From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 28 17:58:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA02585; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908282158.RAA02585@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #351 TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Aug 99 17:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 351 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cisco To Spend $7.4B To Buy Cerent and Monterey Networks (Tad Cook) Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls!!! (Tad Cook) Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General (Tony Toews) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Dan Johnson) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (A. Argyriou) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Jon D. Loo) Re: Domain Names (Joey Lindstrom) Ads For Pat (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Re: Cisco To Spend $7.4B To Buy Cerent and Monterey Networks Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:44:56 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) John Stahl wrote: > It seems that Cisco is buying another pair of companies, one of which > is a company named Cerent, for which they will shell out $6.9 billion, > that has pulled in less than $10 million over the course of the last > six months -- and lost $29 million in the process! > Wonder from whom these corporations get their info of the companies > they target for take over? I know of some ocean front property in > Phoenix they can buy, real cheap. > I guess when they want to get into another segment of the telecom/data > market, the simplest and easiest way is to buy someone with the > technology. But let's not get ridiculous with the stockholder's > money! Actually they are not handing over nearly $7 billion, they are offering an equivalent value of hyper-inflated Cisco stock. Acquisitions make sense for companies whose stock has been wildly inflated by the market frenzy associated with anything internet. Currently the market value of Cisco's stock is a staggering $220 BILLION dollars, and on Friday's close was trading at a lofty 111 times earnings. Often when stocks involved in the so-called "internet" bubble trade at such inflated levels, it makes a lot of sense for the company to trade a small portion of its holdings to acquire other companies. This is why you have seen Amazon buying up other companies at a fast clip. It doesn't make sense for them to sit on large corporate stock holdings if they can enhance value by trading a small portion of their stock to acquire other firms. Remember, they are not spending stockholder cash, they are trading stock that they DIDN'T sell to stockholders. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls!!! Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 12:01:21 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Cortland Richmond wrote: > If you get 9 off hooks in a row, a space, then one off hook, > space and one off hook, it will be seen at the Central Office as a > pulse dialed 911. A space? Meaning it is a full on-hook? (I am assuming this because the other state mentioned was off-hook) No, the C.O. might see a dialed digit, followed by an on-hook, followed by another series off off-hooks. Try taking your phone off-hook, dialing a digit, then putting it on-hook, then taking it off-hook and dialing a digit. The Central Office does not see these two events as related. In order to accept incidental pulse-dialing, the Central Office needs to see a full off-hook state, deliver dialtone, then see a series of ON-hooks approximately 50 ms long interrupted by approximately 50 ms OFF-hooks between each on-hook state. If it arrives at the C.O at an approximate rate of 10 pulses per second, followed by (I think) several hundred ms of OFF-hook inter-digit time, then it should complete the call. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 19:41:29 GMT Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote: >> While I generally don't care for government ordered monopolies and >> other bureacratic nightmares I feel the CRTC (Canadian Radio and >> Telecommunications Commission) has done a decent job of regulating the >> telephone industry. We do have competition in long distance. Although >> I choose not to use any carriers as Telus, my provincial telco, has >> quickly matched, or near matched, the competitor's rates. > I believe you are missing the point. We still do not have real > unregulated telephone competition in Canada and we pay big-time > because of that. My main point is fairly simple. Here in Canada we have a well run telephone system with a minimum of problems. The telephone system, from my perspective, works and works reliably and efficiently. If I have a problem or question and want to talk to a human there is a minimum of voice response options and I get through to a human within a minute or two. It may cost a little more, although Ian Angus would disagree and various points about the exchange rate may or may not be valid, but I will happily pay a premium for good quality service where the employees are reasonably happy and efficient at their jobs. If, OTOH, rates are driven so low that the employees are grossly underpaid and are of correspondingly low quality who don't care, then I don't want that telephone system. > The Canadian Telcos have done such a good job > lobbying (corrupting) the CRTC and the powers that be in Canada > that Canadians feel good about the shaft they are receiving. Then we agree to disagree. > The Canadian Telcos have done no significant cost-cutting to enter > this supposed age of competition. I'll let Ian's previous replies stand for this. > I figure the Canadian Telcos should be forced to cut their cost > structure to maintain their profitability in a time of competition rather > than lobbying (corrupting) the Canadian government and the CRTC > for permission to milk more money from their residential > subscribers. Whereas I disagree. The telephone system is reasonably priced. I'm paying about $500 to $700 per month on my various phone bills. Between my Yellow Page advertising, various lines, Internet access and long distance I feel I have much more to complain about that most people. > I don't intend to insult anyone here with my rant but I get that funny > feeling everytime I sit down after I get my telephone bill. BTW I should point out that I'm mostly to the right on the political spectrum. I don't like many things about unions and so on. Just thought I'd point out that I'm no left wing, pinko NDPer. 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) From: panoptes@iquest.net (Daniel W. Johnson) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:54:32 -0500 Jonathan D Loo wrote: > If a company has a trademark and this trademark existed prior to the > registration of a domain name, this company should have no trouble > acquiring the domain name even if the domain name registrant refuses. One problem with this: Trademarks apply to specific product fields. A music company with the trademark "Apple" can't touch a company that wants to use (and register) that as a trademark for something other than music. (Of course, the second company needs to be careful that its products aren't useful for music.) A game company that registers the trademark "AD&D" for one of its products can't keep insurance companies from using that as a term for one of their products. So, what would you have happen if companies with the same word trademarked in different fields want the same domain name? Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 07:45:50 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) wrote: > There is no suburb to move to on the internet, > unless you consider proprietary services like AOL's. AOL is a suburb like West Oakland is a suburb. There's some really nice houses, and some decent people, but ... Suggesting AOL (or any of the other proprietary services) as a refuge from the over-commercialization of the internet is a pretty ridiculous idea. There's a lot of non-commercial internet out there, and there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to make money on the internet. The real problem is intrusiveness of the process, and the (anti-capitalist) abuse of the law to obtain unfair advantages Going to the Avery Dennison case -- I think that AD would have a case for infringement if the domain avery.com had been taken -- .com means commercial, and Avery is a well known brand (Avery labels). Most reasonable people would expect to find Avery Labels at avery.com. However, .net and org mean something else, and avery.net doesn't imply Avery labels at all. What's needed is a judge who will say that .net and .org don't get the same kind of trademark protection as does .com. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 04:51:11 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > For the information of Jonathan Loo and others who seem to feel that > if a company has a trademark or copyright all they have to do is just > shut down someone else's website and take the name away from them, you > cannot just take someone's name like that. They cannot take over the domain *unless* the trademark was registered *before* the domain name was registered, if I recall correctly. > Columbine was the fault of the Internet and all the gun dealers and > bomb-makers therein while conveniently ignoring the fact that high > school can be hell for some kids, and that after all the taunting and > tormenting they had to take because they were gay the two at Columbine > eventually broke from the pressure; I suppose we might as well now > pick on guys who choose names for their sites that only an idiot would > confuse with that of a major corporation. I didn't know they were Gay. Was this in the news? If yes then I must have missed something. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I guess you must have missed something. Many papers did not mention it at all; others chose to not make an issue out of it. I do not intend to either. By the way, you do not spell it with an upper-case 'G' ... it is not a proper noun, it is an adjective. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:54:46 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Domain Names On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:30:33 -0400 (EDT), TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I note you say 'controls will be > enforced on the users' rather than controls being enforced on the > companies which are swarming all over the place. How nice. Yes, by > all means, let's keep the users in their place and not offend our > new residents; why who knows, they may take the hint and go back to > their storefronts and stay off the net. I welcome anyone on this net > as long as they are willing to follow the existing rules and trad- > itions which have long been in place here. > As to who 'owns the internet' I suggest it is 'owned' by the persons > and institutions who support its traditional role over the first > couple decades of its existence; a medium for the exchange of ideas > and knowledge; a way for people to communicate freely without the > restrictions and sanitizing imposed on their ideas and speech so > common in the mainstream media. Some have supported that role by > financing the 'backbone'; others have supported it by making their > computers available for free or at cost to the public who wish to > use them. Still others have supported it with their creativity and > knowledge shared freely with everyone. In short, anyone who wasn't here in the 80's, when the internet was a cool and groovy place, should be made to take a back seat and allow "the old timers" to continue to set the rules, with no input from us at all. Well, thank you very much, Pat. Who "owns" the internet? A lot of people "own" the internet, or at least small pieces of it. I "own" some of it: I've got four servers hooked up to an ADSL line and have about a dozen websites, plus email, RealAudio, etc. In this respect, I "own" more internet than you do. Yet you would have me sit back and allow you to set the rules for me? No thanks -- I get a vote too. Let's get something straight here. The internet was originally built by the US Department of Defense and all the other organizations that decided to link in, ie: mostly educational institutions, military bases, etc. The pricetag was enormous. It was their (collective) decisions to basically leave things free and open that created the "traditions" that you've mentioned. The users of the 'net at that time didn't have a big convention and decide how things would work - they just evolved haphazardly. Nobody climbed a mountain and returned with two stone tablets labelled "The Ten Internet Commandments". I can understand why people pine (no pun intended) for the "good old days". But those days are gone. As Denis Leary would say, "Life sucks, get a f***ing helmet." Deal with it and focus on doing whatever you can to make your corner of the internet a good place. And, indeed, you do an admirable job there. I guess what I'm venting about here, Pat, is the near-constant corporate bashing that goes on here. Yes, there are some companies on the 'net who are not nice netizens -- I'd rank Geocities at the top of this list. But the whole "American spirit" is to vote with your wallet -- or in this case, with your mouse. Don't like Geocities sites? Don't visit 'em or use a pop-up killer. Case closed, move on. Pat, as much as it may gall you and the other old-timers here, these companies have every right to do what they're doing, and every right to carve out their little niche on the 'net. If we don't like what they're doing, nobody's forcing us to visit their sites. I hear lots of bitching about having to register to read articles on some New York newspaper's website. Aw, shucks. I guess we should campaign for a new law to force these companies to provide us with the latest news free of charge without registration. I mean, after all, it's our right -- we were here first, after all, and they're just a bad ol' corporation and a Johnny-come-lately to boot. It costs money to maintain such a website. BIG money. They've gotta pay reporters to go out and get stories, they've gotta pay wire services for copy that they don't generate themselves, they've gotta pay for bandwidth, servers, and someone to mash it all into the website on a daily basis. Somebody pays the bill, and unlike the "good ol' days", that somebody isn't an educational institute with a massive budget allocated for expensive toys. They expect to earn a profit, and rightly so. Personally, I'm not too worried about having to register to use their website. But on the other hand, I find it easier to just surf on over to www.cnn.com or one of the other great free news sites on the internet. CNN gives me one banner ad at the top of each page, and I don't have a problem with that at all. It's inobtrusive, and occasionally one will interest me to the point where I'll actually click-thru the damned thing. And that's how CNN makes their money, and thus can continue bringing me their excellent free service. Sometimes I'll click-thru an ad not because I'm interested in the advertised product, but because I haven't clicked-thru for a few days and figure I owe them the 12 cents or so they'll collect. One good turn deserves another, after all. The "good old days" of the internet were a something-for-nothing proposition for a great many of the netizens involved. In turn, they'd use the resources they had at their disposal and, in turn, would build something useful with them (ie: the TELECOM Digest). But somebody had to funnel those resources into the 'net in the first place. Those days are gone, gone, and gone. Dang it all. We can moan and bitch, or we can adjust and move on. > Geocities has supported the net by tossing popup ads in the face of > everyone who visits them. Many companies have supported the net by > snooping on everyone who comes to visit them. Quite a few newcomers > have supported the net by conducting one scam after another, or > flooding us with unwanted email. All very net-like and traditional, > wouldn't you say? Well, you probably would say so if you had only > been around here for the last five years or so, but believe me, > that is *not* what the net is about, or how it was intended. What was "intended" and what "is" are two different things. Tough cookies (again, no pun intended). Yes indeed, there are a bunch of rotten bastards on the 'net these days. Kinda like in real life, no? The nirvana days are gone, get used to it and find creative ways to deal with it. The clock isn't gonna roll back (well, 'cept for those poor buggers with non-Y2K compliant machines, that is ...) > Regards whether or not corporate support is needed and whether or > not the net could survive without it, all I can say is are people > around here really that hard-up financially? I certainly support > the growth of the *user-base* on the internet. I certainly support > the improvements in connectivity we have seen in the past few years. And who should pay for this? Would you prefer that the users pay $100/month for a 28.8K dial-up account? Because without the big companies, that's exactly what we'd be facing. > cents per click-through. A web site called 'Topica' has offered me > five hundred dollars for my mailing list, can you believe that? I > would get about 25 cents for each of you guys. I suppose I could buy a > new computer and improve my network connectivity. We all want the net > to grow and prosper, right? In actual practice, when my rent comes > due every Thursday and its two weeks before the next ITU grant > installment arrives and the post office box has produced only very > slim pickings for several weeks, it *is* tempting. But no thanks, > the net means a little more to me than that, and I wish it did to > you as well. PAT] Pat, if "Topica" is willing to pay you 25 cents for my email address, you HAVE MY EXPRESS PERMISSION to sell it to them. It's not much, but I'm willing to "pay" for my TELECOM Digest (at least in a small, small way) by having to deal with a bit more spam. I wonder how many others here would be similarly willing to offer up their email address for this? Maybe Pat could find several buyers, each of whom would pass along 25 cents for our email addresses. If he was successful, he wouldn't need sponsorship anymore - the TELECOM Digest would be a self-financing operation. The net means a lot to me, too, Pat, and I'm not trying to denigrate you or your efforts or your vision of what the net should be. But I live in 1999 and have to deal with things as they are, not how they used to be. Sure, it'd be nice to go back to those old days, but it ain't gonna happen. My favourite author, Robert Heinlein, said it best: "TANSTAAFL", or "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". Maybe you should consider moving away from voluntary donations, and asking all Digest subscribers to (perhaps after a free two-week trial to see if they like it or not) toss in a MANDATORY subscription fee of, say, $5/year. IIRC (and my memory's fuzzy here), you mentioned you had a subscriber base of about 4000 - that translates to $20,000/year, and I for one would pay that $5. But I also would have *NO* problem whatsoever with you putting a CNN-style banner ad on the website, and/or a text ad at the bottom (or top) of each Digest, or whatever it takes to help pay the bills. If you went too far, and pulled a Geocities on us, I'd likely stop subscribing - so it's a precarious balance. But I think just about everyone here knows that the Digest puts a financial burden on you, and would not only be ok with you going for a bit of advertising revenue, but would in fact encourage you to do so if you put the question to them. 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 "Bend the rules, but don't break them." --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I never said you had to be here in the 1980's. I said you are welcome (let me repeat myself) *if you support the traditional role of the net as it was used during all those years*. Obviously, not everyone could be around in the 1980's; I daresay many of the people who have become millionaires on the net at the expense of the rest of us probably were not even born by then (smiling, but with teeth bared as I smile). Whenever you were born, hatched, dropped out of a tree or whatever is unimportant. How many computers and peripherals you own is unimportant. What you choose to do with them is unimportant. When you choose to come into an *existing community* how you choose to conduct yourself *is very important*. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and all that. I never said you do not get any say-so or had to take a back seat. I never claimed the rules of the net were part of the Ten Commandments or any similiar thing. What I think I said was in essence that the internet was around for many years; there were lots of people here -- many of whom unfortunatly have fled in disgust in recent years -- and that we all had various mutual agreements as to how things would be done. We had a delightful little community, or in your words, a 'cool and groovy place' and it all worked out just fine. When newcomers arrived, they were given copies of FAQ's dealing with 'netiquette' and other issues. We said to them 'this is what we are doing here, and how we do it. Would you like to be part of our community?' One of the important, cardinal rules was that we shared without question or hesitation our knowledge in the areas in which we were specialists. We never wrote down our rules and we never had lawyers to enforce them because it was thought unnecessary. I can now look back in hindsight of course and say look at the mess that has become of things as a result. To this day I blame Timothy Berners-Lee for not slapping a very strong, very heavy-handed copyright on all his work involving the web, effectively making the misuse we have now impossible. But of course he did not do that because the web was *his* contribution to our community. Poor innocent Tim ... he just puts it in the public domain, like all of us here used to do. Imagine any of the commercial sites that have infested the net in recent years putting any of their stuff in the public domain. Far from it ... instead, their attitude has been to hell with your netiquette, to hell with your traditions, to hell with your plans, to hell with your goals, to hell with your sharing amongst yourselves; we are here now and we are taking over and you will damned well do as you are told or else leave. If we have to, our lawyers will force you to comply. This is now ours, it is not yours any longer. Your rules have all been revoked, under the assumption we choose to respect the legitimacy of any of them to start with. Find me a single one of their websites which does not post their set of rules, their prohibition against copying any of their material, all their 'Ten Commandments' enforced by thier legal beagles. >"I would have no problem with you putting a banner ad on pages or > selling my name" ... Maybe you wouldn't, but I surely would. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 01:00:16 -0600 Reply-To: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Ads For Pat In regards to my last post, how many of you would be ok with the idea of Pat including a banner ad or two on the TELECOM Digest website in order to pay some of his expenses, and/or text ads within the Digest itself? Don't clutter the Digest or the newsgroup with your responses, send them via email to: adsforpat@interocitor.net I'll tally 'em up over the next week and post the results here. 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 "If you offer someone a body part to slit, make certain it doesn't have a major artery." --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish you would not do that, and I must ask that no one respond. There are various reasons why it cannot happen here: One, it would be in contravention of my grant from ITU, which was explicitly provided as a way to keep the Digest free of advertising. Two, it would be insulting to those people who have given gifts at one time or another to help fund the Digest and keep it non-commercial. Three, it would be insulting to the special friends of the Digest who have given extraordinarily to assist such as Mike Sandman, Paula Pettis and others unnamed who have been placed all these years on the page of sponsors, and have remained there making no special demands for space, time or mention. Four, it would be an imposition on MIT which provides me excellent connectivity, a tremendous amount of disk space and a great deal of personal latitude. Sites in .edu are not to have advertising and I do not intend to impose on them in that way, nor do I think they would even allow it, but I am not going to bother inquiring. I suspect their allowance of advertising here could jeopardize some aspects of their own organization. Five, it would be inappropriate for a site in .org to carry advertising. I would not want to continue as an .org, which would mean changing the domain to .com, and having to deal with those problems. Furthermore, you should note that 'telecom-digest.org' is *merely an alias* which points to massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives. Its physical property is zero, it has no physical location. Therefore, see again my fourth objection, above. It would Six, it would be a conflict of interest to carry advertising while attempting to editorialize about the advertisers. What telco do you know of that would advertise here given my disposition and that of many of the writers here? What sort of messages could ever appear here in the future that were not clouded by suspicion based on the presence of the advertising? I see no way it would work at all without a lot of people getting getting victimized in the process. And by the way, they don't pay twelve cents per click-through. How about two cents? I have tolerated this to a limited extent in areas like /news and /postoffice where the ads have been a 'take it or leave it' proposition and I felt the good for this site outweighed the bad, and where I have no personal involvement in or profit from the click-throughs ... but no click- throughs in the Digest proper. So please don't even consider it. Thank you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #351 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 29 21:07:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA16339; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:07:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908300107.VAA16339@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #352 TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Aug 99 21:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 352 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? (Roy Smith) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Alan Gore) Re: How I Block Cookies (Ron Donnell) GSM Phone With "Privacy Indicator"? (David Wagner) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (J.F. Mezei) The Trouble With the Newcomers (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? Organization: New York University School of Medicine Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 18:04:57 -0400 Jim Van Nuland wrote: > It's a coincidence. As you've stated, the A-, B- and sometimes C- > batteries were of whatever voltage was needed for the particular vaccuum > tubes. > Note that AAA, AA, A, C, and D cells are all 1.5 volts (except that the > NiCd of the same sizes are 1.2 or 1.25. So the cell letters are physical > sizes, and only approximagely, voltages. A little nomenclature here ... A "cell" is a single anode-electrolyte-cathode unit. The actual voltage depends on the chemistry of the cell. Carbon-zinc and alkaline dry cells are both about 1.5 volts. A NiCd (Nickle-Cadmium) is about 1.2 volts. A lead-acid wet cell (as found in a car battery) is about 2.25 volts. All sorts of more exotic special-purpose cells (Silver-Mercury, Lithium-Metal-Hydride, etc) each have their own charateristic fully-charged cell voltage. The AAA, AA, A, C, D, etc designations all denote form-factor, i.e. physical dimensions, and location/shape/and polarity of contacts. There's also a "half AA" size, which is the same diameter as a AA cell, and half the length. The only place I've ever seen them used is in some computer motherboards for clock power (Apple used to like them in the Mac-II series). In theory, at least, I suppose you could build a (sealed!) lead-acid cell in a "D" shape, and then you'd have a 2.25 volt D cell. A "battery" is, by definition, an assembly of two or more cells. For example, a standard "12 volt" car battery is 6 lead-acid cells in series, each one producing 2.25-ish (I'd have to look up the exact number) volts, for a total of about 13.6 (or is it 13.8?) volts when fully charged. A 90 volt "B" battery would be a stack of 60 1.5 volt dry cells in a single package. The package is typically a paperboard box, so it's easy to open, and if you do so, you'll find exactly that inside. A 9 volt transistor battery is a stack of 6 cells inside. If you carefully open one up by prying or cutting the metal skin apart, you'll find a stack of 6 flattish cells, wired in series. ------------------------------ From: agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:12:27 GMT Organization: Software For PC's Jonathan D. Loo wrote: > A search on Companies Online (http://companies.lycos.com) reveals there > indeed are many offices in many states and it is not clear which is the > correct office. This one looks promising: Thanks for the references. It's something else I can try. agore@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke http://www.alangore.com ------------------------------ From: Ron Donnell Subject: Re: How I Block Cookies Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:55:21 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Alan Boritz wrote (emphasis added in 4th line): ... > Keep in mind, though, that regardless of whether you allow web sites > to write to cookies.txt, a rogue web site operator can read anything > stored there (like passwords, preferences, etc.), unless if you've > upgraded to a version HIGHER THAN 4.51 (see Netscape tech note at > http://help.netscape.com/kb/client/981231-1.html). Not to be picky, but I think it's worth noting that according to the web page cited: > The Cookie Monster bug affects all existing versions of Netscape > Navigator (2.x through 4.x) on all platforms up until 4.51 when > it was fixed. So if you have 4.51, as I read it, you are OK w.r.t. this cookie threat. Ron Donnell ------------------------------ From: David Wagner Subject: GSM Phone With "Privacy Indicator"? Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:34:17 +0000 I've heard that some GSM cellphones have an "encryption indicator" that shows what level of encryption you're using. Any leads? In particular, I'd like to be able to tell whether my conversation is using A5/1 (the strong encryption algorithm), A5/2 (the weak one), or is sending in cleartext. Any tips would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks! David Wagner, daw@cs.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Date: 29 Aug 1999 01:13:08 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 02:41:29 -0400 (EDT), jloo@polaris.umuc.edu allegedly said: > On InfoSeek (http://infoseek.go.com) the following is listed as an > address for MCI: > Bernard J. Ebbers > Chief Executive Officer > MCI WorldCom, Inc. > 515 East Amite Street > Jackson, MS 39201 I'd try this one first. WorldCom started in Jackson, Miss. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org I am the president and sole shareholder of NSTC. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that my opinions do represent the official opinions of the company :) ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 21:49:41 -0400 Anyone want to bet that Bill Gates will somehow succeed in claiming he invented the Internet ? After all, Microsoft convinced Deloit & Touche to broadcast ads stating that it was Microsoft that ushered in the information age. My sister is doing a documentary and asked me if the internet started with Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 :-( :-( She couldn't beleive me when I told her it started well before PCs existed. By the way, shouldn't the title not be "20th" Birthday ? If one considers that the MAC-OS began in 1984, even though its predecsoors, the LISA (and the XEROX test systems before) were the originators, the the birthdate of the Internet should really the time when the *inter*net began, and not Arpanet. Right ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:24:45 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Trouble With the Newcomers Sorry, but in the last issue there was not enough time or space to answer Joey Lindstrom as completely as I would have liked. I will try to finish my response now. Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Let's get something straight here. The internet was originally built > by the US Department of Defense and all the other organizations that > decided to link in, ie: mostly educational institutions, military > bases, etc. The pricetag was enormous. It was their (collective) > decisions to basically leave things free and open that created the > "traditions" that you've mentioned. The users of the 'net at that time > didn't have a big convention and decide how things would work - they > just evolved haphazardly. Nobody climbed a mountain and returned with > two stone tablets labelled "The Ten Internet Commandments". You are completely correct. At least you seem to agree with me that the founding organizations and people made some decisions in how they wanted things to be here, 'free and open', creating the traditions. You are also correct that there is nothing in the law or otherwise which sustains those traditions. Unfortunatly, in their short-sighted way, they saw no reason to nail things down, and now it has all been stolen. That should be a lesson for us the next time any of us create something new: set the rules in stone. Sad, but truly needed. > I guess what I'm venting about here, Pat, is the near-constant > corporate bashing that goes on here. Yes, there are some companies on > the 'net who are not nice netizens -- I'd rank Geocities at the top of > this list. But the whole "American spirit" is to vote with your wallet > -- or in this case, with your mouse. Don't like Geocities sites? Don't > visit 'em or use a pop-up killer. Case closed, move on. If it were just that easy, it would be great. Trouble is, there is more than meets the eye with your simplistic approach. > Pat, as much as it may gall you and the other old-timers here, these > companies have every right to do what they're doing, and every right to > carve out their little niche on the 'net. If we don't like what > they're doing, nobody's forcing us to visit their sites. You make it sound as though Mr. Tiny Little Netizen has a web site and he supports it by offering a couple things for sale. When someone comes to his virtual shop, he sells whatever. If I do not like what he sells or what he promotes, I vote with my mouse and do not go back. You make it sound as though I want to drive him away, which I do not. The purpose of the web is to openly share with the community and if necessary, use some advertising or commmercial activity to support your work, not the other way around where you come here to sell things and have nothing to offer in exchange. Read the newspapers as they encourage businesses to start web sites. They don't say, go start a web site and make the world a better place by a process of sharing and learning. No, what they say is, you had better set up a web site cause there are millions of netizens out there you can hustle with your goods and merchandise. There is gold to be made on the net. There are all sorts of demographics to be created. I will suggest the original intention of the founders -- and thus far we agree who they were -- and the first couple decades of netizens to follow were to have an open access, easily available pool of educational and research resources. Notes of Tim Berners-Lee from fifteen years ago seem to suggest he concurred with that basic idea and expanded/improved on it with the idea that everyone could very easily link to everyone else. If you agree with those goals and ideas, then welcome! We don't care if you have a major computational center on your premises, two or three computers and a dozen peripherals attacked to the wire, a small laptop computer like myself, or if you go down to the public library and use their terminal each day. Bring your ideas, your resources, your abilities and let's do it! If you want to learn, and share and exchange on this great big party line, then join the rest of us who have been doing it for years. But now come the ones you say have 'every right' to be here and they say, "Well we did not come here to share and exchange at all. We came here just to sell things. We don't share our stuff, we sell it." I suggest they came to the wrong place. The ones with 'every right' don't seem to have much concern about netiquette (spam, privacy violations), and say they will set the rules henceforth. Not only am I free to move my mouse as I please, I am also free try and do everything in my power to avoid their email, usually unsuccessfully. I suggest they came to the wrong place if that's their goal. The ones with 'every right' see me try to dodge their email and so instead of respecting the wishes of those who do not want to receive it -- you know, some sort of old fashioned thinking which says 'I am the newcomer here, I would like to learn how to work along with these people instead of offending them right off the bat' -- they devise better and more crafty schemes to make sure their mail gets through to me anyway. If you were a newcomer in a community, real or virtual, would you start right out by being an affront and offense to everyone you met or would you at least try the old customs and traditions first and see how well you could blend in? Some of them might be amazed to find out how well received they would be if they put up a single dinky web page with something of value to the community overall and in a casual way discussed the business they are in and what they have for sale rather than 'welcoming' you to their site by immediatly demanding registration, warning you against trying to pull any funny stuff and then tossing a bunch of ads right in your face. Some welcome, eh? I suggest the net has never worked that way in the past, and although I am amenable to compromise and considering change, I don't like having all my goals and dreams ripped off either. Perhaps they came to the wrong place. > I hear lots of bitching about having to register to read articles on > some New York newspaper's website. Aw, shucks. I guess we should > campaign for a new law to force these companies to provide us with the > latest news free of charge without registration. I mean, after all, > it's our right -- we were here first, after all, and they're just a > bad ol' corporation and a Johnny-come-lately to boot. They are under no obligation of the sort. None of us are under any legal or moral obligation to deposit things on the net for the benefit of others. But if we choose to enter an existing arrangement where 'tradition' or founder's choice of operation or whatever dictate certain ways of doing things, then we do have an obligation to work within the existing procedures. If they are unwilling to deposit things on the net for the benefit of others at no charge -- and that is their perfect right -- then let me suggest perhaps they are in the wrong place. That is how we do it here. Regards your 'bad ol corporation' sarcasm, let me just say that it has been my experience at least, that in any scenario, virtual as on the web or as real as a skyscraper office building in downtown Chicago, most large corporations are not reluctant or hesitant at all to toss existing tradition, rules and moral codes of behavior down the nearest sewer when it meets their needs. It certainly should not come as a shock they want to do it here on the net also. > It costs money to maintain such a website. BIG money. Bologna. Most corporate web sites are grossly over-valued in terms of 'what it costs' to maintain them. Please do not become an apologist for the crowd which likes to say 'those terrible hackers broke into our site and now it is going to cost us millions of dollars just to repair the damage. ' That joke was old a few years ago. > They've gotta pay reporters to go out and get stories, they've gotta > pay wire services for copy that they don't generate themselves, They already have those people, remember? They've been putting out a print publication for over a hundred years. > they've gotta pay for bandwidth, servers, and someone to mash it all > into the website on a daily basis. That would be an additional expense, however I would be more impressed if they charged it off from the profit they are making already and treated it as a marketing expense for their existing product. Perhaps some of their print advertisers would be interested in simple, unobtrusive, inoffensive messages at the site to help offset their costs. > Somebody pays the bill, and unlike the "good ol' days", that > somebody isn't an educational institute with a massive budget > allocated for expensive toys. I dare say most of them have massive budgets, and some of the commercial sites would put the smaller educational sites on the net to shame when it comes to 'toys'. > They expect to earn a profit, and rightly so. No, not rightly so. Go back again and read the first paragraph about the founders, the intentions, the tradition and all that ... I guess really you are providing the best answer I could make for my own argument here. They came to the net to make a profit. Not to share, not to learn, not to contribute to the world, *but to rip off the net and make a profit*. In that sense, what makes them better than any spammer you would complain about, except they are more sophisti- cated in their approach. If you came here to make a profit at the expense of the rest of us, or just to gather demographics and increase your customer base, I suggest you came to the wrong place. That never has been our goal or purpose here before. Joey, you would be among the first to complain about unwanted spam in your mailbox, and that's fine. But why is cluttered up bandwidth along with the repressive rules they would like to enforce on the whole net not as equally offensive to you as a cluttered mailbox? Spam is spam, whether it comes in the form of unwanted email for some commercial product or service or whether it comes in the form of registration to receive further spam or in the form of banners you click on to receive spam? The point is, most commercial sites are not present here to share. They are here to take. They are here to sell, and profit at the expense of everyone else. That is not what the net was built for, and it is why I suggest that maybe they are in the wrong place. > I find it easier to just surf on over to www.cnn.com or one of the > other great free news sites on the internet. CNN gives me one banner > ad at the top of each page, and I don't have a problem with that at > all. Then sometime perhaps you should try http://telecom-digest.org/news since I don't give you any banner advertisements at all in the areas I directly control such as the audio news headlines, the quick news summary, or the secondary page of about a hundred headlines each day you can click on. A few of the suppliers there do put banner ads on their individual pages which I have no control over, but their work is decent enough that I live with it. If you have no problems with one banner ad at the top of a page, then I doubt you will have any problems with the same news and no banner ads at all. > It's inobtrusive, and occasionally one will interest me to the point > where I'll actually click-thru the damned thing. And that's how CNN > makes their money, and thus can continue bringing me their excellent > free service. Precisely, and that is what makes cnn.com such a fine credit to the net. I have CNN's video newscast at http://telecom-digest.org/news/CNNTV.html and I have no problem at all with the little *12 second* blurb on the front or the *30 second* blurb on the end of the ten minute video which they update around the clock. After they first started that feature, I was the one that had to call Atlanta (they operate their web site out of Turner Broadcasting facilities there) to tell them they had their .ram file pointed at the wrong thing a few times but they have it all in pretty good working order now. > The "good old days" of the internet were a something-for-nothing > proposition for a great many of the netizens involved. In turn, they'd > use the resources they had at their disposal and, in turn, would build > something useful with them (e: the TELECOM Digest). But somebody had > to funnel those resources into the 'net in the first place. See above. It was not all one-sided something-for-nothing as you suggest. Some gave money (are you saying that is everything?) and some contributed time, resources and knowledge, which apparently is the 'nothing' side of your illustration. > Those days are gone, gone, and gone. Dang it all. We can moan and > bitch, or we can adjust and move on. But they are only 'gone' because the newcomers have chosen to make them 'be gone' while substituting their own version of how things should be in their place. I do not accept their authority for doing so. Remember, you are dealing now with sites who firmly hold the position no more sharing, no more learning, just selling and demographics collecting. Not a little sharing, some selling on the side to support it and collecting some demographics that we might better improve our site, but rather, no sharing, lots of selling, and demographics that we might better screw the netizens. I'll choose to moan and bitch, thank you, my underlying thesis being perhaps they came to the wrong place. I'll make the perfectly outlandish suggestion that when you go into a commmunity, set in its ways perhaps, with no rule of law governing its traditions, you might at least try to make friends instead of enemies. They might try reading Dale Carnagie's book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' and then try to set up their web sites. But you see, they are not here looking for friends, they are not here looking to learn anything except how many credit cards you have in your purse and what your credit line on them is and what makes you tick, the better to sell you whatever. Isn't it too bad when on the front page of Tribute to the Telephone a message has to appear saying 'this is not a commercial site, we have nothing to sell, we do not want to buy anything', the default these days being the exact opposite of course. If all it took was moving my mouse, that would be great. But in reality the toll has been much, much higher. If you run a mailing list of any size these days, half of it bounces because the end site 'does not allow spam'. If you want to start a web site, better clear the name you intend to use with Corporation X's attorney first. If you are going to write about some topic or speak about it, have you made certain Corporation Y will allow that sort of speech. Government restrictions and hassles on the net are worse than ever before. And when it comes to pure, unadulterated ignorance, nothing can match a newspaper reporter writing about the net. > And who should pay for this? Would you prefer that the users pay > $100/month for a 28.8K dial-up account? Because without the big > companies, that's exactly what we'd be facing. I dispute those figures. I would like some proof of it. This sounds a lot like 'our web site cost us a million dollars to fix the last time a hacker broke into it.' Nonsense! > The net means a lot to me, too, Pat, and I'm not trying to denigrate > you or your efforts or your vision of what the net should be. But I > live in 1999 and have to deal with things as they are, not how they > used to be. Sure, it'd be nice to go back to those old days, but it > ain't gonna happen. It certainly won't happen as long as Internet Society continues to hold meetings with large business interests in which netizen or other public participation is forbidden even though taxpayer money is used to fund it. You knew of course they flatly refuse to allow any netizen reporters to attend. Ronda Hauben was kicked out when she tried to go to one of the sessions. Oh, they allow the {New York Times} to attend of course, because they can count on the story getting out the way they want it. Their explanation for how they can use government money yet keep the meetings closed to the public? Well you see, there are foreign business interests present and many of them have always been accustomed to doing business secretly without anyone watching, and they would be offended if they were required to obey American laws and customs on open meetings and all that. They literally had the gall to use that explanation for why the 'average netizen' is not welcome at their meetings. I do not know if that was before or after they put the mocking comment on their web site that, 'the internet is for everyone' ... everyone willing to be choked with cookies, demographiced and spied on, that is. Even though I asked -- I thought nicely -- to have a link from their site to http://internet-history.org they won't do it. I suspect they sort of wish the net of the past would vanish and no one would learn about it at all. The net of the future is all people need to know about. > My favourite author, Robert Heinlein, said it > best: "TANSTAAFL", or "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". > Maybe you should consider moving away from voluntary donations, and > asking all Digest subscribers to (perhaps after a free two-week trial > to see if they like it or not) toss in a MANDATORY subscription fee of, > say, $5/year. IIRC (and my memory's fuzzy here), you mentioned you had > a subscriber base of about 4000 - that translates to $20,000/year, and > I for one would pay that $5. That is heresy. I have no intention of it at all. Maybe you should consider moving away from being an apologist for the rotten things and way things are in now and consider how to restore the net. Heresy! Not only is it heresy it is very fuzzy thinking indeed. How, precisely would I prevent -- if I wished to do do -- people from reading the messages on Usenet, or Compuserve or anywhere I post them? Maybe I could cut Usenet out of the feed. Lord knows the newspaper you would have no trouble registering with has never tossed anything there for open, free discusssion, why should I any longer? I could discontinue providing the Digest as part of the library at the Compuserve telecom special interest group since I doubt that Universal gives CIS members any free movies to look at. How would I prevent people from looking at the web site and http://telecom-digest.org/latest-issue or http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online if they wished? I have the answer! I could put up terms and conditions on the web site, forbid any linking or any peeking, track down the offenders and have an attorney sent them a nasty letter when I caught them doing it. Oh, I almost forgot about those two sites which mirror the archives; well, the lawyers can put a stop to that easily enough, and anonymous FTP can be shut down easily also. Then, by God, you will pay me the mandatory five dollars or do without! You see, you are missing the point, Joey. You are assuming they landed here intending to be nice and good netizens and all that, when there was no such intention behind their arrival. They came here to pick you clean. Do you remember the story of the 'Great Train Robbery'? The train stops suddenly and a half-dozen masked men come swarming into the car full of passengers. One of them announces in a no-nonsense tone of voice, "We are going to rob all the women, and rape all the men". A tough, very masculine voice from somewhere in the car says indignantly, "Hey! You can't do that!" To which someone else replies almost gleefully, "You shut up! They can do anything to us they want to!" And so it would seem with the lastest passengers to board the internet train ... they can do anything to us they want to. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #352 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 29 22:57:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA20234; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908300257.WAA20234@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #353 TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Aug 99 22:57:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 352 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Issue 352 Marked Incorrectly (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Lisa Hancock) Re: Domain Names (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Andrew) Re: Domain Names (Phil Howard) Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (TandemTal@aol.com) Re: Is This Real? $60/Month Unlimited LD Calling (Tim Smith) Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE (Jonathan) Re: Weird Wrong Number (Adam H. Kerman) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Alan Boritz) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay (Jonathan) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Administrivia: Issue 352 Marked Incorrectly Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:00:00 EDT Some readers inadvertently recieved issue 352 with a subject line saying it was 351. Archives copy has been corrected. If you got on that was incorrectly labeled, please pencil it in correctly. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: 29 Aug 1999 03:26:54 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Ahh, the INTERNET. If I hear one more person say the Internet is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm gonna scream! Yes, the Internet is definitely here to stay and will be a big part of our future. But forgive me for being cynical, but IMHO, the Internet has a long way to go, both technologically and legally, before it meets the many dreams and claims of its supporters. A lot of work remains. I see the development of the automobile and the many problems it created as comparable. By the late 1930s, the automobile was sufficiently technologically developed to be easily usable by the masses and people were buying lots of cars. But traffic jams and lots of highway fatalities became a serious problem and remains so to this day. Have we learned anything from this (pushing new technology too fast)? I don't think so. While the growth of the Internet offers many benefits, it has also created many social problems, and opened up old ones that were once solved. Let's look at some of the issues and ask ourselves how much is really being _accomplished_ to solve them: At the turn of the century, the growing country and technological change created opportunities for dangerous fraud. The government passed food and drug regulations to protect the people. Mail and banking fraud laws were passed. Copyright and pornography laws were passed. Yet today's Internet is exempt, either legally or effectively, from many of those laws. Internet proponents seem to applaud this great openness, but the past experience shows the problems that develop. It does not cost me any money if someone sends me an advertisement via the US Mail. (The post office actually makes money from bulk mailers despite the discounts.) But the ten or so junk email messages I get every day, most of which are obvious scams or pornographic, DO cost me money through forcing me to wade through them online while the meter is running, and add my host's cost to store them on disk and bandwidth. Clearly they should be illegal, yet every day they still keep a comin'. Both myself and my employer spend money to buy virus protection software to protect our computers from sabotage. Thanks to the Internet, a criminal can now break into my home and steal from me or seriously vandalize my property from the comfort of his or own living room. I don't consider this a good thing, but most people seem to shrug it off. How reliable is the Internet? How often are we online and get disconnected in the middle of a session? How often does an error message come up for whatever reason -- site not responding, site not found, Java script error? How good is response time? (As Dave Barry put it: whole continents can emerge from the ocean in the time it takes to get a web page response; the Internet does not run at the speed of light but rather the speed of the division of motor vehicles.) Ok: are we willing to entrust our personal banking transactions to this kind of reliability? I sure as h--- won't. Say you're transferring money or paying a bill and the system crashes in the middle. Did it go through? If you re-enter it, will it end up paying it twice? How do you know what happened? What about the cost? As an individual, I'm paying $25 each month for Internet services, plus $15 for a dedicated computer phone line. Now, frankly, to me that $40 every month is an _entertainment_ expense. Do I get any benefits out of it? Well, I've been on Usenet for about six years and occassionally I've learned useful technological or product information. Is it worth $40 every month for the useful stuff? No, no way whatsoever. Remember, Usenet is only as good as the people who post to it, and many people, though well intentioned, are grossly inaccurate. (Very often I've seen someone post some technical advice only to be completely contradicted by someone else warning that the advice was dangerous! Everything I read on Usenet I take with a big grain of salt.) As to the value of product web pages: A lot of work is needed. Many sites are horribly designed and seem to show off their graphics library (while I wait) rather than provide useful information. Despite the supposedly ability of the computer to be always up to date, many sites provide outdated information. (One organization never bothered to post its abbreviated summer hours.) My employer has also provided me with Internet service at my desk. I use it. Someone walking by would think I was doing work related stuff as there'd be lots of computer related stuff on my screen. But a closer look would show that it was 1950s computer stuff, not exactly relevent to my job. (We no longer use an IBM 1401.) I wonder how few people at my employer actually use the Internet for work related stuff. I know at least one guy who does porn. One woman is into guinea pigs. Sports scores are very big. Beyond the expense of T-1 service, installing Netscape and adequate bandwidth to every desktop, how many man-hours are being lost, at my employer and others? (News headline just today: First Union Bank fires workers for doing online porn.) Anybody and everybody can put up a web page and say anything they want on it. In a Democracy, that's supposed to be a good thing. If I stood on a street corner to hand out my own printed manisfesto, that is my Constitutional right. How many people will read my work and give it credence is another story. If I want a publisher to distribute it, I'd better have something worthwhile and not harmful or illegal so the publisher and bookstores don't get sued. But on the Internet, I can put up bomb making directions. I can put up bogus medical informaton. I can even sell medications and circumvent long established safety rules. Years ago society learned it was necessary to maintain the public safety. Have we forgotten that? The old protections aren't there and haven't been replaced. Your local drugstore likely will be careful in what medicine they give you because (1) it would be illegal otherwise and (2) they don't want you to sue them. You get sick from Internet advice or drugs and what is your recourse? Some years ago the computer BBS was a big deal. It had a lot of hype too, this wonderful new way of exchanging information and meeting new people. (Turned out the "new people" was actually a very small group, often the same ones on every BBS in town, repeating the same arguments.) The Internet certainly has FUTURE _potential_ benefits. But for all the hype about "e-commerce" you'd think we've landed in Emerald City of Oz. No muss, no fuss, everything is perfect. Never leave the front of your computer, yet food and clothing will magically appear. The world doesn't and will not work that way. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:46:38 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Domain Names In article it was written: > Pat, if "Topica" is willing to pay you 25 cents for my email address, > you HAVE MY EXPRESS PERMISSION to sell it to them. It's not much, but > I'm willing to "pay" for my TELECOM Digest (at least in a small, small > way) by having to deal with a bit more spam. I wonder how many others > here would be similarly willing to offer up their email address for > this? Maybe Pat could find several buyers, each of whom would pass > along 25 cents for our email addresses. If he was successful, he > wouldn't need sponsorship anymore - the TELECOM Digest would be a > self-financing operation. Whoever is reading this, I expressly refuse to allow you to sell or harvest my e-mail address. If someone sends me unsolicited bulk e-mail then on occasion I complain to their upstream. So don't do it. > Maybe you should consider moving away from voluntary donations, and > asking all Digest subscribers to (perhaps after a free two-week trial > to see if they like it or not) toss in a MANDATORY subscription fee of, > say, $5/year. IIRC (and my memory's fuzzy here), you mentioned you had > a subscriber base of about 4000 - that translates to $20,000/year, and > I for one would pay that $5. Which means you will have to take it off UseNet. I read it on UseNet and so do a very large number of other people. Do you really want to take it off of net news? Your circulation will shrink. I would not, however, object to small, *on topic* ads being appended to the end of each message *with the moderator's approval* and only if the ads are neither cross-posted nor multi-posted. Sort of like a banner ad. For some reason I thought that Pat was subsidized either by a university or by some international organization like the UN. I guess that I was wrong. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The principal sponsor of this Digest is the International Telecommunication Union, which is a specialized agency of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. They have partially funded the Digest for several years. Network resources have been provided for several years by the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT which also provides space for the web site telecom-digest.org and network resources are also provided by iecc.com whom most of you know as John Levine. In addition, Mike Sandman has provided substantial funding at one time or another as have others. In addition, smaller gifts are provided in amounts deemed appropriate by Friends of TELECOM Digest. Where your confusion has arisen, Jonathan, I suspect is from the message appearing here a couple days ago by myself which was another in the corporation-bashing series. One of the Canadian readers, Joey, mistook the message as a complaint from me that I wanted more money, and he responded with suggestions on how to obtain it, more money, that is, by becoming a commercial web site. That was not really the point of the message or others in the series, but I do appreciate his kind thoughts, just as I appreciate your concern, Jonathan. Ummm, you *are* concerned, right? Anyone who was willing to pay me twenty-five cents would be allowed to take Joey's name and email address in vain as if somehow they needed my mailing list to do that and could not simply read it for themselves from the header of each message of his I post here. I'm glad to see you have more sense than that, and have forbidden that sort of cheap pandering on this fine Internet of ours. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@3.1415926.org (Andrew) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: 29 Aug 1999 19:10:44 GMT Organization: MaTech Anthony Argyriou (anthony@alphageo.com) wrote: > There was a recent case where Avery-Dennison was overturned on appeal > to get avery.net and dennison.net, which were held by a company which > creates vanity e-mail and web addresses. (So John Q. Avery could get > johnq@avery.net for a vanity e-mail, and http://www.avery.net/johnq > for a vanity web address.) Some strange legal reasoning. : http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/trade082499.htm I just bought avery-dennison.com (I just couldn't resist:) These thugs tried to take avery.net and dennison.net from their rightful owner and they couldn't be bothered to secure avery-dennison.com !?!? (they own averydennison.com). Andrew [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Be sure and let us know the day you get sued, raided by the FBI or whatever. I'll try to put in a good word for you with the judge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NOSPAM@intur.net (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Domain Names Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:06 GMT On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:54:46 -0600 Joey Lindstrom (Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU) wrote: > In short, anyone who wasn't here in the 80's, when the internet was a > cool and groovy place, should be made to take a back seat and allow > "the old timers" to continue to set the rules, with no input from us > at all. The opportunity exists to create a virtual or shadow network that is just what the internet was back then (I was there from 1986). The big question is, if it was setup, would it become popular? The next big question is, if it became popular, would that be good or bad? However, ultimately, it doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe because most people realize that with appropriate actions on their own part, like pressing the "d" key more often, they can make the internet be for them just what they want it to be. > Who "owns" the internet? A lot of people "own" the internet, or at > least small pieces of it. I "own" some of it: I've got four servers > hooked up to an ADSL line and have about a dozen websites, plus email, > RealAudio, etc. In this respect, I "own" more internet than you do. > Yet you would have me sit back and allow you to set the rules for me? > No thanks -- I get a vote too. Who "owns" the radio spectrum? Obviously this question isn't exactly the same as asking who "owns" the internet, but it can raise many like issues. > The "good old days" of the internet were a something-for-nothing > proposition for a great many of the netizens involved. In turn, they'd > use the resources they had at their disposal and, in turn, would build > something useful with them (ie: the TELECOM Digest). But somebody had > to funnel those resources into the 'net in the first place. > Those days are gone, gone, and gone. Dang it all. We can moan and > bitch, or we can adjust and move on. I don't recall having to pay for any of it back then. My employers and their funding agencies paid for it. The only real differences between then and now are that the funding structure is different (and more diverse), there are more people who wouldn't know what to do with a clue if they got one for free, and some more cracking going on (but probably in proportion to the growth). > What was "intended" and what "is" are two different things. Tough > cookies (again, no pun intended). Yes indeed, there are a bunch of > rotten bastards on the 'net these days. Kinda like in real life, no? > The nirvana days are gone, get used to it and find creative ways to > deal with it. The clock isn't gonna roll back (well, 'cept for those > poor buggers with non-Y2K compliant machines, that is ...) The net was our window into a subset of the world. Now the window is larger and we can see the whole world. Now we don't like what we see. Don't blame the window for what you see on the other side. Phil Howard KA9WGN phil@intur.net phil@ipal.net ------------------------------ From: TandemTal@aol.com Subject: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:59:06 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Press Release for Domain names which may break the current record for price paid for domain name: http://www.prweb.com/releases/1999/prweb9042.htm Link To SPLASH page on these domains at this time: http://www.communication-services.com ------------------------------ From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: Is This Real? $60/Month Unlimited LD Calling Date: 29 Aug 1999 17:31:37 -0700 Organization: Institute of Lawsonomy Al Iverson wrote: > You're interested in a service that was advertised to you via > unsolicited email? [signs they are not legitimate, deleted] Yeah, it sounds like a bad idea to give that specific company any money, and giving spammers in general money seems to be a bad idea. However, in many cases, I believe when something like this is spammed, the spammer is a reseller of some possibly legitimate service, so the real question for the original poster should be "can this kind of thing be for real?", and if the answer is yes, then "how can I find a non-spamming reseller?". >In article , mxs159@cwru.edu wrote: >> I received an email message about a "new plan" which claims to provide >> unlimited LD calling for $60 a month ... >> For families like mine where $100 LD bills are common (even with less >> than 9c per minute avg. plans), this of course sounds like a good yet >> believable deal, considering the ferocity of the competition out there. I'm guessing from your 9c/minute rate that your long distance is mostly intrastate, since interstate rates much lower than that can be found. If most of the calls are to people that are in the same general area, check to see if your phone company has a reasonable "foreign exchange" service. With a FX service, you get a second line at another central office, and they run a dedicated circuit from that office to your local office, and from there to your second phone. The cost for this depends on the distance, not on the amount of usage. If your distance is not too great, that might save you some money. E.g., someone where I work is just a few miles outside the local calling area for all her relatives, and got an FX line for around $20/month to get into that area. Mine is around $130/month to get into a city about 80 miles away by land. Heywood Jaiblomi wrote: > In Canada, I think I have an even better deal for my business. LD > calls in country are 35 cents per ten minute period day or nite. That > works out to 171 hours a month (or more than one solid week) before I > would hit the $60 mark. (assuming I am making mostly long calls No (assuming Canadians have 100 Canadian cents per Canadian dollar): (60 $) * (100 c/$) * (10 min/35 c) * (hr / 60 min) = 28.57 hr. Tim Smith ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:41:50 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com As I understand it, if you call a toll-free number from a pay phone, the folks you call must pay a 35 cent fee to the pay phone owner. Much unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, or "spam") advertises a toll-free number. By calling that number from a pay phone you anonymously cause them to incur a 35 cent charge. Is this correct? Is this a legal, ethical way to dissuade spammers? How can you ensure that you're calling a spammer's toll-free number, not some other number a vindictive person advertised for the exclusive purpose of bringing misery on an innocent person? ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:08:11 GMT Bill Levant wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Reader's Note: Hi, Dense, welcome to the Digest. I > think this is a reference to the urban legend about the guy who falls > asleep after a date, wakes up in the tub missing a kidney. Pretty > loose, though. WJL] > Well I guess so. I had never heard that particular story before. It was the plot of the first episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on NBC. (It wasn't the pilot, which wasn't aired for several weeks.) > Don't try anything smart like that again or I will have to get one of the > several attornies on retainer here at the Digest to order you not > to read this column any longer. PAT] Shouldn't you use attorneys who are out of braces? But I guess the ones with straightened teeth can really put the bite on you. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 07:42:26 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote: > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Not to mention time and aggravation. Why haven't you cancelled your >> MCI service? You'd stand a better chance of getting it resolved if you >> send written protests to the managers of each facility that billed you >> incorrectly. If that doesn't work, write to the president of MCI. If >> that doesn't work, file a written complaint with your state public >> service commission and file a consumer fraud complaint with your >> state's attorney general. I doubt you'll successfully resolve anything >> over the telephone. > The main reason we haven't canceled is that I think, perhaps > irrationally, that my chances of resolving this are better if I remain > a customer. Once I drop off, they can forget about me completely if > they want to. Write to MCI? The company carefuly arranges things so > there is no way to contact them by snailmail. You call the 800 number, > which refers you to other 800 numbers, each connected to offices in > different states and which do not communicate with each other. You're wasting your time, Adam. MCI doesn't give a damn about you, or whether you're a customer or not. On the other hand, American Express does the same thing, and will keep on charging you back for the double-billing, whether you show them proof that it's legitimate or not, as long as they get a response from MCI. Don't forget, Amex partnered with MCI early on to sell MCI service under the American Express name (used to be known as "Express Phone"). Do this: 1. Find another long distance carrier with reasonable rates (easy to find, since MCI is one of the most expensive). Get them to reimburse you for the PIXC change (easy to do). 2. Have your local phone company put a PIXC freeze on all of your lines for intra- and inter-lata long distance (after switching to your new carrier). 3. File a complaint with *your* state attorney general (not Federal), charging that MCI has double-billed you for telecomunications services, refuses to correct the error, continues to try to collect the charges for service after being made aware that the charges are not legitimate, and request an investigation to determine if they have similarly *defrauded* (be sure to use that word) other customers in your state. 4. Watch your Amex bill for charge-backs and keep witholding the original amount (don't add surcharges for legal expenses, you have to sue separately for those). Follow the rules (usually printed on the back of credit card statements) in every respect for witholding amounts from the credit card issuer. Bottom line, force Amex to keep charging the amount back to MCI, and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission *against Amex* if they refuse. > In any case, we have never had a problem with MCI's phone service > itself -- just with this one instance of double billing when we > switched over from cash to Amex payment. Our LD usage is quite high, > and almost all of it is internatinal. Is there any other company that > can get us to Europe for 9 cents a minute? Almost ANY LD company will be cheaper than MCI. Keep in mind, though, that MCI is probably charging you for ring-no-answers, so they're probably eating up the economy of the low per-minute rate with some fraud. This is not generally a problem with AT&T, who can monitor the real status of international calls. You should have no problem finding a carrier who can give you a switched-access WATS package with attractive pricing. > I have also tried the writing-to-officials route on one occasion > before we went with MCI, when our AT & T service was slammed by a > fly-by-night company in Easton, PA. I wrote to the FCC, the > Attorneys-general of both AZ and PA. That approach turned out to be > completely worthless. I got a form letter from each agency saying our > complaint had been received, then nothing. The Attorney General may not get MCI to stop hounding you, but you need to file a formal complaint (always send it certified) so they have something to work with. Certain kinds of complaints can't be ignored (for long, at least). You can also get a local TV station to get involved, if they have someone who covers this sort of thing, and they'd love to get their hands on a criminal complaint that the Attorney General decided to ignore. > Fortunately on that > occasion, it was the slammer who claimed I owed them money, so I > simply refused to pay and invited them to sue us. After going through > several months of havingg the company call us at five a.m. screaming > into our ears, they gave up on us. Or maybe they simply went broke, > since I never heard of the company again. If MCI gets a collection agent after you, you can do one of two things: 1. File a criminal harrassment charge against the agency for harrassing you by telephone. or 2. Get the agency's address and contact info and bill them for "consulting services." $500/hour in one-hour increments should be good for a start. Send the first invoice with a letter (certified, of course) stating that since they contacted you initially, you will assume their agreement with the terms of the contract, etc., etc. You can actually have some fun with it, depending upon how stupid the agency is (sounds like the last one was a group of budding rocket scientists). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if I could get MCI to buy some banner ads here in the Digest? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:12:15 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com >> I... prefer to pay my bill at the nearby local store in cash... >> new sign... *all* in-store bill payments would cost >> an additional $3.00. The real issue here is the handling of cash. If Sprint receives more than a modest amount of cash, they incur substantial costs -- they need special cash handling procedures, double custody rules, their insurance becomes very expensive, they may be required to engage an armored car service, and at some point their insurance company may require them to install a secured cashier's station with bulletproof glass etc. >> SprintPCS... pays a 2% to 3% surcharge to credit card companies >> cash payment... Cash... no such hit on the company's revenue. > But there is overhead... the clerk's time... Sprint probably pays less than 1% to its credit card company, because of high average invoice, high volume, and relatively low loss rates. On a typical $50 bill, that's maybe a 50 cent fee. It costs Sprint at least 30 cents to process each check. > What about paying by mail? Don't they let you mail a check with your > bill, like most other companies? That would be more efficient. So would electronic banking or automatic debit. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two problems here. First of all, no > clerk I know of is paid (or valued at) anywhere close to $50 per > hour. But Sprint PCS stores don't really have "clerks" - the people at their counter are primarily salespeople, and also handle all sorts of customer problems. The opportunity cost of one of these people -- given that they can only put a fixed number out there, and must recruit continuously to have even a minimal staff -- is easily $50/hour. > So if a $7 per hour clerk riffles credit card papers all day long or > endorses checks all day long or counts cash and puts it in a cash > register all day long, what is the difference? PAT] The credit card papers are never touched after the initial sale -- they're just bundled up for ninety days, and then discarded. The cash has be kept in some secure manner until it is delivered to a bank and counted again, and it poses a significant security risk. If you think that Sprint PCS's profits are exorbitant, buy some of their stock - it's traded as PCS, and closed on Friday 8/29/99 at 59.50. They lost $1.17 billion (before extraordinary items) in the six months that ended in June 1999. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I bet I could get Sprint to buy some banner ads here also, especially when they find out that MCI is considering buying some. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #352 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 29 23:07:29 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA20753; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:07:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908300307.XAA20753@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #353 TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Aug 99 22:57:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 353 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Issue 352 Marked Incorrectly (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Lisa Hancock) Re: Domain Names (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Andrew) Re: Domain Names (Phil Howard) Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (TandemTal@aol.com) Re: Is This Real? $60/Month Unlimited LD Calling (Tim Smith) Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE (Jonathan) Re: Weird Wrong Number (Adam H. Kerman) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Alan Boritz) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay (Jonathan) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Administrivia: Issue 352 Marked Incorrectly Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 21:00:00 EDT Some readers inadvertently recieved issue 352 with a subject line saying it was 351. Archives copy has been corrected. If you got on that was incorrectly labeled, please pencil it in correctly. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: 29 Aug 1999 03:26:54 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Ahh, the INTERNET. If I hear one more person say the Internet is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I'm gonna scream! Yes, the Internet is definitely here to stay and will be a big part of our future. But forgive me for being cynical, but IMHO, the Internet has a long way to go, both technologically and legally, before it meets the many dreams and claims of its supporters. A lot of work remains. I see the development of the automobile and the many problems it created as comparable. By the late 1930s, the automobile was sufficiently technologically developed to be easily usable by the masses and people were buying lots of cars. But traffic jams and lots of highway fatalities became a serious problem and remains so to this day. Have we learned anything from this (pushing new technology too fast)? I don't think so. While the growth of the Internet offers many benefits, it has also created many social problems, and opened up old ones that were once solved. Let's look at some of the issues and ask ourselves how much is really being _accomplished_ to solve them: At the turn of the century, the growing country and technological change created opportunities for dangerous fraud. The government passed food and drug regulations to protect the people. Mail and banking fraud laws were passed. Copyright and pornography laws were passed. Yet today's Internet is exempt, either legally or effectively, from many of those laws. Internet proponents seem to applaud this great openness, but the past experience shows the problems that develop. It does not cost me any money if someone sends me an advertisement via the US Mail. (The post office actually makes money from bulk mailers despite the discounts.) But the ten or so junk email messages I get every day, most of which are obvious scams or pornographic, DO cost me money through forcing me to wade through them online while the meter is running, and add my host's cost to store them on disk and bandwidth. Clearly they should be illegal, yet every day they still keep a comin'. Both myself and my employer spend money to buy virus protection software to protect our computers from sabotage. Thanks to the Internet, a criminal can now break into my home and steal from me or seriously vandalize my property from the comfort of his or own living room. I don't consider this a good thing, but most people seem to shrug it off. How reliable is the Internet? How often are we online and get disconnected in the middle of a session? How often does an error message come up for whatever reason -- site not responding, site not found, Java script error? How good is response time? (As Dave Barry put it: whole continents can emerge from the ocean in the time it takes to get a web page response; the Internet does not run at the speed of light but rather the speed of the division of motor vehicles.) Ok: are we willing to entrust our personal banking transactions to this kind of reliability? I sure as h--- won't. Say you're transferring money or paying a bill and the system crashes in the middle. Did it go through? If you re-enter it, will it end up paying it twice? How do you know what happened? What about the cost? As an individual, I'm paying $25 each month for Internet services, plus $15 for a dedicated computer phone line. Now, frankly, to me that $40 every month is an _entertainment_ expense. Do I get any benefits out of it? Well, I've been on Usenet for about six years and occassionally I've learned useful technological or product information. Is it worth $40 every month for the useful stuff? No, no way whatsoever. Remember, Usenet is only as good as the people who post to it, and many people, though well intentioned, are grossly inaccurate. (Very often I've seen someone post some technical advice only to be completely contradicted by someone else warning that the advice was dangerous! Everything I read on Usenet I take with a big grain of salt.) As to the value of product web pages: A lot of work is needed. Many sites are horribly designed and seem to show off their graphics library (while I wait) rather than provide useful information. Despite the supposedly ability of the computer to be always up to date, many sites provide outdated information. (One organization never bothered to post its abbreviated summer hours.) My employer has also provided me with Internet service at my desk. I use it. Someone walking by would think I was doing work related stuff as there'd be lots of computer related stuff on my screen. But a closer look would show that it was 1950s computer stuff, not exactly relevent to my job. (We no longer use an IBM 1401.) I wonder how few people at my employer actually use the Internet for work related stuff. I know at least one guy who does porn. One woman is into guinea pigs. Sports scores are very big. Beyond the expense of T-1 service, installing Netscape and adequate bandwidth to every desktop, how many man-hours are being lost, at my employer and others? (News headline just today: First Union Bank fires workers for doing online porn.) Anybody and everybody can put up a web page and say anything they want on it. In a Democracy, that's supposed to be a good thing. If I stood on a street corner to hand out my own printed manisfesto, that is my Constitutional right. How many people will read my work and give it credence is another story. If I want a publisher to distribute it, I'd better have something worthwhile and not harmful or illegal so the publisher and bookstores don't get sued. But on the Internet, I can put up bomb making directions. I can put up bogus medical informaton. I can even sell medications and circumvent long established safety rules. Years ago society learned it was necessary to maintain the public safety. Have we forgotten that? The old protections aren't there and haven't been replaced. Your local drugstore likely will be careful in what medicine they give you because (1) it would be illegal otherwise and (2) they don't want you to sue them. You get sick from Internet advice or drugs and what is your recourse? Some years ago the computer BBS was a big deal. It had a lot of hype too, this wonderful new way of exchanging information and meeting new people. (Turned out the "new people" was actually a very small group, often the same ones on every BBS in town, repeating the same arguments.) The Internet certainly has FUTURE _potential_ benefits. But for all the hype about "e-commerce" you'd think we've landed in Emerald City of Oz. No muss, no fuss, everything is perfect. Never leave the front of your computer, yet food and clothing will magically appear. The world doesn't and will not work that way. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 23:46:38 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Domain Names In article it was written: > Pat, if "Topica" is willing to pay you 25 cents for my email address, > you HAVE MY EXPRESS PERMISSION to sell it to them. It's not much, but > I'm willing to "pay" for my TELECOM Digest (at least in a small, small > way) by having to deal with a bit more spam. I wonder how many others > here would be similarly willing to offer up their email address for > this? Maybe Pat could find several buyers, each of whom would pass > along 25 cents for our email addresses. If he was successful, he > wouldn't need sponsorship anymore - the TELECOM Digest would be a > self-financing operation. Whoever is reading this, I expressly refuse to allow you to sell or harvest my e-mail address. If someone sends me unsolicited bulk e-mail then on occasion I complain to their upstream. So don't do it. > Maybe you should consider moving away from voluntary donations, and > asking all Digest subscribers to (perhaps after a free two-week trial > to see if they like it or not) toss in a MANDATORY subscription fee of, > say, $5/year. IIRC (and my memory's fuzzy here), you mentioned you had > a subscriber base of about 4000 - that translates to $20,000/year, and > I for one would pay that $5. Which means you will have to take it off UseNet. I read it on UseNet and so do a very large number of other people. Do you really want to take it off of net news? Your circulation will shrink. I would not, however, object to small, *on topic* ads being appended to the end of each message *with the moderator's approval* and only if the ads are neither cross-posted nor multi-posted. Sort of like a banner ad. For some reason I thought that Pat was subsidized either by a university or by some international organization like the UN. I guess that I was wrong. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The principal sponsor of this Digest is the International Telecommunication Union, which is a specialized agency of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. They have partially funded the Digest for several years. Network resources have been provided for several years by the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT which also provides space for the web site telecom-digest.org and network resources are also provided by iecc.com whom most of you know as John Levine. In addition, Mike Sandman has provided substantial funding at one time or another as have others. In addition, smaller gifts are provided in amounts deemed appropriate by Friends of TELECOM Digest. Where your confusion has arisen, Jonathan, I suspect is from the message appearing here a couple days ago by myself which was another in the corporation-bashing series. One of the Canadian readers, Joey, mistook the message as a complaint from me that I wanted more money, and he responded with suggestions on how to obtain it, more money, that is, by becoming a commercial web site. That was not really the point of the message or others in the series, but I do appreciate his kind thoughts, just as I appreciate your concern, Jonathan. Ummm, you *are* concerned, right? Anyone who was willing to pay me twenty-five cents would be allowed to take Joey's name and email address in vain as if somehow they needed my mailing list to do that and could not simply read it for themselves from the header of each message of his I post here. I'm glad to see you have more sense than that, and have forbidden that sort of cheap pandering on this fine Internet of ours. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@3.1415926.org (Andrew) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: 29 Aug 1999 19:10:44 GMT Organization: MaTech Anthony Argyriou (anthony@alphageo.com) wrote: > There was a recent case where Avery-Dennison was overturned on appeal > to get avery.net and dennison.net, which were held by a company which > creates vanity e-mail and web addresses. (So John Q. Avery could get > johnq@avery.net for a vanity e-mail, and http://www.avery.net/johnq > for a vanity web address.) Some strange legal reasoning. : http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/trade082499.htm I just bought avery-dennison.com (I just couldn't resist:) These thugs tried to take avery.net and dennison.net from their rightful owner and they couldn't be bothered to secure avery-dennison.com !?!? (they own averydennison.com). Andrew [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Be sure and let us know the day you get sued, raided by the FBI or whatever. I'll try to put in a good word for you with the judge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NOSPAM@intur.net (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Domain Names Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:12:06 GMT On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:54:46 -0600 Joey Lindstrom (Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU) wrote: > In short, anyone who wasn't here in the 80's, when the internet was a > cool and groovy place, should be made to take a back seat and allow > "the old timers" to continue to set the rules, with no input from us > at all. The opportunity exists to create a virtual or shadow network that is just what the internet was back then (I was there from 1986). The big question is, if it was setup, would it become popular? The next big question is, if it became popular, would that be good or bad? However, ultimately, it doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe because most people realize that with appropriate actions on their own part, like pressing the "d" key more often, they can make the internet be for them just what they want it to be. > Who "owns" the internet? A lot of people "own" the internet, or at > least small pieces of it. I "own" some of it: I've got four servers > hooked up to an ADSL line and have about a dozen websites, plus email, > RealAudio, etc. In this respect, I "own" more internet than you do. > Yet you would have me sit back and allow you to set the rules for me? > No thanks -- I get a vote too. Who "owns" the radio spectrum? Obviously this question isn't exactly the same as asking who "owns" the internet, but it can raise many like issues. > The "good old days" of the internet were a something-for-nothing > proposition for a great many of the netizens involved. In turn, they'd > use the resources they had at their disposal and, in turn, would build > something useful with them (ie: the TELECOM Digest). But somebody had > to funnel those resources into the 'net in the first place. > Those days are gone, gone, and gone. Dang it all. We can moan and > bitch, or we can adjust and move on. I don't recall having to pay for any of it back then. My employers and their funding agencies paid for it. The only real differences between then and now are that the funding structure is different (and more diverse), there are more people who wouldn't know what to do with a clue if they got one for free, and some more cracking going on (but probably in proportion to the growth). > What was "intended" and what "is" are two different things. Tough > cookies (again, no pun intended). Yes indeed, there are a bunch of > rotten bastards on the 'net these days. Kinda like in real life, no? > The nirvana days are gone, get used to it and find creative ways to > deal with it. The clock isn't gonna roll back (well, 'cept for those > poor buggers with non-Y2K compliant machines, that is ...) The net was our window into a subset of the world. Now the window is larger and we can see the whole world. Now we don't like what we see. Don't blame the window for what you see on the other side. Phil Howard KA9WGN phil@intur.net phil@ipal.net ------------------------------ From: TandemTal@aol.com Subject: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:59:06 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Press Release for Domain names which may break the current record for price paid for domain name: http://www.prweb.com/releases/1999/prweb9042.htm Link To SPLASH page on these domains at this time: http://www.communication-services.com ------------------------------ From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith) Subject: Re: Is This Real? $60/Month Unlimited LD Calling Date: 29 Aug 1999 17:31:37 -0700 Organization: Institute of Lawsonomy Al Iverson wrote: > You're interested in a service that was advertised to you via > unsolicited email? [signs they are not legitimate, deleted] Yeah, it sounds like a bad idea to give that specific company any money, and giving spammers in general money seems to be a bad idea. However, in many cases, I believe when something like this is spammed, the spammer is a reseller of some possibly legitimate service, so the real question for the original poster should be "can this kind of thing be for real?", and if the answer is yes, then "how can I find a non-spamming reseller?". >In article , mxs159@cwru.edu wrote: >> I received an email message about a "new plan" which claims to provide >> unlimited LD calling for $60 a month ... >> For families like mine where $100 LD bills are common (even with less >> than 9c per minute avg. plans), this of course sounds like a good yet >> believable deal, considering the ferocity of the competition out there. I'm guessing from your 9c/minute rate that your long distance is mostly intrastate, since interstate rates much lower than that can be found. If most of the calls are to people that are in the same general area, check to see if your phone company has a reasonable "foreign exchange" service. With a FX service, you get a second line at another central office, and they run a dedicated circuit from that office to your local office, and from there to your second phone. The cost for this depends on the distance, not on the amount of usage. If your distance is not too great, that might save you some money. E.g., someone where I work is just a few miles outside the local calling area for all her relatives, and got an FX line for around $20/month to get into that area. Mine is around $130/month to get into a city about 80 miles away by land. Heywood Jaiblomi wrote: > In Canada, I think I have an even better deal for my business. LD > calls in country are 35 cents per ten minute period day or nite. That > works out to 171 hours a month (or more than one solid week) before I > would hit the $60 mark. (assuming I am making mostly long calls No (assuming Canadians have 100 Canadian cents per Canadian dollar): (60 $) * (100 c/$) * (10 min/35 c) * (hr / 60 min) = 28.57 hr. Tim Smith ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:41:50 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com As I understand it, if you call a toll-free number from a pay phone, the folks you call must pay a 35 cent fee to the pay phone owner. Much unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, or "spam") advertises a toll-free number. By calling that number from a pay phone you anonymously cause them to incur a 35 cent charge. Is this correct? Is this a legal, ethical way to dissuade spammers? How can you ensure that you're calling a spammer's toll-free number, not some other number a vindictive person advertised for the exclusive purpose of bringing misery on an innocent person? ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:08:11 GMT Bill Levant wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Reader's Note: Hi, Dense, welcome to the Digest. I > think this is a reference to the urban legend about the guy who falls > asleep after a date, wakes up in the tub missing a kidney. Pretty > loose, though. WJL] > Well I guess so. I had never heard that particular story before. It was the plot of the first episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on NBC. (It wasn't the pilot, which wasn't aired for several weeks.) > Don't try anything smart like that again or I will have to get one of the > several attornies on retainer here at the Digest to order you not > to read this column any longer. PAT] Shouldn't you use attorneys who are out of braces? But I guess the ones with straightened teeth can really put the bite on you. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 07:42:26 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) wrote: > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Not to mention time and aggravation. Why haven't you cancelled your >> MCI service? You'd stand a better chance of getting it resolved if you >> send written protests to the managers of each facility that billed you >> incorrectly. If that doesn't work, write to the president of MCI. If >> that doesn't work, file a written complaint with your state public >> service commission and file a consumer fraud complaint with your >> state's attorney general. I doubt you'll successfully resolve anything >> over the telephone. > The main reason we haven't canceled is that I think, perhaps > irrationally, that my chances of resolving this are better if I remain > a customer. Once I drop off, they can forget about me completely if > they want to. Write to MCI? The company carefuly arranges things so > there is no way to contact them by snailmail. You call the 800 number, > which refers you to other 800 numbers, each connected to offices in > different states and which do not communicate with each other. You're wasting your time, Adam. MCI doesn't give a damn about you, or whether you're a customer or not. On the other hand, American Express does the same thing, and will keep on charging you back for the double-billing, whether you show them proof that it's legitimate or not, as long as they get a response from MCI. Don't forget, Amex partnered with MCI early on to sell MCI service under the American Express name (used to be known as "Express Phone"). Do this: 1. Find another long distance carrier with reasonable rates (easy to find, since MCI is one of the most expensive). Get them to reimburse you for the PIXC change (easy to do). 2. Have your local phone company put a PIXC freeze on all of your lines for intra- and inter-lata long distance (after switching to your new carrier). 3. File a complaint with *your* state attorney general (not Federal), charging that MCI has double-billed you for telecomunications services, refuses to correct the error, continues to try to collect the charges for service after being made aware that the charges are not legitimate, and request an investigation to determine if they have similarly *defrauded* (be sure to use that word) other customers in your state. 4. Watch your Amex bill for charge-backs and keep witholding the original amount (don't add surcharges for legal expenses, you have to sue separately for those). Follow the rules (usually printed on the back of credit card statements) in every respect for witholding amounts from the credit card issuer. Bottom line, force Amex to keep charging the amount back to MCI, and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission *against Amex* if they refuse. > In any case, we have never had a problem with MCI's phone service > itself -- just with this one instance of double billing when we > switched over from cash to Amex payment. Our LD usage is quite high, > and almost all of it is internatinal. Is there any other company that > can get us to Europe for 9 cents a minute? Almost ANY LD company will be cheaper than MCI. Keep in mind, though, that MCI is probably charging you for ring-no-answers, so they're probably eating up the economy of the low per-minute rate with some fraud. This is not generally a problem with AT&T, who can monitor the real status of international calls. You should have no problem finding a carrier who can give you a switched-access WATS package with attractive pricing. > I have also tried the writing-to-officials route on one occasion > before we went with MCI, when our AT & T service was slammed by a > fly-by-night company in Easton, PA. I wrote to the FCC, the > Attorneys-general of both AZ and PA. That approach turned out to be > completely worthless. I got a form letter from each agency saying our > complaint had been received, then nothing. The Attorney General may not get MCI to stop hounding you, but you need to file a formal complaint (always send it certified) so they have something to work with. Certain kinds of complaints can't be ignored (for long, at least). You can also get a local TV station to get involved, if they have someone who covers this sort of thing, and they'd love to get their hands on a criminal complaint that the Attorney General decided to ignore. > Fortunately on that > occasion, it was the slammer who claimed I owed them money, so I > simply refused to pay and invited them to sue us. After going through > several months of havingg the company call us at five a.m. screaming > into our ears, they gave up on us. Or maybe they simply went broke, > since I never heard of the company again. If MCI gets a collection agent after you, you can do one of two things: 1. File a criminal harrassment charge against the agency for harrassing you by telephone. or 2. Get the agency's address and contact info and bill them for "consulting services." $500/hour in one-hour increments should be good for a start. Send the first invoice with a letter (certified, of course) stating that since they contacted you initially, you will assume their agreement with the terms of the contract, etc., etc. You can actually have some fun with it, depending upon how stupid the agency is (sounds like the last one was a group of budding rocket scientists). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if I could get MCI to buy some banner ads here in the Digest? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:12:15 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com >> I... prefer to pay my bill at the nearby local store in cash... >> new sign... *all* in-store bill payments would cost >> an additional $3.00. The real issue here is the handling of cash. If Sprint receives more than a modest amount of cash, they incur substantial costs -- they need special cash handling procedures, double custody rules, their insurance becomes very expensive, they may be required to engage an armored car service, and at some point their insurance company may require them to install a secured cashier's station with bulletproof glass etc. >> SprintPCS... pays a 2% to 3% surcharge to credit card companies >> cash payment... Cash... no such hit on the company's revenue. > But there is overhead... the clerk's time... Sprint probably pays less than 1% to its credit card company, because of high average invoice, high volume, and relatively low loss rates. On a typical $50 bill, that's maybe a 50 cent fee. It costs Sprint at least 30 cents to process each check. > What about paying by mail? Don't they let you mail a check with your > bill, like most other companies? That would be more efficient. So would electronic banking or automatic debit. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two problems here. First of all, no > clerk I know of is paid (or valued at) anywhere close to $50 per > hour. But Sprint PCS stores don't really have "clerks" - the people at their counter are primarily salespeople, and also handle all sorts of customer problems. The opportunity cost of one of these people -- given that they can only put a fixed number out there, and must recruit continuously to have even a minimal staff -- is easily $50/hour. > So if a $7 per hour clerk riffles credit card papers all day long or > endorses checks all day long or counts cash and puts it in a cash > register all day long, what is the difference? PAT] The credit card papers are never touched after the initial sale -- they're just bundled up for ninety days, and then discarded. The cash has be kept in some secure manner until it is delivered to a bank and counted again, and it poses a significant security risk. If you think that Sprint PCS's profits are exorbitant, buy some of their stock - it's traded as PCS, and closed on Friday 8/29/99 at 59.50. They lost $1.17 billion (before extraordinary items) in the six months that ended in June 1999. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I bet I could get Sprint to buy some banner ads here also, especially when they find out that MCI is considering buying some. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #353 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 30 02:32:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA28586; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908300632.CAA28586@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #354 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Aug 99 02:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 354 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (John De Hoog) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Steve Winter) Re: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE (Steven Lichter) Will AT&T Join the 5-Cents-per-Minute Crowd? (Monty Solomon) Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy (Monty Solomon) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers (Satch) FCC Filing in Opposition to AT&T Termination of 500 Service (J. Carpenter) FCC Sets Wiretap Rules For Digital Phones (Monty Solomon) Re: Weird Wrong Number (Mark Brader) Re: Weird Wrong Number (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Wierd Call (Alan Boritz) Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits (Adam Sampson) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: John De Hoog Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:57:27 +0900 Organization: Wonmug's World Lisa Hancock wrote, > ... forgive me for being cynical, but IMHO, the Internet has a long > way to go, both technologically and legally, before it meets the > many dreams and claims of its supporters. A lot of work remains. This is true, but in no way lessens the enormous potential. > It does not cost me any money if someone sends me an advertisement > via the US Mail. (The post office actually makes money from > bulk mailers despite the discounts.) But the ten or so junk > email messages I get every day, most of which are obvious scams > or pornographic, DO cost me money through forcing me to wade > through them online while the meter is running, and add my host's > cost to store them on disk and bandwidth. Clearly they should be > illegal, yet every day they still keep a comin'. On the other hand, there's very little you can do about the junk mail, but much you can do about the junk email. Thanks to some simple filters on my local POP server, I only see about one junk email post a day at most. > Both myself and my employer spend money to buy virus protection > software to protect our computers from sabotage. Thanks to the > Internet, a criminal can now break into my home and steal from me or > seriously vandalize my property from the comfort of his or own > living room. I don't consider this a good thing, but most people > seem to shrug it off. The virus protection software, SPAM filters, encryption and other technologies are effective and getting more so every day. Just think of them as the equivalent of the locks on your home and car. > How reliable is the Internet? How often are we online and get > disconnected in the middle of a session? How often does an error > message come up for whatever reason -- site not responding, site not > found, Java script error? How good is response time? People are already switching over to faster bandwidth alternatives. Javascript errors are not the fault of the Internet per se. The technology is still young but improving fast. > Ok: are we willing to entrust our personal banking transactions > to this kind of reliability? Maybe not yet, but before long the reliability won't be so different from that of the ATMs you use without thinking. Already I've been shopping on line for a few years and have yet to run into a problem. I've even had my money refunded a couple of times. > What about the cost? As an individual, I'm paying $25 each month for > Internet services, plus $15 for a dedicated computer phone line. Now, > frankly, to me that $40 every month is an _entertainment_ expense. Do > I get any benefits out of it? I don't know about you, but here in Japan I pay ten times that for a dedicated Internet connection; yet it's worth every yen. As a translator in the telecommunications field, I use my Internet connection to perform research quickly that would have required going to a specialized library a few years ago, or would have been impossible altogether. I'm also able to receive work from clients electronically and return it in file format via the Internet. I can work from my home or anywhere else, just about. The savings in travel and shipping costs, as well as time, are enormous. > My employer has also provided me with Internet service at my desk. I > use it. Someone walking by would think I was doing work related stuff > as there'd be lots of computer related stuff on my screen. But a > closer look would show that it was 1950s computer stuff, not exactly > relevent to my job. Back when I worked in a company we had other ways to waste time -- trying to shoot rubber bands onto ceiling hooks, and reading audio magazines. The Internet is going to make the whole idea of such companies obsolete eventually. People sitting at desks with time on their hands is certainly not the fault of the Internet. > Anybody and everybody can put up a web page and say anything they > want on it. In a Democracy, that's supposed to be a good thing. > If I stood on a street corner to hand out my own printed manisfesto, > that is my Constitutional right. How many people will read my > work and give it credence is another story. If I want a publisher > to distribute it, I'd better have something worthwhile and not > harmful or illegal so the publisher and bookstores don't get sued. Great, let the publishers decide what we get to read. I used to be in the position to make such decisions, so I know a little about the process. I think we're a lot better off without that particular filter on information. > But on the Internet, I can put up bomb making directions. I can put > up bogus medical informaton. I can even sell medications and > circumvent long established safety rules. Years ago society learned > it was necessary to maintain the public safety. Have we forgotten > that? The old protections aren't there and haven't been replaced. > Your local drugstore likely will be careful in what medicine they give > you because (1) it would be illegal otherwise and (2) they don't want > you to sue them. You get sick from Internet advice or drugs and what > is your recourse? The protection is your own common sense. If you wouldn't buy medicine from someone on a street corner, don't buy it from a Web site. > The Internet certainly has FUTURE _potential_ benefits. But for all > the hype about "e-commerce" you'd think we've landed in Emerald City > of Oz. No muss, no fuss, everything is perfect. Never leave the > front of your computer, yet food and clothing will magically appear. > The world doesn't and will not work that way. I think people are more aware of the problems, and more realistic about the real potential, than you give them credit for. John De Hoog, Tokyo http://wonmug.com ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 04:33:02 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com J.F. Mezei spake thusly and wrote: > Anyone want to bet that Bill Gates will somehow succeed in claiming he > invented the Internet ? Nope, Al Gore has already staked that claim. Bill ain't gonna mess with Al Gore. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 30 Aug 1999 04:03:38 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE In the past I have done what you are asking as have others; Pat has posted them most of the time. I have been blasted for the same reservations you are having, but if you call the phone number listed on the spam and it appears to be clealy the type of trash the spammer has been spilling; such as great money maker and so on your can be sure that you have reached the spammers mailbox which is what most of them use, go for it. Look at my signature and you will see how I feel about spam. I get junk mail at a E-mail address that I have not posted on in years and it has no access to Web sites as many spammers say they are replying to your request. I guess if they put that they feel what they are doing if ok, since they can claim you asked for the trash or scams then it is okay to call them. In article , Jonathan wrote: > Is this correct? Is this a legal, ethical way to dissuade spammers? > How can you ensure that you're calling a spammer's toll-free number, not > some other number a vindictive person advertised for the exclusive > purpose of bringing misery on an innocent person? Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telephone Spamming via 800 numbers to an internet email spammer is a perfectly acceptable way of handling the problem. I believe the technique was first perfected here in this Digest about 1992-93, and since then I've seen it discussed about the net in various newsgroups occassionally. The 'inquiries' made of Jeff Slaton and his 'services' several years ago cost him many, many thousands of dollars in phone bills. If an 800 number gets spammed which is not that of the spammer (i.e. he misentered it in his messages) and an innocent person gets spammed on the phone, then their complaint is, I believe, with the spammer and not with the net. Just as a large company which misprints its toll-free number then has to settle with the victim of the misprint, likewise a spammer will need to settle with anyone who gets his calls accidentally. Unlike Jeff Slaton, who I believe took responsibilty for his phone service, I suspect many modern spammers are using answering services (automated or otherwise) where they simply 'rent' the toll-free number month by month and pay the charges. In all probability when payback time arrives, they split, leaving the answering service holding the bag. Its a shame the answering service has to find out the hard way the type of customer they were dealing with. I think perhaps there will be another issue of the 'TELECOM Digest Toll Free Business Directory' issued one of these days soon, for your convenience in shopping with the fine merchants on the net who have sent you unwanted email. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:11:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Will AT&T Join the 5-Cents-per-Minute Crowd? By Bloomberg News Special to CNET News.com August 29, 1999, 1:30 p.m. PT AT&T, will introduce new products and services tomorrow, and analysts said it may match the 5-cents-a-minute plans offered by rivals MCI WorldCom and Sprint. The company may also update investors on its outlook for the second half, analysts said. Because of some investors' concern about how decreasing long-distance rates may affect revenue and profits, AT&T shares have dropped 26 percent since peaking at 64.31 in January. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,41054,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:12:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy By Reuters Special to CNET News.com August 27, 1999, 4:40 p.m. PT NEW YORK--ICO Global Communications, which is building a satellite communications network, filed for bankruptcy today, becoming the latest casualty in the nascent satellite phone industry. ICO filed for Chapter 11 protection from its creditors in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, according to court documents. ICO's move follows by just two weeks the bankruptcy filing of rival Iridium World Communications. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,41036,00.html ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 04:24:33 GMT Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) said on 28 Aug 1999 in the following: >> And who should pay for this? Would you prefer that the users pay >> $100/month for a 28.8K dial-up account? Because without the big >> companies, that's exactly what we'd be facing. > I dispute those figures. I would like some proof of it. This sounds > a lot like 'our web site cost us a million dollars to fix the > last time a hacker broke into it.' Nonsense! I also dispute those figures. I remember when there was no Internet, when electronic mail was provided by networks of Telebit modems running uucp and unix sendmail. Services offered electronic email and later news for far less than $100/month for a dialup account. (Indeed, that was in the days of blazing-fast 2.4 kilobit/s modems.) Fido-based systems were even cheaper, usually "free" (donation recommended to keep it around, about $15-20 per *year*) and provided information sharing of consistantly high quality. CompuServe -- or should I say Micronet -- was $20/month plus usage. I remember some heavy months when my bill would hit the ceiling of $300/month, particularly when I was trying to trace down enough information to raise the flag on the bad hard drive in the IBM PC AT back in '85. Ditto the Byte Information Exchange (BIX). Anyone remember The Source? Then there was ARPAnet, in the 70s. Fun. Our government paying propeller-heads to play. The return on that investment have been paid back many times over, judging from the way commercial enterprise has taken to the Internet like a duck takes to cool, clear water. The figures make sense only when there is a pure profit motive involved. I know people who provide Internet services -- even tier one services -- at prices that let them live comfortably but not necessarily at the Caddy -a-week level. Not all business people view it that way. Conclusion: the $100/month figure is overblown, perhaps by a factor of two. -- _____ __/satch\___________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984 Computationally addicted since 1970. Advertisement on request. "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" -- Satch ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:30:37 -0400 From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: FCC Filing in Opposition to AT&T Termination of 500 Service In case AT&T Easy Reach 500 service customers are interested in filing their own comments with the FCC on the termination of the service, my comments can be viewed at: www.pobox.com/~jjc/att-500-complaint.pdf Jeffrey J. Carpenter P.O. Box 471 Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 Phone: +1 218 837-6000 Fax: +1 310 914-1716 Email: jjc@pobox.com Web: http://pobox.com/~jjc/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 17:08:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Sets Wiretap Rules For Digital Phones By Bloomberg News Special to CNET News.com August 27, 1999, 5:15 p.m. PT The Federal Communications Commission issued technical requirements today that telecommunications companies must meet to comply with a federal law permitting wiretaps of digital phone conversations. The agency adopted six of nine specific requirements on the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation's 'wish list.' Interim requirements set up by the Telecommunications Industry Association must be met by June 30, 2000, and the six standards spelled out today must be met by Sept. 30, 2001. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,41037,00.html ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Date: 30 Aug 1999 01:04:23 -0400 Bill Levant wrote: >> I think this is a reference to the urban legend about the guy who >> falls asleep after a date, wakes up in the tub missing a kidney. Adam Kerman writes: > It was the plot of the first episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on NBC. According to , the first episode broadcast was a *different* story of medical crime; the kidney episode, "Sonata for a Solo Organ", came late in the first season. I happened to catch a rerun of it on A&E the other day; it was about a kidney theft, but the circumstances did not conform to the UL. ObTelecom: on "Law & Order", the police are often use the characters' telephone LUDs, which I have heard them expand as Local Usage Details. This term, which I haven't heard elsewhere, sounds as though it relates to billing of local calls, a concept which is happily foreign to me here. Of course I realize that modern switches could log all calls whether they need to for billing or not, but anyway, am I right that LUD basically relates to billing, and is the term used outside of New York? Mark Brader "When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws." Toronto, msbrader@interlog.com -- Diane Holt My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Weird Wrong Number Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 04:45:10 GMT Organization: @Work Internet powered by @Home Network Heh. This was hardly funny enough that it needed to be repeated. There's been too much weird stuff from some guy named Kerman in the last few Digests. On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Bill Levant wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Reader's Note: Hi, Dense, welcome to the Digest. I >> think this is a reference to the urban legend about the guy who falls >> asleep after a date, wakes up in the tub missing a kidney. Pretty >> loose, though. WJL] >> Well I guess so. I had never heard that particular story before. > It was the plot of the first episode of "Law and Order" broadcast on NBC. > (It wasn't the pilot, which wasn't aired for several weeks.) >> Don't try anything smart like that again or I will have to get one of the >> several attornies on retainer here at the Digest to order you not >> to read this column any longer. PAT] > Shouldn't you use attorneys who are out of braces? But I guess the > ones with straightened teeth can really put the bite on you. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Wierd Call Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 19:17:49 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , James Gifford wrote: > mbusse@midway.uchicago.edu wrote: >> I tend to get a lot of random calls where people just hang up when >> one answers. (Most of which, I assume, are people wardialling, or >> something similar) >> The other day, I actually decided to call one of them back. The >> number was (773) 847-8495. When you call it, it rings for a while, >> then a recorded voice says "Thank you." >> Does anyone have any idea what the heck this might be? > Um, do you still have both your kidneys? :) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Call me dense I guess. I don't get it. PAT] I think the second author was making a vague reference to a very old Urban Legend that AOL'ers are constantly "discovering" and forwarding via email to as many people as they can, as if they were terrified that people would really do such a thing. You've never heard of the kidney pirate legend? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unfortunatly (or perhaps fortunatly) no I have not heard it, but then I do not spend much time reading chain letters originating at AOL. I guess I should try to keep more up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:00:59 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Subject: Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits Reply-To: azz@gnu.org > I was wondering if there is any commercially available product that allows > me to trace the route of telephone calls I make. [...] It is very easily > done on computers when tracing the route to other servers/computers ip > addresses. I doubt it. The classic Unix "traceroute" program (of which the Windows version you refer to is a rip-off) works by [ab]using the IP "time-to-live" feature; any IP packet that gets sent out has a "time-to-live" value in the header which gets decreased by one for each host it passes through. When the TTL reaches 0, it gets bounced back to the host that sent it with an error. Traceroute simply sends out packets with TTL=1, TTL=2 and so on, printing the hosts from which the error responses came, until it gets a reply from the host the packet was addressed to. I don't know any way of doing anything analogous to this on the phone network (at least without working for the telco). Adam Sampson azz@gnu.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #354 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 30 15:36:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA25148; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:36:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:36:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908301936.PAA25148@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #355 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Aug 99 15:36:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 355 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #197, August 30, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) AT&T One Rate 7 Cents; Family Plan (Monty Solomon) AT&T Wireless "Customer Service" Discussion (Lauren Weinstein) MUD (was Re: Weird Wrong Number) (Danny Burstein) Public Coast Stations - Marine Operators (Forrest Nelson) Re: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE (Joel B. Levin) Re: Water Amplifies Electricity? (Tad Derx) This Week's Poll Question (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 30 Aug 1999 10:39:03 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #197, August 30, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 197: August 30, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Sprint to Launch Local Service in Toronto ** Date Proposed for New Toronto Area Code ** Telebec Files for 50-Cent Payphone Charge ** Videotron Expands Business Local Service ** Forum Releases Voice-on-Web Spec ** Number Portability Expands in Greater Toronto ** AT&T Offers Call Routing ** Mondex Cash Card Relaunched in Quebec ** E-Billing Venture Plans January Start-Up ** CANARIE Plans Networking Workshop ** Newbridge Acquisitions Aim at IP Market ** Nortel Buys Periphonics ** Cisco Pays US$7 Billion for Optical Transport Start-Up ** Excel Plans Web Banking ** New Executives at Call-Net, Sprint ** CRTC Senior Personnel Changes ** Financial Reports Eicon Hummingbird Newbridge ** How Reliable Is the Network? ============================================================ SPRINT TO LAUNCH LOCAL SERVICE IN TORONTO: Sprint Canada will begin offering local telephone service to residential and business customers in Toronto on Wednesday, September 1. ** Sprint Canada's parent company, Call-Net Enterprises Inc, has scheduled a special meeting of shareholders for October 14, 1999. The meeting is legally required following the demand by a group which owns 13% of the company's voting stock. DATE PROPOSED FOR NEW TORONTO AREA CODE: The Canadian Numbering Administration has asked the CRTC to approve March 5, 2001, as the implementation date for a second area code, and mandatory 10-digit local dialing, in Toronto. The request reflects the unanimous recommendation of the industry-wide 416 NPA Code Relief Planning Committee, which met on August 18. ** The latest forecasts indicate that all possible prefixes in 416 will be in use by the third or fourth quarter of 2001. TELEBEC FILES FOR 50-CENT PAYPHONE CHARGE: CRTC Public Notice 99-19 seeks comment on Telebec's application to raise the charge for local payphone calls to 50 cents. Comments are due September 24. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-19.htm VIDEOTRON EXPANDS BUSINESS LOCAL SERVICE: Videotron Business Network has expanded its business local service to the Montreal-area communities of Longueuil, Saint-Jean-sur- Richelieu, and Pont-Viau. FORUM RELEASES VOICE-ON-WEB SPEC: The Voice eXtensible Markup Language (VoiceXML) Forum, which has 61 member companies, has released a preliminary specification for VoiceXML, designed to add voice-enabled services to the World Wide Web. For more information, see the VoiceXML website. http://www.voicexml.org NUMBER PORTABILITY EXPANDS IN GREATER TORONTO: Bell Canada says Local Number Portability will be available on or about September 24 in Brampton, Ontario, and October 8 in Ajax- Pickering and Oakville. AT&T OFFERS CALL ROUTING: AT&T Canada now offers Intelligent Call Processing, which routes calls to distributed call centers based on customer-supplied data. MONDEX CASH CARD RELAUNCHED IN QUEBEC: Mondex Canada has launched a new trial of its cash card in Sherbrooke region in Quebec. Participants will receive a new version of the card that also functions as a debit card. E-BILLING VENTURE PLANS JANUARY START-UP: The Bank of Montreal's Cebra e-commerce unit says its Electronic Post Office project, which delivers bills to consumers by e-mail, will launch in January. The project, sponsored jointly with Canada Post, has been in trials since June 1998. CANARIE PLANS NETWORKING WORKSHOP: CANARIE will hold its fifth annual Advanced Networks Workshop, "From Information Highway to Information Main Street," in Toronto November 29- 30. For information and to register, go to www.canarie.ca. NEWBRIDGE ACQUISITIONS AIM AT IP MARKET: Newbridge Networks is paying $350 Million to acquire total ownership of two IP networking affiliates: TimeStep Corp. (Kanata, Ontario) which supplies IPSec security products, and Northchurch Communications (Andover, Massachusetts), which makes IP edge routers. NORTEL BUYS PERIPHONICS: Nortel Networks is paying US$436 Million to acquire Periphonics (Bohemia, New York), which makes interactive voice response systems. Periphonics has 900 employees and annual sales of US$142 Million. CISCO PAYS US$7 BILLION FOR OPTICAL TRANSPORT START-UP: Cisco Systems is acquiring Cerent, a California-based supplier of optical network equipment, for US$6.9 Billion. Two-year-old Cerent has 287 employees and current revenue of about US$100 Million a year. EXCEL PLANS WEB BANKING: Long distance provider Excel Communications, a unit of Teleglobe, plans to offer its U.S. customers banking services over the Internet. NEW EXECUTIVES AT CALL-NET, SPRINT: ** Maggs Barrett, formerly Executive Vice-President and COO of ACC Telenterprises, has been named President of Call- Net Technology Services Inc., replacing Phil Bates. (See Telecom Update #194) ** Janet Thompson, previously Sprint Canada's Senior VP, Majors and Marketing, is now President, Enterprise Marketing Sales and Service. CRTC SENIOR PERSONNEL CHANGES: ** Susan Baldwin, Executive Director Broadcasting, leaves that position on August 30 to undertake a special assignment for the Commission. She will be replaced by Jean-Pierre Blais in an acting capacity. ** Peter Vivian, Executive Director Telecommunications, will leave the Commission at the end of the year. No replacement has been named yet. FINANCIAL REPORTS: ** Eicon, a Montreal-based software maker, recorded profits of $10.3 Million for the year ended June 30, up from $6.6 Million the previous year. Sales rose 47% to $176 Million. ** Hummingbird Communications of Toronto reports record revenues of $42.5 Million for the quarter ended June 30, a 24% increase. Net income before one-time charges was $8 Million, up 10%. ** Newbridge Networks profits for the quarter ended August 1 were $47.3 Million, a 33% increase, on record revenues of $495 Million. HOW RELIABLE IS THE NETWORK? In the September issue of Telemanagement, available this week, Ian and Lis Angus examine lessons of the July fire in a Bell Canada Toronto switching center and conclude, "Five Nines Isn't Enough." Also in Telemanagement #168: ** "Lack of Support Killed Telecom User Group," by CBTA Chairman Gary Bernstein ** "Business Long Distance Rates: Still in Free Fall," by John Riddell To subscribe to Telemanagement call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T One Rate 7 Cents; Family Plan Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:27:55 -0400 http://www.att.com/press/item/0,1193,630,00.html AT&T Delivers Simplicity And Savings With Two New Plans BASKING RIDGE, N.J. AT&T today announced two new offers that will make communications simpler and more affordable for consumers: a long distance plan with a single low per-minute price good all day, every day, and a wireless program that gives families unlimited calling to each other. "Life is hectic; communicating should be easy," said Gene Lockhart, president of AT&T consumer services. "With this kind of value, there's no need to watch the clock or dial around." The new long distance offer, AT&T One Rate 7 Cents, lets consumers make interstate long distance calls from home anytime 'day or night' for seven cents a minute with a monthly fee of $4.95 if the company also handles their residential local toll calls. If not, the monthly fee is $5.95. The wireless offer, AT&T Family Plan, enables up to five family members to make unlimited wireless calls to each other and unlimited wireless calls to their landline phone at home when they call within their Family Calling Area and purchase one of several options for wireless calling. "We want to extend the freedom of wireless calling to every family member," said Dan Hesse, president of AT&T Wireless Services. "No other wireless carrier offers this kind of value to today's families." AT&T One Rate 7 Cents AT&T said the freedom to call anytime at a low rate is a big draw for consumers. Its research shows more than one-third of all consumer long distance calling occurs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays, when competing plans charge rates as high as 25 cents a minute. The company pioneered simple pricing with the introduction of AT&T One Rate for residential landline calling, and AT&T Digital One Rate for wireless calling. More than 23 million AT&T consumer customers are currently subscribed to one of AT&T's One Rate plans. The company said it was able to introduce this offer due to current and major anticipated reductions in access fees from the Federal Communications Commission -- the costs long distance companies pay to local telephone monopolies to complete a call. AT&T has always passed on savings from access reductions to consumers. AT&T Family Plan The Family Plan is designed to keep family members connected even when they're not together. Its unique feature is that family members can make unlimited wireless calls to each other and to their home telephone anytime, as long as they're within their Family Calling Area. This gives them the ability to stay in touch and coordinate their activities as they move around town. Plan members can receive these benefits by selecting one of three wireless calling options: 60 minutes of non-family calling for $24.99 a month 400 minutes of non-family calling for $49.99 a month 600 minutes of non-family calling for $69.99 a month. The minutes included in the packages are designed for calls to non-plan members and are in addition to the unlimited calling features of the Family Plan program. The Family Calling Area is the geographic area where families typically live, work, commute and play on a regular basis. At least one member must choose either the $49.99 or the $69.99 plan and all members must have Digital multi-network phones. As an added bonus, the family will also receive a seven-cent rate on domestic interstate long distance calls from their home phone with no additional monthly fee. The plan makes it easy to stay in touch throughout the day with all the benefits of wireless communication, including safety, security and the ability to coordinate hectic schedules while on the go. AT&T Family Plan is available tomorrow in most AT&T Wireless Services markets. It will be available in New York and newly acquired AT&T Wireless Services markets by the end of the year. Interested consumers can call 1-800-IMAGINE for more details. About AT&T AT&T (www.att.com) is the world's premier provider of voice and data communications, with more than 80 million customers, including businesses, government and consumers. AT&T runs the world's largest long-distance network and the largest wireless network in North America. The company is a leading supplier of data and Internet services for businesses and the nation's largest direct Internet service provider to consumers. AT&T also provides local telephone service to a growing number of businesses. Editor's Note: AT&T Chairman and CEO Mike Armstrong will host a conference call for financial analysts at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Reporters are invited to listen in to the broadcast by calling 800-230-1096 from the U.S., and 612-288-0337 from outside the U.S. The call will be rebroadcast for 72 hours beginning at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. To listen to the rebroadcast, call 800-475-6701 from the U.S. or 320-365-3844 from outside the U.S., and entering the access code 467323. AT&T Chairman and CEO Mike Armstrong will join Gene Lockhart, President, AT&T Consumer Services, and Dan Hesse, President, AT&T Wireless Services, to discuss these offers in a two-way conference call for reporters 11:00 a.m. Eastern time today. The call-in numbers for that call are 800-260-0712 (U.S.) or 612-332-0342 (outside the U.S.). An audio rebroadcast of the 11:00 a.m. conference call will be available from 2:00 p.m. Eastern time today for 72 hours. To listen to the audio rebroadcast, U.S. callers can dial 800-475-6701 and enter access code 467773. Outside the U.S., the rebroadcast is available by dialing 320-365-3844, and then entering the access code 467773. