMBENT LECs particularly "traditional" independents but also with Bell LECs! :-( When it comes to the CLECs, they are MORE apt to NOT having proper and comprehensive billing and settlements contracts with all other possible carriers and service providers in the industry. One Bell System usually worked smoothly. But in today's environment, the phone network is falling and can't get up! :-( MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:17:59 -0500 From: Ron Walter Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX Calls Alan Boritz wrote in TELECOM Digest V19 #148: > Your understanding appears to be correct, however I never said that I > didn't expect the 1010XXX calls to be more expensive. The > not-so-obvious features we lose with this service are equal access, > the ability to bypass bad local trunking, the ability to select an > alternative cellular carrier (for markets in which there is no PCS > system), and the ability to force analog mode where the digital TDMA > coverage is engineered poorly. Frankly, their rates for the one-rate service have amazed me, compared to what I've had to pay locally. But it all comes down to. "You get what you pay for." You do have alternatives: other wireless carriers. If the AT&T service were a monopoly, I would agree that they should be forced to offer those alternatives, however since there are several alternatives the market should be what forces those changes. If you don't like the loss of those features, open up your wallet and spend the money on a service that offers them. I am not in the cellular industry, however it's like a lot of industries in that I don't feel too sorry for people who go for the bottom dollar program and then complain about the poor quality or lack of features. No one is obligated to offer the best features or best quality at the cheapest price, and more often than not it's just plain impossible to do so and stay in business. Respectfully, Ron Walter Capitol City Telephone ------------------------------ From: Brian Carlson Reply-To: b.g.carlson@ieee.org Organization: I.E.E.E. Subject: Re: ADPCM vs/ PCM Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:28 GMT Alonzo, PCM is pulse code modulation and ADPCM is adaptive differential pulse code modulation. PCM is the direct digital representation of an analog signal, meaning for each time an analog signal is periodically sampled (such as 8 kHz rate or every 125 microseconds), it is converted directly to a number. This number can be in different formats such as linear or companded. In the linear format, each numerical increment represents a fixed voltage level. Companded data such as A-law and mu-law (G.711) uses a logarithmic approach to representing the analog sample with a numerical value. The numerical increments are logarithmic so that you get smaller steps at lower voltage levels. and larger steps at higher voltage levels. This method works well with speech signals which are "peaky" with most values being lower voltages. Companding provides the dynamic range of a 13-bit linear codec with only 8 bits. This provides an effective bit reduction of over 35%. The result of this companding reduces the bit rate that represents a speech signal to 64 kbits/sec (8000 samples per second * 8 bits per sample). Everyone wants to reduce bandwidth, so the next step that was taken was to add an "AD", or adaptive-differential algorithm, to "PCM". ADPCM quantizes the difference between samples, not the samples themselves. It adjusts the coding scale dynamically to accomodate large and small differences. Since speech has a lot of redundancy, you can take advantage of this by coding the difference between samples instead and still achieve good voice quality. The ITU G.726 and G.727 (for packets) define the ADPCM standards which achieve bit rates of 16, 24, 32 and 40 kbits/sec. This represents a further bit reduction of up to 75%. Note that there are other vendor-specific versions of ADPCM such as Dialogic and Microsoft that work on the same principle. There are other voice coders (vocoders) that reduce the bandwidth even further. ADPCM's goal was to reduce the bandwidth without much speech degradation. It is referred to sometimes as "toll quality", which sounds very good. Other vocoders use other techniques that use code books and models of the human vocal tract. When you get down to the lower bit rates such as 2400 bps or less (LPC-10), the speech sounds more mechanical because at that point, instead of sending samples of the speech, the model of the vocal tract and excitation information is sent instead. A "robot" on the other end recreates the speech using the model. I hope that this high-level summary is helpful for you. I would recommend that you surf the web for more info, as it should be abundant. Regards, Brian Alonzo Alcazar wrote: > What is the difference between PCM and ADPCM ? > Thanks, > Alonzo ------------------------------ Subject: 555-1212 From Cell Phone (was Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:28:18 GMT >>> It's an interesting concept to replace your regular phone with a >>> mobile phone with reasonable rates, but apparently you also give up >>> equal access -- completely. > [...] > Yes, it would. But if you want to call a number that AT&T is > incapable of routing to, or use a carrier that routes 555-1212 calls > to the LEC information operator instead of to the crappy contractor > AT&T uses, it is handy. Additionally, if you placing an international Last week, while "roaming" in NY (Boston is my home area) on AT&T's one-rate plan, I tried to get directory assistance for a number in Boston. I couldn't do it. "411" gave me local Bell Atlantic service, but SO DID "617/555-1212." Both gave me the same number, and both places told me I was not authorized to get directory assistance from a cell phone. AT&T customer service confirmed this morning that DA is unavailable while roaming. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Paul Wills Subject: Composite Ringing Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:25:22 -0400 Hello folks, Does anyone remember the system of manual ringdown signalling that used 1000Hz. tone modulated at a 20 Hz. rate? (No need to speak up and date yourselves. ;-)) I am looking for the equipment that does this. This is for a friend who is building a rather impressive collection of switchboards and would like to include some of these trunks in his display. Thanks in advance, Paul Wills ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #149 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 13:54:46 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA13443; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:54:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906161754.NAA13443@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #150 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 99 13:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 150 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Hillary Gorman) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Craig Macbride) Re: 555-1212 From Cell Phone (was Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking) (Stan Cline) Re: What is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company (John McNamee) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Alan Boritz) ESS'99 2nd and Final CFP (Philippe Geril) Qwest and US West (Wulf Losee) CAP DSL Distance and Facilities? (someone@teleport.com) CLEC Coverage (Nathan Hicks) Unmasking Xircom's Xorro (Monty Solomon) DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates (Monty Solomon) Copy Network and Flow Control Questions (Alonzo Alcazar) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: 16 Jun 1999 03:44:25 GMT Organization: Debugging our net or deworming your pet... aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: > Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones > in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 > years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of our more temperate suburbs). hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Public Access Internet Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:01:17 GMT aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: > US consumers pay metered rates for landline service in the largest > markets in the US, whether they want to or not. They do in one geographically tiny area which is reknowned for being over- priced in almost every other aspect of life as well as telecommunications, yes. >> cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is >> no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a >> cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here >> like it ... > And that's the way consumers like it. They do? Which ones? > Some people operate their daily business entirely on cellphones with > no desire to call attention to it. Why? Because they are shonky operators who are already in the airport about to skip town while taking your order? I can't imagine that any reputable business has the slightest advantage in hiding the fact that the number you are calling is a mobile number. > Other people like it because it's none of your damn business > whether it's mobile or not. I've never heard of that one either. > The single best argument for CPP, however, might be in support of > telemarketers. If a teleslime operator chose to blanket mobile phone > customers, his expenses might double or triple if his rotaries ran > over blocks of mobile numbers. That, by itself, is a powerful > incentive for CPP, IMHO. Of course. Telemarketers are much rarer here and I have at least a tiny bit of respect for a company which is prepared to spend money to contact me than if they can do it for free. Craig Macbride ---------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig--------------- "It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:58:19 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: 555-1212 From Cell Phone (was Re: AT&T Wireless Blocking 1010XXX) Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Last week, while "roaming" in NY (Boston is my home area) on AT&T's > one-rate plan, I tried to get directory assistance for a number in > Boston. I couldn't do it. "411" gave me local Bell Atlantic service, > but SO DID "617/555-1212." Both gave me the same number, and both > places told me I was not authorized to get directory assistance from a > cell phone. > AT&T customer service confirmed this morning that DA is unavailable > while roaming. This is BS on the part of AT&T -- there is no technical or billing reason to disallow DA calls when roaming. I have called DA while roaming on various carriers (not AT&T, mainly B-side carriers) with no problems at all. If all else fails, use a calling card, prepaid or otherwise, with an 800/888/877 access number. I do that all the time to get around one of my carriers' (see below) terrible third-party DA. Sprint PCS and Powertel here in Atlanta both route DA to third-party DA houses (SPCS' is decent, Powertel's is terrible); BellSouth Mobility, of course, routes DA calls to BellSouth LEC DA. (I have no idea what Airtouch and AT&T do; I don't really care since I will never use either of them for innumerable reasons.) -SC ------------------------------ From: John McNamee Organization: MicroWizards Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:28:36 -0500 Subject: Re: What is 'Open Access' For a Cable Company Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > John McNamee wrote: No I didn't! Please be more careful who you attribute quotes to. The text you quoted was written entirely by somebody else, and was completely unrelated to anything I said (I never commented on the issue of running servers). > As for why the performance sucks ... home.net refuses to pay any other > backbone for peering. As well they should refuse--they're a Tier 1 > backbone running at OC-48. However, some backbones think that they're > too cool to privately peer with @home (*cough* uunet *cough*) since the > "value equation" is, to them, not good enough (a "value equation" > presupposes that some types of customers are more valuable than others, > so therefore backbones serving "less desirable" customers should have to > pay to peer with "more desirable" backbones. I personally think that > this concept is asinine). Therefore, @home is forced to peer at the > public peering points (MAE EAST, MAE WEST, SprintNAP, CIX, etc.). These > peering points are extremely congested, and packet loss can sometimes > average over 60%. On my cablemodem, I get great performance between me > and anything else on home.net. Unfortunately, performance tanks when > I'm hitting any other network *cough* uunet *cough* cw.net *cough*. So UUNET isn't playing nice with others? What else is new? Other ISP's have swallowed their pride (and opened their wallets), and arranged private peering with them. What makes @home so damn special? This whole thread started over the issue of open access and choice of backbone provider. Good connectivity to UUNET and C&W is not optional. If @home won't provide it, then their service sucks. I think you've proved my point that other ISP's should be allowed access to cable networks. --John ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:38:45 -0400 In article , tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote: > In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman > wrote: >>> DSL modems, it may relieve some strain on phone numbers. And as the >>> cost of cell phones drops, I think that we will see the end of >>> pagers. Again, some savings. And, already, some cellphone companies >> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still > Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on > a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches > of Wyoming to to Idaho to California to Las Vegas and finally home to New > York; except for within the boundaries of a few national parks, a brief > stretch in the Tetons, and a few days near Almo, ID (population a hundred > at most, accessible only by dirt road) with a dual-band analog/digital > Sprint phone I had pretty much continuous coverage. But chances are pretty good you weren't using the phone all the time, and the carrier you accessed probably wasn't Sprint, itself (don't forget, Sprint is not a cellular carrier). I've also been surprised to receive phone calls in the mountains in western Virginia, in the middle of the wilderness in Maine, and within sight of Mount Shasta, in California. Within a 4,200+ mile trip I had cellphone coverage most of the time. However, there's a huge chunk of Texas west of Houston along I-10 with no coverage (A or B carriers) until you almost get to New Mexico. It's great to get a call from a friend who had no idea I was looking at the exit signs for the Allagash Wilderness (missed that dinner ;), but I still can't carry on a continuous mobile conversation in lower Manhattan, still can't reliably make or receive a phone call anywhere in Jersey City, and the cell site that covers where I live is often completely blocked during evening hours. > I didn't always roam seamlessly -- in fact, I did go through one or two > places where I couldn't roam *at all*; to make other than emergency calls > would have required me to open an account with the local cell company -- > but if you don't plan to travel to Lander, WY in the near future that > probably won't concern you. Sometimes it may not be a roaming agreement issue, but rather a registration issue. If your phone doesn't register itself properly when you enter the coverage area the carrier won't recognize you as an authorized roamer. In that case, the solution may be to turn off the phone for about 20 minutes so you drop off the system completely, then turn it on again so it can register itself again. ------------------------------ From: Philippe Geril Subject: ESS'99 2nd and Final CFP Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:20:39 +0200 Organization: SCS Europe Bvba Reply-To: Philippe.Geril@rug.ac.be Dear Colleagues, we have received so far some 80 papers for the 1999 ESS (European Simulation Symposium) Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, October 26-28, 1999. In order to make this event a success, we are aiming to double this figure. Therefore we have extended the submission deadline to June 30th. Topics of the event are: Methodology and Tools Logistics Telecommunications Virtual Reality Analytical and Numerical Modelling Techniques Simulation in Industry/Economics High Performance Simulation Further information about the event can be found under: http://hobbes.rug.ac.be/~scs/conf/ess99 If you have any questions, please contact me on: philippe.geril@rug.ac.be Best Regards, Philippe Geril Tel: +32.9.233.77.90 SCS Europe Fax: +32.9.223.49.41 Coupure Links 653 E-mail: Philippe.Geril@rug.ac.be B-9000 Ghent URL: http://hobbes.rug.ac.be/~scs Belgium URL: http://hobbes.rug.ac.be/~phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:35:40 PDT From: Wulf Losee Subject: Qwest and US West Regarding Qwest's hostile bid for US West: Hmmm, there's more here than meets the eye, I think. Fact: Qwest is making a big push for voice over IP services. Fact: US West's long distance revenue dropped off 15 percent last quarter! (that will be very very painful to them if that trend keeps up). Fact: Qwest saves a lot of money on Internet phone calls, because as an "ISP" they don't have to settle up with the local players (i.e. US West). Fact: US West is making lots of waves with FCC to mandate that long distance carriers who use "packet switching protocols" be forced to caugh up interconnection fees to the local players. (Hmmm, sounds like an attack on Qwest's modus vivendi). CONCLUSION: Qwest wants to, (A) either buy up US West lock stock and barrel to shut down their yapping, or (B) they'll be willing to withdraw their hostile offer if US West makes some concessions. Personally, I think its the former reason (A). Especially since US West, which has been unable to sell long-distance services to areas outside its region, but could do so (under current FCC regs) if it were via those dang "packet switching protocols". Seems like a match made, well, if not in heaven, it's surely a lot more sensible than the Global Crossing bid. I think Qwest stock is looking just a tad undervalued at the moment ... (so does US West's, but I can't bring myself to invest in dinosaur companies ;-). Cheers, --Wulf ------------------------------ From: someone@teleport.com Subject: CAP DSL Distance and Facities? Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign. Reply-To: johnbartley3.yahoo.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot ) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:48:50 GMT Apologies, all, for the munged reply-to and the spamcatcher from email addresses. Could one of you savants answer a few questions for me? Two months (or so - sic?) ago, after a nasty outage on my home phone, I checked to see if US Worst's DSL was available; after all, I live less than 1.6 street miles from the CO (excuse me, 'wiring center') for the ATlantic exchange. Was told then by the bot on the fone at US Worst it was available; their testing of the pair confirmed it. So, I call up US Worst yesterday, and quelle surprise! My line no longer qualifies for even 256KB DSL, and no one at US Worst could explain why, instead dragging in all kinds of red herrings as to how hard they work at getting it installed. I can only surmise that 1) since I still have a good 44Kb/sec v.90 dial-up connection to my present ISP, same as I had then, they have not put me on a 'line expander' (where they put a second line up on a carrier, sharing the same copper pair). However, they could have cut me over to a longer wire path than I had before. 2) Perhaps their internal capacity for DSL is overcome right now (remember the recent price drop to $29.95/mo)? Could one of you savants answer a few questions for me? A) For the flavor of DSL which US Worst uses (ADSL Carrierless Amplitude Phase (CAP)-based products), what's the wire-feet limit for distance from the CO to the premises? B) What kind of CO equipment is required for them to attache to the switch to offer that flavor of DSL? ------------------------------ From: Nathan Hicks Subject: CLEC Coverage Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:23:22 -0400 Patrick, I'm trying to figure out what percent of small business in the US are covered by CLECs (have the option of CLEC service) and what percent use CLECs. I would appreiciate any help you could offer. Thanks, Nate ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:38:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Unmasking Xircom's Xorro http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4991,00.html Xircom won a round Monday in its