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 99 10:54 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: AT&T Wireless "Customer Service" Discussion Greetings. Over in the alt.cellular newsgroup, I've recently been posting some detailed materials regarding the remarkably confused situation concerning very negative AT&T Wireless rate plan changes, and the incredible problems with getting correct information about these plans from their customer service reps. Rather than repeat the whole sordid story here, it might be easier for interested persons (including both current AT&T Wireless subscribers and persons who have been considering that choice) to read my latest item via the DejaNews URL: http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=518519782 You can use the "Thread" command at DejaNews to see associated messages. If you're unable to obtain the message there, feel free to contact me and I'll be glad to e-mail you a copy. Thanks much. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: MUD (was Re: Weird Wrong Number) Date: 30 Aug 1999 07:53:13 -0400 In msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) writes: > ObTelecom: on "Law & Order", the police are often use the characters' > telephone LUDs, which I have heard them expand as Local Usage Details. > This term, which I haven't heard elsewhere, sounds as though it > relates to billing of local calls, a concept which is happily foreign > to me here. > Of course I realize that modern switches could log all calls whether > they need to for billing or not, but anyway, am I right that LUD > basically relates to billing, and is the term used outside of New > York? NYC area calls used to be counted as "message units". If you made a call in yuor own borough, or parts of the nearby ones, your call was "one message unit" and was untimed. If your call was a bit farther, it started off as two or three or four ... and continued clicking away message units every minute or so. Note that you did _NOT_ get a listing of these actual calls on your "regular" phone bill, but rather just got a count of the message units used (and were billed accordingly). You could, however, request a copy of your "message unit detail", abbreviated as a "MUD" sheet. And since they were generally poor quality computer-output-microfilm onto poor quality thermal or "stabilized photo" paper, they were pretty muddy and hard to read. Oh, of course there was a charge for this ... and the listing was _not_ complete. You got times and numbers of your "multi-message-unit" calls, but only a count of the single ones. Anyway, that was the 60s and 70s. As the 80s rolled around, the listing switched over to a direct printout, and complete details (i.e. all answered numbers) were phased in. So if you ask today, you'll get (almost) everything. And this material goes back a couple of months online, and much, much, longer in archived records. And the name has slowly changed from "MUD" to "LUD". (Kind of like how "6th Avenue" has been renamed "Avenue of the Americas") Oh, btw, the info now recorded by the switch includes busies and hangups, even though these won't be on your printout. And there's also the _incoming_ call info which you, as a regular customer, won't be able to get. (How far back this goes is a very touchy subject and no one has given an authoritative statement on that). Incidentally, this is about to get a _lot_ , (depending on your point of view) worse or better ... In order to comply with the Federal mandate under CALEA, the telcos are going to keep much, much, more info ... _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Forrest Nelson Subject: Public Coast Stations - Marine Operators Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:13:21 -0700 Does anyone have information about who or which telecommunications carrier provides these services these days. I would like to place a shore to ship call. I can remember the old days when you called the operator and asked for the "marine operator". In particular I would like to know who in Western Washington waters. Thanks, J. Forrest Nelson, RCDD Sparling, Inc. jfn@sparling.com *e-mail 206-667-0578 *direct 206-667-0501* fax http://www.sparling.com ------------------------------ From: levinjb@gte.net (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: Toll-Free Payphones Surcharges and UCE Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:13:40 GMT In , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telephone Spamming via 800 numbers to > an internet email spammer is a perfectly acceptable way of handling > the problem. I believe the technique was first perfected here in this > Digest about 1992-93, and since then I've seen it discussed about the net > in various newsgroups occassionally. The 'inquiries' made of Jeff > Slaton and his 'services' several years ago cost him many, many > thousands of dollars in phone bills. ...] This is not always the case. Some of the 800 answering services which spammers frequent are flat rate per month (or perhaps flat rate plus a fee per customer roped in). An example (of a number I saw repeated in several posts) comes from a thread I started in the email abuse newsgroup: 1-800-242-0363 belongs to an outfit called Digitcom. Each spammer gives a different "extension". As one poster replied in , > The number you quote is one of a few toll-free numbers for Digitcom > Nationwide Services, a no-fuss no-muss $20/month voicemailbox service. No > sense in trying to run up the spammer's costs, they're only going to pay > $20/month. This protectsa the spammer from huge toll-free bills due to > rabid anti-spammers calling up the number to complain. This has happened > to my job's company twice as I was the victim of some spammer who I had > spanked pretty hard. Out and out fraud. > Digitcom seems slow to respond although I once got a kill. I have a > feeling Digitcom might be more concerned with their bottom line and might > be black hats. > I routinely send a complaint to "abuse@digitcom.net". It doesn't bounce, > but they don't reply. Hope this helps. /JBL Nets: levin/at/bbn.com | "GO TO JAIL. Go directly to jail. Do not pass or jbl/at/levin.mv.com| Go. Do not collect $200." or levinjb/at/gte.net | ARS: KD1ON | -- Parker Brothers [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If Digitcom or other companies like that are willing to pay the costs of the service, that's fine with me. *Someone* is going to get a phone bill, and if things get bad enough for Digitcom and others of that kind that they can no longer afford to give flat rate $20 per month service to spammers, then it may be they have to discontinue that sort of service. It is not up to you and I and others reading this to worry about *who pays the bill*. Our task is to keep those bills coming to them, month after month; great big hellish, humongous, outrageous bills for 'toll-free' service asking to be removed from their mailing lists and asking for more information about their products and services. If Digitcom gets hit with a massive bill for 800 phone service in the million dollar per month range for several months in a row, as happened to a couple others we know about, I feel certain they'll take action of their own initiative to deal with their flat rate customers who are causing the problem. So, it is a little round-about, but the results will be the same. Remember, you must *never* harass anyone by telephone. It is illegal. Make certain that you have something legitimate to discuss with the spammer, such as being removed from the list, or getting information. Do not cause their telephone to ring and then remain silent. Do not make threats or give abuse. Just because calling them from a payphone renders their ANI worthless or causes them to get an extra surcharge on their phone bill, don't feel that you have an obligation to call them from your home or office. Its not your fault how the telephone system is designed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Derx Subject: Re: Water Amplifies Electricity? Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:48:49 -0500 Organization: Netcom I am afraid I can't address the issue of hydro amplification, although I am very interested in what someone has to say about it. I can ,however, address the "full gallon". When "Hams" operate at the max. allowable power, we are said to be running a "full gallon". This would be 1 kiliwatt (2k p.e.p.). Please fill me in on any revelation that comes out of hydro amlification. Tad John Warne wrote: > At 04:13 AM 8/24/99 -0400, Pat wrote: >> Water conducts electricity quite well and in fact amplifies it to some >> extent. > OK, I'll bite -- please send details of water amplification of > electricity. > I've heard of Hams running "a full gallon." Guess this is what they mean. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:24:58 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: This Week's Poll Question The poll question for this week asks what type of phone service you have at home. Do you have wireline only, wireless only, both wireline and wireless, COCOT / payphone service or no home phone service at all. To vote, to http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html Last week's poll asked how you answer your phone at work. The results were: 60 percent answer your business phone with your name only. 20 percent answer with company and/or department name and personal name. 11 percent answer by saying just 'hello' or similar. 7 percent answer with the company name only. 2 percent answer with your department name only. Another choice was answering by saying the number or extension that had been reached. No one chose that answer at all. Thanks for participating. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #355 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 30 16:17:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA27300; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:17:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908302017.QAA27300@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #356 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Aug 99 16:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 356 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Hotmail Accounts Exposed to All - Huge Security Failure (Monty Solomon) Beepers to Go Silent (Mike Pollock) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Pay (M. Aakesson) Re: Sprint PCS Customer Service Enhancements (Leonard Erickson) Re: International Calls & CIDs (David Charles) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Jason Fetterolf) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Dave Garland) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Hotmail Accounts Exposed to All - Huge Security Failure Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:05:52 -0400 http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/21490.html by Declan McCullagh and by James Glave 8:05 a.m. 30.Aug.99.PDT A catastrophic security flaw in Microsoft's Hotmail service that was exposed over the weekend allowed anyone to read the private correspondence as well as impersonate the accounts of about 50 million subscribers. The breach was finally closed Monday at around 9 a.m. PDT, when Hotmail restored access to legitimate subscribers. The bug appears to have affected every customer of what Microsoft says is "the world's largest provider of free Web-based email." The significance of this security breach is that it was available to anyone with a Web browser . Most security vulnerabilities on the Internet require in-depth knowledge of Unix or Windows NT language, technical knowledge that the average Web user does not know. Between 8:30 and 9 am PDT, Microsoft pulled the plug on large portions of the entire Hotmail site, rendering it unreachable for millions of subscribers. During that period, the only access to Hotmail accounts could be made through illicit means -- by those who had access to a simple code that had spread wildly on the Net through the weekend. That was about 12 hours after the company was notified of the security hole. But users already logged in to their accounts -- or someone else's -- could continue to send, receive, and delete email. Around 9:30, sections of Hotmail began to slowly come back online. By that time, people without Hotmail accounts could connect to the site's homepage. Users with accounts configured to remember their password, however, received this nhelpful message: "ERROR: Cannot open UserData file". As of 10:15 a.m., Microsoft engineers, led by Mike Nichols in Redmond, Washington, had managed to fix that problem, too, and users could log in normally again. Yet there still was no reference to the problem anywhere on either the Hotmail or MSN sites. Microsoft could not be reached for comment Monday morning, so questions as to why the gaping security hole was left open for at least 24 hours and probably longer could not immediately be answered. The exploit worked this way: Any Web page that contained a short, simple code visible on most browsers as a type-in form -- was able connect to a Hotmail server simply by typing in a user name without requiring a password. By early Monday, copies of that HTML code were posted on hacking-related Web sites. The Hotmail exploit apparently took advantage of a bug in the start script that processed a login session between a Web browser and a server. One site where the problem surfaced was at 2038.com, which Network Solutions shows registered to Moving Pictures, a group based in Sweden. Erik Barkel, the contact associated with that domain, could not be reached for comment. As of about 8:30 a.m. that site redirected to a Web page promoting a marketing company. The managers of that company said they had nothing to do with the redirect. "It's just a point[er] put there by a person who's trying make a joke," said Anders Herlin, business development manager at Abel and Baker. "We haven't had the slightest idea why. "All I know is we do not want to be associated with it," said Herlin. "We are a fairly new company. Maybe someone wanted to cause us harm." But the code quickly spread to dozens, if not hundreds of sites. A Swedish newspaper, Expressen , reported the bug in its Monday editions. The bug let anyone log into a Hotmail account without typing a password. "We know nothing about [the individual who tipped us]. It was anonymous," said Christian Carrwik, one of two Expressen reporters who broke the news. "It has been circulating for a couple of days." Expressen said Microsoft was alerted very early Sunday morning. This is only the most recent Microsoft security gaffe. Redmond admitted earlier this month that its MSN Messenger instant messaging client can accidentally disclose Hotmail account passwords. Even if the password is supposedly deleted from a computer, someone else could still view it if they knew the proper keystrokes. Last week, Wired News reported a bug in tens of millions of Microsoft Windows computers that lets an attacker take control of a PC by sending an email message. Lindsey Arent contributed to this report. Copyright 1994-99 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Beepers to Go Silent Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:36:16 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! By Shu Shin Luh Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 27, 1999; Page E01 About 40,000 voice-paging subscribers in the Washington region will lose their beeper service at 5 p.m. today when Conxus Communications Inc. shuts off its nationwide voice-paging service, Pocketalk. As many as 80,000 customers nationwide will be affected. Conxus, based in Greenville, S.C., informed its customers and resellers Monday -- just five days' notice -- that the company is shutting down, three months after filing for bankruptcy protection. Most customers have been notified, according to a recorded message at Conxus headquarters. But some, like car salesman Kenny Solomon in Lanham, say they weren't aware of the situation until their local paging companies contacted them. Janice Dunbar, office manager for Quick Page and Cellular of Largo, suspects that many more Pocketalk customers are still in the dark and will be in for a rude awakening this afternoon. Since Conxus rolled out its Pocketalk service in 1997, the company has primarily resold its portable voice-mail service through paging companies nationwide. Most of these resellers are also vendors of other numeric paging and cellular services. Phone calls to Conxus's Greenville headquarters were answered by an automated system that didn't allow people to leave a message or speak with a customer service representative. The recorded message advises subscribers to call paging companies to arrange for alternative service, adding that Conxus "will be unable to take any customer service calls, faxes and e-mails at this time." Industry analysts said yesterday that Conxus's case delivers a painful lesson to the wireless telecommunications industry. Consumer interest in Pocketalk following its introduction two years ago has dissipated. What's left is a network "that wasn't cost-effectively meeting consumer demand," said Darryl Sterling, an analyst for the Yankee Group, a Boston-based telecommunications consulting firm. The Pocketalk service was available in Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago and parts of South Florida. No other companies have voice-paging services that work with the Motorola system Conxus used, Motorola Inc. spokesman Ken Countess said. And now, resellers, who were notified by Monday, are dealing with the fallout. "The phone rings like crazy," said Sherry Kim, manager of I.D. Communica- tions in Greenbelt. I.D. Communications has about 150 Pocketalk customers and many are furious, she said. Kim left a message for all of her Pocketalk customers last week, offering a $10 rebate for customers who want to trade in Pocketalk pagers and subscribe to a new paging service. She estimates her store will lose several thousand dollars on trade-ins and refunds to customers who paid in advance. Customers who switch services will have to get new numbers, adding another layer of frustration. Atlantic Paging and Cellular President Romy Singh said that as of yesterday about 100 of his firm's 1,000 Pocketalk customers have switched to new services. He's expecting more to respond tomorrow when the service officially switches off. Some customers have asked local resellers whether Motorola would reimburse them for their pagers. Countess said Motorola is reviewing whether it will offer any compensation to the abandoned Pocketalk subscribers. There's little consolation for Pocketalk customer Richard Betty, president of marketing firm Da Vinci Management Group, based in Laurel. He spent all week contacting his clients to let them know his pager won't work after today. But there are several thousand potential clients and contacts who have received his marketing materials with the defunct pager number and can't easily be reached. Betty estimates he'll have to spend about $1,000 to reprint literature, business cards and company letterheads. Staff writer Sarah Schafer contributed to this report. Pocketalk Talk If you're a Pocketalk subscriber, you can: Contact the local paging company from which you got the service. The paging company might be offering trade-in deals and rebates. Check with Motorola at 1-800-548-9954 (available from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). Motorola manufactures the Pocketalk devices. The company might be able to direct you to alternative paging services. ------------------------------ From: marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se (Marcus AAkesson) Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:54:18 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:30:36 -0400, E. Cummings wrote: > Perhaps there are other TELECOM Digest readers who simply prefer to > pay some or all of their bills in cash for personal reasons (yes, I > have credit cards for emergencies) and agree that this "bill payment > surcharge" is inappropriate. Let's hope it isn't a trend. If any > readers are SprintPCS customers, I would encourage them to voice this > concern to a SprintPCS manager. Please explain to me (I'm not familiar with the US banking system) why You would want to pay a bill by cash, card or mailing checks. Don't you have banking services? Collect all your bills and send them to your bank for payment when due? Pay bills with Internet banking? I'm curious! Marcus [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Marcus, what you suggest about gather- ing up all your bills and sending them to the bank for payment is not a widely practiced thing in the United States. Most people do pay by check, credit card or cash. A small number have begun to use the Internet for that purpose. There is wide-spread suspicion in the United States as to how well 'having the bank do it' would work out. Many are afraid of clerical errors by the bank and/or Internet services. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Sprint PCS Customer Service Enhancements Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:00:48 PST Adam H. Kerman writes: > Leonard Erickson wrote: >> Some companies (like the local cable company) use bulk mailing >> permits rather than metered mail for sending bills. > No. "Bulk Mail" means pre-sorted mail of any class, as contrasted with > mail entered at single-piece rates. There are various presorted > First-Class rates in addition to Standard Mail (A) [formerly presorted > Third-Class]. Check the permit imprint indicia to see what class was > used. First-Class should say "First-Class Mail" or "Presorted > First-Class Mail". If it says "Bulk Rate", "Standard", or "Nonprofit", > it was sent as Standard Mail (A). > Bulk mail may be paid with permit imprint, meter stamp, or > precancelled stamp. First-Class or Standard Mail (A) may be paid with > meter stamps. If you have at least 200 pieces or 50 pounds, you can > use a permit imprint even if you are paying at single-piece rates. > If your cable company really used Standard Mail (A) to send you a bill > or an invoice, that is illegal and you should complain to your postal > inspector. Bills and statements MUST be mailed as First-Class. I just checked a current mailing, and it *does* say "Presort First Class US Postage PAID". But I'm fairly sure that a few years back they *were* using a bulk permit, inasmuch as I don't recall "First Class" appearing in the little box. >> So I've gotten "you have 10 days to pay" notices the day before they >> are due. And since there's no postmark on the bulk mail items, it's >> useless to try proving anything. > If there is a postmark, notice is as of the date on the postmark. If > there is no postmark, notice is as of the day you received it in the > mail. That's not what the "pay or else" notices say. > Your municipality may require something similar of the cable > company. Without that postmark, the due date is counted from the date > YOU received it. Not that I know of. The cable company seems to do turn-offs based on the date marked on the letter, not when it was mailed, much less when it was delivered. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: International Calls & CIDs Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:52:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , steven@ primacomputer.com (Steven) wrote: > It depends if the boys at the telephone companies on each end have > learned to properly implement the age old SS7 standard. There are some > places where they have and you get Caller ID no problem. Otherwise it > will give you "unavailable". Sometimes the miscommunication will end > up giving you some bogus CLI, 0,000000,1,etc. This can sometimes give > you a clue as to what network it was coming from, but I wouldn't count > on it. > In article , NOtakmel@stratos. netSPAM says: >> I assume that it's impossible to show the names on CID when a call is >> foreign origin but at least will it show something useful? Will it at >> least tell me it's an international call? There are several reasons why caller ID is not available on some international calls apart from incorrect SS7 implementations, some technical and some regulatory. Some of these are: - Caller ID is not supported in the originating network (either in general or at the originating local exchange). - A signalling system somewhere on the route does not carry caller ID. - The number provided by the originating network does not have international significance and has been discarded by the outgoing international gateway.(e.g. a toll free number dialable only in the country concerned) - The originating network is incapable of providing a meaningful number (what is considered meaningful may vary) - Provision of caller ID on outgoing international calls is prohibited by the law of the originating country. - Presentation of the particular number is prohibited by the law of the originating country. I would consider it correct not to display any information (other than the "Unavailable" message) if the presentation indicator received at the destination local exchange indicates Unavailable, particularly for international calls. It is likely that any number supplied would be meaningless or misleading. The only exception would be if some information could be obtained from other sources. I do not think that there is any significant greater technical problem in supplying names on international calls than other long distance calls (assuming both originating, terminating and and any transit networks support this) however regulatory obstacles are likely to be greater. Furthermore this feature is not widely supported so it is likely that the originating networks for most international calls would not support it. David Charles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:58:32 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Organization: Apollo Concepts Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Not to mention time and aggravation. Why haven't you cancelled your >> MCI service? You'd stand a better chance of getting it resolved if you >> send written protests to the managers of each facility that billed you >> incorrectly. If that doesn't work, write to the president of MCI. If >> that doesn't work, file a written complaint with your state public >> service commission and file a consumer fraud complaint with your >> state's attorney general. I doubt you'll successfully resolve anything >> over the telephone. (Alan Gore Responded:) > The main reason we haven't canceled is that I think, perhaps > irrationally, that my chances of resolving this are better if I remain > a customer. Once I drop off, they can forget about me completely if > they want to. Write to MCI? The company carefuly arranges things so > there is no way to contact them by snailmail. You call the 800 number, > which refers you to other 800 numbers, each connected to offices in > different states and which do not communicate with each other. There are high quality, low cost, international-focus carriers available that will let you have "casual access" to their network, so that you can dial their 101xxxx code and then get superior rates to "Europe" or wherever else you may call, and you can have your primary "PIC" as MCI, so that MCI still thinks that you are their customer. Then, when you have resolved you MCI issue, the chosen carrier can be your primary PIC so that you can elminate dialing the extra digits. See next comment for details. > In any case, we have never had a problem with MCI's phone service > itself -- just with this one instance of double billing when we > switched over from cash to Amex payment. Our LD usage is quite high, > and almost all of it is internatinal. Is there any other company that > can get us to Europe for 9 cents a minute? Absolutely. There are, in the least, several high quality companies that give *better rates* to Europe...and *better customer service*. One good example is Star Telecom, mainly a wholesale carrier of international traffic. Their main customers are ALL 12 of the top 12 US carriers, as well as many other foreign carriers. Recently, then have set up commercial division to give retail customers the opportunity to get wholesale rates. Some examples: 7.9 cpm to UK, 12 cpm to Germany; all with no minimums, no fees, and 6 sec billing, 24hrs a day (dedicated rates are even lower). When you say 9 cents/min to Europe, what country(ies), specifically are you talking about? Anyway, there is no reason to continue using MCI's network, and also get abused by them. There *are* carriers out there that will give you the attention that you deserve, but MCI is not one of them, nor are the others in the "Big 3". Take the time to research other carriers that care about you. An independent telecom agent can give you a good start. Feel free to contact me for more details. Jason Fetterolf Apollo Concepts Telecom Consulting 610-406-0444 ------------------------------ From: dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) Date: 29 Aug 99 22:43:28 -0600 Subject: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Organization: Wizard Information Jonathan D. Loo wrote: > I suggest you send your complaint to both addresses, by U. > S. registered mail, return receipt requested. The best > response to postal letters is obtained if you use registered > mail with return receipt. In the US, "certified mail" serves much the same purpose at far less expense. It provides for proof of delivery (return receipts) without the expense of handling the mail as if it contained diamonds/negotiable securities/cash. In either case, don't be surprised if the return receipt has a rubber stamp saying "MCI MAILROOM" or some such. It is possible to endorse such mail "deliver to addressee only", but if it's addressed to the President/CEO it probably won't get delivered at all. Dave dave.garland@wizinfo.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #356 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 31 04:04:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA21790; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:04:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908310804.EAA21790@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #357 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Aug 99 04:04:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 357 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: International Calls & CIDs (Mark J. Cuccia) BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages (Rick Prelinger) Re: Water Damage To Phone (Leonard Erickson) Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General (Ian Angus) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Steve Winter) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Willis H. Ware) Re: GSM in the US (Kim Brennan) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Alan Gore) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Joseph Singer) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Pay (G. Wollman) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Fred Goldstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 30 Aug 1999 20:43:14 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: International Calls & CIDs > I assume that it's impossible to show the names on CID when a call > is foreign origin but at least will it show something useful? Will > it at least tell me it's an international call? First, I'm going to be speaking from a "North American" perspective. So, by "international", I'm going to be referring to calls from one country-code to another country-code, rather than for calls between the US and Canada (or any other intra-NANP call - calls within the NANP, country-code +1, but between two different 'countries'). Also, I'm thinking in "POTS-like" systems - i.e. not some PBX or ISDN set-up. You mention the "names on CID" when a call is foreign origin: If you want to know the "name" associated with the originating line, that usually requires a "backwards-lookup" by the called-end switch or signaling point (node) querying a database or switch/signaling node from the calling-end (or something close to the calling-end). Within the NANP, many LECs which provide their own "calling-name" databases are now entering into reciprocal agreements to share calling-name data on calls between those LECs. Also, some smaller (independent) LECs or CLECs might be contracting with a "host" LEC in the area to store "calling-name" info in that "host" database. Now, calling-name data delivery, made possible by the "backward lookup" query of a calling-name database, can only be available IF some form of calling-number ID is sent forward on that call set-up. Depending on the SS7 interconnection arrangements between the various LECs (or CLECs or PBXs or Wireless providers, etc) within the NANP, as well as the inter-exchange (Long Distance) carriers, I am usually able to get some form of Calling-Number delivery to my caller-ID boxes/displays, on calls from within the US, as well as on calls from Canada. And Canadians can usually get my number as well. But remember that the US and Canada are part of the same country-code, +1, the North American Numbering Plan, with a "fixed" ten-digit "national" number. On calls from _OTHER_ country codes, on a "regular POTS, non-ISDN" type of set-up, I have always gotten "unavailable" or "out-of-area". However, I have heard that on certain PBX systems or ISDN set-ups, depending on the carriers involved and interconnection arrangements, that Calling-Number display _IS_ possible. I think that the full "worldwide" number (including country-code) is also displayed. And, I have also heard _others_ tell me that they have gotten full "worldwide" number display (including country-code) on calls from outside of the NANP even on "POTS, non-ISDN" lines. But on those PBX/ISDN set-ups, I don't know if "intra-NANP" calls will display the country-code '1'. On most caller-ID boxes for use in the US, the display portion is _FIXED_ to display ten-digits: XXX-XXX-XXXX. Note that I don't use 'NXX-NXX'. The LED/LCD part of the display for the first digit of the area code and the first digit of the central-office code must present any possible digit '2' thru '9', true... but that also means that ANY decimal digit is possible from the format of the LCD's! And I have gotten some telemarketing calls which have shown up as "000-000-0000". Also, note that the display part has a "fixed parsing" of the digits, including the 'dashes' between the area code and central office code - and the central office code and the line number. And, there's no way to display my own country-code '1' as well as the ten-digit NANP number. International Caller-ID for inbound calls to the NANP for these types of boxes could confuse callers as to the true origin of the call! If a "worldwide" number (including country-code) is a total of ten-digits, it would "appear" as an intra-NANP call. It might also be possible for worldwide numbers greater than ten-digits that the number could display truncated at ten-digits. Either way, it could cause problems if BellSouth (my own LEC) would try to query their own (or some other reciprocal) name-database based on those ten-digits! I assume that "other" (non-NANP) countries with numbering plans of variable parsing of the digits in their national number, as well as a variable of the number of digits in their national number, might have standards for more "flexible" caller-ID transmission and display boxes. Also, in parts of the world where there are a lot of geographically smaller countries than the US or Canada, where there is more frequent calling between those countries (i.e. within Europe, Asia or Latin America), that some form of "international" Caller-ID standards prevail, with flexible methods of transmission and display, due to the variables (mentioned above) within the individual national numbering plans. I don't know if the ITU has been working at some from of worldwide standard for international/worldwide caller-ID. I assume that they have. But even if the technology becomes widespread in the US or Canada, it may be some time before the "general public" would request such capable service from their LECs, due to the large number of already embedded "NANP-only" caller-ID boxes in place! Of course, when some customers upgraded from "number-only" Caller-ID to NAME with Number Caller-ID from their local telco, many of the earliest manufacture number-only boxes wouldn't display ANYTHING, not even the NUMBER! The loop-signaling for name-with-number was completely different from the loop-signaling for number-only on the final end of the delivery. But many customers who upgraded probably just realized that their old number-only boxes were now _completely_ obsolete, and just threw them out. But how many US or Canadian customers are necessarily going to invest in a new "fully" compatable Caller-ID box (for number, name, Call-Waiting Display or even Call-Waiting-DELUXE controls, AND international inbound compatability), just for a few rare occasions when they might get some incoming calls from outside of the NANP! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:52:29 -0700 From: Rick Prelinger Subject: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages I'm a recent subscriber to Bell South Wireless Data's Interactive Paging Service, as resold through PageNet. This network was formerly known as RAM Mobile data before BellSouth purchased it. In theory it's a great service for many people's needs: numeric paging, email and alpha messaging are all channeled to a two-way wireless pager that roams seamlessly through most major U.S. urban areas. It is a premium service, and when it works it's addictive, and considerably easier to deal with than carrying around a laptop or even a wireless Pilot. The problem is reliability. In the last few weeks the network has been out almost every day for a minimum of an hour to a maximum of eleven hours. Customer support reps have offered a variety of stories, including a fire at an MCI switch in California; a glitch that affects all pagers whose access numbers begin with 877 (every PageNet IPS pager falls into this category); software updates; and more. One of the problems is that lost messages frequently go into a black hole and aren't necessarily transmitted later on. Since no one at BellSouth or PageNet has much to say that makes sense, I wonder whether any knowledgeable Digest readers can illuminate what's happening, and perhaps offer an estimate as to when the situation might improve. This ought to help readers decide whether to subscribe to the service, and those who are subscribers decide whether to continue. With thanks, Rick Prelinger Prelinger Archives P.O. Box 30944, New York, NY 10011 USA Office: +1 212 633-2020 / Fax: +1 212 255-5139 Home: +1 415 682-7304 footage@panix.com ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Water Damage To Phone Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:09:54 PST Organization: Shadownet blCHURRObergman@earthlink.net (Bruce Bergman) writes: > For an On-hook phone, you have 48V DC, which is also current-limited. > 48V DC is usually innocuous, I used to touch both - and + busbars > occasionally, and with not even a tingle if my hands were dry. Now, > placing anything metallic across them right at the batteries is NOT a > good idea (BIG sparks!!!), but a human beings' internal resistance is > (usually) high enough to get away with this. And the ring voltage > never gets to the handset whether it's on- or off-hook, the only > hazard there is component failure from excessive moisture (by > immersion). Oh? Trust me, 48v *will* get your attention. The easiest way to learn this is to forget to disconnect the phone line from an internal modem card in a PC and then grab the card to pull it out. Those pointy little bits of wire on the backside of the circuit board *will* dig in enough it get past the dead surface layers of skin and into the nice *wet* and conductive dermal tissues. Result? The shock makes your hand *jerk* and since the cord prevents the card from coming all the way out, you rip *long* gashes on your hand and bleed all over the circuitry. The good news is that the "blood offering" seems to make most computers "get well". :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus) Subject: Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:13:35 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > I agree with Mr. Mereniuk. The exchange rate is a function of all the > trade of goods and services that takes place between two > countries. > The cost of local phone service isn't affected by international trade. Yes it is -- very directly. To keep local telephone networks working and growing, carriers must invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year in new equipment, upgrades, etc. Canadian carriers buy switching and transmission equipment in a North American or global market. They pay the same prices as their U.S. counterparts -- perhaps more, because they don't buy as much. And when they raise the money they need to buy equipment, pay employees, etc, they have to go to North American money markets, where they pay the same interest rates as U.S. carriers -- again, perhaps more, because they are smaller. The impressive thing is that DESPITE the unfavorable exchange rate, Canadian telephone service is still a price-leader in North America. Ian Angus Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:42:11 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) spake thusly and wrote: > J.F. Mezei spake thusly and wrote: >> Anyone want to bet that Bill Gates will somehow succeed in claiming he >> invented the Internet ? > Nope, Al Gore has already staked that claim. Bill ain't gonna mess > with Al Gore. Ahem ... Pat ... When I spelled "AlGore" as one word it was intentional. Don't you listen to Rush? :-) Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, sorry, most days I do not get an opportunity to listen to Rush. Anyway, Al Gore is a correspondent here in the Digest. Haven't you read his messages? He is probably going to deny being the same one, for security reasons and all that. So what exactly is AlGore Rythym? Is that the little dance he does as part of his song and dance about the internet? To the readers, yes, Steve's message said AlGore and without real- izing it was just a tyographical error I made it Al Gore. Sorry. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: willis@rand.org Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 99 13:52:52 PDT From: Willis H. Ware Pat: With regard to many of these postings that recite incomplete, misleading, or erroneous facts about the Internet and its predeceesor ARPANET, have a look at this new book which lays out the history, the people, and the funding in complete and correct detail. Iventing the Internet Janet Abbate MIT Press ISBN 0-262-01172-7 Willis H. Ware Santa Monica, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Professor Abbate's book is one of the links provided at http://internet-history.org for your review. Another book on the same topic is {Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet} written by Michael and Ronda Hauben. Excerpts of this latter book are not only linked at the above history site but are also in the Telecom Archives here. Now and then I print those excerpts in the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 31 Aug 1999 03:10:57 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: GSM in the US >> network, losing the advantages of GSM. > Which are? (Aside from being able to keep one's existing phone, that is.) > And what about the advantages of Sprint CDMA -- such as being able to > roam on other Sprint PCS systems? Keeping one's existing phone is the least of it. The fact is with GSM, the phone is the SIM card. What most cell phones are is simply a handset with GSM. You can interchange handsets, and you still have the same "phone", just like changing handsets at your house still is the same "phone." GSM roaming is broader than Sprint PCS's roaming. The Sprint Spectrum local coverage is larger than the planned local coverage of Sprint PCS. To me, there was no advantage to Sprint PCS, and the court settlement was completely worthless to me. I've moved to Bell Atlantic Mobile for the next year (I'm not thrilled by their rates, or coverage, but it was the next closest to the GSM coverage I used to have.) When GSM returns to Washington DC, I'll go back to GSM. 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: agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:44:35 GMT Organization: Software For PC's Jason Fetterolf wrote: > When you say 9 cents/min to Europe, what country(ies), specifically are > you talking about? I get 9c to Germany and Switzerland, if I call on Sundays. agore@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke http://www.alangore.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:27:19 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:58:32 -0400 Jason Fetterolf wrote: > There are high quality, low cost, international-focus carriers available > that will let you have "casual access" to their network, so that you can > dial their 101xxxx code and then get superior rates to "Europe" or > wherever else you may call, and you can have your primary "PIC" as MCI, > so that MCI still thinks that you are their customer. Then, when you > have resolved you MCI issue, the chosen carrier can be your primary PIC > so that you can elminate dialing the extra digits. See next comment for > details. A web site that I've found quite helpful in deciphering the various rates of different carriers is They give rates of dial one carriers as well as 101XXXX carriers. Even with dialaround carriers you can get pretty decent rates if you learn to avoid the tricks of carriers such as Telecom USA (101-0220 and 101-0321) and you'll also find carriers that will give you a break if your calling is in the off peak time periods. World Exchange has a dialround plan that will give you 9 cents/minute 24/7 with decent international rates. They also have an off peak (7p - 7a) plan that will give you 5 cents/minute during that time period and also will give you really good rates to the UK of ~7¢/minute during the offpeak with other good rates such as Israel for 13 cents/minute. World Exchange also offers a plan which you pay a monthly fee (which includes the USF charge.) Besides World Exchange there are lots of others listed. Some have different USF and PICC fees. Some plans don't have *any* PICC or USF fees! Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay Date: 31 Aug 1999 01:24:10 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Marcus AAkesson wrote: > Please explain to me (I'm not familiar with the US banking system) why > You would want to pay a bill by cash, card or mailing checks. Don't > you have banking services? Collect all your bills and send them to > your bank for payment when due? Pay bills with Internet banking? Marcus, Unlike in most of Europe, in the US there is no wide-spread inter-bank (or postal) mass-market funds transfer -- what I believe in Sweden you would call ``Giro''. (This should not be surprising, considering that the US has more banks, trust companies, and credit unions than the entire rest of the world put together.) Bills are printed, not on a standardized wire-transfer form, but on a form of the payee's devising, which is returned along with the payment whether by cash, check, or money order. (I receive six bills each month: Boston Gas, Boston Edison, Bell Atlantic, Cablevision, Ford Credit, and Commerce Insurance. Each one looks entirely different from the others.) With the multiplication of bills needing to be paid, and the conversion of most other payments to private transfers between borrower and lender banks, this has placed a substantial strain on the check-clearing system. Last year, the Federal Reserve System (which operates clearinghouses for member banks) seriously started encouraging major bill generators to offer customers automatic bill payment. This service operates through the same clearing system, but eliminates the physical piece of paper which must be handled and transported from bank to clearinghouse to bank. My impression is that the uptake has been very slow, because most customers don't particularly trust their utility companies to automatically debit the correct amount, or fear that it will happen at an inopportune time with respect to the customer's bank balance. Internet banking has just begun to take off. Most such services offer a bill-payment option, but very few payees are set up to receive payments electronically -- mostly large national creditors like Ford Motor Credit, GMAC, MBNA, and the like. As a result, these services generally end up putting a computer-printed check in the mail. (Only this way, the bank gets the benefit of the float, rather than the customer!) For some people, however, the ability to schedule bill payments in advance and then forget about them is worth the added expense (lost interest plus a monthly fee, typically about $4). Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:10:27 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Robert Berntsen sez, > You (Arthur Ross) seem to express feelings not facts. CDMA is not > "far-superior" to GSM. It is perhaps a little bit better, technically, > but much worse overall because of the political situation for the > CDMA. In addition, the scattered frequency plan of USA makes cellular > networks harder to make there than in other part of the world. Adding > CDMA in Europe would be a step backwards, as the new UTMS standard is > even better and now including the whole world. Frequency allocations differ on both sides of the puddle, of course. VHF and higher frequencies are considered "line of sight" so except for satellite allocations, it was considered okay to have them different. Nobody thought about hand-held roaming radios back at the Atlantic City WARC in 1949 when the basic outlines of today's VHF/UHF bands were set up, or even later when the higher bands were allocated. GSM wasn't designed to "drop in" to existing analog systems, as CDMAOne and US TDMA were. Since cellular operators got no additional frequencies here, they needed a system that could be phased in, a fraction of their channels at a time. And IS-41 compatible. Before GSM, Europe's various analog systems were incompatible and had limited deployment; in the USA, AMPS was universal and interoperable, making the handsets cheap. JanC >> Also: unlike CDMA, there are no licensing strings attached to GSM. You are kidding, of course. Or are you all just unaware? GSM is covered by lots of "intellectual property". The various manufacturers cross-license each other for their own respective rights, but j-random startups can't just come along and build it. I think Qualcomm gets the rights as part of its deal with Ericsson, so there might *finally* be a GSM/CDMA dual-mode radio. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #357 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 31 04:51:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA23335; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 04:51:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908310851.EAA23335@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #358 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Aug 99 04:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 358 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ads For Pat (Joey Lindstrom) Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (Judith Oppenheimer) More Comments About Battery Types (E. Cummings) Re: More Comments About Battery Types (Isaac Wingfield) Re: Public Coast Stations - Marine Operators (Alan Boritz) Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 06:19:17 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Ads For Pat On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 17:58:04 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org noted in response to my posting: >> In regards to my last post, how many of you would be ok with the idea >> of Pat including a banner ad or two on the TELECOM Digest website in >> order to pay some of his expenses, and/or text ads within the Digest >> itself? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish you would not do that, and I > must ask that no one respond. There are various reasons why it cannot > happen here: A few people did anyways. I'll respect your wishes and not post the results-so-far, except to say that there seems to be a wide variety of opinion on the matter -- I got one really nasty letter from a guy saying he'd never, ever in a million years accept advertising here, and another nice one from someone saying "hey, great idea, wish I'd thought of it!" and several at various points on the spectrum in-between. It was interesting, to say the least. Thank you to all who responded (even those who screamed a bit, heh heh!), it was most illuminating. You can stop sending those responses now. :-) Anyways: Your original message then went on to outline six different reasons why you couldn't accept advertising. The first five are, individually, reason enough to drop the idea as a practical thing (although I should point out that there are a *LOT* of .org sites out there that are purely commercial). But: > Six, it would be a conflict of interest to carry advertising while > attempting to editorialize about the advertisers. What telco do you > know of that would advertise here given my disposition and that of > many of the writers here? What sort of messages could ever appear here > in the future that were not clouded by suspicion based on the presence > of the advertising? > I see no way it would work at all without a lot of people getting > getting victimized in the process. And by the way, they don't pay > twelve cents per click-through. How about two cents? I have tolerated > this to a limited extent in areas like /news and /postoffice where > the ads have been a 'take it or leave it' proposition and I felt the > good for this site outweighed the bad, and where I have no personal > involvement in or profit from the click-throughs ... but no click- > throughs in the Digest proper. I can understand and respect your view. It is, after all, your baby, to run as you see fit. I'd like to address two points you make by telling you of my experience with one web-advertising company. I'm not a shill for them so I won't name them, we'll call them "Acme" for now. Anyways, "Acme" has a web-banner program that works like this: 1) You sign up. 2) You place their piece of HTML on your homepage (or multiple pages if you like). 3) This HTML will cause THEIR server (not yours) to serve a pseudo-random ad to each surfer that hits your page. 4) You are not paid for "impressions" (the simple serving of the ad), only for click-throughs. If the viewer clicks through, then doesn't buy anything, it doesn't matter -- you still get paid. The rate of pay is INDEED 12 cents per click-through. If you're a high-volume site and can guarantee a certain number of monthly impressions, this number rises to 17 cents per click-through. But I get 12 cents on my low-traffic site. I average about 700-1000 visitors per month and I've been signed up with this program for about four months now. I just got my first cheque (they don't issue cheques until your balance hits $20 or more) about two weeks ago, averaging about 1 click-through per hundred impressions. In regards to your editorial freedom, the beauty of this particular ad program is that YOU control the sponsors that can advertise on your site. I, for example, do a bit of web-hosting on the side, so it wouldn't be bright of me to allow web-hosting companies to advertise on my site. So I disable that particular category, using their online customization tool. I can bar any particular CATEGORY of company, or any particular company by name, from advertising on my site, and that causes Acme's servers to serve DIFFERENT ads instead. If it can't find an ad to display (many sponsors want their ads shown only during certain dayparts, or on certain types of sites, etc.), it displays a public-service message instead (ie: "Please Give To The Heart & Stroke Foundation" or somesuch) -- you don't get paid for click-throughs on these. So, hypothetically speaking, if you did decide to avail yourself of this particular program, you could easily bar *ALL* telecommunications companies (ie: no AT&T, no Sprint, etc.) from advertising on your site, which would remove the conflict-of-interest. Or allow them all indiscriminately. If someone from AT&T surfed your site, saw their own ad, and saw a criticism of AT&T in a Digest, well, they're perfectly free to demand that their ads no longer run on your site - and you won't suffer any consequences because other ads will take their place. You could therefore say what's on your mind without worrying about any repercussions because there wouldn't be any (and what, really, are the chances of someone from AT&T surfing to EVERY site signed up with Acme to see which ones are bad-mouthing AT&T?). There might remain some impression on newcomers that, because they've seen AT&T ads, they shouldn't badmouth AT&T... but, we're all a bunch of grumpy ol' farts and it wouldn't take long before they'd see that we *ALL* badmouth AT&T from time to time. OK, not all of us, but you get my drift. :-) I admit I'm arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, since you're dead set against the whole idea, and that's fine. I just wanted to point out that there are a few non-agressive, well-behaved advertising programs out there if only you look for 'em. I regard advertising as "a necessary evil" in society and would prefer to reward outfits like Acme for being at least a LITTLE bit civic-minded (ie: they handle all those public-service ads I mentioned on their own, nobody pays 'em for it), unlike spammers who begin their unsolicited messages with "thank you for inquiring about our product" when I did no such freakin' thing. :-) I'm the kinda guy who has a sign on his mailbox saying "no flyers" (note: Canada Post doesn't deliver 'em anymore, they're delivered by private companies now) and if a flyer appears in my mailbox, I will go out of my way NOT to do business with that company. There are acceptable limits, and those companies who stay within those limits get my trade. Lastly, I want to address a point you made in an earlier post - there seems to be an ever-dwindling number of people willing to put their software into the public domain. This was a huge shock to me this past January when, reluctantly and for reasons I won't delve into but which were many and varied, I chose to run my servers using Windows NT instead of Linux. WOW! Not only is NT itself absurdly expensive, but everyone who writes software seems to think that I'm a high-powered executive working for a fast-moving company with gobs and gobs of money to spend. One company, which makes a web-based email interface, wanted me to give them $6000 for a non-crippled version of their product. $6000, in US currency. I don't GROSS that much in four months working! And this wasn't even a mail server, it was just an INTERFACE to a mail server that I still had to provide! In fact, I wound up finding very, very little "free" software - the whole public-domain thing doesn't appear to have caught on in the Windows world. I *STILL* haven't found a decent "sendmail.exe" that doesn't cost at least $130US!! Alas. I'd like to close this, then, with some kudos for a couple of companies (where'd all the individual software writers go? It's all COMPANIES now!) that did provide me with free software. Some, obviously, would prefer that I "upgrade" to their more-expensive solutions, but mine is a small, small little operation and I'm happy with the free stuff thankyouverymuch. :-) Anyone considering these types of products is cordially invited to check 'em out. Real Networks -- lets you download their "Basic" RealServer software free of charge. It can handle up to 25 simultaneous connections. If you want more, you have to upgrade to one of a large variety of upgrade levels. The next step up from free is their $600 "Basic Plus" server which gives you ... wait for it ... 40 simultaneous connections. Yep, the first 25 are free but the next 15 cost you $40 apiece. :-) RealServer is *THE* way to serve streaming content, though, and being able to do so for free is awfully darn nice. www.real.com Vintra Systems -- they market a $350 POP3/IMAP4 mail server that seems fairly advanced. But this is a major upgrade from their previous version, which is no longer supported. That previous version can be downloaded and installed free of charge, so long as you don't expect anything like actual SUPPORT. :-) I'm using it, it seems fairly solid, some good spam filtering controls, handles multiple domains (even though their website claims it doesn't), etc. A tad inefficient, but again, it's a small operation and it doesn't overtax my server box, and I'm extremely happy with it. www.vintra.com ActiveState -- for their Win32 PERL interpreter which hooks into IIS4 (Microsloth's web server) and seems to handle every Perl script I throw at it (which, admittedly, ain't much). Completely free of charge. www.activestate.com 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 know America is getting absurd. Washington's blaming Hollywood, Hollywood's blaming Washington, and the rest of us are so zoned out on "Hard Copy," "ER," and that new pizza with the cheese in the crust that we don't even give a shit where we're headed anymore. -- Dennis Miller [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think Real Networks is a fine company. As you may have noticed, I rely extensively on their player and production tools at this site. Almost all the services I use for my audio news feeds have adopted the Real Networks standards. I have given more thought also to banner ads and I was asked by someone at the Ad Council if I would consider placing their public service ads on the web site. I might do that; I am not sure yet. You may have noticed, if you use http://telecom-digest.org/radio.html that the continuous audio feed of news on a 24/7 basis fills its free spaces between news reports with Ad Council messages. I like those people and the socially responsible web sites they promote, so I am inclined to maybe display their banners. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:25:34 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? IMHO neither of these domain names, Communications-Services.com and the .net version, is all that fabulous. But as a practical matter, in both the sale of toll free numbers and domain names, it's been my observation that proactive sales efforts are generally fruitless (although I like the auction model.) Numbers and domain names get their value when someone wants them. 1 800 TICKETS only became worth $1M + 6% stock, when that offer was made. Until then it was only worth $20,000, or $80,000, or the various other offers that were made, and rejected, over the years leading up to the $1M purchase. There are other methods to place a practical value a number. 800 PRODIGY outperforms 800 numeric by 25%, over a 24 hour longer period of time. The vanity is also credited with increased customer retention that can be measured.* This sales and retention performance has an increased revenue value to the company -- a percentage of that increased revenue, over X period of time, is one way to place a dollar value on 800 PRODIGY. I'm not aware of any similar measurement scenarios yet developed by which one could place value on a domain name. But there is my original favorite for brand name vanities, which would be similar for brand name domain names. For those brand names (Coke etc.) that have been valued by the financial-wiz powers that be, take that value: say theoretically $5B. (This is valuation of the brand name only, based on its recognition levels.) Now make that same brand perform. Make it interactive and transactive (800 or .com). Worth $5B as a cardboard mannequin, what's it worth as transportation, front door, concierge, and cash register? Of course, there are other factors to consider, such as point of sale. Marlboro is another very valuable brand, but its point of sale is face-to-face, not by phone (or internet, for that matter.) 1 800 MARLBORO rings to Marlboro customer service - perhaps a money saver in thwarting periodic complaints against the company, but definitely not a revenue center. So the value of the Marlboro interactive versions, above the value of the static brand, is adjusted accordingly. Back to the original posting, it's ballsy, but not likely to be productive. Judith Oppenheimer http://icbtollfree.com http://800consulting.com http://whosells800.com 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 *The Prodigy scenario is real, based on actual activities, and a subsequent interview we did with them a few years ago. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please explain this to me: if a company decides to move onto the net and set up a web site, and they see that they name they want is taken, they frequently just claim the existing user is a 'squatter' and rip off the name. This is especially true if they have money for attorney fees and the small web site does not. They sometimes put heavy legal pressure on the registrar to take the name and give it to them instead. There were a couple hundred instances in 1998 where the registrar 'adjudicated' these disputes in favor of the company who wanted the name versus the netizen who already was using it. Then if it was not given up voluntarily, the site was simply disconnected until some different name was decided upon (and paid for, of course.) I am wondering if that sort of thing happens with 'vanity' phone numbers as well. Let's say some individual has a number that is needed by a large company because it spells their name, or the number has some signficance to them, etc. Are there many instances of them just applying very heavy legal pressure on the RespOrg to assign the user some other number and give them the one they want? I know it happens occassionally with telcos and regular numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:53:59 -0400 From: E Cummings Subject: More Comments About Battery Types At 09:07 PM 8/29/99 -0400, was written: > A "battery" is, by definition, an assembly of two or more cells. For > example, a standard "12 volt" car battery is 6 lead-acid cells in > series, each one producing 2.25-ish (I'd have to look up the exact > number) volts, for a total of about 13.6 (or is it 13.8?) volts when > fully charged. A 90 volt "B" battery would be a stack of 60 1.5 volt > dry cells in a single package. The package is typically a paperboard > box, so it's easy to open, and if you do so, you'll find exactly that > inside. A 9 volt transistor battery is a stack of 6 cells inside. If > you carefully open one up by prying or cutting the metal skin apart, > you'll find a stack of 6 flattish cells, wired in series. A few corrections to Jim Van Nuland's post on batteries: Jim failed to mention the fairly new super-slim "AAAA" alkaline battery (mostly used in laser pointers as far as I've seen) that's the same length and voltage of a "AAA" cell. In addition, there's an "N" cell that's about the same diameter of a AAA cell but about half the length. These have been used in some cameras and some very small electronic devices for well over 20 years. Intriguingly, if you disassemble a 9V zinc-carbon battery, you'll find exactly what Jim described: a stack of six flattish cells. But if you disassemble a good-quality alkaline (i.e. duracell) 9V battery, instead you'll find a sausage-link of six (6) "N"-sized cells inside that can be easily clipped apart and used in lieu of expensive "N" cells at about 1/5 the price! I have a small device that uses N cells and have been saving quite a bit over the years using this technique! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:27:18 -0700 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Re: More Comments About Battery Types druggist@p0b0x.c0m (Shalom Septimus) wrote as part of the thread entitled Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name: > I once had a radio that used a 7.5-volt A battery (for tube filaments) > and a 90-volt B-battery (for Vbb, aka plate voltage). I never actually > saw the batteries in question, nor was I ever able to get the radio to > work on AC notwithstanding the fact that you could plug it in, so I no > longer have that unit. > A batteries, if I understand it correctly, had no specific voltage (or > size!); that was just the designation for anything that powered the > filaments. Ditto B batteries. > Now I wonder if C-cells were so named for Vcc (grid bias), which in > those circuits that required them was around 1.5 volts? Or was this a > coincidence of two different naming schemes? "A", "B", and "C" were just designations and, as you surmise, had no relation to the voltage they provided, physical size, or much else. Sometimes, rechargeable lead-acid batteries were used for filament supplies; in fact, that's why second-generation tubes ran on 6 (actually 6.3) volts -- batteries of that voltage were becoming available because they were used in automobiles. When schematics began to be annotated, the letters "a", "b" or "c" were added to the "V" for "volts" to show from which battery a certain voltage originated. "Vbb" meant the voltage at the "B" battery itself, while "Vb" meant a voltage (frequently at the anode or plate of a tube) derived from the "B" battery e.g.through a resistor or transformer. Isaac Wingfield Project Director isw@ictv.com ICTV Vox: 408-364-9201 14600 Winchester Blvd. Fax: 408-364-9300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Public Coast Stations - Marine Operators Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:46:42 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Forrest Nelson wrote: > Does anyone have information about who or which telecommunications > carrier provides these services these days. I would like to place a > shore to ship call. I can remember the old days when you called the > operator and asked for the "marine operator". In particular I would > like to know who in Western Washington waters. Only one in the US, as of 10/6/99. AT&T is getting out of the high-seas phone service and shutting down it's public coast stations. They got into a little trouble with the FCC, though, since they didn't bother notifying all of their customers and didn't allow their customers sufficient time for the FCC to act upon their request to terminate service. The FCC made them go back and do the due diligence bit again, though during the course of 8 months AT&T kept giving customers incorrect information about when the service was shutting down, with different termination dates, all without first obtaining the Commission's approval. The FCC finally granted AT&T's request as of 8/6/99, to be effective 60 days later. You can read the order at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/1999/da991567.txt To give you a perspective on what high-seas service costs, here's a piece from the FCC's order: "AT&T currently charges $15.39 to initiate a High Seas Service call, with a three-minute minimum. AT&T charges $5.13 for each additional minute. If the call is to terminate at a telephone connected to the U.S. public switched network (PSTN), AT&T imposes an additional charge of $1.78 for the first three minutes and $.60 for each additional minute. In contrast, air time for INMARSAT-based services range from $2.20 to $3.50 per minute with no surcharge for connection to the U.S. PSTN. "AT&T, for example, charges $2.50 per minute for its SeaCall INMARSAT service. These differing charging systems make it difficult precisely to compare the cost of satellite-based and HF-based services. Additionally, satellite-based transmissions are less affected by atmospheric conditions than HF radio transmission, so users of satellite-based services will in many cases receive better quality communications than users of HF services. In any event, the Commission has made it clear that the mere fact that an alternative service costs more than the discontinued service, or requires customers to purchase additional equipment, does not render the alternative service nonviable as a substitute." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:55:14 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) EdLeslie@EDU.YorkU.CA (Ed Leslie) wrote: > Anyway -- back to the topic at hand -- at that time I wondered *why* > the Telcos did not have a special "tone" or "signal" which could be > sent from the originating end which would cause all the "switches" > along the path to "freeze this call" so that it could not be > "disconnected" while the trace took place. They obviously have > something simliar now -- if you call 911, the 911 operator can "freeze > the call" and prevent you from disconnectiing. There isn't any special signal that can be sent by the called party to "freeze" the route back to the caller. This can only work on 9-1-1 because it is a separate trunked network using CAMA or TSPS trunks, just like a telco operator has. When you dial 9-1-1, the call does not proceed through the public switched network, it goes to a 9-1-1 trunk originating in your CO, directly to the call taker. On a TSPS or CAMA trunk, the called party cannot hang up and drop the circuit if the operator does not hang up. In addition, the operator can send a TSPS rering signal back to the originating CO which directly rings the calling party's line. BUT ... in most modern 9-1-1 systems with selective routing, this capability has been lost. That is because with CO and municipal boundaries overlapping, the call actually proceeds from the originating CO toward a 9-1-1 selective routing switch, where the call is transferred to the appropriate PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point). Because of this transfer, the answering operator has actually lost the Called Party Control that they used to have. In this type of system, which predominates these days, when they hit re-ring to signal a caller who has hung up, what actually happens is that the captured number of the calling party is autodialed on a regular POTS line. If the caller has gone off hook again, that's tough. The 9-1-1 call taker gets a busy. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #358 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 31 14:34:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA12536; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908311834.OAA12536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #359 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Aug 99 14:34:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 359 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More Hotmail Problems; Why Not to Trust Web Mail (Monty Solomon) Re: The D Stands For Dissappointing (Ryan Tucker) Re: Fed Smooths Way for Electronic Banking (Ryan Tucker) Re: Selective Calling Rate Change (Bell Atlantic) (Jack Dominey) Re: Toll-Free Service Physical/Logical Terminations (Ryan Tucker) Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages (Alan Boritz) Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages (Joseph Wineburgh) Help Needed - Audio Problem on Phone Line (briang@bellatlantic.net) 800 Number Does Not Connect (was Toll-Free Payphones (Doug Terman) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 31 Aug 1999 11:16:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: More Hotmail Problems; Why Not to Trust Web Mail Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:22:33 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: More Hotmail problems; why not to trust Web mail [A comedy of errors. A roughly 12 hour lag from the time when the Hotmail backdoor was first reported to the time the servers were pulled for the first non-fix is hardly doing well by users. In fact, MS sent out a press release about the problem before actually fixing it. Hushmail, anyone? --Declan] http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/21490.html Hotmail Accounts Still Exposed by Declan McCullagh and by James Glave 8:05 a.m. 30.Aug.99.PDT No sooner was one catastrophic security flaw closed Monday -- one that exposed millions of Hotmail accounts to prying eyes -- when another one appeared. The net result: As of 2 p.m. PDT, Hotmail account holders remain in jeopardy of having their email messages read, as well as being impersonated in email. [...] http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21498.html Want Security? Forget Web Mail by Declan McCullagh 12:50 p.m. 30.Aug.99.PDT By now you've likely heard of Microsoft's devastating Hotmail security gaffe, which exposed the naked contents of millions of personal email accounts for the perusal of the world's voyeurs. Well, get ready for the disturbing verdict from security experts: These sorts of security holes -- gaping maws, really -- are inevitable. [...] POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: The D Stands for Dissappointing Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:37:34 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , Grover C. McCoury III spewed: > Yep, this is an important issue with cable modem. You share the pipe > with all your neighbors. More subscribers in your neighborhood will > most likely mean less bandwidth for you to use. You're doing the same with DSL, it's just that your neighborhood is a lot bigger for this calculation. You don't think you have a direct pipe to "The Internet", do you? It's oversold somewhere along the chain between you and whichever networks you're connecting to, which is the major bottleneck in most circumstances. I get a good 500-600kB/sec through my cable modem from local hosts (e.g. my provider's stuff), but once I get beyond that, things go progressively downhill -- I'm lucky if I get 300-400kB/sec or so. And from what I've seen of xDSL, it's not any better. Nothing is, and nothing will be unless you start talking dedicated pipes to the main backbones ;-) Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Fed Smooths Way for Electronic Banking Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:21:21 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , Joey Lindstrom spewed: > OK, am I misreading this, or does this mean that, up until now, US > banks have not been able to offer full-service banking on the > internet? It seems that being able to get an account statement would > be one of the most basic functions of such a service, and I've been > able to get that from the CIBC for the last couple of years, with no > legal impediments (it just took 'em that long to get the system > working to that point!) You can get *AN* account statement online, but not *THE* account statement. At least with my bank, what I get in the mail once a month is *THE* official account statement, and what I get online is merely an unofficial transcript. Also, if I bounce a check or do something else that requires notification, I get the notification in the mail, not via e-mail. Now, I'm a real proponent of doing as much as possible electronically (only place I use cash is at drive-thru windows, some diners, and the company cafeteria), but I still do like having an official, printed, account statement from the bank each month. How else am I supposed to sit at a diner somewhere balancing my checkbook at 2am? ;-) -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: look@my.sig (Jack Dominey) Subject: Re: Selective Calling Rate Change (Bell Atlantic) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:13:15 GMT Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station Reply-To: look@my.sig In , Daniel Meldazis wrote: > A CLEC that would complain to the FCC or the NJ Board of Public > Utilities that BA rates are too much of a bargain for their customers > would be laughed at. You can imagine the argument, "Bell Atlantic > charges too little for their service. Please make them raise their > rates." More likely, BA does not want to, for whatever reason, > continue to provide the service. So they will make modifications to > the structure and pricing until either no one takes the service or the > few customers left will be grandfathered. Unless BA is providing the > service below their cost, there is not much other carriers can do. "Below their cost" might be the answer to the puzzle here. If the CLECs had demonstrated to the PUC's satisfaction that the particular service were priced below cost, couldn't the PUC order a rate hike? Note that I don't consider this a particulary likely explanation, just a possible one. Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was, however, precisely the argument given a number of years ago when AT&T and MCI were always at each other's throats in court. At a time when they were about a tenth of a cent or so per minute apart in their rates, with MCI always coming in slightly less per minute than AT&T, the deal was whenever AT&T would lower its rates, MCI would lower theirs also. It was about as low as it could go at the time, really rock bottom pricing where MCI was making almost nothing when they tried to stay that fraction of a cent less than AT&T. Finally, AT&T shaved still another cent or two off of the per-minute rates, and had MCI followed suit, in order to keep them still 'less expensive' than AT&T, it would have meant (at that point in time) they were losing money on long distance. MCI was absolutely furious with this prospect, and went to first to the FCC and then to court claiming that AT&T was once again being 'predatory' and trying to drive them out of business. They asked to have AT&T forced to raise its rates by some small amount, 'in order that we can stay in business and make a small profit also.' You see, instead of simply selling their own product for a fair price and using things like good customer service to tide them over, their whole thing was to continue to somehow stay 'less expensive' than AT&T no matter what. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Toll-Free Service Physical/Logical Terminations Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:58:50 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , Mark J. Cuccia spewed: > Particularly if a particular 800/888/877 number can be answered in > multiple locations depending on the time-of-day / day-of-week, > and/or location of the calling party, and/or traffic volume within > the long-distance carrier or volume of calls to that company - and > all on the SAME toll-free number. AT&T offers a service where you can have them balance incoming toll free traffic between different POTS numbers. For example, the example I've heard of has two call centers on opposite sides of the continent. During normal operation, they're alternated between the east coast and west coast centers equally. Also, it's fairly easy to adjust the "mix" -- for example, if the west coast falls into the ocean, it'd be a simple matter to reroute all calls to the east coast, potentially automatically. I'm assuming it'd be fairly easy to share ACD data with AT&T to have things balanced based on available agents automatically. Also, I'm assuming other carriers have this capability as well. Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:19:47 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Rick Prelinger wrote: > I'm a recent subscriber to Bell South Wireless Data's Interactive > Paging Service, as resold through PageNet. This network was formerly > known as RAM Mobile data before BellSouth purchased it. In theory > it's a great service for many people's needs: numeric paging, email > and alpha messaging are all channeled to a two-way wireless pager that > roams seamlessly through most major U.S. urban areas. It is a premium > service, and when it works it's addictive, and considerably easier to > deal with than carrying around a laptop or even a wireless Pilot. > The problem is reliability. In the last few weeks the network has > been out almost every day for a minimum of an hour to a maximum of > eleven hours. Customer support reps have offered a variety of > stories, including a fire at an MCI switch in California; a glitch > that affects all pagers whose access numbers begin with 877 (every > PageNet IPS pager falls into this category); software updates; and > more. One of the problems is that lost messages frequently go into a > black hole and aren't necessarily transmitted later on. > Since no one at BellSouth or PageNet has much to say that makes sense, > I wonder whether any knowledgeable Digest readers can illuminate > what's happening, and perhaps offer an estimate as to when the > situation might improve. This ought to help readers decide whether to > subscribe to the service, and those who are subscribers decide whether > to continue. Try calling someone at Bellsouth Wireless Data at their corporate headquarters in Woodbridge, NJ. If they don't have an answer, no one will. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:07:18 -0400 I am currently a Blackberry subscriber. Blackberry uses the BellSouth Wireless Data network (which I suspect is the same network you are on), and I can say I haven't really noticed any prolonged 'outages'. What I do notice is that from time to time, I receive a 'burst' of a few messages at a time, which leads me to believe that the network has some type of 'store and retry' feature in that when you are out of range the network stores the message until you get back into a covered area. One of the things they NEVER billed the unit as was a pager. The network is inherently different than a traditional paging network, which I was aware of going in to it, so I live with the 'brownouts'. My expectation was never to be able to do real-time transactions, it was merely to be able to receive (and reply) email when away from my desk as they arrived. All in all a fairly good deal for $40/month (includes rental of unit). In summary, it sounds like they may be mis-representing the service. If you want a true paging service, go with SkyTel. They have a traditional & 2-way paging network with guaranteed delivery and are the BEST out there. I have NEVER lost a message yet. In addition if you are out of a coverage area and are expecting messages, you can call an access number and retrieve your messages that way. The only difference is SkyTel has limits on the usage - You start out at $20/month for alpha, but once you get over 50k characters in a month you pay... I don't have any hooks into either company other than I like the services they offer. Good luck and let us all know how you make out! #JOE ------------------------------ From: Brian G. Subject: Help Needed - Audio Problem on Phone Line Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:22:19 GMT I have low audio on my three phone lines. In fact, they sound somewhat muted. Here's what I have and what I've done so far. What else can I do? Bell Atlantic says the lines test ok at the network interface device. I'm not sure what meter they used to determine that but they did use a meter of some sort. I do know I'm 23k from the DMS-100 central office and there is some copper pair gain technology on my loops. My house wiring is brand new. All runs are CAT 5. I did split the 4 pairs of each run into 2 RJ14s at each faceplate. I have 4 analog dial tones and 1 ISDN line. The lines are run to about 8 jacks but only six 2500 sets and three ksu-less AC powered sets connected. The low audio is common across all sets but the 2500 sets are a little better. The ISDN line is connected to a Gandalf Terminal Adapter. The house terminals are just 66 blocks. Does that lower audio quality compared to other type of blocks? The cross-connects are traditional 26 gauge wire. Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. bg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:47:31 -0400 From: Doug Terman Subject: 800 Number Does Not Connect (was Toll-Free Payphones) Our worthy Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If Digitcom or other companies like > that are willing to pay the costs of the service, that's fine with > me. *Someone* is going to get a phone bill, and if things get bad > enough for Digitcom and others of that kind that they can no longer > afford to give flat rate $20 per month service to spammers, then it > may be they have to discontinue that sort of service. It is not up to > you and I and others reading this to worry about *who pays the > bill*. Our task is to keep those bills coming to them, month after > month; great big hellish, humongous, outrageous bills for 'toll-free' > service asking to be removed from their mailing lists and asking for > more information about their products and services. If Digitcom gets > hit with a massive bill for 800 phone service in the million dollar > per month range for several months in a row, as happened to a couple > others we know about, I feel certain they'll take action of their own > initiative to deal with their flat rate customers who are causing the > problem. So, it is a little round-about, but the results will be the > same. Dear Pat, I don't think Digitcom is paying any whopping bill. I called the Digitcom 800-242-0363 number through my switch and watched the call progress on the monitor. A call to this number ***does_not_connect***. However, you hear a recorded operator saying, "Please enter the extension number." So I entered 2222. I then received a recorded voice prompt saying, "please record your message." I did a little heavy breathing. The recorded voice then said, "Thank you for calling. Good bye." At_no_time_did_the_call_ever_connect. So Digitcom is not connecting the call, but playing back a recording on what is probably a DID line, grabbing digits and, presumedly recording your message. I've seen this happen before on an American Airlines Advantage toll-free number where the call doesn't connect until a warm body actually picks up the phone. I believe Delta Airlines and Micro$oft 800 numbers operate in an identical manner. Doesn't seem "legal" to me, but if there's an agreement between the carrier and the subscriber (Digitcom), then there's no injured party. The question then is, is this legal and if so, just how can the rest of us with "toll free" numbers get away with the same scam? Doug Terman Operations Manager Antilles Engineering, Ltd. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it is happening the way you say, I do not think it is legal. 'Legal' of course to a large customer of telco with special arrangements is different than 'legal' where smaller customers are concerned, but I cannot imagine any telco giving them (as part of their contract) unlimited connects at no charge in the way you say until the point when a live person answers, which of course in the case of Digitcom would be never. It might be very interesting to discuss your findings with the RespOrg for the number and the telco servicing it, and see if they were aware of exactly how the customer (Digitcom in this case) had things 'wired' on their end. Really, a very interesting conversation I think. I believe a toll charge is due as soon as some communication starts, even if the commuication merely consists of being asked to hold for an available agent, don't you? Certainly if a message is left for someone who has 'stepped away from their desk' or who has 'been in a meeting all day' (isn't that always the case with Sprint reps!) there should be a charge for a completed call. Why don't some of you kind people go find a big stick, and stir up the pot a little; let's see what floats to the top, if anything. Fun time for all!! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #359 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 31 16:40:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA18199; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908312040.QAA18199@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #360 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Aug 99 16:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 360 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Inventing the Internet", Janet Abbate (Rob Slade) Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits (Charles B. Wilber) Re: VISA Authorizations (Barry Koester) Re: Dialing "Blocked" US 1-800, 888, 877 Numbers From Canada (P. Robinson) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Pay (Paul Robinson) Re: Info About an International (US/EU) GSM Setup Needed (Steven) Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls! (Tad Cook) Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy (J.F. Mezei) Re: Phone Company List? (Leonard Erickson) Re: GSM Phone With "Privacy Indicator"? (Ted Byfield) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (L. Erickson) Finding the Power Online: Buying Batteries (Monty Solomon) Kidney Legend (was: Weird Call) (Tad Cook) Re: The D Stands For Dissappointing (Barry Margolin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:44:08 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Inventing the Internet", Janet Abbate Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINVINT.RVW 990709 "Inventing the Internet", Janet Abbate, 1999, 0-262-01172-7, U$27.50 %A Janet Abbate %C 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1399 %D 1999 %G 0-262-01172-7 %I MIT Press %O U$27.50 800-356-0343 fax: 617-625-6660 www-mitpress.mit.edu %P 264 p. %T "Inventing the Internet" Buried midway through the introduction comes the statement that the author has chosen to focus on a select group of topics in order to support her own view of the most important social and cultural factors of the Internet. The intent of the book, therefore, is complex. The text must examine a technical development, identify social hypotheses, and present arguments from the historical record to buttress those theories. Chapter one starts out by asserting that the most celebrated of the ARPANET's technical innovations was packet switching. Certainly packet switching is a core concept in all discussions of modern data communications. Unfortunately, Abbate does not display the merits of the idea with sufficient clarity, never dealing with issues of traffic differences between voice and data, only tangentially mentioning circuit switching, and clouding the deliberation with factors more properly related to routing. There is also an evident lack of familiarity with basic technical processes. In addition, the author states that the ARPANET was the proving ground for packet switching, ignoring the contribution of demonstrably much more widely used networks such as Datapac and Transpac. Furthermore, looking back to the introduction we find that the social aspect we, as readers, are supposed to note is how technologies are socially constructed. Other than the fact that technical people talk to each other, nothing significant seems to be presented along this line. Finally, the extensive citations of works in the bibliography appeared to support the scholarship of the work, until I noted that the most interesting points tended to be those referring to private interviews and materials written relatively long after the fact. The content of chapter two alternates between descriptions of political and managerial machinations of those involved in the early development of the ARPANET and mentions of layered protocol modeling. Early users and usages are discussed in chapter three, but the text swings between acknowledging and denying user development. Internetworking is introduced in chapter four, but protocol layering is not re-examined even though it is at this point that the concept becomes important. Chapter five starts with a generic debate about the need for, and interests against, standards, but then spends most of the time reviewing X.25 and the OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model, with little relevance to the Internet. Having meandered through about ten years in the first five chapters, chapter six leapfrogs twenty, racing from the military ARPANET into the academic Internet and finally into the present commercial Internet. The trailblazing work of BITNET, Usenet, and even Fidonet is given only token mention, and the description of the World Wide Web seems to completely misunderstand how hypertext contributed to the use and popularity of the net, stressing colour images rather than integration of function. Despite the collation of a wide variety of source materials, and the presentation of a number of events not commonly cited, this book fails as both history and social commentary. Too many major occurrences are dismissed too quickly to confer a full understanding of the development of the Internet. The cultural points Abbate tries to make are either too subtle to come across to this uncultivated geek or are unremarkable and trite. (The closing statement that the net's strengths lie in adaptability and participatory design is surely not news to anyone with the slightest knowledge of Internet history.) Mostly, though, it appears that Abbate's lack of comprehension of the technical aspects of the net ensures a failure to understand significant historical and social factors as well. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKINVINT.RVW 990709 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com [After a tragedy] no one will let me pay -- even for my own meal! [...] Is this the modern equivalent of sending a casserole? - GD http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1999 10:14:24 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: Traceroute on Telephone Circuits Tad Cook wrote: > There isn't any special signal that can be sent by the called party to > "freeze" the route back to the caller. This can only work on 9-1-1 > because it is a separate trunked network using CAMA or TSPS trunks, > just like a telco operator has. When you dial 9-1-1, the call does > not proceed through the public switched network, it goes to a 9-1-1 > trunk originating in your CO, directly to the call taker. On a > TSPS or CAMA trunk, the called party cannot hang up and drop the > circuit if the operator does not hang up. In addition, the operator > can send a TSPS rering signal back to the originating CO which > directly rings the calling party's line. In our case, calls are routed to the E-911 PSAP (Public Service Answering Point) over ISDN PRI trunks, not CAMA or TSPS. The PSAP operator does not have the ability to "freeze" the line. If the calling party hangs up, the connection is lost. However, due to the enhanced features available with E-911, the operator does get a display of the calling party's number and street address, making it a simple matter to call the reporting party back or to send emergency response personnel to the scene if necessary. Charlie Wilber Telephone Systems Manager Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire ------------------------------ From: Barry Koester Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 07:17:38 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server No one wants to hear this, but it is your responsibility to know your own balance. You do this by keeping track of it in a register. I know that when you write a check more than your balance you are actually committing fraud. I don't know if the same would hold with a debit card. Joey Lindstrom wrote in message news:telecom19. 335.4@telecom-digest.org: > On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:42:22 -0400 (EDT), Steven J Sobol wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 21:50:27 -0700, mdesmon@us-one.net allegedly said: >>> I think that depends on your bank. I've done that a few times before >>> when I didn't track my balance correctly and the bank would treat it >>> like a bounced check. They would honor the Visa and ATM transactions >>> and then charge me a returned check fee of $29. >> That's what my bank does too ... They can't *not* honor the >> transaction after the merchant was given an approval. That's the >> thing. Honoring the transaction and charging the NSF charge is, in my >> opinion, the correct thing for the bank to do in this case. ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 31 Aug 1999 03:28:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Dialing "Blocked" US 1-800, 888, 877 Numbers From Canada In article , Keelan Lightfoot writes: >> Does anyone know of a (legal) way to access such 1-800, 888, and 877 >> "US only" toll free numbers from Canada? > Dialing 1-880-xxx-xxxx instead of 1-800-xxx-xxxx works for 800 > numbers. There is a charge, though, (For me -- a BC Tel customer -- I > believe it was a 16 cent connection charge.) > I have encountered the numbers to use for 888 and 877 before, but do > not remember what they were. I believe they are using the rest of the 88x codes for "caller pays" calls to toll-free numbers, e.g. 880 for 800 881 for 888 882 for 877 883 for 866 884 for 855 (Probably when they exhaust 866, a week after it opens.) etc. Paul Robinson Formerly PAUL@TDR.COM, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM etc. ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 31 Aug 1999 03:28:04 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay In article , E. Cummings writes: > SprintPCS has just instituted a $3.00 fee on*all* customers who > prefer to pay their bill in cash in person. I have never heard of a > company with thousands of retail locations charging its > customers an extra fee for simply paying their bill in person -- even > if it's on time or in advance. Well, maybe not a 'company' but I've heard of the practice elsewhere. I received in the mail Wednesday a bill from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles advising me that the registration fee on one of our family's automobiles is $27 or $54 for two years, when paid by mail (and may be paid by any of the 4 major bank credit cards, too), or I can pay it in person, by toll-free phone or -- I kid you not -- over the Internet at their website www.dmv.state.va.us, but using in person, phone or Internet costs $28.50 or $57 for two years, meaning they are charging an additional $1.50 for each year for non-mail transactions. Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM among others.) ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Info About an International (US/EU) GSM Setup Needed Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:49:58 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer When you get to the UK sign up with Orange and get an LS-2000. Steven In article , tbyfield@panix.com says: > If anyone can make specific recommendations about handsets, economical > carriers and/or calling plans, and pointers to sites with good, > salient info for a cellphone newbie, I'd be very grateful. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:42:00 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) I wrote: > In order to accept incidental pulse-dialing, the Central Office needs > to see a full off-hook state, deliver dialtone, then see a series of > ON-hooks approximately 50 ms long interrupted by approximately 50 ms > OFF-hooks between each on-hook state. If it arrives at the C.O at an > approximate rate of 10 pulses per second, followed by (I think) > several hundred ms of OFF-hook inter-digit time, then it should > complete the call. Actually it should be a total time per pulse of 100 ms (10 pps) with approximately 60% break, 40% make. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:35:45 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: > NEW YORK--ICO Global Communications, which is building a satellite > communications network, filed for bankruptcy today, becoming the > latest casualty in the nascent satellite phone industry. So, that leaves Gobalstar that is not yet bankrupt. What exactly is going to happen? Can the satellites already in orbit be re-used for other purposes? Do these satellites have other sources of revenue or are they dedicated to telephony? I find it very interesting that three consortia planned to launch a whole bunch of satellites, and the economics seem to bad that the second one is filing for bankrupcy before their satellites are all launched. Shouldn't the three companies merge their satellite assets and just remarket the services under their respective names? ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Phone Company List? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 02:22:16 PST Organization: Shadownet vickiesfsd@netscape.com writes: > Does anyone know where a list of ALL the phone companies (with contact > information) can be found if there is such a thing? Well, a list of all the companies is easy. Just drop by the TRA web site (www.trainfo.com?) and grab a copy of the NNAG for the current month. One of the included files is a list of all the phone companies. Contact info is going to be a problem. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:54:15 -0400 From: Ted Byfield Subject: Re: GSM Phone With "Privacy Indicator"? David Wagner wrote: > I've heard that some GSM cellphones have an "encryption indicator" > that shows what level of encryption you're using. Any leads? According to the user manual, the Bosch 718 worldphone warns you when you try to make a call using a network that doesn't support encryption. I haven't seen the warning, though, so can't give any precise details -- e.g., whether that's poorly phrased or it warns you when you accept a call over same. there's no mention of speci- fying the encryption level. (Many thanks to the people who helped with my US/EU GSM question!) Cheers, Ted ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 01:58:33 PST Organization: Shadownet Jonathan D Loo writes: > If a company has a trademark and this trademark existed prior to the > registration of a domain name, this company should have no trouble > acquiring the domain name even if the domain name registrant refuses. Except for the fact that the same trademarked name is allowable if the companies compete in different areas. Thus "Apple computer" and "Apple Music" had no conflict until Macs got music capability. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:13:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Finding the Power Online: Buying Batteries Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: by Adam C. Engst Online commerce is growing all the time, but a recent experience shows just how far we have yet to go. Like good little technogeeks, Tonya and I own a cellular phone and a camcorder. However, unlike really good little technogeeks, we haven't replaced the perfectly functional cell phone and camcorder that we've had for several years now. Both work fine for the minimal uses we require of them, and as much as technolust does kick in whenever I see a friend with a tiny cell phone that can also receive email or a digital camcorder that puts ours to shame in a package a tenth the size, we've resisted buying new models for the sake of having the latest and greatest. http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-494.html#lnk3 ------------------------------ Subject: Kidney Legend (was: Weird Call) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:36:02 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unfortunatly (or perhaps fortunatly) no > I have not heard it, but then I do not spend much time reading chain > letters originating at AOL. I guess I should try to keep more up to > date. PAT] This is a great legend, detailed in several of the Urban Legend books by contemporary folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand. For a good telling of it, see: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blkid.htm?pid=2733&cob=home or: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/robbery/kidney2.htm Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: The D Stands for Dissappointing Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:17:07 GMT In article , Ryan Tucker wrote: > Nothing is, and nothing will be unless you start talking dedicated pipes > to the main backbones ;-) And even then, those backbones are shared among all the customers with dedicated pipes and the residential customers of that backbone ISP. We (tier-1 ISPs) try hard to prevent congestion on our backbone circuits, but we occasionally miss. There's a segment of our backbone that's been waiting since March to get additional bandwidth, but due to various mistakes (some on the part of the telcos we ordered from, and some due to our own errors) it's going to be a few more weeks before it's available. And if your data has to traverse one of the public NAPs it will probably hit an enormous traffic jam. Why do you think the Internet is so cheap compared to traditional telecommunications? Why can you make an international phone call using a simple piece of software on your PC without paying per-minute charges? On a normal long distance call, you're reserving bandwidth on circuits all along the way, and someone has to pay for the fact that that bandwidth isn't available to others for the duration of your call, whether you're talking or not. On the Internet you just send your packets into the ether, and if there's bandwidth available they'll get to the other end. We size our pipes so that most of the time everything makes it through, but most protocols are designed to take occasional losses in stride (if every 1,000th packet in a voice call were lost, you probably wouldn't even notice the blips, and applications that need precise data, like file transfers, use protocols that automatically resend lost packets). 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #360 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 31 17:54:36 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA21553; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:54:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:54:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908312154.RAA21553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #361 TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Aug 99 17:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 361 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Greg Skinner) Re: Paying to Pay (was Re: SprintPCS Surcharge) (Paul Robinson) Two Letter Abbreviations (Art Knight) Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Carla Decker) Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Mike Mansfield) Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy (John Nagle) Gat Agreement (Brent) Re: Water Damage To Phone (Steve Winter) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Steve Winter) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:23:09 -0400 From what I have seen, the toll-free arena is much more stable in that there is an 'owner' of the number with it's respective resp-org, and there needs to be an agreement made on the part of the current owner for anything to happen. This simply does not seem to be the case when it comes to the 'internet'. Sure the domain is registered and sure there's an 'owner', but it seems to me that it is MUCH easier to weasel the domain away from it's current owner. There are many similarities in the two arenas to compare, but the one place where the 'internet' falls over is that as long as the 'corporation' that wants a domain has Money and Lawyers, they will most likely succeed. I have never seen it happen to that extent on the toll-free side. #JOE [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith Oppenheimer would disagree with your assessment, and she has seen her share of Money and Lawyers, as her message explains, which is printed next in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:52:54 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please explain this to me: if a company > decides to move onto the net and set up a web site, and they see that > they name they want is taken, they frequently just claim the existing > user is a 'squatter' and rip off the name. This is especially true if > they have money for attorney fees and the small web site does not. ... > I am wondering if that sort of thing happens with 'vanity' phone > numbers as well. Let's say some individual has a number that is needed > by a large company because it spells their name, or the number has > some signficance to them, etc. Are there many instances of them just > applying very heavy legal pressure on the RespOrg to assign the user > some other number and give them the one they want? I know it happens > occassionally with telcos and regular numbers. Pat, a fairly significant share of ICB's consulting business is remedying exactly this sort of situation. (We call it lost and stolen number retrieval.) RespOrg's falsify LOA's (Letters of Authorization); they do "emergency RespOrg changes." Large companies send legal letters threatening accusations to the FCC if compliance (cheap or free number transfer) is not forthcoming. Companies file FCC claims aimed at forcing settlement which would include the number they want. We recently helped a small marketer get a restraining order against a top-three RespOrg that was repeatedly submitting fraudulent LOA's to the SMS Help Desk (operating on some level, we're pretty sure, at the behest of a much larger marketing competitor.) We had another case this year where a very small business ported her number into one of the top three carriers, only to find it removed from her account and ringing to a much larger customer, within the same week she ported it in. She didn't come to me until eight months later, but luckily she'd kept good records. Working backward through the paper trail, we were able to get the executive offices of the carrier to return the number to her. In the interim, she'd spent months dealing with supposedly helpful reps pretending to help her. When I first got the case, I received a letter from one of the carrier's regulatory lawyers, advising me that the number removal may have been improper, but they would raise the question of whether this woman was a broker, if she pursued its return. (This same attorney claimed not to know that even were the number properly removed from her account, it could not be reassigned by them to another customer, but rather had to go to spare for 'first come first serve', first.) I've got two cases currently of users being approached by Fortune 500's to purchase their numbers. In both cases the numbers are in use and have been for years, and are not available for sale. After friendly conversations culminating in "thanks but no thanks", both clients received threats, one inferred verbally, the other overt in writing, of being reported as brokers, if they didn't release the numbers. In one case, the lawyer also went directly to the RespOrg (a smaller one); accused the subscriber of being a broker, and asked the RespOrg to reassign the number to the potential buyer. To the RespOrg's credit, it told the lawyer to take a hike. Both potential buyers have since backed down from their threats. One has resumed its attempts to buy the number amicably. I could go on and on ... for the most part, we resolve thefts by working within the operational mechanisms of subscriber rights and RespOrg obligations ... if a theft cannot be resolved (the number has already been moved to a third RespOrg who is under no obligation, and in fact has no right, to cooperate), we help ascertain from whom to seek compensation, and in what manner. Theft attempts are often resolved simply by revealing the bully as an 'Emperor with no clothes'. In the case of the restraining order, we got the project after a judge told my client's lawyer, in essence, 'Of course XYZ carrier can take the number, they own all the phone numbers!' -- and sent the lawyer packing. This was obviously a judge who still used a rotary phone. We armed the lawyer with statutory hierarchical documentation of actual number 'ownership', from the NANP on down; tariff documentation; documentation pertaining to RespOrg obligations and subscriber rights; etc. And then spent a number of nights, he being in California (we're in New York), coaching him by phone how to argue it. At the next court visit before the same judge, the restraining order was obtained. So the answer to your question -- yes, it happens all the time. Judith Oppenheimer http://icbtollfree.com http://800consulting.com http://whosells800.com 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: 31 Aug 1999 13:32:26 -0700 Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com In article , Anthony Argyriou wrote: > Going to the Avery Dennison case -- I think that AD would have a case > for infringement if the domain avery.com had been taken -- .com means > commercial, and Avery is a well known brand (Avery labels). Most > reasonable people would expect to find Avery Labels at avery.com. > However, .net and org mean something else, and avery.net doesn't imply > Avery labels at all. What's needed is a judge who will say that .net > and .org don't get the same kind of trademark protection as does .com. It's not clear from NSI's registration policies that .com means commercial. In fact, they encourage people to register the same name in .com, .net, and .org, no matter what the use of that name might be. One can argue the merits of such a policy, but the result is that it's not so easy to say .com is for commercial entities any more. gregbo gds at best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wouldn't it seem likely that if the registrar received payment for each instance of a name being registered they would encourage as many cross registrations as possible? Isn't it somewhat like telco's desire to sell you whatever cross listings you want in the phone book and a big ad in the yellow pages as well? Maybe a good rule for the future would be there will only be one single fee charged per applicant -- wherever and however they get placed -- and any sort of cross-domain registration such as an entry in both .com and .org require special approval. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 31 Aug 1999 03:28:09 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Paying to Pay (was Re: SprintPCS Surcharge) In article , dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) writes: >> Credit cards aren't affected. It does not say that you may *only* >> accept cash. You are free to accept anything you wish. It just says >> that if US currency is presented, it *must* be accepted. > Again, this is a common misconception. Walk over to your local Fedex > office. The vast majority of them will _not_ accept cash. What the requirement is that if you owe someone money in a debt, they must accept Federal Reserve Notes (currency) for payment on that debt or the debt is extinguished. Phone companies get around this by billing you *in advance* for local phone service; if they are not collecting for previous services they could refuse to accept currency. However, long distance charges *are* a debt (you owe it for something that you used before you paid for it) and as such, if they refused to accept curreny for it you would be able to not have to pay it. A refusal to accept payment in currency extinguishes the debt. Since a purchase of future delivery service from Federal Express is not a debt, FedEx can refuse to accept currency payments. If, however, you were paying them for a bill on an account for services already rendered, that is a different matter. Simple rule of thumb: If you're paying for something to be supplied in the future they can refuse to accept currency, if it's a payment for something supplied in the past they cannot (or they lose the ability to collect). Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM, TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM etc.) ------------------------------ From: Art Knight Subject: Two Letter Abbreviations Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:07:13 -0500 Patrick and Mark, The designation NT is a hangover from the former name of Northwest Territories, and another is YK for the Yukon. The new one is supposed to be a combined designation. Art Knight, Project Manager - Y2K C. & I. S. Department Health Sciences Centre Winnipeg, Manitoba R3E 0T3 Ph. (204) 787-7848 Fax(204) 787-2855 e-mail: artk@hsc.mb.ca ------------------------------ From: Carla Decker Subject: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:36:20 -0400 Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN I have a project where I need to be able to connect two PCs together using two modems over a telephone cable that *DOES NOT* have dial tone. I also need to use RAS & DUN to take care of a requirement for TCP/IP. Here's my configuration: PC <-----> Modem <------------------> Modem <-----> PC RAS 9600 No Dial Tone 9600 RAS SVR Client The configuration is dictated, and not negotiable. I can get the configuration to work using Hyperterminal. Unfortunately, Hyperterminal doesn't give me TCP/IP capabilities. When I try to use RAS, I can't get the RAS Server to answer. Any suggestions would be most helpful! Thanks, Carla deckerch@ornl.gov ------------------------------ From: Mike Mansfield Subject: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit against Bell-Atlantic Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:22:34 -0400 I am looking for other disappointed customers interested in a group complaint against Bell Atlantic price gouging practices. Recently Bell Atlantic increased the price of the so-called "Selective Calling Service" by a factor of 10 or more. Yes, you are reading correctly. The same service is going to cost TEN TIMES more that it did in the past. Selective Calling Service used to give you 20 hours a month of calls to another nearby area, less than 11 miles away, for a a flat $2.00 per month ($1.99 to be exact). Starting this September the EXACT SAME SERVICE will cost $21.27 per month. This service was instituted to correct pricing injustices that would punish residential customers with unreasonably high rates for calls near home. Now Bell Atlantic is changing tactics and obviously gouging its customers. Shouldn't the Board of Public Utilities in New Jersey be involved in this and put a limit to such predatory tactics? If you are a voter in New Jersey you can do something to prevent such outrageous acts of irresponsible corporations. It's apparently far worse than that. Selective Calling is not regulated by the Public Utilities Board, for whatever reason. If that is true, Bell Atlantic discovered the opportunity to gouge thousands (if not millions) of customers. The New Jersey rating areas are very funny. A call to a place 14 miles away may be a LOCAL call. But a call to a closer place, only 7 miles away, may be a TOLL call. Selective Calling was invented to partially correct such (obvious) injustices. For whatever reason, the service fell through the regulatory cracks and is not subject to the Tariff Rules. I know enough about phones to know that it doesn't cost them a penny to offer this service. It's just a "rating gimmick" and now they are finding an opportunity to gouge the public even more. But I don't know enough about Regulatory Issues to know whether the State could/should control the tariffs for such a service; and whether the Public can take Legal Action against a Utility that is obviously using 'predatory' pricing practices. On a parallel vein, I seem to remember that AT&T tried to offer this service when they started offering local service in the state of New Jersey a few years ago. But they could not offer it because Bell Atlantic would not provide them with requisite information. I believe that AT&T had even filed a formal complaint at that time. If the above is correct then the current TENFOLD increase by Bell Atlantic would constitute clearly an anti-competitive act that might even violate Federal statutes. Any good lawyers out there reading this? Mike Jack Dominey wrote: > In , Daniel Meldazis > wrote: >> A CLEC that would complain to the FCC or the NJ Board of Public >> Utilities that BA rates are too much of a bargain for their customers >> would be laughed at. You can imagine the argument, "Bell Atlantic >> charges too little for their service. Please make them raise their >> rates." More likely, BA does not want to, for whatever reason, >> continue to provide the service. So they will make modifications to >> the structure and pricing until either no one takes the service or the >> few customers left will be grandfathered. Unless BA is providing the >> service below their cost, there is not much other carriers can do. > "Below their cost" might be the answer to the puzzle here. If the > CLECs had demonstrated to the PUC's satisfaction that the particular > service were priced below cost, couldn't the PUC order a rate hike? > Note that I don't consider this a particulary likely explanation, just > a possible one. > Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. > domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy Date: 31 Aug 1999 21:31:09 GMT Organization: Netcom J.F. Mezei writes: > So, that leaves Gobalstar that is not yet bankrupt. > What exactly is going to happen? Can the satellites already in orbit > be re-used for other purposes? Do these satellites have other sources > of revenue or are they dedicated to telephony? Iridium will probably be refinanced in some way. It's up, it works, it just cost too much and the handsets are too big. When Iridium was designed, it wasn't considered a liability that you had to be outdoors to communicate and that the handset weighed about two pounds. Land-based cellular wasn't expected to grow as fast as it did. Nor was airtime expected to drop in price so fast. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:26:25 -0700 From: Brent Subject: Gat Agreement Hi there, I am looking for any information concerning the above mentioned 'Gat Agreement'. I will be very grateful if you could help me. Thank you. Captain Corrupt ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Water Damage To Phone Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:28:08 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: > Oh? Trust me, 48v *will* get your attention. The easiest way to learn > this is to forget to disconnect the phone line from an internal modem > card in a PC and then grab the card to pull it out. Those pointy little > bits of wire on the backside of the circuit board *will* dig in enough > it get past the dead surface layers of skin and into the nice *wet* and > conductive dermal tissues. > Result? The shock makes your hand *jerk* and since the cord prevents > the card from coming all the way out, you rip *long* gashes on your > hand and bleed all over the circuitry. That sounds more like an IQ test. It is a good idea to disconnect all power sources from a PC before messing with the hardware. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, it is a good idea to do it, but a lot of people never bother. They'll just swap one card for another or make what they feel is a 'minor' adjustment or change to the chips or the solder trace without pulling the plug. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:30:55 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com TELECOM Digest Editor queried in response to a note from steve@ sellcom.com (Steve Winter): > So what exactly is AlGore Rythym? Is that the little dance he does > as part of his song and dance about the internet? I believe that it is some dance he does with the trees or whatever, or maybe the gentle rocking of a canoe in a flooded area :O) Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Aren't you glad we have a fine outstanding man like that -- in line for the White House and all -- leading our net in its growth and development as the century draws to a close? Imagine where the net would be without his leadership and his exhuberance for the net of the 21st century ... why we might still be doing things like they were done in the 1980's. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #361 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 1 05:10:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA14196; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:10:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909010910.FAA14196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #362 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Sep 99 05:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 362 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! (Lisa Hancock) Re: Call Re-routing Hardware Wanted (James Baker) Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy (Tony Pelliccio) Call Notes won't record forwarded calls (Frank Provasek) Re: 800 Number Does Not Connect (was Toll-Free Payphones) (Art Kamlet) Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? (Russell Blau) Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages (Steven J. Sobol) MyLine Announcement (Marina Chang) Cable v DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) (satch@concentric.net) Bell System Property (Al Gillis) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Date: 1 Sep 1999 00:06:33 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS >> many dreams and claims of its supporters. A lot of work remains. > This is true, but in no way lessens the enormous potential. There IS enormous _potential_, but the value of that potential to the end user is limited by the problems. Until the problems are worked out, users may be hesitant. Further, given the level of technology today, these problems should be solved. I don't agree with some of your perceptions. > On the other hand, there's very little you can do about the junk mail, > but much you can do about the junk email. Thanks to some simple > filters on my local POP server, I only see about one junk email post a > day at most. I have no control over the filters my ISPs use on their systems. I know they have them, and I know spam still gets through. Pat (the moderator) demonstrated that some filters are blocking legitimate message traffic. In any event, purchasing, installing, and maintaining such filters is an expense _I_ directly or indirectly must pay. Why the $#@*! should I pay money, on a NEW environment, to protect myself from cheats and frauds? As a new enviroment still being constructed, we should have built in legal safeguards. (No one ever mails me any of the kind of stuff in spam since the US Post Office postal inspectors would arrest them.) > The virus protection software, SPAM filters, encryption and other > technologies are effective and getting more so every day. Just think > of them as the equivalent of the locks on your home and car. Again, this is a cost out of MY pocket. And I deeply resent the need for it as well. (By the way, I now have to use a security bar to lock my car and I don't like that either.) > People are already switching over to faster bandwidth alternatives. > Javascript errors are not the fault of the Internet per se. The > technology is still young but improving fast. Slow response time is a function of many factors. First of course is the initial connection from desktop machine to service provider. Second is the speed of the service provider's equipment to route messaging. Third if the speed of the provider's connection to the backbone. Fourth is the connection of the remote server's connection. Fifth is the speed of the remote server itself. If any one of these components gets jammed by traffic or is down for whatever, you will have delays. I pick up a voice telephone, dial the call, and will reach my party. The reliability of the basic POTS telephone system is now essentially 100%. The reliability of reaching and maintaining a USEABLE connection with a remote site has a long way to go. > Back when I worked in a company we had other ways to waste time -- > trying to shoot rubber bands onto ceiling hooks, and reading audio > magazines. The Internet is going to make the whole idea of such > companies obsolete eventually. People sitting at desks with time on > their hands is certainly not the fault of the Internet. Yes, we used to (actually still do on occasion) shoot rubber bands. But my employer's cost in wasted rubber bands is far, far less than its cost in providing all of us fancy PCs, an internal network, and outside connections. (Remember, we have a service staff now to support all that equipment and software. Upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Win 95, testing for Y2k compatibility, and other changes were costly and took time.) Seems an awfully big expense just to look at web pages of guinea pigs. > Great, let the publishers decide what we get to read. I used to be > in the position to make such decisions, so I know a little about the > process. I think we're a lot better off without that particular > filter on information. That's the way the system has worked for years. There are benefits to that in terms of protection for private individuals for libel and slander, and spread of dangerous information. I don't want to see the country return to the lawless anarchy of the old west of the 1800s. Laws and social principles were developed in response to lots of shootings and other nasty stuff. > The protection is your own common sense. If you wouldn't buy medicine > from someone on a street corner, don't buy it from a Web site. Many people are not educated enough to safely make their own decisions. Why even bother to have an FDA at all then? ------------------------------ From: jbaker@halcyon.com (James Baker) Subject: Re: Call Re-routing Hardware Wanted Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:47:00 -0700 Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus In article , Jon Solomon wrote: > I am looking for a peice of hardware which will do the following: > Answer the line, say "press 1 for a, 2 for b, 3 for c" > and then route the call to a number based on what was pressed. Check out solopoint (www.solopoint.com). They make a two line device that is supposed to be able to do what you ask. I have an older model that I use as sort of a "follow me" service with different forward-to numbers based on time of day. Hope this helps. James Baker Seattle, WA jbaker@halcyon.com ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Satellite Phone Company Latest to File For Bankruptcy Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:08:45 GMT In article , jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca says: > Monty Solomon wrote: >> NEW YORK--ICO Global Communications, which is building a satellite >> communications network, filed for bankruptcy today, becoming the >> latest casualty in the nascent satellite phone industry. > So, that leaves Gobalstar that is not yet bankrupt. > What exactly is going to happen? Can the satellites already in orbit > be re-used for other purposes? Do these satellites have other sources > of revenue or are they dedicated to telephony? How much you want to bet they sell data services off those orbiting chunks of metal? == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Frank Provasek Subject: Call Notes Won't Record Forwarded Calls Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:10:56 -0500 Organization: Netcom I am in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, and last week I subscribed to Southwestern Bell's "Call Notes" since it would answer even if I have the line tied up on the Internet. Nights, my work phone is forwarded to my home phone in case of emergency. After several days of what seemed to be important calls on my caller ID but no messages ... I called the work number while forwarded to my home. Instead of my voice, callers hear "Welcome to Southwestern Bell Call Notes ... Please enter the number you are calling or redial" The callers, of course, enter my work number, and are told that there is no Call Notes account for that number. In any case they cannot leave a message. Thinking that the phone company had something set up wrong, I was told by the service department that it was NORMAL. That call notes is set up on a PER LINE basis, and that if I wanted call notes for the business number, I needed to subscribe for that number also. I had a $20 answering machine which, of course, recorded the messages either direct to my number or forwarded. It seems to me that any phone call that makes MY phone ring, whether called direct, long distance, or forwarded from another number should be answered by Call Notes if I am not able to pick up the phone. Is this quirk common in other parts of the US? Seems like since the local Telcos market both forwarding services and message services so aggressively, and never mention that the message service will not take a message from an incoming call that has been forwarded, that this would affect a lot of customers. Needless to say, Call Notes has been cancelled from my line. Frank Provasek ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: 800 Number Does Not Connect (was Toll-Free Payphones) Date: 31 Aug 1999 18:39:34 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If it is happening the way you say, > I do not think it is legal. 