legal battle to unmask (and silence) a critic who posted two messages critical of the company on Yahoo's message boards. It's not the first time a company has subpoenaed Yahoo to turn over the name of someone bashing the company on its boards, but it is the first time the anonymous basher has fought back in court. Xircom makes network and modem cards for PCs. Judge John J. Hunter of Ventura Superior Court in Southern California tossed out Xircom's original subpoena on a technicality, but left the door open for it to file another to Yahoo to reveal the name. An attorney for the basher, whom the court calls John Doe, said it was free speech. But Hunter said, "There is no right to free speech to defame." Did John Doe defame Xircom? Xircom says it will prove so in court, while Doe's attorney, Megan Gray, says Xircom's legal actions are all a show to get her client to shut up. But few quotes showed up in the press to let us judge for ourselves the defamatory material. The New York Times' Rebecca Fairley Raney quoted John Doe saying Xircom was no longer the fun place to work it once was. Pretty tough stuff. In the same report, Xircom's lawyer called the statements "not the kind of chitchat that usually flies around the Internet." But if he had spent any time on the Yahoo finance boards, he would know that's exactly the kind of chitchat that flies around the Internet. Anonymity, a global megaphone and disgruntled employees tend to lead to a predictable outcome. And many of these loudmouthed opinions are getting Web surfers hauled into court. The Los Angeles Times' Greg Miller pointed out that Xircom's action is part of a rash of subpoenas issued by public companies to uncover their online foes' identities. Internet free-speech advocates are crying foul, saying companies are abusing the legal process to intimidate critics. Judge Rejects Online Critic's Efforts to Remain Anonymous http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/cyber/articles/15identity.html John Doe's Mask Thins as Judge Lifts Hurdle for Xircom (LA Daily News) http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/001684.htm Judge Temporarily Rules Against Xircom in Its Subpoena of Yahoo http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000053667.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:43:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4993,00.html DoubleClick's planned buyout of Abacus Direct for $806 million in stock created hardly a ripple of interest among the major print dailies. A few posted yawning reports based on Bloomberg wire copy about the acquisition, which pairs the Internet-advertising company with the nation's fattest database of catalog-buying behavior. But online outlets saw more potential. ZDNet News spun the story as a promising old media/new media play. DoubleClick CFO Stephen Collins told Matthew Broersma that Abacus' control of 85 percent of its market - not to mention its 40 percent profit margins - is the perfect match for DoubleClick's advertising network. "Abacus is an incredibly dominant company in their market, because they've crushed all the competition," Collins said. That's exactly the point, say consumer advocates. With the deal allowing e-tailers in DoubleClick's advertising to run Net shoppers' names and addresses against the 2 billion catalog transactions stored in Abacus' database, there's nowhere for consumers to hide from the direct marketing machine. By day's end, News.com's Courtney Macavinta was reporting that privacy watchdogs planned to ask the FTC to block the merger. "It's the most horrendous merger for privacy," Jason Catlett, founder of Junkbusters, a clearinghouse for privacy-protection measures, told Macavinta. "There will be a centralized database containing a tremendous amount of information about your online and offline behavior, which will provide more ways for marketers to find you." It seems as though the anonymous Web surfer is rapidly becoming extinct. DoubleClick: A Cross-media Behemoth? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2275576,00.html Consumer Group to Fight DoubleClick Deal http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37803,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.d Barely 24 hours after DoubleClick said that it would acquire marketing research company Abacus Direct for $1 billion in stock, privacy coalitions announced that they would file complaints with the FTC, contending that the merged entity would pose a threat to consumer privacy. The merger, which would help DoubleClick build the ultimate online database of consumers, brings the company closer than any other to achieving every online marketer's dream. But along the way, DoubleClick may have stumbled into a consumer-backlash nightmare. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5017,00.html ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com Subject: Copy Network Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 05:59:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. What is a copy network? What are the methods of flow control employed in data communications networks? Alonzo ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #150 ******************************