'Legal' of course to a large customer > of telco with special arrangements is different than 'legal' where > smaller customers are concerned, but I cannot imagine any telco > giving them (as part of their contract) unlimited connects at no > charge in the way you say until the point when a live person answers, Who is to say the service subscriber of that 800 number really wants a live person to answer all calls? Simple 800 logic for any sort of IN ght start with seeing where the call comes form. If from the east coast or west cost, the call would be routed to live operators, but if from the hinterlands, they might want to route to an answering machine. Or consider a service provided only during daytime and never on Sunday. At night or Sundays the call might be routed to a recording to call back during daytime or Mon-Sat. Now any telelphone company offering that service would surely charge for playing that recorded annoucement. Whether the ANI is also provided is a matter of the particular service features offered. For 800 services, quite a bit of network work is done whether live people answer of not. Putting a "Dial 1 for obnoxious service, and 2 for generally obnoixious service" can be provided either by the 800 number phone company provider or by the end customer. If provided by the phone company (as a clue whether to route the call to Chicago or San Bernadino, for example) I'll bet there is a charge built into the service. > I believe a toll charge is due as soon as some communication starts, > even if the commuication merely consists of being asked to hold for an > available agent, don't you? Certainly if a message is left for someone Even if Press One for Dumb Service announcement. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Therefore, *someone* is getting the bill, or maybe it is more accurate to say some telco somewhere is getting a traffic report on it all, in order to better negotiate the terms with their customer. So, just keep the pressure up until someone gets the word. Your calls to the spammer inquiring about the product or asking to be removed from the list are not just falling off into outer space somewhere. The traffic is being noted, and whether or not the spammer gets a bill (the first, preferable course of action) or his 800 service provider is getting the bill (an equally good choice) or a telco somewhere is questioning why is end-user X seeing all this traffic being handled in this way, is not of concern to you, the long-suffering netizen. You just keep pushing the envelope in that direction. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:46:00 -0700 From: Russell Blau Subject: Re: Is $5,000,000.00 US Enough for These Domain Names? Organization: My Deja Email (http://www.my-deja.com:80) Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > Numbers and domain names get their value when someone wants them. 1 > 800 TICKETS only became worth $1M + 6% stock, when that offer was > made. Until then it was only worth $20,000, or $80,000, or the > various other offers that were made, and rejected, over the years > leading up to the $1M purchase. Good point, Judith. I can recall a similar example. When I went to Harvard many years ago, I worked on the college radio station, WHRB-FM. There was a small technical college down the street which also had a radio station, with the call sign WTBS-FM. How much was either of those call signs worth? There certainly was nobody beating down the door at WHRB asking to buy our call letters. But there was a guy named Turner down in Atlanta who owned a television station, and who decided that "TBS" would be just the right name for his broadcasting empire. Well, you can figure out the rest of it -- MIT's radio station got new call letters and lots of nice new equipment, while we got to be proud of our old, traditional call sign (and our old, inherited studio equipment). No amount of marketing or publicity by MIT created the value of their call sign; it arose by serendipity because someone else decided it had value to *him*. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: BellSouth/PageNet IPS Outages Date: 31 Aug 1999 22:52:35 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:07:18 -0400, jwineburgh@chubb.com allegedly said: > In summary, it sounds like they may be mis-representing the > service. If you want a true paging service, go with SkyTel. They have > a traditional & 2-way paging network with guaranteed delivery and are > the BEST out there. I concur. Their products are way above the equivalents from PageNet's, and even though, up until this year, PageNet SurePage was a private-label version of Skytel's SkyWord Plus, SurePage STILL didn't offer all the features SkyWord Plus does!! (PageNet has finally started building their own two-way network, and this may have changed ... I haven't been a PageNet customer since March 99.) > I have NEVER lost a message yet. In addition if you are out of a > coverage area and are expecting messages, you can call an access > number and retrieve your messages that way. The only difference is > SkyTel has limits on the usage - You start out at $20/month for alpha, > but once you get over 50k characters in a month you pay ... Depends on the package. Mine is 10K. > I don't have any hooks into either company other than I like the > services they offer. I do (in the interest of full disclosure). I'm a SkyTel reseller ... But also a very happy user of their services. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org I am the president and sole shareholder of NSTC. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that my opinions do represent the official opinions of the company :) ------------------------------ From: Marina_Chang@gstworld.net (Marina Chang) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:58:31 -0700 Subject: MyLine Announcement GST MyLine Services to Transition to TeleSpace September 1999 Dear MyLine Customer: GST has been carefully evaluating its business lines to sharpen its focus on its core telecommunications products: local telephone service, enhanced data services, Internet and long distance. As a result, we have decided to divest ourselves from MyLine and have come to an agreement with TeleSpace, Inc. to continue your service and customer support. TeleSpace is the operations arm of AmericomUSA, the original developer of MyLine. As such, Telespace is committed to the product and its development, as well as maintaining your support both through this transition and into the future. Once the changeover has been completed, you will receive customer support and invoices from Telespace. Your current MyLine rate plan will remain the same. Telespace's customer support numbers are 805-542-8500 or 1-800-775-4765. Final GST MyLine invoices will be sent on August 28, September 8, or Se ptember 18, depending on which billing cycle you are in. Other GST services wi ll not be affected by this change and will continue as normal. If you have any qu estions regarding this transition, please contact GST Customer Service at 1-800-541-6316. GST is proud to have introduced you to MyLine and pleased that you have found it to be an effective communications tool. We look forward to servicing yo ur business in other areas and introducing you to next generation telecommunications products as they develop. ------------------------------ Subject: Cable v DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:04:00 GMT Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly rtucker+replyto+199908@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) said on 28 Aug 1999 in the folloing: >> Yep, this is an important issue with cable modem. You share the pipe >> with all your neighbors. More subscribers in your neighborhood will >> most likely mean less bandwidth for you to use. > You're doing the same with DSL, it's just that your neighborhood is a > lot bigger for this calculation. You don't think you have a direct pipe > to "The Internet", do you? This argument has been going on for the past few weeks in comp.dcom.modem.cable (and a less lengthy thread in comp.dcom.xdsl). This is fast turning into a religious war, I'm afraid. That said, I want to rebut a couple of your assumptions. First, the structure of DSL and cable modem service is considerably different; this has more to do with deployment details than anything else. For two-way cable systems, the coax cable plant serves a neighborhood, with signals to and from the neighborhood coax carried over fibre optic links. These links are in turn aggregated at the head end for the cable system, where the demark is one or more TCP/IP-over-Ethernet ports. This is then routed onto a backhaul to the Internet in some manner. (I've heard that @home maintains its own backbone network that peers to other backbone providers, but that's second-hand info and I don't entirely trust it. Lurkers?) The coax plant shares one or more downlink channels and one uplink channel to service an entire neighborhood. This means that, something akin to an asymetric Ethernet, the media sharing starts at the pole. In xDSL, and most particularly G.lite ADSL, there is a dedicated channel between the CPE and the DSLAM at the central office or remote terminal. The system feature tables I've seen have the output of the DSLAM appearing on an ATM network, where a virtual circuit is established between the DSLAM and the brouter. The output of the brouter then routed onto a backhaul to the Internet in some manner. Media sharing starts at the DSLAM, via an ATM network. Unlike cable, in which a single TCP/IP connection occurs, the ATM network can route a single channel to any of a number of ISPs before it's converted to TCP/IP-over- Ethernet. Thus the ATM network is the ONLY shared resource, and the possiblity for multiple parallel ATM networks is always a possibility. So your assertion that "with DSL ... [y]ou share the pipe with all your neighbors" is mostly incorrect. You only share the ATM network, and that network may be as long or as short as the ILEC deems is necessary. Indeed, the network may live only in the central office, with the CLECs colocating equipment in the CO to complete the connection. It gets more interesting when you talk about colocated DSLAMS owned by CLECs. COVAD, for example, follows this model for providing competing DSL service. They tie directly to the local loop, bypassing any ILEC DSL equipment. With cable modems, I'm stuck with whatever policy the incumbant ISP has instituted for cable service. This BY CONTRACT will be the situation for at least the next two years. With DSL, I'm not beholden to the ILEC's ISP for service for the forseeable future. If I don't like the policies of the ILEC ISP, I can move to another ISP with more compatible service offerings. _____ __/satch\___________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:02:32 -0700 From: Al Gillis Reply-To: alg@teleport.com Subject: Bell System Property Well, sort of. Recently my wife found two small key chain telephones for me. Not so unusual, you might think. But these two are modeled after early Bell System Princess telephones. One is pink, the other is a light brown and they are about one inch long and a half inch in height and depth. They have "rotary" dials and seem to be pretty accurate replicas. They even have the "flat" panel on the front and rear of the plastic case. On the bottom they say "The Princess phone" with Princess written in the script style they used to advertise this model. Also on the bottom it says "It's little, it's lovely, it lights!". Does anyone know how many different colors there were in this line of give-away trinkets? Or about when the Princess telephone was first introduced? I would guess this keychain would have been given away as a promo during the introduction of this product. Thanks! Al [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Princess phones were first introduced about 1960-61. The small town of Crown Point, Indiana was converted to dial service from manual in 1961 or 1962 and the telephone trucks in the area serving Gary/Crown Point/Hobart had advertisments on the side of them saying 'Go dial in style! Order a Princess phone from the business office today.' Then below a picture of the phone was a notice that 'telephone will operate satisfactorily in manual service; dial on phone will commence operating with conversion to dial service on xx/xx/61 (or whatever date it was). Don't wait, order one of these NEW telephones today. You might check in the Tribute to the Telephone section at this site for more specifics. Review the advertising of those days, as well as other details: http://telecom-digest.org/tribute PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #362 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 1 06:34:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA16109; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909011034.GAA16109@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #363 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Sep 99 06:34:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 363 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US-British Cyber-Spy System Puts Euro Countries on Edge (The Old Bear) Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo (nishka@my-deja.com) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Andy Berry) Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? (The Old Bear) Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? (Derek Peschel) Re: Gat Agreement (David Devereaux-Weber) Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Daryl Gibson) Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Reed) Re: Help Needed - Audio Problem on Phone Line (R.V. Waldren) Re: Two-Letter Abbreviations (J.F. Mezei) Re: International Calls & CIDs (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 01 Sep 1999 00:09:52 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: US-British Cyber-Spy System Puts Euro Countries on Edge Pat: A few years back, there was a discussion in the TELECOM Digest about the practicality/impracticality of recording and surveilance of all of the telecommunications generated by the public. I recall that the consensus was that it would be difficult but not impossible if one were willing to commit the resources to it. Well, the following item was just forwarded to me by a friend. I am unfamiliar with the credibility of the quoted source, but other readers of TELECOM Digest may find this item of interest and worthy of discussion. Regards, Will The Old Bear ---------- begin included text ---------- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:18:06 -0500 Friends, Below is my {Los Angeles Times} column from August 16, 1999. This is being sent out now because I was in Italy at the time this column came out. As always, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the copyright notice. Best, Gary gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu Monday, August 16, 1999 DIGITAL NATION U.S.-British Cyber-Spy System Puts European Countries on Edge By Gary Chapman Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved ROVERETO, Italy--It felt like there was a new Cold War developing at a conference here last week on computers, networks and international security, only this time the adversaries are the United States and Europe and the field of conflict is cyberspace. The revelation last year about the collaborative electronic eavesdropping system developed by the U.S. National Security Agency and British intelligence agencies, a system known as Echelon, has become a huge topic of discussion in Europe. The Echelon system can and does intercept "all e-mail, telephone and fax communications" in Europe, according to a report delivered last year to the European Parliament, and further investigations revealed that this capability also covers Australia, New Zealand and other countries. The report's author, Steve Wright, director of Omega Foundation, a British human rights group, was here last week and summarized his investigation into Echelon. "The Echelon system forms part of the U.K.-U.S.A. system but unlike many of the electronic spy systems developed during the Cold War, Echelon is designed for primarily nonmilitary targets: governments, organizations and businesses in virtually every country," states Wright's report, "An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control," (available on the Web at http://cryptome.org/stoa-atpc.htm). The report was prepared for the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) group. Its release in early 1998 shocked European government leaders. The chief piece of news that angered European politicians and business executives was the allegation that Echelon data intercepts are used for economic intelligence, and that the U.S. and British governments pass on this information to private companies for competitive advantage in trade talks, financial deals or contract negotiations, Simon Davies, head of Privacy International in London and another participant in the conference, wrote in an Aug. 4 commentary piece in The Times. This is a particularly sensitive and explosive allegation, as Britain is a member of the European Union and therefore must abide by EU laws and treaties, one of which, the Maastricht Treaty, is specifically aimed at leveling the playing field in EU commerce. Also worrisome is that the "special relationship" between the U.S. and British governments could allow each country's intelligence agency to rely on the other to circumvent national privacy laws, according to Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. When the National Security Agency is prohibited from certain kinds of domestic surveillance, it may get the information from its British counterparts, and vice versa. The STOA report produced a firestorm of controversy in Europe, but got very little attention in the United States, something Wright attributes to the fact that throughout 1998 the U.S. news media was saturated with the scandal in the White House. The European Parliament took the unprecedented step of holding hearings on Echelon in September of last year, just about the time our impeachment hearings were getting underway. A common response among many people confronted with the news about Echelon is incredulity -- how on earth could any organization intercept all the telephone calls, e-mail and faxes of several hundred million people? How could that volume of information be processed or analyzed? Immense banks of intelligence agency supercomputers search for keywords that are part of electronic "dictionaries," according to reports on Echelon. These dictionaries include words or phrases that are of interest to intelligence analysts, and are used to filter the Niagara-like flow of data into the system. Of particular concern to civil liberties and privacy activists is that these digital dictionaries reportedly contain the names of organizations such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace. A great deal about Echelon and electronic surveillance in Europe is unknown, because the NSA is one of the most secretive organizations in the world -- it was once known as "No Such Agency." The British government, with its Official State Secrets Act, has even more powers of secrecy than the U.S. government. Consequently, the European Parliament and individual European governments are demanding that U.S. and British intelligence agencies hand over information about Echelon and implement mechanisms of accountability. In the U.S., an investigation into Echelon has been initiated by an unexpected critic: Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), one of the congressional leaders of the impeachment movement against President Clinton. Barr is apparently such a foe of the federal government that he is taking on the federal intelligence agencies, organizations not accustomed to being challenged by Republicans. A member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Barr arranged for the panel to demand information on Echelon from the NSA, which, for the first time in its history, refused to turn over information and documents, citing attorney-client privilege. Barr is expected to initiate hearings on Echelon sometime in the near future. Ironically enough, Barr's extreme conservative views and his well-known style of fiery rhetoric have alienated longtime advocates of civil liberties who might otherwise be supporters of this investigation. The prospect that all e-mail, faxes and telephone calls in Europe may be under surveillance has led to a significant increase in the market here for digital encryption products. But the U.S. government still seems intent on limiting the export of the strongest encryption techniques available. Both the House Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee recently reversed a trend toward relaxing encryption export controls and revised such legislation already passed in other House committees. Thus from a European point of view, the U.S. government appears to be committed to spying on European citizens, companies and organizations, but is also bent on preventing Europeans from buying strong protections against such spying. Organizations such as the NSA and Britain's MI5 were set up to provide intelligence on military adversaries, but there are relatively few of those left. The new domain of cyberspace has unlimited potential for surveillance and intelligence gathering, unless citizens intervene and demand democratic accountability of institutions left around from the Cold War. Gary Chapman is director of the 21st Century Project at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu. ------------------------------ From: Nishka Subject: Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:35:29 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hello All! I was all set to try and track down a Yo-Yo for a poor man's call routing system. Unforunately the people who made the Yoyo discontinued it. I think the product was before its time. In any event, I'm looking for something that will read a caller ID number (area code and prefix) and route that call to either ring my phone, or go to a specific computer based voice mailbox without ringing the phone first. Here are a few examples: 1. The telemarketer. I don't want to talk to them (who does?) so whenever I get a 'caller ID unavailable' I'd like that to go straight to either a voicemail box on the PC or my answering machine. End of story :). 2. Calls with the area code and prefix for my town. I live in a small town with only one dial prefix. I'm also involved with a few boards and commissions locally. So I'd like the call to come in and have those numbers route to my phone first, and then a special voice mailbox if I'm not. 3. Specific friends - Let's say I have to meet up with somebody. They can call me, and get a message just for them to let them know where I'm at. So these are the kinds of things I'm looking to do. I'd say the most improtant thing would be routing unwanted calls from the telemarketers directly to the voicemail without ever ringing the phone. They always interupt my dinner, and after listening to unsoliciated sales calls at work, I'm not in the mood in the evening :). ------------------------------ From: Andy Berry Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:16:39 -0500 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Pat, I "joined" the internet in the summer of '94. I remember the pre-ppp, Netscape, Eudora, etc. days when I telnetted into a unix box and used pine (I can't think of the name of the prog that was pure command-line that came before pine), trn, lynx, gopher, etc. I believe I am ahead of the "newcomers", albeit not by much. I will make one assumption during this article: Everyone pays for their own bandwidth, including the big pipe backbone stuff. It is my feeling the "commercial" users only cost us time, as in lag, measured in ms. This "gross" cost (it nets out to positive, see below) probably doesn't add up to an hour in a year with a 56k modem. Therefore, I have no beef with the purely commercial folk that choose to shill their goods on the net. I am talking about the legit folks, not spammers, scammers and the like. With the probable exception of a lack of centralization of information sources (no more gopher and archie, you have to go to more web sites), I don't see where people like "us", the "information users" of the net have suffered. In fact, one could argue that with the commercialization, information has blossomed. i.e. If I am buying a new car, I just go over to carmaker.com and check out the options. The net benefit to my time therefore increases, greatly increasing my productivity, not to mention not wasting natural resources, and countless other benefits. Is carmaker.com "using" the net to sell more cars? Sure he is. Am I subjected to major hassles of schilling to look at cars? Not really, and I'll say it again, my net productivity increases. Your ideas and mine don't much differ. While you would just go back to the "old days", I would welcome our new netizens with open arms ... and a tight leash. Andy B. ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:56:04 -0400 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Bruce F. Roberts writes: > The "A" battery was the low volt cell, usually 6 volts, in an > antique radio circuit. If you recall the cylindrical 6 volt batteries > with brass, knurled nuts that was much like an old "A" battery. The > "B" cell was the high volt battery, usually 90 to 135 volts. We'll, I'm not *that old* but do remember being fascinated by books on radio in my poor, under-funded school library in the 1950s -- about how to build radio equipment in the 1930s. Bruce is right about the "A" power souce being 1.5 to 6 volts to heat the filament of the vacuum tubes, the "B" source being 90 volts up for the "plate voltage" across the tube -- and, in some designs, a third low voltage called the "C" voltage was used to provide a bias on the grid of the vacuum tube, controlling the flow of electrons from the cathode to the plate. Of course, I wanted to build these things but nobody still stocked triode vacuum tubes with four-pin bakelite bases by the 1950s. Gosh, I thought, those kids in the 1930s were sure lucky to be able to build *simple* projects which only required about a dozen components and which one could easily understand the theory of operation. Now I watch my son swap circuit boards in a computer without a clue about what magic is performed by the board, let alone by the chips mounted on it. BTW, I have no idea whether the "A" filiment voltage source has anything to do with the "A" of a battery model number. For all I know, it has as much to do with the A-A1 control leads for the hold circuits on old telco key set systems. Cheers, Will The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (Derek Peschel) Subject: Re: Why Do 66 Blocks Have That Name? Date: 1 Sep 1999 05:06:30 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article , Art Kamlet wrote: > One of the languages I used was supposed to be an improvement on Algol > 58 or one of its predecessors: MAD. (Michigan Algorithmic Decoder, > but I suspect it was named first, and the acronym filled in later.) > Instead of if ... then it used Whenever .... Otherwise > abbreviated as W\R O\E Are you sure the middle characters are backslashes? I thought they were apostrophes. I think there was an E\L abbreviation too, which is good because it's a whole lot shorter than END OF CONDITIONAL is. > it much better than Fortran. It ran initially on an IBM 704, > then a 709 and by the time I moved out of that area, it was moving > to a really new, fast 7090. > Any MAD folks left? Not me ... MAD was way before my time. I'm just interested after the fact. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is that where {MAD Magazine} got its > name also? What about MAD Cow Desease? LOL ... PAT] No, _but_ (and this is why I'm replying) the MAD compiler would apparently print out a picture of Alfred E. Neuman in certain circumstances (if the program had many, many errors, I think). This feature was eventually removed from the compiler. At least that's how I heard the story. Derek ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:36:22 -0500 From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: Gat Agreement Brent wrote: > I am looking for any information concerning the above mentioned > 'Gat Agreement'. I will be very grateful if you could help me. Brent, I believe you are interested in the General Agreement on Trade and Tarrifs, or GATT. Do a web search on GATT and you will find thousands of hits. For example, take a look at: http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&kl=XX&stype=stext&q=title%3AGATT David Devereaux-Weber, P.E Network Engineer Division of Information Technology The University of Wisconsin-Madison djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu http://cable.doit.wisc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:00:21 -0600 From: Daryl Gibson Subject: Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Try the at-sign, as indicated below. Telephone Number Modifiers for RAS The following telephone-number modifiers are used to help get an outside line on some telephone systems. The comma (,) causes the dialing to pause briefly (two seconds for most modems) before continuing. Example: 9,555-1234. The "9" is used on some telephone systems to get an outside line. The comma inserts a pause before dialing the telephone number. You can use as many commas as needed to create a longer pause before the telephone number is dialed. The at sign (@) waits for extended silence before continuing. This symbol causes the modem to listen to silence for five seconds. If a five-second silence has not been detected within the period predefined in the BIOS S7 register of the modem (the default is 50 seconds), the modem disconnects. If five seconds of silence are detected, the modem continues dialing the dial string. Example: 9@555-1212 Carla Decker asked: > I have a project where I need to be able to connect two PCs together > using two modems over a telephone cable that *DOES NOT* have dial tone. > I also need to use RAS & DUN to take care of a requirement for TCP/IP. > Here's my configuration: > PC <-----> Modem <------------------> Modem <-----> PC > RAS 9600 No Dial Tone 9600 RAS > SVR > Client > The configuration is dictated, and not negotiable. I can get the > configuration to work using Hyperterminal. Unfortunately, Hyperterminal > doesn't give me TCP/IP capabilities. When I try to use RAS, I can't get > the RAS Server to answer. Any suggestions would be most helpful! > Thanks, > Carla deckerch@ornl.gov ----------------------- DARYL R. GIBSON ------------------------- (801)378-2950 (801)489-6348 drgibson@du2.byu.edu drgibson@drgibson.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- MURPHY'S LAWS OF COMBAT 27. Remember, a retreating enemy is probably just falling back and regrouping. ------------------------------ From: Reed Organization: None whatsoever Subject: Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:02:52 -0600 Sounds like what you need is a "null modem DUN". Take a look at http://www.mindspring.com/~kewells/net/ and see if what he has there is what you want. --reed ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Help Needed - Audio Problem on Phone Line From: R.V. Waldren Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:25:36 GMT You need to check the audio level at the D mark then you know if it is your problem or Bell Atlantic. Test the line by putting a jack and 2500 set at the D mark. Brian G. wrote in : > I have low audio on my three phone lines. In fact, they sound > somewhat muted. Here's what I have and what I've done so far. What > else can I do? > Bell Atlantic says the lines test ok at the network interface device. > I'm not sure what meter they used to determine that but they did use a > meter of some sort. I do know I'm 23k from the DMS-100 central office > and there is some copper pair gain technology on my loops. > My house wiring is brand new. All runs are CAT 5. I did split the 4 > pairs of each run into 2 RJ14s at each faceplate. I have 4 analog > dial tones and 1 ISDN line. > The lines are run to about 8 jacks but only six 2500 sets and three > ksu-less AC powered sets connected. The low audio is common across > all sets but the 2500 sets are a little better. The ISDN line is > connected to a Gandalf Terminal Adapter. > The house terminals are just 66 blocks. Does that lower audio quality > compared to other type of blocks? The cross-connects are traditional > 26 gauge wire. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Two Letter Abbreviations Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:36:48 -0400 Art Knight wrote: > Patrick and Mark, > The designation NT is a hangover from the former name of Northwest > Territories, and another is YK for the Yukon. The new one is supposed > to be a combined designation. Not sure how this originated. But early this year, I contacted Canada Post on this subject. Their response was basically: YK remains for Yukon. NT will apply to both the northwest territories and Nunavut territories. Therefore, no new code for Nunavut. Postal codes for areas now in Nunavut continue unchanged with the "X" prefix applying to both Northwest Territories and Nunavut territories. (Ok, so now this is present, not future ...) Northwest Territories still exist. (Essentially the area between the eastern Yukon border and Hudson's Bay, and Nunavut being mostly all the off-continent islands.) (But Nunavut does include parts on the western shores of Hudson's Bay). ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: International Calls & CIDs Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:29:47 -0400 Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > But how many US or Canadian customers are necessarily going to > invest in a new "fully" compatable Caller-ID box (for number, name, > Call-Waiting Display or even Call-Waiting-DELUXE controls, AND > international inbound compatability), just for a few rare occasions > when they might get some incoming calls from outside of the NANP! Why couldn't the telcos simply insert the foreign calling number *as text* in the caller name field? Obviously that wouldn't help those with only calling number display -- and it would be tricky for those who capture incoming numbers on a PC -- but at least existing Caller ID name display units would provide the calling number. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #363 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 1 15:58:34 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA04227; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:58:34 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909011958.PAA04227@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #364 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Sep 99 15:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 364 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ranking of Telecom Engineering Undergraduate Programs (Michele Traquena) Re: Domain Names (David Esan) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Joseph Wineburgh) Good Voice Server to Use With Siemens PBX? (Frederic Faure) Re: Phone Company List? (Jeremy Greene) Re: Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo (Alastair) Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay (A Boritz) Re: Gat Agreement (Bob Goudreau) Re: Certified Telecom Professional? (Joseph Wineburgh) DSL Versus Cable (Kevin DeMartino) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (John Nagle) Re: Going to Hell (Without a Handbasket) (bonomi@newsguy.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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: michele.traquena@us.pwcglobal.com (Michele Traquena) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:38:54 -0500 Subject: Ranking of Telecom Engineering Undergraduate Programs Patrick, I'm working on a project where I am trying to find a ranking of the top Telecommunications Engineering Undergraduate programs in the US and I saw your name on the Tele.com website. I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Michele Traquena PricewaterhouseCoopers MCS [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People with information on this feel free to write direct to Michele with their comments. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Domain Names Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:36:43 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I found this in the local paper and thought it might be of interest. Thomas shoots for sky in cyberspace His new big-money idea: Ask $25 million for bundle of more than 1,500 Internet addresses. See more at: www.rochesternews.com/0901domains.html David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:01:31 -0400 I'm not sure where you live exactly, but you might want to call back and get a different rep's story. I am in western Morris County and my selective calling exchange is Morristown. I just got off the phone with Bell and even though I had to ask twice in some cases, confirm what they said, etc. I did manage to get what I believe is the correct info. I ended up canceling my 'selective calling' because I don't think I'm anywhere near the 8 hours at this point, and the package I'm on has free weekends. One inconsistency, though between what you got out of them and what I got. They stated the charge was only increasing from $3 and change to $5 and change -- which differs with the $21 they quoted you. The hours they quoted are the same -- from 20 to 8. I also inquired as to the additional minute charges and they stated that they were to remain at 1c/min. after the 8 hours. You might want to look at one of their other 'local toll' packages instead. The last time I checked they had one for maybe $50/month for unlimited calling within the LATA (973, 908, 201, 732). I don't remember what the plan was called, but this might suit your needs and give you added benefits as well depending on your calling patterns ... #JOE ------------------------------ From: ffaure@bigSPAMGAZETTAIDAMEfoot.com (Frederic Faure) Subject: Good Voice Server to Use With Siemens PBX? Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:29:38 GMT Organization: What? Me, organized? Reply-To: ffaure@bigSPAMGAZETTAIDAMEfoot.com Hello, We're located in Europe, and currently use a Siemens 100E/118 ISDN, along with a Discophone 3000 MV Junior that handles up to two simultaneous access to the voice server. While the PBX works great, the voice server is unreliable (some msgs left in a user's voice mailbox aren't accessible, the date when msg are left is stimes wrong, etc.) Are there good brands of voice servers you could recommend? What about PC-based + Dialogic-type voice card solutions? Thanks for any tip, FF. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: Phone Company List? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:15:07 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. wrote in message news:telecom19.346.11@ telecom-digest.org: > Does anyone know where a list of ALL the phone companies (with contact > information) can be found if there is such a thing? You could go to nanpa.com and download the lists of Feature Group B and Feature Group D carriers. This is not all phone companies, but it is all the facilities-based long-distance companies (I think). Contact info is included. Of course, this is probably NOT the contact they would want Joe Blow to be calling with a billing complaint. -Jeremy ------------------------------ From: Caller ID Subject: Re: Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:16:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Take your pick from some of the programs on my site -- several will do what you want. Alastair In article , Nishka wrote: > I was all set to try and track down a Yo-Yo for a poor man's call > routing system. Unfortunately the people who made the Yoyo discontinued > it. I think the product was before its time. > In any event, I'm looking for something that will read a caller ID > number (area code and prefix) and route that call to either ring my > phone, or go to a specific computer based voice mailbox without ringing > the phone first. Computer Caller ID FAQ : http://www.cloud9.u-net.com/callerid.htm ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:53:06 -0400 If you were using modems with 'leased line' jacks, or a 'line simulator' in between the modems which supplies voltage, ringing, etc. this might work. You might be better off just using a null modem cable or parallel cable to directly connect the PC's together and use one of the popular 'sync' software programs. One other thought -- POTS lines are quick and dirty. Order two and connect the modems. It's a local call (read: free). Good luck! #JOE ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: SprintPCS Surcharge Not Just For Late Payers - All Must Pay Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 07:22:57 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Jonathan wrote: >>> I... prefer to pay my bill at the nearby local store in cash... >>> new sign... *all* in-store bill payments would cost >>> an additional $3.00. > The real issue here is the handling of cash. If Sprint receives more > than a modest amount of cash, they incur substantial costs -- they need > special cash handling procedures, double custody rules, their insurance > becomes very expensive, they may be required to engage an armored car > service, and at some point their insurance company may require them to > install a secured cashier's station with bulletproof glass etc. Oh, pulleeez, you're breaking our hearts. Any company who provides public services that require payment rolls the expenses of handling cash into their operating expenses. If they hadn't planned on some customers paying cash, and how to insure that their employees weren't stealing from them, they should turn off the lights and send everyone home. The deal is the deal (for the cost of service). Nickeling and diming customers with surcharges with no increase in services providing is simply dishonest. It's one of the reasons why I won't do business with Sprint for ANY services. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:58:27 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Gat Agreement David Devereaux-Weber wrote: > Brent wrote: >> I am looking for any information concerning the above mentioned >> 'Gat Agreement'. I will be very grateful if you could help me. > I believe you are interested in the General Agreement on Trade and > Tarrifs, or GATT. Do a web search on GATT and you will find thousands > of hits. You will probably also be interested on the GATT's successor, the World Trade Organization, whose home page is http://www.wto.int . Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Certified Telecom Professional? Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:07:57 -0400 Not sure if anyone had found this one yet: http://www.ctinstitute.com/ #JOE ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: DSL Versus Cable Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:31:00 -0400 In V19 #362, Satch , explained the difference between cable and DSL with respect to sharing of channels: > The coax plant shares one or more downlink channels and one uplink > channel to service an entire neighborhood. This means that, something > akin to an asymetric Ethernet, the media sharing starts at the pole. > In xDSL, and most particularly G.lite ADSL, there is a dedicated > channel between the CPE and the DSLAM at the central office or remote > terminal. Currently, sharing does occur for DSL in the backhaul section of the network. Specifically, channels must be shared between the central office and the ISP, which can result in bottlenecks. However, the technology exists to eliminate these bottlenecks. An optical fiber can support data rates approaching 1 Tb/s (1000 Gb/s). Lucent Technologies has a product line called WaveStar that can support data rates up to 400 Gb/s over a fiber. A data rate of 1 Tb/s has been experimentally demonstrated. With this technology, a single fiber can carry all the DSL data between a local central office and an ISP interface at a tandem/toll office without sharing channels. For example, suppose there are 10,000 subscribers attached to a CO each operating at a data rate of 10 Mb/s. In this case, the aggregate data rate would be 100 Gb/s, which can be carried by a single fiber. I'm not trying to trivialize the problems of transporting and switching high data rate signals in the backhaul section of the network. I don't have any cost estimates for backhaul upgrades. However, upgrading the local loop is a much more formidable task than upgrading the backhaul network. There are thousands of local loop lines for every backhaul line. In many places the cable backhaul network (the feeder cables) has been upgraded from coax to fiber. Distribution cables are still coax with data channels that are shared by many users. This arrangement is referred to as hybrid fiber-coax (HFC). Currently, HFC systems can provide higher data rates than DSL systems. However, DSL systems potentially have higher aggregate capacities than HFC systems. With backhaul upgrades and some local loop upgrades, DSL capabilities can be expected to surpass HFC capabilities within the next several years. Of course the cable companies don't have to stand pat. They can counter DSL upgrades by deploying fiber in the distribution portion of their networks. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal Date: 1 Sep 1999 18:36:19 GMT Organization: Netcom TELECOM Digest Editor writes: Lindstrom writes: > I disagree. The purpose of the web is to provide a graphical and > easy-to-use interface to various services available on the internet, > all centralized into one client (as opposed to needing a suite of > clients to accomplish the same goals). The purpose of the internet > itself is to provide a robust way for computers to share resources and > communicate in real time and that could, theoretically, withstand a > nuclear attack. Anything over and above that, this idea of a community > of sharing, is something that the netizens of yore invented as a sort > of internet "culture". > I can state with fair certainty that this was NOT on the minds of the > people who originally plunked down the dosh to finance this thing. Actually, having been there near the beginning, I can say that ARPA's main motivation, once the ARPAnet started working reasonably well, was to find some way of getting their research contractors to work together, and for ARPA to manage them more easily. The "culture of sharing" was fostered by ARPA, which was paying for most computer R&D work at the time. The technology wasn't actually used much in the military world until the early 1980s, when BBN won the AUTODIN II contract. There were some earlier ARPANET-like nets within the intelligence community, using, of all things, Pluribus IMPs. But the ARPAnet was up for well over a decade before the technology was deployed militarily. Today's Internet is financed by its customers. Basically, your $20 or so per month pays for the ISPs, the POPs, and the backbone. Much content is advertising-supported, but as with telephony, the subscriber supports the underlying service. >> But now come the ones you say have 'every right' to be here and >> they say, "Well we did not come here to share and exchange at all. >> We came here just to sell things. We don't share our stuff, we >> sell it." That's OK, but they don't own the thing. They're just providing content. You don't have to look at their content. And they have no right to force it on you. Spam is already illegal in several US states, and that probably will grow. No way are spammers providing any substantial financial support to the Internet. Most spammers are tiny operations. Mostly they steal resources by using the systems of others without authorization for mail forwarding using faked headers. There really aren't that many spammers, either. There are only a few hundred active spammers at any one time. They're annoying out of proportion to their numbers because of the amplifying effect of bulk mail programs. Realistically, spam could be stopped as effectively as junk fax has been by suitable legislation. There are legitimate attempts to make the Internet advertiser- supported, and they're the free services with advertising, such as Hotmail and GeoCities. Those are the advertising throwaways of the Internet. There are the "portal sites". There are the proprietary- gimmick people, like RealNetworks and ICQ. But you don't have to use any of that stuff. John Nagle [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I have never had any complaints at all about Real Networks. I think they have excellent products and excellent customer service. In addition to their G-2 player, I also use their Real Producer, Real Slideshow, and RAENCODE software. I am thinking however that in cases like http://telecom-digest.org/news I should redesign the pages there to be compatible with Windows Media Player as well. I do not know how right now, but am trying to learn about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bonomi@newsguy.com (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Going to Hell (Without a Handbasket) Date: 1 Sep 1999 08:41:14 GMT Organization: Not Much In article Bill Levant wrote: >> For the benefit of persons who have never gone to Hell or been through >> Hell, it is a tiny little rural community about 30 miles north and >> west of Ann Arbor, Michigan. > There is also a Hell on Grand Cayman Island. So named because of > eroded coral or limestone (I forget) formations that look like ... > well ... Hell, minus the flames. > That one doubtless has a better climate than Michigan, but they sell > the same assortment of tacky T-shirts and miscellaneous tchochkes; > there's also a Cayman government post office that puts a Hell postmark > on the overpriced postcards sold next door. Trivia note: there are communities (many are not incorporated munici- palities), in nearly every state in the U.S. Something like 47 of them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had not realized there were that many places one could go to Hell in the United States. I knew about Chicago of course, but not the others except for the one in Michigan. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #364 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 1 21:01:21 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA15821; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 21:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 21:01:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909020101.VAA15821@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #365 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Sep 99 21:01:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 365 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (TELECOM Digest Editor) Echelon (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Lisa Hancock) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers (Greg Skinner) Re: Two Letter Abbreviations (Mark Brader) Re: Call Notes Won't Record Forwarded Calls (Victor R. Pirozzolo) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Marcus AAkesson) So What Are Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson up to Now? (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 1 Sep 1999 19:22:34 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters For whatever else one might say disparagingly about them, they certainly know how to build a first class corporate center. Their project in Overland Park/Leawood, Kansas is something you will have to see in order to fully grasp and appreciate. Overland Park is a Kansas suburb of Kansas City, Missouri, situated sort of southwest of the city itself. It sits about a mile west of the Missouri/Kansas state line, with the smaller community of Leawood to its east, and actually on the state line itself. The population of Leawood is about twenty thousand people, while Overland Park, its larger neighbor to the west has about 129,000 residents. In a four block area between the two communities, from 115th Street to 119th Street along Nall Avenue and extending westward for about a half-mile into the town of Overland Park at Glenwood Avenue is the new location for the Sprint World Headquarters Campus, as it is being called. Construction began in 1996 for this project, and is now largely finished. Some remaining work will go on the rest of this year and next. Instead of putting it together a building at a time as might be expected, Sprint made the decision to erect it all at one time. The result of their decision to put it all together at the same time is this: 1200 construction personnel 40 superintendents from J.E. Dunn Construction Co. 50 architects and engineers 20,000 square feet for office space used by the on-site clerical and professional employees involved in the construction process. The end results of the past three years of construction at the site are these: 4 million square feet of office space. 22 buildings, only one more than 4 stories tall. The single building which will be taller is a bell, clock and carillon tower, in the center of the campus. 200 acres of land, from Nall Avenue on the east to Glenwood Avenue on the west, between 115th and 119th Streets. 60 percent of the grounds are devoted to 'green space', i.e. 4000 trees, a 7-acre lake, and two outdoor athletic fields. The main 'street' within the campus is 'Sprint Parkway'; its total length is 1.8 miles, as it loops from one end to the other and circles back again to near it starting point. 16 covered garages for employee parking. 10 large, major fountains through out the area. 1 auditorium, seating several thousand persons for special events. 1 glass enclosed arboretum or 'winter garden' for receptions and other events. 1 each of these: technology center, travel center, fitness center, child care center/nursery school, and other special service centers, fine dining establishment, dry cleaners, gift shop, and general purpose retail store, all for use by employees only. Oh, yes, a jogging trail as part of the outdoor sports area. 'Several' newsstands, delicatessans and short- order quick food places for employees. Sprint has about 8000 employees in the Kansas City area at the present time, in several office buildings. They intend to consolidate these at the new location and in addition, move approximatly 6000 employees into the area from other locations around the USA. Several hundred people are being hired as 'service employees' to attend to the campus now being completed. Employees have started moving into the new campus and will continue to do so at the rate of about 200 at a time from now until sometime in the year 2001, when the last of the 'finishing touches' to the campus will be complete. In total, Sprint will have by their estimate 14,500 employees located in the new center at the end of 2001, but planners for the project have stated that given assumed increases in the number of persons employed by Sprint as the company expands its activities, it is realistic to assume an additional 2000-3000 'newly hired' employees of the company may simply begin their employment at the campus itself in the next three to five years, meaning the 'population' may likely be about 16-18 thousand by 2002-03. As all this is taking place of course, realtors and existing business establishments in the comparatively small town of Leawood right across the street (total population less than 20,000) are having a field day of their own, and Overland Park is rather pleased with it also. Even the mere presence of about 1500 people day after day for the three years construction has been going on has done quite well for the local economy as you might suspect. Bill Esrey, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Sprint issued this statement recently: "As Sprint prepares to move into its new corporate campus, I want to express our wholehearted thanks to everyone in the metropolitan Kansas City area. We are especially grate- ful to the government and civic leaders we've had the pleas- ure to work with in the City of Overland Park and throughout the metropolitan area. As a result of their assistance, Sprint will soon have a facility that will fulfill the needs of our growing national and international company. "The corporate campus allows us to bring employees together in a pleasant, productive and technologically state-of-the art environment that encourages an unprecedented level of collaboration and teamwork. It will serve as a showcase as we host business associates from around the globe. We hope it will be seen as one of the many outstanding landmarks of Greater Kansas City. "The campus opening comes as Sprint celebrates 100 years as a company firmly rooted in mid-America, including more than half-a-century as a proud member of the metropolitan community. This is a great way to begin yet another chapter in our long and valued partnership with the people of Greater Kansas City. "After the construction fences come down, we look forward to presenting the Sprint corporate campus as a place that all our fellow citizens can point to with pride." ===================================== Mr. Esrey's comments about '100 years as a company' are based not on the origin of what we have traditionally called 'Sprint' which began in the mid-1970's but are calculated with the aquisition of United Telephone Company as part of the forumla. United does indeed go back to the late 1800's as a local telephone company in many parts of north and central Kansas. It was purchased a couple years ago by Sprint to become Sprint's local service component. If you happen to be around the Kansas City area, you should definitly plan to go by and look at the place. I do not think any company has come close to this much opulence for its headquarters facility in the past. Microsoft is certainly lovely, but Sprint now runs a very close second place, or perhaps in the opinion of many even usurps Microsoft. You'll need to give it a year or two for the trees, lake, wetlands and other open space to begin to fully develop and assume their roles in it, and of course the construction fences will be around for another year or so also. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Sep 99 13:56 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Echelon Greetings. The report regarding "Echelon" cited in a recent TELECOM Digest (claiming that all e-mail, fax, and telephone communications in Europe are monitored) has been floating around for awhile. There are a number of reasons to suspect its level of accuracy. First off, it was not really a technical report -- it largely restated assertions and rumors heard from other often unsubstantiated sources. Why would the report do this? Because it's been a football for political infighting within the European Union, and has been used by various persons and groups to attack each other for political advantage. As for the actual issue of what/how much is actually being monitored ... Whenever someone tells you that "all" of anything is happening, that's a good time to be a bit skeptical. It's like taking multiple choice tests in school--one useful trick is to assume that the probability of the "all" or "never" answers being correct is lower than for the other choices! On the domestic side, remember that the amounts of traffic involved are vast. Much of it never leaves local areas. Is it really practical--or economically feasible--to monitor it *all* as the report claims? Even the call to the house down the street or the pizza parlor down the block? And even if you could, what would you *do* with all that data? Even with today's technologies, the processing and/or storage requirements would be incredibly vast. What's by far the most likely scenario is that domestic traffic is monitored on a highly targeted basis, through local or remote wiretaps or similar means. This is pretty much in line with what one would expect under existing laws. The international side is a bit more complicated. There has long been a great deal of credible evidence relating to significant broad monitoring of international circuits, and the laws relating to this area are significantly less clear and tend to allow much more latitude than in the purely domestic cases. This could include situations where one party or the other of the call is located in the country where the monitoring is taking place, or in some cases could involve a third country where international traffic is in transit through that country's telecommunications infrastructure. The probability of any given circuit being monitored is likely to vary based on the particular countries involved, the number of circuits available between those countries, and other similar factors. None of this qualifies as news -- read "The Puzzle Palace" from years ago. While the technical capabilities for monitoring have increased over the years, so has the volume of total traffic, both domestic and international. The transition from satellite to fiber has had both positive and negative impacts on such capabilities. But one way or another, there are only finite resources that can be allocated to such efforts, and it is probably safe to assume that such resources are at any given time directed to where it is felt they can provide the most useful information, however that is being defined by the entities involved. Interested readers might wish to check out the PRIVACY Forum Archive for more discussion on this and related topics. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit against Bell-Atlantic Date: 1 Sep 1999 21:28:16 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > I am looking for other disappointed customers interested in a group > complaint against Bell Atlantic price gouging practices. > Recently Bell Atlantic increased the price of the so-called "Selective > Calling Service" by a factor of 10 or more. You need to be more specific about the background of this service. I presume you mean Bell Atlantic-New Jersey. > Selective Calling Service used to give you 20 hours a month of calls > This service was instituted to correct pricing injustices that would > punish residential customers with unreasonably high rates for calls > near home. I checked the Trenton NJ directory and found no mention of this service. Could you describe what specific town this was offered and what mileage band it covered? Was there a particular service territory this was suited for? When did it first come out? For calls for 1-10 miles, the tolls vary by time-of-day, but are pretty reasonable, about the same as message unit charges in the Philadelphia area. Depending on the area, the phone company does often offer discount plans. However, most cost far more than $2 a month (depending on what the plan offers. I know of one plan that is $2 more but only gives one additional exchange for free instead of message units.) > Shouldn't the Board of Public Utilities in New Jersey be involved in > this and put a limit to such predatory tactics? In the past, the state PUC would definitely be involved. However, certain services, and this may be one of them, have become deregulated, and the company may charge whatever it wants. That's what competition is all about. Perhaps another company serving your area may have a more attractive plan. > If you are a voter in New Jersey you can do something to prevent > such outrageous acts of irresponsible corporations. Again, it depends on the circumstances if this is "outrageous" or "irresponsible". My local convenience store charges two to things times the price of the supermarket for certain items. Is that "irresponsible" or just plain old business? And it may not be under the power of the PUC. With phone company deregulation comes competition. I preferred the old system to prevent problems such as yours, but public policy is going the opposite way. The policies may be the result of the US Congress or FCC. > It's apparently far worse than that. Selective Calling is not > regulated by the Public Utilities Board, for whatever reason. If that > is true, Bell Atlantic discovered the opportunity to gouge thousands > (if not millions) of customers. > I know enough about phones to know that it doesn't cost them a penny > to offer this service. It's just a "rating gimmick" and now they are > finding an opportunity to gouge the public even more. If they can charge more for a service but fail to do so, they are losing money from their point of view. If more customers are making calls and talking longer, it will cost them more physical plant to support such calls. > But I don't know enough about Regulatory Issues to know whether the > State could/should control the tariffs for such a service; and whether > the Public can take Legal Action against a Utility that is obviously > using 'predatory' pricing practices. There are several issues here. Either the service is regulated or it is not regulated. If it is regulated, the PUC has to approve the change. If not regulated, then Bell can charge whatever it wants, just like my convenience store can charge whatever it wants. If Bell is in fact making so much money, then the principle of economic competition are such that newcomers will come in for a piece of the pie. > On a parallel vein, I seem to remember that AT&T tried to offer this > service when they started offering local service in the state of New > Jersey a few years ago. But they could not offer it because Bell > Atlantic would not provide them with requisite information. Again you need to be more specific. Was it AT&T offering local service at all, or just this specific service class? What exactly "requisite information" did AT&T need that Bell didn't provide? ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers Date: 1 Sep 1999 15:01:55 -0700 Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com I would just like to make some comments regarding the commercial use of the Internet. One can make arguments as to whether or not the "spirit" of the net is violated by commercial use. As it turns out, there were plenty of commercial uses of the net, long before the WWW became popular. Some of these uses were experimental (e.g. MCI mail gateways); some were part of the general order of business (e.g. con- sumer product information provided by computer manufacturers); others just "happened" (e.g. people offering items for sale or trade on .market or .forsale newsgroups). So one can make the argument that commercial use of the net is nothing new. In 1992, a bill signed by Rep. Boucher allowed NSFnet to exchange traffic with other networks that provided services that were felt to enhance NSFnet in some way. This bill indirectly made it legal for NSFnet to communicate with commercial networks. Thus, the Internet was "opened" to commerce. Most people would agree that spam and other forms of unsolicited email are an annoyance. However, this, like other things, is nothing new. I was getting unsolicited email back in the early 80s, from chain letters that were going around the net (endlessly, it seemed ... the same one kept coming back with more addresses). It is also true that certain communities have been accused of poor netizenship throughout the history of the net; a prime example is how popular it was to bash PSUVM users shortly after Penn State gave undergrads access to BITNET (and thus, their email or netnews would find its way around the net). In the interests of full disclosure, I'll say that I am biased in favor of commercial enterprise on the Internet, as that is how I make a living. I have tried it both ways; I have worked for research groups and commercial companies. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. There is as much of a "business" in the academic/ research computing arena as there is in any commercial company; the rules of the game are different, but the goals are the same. There is even considerable overlap of players -- I'll note that more than a few of the researchers I worked with had lucrative commercial sidelines, and they were able to use their commercial involvements to their advantage in winning contracts and/or research grants. I don't think it is possible or appropriate to divide the Internet into the noncommercial "saints" and the commercial "sinners". Things just aren't that simple. I hope that we can find ways for all users of the Internet to interact with each other. gregbo gds at best.com ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Two Letter Abbreviations Date: 1 Sep 1999 17:43:31 -0400 J.F. Mezei writes: > Not sure how this originated. But early this year, I contacted Canada > Post on this subject. Their response was basically: > YK remains for Yukon. I hope they didn't say that! The postal abbreviation for the Yukon is YT. (It is, I think, the only province or territory in Canada whose domain under .ca doesn't match its postal abbreviation; that *is* .yk.ca.) > NT will apply to both the northwest territories and Nunavut > territories. Therefore, no new code for Nunavut. Annoying, isn't it? Up till now, the postal abbreviations have been useful for non-postal purposes, but now we have to invent NU when we want to distinguish the territories and convert it to NT for mailing things there. > Northwest Territories still exist. (Essentially the area between the > eastern Yukon border and Hudson's Bay, and Nunavut being mostly all > the off-continent islands.) (But Nunavut does include parts on the > western shores of Hudson's Bay). Well, that's a bit rough; Nunavut includes somewhat more mainland and less of the islands than the above would suggest. There should be a map at , or check the Canada map in an up-to-date North American road atlas (even though Nunavut cannot be reached from anywhere else by road). Mark Brader, Toronto | "No flames were used in the creation of msbrader@interlog.com | this message." -- Ray Depew My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 17:01:46 -0400 From: Victor R Pirozzolo Reply-To: victor@snet.net Subject: Re: Call Notes Won't Record Forwarded Calls Frank Provasek wrote: > Instead of my voice, callers hear "Welcome to Southwestern Bell Call > Notes ... Please enter the number you are calling or redial" The > callers, of course, enter my work number, and are told that there is > no Call Notes account for that number. In any case they cannot leave a > message. I'm a switching tech for SNET (part of SBC) in CT. When someone dials your work line, and it forwards home, then onto the voice mail system the ID of the orginally called number is presented to the voice mail system. In this case, it is your work number. The voice mail system looks for a mailbox associated with this number and finding none, plays the system's generic greeting. Think of it this way ... You call someone, thiy're not at their desk so they are forwarded to the secretary ... the secretary is away from her desk ... her phone rings 3 times then goes to the voice mail system ... the call needs to go to the mailbox of the original person, not the secretary as you want to leave a message for the ORIGINALLY called person ... NOT the secretary ... therefore the system will give you the greeting of the original party. In your case, what's known as a "bridged" or "alias" mailbox needs to be set up; this allows two numbers to use one mailbox ... then your calls will be answered correctly ... they may possibly also have an alternate voice mail "hub" number which will used the redirected number (RDN) rather than the originally called number (OCDN). This setup would the cause the call to seek out the mailbox for your home number. Victor ------------------------------ From: marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se (Marcus AAkesson) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:32:00 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:10:27 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > GSM wasn't designed to "drop in" to existing analog systems, as > CDMAOne and US TDMA were. Since cellular operators got no additional > frequencies here, they needed a system that could be phased in, a > fraction of their channels at a time. Actually, GSM is phased in a Mhz at the time here in Sweden, by reallocating bandwidth from the analog NMT-900 system, which is being closed altogether in 2000-12-31 GSM does not overlay an analog system though, but you can decide on a per-channel (200KHz) basis. Marcus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:38:30 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: So What are Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson up to Now? Silly me ... here I sat for a few months thinking that if only they were gently probed now and then, the folks at the Internet Society and ICANN might deign to look down their noses and speak to the rest of us, and tell the people they claim they represent (when they have meetings with government officials and others) exactly where things are at. But alas, no such luck. I guess I will have to do their talking for them, or rather, let some of their personal email do their talking. I have several emails in my possession forwarded to me by Gordon Cook which he thinks you will find most enlightening. I think so, too. These are emails between Vint Cerf and others in the clique sent over the past three months or so, discussing ICANN financing and other details. Remember now, these are the folks who will explain with religous fervor to whoever wants to listen that unless netizens are willing to tolerate e-commerce, we won't have e-anything. I'll send it all out as a special mailing in just a few minutes. I am working on it now. You might call it 'the email that Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson had wished you didn't see.' But alas, now it is going to be all over the net, so you can draw your own conclusions from the correspondence, and Gordon Cook's annotations. Watch for it in the Usenet c.d.t. group in about an hour, and invite your friends to check it out also. The mailing list should be getting their copies over the next couple hours also. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #365 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 2 05:08:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA01145; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 05:08:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909020908.FAA01145@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #366 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Sep 99 05:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 366 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Net's First Civil War (Jay Fenello) Re: So What are Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson up to Now? (Garrett Wollman) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Mike Mansfield) Ever Seen 999-888-7777? (John S. Maddaus) Re: Echelon (Kim Brennan) Re: Echelon (Darryl Smith) Re: Cable vrs. DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) (John McHarry) Next Generation Enterprises (A. Subramania) Last Laugh! Hidden Cameras in Bathrooms and More! (info@stockseekers.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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 02 Sep 1999 00:44:33 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: The Net's First Civil War ICANN vs. NSI The Net's First Civil War Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved Over the last couple of weeks, a war has erupted over the very future of Cyberspace. Not only have diverse organizations like Ralph Nader's CPT and Americans for Tax Reform gotten involved, but Congress has held two hearings, and launched an investigation into possible collusion at the Justice Department, and illegal fundraising by the Clinton administration. To most casual observers, this appears to be a spat between the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI). In actuality, much, much more is at stake. The story begins with the phenomenal success of the Internet. What was once a sleepy, little research experiment funded by the U.S. Government, the Internet has grown to become a world-wide frontier of freedom, ideas, education, entertainment and commerce. Along the way, the informal processes used to govern the Internet became obsolete. And when governments and organizations tried to address the issues that required world-wide decisions, they realized that no-one was in charge! To address this situation, a couple of alternatives were possible. One involved getting legislation passed in over 200 countries throughout the world! Not very likely, and certainly not very efficient. Instead, the Clinton administration proposed a U.S. based, non-profit corporation to assume the management of the coordinated technical functions of the Internet. This new organization would use "flow down" contracts that would specify every right and obligation for anyone wishing to use the Internet. Last year, Commerce decided that ICANN was to be this organization. It has been embroiled in controversy ever since. On the other side of this debate is NSI. NSI was the recipient of a government Cooperative agreement, and had the exclusive rights to register all domains in the .com, .net, .org and .edu Top Level Domains (TLDs). And while most people consider NSI an unfair monopoly in dire need of some competition, there was no such consensus about how to devolve their monopoly. From ICANN's perspective, NSI is administering TLDs which belong to the public, TLDs that are under ICANN's control. In other words, ICANN is claiming superior ownership rights in *all* domain names. ICANN's version of competition is to contract the administration of *their* TLDs to the lowest bidder, and to strictly license all domain name resellers, all while forcing Netizens to agree with some very heavy-handed policies in the process. From NSI's perspective, they have built a business around registering domain names, and they have built certain Intellectual Property rights in their client information and in their brands. For ICANN to claim superior rights on behalf of the "public" is simply an attempt to confiscate their property without just compensation. NSI's version of competition involves new TLDs being introduced by ICANN, with competition between TLDs based on price and service as the result. This, in a nutshell, describes the public fight. And it highlights two very different futures for the Internet. In one, ICANN owns/controls the assets underlying the Internet -- the domain names, the IP addresses, and the protocol numbers. This can be equated with a top-down, regula- tory approach to Internet Governance. In the other, private ownership/control is coordinated through a "consent of the governed" approach to Internet governance. Individuals and organizations continue to own their respective Internet resources, and *choose* to interconnect based upon rules that are derived from a bottom-up consensus process. That's what this debated comes down to -- public ownership vs. ownership, Socialism vs. Capitalism, the rights of the state vs. the rights of the individual -- and it's not like we haven't explored these concepts before! In many ways, the virtual world is simply a reflection of our real world. Attempts to bring order to the chaos of cyberspace are exactly the same as attempts to bring order to the real world. The Internet is the Internet because it embraces certain concepts -- freedom, private ownership, personal choice. The decisions we are about to make may change all of this. Let's hope we choose wisely. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's hope we are given a chance to choose at all ... but I do not think we will be. I do not think Internet Society/ICANN is going to ever ask community opinion on anything to do with our future. Its not their style. I'll grant you, not every netizen is competent to participate in the decision-making, and there are a large number who don't even care. But you'd think they might have at least opened a single Usenet group for discussion, gave a very well publicized web site address where a synopsis of the whole situation could be followed, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:10:23 EDT From: Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: So What are Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson up to Now? Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > ... Esther Dyson had wished you didn't see.' But alas, now it is > going to be all over the net, so you can draw your own conclusions > from the correspondence, and Gordon Cook's annotations. Given Gordon Cook's well-known loserhood I think it unlikely that any useful conclusions can be drawn. I would put him in the same category as Jim Flaming^WFleming (and did, for that matter: I send mail from, to, or CC'd to both directly to /dev/null). Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would be reluctant to send anyone -- other than straight spam from well-known spam sources -- to /dev/null without at least glancing at it. That may be cutting off your nose just to spite your face. Even dumb people, or people who flame a lot say important things now and then. But, suit yourself if you do not want to read any of it or have to think about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Mansfield Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 02:52:03 GMT Joseph Wineburgh wrote: > One inconsistency, though between what you got out of them and what I > got. They stated the charge was only increasing from $3 and change to > $5 and change -- which differs with the $21 they quoted you. The hours > they quoted are the same -- from 20 to 8. I also inquired as to the > additional minute charges and they stated that they were to remain at > 1c/min. after the 8 hours. First Remark: Bell Atlantic did NOT quote the $21 for the "Selective Calling Plan". Their marketeers are much smarter. They only quoted the inrease of the "basic monthly charge" (sic) from $1.36 to $3.36. I had to do the calculation MYSELF using the "hidden" minute data: Before Now Basic Monthly Charge 1.36 3.36 Central Office Charge 0.63 0.63 20 Hour Charge 0.00 17.28 [ = (20 - 8) x 60 min x $0.024 / min ] Total 1.99 21.27 New Price / Old Price = 21.27 / 1.99 = 10.68, more than TEN times higher!!! Bell Atlantic marketeers (correctly) guessed that most customers would not bother to calculate the HUGE additional cost, $17.28, which results from the DECREASE of the allowable hours from 20 down to 8. Second Remark The rate thet they quoted for the SHORTEST distance (1-10 miles) was 2.4c/min for each additional minute after the first 8 hourts. Who stated that the additional minute charges are 1c/min after the eight hours? They either misquoted it or they lied. You may want to obtain this quote from them in WRITING and then hold them to their written word. Mike ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Ever Seen 999-888-7777? Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 04:40:58 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net While monitoring call setup traffic at our location, we were somewhat surprised to see several inbound calls with the Q.931 calling number set to 999-888-7777. This number was sent by the CO to the PBX confirmed. All my sources tell me this is a bogus number that could have resulted from a mis-translation in the CO (U.S. West in the southwest) or was in fact altered by persons or equipment unknown during the call setup process. None of these sources has actually seen this exact sequence before. My first question is has anyone come across this number as a factory default for LEC or IXC equipment in the past, or perhaps as a test number used by switch techs for debugging purposes? Secondly, can someone possibly explain in more detail the mis-translation suggestion I received? Thanks in advance, John S. Maddaus Merlin Communication Systems Telecom Fraud and Security Consulting jmaddaus@usa.net ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 02 Sep 1999 05:18:41 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Echelon Laren Weinstein counters the propaganda by stating: > As for the actual issue of what/how much is actually being monitored I believe it is a well known fact that NSA monitors the cross-Oceanic cables (on any calls coming from the US to a foreign country and any calls coming from a foreign country to the US.) From my vacation house in West Virginia,I can see the huge radar dishes near Sugar Grove which are one of the reported monitoring stations of the Echelon project. Those dishes are pointed to the EAST (not to the south as I would expect for Geosynchronous satellite monitoring). The Sugar Grove station is the "Naval Security Activity" group by the posted signs. And (annoyingly) there isn't any cell phone coverage for a couple of miles north and south of the base and antenna installation (analog or digital). Once I get up on top of the mountains above the station, I can pick up analog coverage. That's the sum of what I know. There is more that I have read, but do you believe all you read? 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: Darryl Smith Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 17:49:48 +1000 Subject: Re: Echelon G'Day, > Greetings. The report regarding "Echelon" cited in a recent TELECOM > Digest (claiming that all e-mail, fax, and telephone communications in > Europe are monitored) has been floating around for awhile. There are > a number of reasons to suspect its level of accuracy. Yes, but Australia has oficially acknowledged that it does exist. Or at least there are newspaper reports stating that australia oficially acknowledges that it does exist ... Anyway from Australia and New Zealand you can monitor the downlink communications from maybe 1/2 to 2/3 of the world. Darryl Sydney, Australia ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Cable vrs. DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 01:01:14 GMT On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:04:00 GMT, satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) wrote: > So your assertion that "with DSL ... [y]ou share the pipe with all > your neighbors" is mostly incorrect. You only share the ATM network, Pipes is pipes. ;>) ------------------------------ From: Algappan Subramania Subject: Next Generation Enterprises Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 22:26:23 -0400 Organization: University at Buffalo Reply-To: as23@acsu.buffalo.edu Dear Colleague: Greetings. We wish to bring to your attention a conference on next generation enterprises that SUNY Buffalo and IEEE Computer Society will be jointly presenting on April 28-29, 2000. We invite you to come to Buffalo and participate in the conference. You are invited to submit papers to the conference. Please refer to the conference website for more details and the Call for Papers. We summarize some of the highlights of the conference including the conference website address below. Please do get in touch with us if you have any questions. Best Regards R. Ramesh & H.R. Rao (SUNY, Buffalo) & Gabriel Silberman (IBM, Toronto) General Co-Chairs: AIWoRC 2000 ****************** CALL FOR PAPERS ****************** SUNY at Buffalo & IEEE Computer Society Present AIWoRC'00 : An Academia/Industry Working Conference on Research Challenges CONFERENCE THEME : Next Generation Enterprises: Virtual Organizations and Pervasive/Mobile Technologies DATE & VENUE : APRIL 28 - 29, 2000, BUFFALO, NY CONFERENCE WEB-SITE: http://www.som.buffalo.edu/isinterface/AIWORC/ IN COOPERATION WITH : ACM (SIGMOBILE), INFORMS, Association for Information Systems (AIS), itech, and Information Systems Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation (published by Kluwer) CORPORATE SPONSORS: Bell Atlantic, Sun Microsystems, Empire State Development, Delaware North Companies and IBM Center for Advanced Studies, Canada CONFERENCE KEYNOTES: Dr. Patrick Bergmans: Director, Xerox Research Centre, Europe and Professor of Computer Science, University of Gent, Belgium Dr. Pallab Chatterjee: Senior VP and CIO, Texas Instruments and Member, National Academy of Engineering Dr. John Gage: Chief Science Officer, Sun Microsystems, and Panel Member National Academy of Sciences Dr. Kevin Kahn: Intel Fellow and Director Intel Architecture Labs IMPORTANT DATES: November 1, 1999: Submission of a brief abstract December 1, 1999: Paper and tutorial submissions January 15, 2000: Author Notification February 15, 2000: Camera-ready copy SUBMISSIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO: Professor R. Ramesh General Co-Chair - AIWoRC'00 School of Management SUNY at Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14260 Phone: (716) 645-3245 Fax: (716) 645-6117 E-mail: rramesh@acsu.buffalo.edu ------------------------------ From: info@stockseekers.com Subject: Last Laugh! Hidden Cameras in Bathrooms and More! Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 02:52:44 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After the evening full of debate and hostility we've experienced, I thought the following would do us all some good. Robert has an exciting web site he wants us to visit. PAT] Hey whats up, this is Robert. About three3 months ago I started three hidden camera sites, for two reasons. 1: To prove that I could put a camera anywhere I wanted to; 2: To prove that people wanted to see this type of material. Well, the success of these sites has been great. We have signed up OVER 500 members and each site has had OVER 780,000 visitors in just three months! And with all that we have only three membership cancellations! I think our record speaks for itself, but dont take my work for it ... try one or all for your self. Hidden Pix http://www.hiddenpix.net Hidden Cams http://www.hiddencams.net Real Hidden Cams http://www.realhiddencams.com Due to recent legal changes I was forced to remove the free tour area from the sites but I have enclosed a small sample of of the material you will get as a member. All sites contain 100% original material. Best, Robert [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry Robert, I am not able to show the sort of picture you sent along as an example of your work; it won't fit in well in this family-oriented Digest. Are you sure it was for legal reasons that you got rid of your free samples, or because there were too many people showing up for a free peek that would not stick around long enough to hand over their credit card number? Oh, Robert ... what do you think about all the commotions on the net lately regarding the allegations against ICANN and the counter- charges leveled at NSI? Exciting to read, isn't it! Not as exciting I am sure as your perfectly divine web site, but then not everyone would have the sophistication and ability to maintain a site like yours. Who wants to bother with a bunch of old boring email and memos when they could be watching guys doing 'it' who they thought they were in secret. But you have a good time with your web site while it lasts; who knows, in six months or a year it might be gone completely the same as this one and others that do not meet the requirements for the net of the future. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #366 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 2 16:43:32 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA22193; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:43:32 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909022043.QAA22193@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #367 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Sep 99 16:43:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 367 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers (David Esan) Re: The Net's First Civil War (Greg Skinner) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Brent Laminack) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Bruce Wilson) Re: Ever Seen 999-888-7777? (David Charles) Multi Phone List Dialer (ktjensen@juno.com) Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) (Steven) Re: Bell System Property (L. Winson) Teletype Plant Torn Down (L. Winson) Wireline/Landline to Wireless Migration (Baratunde Thurston) Re: Good Voice Server to Use With Siemens PBX? (Chris) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Joseph Wineburgh) Nicotra Air Pressure Monitoring (Dave Carpentier) Re: GSM in the US (Ed Ellers) Webcams Hit Fox News (Satch) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 16:10:25 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. The discussion of the newcomers changing the net, violating our rules and traditions, reminds me of the reaction of old immigrants to new groups of immigrants. Every group that has moved to another country has been changed by that country, and views newcomers as a threat, and are abhorred by the behavior of the newcomers. In fact, the same behavior was done by the old immigrants when they first arrived, but is conveniently forgotten. For example, thirty years ago, a massive emigration of Soviet Jews began. I began to hear complaints about the new immigrants from the local Jewish population: "They are clannish." This from a group of people who created synagogues and social clubs based on the city or district from which they came. "They are criminals." Conveniently forgetting Bugsy Siegel, Moe Cohen and Meyer Lansky among many others. "They only speak Russian." Particularly funny from people who are conversing in Yiddish. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the trickle of immigrants became a massive flow. And today I hear the old-timers making the same complaints about the newcomers. Strangely, when I go to a party, I can almost date the time of arrival of the immigrants. The longer they are in the US, the more American they become. Clothes, body language, humor, eating habits all change. The same is quite true of the internet. I've been here 16 years, so I qualify as an old-timer. And yet you make the same complaints as immigrants have for years. "They are criminals" -- forgetting that spam has been on the internet for as long as I can remember. Remember the famous "Hello I am a poor student... " letter. It wasn't sent to each mailbox, but I saw it in every single newsgroup I read. "They don't speak our language." Of course not, neither did we. We had to learn what the abbreviations were, invent our own, invent emoticons (which didn't even have a name then). We had to learn that caps were shouting, and rot13 was a good thing for bad things. And just as foreign languages have been enriching for English, so newcomers will enrich the language of the net. The internet will survive, just as America has survived all its immigrants from the Pilgrims on. The exchange of ideas is not dying but increasing. I think the S/N ratio is probably the same as before, its just there is so much more information being passed that it seems like there is more noise. The internet, like America, will change and improve from its immigrants. It will be different than what we knew, but it will be better. David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for a great point of view on this troublesome topic. Your positive thinking is refreshing. PAT ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: The Net's First Civil War Date: 2 Sep 1999 10:20:30 -0700 Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's hope we are given a chance to > choose at all ... but I do not think we will be. I do not think Internet > Society/ICANN is going to ever ask community opinion on anything to > do with our future. Its not their style. I'll grant you, not every > netizen is competent to participate in the decision-making, and there > are a large number who don't even care. But you'd think they might > have at least opened a single Usenet group for discussion, gave a > very well publicized web site address where a synopsis of the whole > situation could be followed, etc. PAT] There are actually several newsgroups and mailing lists where this debacle is being discussed, such as: alt.domain-names.disputes alt.domain-names.registries comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains misc.legal.computing net.internet.dns.names net.internet.dns.policy com-priv domain-policy ifwp nanog Also, ICANN has its own site (www.icann.org) from which you can find mailing lists and web forums that they maintain. gregbo gds at best.com ------------------------------ From: brent@cc.gatech.edu (Brent Laminack) Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Date: 2 Sep 1999 09:21:57 -0400 Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology I just got back from a contracting job at Sprint's new World Headquarters, and thought I'd share some first-hand observations. I was one of the first people in the door of the first group that moved into the first building, known as "building 11". The space is indeed first-class. Two-toned Brick exteriors, windows, etc. The bit about "largely completed" is very wrong, though. The first building is being moved into under a temporary certificate of occupancy. i.e. about half the building is still being finished. Elsewhere on campus I counted no fewer than 12 construction cranes. Some buildings and parking garages haven't gotten above the foundation yet. Sprint apparantly had about 56 separate locations in the greater Kansas City area. Only about 3 of these they actually own. The rest are leased. I don't doubt that even with the class A space, the pay-back time will be very short. The interior of the space is a bit disappointing, though: Huge cube-farms. Dilbert would be proud. Row after row of tan cubicles. It was mind-numbing. Also the first week there the network connection from building 11 to the Sprint data center in Dallas sucked. It has since been much improved. The internal phone system seems to be a large Nortel Meridian. Hope this is of interest. Brent Laminack (brent@cc.gatech.edu) ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 02 Sep 1999 12:15:16 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters There is also tremendous concern -- by employees and local residents -- about the traffic congestion ... now THAT should be a sight to behold. Pat, I think if you check your history books, you'll find that United purchased Sprint, not the other way around as you reference. Bruce Larrabee [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One of them purchased the other, and after various name changes and other things the whole conglomeration became known as 'Sprint'. Regards the traffic at 119th and Nall, you are quite correct. It is a sight to behold, even at this early stage with 'only' a couple thousand people (construction workers and early Sprint employees) coming and going. Cars backed up for what seems like miles in all directions. Imagine when all fourteen thousand of them are there. The small town of Leawood which sits on the east side of Nall Avenue and the larger community of Overland Park which occupies two of the four corners at 119th Street as well as two of the four corners of the intersection at 115th Street have disputed among themselves exactly who should be responsible for what. Sprint put up the money to widen Nall Avenue with an extra lane in each direction. The northbound lane would be on the Leawood side of the street but would require closing or rerouting one of Leawood's streets (I think 117th) which hits Nall (and now stops at that point with the construction of the Sprint thing where it used to go through into Overland Park). I think the town of Leawood feels a bit imposed upon by the whole thing; Overland Park is collecting all the tax money from Sprint and taking all the glory; Leawood is getting all the traffic congestion and the prospect of fourteen thousand people driving down all their side streets trying to avoid the lights at 115th and 119th on Nall. Geographically, physically, Sprint's complex is much closer to Leawood than it is to Overland Park, which spreads out much to the south and west of the Sprint complex; it sits only across the street from Leawood. PAT] ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 02 Sep 1999 12:56:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Help me out here, Pat. It's been way too long for me to be sure, but it seems that Sprint might've originally been a joint venture between United and GTE, with United taking it over from GTE. (I can't even remember, from the old days of PC Pursuit, what "Sprintnet" was before it became "Sprintnet.") [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am a little fuzzy on the details also. My point was mainly that people think of Sprint as a come-lately entry into long-distance telecom, and that is true, it has been around a quarter century or so. They get to call themselves a century old only because of mergers and buyouts, etc with other firms that are in fact that old. But it sure has come a long way from the days of being the telecom department for the Southern Pacific Railroad, hasn't it, and for that matter, a long way from the days of free modems if you signed up for long distance service. Remember that promotion, and how some guys here were going to sue them when they got cheated on the new toys they were promised? Hey, if any of you who used that promotion are still around and reading this, whatever was the final outcome? PAT] ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: Ever Seen 999-888-7777? Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:09:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , jmaddaus@NO_SPAM. usa.net wrote: > While monitoring call setup traffic at our location, we were somewhat > surprised to see several inbound calls with the Q.931 calling number > set to 999-888-7777. This number was sent by the CO to the PBX > confirmed. All my sources tell me this is a bogus number that could > have resulted from a mis-translation in the CO (U.S. West in the > southwest) or was in fact altered by persons or equipment unknown > during the call setup process. None of these sources has actually > seen this exact sequence before. My first question is has anyone come > across this number as a factory default for LEC or IXC equipment in > the past, or perhaps as a test number used by switch techs for > debugging purposes? Secondly, can someone possibly explain in more > detail the mis-translation suggestion I received? As it has been confirmed that the number was sent by the CO I presume that there is a protocol trace showing it available. This could give more information about the source of the number. The Q.931 calling party number IE contains a number of fields in addition to the number digit, including Screening indicator, Numbering plan identifier and type of number. If the screening indicator indicates "user-provided, not screened" or "user provided, verified and failed" then the number was sent by an ISDN PABX (or terminal) and may be incorrect -- in these cases the misconfiguration is in the originating PABX. Obviouisly in this case it would be necessary to know the real source of the calls to take this further. If, however, it indicates "user provided, verified and passed" or "network provided" then the public network at the originating end should ensure its accuracy. One guess as to a possible cause if it is "network provided" is that the calls originate at a PABX which is sending a Calling party number that is failing screening by the public network; in this case according to some specifications the network should pass on the default number for the access (which would normally be the main number). Possibly someone has misinterprated this as "a default number" and configured an obviously wrong one, or has simply forgotten to configure it. It may also be useful to check the Numbering plan ID and Type of number fields to ensure that the number is not in a different numbering plan (e.g. private), although for such a distinctive number I would think this unlikely. David Charles ------------------------------ From: ktjensen@juno.com Subject: Multi Phone List Dialer Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:50:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I have a few questions about software I am searching for. I have tried many products but none will do this. It sounds like a standard telemarketing, message reminding type application so I wonder why it just has not been implemented: 1. I have a non-voice modem. I would like to just dial and then pick up the phone line (like you can do with the built in phone dialer for Windows 95). 2. I need a software product that allows import and export of Address Book data? I am trying to use the Windows standard Address Books as much as possible, with the phone data. 3. I need to keep dialing a list of phone numbers and skip if either no answer or busy, then loop around and start again until I have contacted all persons on the list. 4. If I need a Voice Modem can you suggest a brand that works well? 5. I need to cause the software to dial, then if answered by a voice, to leave a voice message, after no sound is heard for two or three seconds? Maybe I need a macro tool that does this, but I would rather use a software that can do this already. ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Domain Names (was Re: Son of 'Name That Domain' Contest) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:31:14 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer How many of these hijacked domain are there? Who makes the defintive decision on them? Is it NSI, do they have to act on a court order? Why doesn't someone just setup their own DNS to replace the one that has been immorally tampered with. Granted few people would use it at first, but as more people because aware of the problem they might consider switching. Steven In article , jloo@polaris.umuc.edu says: > In article TELECOM Digest Editor > noted in response: >> For the information of Jonathan Loo and others who seem to feel that >> if a company has a trademark or copyright all they have to do is just >> shut down someone else's website and take the name away from them, you >> cannot just take someone's name like that. > They cannot take over the domain *unless* the trademark was registered > *before* the domain name was registered, if I recall correctly. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Bell System Property Date: 2 Sep 1999 17:07:06 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS I understand the Princess phone keychains are now a collectible. They did make lots of them over the years and not just at the introduction of the set. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: 2 Sep 1999 17:22:10 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Pat, I picked this up from alt.folklore.computers . Perhaps you could add some comments to it since you're in the area ... > During the past several weeks, most of the remaining portions of the > Teletype factory on Touhy Avenue in Skokie IL have been demolished; these > portions of the factory were incorporated into the Village Crossing > shopping center, and were used as an indoor service court for the stores, > and as parking ... [snip] (There was an extensive discussion about the Teletype ASR 33 in that newsgroup recently, too, including comments on maintenance and hooking it up to a modern computer.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am no longer in the area, but when I was in the area I was in the Village Crossing shopping center on various occassions, and years before Village Crossing I had been in the Teletype complex. It was sad to see it go, and I can tell you that in the 1960's and 1970's no one ever would have imagined the time would come when there would not be Teletype; neither would there be a Bell System or a Western Union. Mark Cuccia has collected a lot of history on Teletype and its role in telephony in the first half of the century. Some of it is in the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Baratunde Thurston Subject: Wireline/Landline to Wireless Migration Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 18:10:10 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I am looking for recent (past four months) news, commentary, reports and other info on the migration of phone use from wireline to wireless. Any suggested sources, websites, editorials, etc? Thanks, BRT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You might begin with the search engines located at http://telecom-digest.org/search where you will find a few resources for searching not only the back archives of this Digest but numerous other web resources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Good Voice Server to Use With Siemens PBX? Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:10:47 -0500 Organization: Clear Channel-Dallas (KDMX/KEGL) Engineering Department Get Siemens Phonemail (made originally by ROLM) ... it can't be beat and SHOULD work with the 100E .. if Siemens is on the ball. Chris Frederic Faure wrote: > We're located in Europe, and currently use a Siemens 100E/118 ISDN, > along with a Discophone 3000 MV Junior that handles up to two > simultaneous access to the voice server. While the PBX works great, > the voice server is unreliable (some msgs left in a user's voice > mailbox aren't accessible, the date when msg are left is stimes wrong, > etc.) > Are there good brands of voice servers you could recommend? What about > PC-based + Dialogic-type voice card solutions? ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:42:38 -0400 I see now where you got the $21.27 from. I didn't think of it that way, since I don't use more than maybe an hour or two for the month (unless I'm working from home, in which case the company picks up the tab). That is a rip-off! Screw them -- Now I'll just put my LD on for local toll as well! The issue about the 1 or 2.4c/min after running over the 8 or 20 hours; Now it IS mileage sensitive in that they look at how far the 'area' you have selective calling to is from your CO (didn't used to be -- that's where the penny a minute came from -- they were just yes-sirring me as I foolishly asked a leading question). The range I got through my follow-up call was anywhere from 4.8/min (Netcong to Morristown) on down to 2.4c/min (Netcong to Ramsey). So you are correct that they did not give me the correct info, although I have NO confidence that the info they just gave me on my follow-up call was correct, but it doesn't really matter at this point. Interesting note -- The gal I just spoke with out of the Tennessee call center (love the accent) said that my plan was NOT cancelled, even though that's what I called to do yesterday! What a bunch of screwballs!!! Again -- take a look at the 'unlimited' packages -- for $50 you get the whole LATA! If I used the phone that much, that's the plan I'd have. BTW - If you do end up filing suit, let me know, someone I know (who does not get the Digest) was just as outraged (if not more so) with the increase. #JOE ------------------------------ From: Dave Carpentier" Subject: Nicotra Air Pressure Monitoring Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:22:06 -0400 Organization: Thunder Bay Internet As part of my job duties at a local telco, I eng/program/install devices related to the Nictotra Systemi "Nida" remote air pressure monitoring system for telecom cables. I'm looking forward to contact with anyone else involved in this. (For the curious, the Nida system uses field mounted sensors to measure air pressure in underground telecom cables -- usually 300pr and up in our case -- and triggers alarms/etc when the air pressure drops below a set amount, signifying a leak in the cable, with the intention of repairing the problem before customer outages.) Dave ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: GSM in the US Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:00:46 -0400 Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) wrote: > Keeping one's existing phone is the least of it. The fact is with GSM, > the phone is the SIM card. What most cell phones are is simply a > handset with GSM. You can interchange handsets, and you still have the > same "phone", just like changing handsets at your house still is the > same "phone." That's fine within a country -- it means that you can switch phones by moving the SIM card, rather than having to call customer service, though this seems a dubious advantage to me. But when you go to Europe (or elsewhere outside North America) you still can't use the same GSM phone that you use here, unless you happen to have bought a special phone that works on the bands in use in the country you're visiting (*and* has regulatory approval in that country, don't forget). That means that the SIM card is only usable if you buy or lease a phone in that country to put the card in. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 14:49:44 GMT From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Subject: Webcams Hit Fox News Organization: SBC Internet Services After seeing your post, Pat, about Robert's web site, I thought it would be interesting to the group here to know that Fox News had one of their "debates" between a Web Cam "amateur" and her sponsor and a a couple of stuffed shirts (and bras). Lively debate in the typical Fox News free-for-all format that yields lots of smoke and flame but not much else. When Fox plays up the issue for entertainment value, it's hit the mainstream, I believe. The result of the debate? What you'd expect: nothing. _____ __/satch\___________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Doesn't Robert have a great website! I know the people he victimized -- although he would probably prefer we use some other word to describe it -- probably all had a great laugh out of it also when they found out later, possibly via Robert's website, that someone had been watching them. Unfortunate, isn't it that we can't even go to the bathroom in peace and quiet any longer without first having to inspect all the air ducts, tiny cracks in the wall and places where the plumbing pipes enter the room to be sure an all-seeing electronic eye is not hidden there somewhere. A bit later today, I have another special mailing going out with more interesting details about ICANN/ISOC and their plans for the net of the future. Mike Roberts wrote a vigorous protest to it all which he sent to Gordon Cook, so to show that the email presented yesterday was not falsified or taken out of context, today I will present the entire letters. Be sure and have them handy if you wish to respond directly to Mr. Roberts. You'll have to do it that way since he said he would not reply in Gordon Cook's forum. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #367 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 3 03:26:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA13889; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:26:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909030726.DAA13889@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #368 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Sep 99 03:26:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 368 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Alameda County's 911 Problem (Tad Cook) Local Loop Responsibilities (kstone@cohesive.com) 999-888-7777 (?) and NANP-Expansion (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Ever Seen 999-888-7777? (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Echelon (David Wagner) Re: Echelon (Lauren Weinstein) Re: VTech DSS (takmel@stratos.net) Re: Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo (Caller ID) Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Alameda County's 911 Problem Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:42:31 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Thursday, September 2, 1999, in the San Jose Mercury News Alameda County's 911 Problem Officials Take Steps to Decrease Pick-up Time By Renee Koury Mercury News Staff Writer A NEW Alameda County Grand Jury report criticizes the county's emergency medical response system for what it calls "extreme" delays in picking up 911 calls. In a survey of 47 counties in California last January, Alameda County posted the longest answering time for 911 calls. Here are questions and answers about the survey and the county's response. Q Who did the survey and what did it find? A The survey by Public Safety Network of Oxnard tallied the time it took dispatchers to answer all 911 calls in January in 47 counties that use Pacific Bell phone service, including Alameda County. For statistical purposes, they counted only 90 percent of the calls as being representative. In Alameda County, the survey found that of about 46,000 calls to 911 in January, 90 percent were answered within 25 seconds of when the phone began to ring -- the worst rating of all the counties. Q Does that mean all calls took 25 seconds to answer? A No. It only means that all calls fell within a 25-second range. Q Is 25 seconds really so long? What did the grand jury say about it? A The grand jury took it very seriously. Though calls were answered within 25 seconds, the state guideline for medical emergencies is just 10 seconds. A few seconds can make a difference of life or death in some medical emergencies such as heart attacks, said Karen Friedman, the grand juror who chaired the jury's health committee. The jurors were also concerned because Alameda County was the worst in the state. The grand jury said: "It is obvious that delays in Alameda County are extreme, unacceptable and should be decreased." Q How much worse was Alameda County than the other counties? A First, the report didn't name the other counties, identifying them only with numbers. But the county with the second-worst rating posted a 19-second answer time for 911 calls. Most counties did better. In fact, only four counties posted delays above 12 seconds, including Alameda County, and 18 were under the 10 seconds recommended by the state. Q Has the system been monitored since the January survey? A Yes, Alameda County showed an improvement in March when 911 calls were answered within 18 seconds, the second worst in the state. Q Is the 911 response time equal for all parts of the county? A No. Each city and the unincorporated areas have their own 911 answering system, which some officials say may be part of the problem. Officials suspect the poor rating may be because of the fact that Oakland has had problems with under-staffing of its police dispatch center and phones at times weren't being answered as promptly as desired. Officials say that could have brought down the rating for the whole county. Q Is it possible to find out what the response time is in my city? A Cities report they don't have their own statistics, though some have done spot surveys of other aspects of emergency calls, such as how long it takes for an ambulance to get dispatched once a call is received. In Fremont, a dispatcher's survey found that during a one-year period, the average time between when a 911 medical call was answered and the time the fire station bells were ringing for a paramedic was just 8.8 seconds. Q What happens when you call 911? A In an unincorporated area, the sheriff's department answers. In most cities, including Fremont and Oakland, the call goes to the police department's dispatch center which sends the call to the fire department if it's a fire or medical emergency. The fire department alerts an ambulance company while it sends out paramedics in a medical case. Union City contracts to use Fremont's system and Newark has one dispatch center for police, fire and paramedics. Q Did the grand jury determine why there can be a wait for getting a 911 answer? A Not exactly. But the jurors did identify some possible weaknesses. They noted that there are 18 different "answering points" in Alameda County, meaning that there are 18 different dispatch centers where 911 calls go, generally one for each city and the unincorporated areas. The jurors noted there is "no single authority or oversight" for the dispatch centers, "no agreed-upon standards for handling medical emergency calls by dispatchers" and "very limited data on the total time of a 911 call." The county's Emergency Medical Services Agency lacks authority over the individual cities' primary 911 call centers. Q Is the county taking any action? A Yes. The county's Emergency Medical Services Agency is proposing to hire Public Safety Network of Oxnard to assess the situation throughout the county, including how long it takes between the time of the 911 calls and the time help arrives. Such a report would break out how long it takes for each of the county's 911 dispatch centers to answer the phone, allowing officials to narrow down where there might be problems. The county is also looking at the feasibility of establishing three regional dispatch centers to handle all fire and medical calls so that these won't have to be filtered first by police departments. And the county must file a response to the grand jury's findings by the end of October. Q What did the grand jury recommend? A That the county contract with an independent agency to collect and evaluate data on the total time of 911 calls, that the county appoint a "911 Czar" to have authority over the county's dispatch systems, and that the city of Oakland work on decreasing its response times to conform to the state's 10-second guideline. Contact Renee Koury at rkoury@sjmercury.com or (510) 839-5321. ------------------------------ From: kstone@cohesive.com Subject: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 03:15:24 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Reply-To: kstone@cohesive.com The nature of my work is such my employer has generously offered to install a T1 to my home for telecommuting. The rub however is that I have already inspected the premise wiring and there only two pairs being fed to the house. For the T1 and the house phone I need at least one more pair. Who bears the cost of bringing the additional pair in from the street the LEC (GTE) or the customer. I have no problem trenching to the street if necessary but I doubt if I can lay cable to the nearest aggregation point wherever it is. Any thoughts appreciated. Kevin Stone [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe it is always the responsibility of the telco to provide the necessary wiring at least up to the point of demarc, wherever that be on the side of your house, in the basement, etc. However, the situation may not be nearly as dire as you describe it. Often times an experienced technician can find a pair or two or three in a cable nearby with no trouble at all. I am reminded of a case of my own a few years ago. Two of the three phone lines at the premises were full of static; in terrible condition. The third was okay. A telco guy is out there looking at it and says to me, 'those pairs are not much good, but there are not any other spare pairs in the cable. I am going to call the 'cable guys' and have them look at it. ('cable guy' meaning some other telco outside plant worker). I asked him how long would the service be out. "I dunno," he said, "they will come by later and look at it." I of course envision this long, somewhat major project of putting in new lines. About two hours later, a different phone guy sticks his head in the door and says, "well, you should be working now". And I was ... I asked him how it got fixed so quickly, and his response was, more or less, "well, about a block down the street is an 'arial' and I took the 'drop' from there and opened the 'multiples' in the basement of (address of a store on the corner) and swapped you over there ..." I guess I looked a bit wide-eyed in amazement at his ready explanation, and he saw my expression. He added, "see, you are not a phone man for twenty years like me, or you would have known about that ... I can always find a pair when I want one ..." and he proceeded to describe how he had went up on the 'arial' (the telephone pole about a block away), swapped something there, then at the place on the corner took me off of 'the underground' and put me on the pole. "Then they swapped you out in the office when I c alled them and told them to ..." This guy happened to know I was the editor of this Digest and he chided me in a kidding way saying, "You and those readers of yours, you just *think* you know telephones. Me, I am a telephone man, for twenty years now." Then to rub it in a little he added, "let's face it, a real man would know how to find a couple of spare pairs in the cable when he needed them ..." This guy was also a CB radio enthusiast from years earlier and I reminded him we used to say the same thing in essence, that 'a real man would know how to peak his radio and make it sound good instead sounding like pooh ...' He liked that ... He said he had worked first for Illinois Bell, then for awhile for AT&T, and now Ameritech, " ... and I've never left the same office I work out of ... as long as they keep paying me I don't care what they call themselves." I told him he earned his pay that day on my case of trouble. You did not mention how the two pairs you do have coming in now are reaching you, if they come from overhead or underground, etc. If you get the right phone guy out there he will have your third pair up and running in almost no time. If it is underound, they may 'snake' through the existing conduit; if it is overhead on a pole they will do something else. Is telco suggesting to you there is 'nothing they can do' or that they want you to dig a hole for them, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 17:16:34 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 999-888-7777 (?) and NANP-Expansion FYI, there presently can be _NO_ such NANP ten-digit number 999-888-7777, or for that matter, there is _NO_ ten-digit NANP number of the N9X-NXX-xxxx format. There are _NO_ such three-digit area codes with a middle digit of '9'. That N9X format is being "reserved" for future expansion of the ten-digit format of the NANP, which some say might be necessary by 2007! Expansion plans are still being discussed by the various industry forums and have _NOT_ been finalized yet. And, from what I see being discussed, I do _NOT_ like many of the options. I just don't see how the NANP can "gracefully" expand its numbering capability from virtually all of the various plans being discussed by the "INC". James Bellaire first posted what I think would be the MOST LOGICAL method of expanding the capacity of the NANP (going to a 4-digit NPA code) for an eleven-digit NANP number (twelve digits if you include the leading +1 country-code for World-Zone-1, the country code of the NANP) - James first explained it here in TELECOM Digest about two or three years ago. Linc Madison has expanded on what James Bellaire proposed... see Linc's proposal at his webpage: http://www.lincMad.com/future.html Both James Bellaire and Linc Madison's plans are based on the fact that N9X is reserved for "future (but not yet finalized) expansion" of the NANP, and an expansion which would include a permissive dialing period... by expanding the current area codes from three-digits to four-digits, by INSERTING the '9' between the current first and second digits of the current three-digit area codes: 212 for NYCity would become 2912 312 for Chicago would become 3912 504 for New Orleans would become 5904 225 for Baton Rouge would become 2925 416 for Toronto would become 4916 etc. Since the N9X ranges of codes are _NOT_ being assigned, there would be no "presently" existing three-digit 291, 391, 590, 292, 491, etc. codes that the expanded four-digit codes would conflict with. Also, there would be a period of permissive dialing (six-months? one-year? longer?) where one could be reached with either the old NPA code (212 for New York City), as well as with the expanded NPA code (2912). When the expanded format would become MANDATORY, then there would be available ten possible 212X four-digit area codes available for assignment. BUT REMEMBER, all of the above is JUST A THEORY, since the industry still hasn't finalized anything. But, IMO (and in others' opinions, TOO), this appears to be the most LOGICAL AND GRACEFUL method of expanding the NANP number. 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: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com (Mark Brukhartz) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 20:31:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Ever Seen 999-888-7777? Ameritech does not rigorously check calling numbers delivered over ISDN PRIs. Unless they began checking within the last three years. When placing outside calls, our Meridian PBX passes the number of the calling extension to Ameritech. Due to a software bug, our Meridian PBX generated unassigned numbers for calls placed from internal-only extensions. Ameritech's Lucent 5ESS switch accepted the bogus numbers and passed them on to the call recipients. I discovered this by calling home from a storeroom telephone. My home caller ID showed the area code and exchange of my office and internal extension of the storeroom telephone. Most curiously, the caller name was of another firm! The number belonged to a staff attorney at a car rental company. The Lucent 5ESS was probably running current software when I saw this behavior. It's the switch serving the Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs Indian Hill facility in Naperville, Illinois. The 5ESS switch was and still is under development at that facility. We no longer have internal-only extensions from which to place calls, and we have upgraded our PBX software to a version which may fix the unassigned calling number bug. I can no longer easily test Ameritech. The 5ESS software will certainly be upgraded to fix this once some thief uses it for fraudulent purposes. One could, for example, place modem calls to sites which validate calling number ID, or enable new charge cards through automated "call from your home number" systems. Mark ------------------------------ From: David Wagner Subject: Re: Echelon Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:27:35 +0000 In article , Lauren Weinstein wrote: > Greetings. The report regarding "Echelon" cited in a recent TELECOM > Digest (claiming that all e-mail, fax, and telephone communications in > Europe are monitored) has been floating around for awhile. There are > a number of reasons to suspect its level of accuracy. > First off, it was not really a technical report -- it largely restated > assertions and rumors heard from other often unsubstantiated sources. I respectfully disagree. Much of what is in the report is surprisingly well substantiated, and all in all, I found the report to be a conservative statement of the likely technical capabilities of Echelon. For much recent information on Echelon that substantiates the Echelon report, see, e.g., _Secret Power_, _Spycatcher_, the ABC trial, etc. Also, there have been other "leaks" that substantiate the report, including the inadvertent leak that the telephone companies in Britain cooperate with the GCHQ, with massive lines running from major telephone switching centers to the GCHQ carrying copies of interesting traffic. And so on. There are (at least) two important areas of disagreement that do remain amongst Echelon-watchers: (1) Does the NSA use voice recognition? (2) How seriously does the NSA take the prohibition on intercepting data on US citizens? In both areas, the report was unexpectedly conservative: it reported (IMHO) only what it could provide strong evidence for. For instance, the report did _not_ claim that the NSA has voice recognition capability, even though there is some credible evidence that they do (see, e.g., Mike Frost's revelations). (And even if the NSA doesn't have voice recognition, they probably have speaker recognition.) Regarding interception of domestic conversations, the agencies (apparently) seem to care most about international traffic, so you should assume that the SIGINT equipment is set up to intercept as much international traffic as possible. Nonetheless, such a setup will still capture large quantities of domestic traffic, and this effect should not be ignored. Also, note that the NSA believes that it is allowed to intercept any calls where at least one participant is a foreigner or on foreign soil, even if the other caller is a US citizen. There have been some serious and credible allegations that the NSA and the GCHQ used to swap information on each other's citizens when necessary, to evade this law. This is an area of some controversy, and again, the report took a more conservative stance here than (IMHO) was strictly necessary. Finally, there are also serious `process and procedure' concerns. When Congress asked the NSA for its interpretation of when _it_ thinks it is allowed to intercept domestic conversations, the NSA refused to answer, claiming attorney-client privilege! I find this telling; some elements at the NSA are clearly doing everything they can to avoid oversight. I feel that there are very legitimate concerns here, and I'm surprised to see them downplayed. Maybe you haven't read some of the more recent sources on Echelon (i.e., post- Puzzle Palace) -- I must admit that they are somewhat hard to find. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Echelon Date: Thu, 02 Sep 99 19:25:05 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein David Wagner writes: > Actually, much of what is in the report is surprisingly well > substantiated, and all in all, I found the report to be a conservative > statement of the likely technical capabilities of Echelon. I disagree. Most of it was a simple rehash of old material which has been around for many years, reworded and spun for maximal political impact, with lots of speculation thrown in (as if they were facts) for good measure. I saw little genuinely new material of any note. > For much recent information on Echelon that substantiates the Echelon > report, see, e.g., _Secret Power_, _Spycatcher_, the ABC trial, etc. > Also, there have been other "leaks" that substantiate the report, > including the inadvertent leak that the telephone companies in Britain > cooperate with the GCHQ, with massive lines running from major telephone > switching centers to the GCHQ carrying copies of interesting traffic. > And so on. These reports all feed off of and quote each other. Their number says nothing whatever about their accuracy. Language like "massive" gets tossed around all the time, with nothing to back it up. However, to the extent that there is monitoring, the key word (which you used) is "interesting"--a far cry from "everything." > e.g., Mike Frost's revelations). (And even if the NSA doesn't have > voice recognition, they probably have speaker recognition.) Given the current state of the art, I'd say that it is reasonable for some limited speech recognition to be done on a keyword trigger basis, but the error rate for untrained speakers in a telephone environment (for other than very limited vocabularies) will tend to be very high. However, it may well be an aid, when deployed on specific, targeted circuits. Again, a far cry from "all communications." > Regarding interception of domestic conversations, the agencies > (apparently) seem to care most about international traffic, so you > should assume that the SIGINT equipment is set up to intercept as much > international traffic as possible. Nonetheless, such a setup will still > capture large quantities of domestic traffic, and this effect should > not be ignored. The only place where there would be a likely "contamination" of international traffic with purely domestic traffic might be in some cases of 3-way/conference calling. Otherwise it's a pretty clearcut distinction, assuming we consider a call between the U.S. and an international destination to be an international call. A purely domestic call, by definition, is one where no party to the call is on foreign soil. > Also, note that the NSA believes that it is allowed to intercept any > calls where at least one participant is a foreigner or on foreign soil, > even if the other caller is a US citizen. Such calls have long been considered to be international calls in the arena under discussion. > Finally, there are also serious `process and procedure' concerns. When > Congress asked the NSA for its interpretation of whether _it_ thinks it is > allowed to intercept domestic conversations, the NSA refused to answer, > claiming attorney-client privilege! I find this telling; some elements > at the NSA are clearly doing everything they can to avoid oversight. This is all old stuff, complicated by the number of national security directives that come into play. In any case, it's a well known aspect of the situation from the past and not new info. > I feel that there are very legitimate concerns here, and I'm surprised > to see you downplaying them. Maybe you haven't read some of the more > recent sources on Echelon (i.e., post- Puzzle Palace); I must admit that > they are somewhat hard to find. I do manage to keep pretty well up-to-date. A lot of what's floating around is just fantasyland material that is politically skewed -- in fact most of it is politically spun, one way or the other. That doesn't change the actual underlying facts, however. My point was that the Echelon report is mainly a rehash of a lot of old information and accusations, some of which have long been known to be true, and a great deal of which are just blown out of proportion for clearly political purposes within the European Union. It's my belief that there are enough new, serious, immediate privacy issues to deal with without being diverted by political rhetoric trying to masquerade as new revelations. I'd be glad to continue this discussion over in the PRIVACY Forum ... --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: NOtakmel@stratos.netSPAM Subject: Re: VTech DSS Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:11:07 GMT Organization: NetSet Internet Services, Inc. On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:50:00 GMT, Dave O'Shea wrote: > Sound quality is good, range is as good as any 900mhz system I've > used. They also replaced a handset that I dropped, gratis. My only > gripe is that the buttons are smallish, and the volume level isn't > quite up to par in a noisy environment. Sorry for the late reply and thanks for your info. I went ahead and bought VT-1721 but returned it. I might have gotten a bad unit but it had this annoying noise in the background that sounded like someone else speaking. I'll look around. FWIW, is DSS good *only* for *range* or for *security and range?* ------------------------------ From: Caller ID Subject: Re: Call Routing Using Caller ID - Like the Yo-Yo Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:14:21 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Nishka wrote: > I was all set to try and track down a Yo-Yo for a poor man's call > routing system. Unforunately the people who made the Yoyo discontinued > it. I think the product was before its time. Take a look at some of the programs on my site -- something like Katalina's VoiceGuide will probably do more tha you want. Alastair Computer Caller ID FAQ : http://www.cloud9.u-net.com/callerid.htm ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:52:31 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Joseph Wineburgh wrote: > If you were using modems with 'leased line' jacks, or a 'line > simulator' in between the modems which supplies voltage, ringing, > etc. this might work. Proctor & Associates makes several line simulators that will give standard ringing, dialtone and even CID on one model. You scan see them at www.proctorinc.com, or call 425-881-7000. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #368 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 3 05:15:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA17475; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:15:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 05:15:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909030915.FAA17475@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #369 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Sep 99 05:15:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 369 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls! (Peter Corlett) Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General (Tony Toews) Re: Call Notes Won't Record Forwarded Calls (Herb Stein) Re: Cable vrs. DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) (Herb Stein) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Dan Srebnick) Re: The Net's First Civil War (Mark Crispin) Re: The Net's First Civil War (J.F. Mezei) Business Week Breaks Silence on ICANN (Jay Fenello) Iridium Names Restructuring Team, CFO Resigns (Monty Solomon) Re: Bell System Property (Michael Muderick) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Herb Stein) Hotmail Hackers (Monty Solomon) Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines (Karl Pospisek) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: My Phone Makes False 911 Calls! Date: 2 Sep 1999 19:52:58 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal Tad Cook wrote: [ Pulse dialling ] > Actually it should be a total time per pulse of 100 ms (10 pps) with > approximately 60% break, 40% make. The exchange doesn't seem to care too much, as long as the signalling isn't ambiguous. I've always lived in cities rather than rural areas, so my phone lines are usually clear and don't have to go through miles of rotting copper. (My V90 modem typically claims over 50k for connections, for example.) So, as far as I'm concerned, the capacitance and resistance of the line is a lot better than the exchange is designed for, and thus can play things out of spec, knowing that the exchange expects skewed signals. For example, a friend modified his telephone to send faster pulses. He got it up to 20Hz before the switch complained. The break/make ratio doesn't seem to matter too much either. I'm sure people can't manage exactly 60/40 when tapdialling, for example, but it still works. I recall being at the BT Museum in London, the day before it closed, where I got to play with their restored equipment. The centrepiece was a working Strowger exchange, with various restored telephones attached to it which could call each other, or call various recorded lines. For example, dialling 846 ("TIM") gave a recorded message on the history of the Speaking Clock. Another exhibit was a battered, and slightly broken A/B payphone. In good tradition of British phoneboxes, the cashbox had been broken into and emptied. It was not however full of postcards offering "personal services", unlike every other phonebox in London. I tried to make a call. It demanded 2d. This was a problem, since 2d coins left circulation about 30 years ago. Then I had flasbacks to various COGs on uk.telecom, and tapdialled 846. Hey presto, the Speaking Clock. At last, I could do some phreaking and not feel guilty about it. Apparently the Strowger switch makes a different sound when a call has been tapdialled against being dialled mechanically, although I couldn't hear this because the payphone screened me from the exchange sound. The exchange workers would know which payphone you were in and could act appropriately if need be. ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 05:59:54 GMT ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus) wrote: > The impressive thing is that DESPITE the unfavorable exchange > rate, Canadian telephone service is still a price-leader in > North America. As well as a population one tenth the size of the U.S in a land mass much larger. Those links between the bigger Canadian cities stretch much longer than the ones down south. Yes the price of long distance is pretty high up in the Yukon, NWT or Nunavut but down below, even in a small town or on Vancouver Island it's pretty darned decent. 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: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Call Notes Won't Record Forwarded Calls Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 03:54:56 GMT In article , Frank Provasek wrote: > Instead of my voice, callers hear "Welcome to Southwestern Bell Call > Notes ... Please enter the number you are calling or redial" The > callers, of course, enter my work number, and are told that there is > no Call Notes account for that number. In any case they cannot leave a > message. That is certainly NOT the case in St. Louis. Calls forwarded from my home line to my cell phone will get picked up by the cells CallNotes. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Cable vrs. DSL (was: The D Stands for Disappointing) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 03:51:49 GMT I'd like to hear Al Varney's opinion on this subject. In article , mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) wrote: > On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:04:00 GMT, satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) > wrote: >> So your assertion that "with DSL ... [y]ou share the pipe with all >> your neighbors" is mostly incorrect. You only share the ATM network, > Pipes is pipes. ;>) Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:24:27 EDT From: Dan Srebnick Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Hi Pat: Regarding the comments on the history of Sprint, I can recall the following. The current Sprint operation can be traced back to a company called US Telecom. I was their customer back in 1987 when they bought Sprint from SPC (?). The new company was known as US Sprint, but used the corporate name United Telecom. Sometime later, the US was dropped and the company formerly known as United Telecom became known as Sprint. Then in the late 80s, Sprint purchased the long distance operations of GTE. United Telecom traded under the ticker symbol UT. Sprint was known for some time by the stock ticker SPRT, but later changed to the ticker symbol FON. I owned some shares of United Telecom and later Sprint, so I'm fairly clear on the details. 73, Dan Srebnick ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: The Net's First Civil War Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:53:31 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Jay Fenello wrote: > From NSI's perspective, they have built a business around registering > domain names, and they have built certain Intellectual Property rights > in their client information and in their brands. For ICANN to claim > superior rights on behalf of the "public" is simply an attempt to > confiscate their property without just compensation. Golly gee, I can still recognize large aspects of NSI's "intellectual property" that originated with the SRI-NIC under Jake Feinler. I also remember when the NIC got transferred to NSI (because they underbid SRI) and the resulting havoc for several months because NSI didn't have a clue as to how to run the NIC. Times have changed. NSI has a clue now, and few people remember the SRI-NIC or have even heard of Jake (one of the true Internet Pioneers and an unsung hero -- anyone know what she's up to these days?). NSI has also made money hand over fist; and its investors can retire in considerable comfort. It's really difficult to feel sorry for them. Nevertheless, the fundamental fact is that .COM, .EDU, .NET, and .ORG were never NSI's property. Nor did NSI create these; they existed for many years before NSI. NSI was contracted to do the registration, and the DNS database is in effect a work for hire. Depending upon the terms of their contract, NSI may be able to claim ownership of the software and tools that they developed; it may be that any other TLD registrars may have to start with the old SRI-NIC software and tools the way NSI did. None of the above is necessarily to bless ICANN; I haven't followed that effort close enough to make a judgment. Rather, it is to point out that I have yet to see anything presented so far that can not be explained away as NSI PR to preserve its monopoly on COM/NET/EDU/ORG and/or loose cannons flaming away. If you wish to make your case, tone down the hyperbole, deal in specifics (vague charges of "heavy handed policies" or "White House corruption" are nothing more than hot air), and stop using obvious propaganda tactics such as quoting excerpts from email out of context surrounded by ten times as much text giving the "correct" interpretation of the quoted text. The salient points in the past couple of messages could have been distilled to a couple of paragraphs without missing any facts from the messages (there *are* missing facts, but not in those messages). Right now, you're doing a great job of making ICANN look good, just because you're making yourself look bad. I'm still listening, but I'm starting to tune out. -- Mark -- * RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. * * Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message. * Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am *not* trying to make NSI come out looking good. It is also an organization badly in need of reform it would seem. But there are some perfectly dreadful problems with ICANN, that, if the organization is given a final blessing or okay by the government will have some very profound and unwanted effects on the net. If NSI is also doing things to expose problems with ICANN they are doing it for purposes of their own agenda. PAT] ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: The Net's First Civil War Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 22:48:51 -0400 I see domain name registrars in the same was as I see the 411 service. Translate a name into a number. Consider the North American phone system, and competition for local service as well as number portability and 800 number administration. Couldn't the model used for the telephone network be used to administer the domain names? Who manages the 800 numbers? When I dial 1-212-555-1212, who is in charge of giving me information? What happens when the subscriber I am looking for isn't signed up with Bell Atlantic but with a competing local service telco? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But therein lies the rub. Directory assistance is not in very good shape these days either. All sorts of companies are providing it, with varying degrees of accuracy. It is more expensive than ever, and less reliable than ever. Do you want to start entering a URL in your browser address line and wind up getting connected to the completely wrong site? It is extremely critical that whoever handles this function handle it well. Regards 800 toll-free directory, maybe Southwestern Bell is still handling it. I know that for many, many years both prior to divesti- ture and and after, AT&T contracted with SWB to do it, and for a few years after divestiture, Sprint and MCI both contracted with SWB to handle 'their' 800 numbers. With 800 of course, the default is non-pub, with an extra charge if one wishes to be listed. With 'regular' numbers it is just the opposite. Maybe Judith Oppenheimer knows what's happening with it now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 00:46:22 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: Business Week Breaks Silence on ICANN While News.com, ZiffDavis, and Rueters continue their blackout on ICANN, a few media outlets are finally starting to report the *untold* story. Here's the latest from Business Week. Excerpts from: http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_36/b3645101.htm What's in a Name.com? Plenty A brawl over Net names could threaten Web self-government By Mike France in New York It seemed like an inspired idea at the time. Recognizing that the Internet moves too quickly to be regulated by government, the White House last year decided to let Web users try to govern themselves. In June, 1998, it proposed creating a series of nonprofit corporations, run by Netizens, to manage vexing issues such as privacy, fraud prevention, and intellectual property protection. But after less than a year, the White House's bold experiment in Internet governance is in jeopardy. ICANN is going broke and faces accusations of mismanagement by everybody from Ralph Nader to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Va.), who sponsored a hearing entitled ''Is ICANN Out of Control?'' on July 22. If ICANN survives the crisis, many people believe that it has the potential to wield vast power over the Internet. ''After all the talk over the past few years about how difficult it will be to regulate conduct on the Internet,'' says David Post, a cyberlaw specialist at Temple University School of Law, ''the domain name system looks like the Holy Grail, the one place where enforceable Internet policy can be promulgated without any of the messy enforcement'' problems. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.  770-392-9480 What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And that comment about 'without any of the messy enforcement problems' got him in some hot water along with adding still more fuel to the fire in the ICANN controversy. ICANN has some very bizarre ways they want to deal with domain name disputes to say the least ... and without even the slightest, tiny bit of netizen input. Individual users and small commercial sites will have absolutely no say-so in anything that happens. Have you seen the agreement web sites will be required to sign off on in order to keep (or register) their domain names? Oh, I know according to some people around here we are not supposed to say anything bad about large corporations, and how they have 'every right' to be here and how they have the right to help set the rules and all that, and how we should not object because they want to make a profit on the sale of their newspapers, widgets or whatever, but things are getting way, way, way past that point. They are going to be the *only* ones who have any say about anything if ICANN gets its way. And please do not call me an old-timer who is galled because the net of the 1980's is not around any longer. If I had only purchased a computer a month ago, gotten on line and stumbled across Internet Society and ICANN by some accident, reading the tons of stuff that's been getting sent my way in the past couple days would still scare me badly. Those people mean business: they are trying to grab the net and run with it; the day congressional and/or Commerce Department imprimateur comes down on it -- if it does -- is a day, that as 'they' say, will live in infamy. I don't think, however, it is going to happen now. Far too many people on the net have been climbing all over them. Instead of me being a bitter, frustrated old man, Vint Cerf may find himself in that position when MCI-Worldcom wakes up sometime soon and realizes the half-million dollars they handed him a month ago was squandered by giving it all to a lawyer to pay his fee and then the whole thing still went down the tubes. Hey, wasn't that lawyer supposed to be pro-bono? That's what Vint Cerf and Esther Dyson told us a year ago when they hired him. MCI-Worldcom is never going to see a nickle of that five hundred thousand back which Cerf convinced -- or guilt-tripped maybe? -- them into handing over on the premise that the Internet was as good as dead unless he and Esther got their way. You know the routine by now, no money for Vint and Esther means no e-commerce, and no e-commerce means no e-anything. I do not think Cisco is too happy about losing 150-thousand in the same racket either. Tomorrow I have another installment for you in the special mailings I've been doing, with more of their antics. I think you will enjoy it as much as I will enjoy bringing it to you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:24:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Iridium Names Restructuring Team, CFO Resigns Iridium Names Restructuring Team, CFO Resigns http://www.msnbc.com/news/307269.asp ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Re: Bell System Property Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:37:50 EDT I have the Princess keychains in white, blue, pink, and beige. Interestingly, on the two white ones that I have, the ty pe font is different for the PRINCESS TELEPHONE. One of them is plain helvetica, while the other one is a script. The beige one has no writing on it and is slightly smaller. A rip off perhaps? Michael@muderick.com ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 04:47:55 GMT I've got some TeleType model 14, 15 and 19 stuff looking for a good home. WWII vintage I'd guess. IIn article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > Pat, I picked this up from alt.folklore.computers . Perhaps you could > add some comments to it since you're in the area ... >> During the past several weeks, most of the remaining portions of the >> Teletype factory on Touhy Avenue in Skokie IL have been demolished; these >> portions of the factory were incorporated into the Village Crossing >> shopping center, and were used as an indoor service court for the stores, >> and as parking ... Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:09:05 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Hotmail Hackers Hotmail Hackers http://syndicam.com/cartoons/cartoon_pages/cam90299_hotmail_hackers.html ------------------------------ From: Karl Pospisek Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:33:26 +0200 Subject: Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines Reply-to: kpos@alcatel.altech.co.za In reply to Joseph Adam's query: > I'm not aware of any similar requirement for phone wiring, or > whether ground-fault detection and interruption is even possible for > it. Does anyone know if such protection is possible? For average POTS telephone lines, there is no ground fault protection ( Safety wasn't an issue in the early 1900's - in fact the tingle of electricity was thought beneficial for all nervous conditions. Modern day physicians still use professionally administered 'shock therapy' for severe problems eg fibrillating hearts and brain problems). There is no formal requirement for 'isolation' at the CO subscriber ports. Consumers are protected from lethal doses from telephone lines as follows: - well isolated handsets & wiring (4KV minimum). - The CO feeds 400 ohms balanced (current limited to approx. 40mA-80mA in modern equipment). - 60V is considered as a SELV (safety Extra-Low Voltage )under DRY conditions in safety spec IEC950. - Educated subscriber use of telephones. - If a telephone does fall into the bath (off- hook), the average voltage in the water wrt earth would be less than the line voltage of 48V. The exact voltage depends on the design of the CO subscriber port. Anyhow, rather behave sensibly and safely -- do not speak on the phone while bathing or swimming. Use a cordless phone. The more modern subscriber ISDN S0 access port is nominally 40Vdc galvanically isolated from earth. ISDN and pair gain multiplexers usually *do* have earth fault current limiting (although this is for the benefit of the installers), the end user subscriber should not have easy access to the lines here. The non-subscriber accessible wiring (usually only accessed by installa- tion staff) can have voltages ranging from 120Vdc to 290Vdc! (current limited to less than 60mA). For the higher voltages the feed equipment usually does have cut-out protection that operates if the earth leakage is more than 5-15mA. The exact earth leakage protection varies from nation-to-nation. Disclaimer - This information is posted ' for interest information purposes ' only. I, my employer or others cannot be held responsible for consequences direct or indirect. For precise information, please consult the relevant standards organisation. Karl Pospisek Alcatel Altech Telecoms, Engineering Division kpos@alcatel.altech.co.za ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #369 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Sep 3 14:48:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA04171; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:48:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909031848.OAA04171@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #370 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Sep 99 14:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 370 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Steve Uhrig) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Kevin Stone) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Jack Dominey) Sprint's History (Fred R. Goldstein) We Were Crammed by MCI/Worldcom (Ben Bass) Re: Bell System Property (Steven Lichter) Sprint Canada Goes Local in Toronto (kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com) Re: 999-888-7777 (?) and NANP-Expansion (kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com) British Telecom Loses One to the Little Guy (Monty Solomon) AT&T, BT Ink Japan Telecom Deal (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 Uhrig Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:16:20 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio kstone@cohesive.com wrote: > The nature of my work is such my employer has generously offered to > install a T1 to my home for telecommuting. The rub however is that I > have already inspected the premise wiring and there only two pairs > being fed to the house. For the T1 and the house phone I need at least > one more pair. Who bears the cost of bringing the additional pair in > from the street the LEC (GTE) or the customer. As far is I know all states require the phone company to put a demark on the building in which the line will terminate. There are some exceptions. Large factories will have a single demark point and the owner must extend the demark themselves. Since you are putting the T1 in a home they will put the demark on an outside wall of your choosing in the house. You should make sure there is an AC outlet near the location where you want the smart jack mounted. The smart jack may require AC power. This depends on how the T1 is engineered. The smart jacks are not weather proof and are always inside. They probably do make weather tight housings but I have never seen GTE use one around here. If you want the demark extended inside your home from the wall where they mount the smart jack, then you have to pay for that or do it yourself. ------------------------------ From: kstone@cohesive.com (Kevin Stone) Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:11:37 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , kstone@cohesive. com wrote: > The nature of my work is such my employer has generously offered to > install a T1 to my home for telecommuting. The rub however is that I > have already inspected the premise wiring and there only two pairs > being fed to the house. For the T1 and the house phone I need at least > one more pair. Who bears the cost of bringing the additional pair in > from the street the LEC (GTE) or the customer. > I have no problem trenching to the street if necessary but I doubt if > I can lay cable to the nearest aggregation point wherever it is. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe it is always the responsibility > of the telco to provide the necessary wiring at least up to the point > of demarc, wherever that be on the side of your house, in the basement, > etc. However, the situation may not be nearly as dire as you describe > it. Often times an experienced technician can find a pair or two or > three in a cable nearby with no trouble at all. > You did not mention how the two pairs you do have coming in now are > reaching you, if they come from overhead or underground, etc. If you > get the right phone guy out there he will have your third pair up > and running in almost no time. If it is underound, they may 'snake' > through the existing conduit; if it is overhead on a pole they will > do something else. Is telco suggesting to you there is 'nothing they > can do' or that they want you to dig a hole for them, etc? PAT] The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to get them to do something out of the norm. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I lived in a building like that once. By the very large cabinet in the basement where quite a few lines were terminated, a metal conduit went down into the concrete floor and several phone wires were inside it. A tag tied on the bundle of wires said 'these pairs all go to the switchboard at (address of some building down the block)', with a date from the 1930's, signed by some phone guy long since dead no doubt, but well trained by Ma Bell, when those things mattered, so that a phone guy could come along fifty years later, and pick up the work the earlier one was doing and know what to do next. You may get quite lucky and have a guy stick his head in the door and tell you everything is done. Like a magician who pulls a rabbit out of a hat he takes you to the demarc and shows you where your third pair is now located. PAT] ------------------------------ From: look@my.sig (Jack Dominey) Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:36:34 GMT Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station Reply-To: look@my.sig In , Dan Srebnick wrote: > Regarding the comments on the history of Sprint, I can recall the > following. The current Sprint operation can be traced back to a > company called US Telecom. I was their customer back in 1987 when > they bought Sprint from SPC (?). I vaguely recall hearing that Sprint started as Southern Pacific Rail INternal Telecom, building its original network along SPR right-of-way. Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:54 EST From: FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Sprint's History Lessee ... The Southern Pacific Co. had a microwave network along its tracks, so when MCI got going, they joined in the fun too. It was originally called SPCC (Southern Pacific Communications Corp.). They came up with the name "Sprint" in an internal contest to come up with a name for a new service, and it caught on. GTE bought SPCC from Southern Pacific. The long-distance network became known as GTE Sprint. GTE also bought Telenet from BBN (ca. 1980), and put Telenet under Sprint. This evolved into Sprint's Internet operation. In the early 1980s, GTE sold part of Sprint to United Telecommunications, and it became US Sprint. A few years later, GTE sold the rest of Sprint (which was still losing money, something GTE didn't like to do) to United. While Sprint the LD company was more than twice the size of United, the profitable regulated telco swallowed it up Pac-man style. It then changed its corporate name to Sprint Corp. The United Telephone companies eventually became "Sprint local", as did Centel, which Sprint (the former United) gobbled up in the early 1990s. There never was an independent Sprint LD operation, though it's now the tail that wags the dog in Kansas City. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Fred, regardless of whichever chicken came before what egg or vice-versa, the stunning opulence in Overland Park -- I mean, it just drips money everywhere -- is a very good example of how to Make Money Fast: If you don't feel like being a player on the Internet, and your personal ethics do not allow you to be like L. Ron Hubbard and start your own religion, you still have a good option -- be a long distance carrier. Imagine how many minutes of traffic at a few cents per minute that place represents. And that barely dented their budget at all. My goodness! Am I in the wrong line of work, or what? PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ben Bass From: Ben Bass Subject: We Were Crammed by MCI/Worldcom Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:59:18 -0400 Organization: The Acme Company Pat, Here's another MCI/Worldcom story I like to share with your loyal readers. Although I'm responsible for anything telecom related, for some reason the boss rarely lets me see the Bell Atlantic bill. This morning, he called me to his office and showed be a $5 charge from MCI/Worldcom. I knew immediately it was their minimum service charge, but I had no idea how it got there. We haven't been an MCI customer in years, although they slammed one of our lines a couple of years ago. I called the 800 number for MCI and after being on "ignore" for about ten minutes, I reached an alleged human. I gave her the account information and she explained, "Bell Atlantic requested this account be established because you failed to specify a carrier for your regional calls." (This is of course, male bovine excrement for two reasons. I HAD specified long distance and regional carriers and both were frozen. And not only doesn't Bell Atlantic "request" such accounts, it would not be in their best interests to do so. If we didn't specify a regional carrier, those calls would default to Bell Atlantic. This was later verified with Bell Atlantic). I said, "assuming the scenario is as you contend, how do you explain that there have never been any charges associated with this account?" At that point, she hung up on me. I immediately called MCI back, spoke to another representative, who was much more pleasant, but still offered the same (bogus) explanation. Her supervisor was "unavailable," she could not take a message and she offered no further assistance. By now, it is obvious that MCI/Worldcom had crammed us. I was not a happy camper. My next call was to Bell Atlantic. The representative I spoke to was VERY helpful and most pleasant. He confirmed that MCI had "not been totally honest" with me. He reversed the charges, credited our account and put a third party billing block on our account. He also told me they are not allowed to offer the third party block, but will provide it, at no charge, if asked by a customer. He further advised me that MCI might try billing us directly for the disputed charges. I said, "Just let them try." This just reinforces the concept to scrutinize EVERY line of every bill you receive and to seek an explanation of anything you don't understand. Ben Bass ben@broadcast.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It takes a lot of five dollar bills and unsophisticated customers to come up with the half million dollars that MCI-Worldcom gave to Vint Cerf, which he promptly handed over to the lawyers at Jones & Day for their legal fees in the bungled ICANN fiasco. They're never going to see their money again, from that dir- ection at least, so expect a lot more cramming on your phone bill in order that they can make up for what Vint squandered. I do not know about the rest of you, but the money which passes through the coffers at the various telcos is absolutely mind-numbing to me. That thing in Overland Park, Kansas is one example, and the fact that MCI-Worldcom casually tosses off several hundred thousand dollars in a failed venture is another. It just blows me away that there is that much pure profit -- even more! -- in what is essentially the business of selling telephone connections a few cents at a time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 03 Sep 1999 12:45:47 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Re: Bell System Property In article , Michael wrote: > I have the Princess keychains in white, blue, pink, and beige. > Interestingly, on the two white ones that I have, the ty pe font is > different for the PRINCESS TELEPHONE. One of them is plain helvetica, > while the other one is a script. > The beige one has no writing on it and is slightly smaller. A rip off > perhaps? I got a set of those in the middle sixties when Pacific Telephone opened their state of the art crossbar switch in Northridge, Calif. I have two of each of those plus a set of blue ones. All the phone have the printing on them. You should hang onto those, they could be worth a lot of money to a collector of phone stuff. I have had a few offers, mostly from Bell System people, but I also am telco and collect anything I can get my hands on. Right now I'm looking for stocks from old independents, I managed to get one for Associated Telephone Company of California which was a founding company for what is now GTE. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? ------------------------------ From: kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com Subject: Sprint Canada Goes Local in Toronto Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:52:49 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In Toronto, Call-Net Enterprise, parent company of Sprint Canada now offers local phone service at a much cheaper rate than Bell Canada. For CDN$29.95 you get your basic touch tone phone line plus 8 features including (call waiting call forwarding, 3-way calling, call display, voice mail, call return/call return busy, speed dialing, and Identi-call). A basic line with Sprint costs CDN$20.95. I found this out when I called Sprint. They improved on the rates they just advertised a few days before which I signed up for (before the inital launch). With Bell each feature costs CDN$4/CDN$7 depending on the feature. For the price of two features you are getting 8 with Call-Net, wow! I hope Bell lowers it's rates also. On the long distance side for CDN$20 Sprint offers unlimited calling within the province anytime! (CDN$20 is the cap, ie. at CDN$0.10 a minute if you call less you pay less then the cap). On evenings and weekends they offer 800 minutes of long distance withing Canada for CDN$20 (most long distance companies offer that; it used to be unlimited until some people tied up the long distance trunks so they put a cap (just for a few years I hope!). One thing I am hoping for is extended local calling area, where by for $x, you can increase your local calling area without dialing 1+ or extra numbers just the 10-digit number. I know that Edmonton already has such a thing for years before competition. ------------------------------ From: kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com Subject: Re: 999-888-7777 (?) and NANP-Expansion Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:35:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. While expanding the NANP, why not go to variable length numbering scheme and a code that can represent area's of NANPA ie. instead of N9X why not YY-N9X where Y is for the service or zone. 1. 00 overseas inidicator 2. 01 overseas toll indicator 3. 10 for carrier id 4. 11 for services 5. 12-19 non-usable 6. 20-29 for the United States 7. 30-39 for the United States 8. 40-49 for the United States 9. 50-59 for the United States 10. 60-69 for the United States Territories 11. 70 for Canada 12. 71-79 for other NANP countries each country to get its own code 9. 80-89 for toll-free services 10 90 for 900 services 11. 91-99 for NANPA countries each country to get its own code. While we are at this we could try the ITU policy of using 00+ instead or in addition to 011+ or long distance calls A call to NYC from Toronto might be dialed as 00-120-29212-xxx-xxxx A call from NYC to Toronto would be dialed as 00-170-2916-xxx-xxxx A call from NYC to LA might be dialed as 1-30-2913-xxx-xxxx. (30 is the zone, 2913 is the area code, xxx-xxxx is the local number. Note within the USA 00, or 011 is note needed for calls outside the zone.) A call from Toronto to Vancouver would be dialed as 1-604-xxx-xxxx A call from Vancouver to Toronto would be dialed as 1-416-xxx-xxxx (note since Canada has the +170 range the 70 is not needed for national calls withing Canada. With it's own national code Canada would not need the extra digit for it's calling scheme.) > Both James Bellaire and Linc Madison's plans are based on the fact > that N9X is reserved for "future (but not yet finalized) expansion" > of the NANP, and an expansion which would include a permissive > dialing period... by expanding the current area codes from > three-digits to four-digits, by INSERTING the '9' between the > current first and second digits of the current three-digit area > codes: > 212 for NYCity would become 2912 > 312 for Chicago would become 3912 > 504 for New Orleans would become 5904 > 225 for Baton Rouge would become 2925 > 416 for Toronto would become 4916 > etc. > Since the N9X ranges of codes are _NOT_ being assigned, there would > be no "presently" existing three-digit 291, 391, 590, 292, 491, etc. > codes that the expanded four-digit codes would conflict with. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: British Telecom Loses One to the Little Guy Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:53:36 -0400 British Telecom Loses One to the Little Guy By Polly Sprenger LONDON - It's the sort of battle that the Internet is famous for: a tiny startup with a bold idea, taking on a supreme-but-sluggish corporate institution. But the David-and-Goliath struggle between Localtel, a small, free ISP, and British Telecommunications has been skewed from the start. As a reseller of BT telephony services to consumers, Localtel has to tell BT whenever it wins a customer away from its hulking competitor and BT, which offers its own Internet service, has to flick the switch, one at a time. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,6140,00.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T, BT Ink Japan Telecom Deal Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:54:17 -0400 AT&T, BT Ink Japan Telecom Deal By Rob Guth TOKYO - AT&T, British Telecommunications and Japan Telecom this week finalized a deal to merge their respective Japan units into a joint venture that will sell data and voice services to multinational companies, officials of the three companies announced today. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,6139,00.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #370 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 4 01:38:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA23851; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909040538.BAA23851@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #371 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Sep 99 01:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 371 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features (Monty Solomon) Problems BAM Text Messaging (Jon Solomon) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Alan Boritz) Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines (Darryl Smith) Re: The Net's First Civil War (Greg Skinner) Junk Faxes in Texas (Alan Bunch) 1A2 HELP!!!! (Christopher W. Boone) What Price War? Long-Distance Carriers Just Fine (Monty Solomon) Net2Phone: Blowing Bubbles or Not? (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 3 Sep 1999 22:55:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features ============================================================= C D T P O L I C Y P O S T *********************************************************************** A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE from THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY *********************************************************************** Volume 5, Number 21 August 31, 1999 ============================================================= CONTENTS: (1) FCC Mandates New Telephone Surveillance Features (2) Turning Cell Phones Into Tracking Devices; Other Features (3) Packet Switching - CALEA's Sleeper Issue (4) CDT Examines Appeal (5) Subscription Information (6) About the Center for Democracy and Technology ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of ari@cdt.org This document is also available at: http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_5.21.html _______________________________________________________________________ (1) FCC MANDATES NEW TELEPHONE SURVEILLANCE FEATURES On Friday, August 27, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered the nation's telephone companies to modify their switching equipment to provide more information to government agencies conducting electronic surveillance. The Commission largely rejected privacy concerns and aligned with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which had sought the enhanced monitoring capabilities under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The decision was the latest step in a long-running struggle over the surveillance potential of communications technology. CALEA was enacted in 1994 after the FBI complained to Congress that new digital technology and other advanced services would soon make it impossible to carry out wiretaps and other electronic surveillance. The FBI originally sought direct control over phone system design. Congress refused to grant the Bureau that kind of power, but adopted CALEA with the intent of balancing law enforcement, privacy and industry interests. Congress made it clear that CALEA was intended to preserve but not enhance government monitoring capabilities. The Act left design decisions to the telephone industry, subject to FCC review. However, soon after CALEA was enacted, the FBI began insisting on very specific surveillance features, including some never before available to the government. After industry worked with law enforcement agencies to draft technical standards to put CALEA into effect, the FBI claimed the industry plans did not go far enough and petitioned the FCC to order additional, specific surveillance features. CDT claimed that the industry plan failed to protect privacy and opposed the FBI's add-ons. _________________________________________________________________ (2) TURNING CELL PHONES INTO TRACKING DEVICES; OTHER FEATURES The most immediately disturbing element of the FCC's ruling was its requirement that cellular and other wireless phone companies provide the capability to identify where their customers are at the beginning and end of every call, effectively turning wireless phones into tracking devices. In 1994, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified twice before Congress that CALEA did not cover this kind of location information. While many cellular systems already have some ability to locate callers, CDT argued to the FCC that this should not be a mandatory element of system design. CDT was concerned that, as the technology evolves, the FBI is likely to seek more and more precise location information. The FCC ignored the legislative history and rejected CDT's concerns In addition, for both wireline and wireless systems, the FCC ruled that six other specific surveillance features sought by the FBI were required by CALEA. One of the six requires carriers to ensure that the government will be able to continue listening to those on a conference call after the criminal suspect has dropped off the call. Another add-on guarantees the government access to credit card numbers and bank account data generated when a user punches numbers on a telephone. Other add-ons ensure government access to the detailed signaling information generated in connection with calls, information that law enforcement would obtain under a legal standard lower than the one required to conduct a wiretap. CDT and the telephone industry had argued that none of these items was required by CALEA. Carriers are currently required to comply with most aspects of CALEA, including the location mandate, by June 30, 2000. The other features required by the FCC last week must be available to the government by September 30, 2001. _________________________________________________________________ (3) PACKET SWITCHING - CALEA'S SLEEPER ISSUE One CALEA issue of immense importance has received little press attention: how to conduct electronic surveillance in packet environments. Packet technology, until recently used mainly on the Internet, breaks communication into many small packets, each consisting of some addressing information and some content. For efficiency's sake, the packets may be transported by various routes, and are reassembled at their intended destination to create a coherent communication. Packet technology is becoming increasingly important for voice communications, posing the risk that the government will obtain access to the content portion of packets when it has only satisfied the lower legal standard for intercepting the call routing or addressing information. CDT argued that CALEA imposes on carriers an affirmative obligation to design their equipment, to the extent technically reasonable, to withhold content from the government when the government has not met the legal standard to intercept it. Industry responded that carriers should be allowed to disclose everything to law enforcement, including content, and rely on the government not to read (or listen to) what it is has no authority to intercept. The FCC declined to require carriers to protect the privacy of packet communications that the government is not authorized to intercept. Instead, the FCC requested the industry to report on what steps can be taken to protect the privacy of packet communications. Last Fall, the Commission asked the same question and industry said that protecting privacy was too hard. This leaves it to CDT to prove to the industry that the technology can be designed to protect privacy. ______________________________________________________________ (4) CDT EXAMINES APPEAL CDT had believed that CALEA was a balanced statute. We had accepted the FBI Director's assurances that the statute would not be used as a mandate for cell phone tracking, and we had believed that the FCC would resist any FBI efforts to dictate surveillance enhancements. Yet on all the issues that mattered, the Commission ruled against privacy and in favor of expanded law enforcement surveillance. The ability of the FBI to turn CALEA on its head does not generate confidence in government claims to be seeking balanced solutions on other issues such as encryption. CDT is deciding whether to appeal the decision of the FCC to the federal Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. As of August 31, the full text of the FCC's order has not been released. The only official description of the FCC's action comes in the form of FCC press releases, which are available at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/fccpress0899.shtml For background on CALEA, go to http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/. _______________________________________________________________________ (5) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you and what you can do to make a difference! Subscribe to the CDT's Activist Network. You'll receive: A) CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center for Democracy and Technology are received by Internet users, industry leaders, policymakers the news media and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. B) Updates on what you can do to make sure that the Internet remains a decentralized, open, global and user-controlled medium, including information on the actions of your representatives in Congress. To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at: http://www.cdt.org/join/ If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at: http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe yourself and then sign up again or contact: webmaster@cdt.org _______________________________________________________________________ (6) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info@cdt.org World Wide Web: http://www.cdt.org/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 End Policy Post 5.21 ------------------------------ From: Jon Solomon Subject: Problems BAM Text Messaging Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 16:06:27 -0400 I have enabled Text Messaging as part of my BAM phone, which currently doesn't work in the following way: Mail directly to my phone works fine. Mail to a mailbox (say jsol@trillian.mit.edu), which forwards to the phone number, fails and does not issue a warning. I tried to contact Bell Atlantic Mobile's customer service, and they referred me to a toll free number of some software maintainence firm, who promptly put me in a voice mail mailbox, and I asked them to call me, and they have not. Who knew? --jsol ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: 3 Sep 1999 16:05:13 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Kevin Stone wrote: > The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't > called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to > get them to do something out of the norm. I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but I'm sure I read it here first: There is an exception to the general rule that the point of demarcation must be on the outside of a building if the service enters underground. Then, you may have the point of demarcation on the inside of an outside wall. Your phone service comes in through conduit? You are fortunate, indeed. If they can't or won't feed pairs through the existing conduit, they'll just bury a wire. Unless code requires it, you can't force them to install new conduit. If you want it, you'd probably have to pay for it. Get them to bury a new line with lots of vacant pairs on it as long as you are at it. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:07:29 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > (There was an extensive discussion about the Teletype ASR 33 in that > newsgroup recently, too, including comments on maintenance and hooking > it up to a modern computer.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am no longer in the area, but when I > was in the area I was in the Village Crossing shopping center on > various occassions, and years before Village Crossing I had been in > the Teletype complex. It was sad to see it go, and I can tell you that > in the 1960's and 1970's no one ever would have imagined the time > would come when there would not be Teletype; neither would there be a > Bell System or a Western Union. Mark Cuccia has collected a lot of > history on Teletype and its role in telephony in the first half of > the century. Some of it is in the Telecom Archives. PAT] If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am very glad they're no longer in circulation. ------------------------------ From: Darryl Smith Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:03:17 +1000 Subject: Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines G'Day I have seen the issue from a different side. I work in the power industry here in Australia. Since we are a generator, we have voltages up to 500 kV lying round our substations and power stations. This gives the phone companies nighmares. For those that do not know, substations are a work of art ... They put in a grid of 1 inch * 1/8 inch copper bar on a 3 foot grid throughout the entire substation!!! This is so that if there is an earth fault, the voltage of all the earth rises, and anyone on the property is safe. Also the fence around the substation is NEVER continuous. There are always a few wooden poles. This is so there is not a continuous circuit around the outside of the substation. Under earth fault, this becomes a shorted turn, with enough energy to weld together a large chain/padlock holding the gate closed. Also there are cases of substations being in padocks, where cattle are looking at the activity in the substation. Where the earth grid does not extend far enough out there are dangers. In this situation, during one earth fault, the voltage potential between the front and rear legs of the cattle was enough to kill the cattle. How does this relate to the phone system? Well, if you were feeding phone lines into such a place there is always a danger ... So in substations they have rooms that are electrically isolated. They have wooden floors, with equipment in wooden cabinets, with very high quality isolating transformers. This goes some way to protect the equipment Thinking of the worst case, and the isotation breaks down there is a problem. I remember that there is design work done such that they use the cables to actually current limit. The cable becomes a resistor. If the voltage rises, current tries to flow ... but because of the length of cable, there is not much at the telco end. I believe that they also run a 2nd cable to cancel out any rises in the earth potential. In Australia I believe that Extra Low Voltage is slightly different. I cannot remember what the voltage is, but it is different. Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: The Net's First Civil War Date: 3 Sep 1999 13:12:43 -0700 Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Thus saith : > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But therein lies the rub. Directory > assistance is not in very good shape these days either. All sorts of > companies are providing it, with varying degrees of accuracy. It is > more expensive than ever, and less reliable than ever. Do you want > to start entering a URL in your browser address line and wind up > getting connected to the completely wrong site? It is extremely > critical that whoever handles this function handle it well. However, if things are to be done reliably, there has to be some coordination. This means the disputing parties need to resolve their differences and work towards a common goal. So far, the disputing parties don't seem to be able to come to some kind of consensus. Thus the door has now been opened for independents to erect their own root server systems. I have no objection to independent root server systems, but I don't see much coordination between them (at present). If this doesn't change, we may very well have directory assistance quality DNS. Should independent companies compete, based on quality of service (including accuracy) for domain name service? I don't know. I also don't know if this means the public is any better served. gregbo gds at best.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:39:01 -0500 From: Alan Bunch Subject: Junk Faxes in Texas I know others have sued in state courts, small claims or otherwise, and recovered from junk fax compaines. I was just at the FCC site and it seems to indicate that some states allow and some don't. Anyone know if Texas does. Anyone have a check list or forms to fill in. I have two winners of $500 damage claims in my inbox now. I'll gladly share my first win for information leading to the successful suit and damage payment. You know if this keeps up I might have a job change ahead. Alan Bunch Spyder Enterprises Inc. alabun@spyderinc.com 817-329-3692 http://www.spyderinc.com Personal service at it's best ! ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: 1A2 HELP!!!! Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:55:10 -0500 Organization: Clear Channel-Dallas (KDMX/KEGL) Engineering Department We have two 1A2 keysystems at work ... Both are WE 1A2 cabinets with the following make of cards in them: SAN/BAR WE SC 4000F 400F 400F 4200A MOH 400D 451 MOH I need docs on all of the above (wiring and jumper settings, etc) asap!!! Trying to get MOH to work ... and its not right yet! PLEASE reply to my email address directly NOT the NG ... AND PLEASE cc: my earthlink.net address (cboone@xxxx.xxx just like my jacor address above) Tnx! Chris (WB5ITT) Chief Engineer Clear Channel Radio--Dallas, TX KDMX 102.9 / KEGL 97.1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:41:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: What Price War? Long-Distance Carriers Just Fine Clueless Investor What price war? Long-distance carriers just fine By Jeffry Bartash, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 2:10 PM ET Aug 30, 1999 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Since late July, shares of U.S. long-distance leader AT&T have tumbled more than 16 percent. Ditto for MCI WorldCom, the No. 2 carrier. And Sprint, the third largest provider, has fallen off a similar amount. What's going on here? Simple. Many investors are worried that a wave of price cuts in the long-distance consumer sector is going to short-circuit revenue and profits. Are these fears warranted? Many analysts don't think so. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/19990830/news/current/clueless.htx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:45:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Net2Phone: Blowing Bubbles or Not? By Thom Calandra, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 4:10 PM ET Aug 31, 1999 SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- A friend of mine and I were going through the long list of short-sale candidates out there. What we found is a lesson in safe investing: how to refrain from betting against a stock (via a short-sale) even if the company' stock price has gotten ahead of itself. One freshly scrubbed technology stock, Net2Phone (NTOP: news, msgs), has already quintupled from a late-July offering. The shares on Nasdaq, after rising relentlessly Tuesday, give the Internet telephony company a market value of $4 billion. Is that too much? http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/19990831/news/current/stwatch.htx ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #371 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 4 15:28:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA14008; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:28:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909041928.PAA14008@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #372 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Sep 99 15:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 372 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area" (Spam Phree) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (William H. Bowen) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Roy Smith) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (L. Winson) Re: Call Re-routing Hardware Wanted (EdongP) Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging (Jeremy Greene) Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging (Alan Boritz) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Alan Boritz) Re: Echelon (Amanda Walker) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Chuck Till) Named Telephone Exchanges (Eliot Gelwan) Re: Paying to Pay (Alan Boritz) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Alan Boritz) Global Crossing Revises Frontier Offer (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Spam_Phree@removedis.yahoo.com Subject: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 18:51:16 GMT Reply-To: **@autumn.news.rcn.net Recently I have been getting a lot of hang up calls and couldn't figure out why. *69 revealed the call was from "Out of Area". I got a caller ID box and it said the same thing. As the calls got more and more frequent, I called the RBOC to complain. They advised me to dial *57 the next few times it occurs. Each time I dialed *57 for a Law Enforcement Trace, the message advised that 'this feature cannot be activated because the caller is out of our service area'. Today, I stumbled across a FAQ that reveals the probability that the majority of these calls are coming from a telemarketer's predictive dialing machines. Apparently the automated dialers dial 4 people at a time and connect the telemarketer to the first line that answers with a "hello", disconnecting the other calls in progress. Apparently these computers are so efficient that they immediately disconnect calls that are answered with a long greeting (more likely a business) as well as answering machines, no answers, busy signals and wrong numbers. I am making money from telemarketers ($400 dollars so far) who don't meet the requirements of the TCPA of 1991 and would like to nail these hang up callers too. I'm getting about one hang up a day now and the RBOC says that there is no way that they can trace the calls to find out who is making them. Is this true? I'm sure the telemarketer's are using a outbound wats line or ISDN or T1/3 or something and not sending CID info on purpose. My phone is already set up to reject blocked calls. The RBOC does not offer a service to reject a lack of any data, which is probably why the telemarketer's are not sending the CID data. It seems to me a call trap or some kind of tracing technique must exist. Do the RBOC's initially deny a way to resolve these issues as a first line of defense to protect their "big telemarketing customers" or to reduce tracing expenses, hoping I will just go away? Can you tell me what technical procedure to demand to trace these calls so I can make a claim under the TCPA? Without any further info, my next stop is to the Public Utility Commission. BTW my RBOC is Bell Atlantic of Baltimore/Washington. Thanks, Hung up on in Hanover ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:21:09 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com > (L. Winson) wrote: >> (There was an extensive discussion about the Teletype ASR 33 in that >> newsgroup recently, too, including comments on maintenance and hooking >> it up to a modern computer.) >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am no longer in the area, but when I >> was in the area I was in the Village Crossing shopping center on >> various occassions, and years before Village Crossing I had been in >> the Teletype complex. It was sad to see it go, and I can tell you that >> in the 1960's and 1970's no one ever would have imagined the time >> would come when there would not be Teletype; neither would there be a >> Bell System or a Western Union. Mark Cuccia has collected a lot of >> history on Teletype and its role in telephony in the first half of >> the century. Some of it is in the Telecom Archives. PAT] > If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not > be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without > paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am > very glad they're no longer in circulation. The ASR/KSR 32 and 33 series (the 32 is the BAUDOT version of the 33) are plastic crap compared to the 15 and 19 series. Yes, I know: the 15 weighs as much as a small elephant and sounds like the hammer and anvil chorus when running, but I still love to hear them run. If my father where alive he would be really sad to hear Skokie was torn down. His first job at Western Electric was with Teletype right after WW2. I have a really great pictures of him elbow-deep in a Model 15. He went on from Teletype to the main part of WE after college and retired in 1974. Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com Daly City, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'hammer and anvil chorus' was a very familiar sound also to the people who worked in or visited a Western Union public office. Most WUTCO public offices were gone by the middle or late 1960's in favor of having customers call in their telegraph messages over the phone to a central location. A typical WUTCO public office had several (five or six maybe) such machines behind the counter where the public approached the clerk to send or recieve their messages. Depending on the size of the community and the office, one or two guys (telegraphers) worked back there oper- ating the machines. In front at the counter was a clerk whose duties included accepting messages from people who came to the counter to send them out, handing out new messages to people waiting in the office expecting them, and taking phone calls from people who called their (outgoing) messages in by telephone. All the offices were open 24/7 but usually overnight one person did all the telegraphy and the clerk duties working alone. There was rarely a time, except sometimes in the early morning hours, that one or more of the machines was not in use, busily hammering out its latest tale of woe or message of joy for the intended recipient: 'grandma died this morning, can you come to the funeral?' or 'we have a new child, born yesterday'. The telegrapher on duty would walk around the area, ripping the latest printed message out of the holder and give it to the clerk in front; the clerk would hand over the latest handwritten scripts from customers sending out messages. The telegrapher would read over the message, sit down at one of the machines, and begin typing it in. Like the Bell System, WUTCO employees were governed by FCC regulations regarding privacy in communications. Employees were *never* permitted to discuss the contents of any message they received/transmitted with anyone except for technical reasons, and the actual customer. Even then, comments to customers regarding message content were to be kept to a minimum. By the time one machine stopped its chattering, one or two others would have started talking about what they had to say at the moment: 'Grandma died yesterday!', 'Cousin Itt graduated from high school last week!' or whatever. Only occassionally, all would fall silent at the same time, and the office would be very, very quiet. The silence might last two minutes, or it might only last five seconds, there was no way to predict it. Then suddenly in the background, the 'whirring noise' as one of the machines would turn on its motor, a 'bang' sound as the gears would engage, then the rat-tat-tat of a new message of sadness or joy to someone in the community. After a minute or so, the machine would 'go back to sleep' and sit there quietly waiting for its next turn to speak up. Like telephones in an office, the WUTCO teletypewriter machines were wired in 'rotary hunt', meaning if one was in use, then the incoming message would 'roll over' to the next machine, etc. Thus at any given time, one or more would be in the process of turning itself on, engaging its gears, delivering its message or shutting itself off. The 'hammer and anvil chorus' was a nickname given to all the resulting noise. Add to that the incessantly ringing telephone as the (usually, in smaller places) one single clerk on duty dealt not only with taking in new messages, collecting the money for them, and handing out the received messages the machines had just rendered, but also taking messages over the phone from people who wanted to send telegrams. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Organization: New York University School of Medicine Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 08:17:20 -0400 aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without paper tape drives I thought all ASR-33's had tape drives. If it didn't have a tape drive, it was a KSR-33, no? ASR = Automatic Send/Receive KSR = Key[board] Send/Receive ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: 4 Sep 1999 17:05:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not > be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without > paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am > very glad they're no longer in circulation. Could you elaborate on what it was about them that you didn't care for? How did they compare with other Teletype products (eg earlier or later models, and the heavy duty 35.) Back in high school, our Teletype failed. The repairman found it filled with raisins -- cleaned out a huge pile. Turned out one kid liked to eat raisins while working on the computer and more than a few dropped in over time. (Fortunately for us, we were renting the unit from Bell, so maintenance was included. This was the kind that had the build in modem and phone. It was Touch Tone as well, back when that was still rare.) ------------------------------ From: edongp@aol.com (EdongP) Date: 04 Sep 1999 07:12:58 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Call Re-routing Hardware Wanted We have designed exactly the same system for a group of veterinarians in California. It is a variation of our product described on our web site www.woodtel.com ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:25:06 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Jon Solomon wrote in message news:telecom19. 371.2@telecom-digest.org: > I have enabled Text Messaging as part of my BAM phone, which currently > doesn't work in the following way: > Mail directly to my phone works fine. Mail to a mailbox (say > jsol@trillian.mit.edu), which forwards to the phone number, fails and > does not issue a warning. > I tried to contact Bell Atlantic Mobile's customer service, and they > referred me to a toll free number of some software maintainence firm, > who promptly put me in a voice mail mailbox, and I asked them to call > me, and they have not. I too have noticed this problem. When I called BAM to complain, they acted like I was speaking a foreign language. The problem is that in determining the recipient, their text messaging gateway relies on the "To:" header of the email instead of the "RCPT TO:" SMTP command, as any other SMTP server would. This is either a feature or a bug, depending on who you talk to. So, the message will not get delivered unless the "To:" field includes NPANXXYYYY@message.bam.com or NPANXXYYYY@sms-gate.bam.com. Try the following:log on to the SMTP gateway and formulate a message with "RCPT TO: nobody@nowhere.com". Then, after issuing the DATA command, put the following: "To: NPANXXYYYY@message.bam.com," substituting your correct phone number. The message will go through, even though it seems like it should not. Am I unreasonable to assume that this is a bug? Jeremy ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 09:51:27 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Jon Solomon wrote: > I have enabled Text Messaging as part of my BAM phone, which currently > doesn't work in the following way: > Mail directly to my phone works fine. Mail to a mailbox (say > jsol@trillian.mit.edu), which forwards to the phone number, fails and > does not issue a warning. Check the message actually being sent to the phone from your mailbox. It's possible that the type of forwarding is causing the outbound message to be bounced (i.e. attempt by a third party to route mail through the smtp server). ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 09:57:37 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Kevin Stone wrote: >> The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't >> called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to >> get them to do something out of the norm. > I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but I'm sure I read it here first: > There is an exception to the general rule that the point of > demarcation must be on the outside of a building if the service enters > underground. There's no exception, because there's no "general rule." Depends entirely upon the telco's current business policy. > Then, you may have the point of demarcation on the inside of an > outside wall. Or any other wall, depending upon conditions. Large installations may have the demarc on an upper floor, or a room away from the foundation walls. It's usually negotiated with the outside plant engineers and marketing. ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Echelon Date: 4 Sep 1999 10:50:19 -0400 David Wagner writes: > In both areas, the report was unexpectedly conservative: it reported > (IMHO) only what it could provide strong evidence for. For instance, > the report did _not_ claim that the NSA has voice recognition capability, > even though there is some credible evidence that they do (see, e.g., > Mike Frost's revelations). (And even if the NSA doesn't have voice > recognition, they probably have speaker recognition.) I would be highly surprised if they don't have a certain degree of capability for both. Almost 20 years ago, when I was a college freshman at a "career fair," the NSA recruiting package included a copy of the NSA linguistics journal, which contained some very interesting articles on speech processing. Given the current state of speech processing in the commercial and consumer arenas, I would be very surprised if the speech geeks at the NSA haven't at least kept pace. Amanda Walker ------------------------------ From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 13:27:32 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: ctill@mindspring.com Pre-1982, the companies were United Telecom and GTE. The sequence of events is: United Telecom buys two long-distance resellers, Isacomm and US Telephone. Meanwhile, GTE buys Sprint from Southern Pacific Railroad. At this point, United Telecom and GTE are separate, and their long-distance operations are competitors. United Telecom develops a plan to run fiber nation-wide and to compete with AT&T on a much larger scale than GTE could with Sprint, which was a facilities-based carrier only in parts of the country and was a reseller elsewhere. Next, United Telecom and GTE pool their long-distance operations and form a partnership (not a corporation) called US Sprint. United Telecom is the dominant partner. Later, US Sprint is renamed simply Sprint. United Telecom buys out GTE's share in the partnership and becomes sole owner of Sprint. Finally, United Telecom renames itself Sprint and applies the Sprint brand to the local telephone operations that it had before 1982. GTE continues as a local telephone company until discussions start with Bell Atlantic. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:58:27 -0400 From: Eliot Gelwan Subject: Named Telephone Exchanges Hello Patrick -- As something of a retro grouch, I have long lamented the passing of *named* telephone exchanges. Growing up in New York, I had telephone numbers like "ILlinois 9-xxxx" and "BRining 7-xxxx". I've taken a fancy to starting to give out my current phone number in Brookline, MA (738-xxxx) in similar form. Does any reader know of a way of finding out, for exchanges that have been around long enough, what the original name would have been. Of course I could (a) interview elderly neighbors who might recall, but there aren't any obvious ones around; or (b) make something up, e.g. "PErry 8" (I live on Perry Street) or "REtro 8", but the possibility of historical accuracy appeals to me. Any suggestions? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look at the 'exchange.names' file in the section of the Telecom Archives dealing with history. Go to http://telecom-digest.org/archives/history for starters. We've had discussions about exchange names in great detail here in the past. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Paying to Pay Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:07:00 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) wrote: > In article , dannyb@panix.com (Danny > Burstein) writes: >>> Credit cards aren't affected. It does not say that you may *only* >>> accept cash. You are free to accept anything you wish. It just says >>> that if US currency is presented, it *must* be accepted. >> Again, this is a common misconception. Walk over to your local Fedex >> office. The vast majority of them will _not_ accept cash. > What the requirement is that if you owe someone money in a debt, they > must accept Federal Reserve Notes (currency) for payment on that debt > or the debt is extinguished. Phone companies get around this by > billing you *in advance* for local phone service; if they are not > collecting for previous services they could refuse to accept currency. > However, long distance charges *are* a debt (you owe it for something > that you used before you paid for it) and as such, if they refused to > accept curreny for it you would be able to not have to pay it. A > refusal to accept payment in currency extinguishes the debt. > Since a purchase of future delivery service from Federal Express is > not a debt, FedEx can refuse to accept currency payments. If, > however, you were paying them for a bill on an account for services > already rendered, that is a different matter. Try bringing your Fedex bill to a local office and give them cash to settle the account. I think we would be very surprised if you can name ONE office that would accept the payment. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am assuming that if you have a bill for services rendered by Fedex, you probably at some point submitted a credit application in order to get the account opened, and as part of that application for an extension of credit you very likely agreed to settle the bill on their terms, ie. company check, credit card, no cash payments allowed, whatever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:29:37 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article <99.08.31.004we2jh7@telecom-digest.org>, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > This rebuttal message from Joey Lindstrom is so long I thought it best > to send it out as a separate mailing rather than have an entire issue > of the Digest just devoted only to it. > From: "Joey Lindstrom" > Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:06:32 -0600 > Reply-To: "Joey Lindstrom" > Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers >> If you were a newcomer in a community, real or virtual, would you >> start right out by being an affront and offense to everyone you >> met or would you at least try the old customs and traditions first >> and see how well you could blend in? Some of them might be amazed >> to find out how well received they would be if they put up a single >> dinky web page with something of value to the community overall and >> in a casual way discussed the business they are in and what they have >> for sale rather than 'welcoming' you to their site by immediatly >> demanding registration, warning you against trying to pull any funny >> stuff and then tossing a bunch of ads right in your face. Some >> welcome, eh? > Your argument makes sense but only to a point. Let's say a million > Chinese refugees washed up on shore near San Francisco. The US > government, in an unusual turn (for them)... By all means, try to convince the masses of the importance of Internet traditions by using offensive ethnic slurs and endlessly rambling nonsequitors. You're not qualified to speak on this topic, since you haven't learned your lesson yet. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Global Crossing Revises Frontier Offer Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:56:04 -0400 New $10 billion bid to account for stock's decline By Jeffry Bartash, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 4:54 PM ET Sep 2, 1999 NewsWatch Earnings Surprises ROCHESTER, N.Y. (CBS.MW) -- Global Crossing agreed Thursday to revise its buyout offer for Frontier Corp., the No. 5 U.S. long-distance carrier, to make up for a sharp decline in its stock price. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/fro.htx ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #372 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 4 23:20:46 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA27733; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 23:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 23:20:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909050320.XAA27733@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #373 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Sep 99 23:20:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 373 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator (TELECOM Digest Editor) AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones (Joel M. Hoffman) Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail (Brian Elfert) Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Adam H. Kerman) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Ken M.) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Michael Maxfield) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Joseph Singer) Aims Community College Telecom Studies (Russell Disberger) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 4 Sep 1999 20:56:15 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator With much sadness I report the passing of Bill Pfeiffer, who had served as moderator of rec.radio.broacasting for a number of years. Bill also maintained the http://www.airwaves.com web site. He was killed in an automobile crash on Wednesday, September 1. I do not have specifics regarding the incident, nor where the fault would lie, as of this time. He was 43 years of age. He is survived by his fiance Cindy. His home was in Milwaukee, WI at the time of his passing. I first met Bill in the fall of 1977 when he applied for employment with a company I was working for in Chicago. At the time, he lived with his aging mother on the northwest side of Chicago. Over the next ten or twelve years we went our separate ways regards employment and other interests but visited each other on a frequent basis. I introduced him to personal computers around 1983 or so, and about 1985 or 1986 he became interested enough that I provided him with some 'old' (even way back then!) equipment of mine I no longer wanted in my own work. I taught him the basics, and introduced him to Usenet around 1987. About 1991, he wanted to begin his own contribution to the net with his rather extensive knowledge of broadcast radio operations, and I encouraged him to 'go for it' by starting the Usenet group known as rec.radio.broadcasting. After some discussion on the topic in a couple other Usenet groups with similar interests he did decide to try his hand at being a Usenet moderator. I think, but cannot recall for certain, that his first arrangements for doing this were through a system administrator at uiuc.edu who provided him with an account and getting it started. I also provided Bill with some of my scripts used in this Digest. I do know that many were the nights we spent long hours discussing 'the future of the net' and where it was all going to go over the next decade or more. Sometime around 1993 Bill decided it best to leave the Chicago area for good; a decision I would not reach for a few more years. With his mother, for whom he was now essentially responsible for her full time care, he relocated to Springfield, Missouri where he lived for about three years. While he was in Springfield, a disasterous fire in his home took every single possession he owned, except for the clothes he hastily put on in the middle of the night as he escaped to safety. He evacuated his mother, who had to be taken to a local hospital because of smoke inhalation. By 'every possession', I mean he possessed the clothes he was wearing when the fire was put out early that morning. His mother never did recover from it, she passed away a few weeks later while in the hospital. She was simply too old and feeble to get out of the fire on her own, and was unconcious when Bill pulled her out of it. Bill called me on the phone the day of the fire and told me that he was at that point, frankly, very scared. I put out an emergency appeal for him on the net, and in the r.r.b. newsgroup in particular, and with the help of generous netizens he was able to resume his newsgroup a few days later, albiet in a crippled way for awhile. After his mother passed during her hospital stay as a result of the fire, Bill remained in the Springfield area for a bit longer then decided to relocate with his dog 'Jake' to Milwaukee. On the way from Missouri to Wisconsin, he stopped in Skokie to visit with me for a couple days. That would have been in the spring of 1997. He told me he was going to go spend some time 'with a lady he knew in Milwaukee', and I am assuming now that is the person who became his fiance. That was the last time I saw him in person. We had argued the day before about some inconsequential things involving the internet, and it was clear to both of us that we were going in different directions with our beliefs and ideas. At the time of the dispute in 1993 regards the moderation of comp.dcom.telecom Bill had said to me, 'whatever you do with c.d.t. as a result of this dispute, that's the way things are going to be on the net for *many* years to come ...' And in our final personal meeting that day in 1997, he just had to remind me of that, saying 'I told you four years ago about the best way to handle c.d.t.', and I frankly got more than a little annoyed by his comments. Although our final meeting was cordial, we both knew we would likely never meet again in person. And while we both agreed that a twenty-year friendship should not be killed over something like differences in operational philosophy regards the best way to maintain a newsgroup and a website, we both realized that things were not the way they had been before. It was no longer 1977 when I put in a good word with the boss of our company to hire a 21 year old 'hippie kid' with long hair and a guitar who showed up at the door looking for work; why, it wasn't even 1985 any longer when I taught him BASIC and for his 'graduation gift' from my 'computer school' I gave him the OSI C-1-P computer with all of 8 K memory that Dan Kritchevsky had given me when I graduated from his 'computer school' six or seven years before that. Even 1991-92 and the great days of the net just prior to the web were long since gone. So we shook hands, hugged, and wished each other the best. I saw or heard no more from him (other than occassionally reading his newsgroup) until about a month ago, when I sent him a piece of email saying we needed to chat and catch up on things sometime soon. He wrote back, and we chatted in email for a couple of letters, then it dropped off and that was it. In the last email we exchanged, sometime in late-July I asked him, 'where would things be now if Sam (the fellow I worked for who hired Bill also) had not hired you, or we had not had that very early friendship ...' but he did not respond back. My sympathy is extended to his fiance, Cindy; but it is also extended to the many netizens who participated in his forums and at his web site who have lost a treasured friend and resource. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:02:25 GMT It seems AT&T has just changed its 1-800-CALL-ATT calling card so that calls from an AT&T cell phone must go through an operator. This is obviously very annoying. (The reason one might want to use a calling card from a cell phone is that int'l calling card rates are MUCH, MUCH less than the cell phone rates. E.g., over $1.00/min to Europe vs. 10-25 cents/min via the calling card.) The bottom line is that to make an AT&T calling card call from an AT&T cell phone, one has to talk to an operator, give him/her the number from which you are calling< (why can't they get this automatically?), your calling card number, and the number you are calling. It takes a long time, and is very inconvenient if you don't know the number by heart and are, say, driving. AT&T claims the switch was for technical reasons, but it obviously worked until a few weeks ago. I suspect the switch is to dissuade people from taking advantage of the inexpensive int'l rates. Anyone know for sure? -Joel ------------------------------ Subject: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 20:23:34 GMT Is there any way to get a fax/phone switch to work with telco voicemail without distinctive ring? I can understand why the voicemail won't work because the switch picks up the phone and generates a ring to the caller. Command Communications seems to be the only fax/phone switch I can find, and they say their switchs definitely won't work with telco voicemail. Funny thing is, one business I work with had a Command Communications switch that worked fine with voicemail, but it died a year or so ago. The switch is so old it's no longer made. Thanks for any help. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 18:04:27 -0400 From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging > Then, after issuing the DATA command, put the following: > "To: NPANXXYYYY@message.bam.com," substituting your correct phone > number. The message will go through, even though it seems like it > should not. Am I unreasonable to assume that this is a bug? It is a bug. Delivery using the "To:" address in the headers as opposed to the envelope "To:" address is wrong. I believe it is completely unacceptable. This error means that you cannot use aliases or mailing lists that contain the phone email addresses, which is a problem for us. When we tested this service last year, we were able to get in contact with the manager responsible for the service. He indicated that he understands the problem, but they have no plans to fix it. We selected AT&T wireless. Jeffrey J. Carpenter P.O. Box 471 Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 Phone: +1 218 837-6000 Fax: +1 310 914-1716 Email: jjc@pobox.com Web: http://pobox.com/~jjc/ ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal Date: 4 Sep 1999 15:37:49 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Alan Boritz wrote: From: "Joey Lindstrom" Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:06:32 -0600 >> Your argument makes sense but only to a point. Let's say a million >> Chinese refugees washed up on shore near San Francisco. The US >> government, in an unusual turn (for them)... > By all means, try to convince the masses of the importance of Internet > traditions by using offensive ethnic slurs and endlessly rambling > nonsequitors. You're not qualified to speak on this topic, since you > haven't learned your lesson yet. Mr. Boritz, when I read between the line of Mr. Lindstrom's comments, all I saw was leading. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:29:37 -0400, Alan Boritz wrote: >>> If you were a newcomer in a community, real or virtual, would you >>> start right out by being an affront and offense to everyone you >>> met or would you at least try the old customs and traditions first >>> and see how well you could blend in? Some of them might be amazed >>> to find out how well received they would be if they put up a single >>> dinky web page with something of value to the community overall and >>> in a casual way discussed the business they are in and what they have >>> for sale rather than 'welcoming' you to their site by immediatly >>> demanding registration, warning you against trying to pull any funny >>> stuff and then tossing a bunch of ads right in your face. Some >>> welcome, eh? >> Your argument makes sense but only to a point. Let's say a million >> Chinese refugees washed up on shore near San Francisco. The US >> government, in an unusual turn (for them)... > By all means, try to convince the masses of the importance of Internet > traditions by using offensive ethnic slurs and endlessly rambling > nonsequitors. You're not qualified to speak on this topic, since you haven't > learned your lesson yet. Offensive ethnic slurs? "Chinese refugees" is an offensive ethnic slur? Better tell that to the local newspaper editors then, because that phrase has been turning up daily. We've had at least three boatloads of them turn up on Canadian shores in the last few weeks, with more (so they say) on the way. They're Chinese people, and they're refugees. There's nothing offensive about either word, and pairing them together does not make a "slur". I assume, therefore, that you're in the USA and not Canada -- American media, after all, pays no attention to events in Canada (except when Swiss aircraft plow into our waters, apparently). Oh, and by the way, until their individual immigration cases are sorted out, they are indeed all being sent to one particular Canadian town, just like in my analogy -- only in this case, the "natives" still outnumber the "newcomers" by a wide margin. You and the rest of the PC crowd are awfully damned quick to accuse people of being racist. You might want to actually have another look at what was said. My analogy defended the rights of the "Chinese refugees" to continue observing their own traditions and customs even when arriving on foreign soil, as opposed to being forced to immediately comply with "the way things are". Get off your soapbox, you're barking up the wrong tree. 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 In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel over what I considered to be an odd number. --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Ken M. Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 16:49:38 -0400 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com Spam_Phree@removedis.yahoo.com wrote: > Recently I have been getting a lot of hang up calls and couldn't > figure out why. *69 revealed the call was from "Out of Area". I got a > caller ID box and it said the same thing. > As the calls got more and more frequent, I called the RBOC to > complain. They advised me to dial *57 the next few times it occurs. > Each time I dialed *57 for a Law Enforcement Trace, the message > advised that 'this feature cannot be activated because the caller is > out of our service area'. > Today, I stumbled across a FAQ that reveals the probability that the > majority of these calls are coming from a telemarketer's predictive > dialing machines. > I'm getting about one hang up a day now and the RBOC says that there > is no way that they can trace the calls to find out who is making > them. Is this true? I'm sure the telemarketer's are using a outbound > wats line or ISDN or T1/3 or something and not sending CID info on > purpose. Bell Atlantic now offers "Do Not Disturb" in the Washington-Baltimore areas. I have this service. It will (when activated) block every call that come into your line, unless you do the following: 1) Enter the caller's phone number (from any state) on the inbound list. This list holds 15 numbers. 2) Give the caller a 4-digit passcode to break through the block. The "Do Not Disturb" feature allows you to activate three different messages that let callers know you are not accepting calls. You can also program the service to activate or deactivate at various times, or you can activate it when you wish. They haven't advertised this feature yet but it is available. Ken ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Named Telepone Exchanges Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:11:09 PDT From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look at the 'exchange.names' file in > the section of the Telecom Archives dealing with history. Go to > http://telecom-digest.org/archives/history for starters. We've had > discussions about exchange names in great detail here in the past. PAT] Pat, If you're looking to rehash this thread recurring topic, I have two which I don't find in the four exchange.names archive files. Uh ... I really only have one and a half but being that the half of one is in South Chicago, I'm sure you might know of the other half of it. My grandfather's business card (he worked for the City of Chicago as a refrigeration system inspector) sports a "DIVERSY 5xxx". This is perhaps around the 30's or 40's. My great grandfather's trade card (the father in law of the above GF) at 81st Street and South Chicago Avenue only shows: "Telephone 1xxx South Shore" This second one is no later than 1939. Mike Maxfield [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Diversey is an east/west street in Chicago at 2800 north. The telephone exchange we know now as 773-348 has a history of going from 'Diversey' in its earliest manual days because the central office was on Diversey around Damen Avenue to DIVersey in the earliest days of automatic dialing to DIversey-8 (in the three-letter/four-digit swap to two-letter/five-digit number arranement in the late 1940's, the third letter of each existing exchange name became the first of the five digits) to then DI-8 to 348 to 312-348 and now 773-348. For interested parties, I believe that General Diversey was a Civil War army general. In the 1920's and 1930's in Chicago phone numbers usually appeared with the exchange name first and the number following, but some people reversed the order, sort of a way of saying, 'when you call me, my number is 1xxx (on the) South Shore telephone exchange.' It could have as easily and accurately been given as SOUth Shore-1xxx. From the early manual days, there were both 'South Shore' and 'South Chicago' served out of the same office at 87th and Constance Avenue. The South Shore numbers tended to be in the 6700-8000 area south along the lakefront while South Chicago tended to be more 8500-10600 south, again along the lakefront but aiming at the state line. The problem came up that although the operator in manual days knew the difference, unfortunatly the phone switch could not tell the difference between SOUth Chicago-xxxx and SOUth Shore-xxxx so they merged the two into one exchange, which became SO-8 and later 312-768 and 773-768. It was as much a matter of 'which sounds nicer' as anything else. The South Chicago neighborhood, then and now is thought of as a heavily indus- trial area and not a 'desirable' residential area; meanwhile just a bit north, in the seventies along Lake Shore Drive in those long-ago times you had the South Shore Country Club, several very good schools, well-attended to highrise apartment complexes, many families with personal maids, butlers and cooks, the University of Chicago was at the northern edge of it all, everyone had *lots* of money and very old money at that, and they preferred 'South Shore' if it was all the same to you. In its recent past as 773-768, the phone exchange has not served quite as much opulence, to say the least. A few pockets are still okay, but most of it is pretty dreadful and dreary. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 18:18:14 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:58:27 -0400 Eliot Gelwan wrote: > As something of a retro grouch, I have long lamented the passing of > *named* telephone exchanges. Growing up in New York, I had telephone > numbers like "ILlinois 9-xxxx" and "BRining 7-xxxx". I've taken a > fancy to starting to give out my current phone number in Brookline, MA > (738-xxxx) in similar form. Does any reader know of a way of finding > out, for exchanges that have been around long enough, what the > original name would have been. Of course I could (a) interview elderly > neighbors who might recall, but there aren't any obvious ones around; > or (b) make something up, e.g. "PErry 8" (I live on Perry Street) or > "REtro 8", but the possibility of historical accuracy appeals to > me. Any suggestions? Check out this URL: The Telephone Exchange Name Project. If you specifically go to this URL: it's the "big" list with all exchanges listed plus which cities the exchange names were used. Our faithful contributor Mark Cuccia contributed to this project. Of course you should realize that to be really "true" to an office officially an exchange name would only be used on those exchanges that were in use up til the introduction of ANC (all number calling) which would mean that in Hyannis, Massachusetts the only exchange that was in use during pre-ANC days was SPring 5 and the exchange that was later added 771 was added after the introduction of ANC. Of course officially in most of North America 2L-5N dialing ended in the mid sixties except for some holdover cities such as Philadelphia which was using 2L-5N numbering well into the late 70's or maybe even the early 80's. As another aside TPC (the phone company) has found yet another way to make money by charging a premium for "vanity" numbers i.e. numbers that will spell something or an easily remembered sequence of numbers. Exchange names may have died in the 60's but people love their vanity numbers (and the phone companies are all to glad to charge you for the priviledge!) Joseph Singer "thefoneguy" PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early or middle 1960's I had the phone number 312-RAvenswood-8-7425 which of course also spells 'Patrick'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 18:44:20 -0600 From: Russell Disberger Reply-To: disberger@aol.com Subject: Aims Community College Telecom Studies There was a question here about schools offering telecom courses. Aims Community College offers such a program. It is used by most of the telecom companies for their employees. Their number (970) 330-8008 ext 6213. or visit their web site at aims.edu Russell ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #373 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 5 01:50:46 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA01758; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 01:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 01:50:46 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909050550.BAA01758@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #374 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 99 01:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 374 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines (Bruce Officer) Real-Life ADSL/Cable Data Rates (Charles Platt) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (L. Winson) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Mark Brader) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Jack Daniel) More History on Exchange Names (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Bruce Officer Subject: Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:05:34 +1200 Organization: Customer of Telecom Internet Services Its a while since I was involved with this area but I remember both the big barrier isolator transformers and radio solutions and more recently optoisolators with long perspex isolators. Now I guess they use fibre optic cable without any metallic strength elements. Darryl Smith wrote in message news:telecom19. 371.5@telecom-digest.org: > I have seen the issue from a different side. I work in the power > industry here in Australia. Since we are a generator, we have voltages > up to 500 kV lying round our substations and power stations. This > gives the phone companies nighmares. > For those that do not know, substations are a work of art ... They put > in a grid of 1 inch * 1/8 inch copper bar on a 3 foot grid throughout > the entire substation!!! This is so that if there is an earth fault, > the voltage of all the earth rises, and anyone on the property is > safe. ------------------------------ From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Real-Life ADSL/cable Data Rates Date: 4 Sep 1999 23:00:01 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC I'm writing for a national magazine, discussing broadband alternatives. I'm having a hard time finding reliable statistics about data transfer rates in the real world. I'll settle for anecdotal information at this point. If you have a cable modem, or ADSL, I'd be very interested to know your best and worst speeds (upstream and downstream). I won't be discussing all the various factors that determine the performance; I'd just like a few best/worst numbers. If you can estimate the incidence of service interruptions that you must endure on your system, that would be helpful too. I note that {Computer Shopper}, that bastion of buy-it-now! optimism, mentioned recently that their best connect speeds for ADSL or cable were 600 Kbps. (I assume they were referring to download, not upload!) Charles Platt ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: 5 Sep 1999 01:47:03 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'hammer and anvil chorus' was a > very familiar sound also to the people who worked in or visited a > Western Union public office. Most WUTCO public offices were gone by > the middle or late 1960's in favor of having customers call in their > telegraph messages over the phone to a central location. The last time I was in Chicago, a few years ago, I passed a Western Union building downtown, across from the La Salle Street commuter railroad terminal (the new one.) There was a public office open in the lobby (protected by heavy thick glass). I wonder if it's still there. Trenton NJ had a Western Union office downtown, as Pat described it, until the mid 1980s. In 1979 a Western Union employee told me the vast majority of their business was money transfers, followed by a bit of mailgram business. Traditional telegrams were rare. I suspect today they're even rarer, but they are still shown on WU's web page. Just out of curiosity, I asked at some WU agents (lots of those) if they accept messages. They do not, they serve only money transfers. Several years ago Western Union fell on financial hard times. The parent company renamed itself so as to protect the Western Union name. I've searched indexes, but haven't found any news articles on Western Union in a long time. Someone wrote a book on their early years "The Victorian Internet", and there are other books on their first century. Finding stuff about their more recent past, especially the post WW II era, is harder. One reference is "The Story of Telecommunications" by George P. Oslin, Mercer University Press, 1992, which has a great deal of information on the company, though it leaves many questions unaswered. This author, a long time employee who went back many years, blamed a series of government orders for hurting the company --(1) forcing the merger on unfavorable terms of the Postal Telegraph into WU, (2) giving AT&T favorable regulation where it competed with WU (ie TWX vs Telex), and (3) unfavorable regulation dealing with international cables. My biggest question is how WU missed the boat on the explosion of data communications that AT&T basically monopolized. WU was playing around with high tech -- it even launched a satellite and had microwave transmission -- but otherwise it didn't seem to do much of anything except money transfers and mailgrams. One would think they would've tried at least to launch their own long distance company to compete with AT&T as MCI and Sprint did. In downtown Philadelphia and Trenton, there are a few manhole covers marked "WUTC" (in Phila there's also KTCO for Keystone Telephone Co). I suspect a long time ago WU gave up owning and operating its own physical wire plant, depending solely on AT&T for line service, and dependent on AT&T rates. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually WUTCO did try long distance phone service for a few years, back sometime in the 1980's. I am not certain if the building at 427 South LaSalle Street still belongs to Western Union or not. That was their headquarters for the Chicago region for many years, I would say back to about 1900 at least. That little bullet-proof storefront on the first floor of the building is a greatly modified and reduced in size version of the public office which used to be there. I have not been past it in several years either, but all it was used for even ten years ago was just money transfers and money order purchasing. That general area, of LaSalle and Van Buren Streets has so much underground infrastructure it is incredible. That area used to be the main downtown part of Chicago prior to the great fire in 1871. Western Union in fact rebuilt their office building where the old one had been that burned in the fire. WUTCO had much of their switching apparatus in that building from the days when telegraph agencies were everywhere, and bear in mind that the Illinois Bell switch is a half-block or so south of there; the one that serves most of the east and south parts of downtown. They are afraid to excavate in the street in that area any more than it is absolutely necessary; they find conduits and pipes and cables going Lord knows where, many untagged and so ancient no one has any idea what they serve. Although in almost every city in the USA at one time, the local telegraph agent's phone number was (exchange)-4321 compliments of whatever deal WUTCO had with AT&T, in Chicago, the number WABash-2-4321 was reserved for the WUTCO administrative offices switchboard. For people sending telegrams by phone, the number for the message takers was WABash-2-7111 payphone where you called the operator and asked for 'Western Union' because the operator controlled the coin collection in the box) and the individual branch offices in Chicago were all something-4321 depending on the neighborhood they were in. The public office at 427 South Lasalle was opulence to the extreme. Elegant marble counters, marble writing desks where the customer would be seated to compose the message he would take over to the clerk; large highback leather chairs in the carpeted waiting area where you could sit if you were expecting a telegram; brass spitoons and huge glass ashtrays always clean; a very high vaulted ceiling with elegant glass globes for lighting; ceiling fans always spinning sort of slowly keeping the room at a nice temperature, and of course at least one Western Union clock in each office. The din from the machines was always present except rarely for a few seconds of total silence once or twice a day perhaps at irregular intervals. Sit at the desk, take one of the yellow blanks, use the fountain pen provided, and write out your message. Then go take it over to the clerk who functioned sort of as a school teacher checking the essay you had just turned in. She would read it, and count the words. If something was illegible to her, or a word was not spelled correctly, she would ask you, 'what is this word here?' You told her, and she would use a red pencil to *print* the word correctly, directly above your writing and then circle the word she was identifying. That will be fifty cents please, or maybe 65 cents, and when you paid, the paper was then put in a time clock like device which stamped the time on it and the agent's indicia. Then it was handed to the guys in back, one of whom would read it, sit down and type it into the machine. He would then add some indicia of his own, and put it into a plastic tube 'carrier' and send it up the pneumatic air tube to some office somewhere. Now and then empty plastic carriers would come down the air tube to him for recycling. The clerks could smile on cue, and dab their eyes on cue, depending on the nature of the message. People would come in to pick up telegrams waiting for them. They'd give their name, and the clerk would look in the little pigeon-hole boxes where they had them filed waiting for their owners. Having done it for years, the clerks could glance at the message and easily read it all in two seconds. Walking over to the counter, with maybe a Kleenex to dab at her eyes she would say, "I sure am sorry to have to give this bad news to you folks," and as the man and his wife would stand there silently and read the message they would see that Grandma Beulah had died the day before. And when they finished reading and turned to leave the clerk would immediatly dab at her eyes and say, "Would you folks like to respond while you are still here in the office? You can send fifteen words for 65 cents." And no sooner than that customer was gone and the next one approached it would be a telegram telling of the birth of a child and as the customer read the scrap of paper the clerk would smile and laugh and beam with pride along with the new grandparents there at the counter. You too can respond before you leave the office, fifteen words for just 65 cents. Then came notice of another death from the chattering machines, and out would come the handkerchief again as the clerk would quietly call the folks to the counter and tell them how sorry she was to have to give them news like this. The customers were always supposed to write out their own messages using their own words, etc. If they included a profane word in their message (there were about ten words WUTCO refused to transmit over its wires; you know what they were) then the clerk, without actually saying the word out loud would circle it and hand the form back to the customer saying, "We cannot transmit the word(s) I have circled. Please rewrite your message for me." Also, please bear in mind that much earlier in this century, in some areas of the United States there was a higher degree of illiteracy than at present; some people could not read or write. If they approached the clerk and wanted to send a message, if they were unknown, the clerk would immediatly tell them to go sit at one of the writing tables, compose their message and bring it back to the counter. Perhaps the person would then hang his head in shame, embarassed to say that he was unable to do that. The clerks were trained to recognize this, and ask in a gentle way, 'do you want me to help you write out your message?' and after the customer had explained what he wanted to say, the clerk would put it all down in ten or twelve words. But in those cases, the clerk had to add a rubber stamp thing on the form which said something like, 'My name is Mary Smith. I am employed by Western Union. My duties include transmitting messages for customers. Under oath and duly sworn I state that the person whose signature or mark appears below this affirmation asked my assistance in preparing this message. The words shown above are the words the person requested me to transmit in his behalf.' And the customer would place 'his mark' (frequently just a letter 'X' below that) and the clerk would sign it. This was due to federal privacy regulations enforced by the FCC because it was against the law for the clerks or telegraphers to discuss the content of the message except for technical reasons, illegible words, etc. For those folks who could not read, they usually excused themselves by saying 'they forgot to bring their glasses' and would the clerk please read it to them. These messages were also endorsed with something to the effect of 'My name is ... I work for Western Union ... the customer named below asked my assistance in understanding the message which had been transmitted to them.' And the person had to sign it. This prevented later accusations that 'the telegraph clerk was reading my message and told me, etc ...' in violation of privacy regulations. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: 4 Sep 1999 15:31:55 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Alan Boritz wrote: > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Kevin Stone wrote: >>> The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't >>> called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to >>> get them to do something out of the norm. >> I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but I'm sure I read it here first: >> There is an exception to the general rule that the point of demarcation >> must be on the outside of a building if the service enters underground. > There's no exception, because there's no "general rule." Depends > entirely upon the telco's current business policy. Carterphone? In any event, his point of demarcation is already established. It would require a physical change to relocate it outside. ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges Date: 4 Sep 1999 17:22:28 -0400 Eliot Gelwan writes: > Does any reader know of a way of finding out, for exchanges that > have been around long enough, what the original name would have been. See if your public library (or a major library in a large city nearby) keeps old phone books for your city. Or try old newspapers -- those should certainly be available, perhaps on microfilm -- and look for phone numbers in ads. Mark Brader I "need to know" *everything*! How else Toronto can I judge whether I need to know it? msbrader@interlog.com -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Jack Daniel Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 12:56:09 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: JackDaniel@RFSolutions.com Pat, My fading and erratic memory realls SPRINT beginning as result of an FCC ruling that allowed private non-telco companies to resell excess microwave capacity in the first 'by-pass' of AT&T long distance services. The best known was Goshen's little company called Microwave Communications Inc (just called "MCI" now) that wanted to provide alternate long distance circuits for trucking companies and the instigator of the Carterphone decision later. Southern Pacific Railroad had a large private microwave network with excess capacity, so they ventured forth to resell that capacity to others. They called this division "Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Technologies" or something very similar. The railroad later sold off this division but it retained the abbreviated name, "SPRINT". I personally sold equipment to the SPRINT group in San Francisco. I'm sure the company's roots are over 100 years old if you include the railroad protion. Maybe starting with railway telegraph ? Disclaimer: I'm sure others will immediately expand upon and extensively correct any misconceptions I have about this story. Jack Daniel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 23:39:50 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: More History on Exchange Names Thinking about it this evening, I culled through the back issues of the Digest and found several articles of interest on this topic. These I have selected all appeared in TELECOM Digest in January, 1986 with the exception of one from April, 1986. =========================== 25-Jan-86 08:16:06-EST,491;000000000001 Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 25 Jan 86 08:16-EST Received: from BRL-AOS.ARPA by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 25 Jan 86 08:20:54 EST Received: from brl-vmb.arpa by AOS.BRL.ARPA id a027354; 25 Jan 86 8:17 EST Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 8:15:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom.mit-mc@BRL-AOS.ARPA cc: cmoore@BRL.ARPA Subject: Re: Named Exchanges Could not send to swenson: LAndscape 5 is a THREE-character exchange? 25-Jan-86 08:26:23-EST,749;000000000001 Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 25 Jan 86 08:26-EST Received: from BRL-AOS.ARPA by MC.LCS.MIT.EDU 25 Jan 86 08:31:14 EST Received: from brl-vmb.arpa by AOS.BRL.ARPA id a027394; 25 Jan 86 8:27 EST Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 8:20:34 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom.mit-mc@BRL-AOS.ARPA cc: cmoore@BRL.ARPA Subject: exchange names using 2 words There is also CHestnut Hill in Philadelphia, MUrray Hill in Manhattan, WHite Plains and MOunt Vernon in Westchester County (NY), and someone has mentioned MUrray Hill in Murray Hill, NJ (location of Bell Labs). I have seen ATlantic City (NJ) but this does not correspond to the dial prefixes I now see in the 609 area. ================== 25-Jan-86 12:51:33-EST,615;000000000001 Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU via Chaosnet; 25 Jan 86 12:51-EST Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 12:56:21 EST From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Named Exchanges To: MYERSTON@SRI-KL.ARPA cc: KFL@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU, Telecom@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Message-ID: <[MC.LCS.MIT.EDU].795949.860125.KFL> From: HECTOR MYERSTON How about the non-exchange, non-dialable, ZEnith X-XXXX numbers?. These were pre 800 800 numbers. "Call you local operator and ask for ZEnithX-XXXX, no cost to calling party". Huh? There is no "Z" on the dial. ...Keith 25-Jan-86 18:27:28-EST,352;000000000001 ===================================== Date: Sat 25 Jan 86 15:24:18-PST From: Doug Subject: numbers to exchange names, now. To: Telecom%xx.lcs.mit.edu%CSNET-RELAY@hplabs.arpa I'm not bored yet. My exchange in Oakland CA is 655-. Does anyone know if it was a "named" exchange. My friends have 547- in Oakland, also. Same question. Thanks. ====================================== 27-Jan-86 08:35:28-EST,267;000000000001 From: hplabs!tektronix!athena!dalel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: telecom@teklds.tek Subject: Trivial Query Date: 25 Jan 86 18:16:09 PST (Sat) This could get interesting. How many people remember those names? -- Dale Lehmann Tektronix, Inc. Beaverton, Oregon ================================== 30-Jan-86 15:45:37-EST,3627;000000000000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 14:26:02 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: telecom@MIT-XX.ARPA Subject: Prefix names Well, I could try relying on memory, and I'm sure I would provide some wrong or otherwise worthless info, so I went to the source. I went to the St. Louis public library and asked for a telephone book from the early 50's. (It took them a couple tries to find one with the front pages, with the dialling instructions and suchlike, intact enough to read -- it's interesting how frangible a telephone book gets in only 35 years... :-) Anyway, here is some "official" info on named exchanges in the St. Louis, MO area in 1953: Exchanges in the St. Louis City area: CAbany GEneva MUlberry CEntral GOodfellow NEwstead CHestnut GRand OLive COlfax HIland PArkview CUmberland HUdson PLateau DElmar JEfferson PRospect EVergreen LAclede ROsedale FIreside LOckhart SIdney FLanders LUcas STerling FOrest MAin SWeetbriar FRanklin MIssion VErnon 2 GArfield MOhawk VOlunteer 3 Some of these equate to street names, but others are sort of off-the-wall. While I didn't copy all the suburban area exchange lists, I copied one. Note this interesting difference between the names. Some have capitalized two-letter beginnings, while others do not. Maybe the ones with no capital-letter-pairs cannot be direct-dialed, and had to be asked for through an operator? (I dunno; just a guess...) Atwater Northland TEmple 7 UNderhill 7 University 4 VIctor 7-8 Vulcan 6 Here's something interesting: on the cover of the suburban directory for 1953 is a table of prefix changes, that were scheduled to go into effect at 12:01 AM December 6, 1953. (My birthday! How nice! I don't think I knew about it, being 8 at the time...:-) ATwater to VIctor 7 AXminster to WYdown 2 or 7 DIxon to VIctor 3 FEnton to DAvis 6 KIrkwood to TAylor 1 or 2 LAke to LEhigh 6 POnd to CRestview 3 REpublic to WOodland 1 or 2 TErryhill to YOrktown 5 TUlane 4 to WOodland 1 or 2 WAbash to WAbash 2 WEbster to WOodland 1 or 2 WIllow 2 to ESsex 5 WIllow 3 to BUtler 5 WIllow 4 to ESsex 6 WIllow 5 to ATlas 7 WIllow 7 to JUstice 7 WInfield to WInfield 6 WYdown to WYdown 1 Again, some of these are the names of streets or communities, but others are arbitrary words with no particular local references that come to mind (there might BE real local references, but mayhap they are in areas I am unfamiliar with and don't recognize). Anyway, it was interesting looking at that old phonebook. I looked up my own old number and it wasn't anything like what I remembered! (I had thought it was a GRand but it was a LAclede; maybe it changed later, before it changed to a PRospect, which number my mother has retained to this day [address unchanged during this].) Found various relatives' listings, etc. So what does this prove? Not a heck of a lot, but I think we can generalize and say that phone-number-word-prefixes were a mixture of nationwide arbitrary words (FIreside, EVergreen, WIllow) and local specific street or community names (DElmar, CAbany, KIrkwood). If someone can get access to telco historical files, maybe they can find a "master list" of prefix names to use nationwide when there was no appropriate local name to use instead? Well, if your time machine zaps you back to St. Louis in the '50's, at least you'll find the phone numbers familiar... Look me up and give me some copies of the Wall Street Journal for the following decades, please... Regards, Will Martin 3-Apr-86 11:43:49-EST,1407;000000000001 Return-Path: Received: from Xerox.COM by XX.LCS.MIT.EDU with TCP; Thu 3 Apr 86 11:43:42-EST Received: from Aurora.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 03 APR 86 08:38:39 PST Date: 3 Apr 86 11:37 EST From: Denber.wbst@Xerox.COM Subject: Numbering Plans Revisited To: Telecom@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Message-ID: <860403-083839-1247@Xerox> There was some discussion of telephone numbering plans on this list last fall. I ran across an interesting article yesterday on national numbering plans in the Bell System Technical Journal from Sept. 1952 by W.H. Nunn, which you may find of interest. A short excerpt (p. 854): Table I - Different Types of Numbering Plans Place Directory Listing Referred to as Philadelphia, Pa. LOcust 4-5678 Two-five Los Angeles, Cal. PArkway 2345 and Combined two-four REpublic 2-3456 and two-five Indianapolis, Ind. MArket 6789 Two-four El Paso, Texas PRospect 2-3456 Combined two-five and 5-5678 and five digit San Diego, Cal. Franklin 9-2345 One letter, four and Franklin 6789 five digit Des Moines, Iowa 4-1234 and Combined five and 62-2345 six digit Binghamton, N.Y. 2-5678 Five digit Manchester, Conn. 5678 and 2-2345 Combined four and five digit Winchester, Va. 3456 Four digit Ayer, Mass. 629 and 2345 Combined three and four digit Jamesport, N.Y. 325 Three-digit - Michel =================================== [TELECOM Digest Editor's 1999 note: I thought you might be interested in seeing these messages, if old exchange names are something you are curious about. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #374 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 5 03:45:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA04851; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 03:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 03:45:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909050745.DAA04851@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #375 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 99 03:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 375 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN (Jay Fenello) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Mike Mansfield) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Alan Boritz) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (L. Winson) Ode to the Teletype? (Chris Johnston) Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Ed Ellers) How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet? (Kyler B. Laird) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 03 Sep 1999 17:33:48 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For this weekend's installment of news about ICANN, Vint Cerf, Esther Dyson and that whole hot team on the west coast which has big plans for your internet, I have printed Jay Fenello's report from a few months ago. Remember now, this is the group that while proclaiming 'the internet is for everyone' steadfastly refuses to communicate with almost anyone, keeping their meetings secret, etc. Jean Armour Polly coined the expression 'surf the net' and we believe she was referring to using a browser to look at many different web sites. But the expression has an all new meaning now. Now we say, 'cerf the net' or sometimes, 'cerf the shopping mall' and we are referring to the take over of the web by venture capitalists and very large corp- orate interests who don't see things in quite the same way as the rest of us who have been around for awhile. Well, I cannot go on with this thread forever; I have other things to talk about here, and so do you, the readers. But it just seemed to me that with so few of the netizens having even heard of Internet Society/ICANN, et al, let alone knowing what they are up to, some time-out from our regular programming here was in order. So, if you begin to see some changes in things around here, you folks who claim 'they have every right to be here' can grouse about it among yourselves, but please don't blame me and wonder why no one ever told you ... because I *have* been telling you for at least a year now. After today's installment, we will have one more around the middle of next week, a sort of summary of things not yet covered. At that point, any of you who want to stay in denial about it are welcome to do so, there is nothing more I can do except to keep giving warnings now and then. PAT] ----------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 01:57:06 -0400 To: list@ifwp.org From: Jay Fenello Subject: Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, com-priv@lists.psi.com, onenet-discuss@cpsr.org Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." As we approach the conclusion of the ICANN formation process, these words have profound implications. What follows is my interpretation of over two years of personal involvement in establishing a fair process to expand the name space, also known as Global Internet Governance. While many will discount these comments, or ridicule my positions, or marginalize their importance, I will simply stand on my record: I first joined the debate in January, 1997. In attempting to launch Iperdome, I came under severe attack from the supporters of a plan called the gTLD-MoU. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was standing in the way of their aspirations for total control over the world-wide Internet. While the debate raged on, it soon became apparent that the U.S. Government was the authority over this matter, and they were responsible for transitioning their stewardship over the Internet. Iperdome even called for the Government's intervention way back in April, 1997 ( Over a period of months, I came to realize that the gTLD-MoU was not about the name space expansion -- it was about power and control over Internet resources. I said as much when I spoke as one of the invited speakers at the Domain Name Conference sponsored by the ITAA, CDT, and ISA (), an event that was covered widely in the press ( Of course, the opposition ridiculed me, threatened me, and even disparaged the reporters who were providing balanced coverage of the debate. To make a long story short, the U.S. Government did intervene on July 7th, 1997. That's when they issued a Request for Comments (for more information on the RFC, the Green Paper and/or the White Paper, please see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm) On September 30th, 1997, Congress finally got involved. After a fiery hearing where Andy Sernovitz testified to the inappropriate power grab (http://www.iperdome.com/press/andy.txt), Representative Pickering said: "American taxpayers have helped build the Internet as well as many U.S. companies and private sector investors," said Representative Charles W. (Chip) Pickering, a Mississippi Republican. "To now go into a transition plan that moves that to another country offshore - whether it's Switzerland or any other country - I think would raise questions among American taxpayers, the American public." "This is something that is uniquely American that we have built. And we need to maintain leadership," Pickering added. "To do otherwise would be a disgrace to the American taxpayers and investors who helped build this and who made this great opportunity possible." As we headed towards the end of 1997, and while we were waiting for the U.S. Governments decisions with regards to their RFC, it appeared that the IAHC would get their way and the gTLD-MoU would be allowed to proceed. Not to say we didn't keep trying. I wrote a detailed summary about the implications of the decisions that the U.S. Government was about to make (), and Gordon Cook of "The Cook Report" () opened a dialog with Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's Technology Czar. Then, just as the U.S. Government was about to announce their decision, Ira jumped into the fray and put all decisions on hold until he had a chance to review all of the efforts that had preceded him. Of course, the MoU supporters cried foul. In fact, many of the followers of Jon Postel (who was the de facto and spiritual leader of the Internet), and many European Governments and Corporations protested vigorously. Not to be deterred, and in a most deliberate way, Ira did just as he promised. He contacted everyone who had ever been involved in the process. He then proceeded to draft the Green Paper, a document that would have provided a fair and immediate expansion to the name space. Upon its release, however, the same MoU supporters mounted a vigorous campaign to protest the Green Paper. It was also around this time that Jon Postel re-directed over half of the world's root servers to *his* machine! While we will probably never know for certain, this combination of events likely forced the U.S. Government to abandon the Green Paper, and started the resulting White Paper process. It was also around this time that I and others started to discuss the implications of Global Internet Governance. Of course, we were ridiculed and discredited once again. When the White Paper was finally announced, it was considered a workable document by almost everyone. Unfortunately, the games and takeover attempts were hardly over, as I reported in my testimony to Congress on June 10th (http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress.htm). In fact, even before the White Paper was formally announced, Jon Postel had formed a private group of advisors to help the IANA transition to the new Internet Governance body. After the White Paper was announced, the Internet community quickly responded by organizing the "International Forum on the White Paper" (http://www.ifwp.org). Even this process was fraught with gaming and takeover attempts. First, MoU supporters refused to participate. Then, as more and more large organizations jumped on board, the MoU supporters decided to participate to "torpedo" the effort and argue for *un*fair processes ;-) process. (Fortunately, that didn't work.) But even with all of the progress made by the IFWP, even with all of the consensus that was generated through all of the meetings, Jon Postel continued to ignore the consensus, and with the help of Joe Simms and others, drafted multiple iterations of their own proposals for Internet governance. This came to a head shortly after the Singapore IFWP meeting. Many wanted to finish the IFWP process by having a final meeting where a draft proposal for Internet governance could be completed. That's when Mike Roberts (current ICANN president) lead the effort to destroy the IFWP. He was successful. On September 30th, 1998, the U.S. Government issued a cryptic announcement regarding ICANN's intention to submit an application to assume the role of New Co as described in the White Paper (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dns93098.htm). While there was still a tremendous amount of opposition to ICANN, the Internet community took comfort that the release indicated that competing proposals would also be accepted. Since Ira had always said that the U.S. Government would not choose between competing proposals, many felt that the remaining concerns would be addressed in the ICANN proposal. The problems with ICANN were summarized in my written testimony to Congress on October 6th, 1999 (http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress3.txt). I described the problems with ICANN as follows: - The draft was finalized behind closed doors. - The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the IFWP process. - The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any open nomination process or discussion. [When a Congressman directly asked Joe Simms how the board was selected, he waffled and said he wasn't sure. Later, at the first open ICANN Board meeting, at least one of the Board member revealed that it was Joe Simms who first approached them!!!] - It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the ICANN board is only accountable to itself. - It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically the desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive processes. When it became clear that neither Jon Postel, Joe Simms, nor any other ICANN supporter would seriously entertain changing any of the unacceptable provisions of their draft by-laws, several people and organizations stepped forward with competing plans. What followed was a series of discussions between the various draft submitters, and the Commerce Department. Ira even went so far as to issue a letter (http://www.iperdome.com/press/ira.txt) to the ICANN drafters highlighting deficiencies, and suggesting that they needed to work towards consensus with the BWG and the ORSC. After almost a month of conference calls with Ira, Commerce, ORSC, BWG, and the new ICANN Board, no consensus ever emerged. Instead, Commerce agreed to bless ICANN with continuing oversight as outlined in a new MoU between them. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm) [As an aside, it was during this period that Jon Postel passed away, and Ira Magaziner resigned from his role as Technology Czar.] Given the MoU, and given the assurances by Becky Burr and Esther Dyson, most of the Internet community was willing to give ICANN the benefit of the doubt, and support the ICANN process. But we have been lead astray ... Over the course of the last couple of months, we have come to realize that ICANN has ignored it's own bylaws, ignored it's MoU with Commerce, and ignored the terms and goals of the White Paper. And when we have complained to Commerce, we have been ignored as well. In effect, ICANN has pursued an agenda completely synchronous with the gTLD-MoU which proceeded it. And while it continues to give the appearance that it is working towards the day when it is an open and transparent body, managed by and for the Internet community in a bottom-up way, their recent policy decisions are diametrically opposed to these ideals. If and when this utopian ICANN nirvana arrives, all of the major policy decisions will have already been made, and the process rules will have already been defined. It will take years and years to correct. And that assumes that the resulting organization can even function. Some are now suggesting that ICANN is deliberately creating a structure that will be unable to make even simple decisions, let alone reverse their current agenda. It is for these reasons that I hearby declare that ICANN has been captured, and the U.S. Government is obliged to intervene once again. If not Commerce, then Congress. And if not Congress, then this should be escalated to the presidential elections. After all, this travesty is occurring on Al Gore's watch. In closing, as this summary reveals, ICANN has historically shown nothing but contempt for the valuable contributions from ORSC, BWG and the rest of the Internet community. I refuse to waste my time further. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I am inclined to not waste much more of my time either, Jay. If netizens do not wake up soon and take steps to put ICANN out of business once and for all, recognizing the fraud that it and Internet ('the internet is for everyone') Society have been passing for the past couple years, then they can have the net they deserve as a result. It is not just merely a matter of 'they have every right to be here no matter how much it may gall the old timers' as one writer said to me. Those boys mean business -- big business, and they are using people like Vint Cerf, Esther Dyson and others as their mouthpiece to get their way with the US Government where Internet is concerned. And I would like to conclude for now by pointing out that neither MCI-Worldcom or Cisco are very happy about the combined eight-hundred something thousand dollars Vint Cerf twisted their arm to get with his stories about how the internet would collapse any day now without the money he needed for his work ... money that was mostly all tossed away by handing it to a high-priced lawyer who still has accomplished nothing for anyone. As Vint would say, if no money, there won't be e-commerce, and without e-commerce, there won't be e-anything ... That's what I call 'cerfing the net' .... But don't let me interuppt your daily dose of telecom news, my goodness no! In a year or two, or whenever MCI-Worldcom, Sprint or AT&T decide to take over this column, you'll have plenty of time to meditate and reconsider your beliefs on who has the right to be where. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Mansfield Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 05:32:31 GMT Lisa Hancock wrote: >> Selective Calling Service used to give you 20 hours a month of calls >> This service was instituted to correct pricing injustices... > I checked the Trenton NJ directory and found no mention of this > service. > Could you describe what specific town this was offered and what > mileage band it covered? Was there a particular service territory > this was suited for? When did it first come out? I have used this service has for the 15 years it has existed. Bell Atlantic stated to me that it has offered it since 1968. If you need more information you can call any Bell Atlantic - New Jersey business office to get all the details. In fact, Bell Atlantic must have had such a volume of complaints that they instituted a special "prompt" on their PBX specifically for this price increase. By the way you seem to be very knowledgeable and very thorough. Do you work for Bell Atlantic -- New Jersey? > For calls for 1-10 miles, the tolls vary by time-of-day, but are > pretty reasonable, about the same as message unit charges in the > Philadelphia area. They were pretty reasonable here too, in Monmouth County, until this increase occured. What is outrageous is not the increase itself, but the amount of it, namely TENFOLD the old price. You will not be able to convince anyone that this is a "competitive" act. It smacks more of a VORACIOUS monopoly that found a loophole to gouge its customers. >> Shouldn't the Board of Public Utilities in New Jersey be involved in >> this and put a limit to such predatory tactics? > In the past, the state PUC would definitely be involved. > ... the company may charge whatever it wants. That's > what competition is all about. Only a monopoly can charge "whatever it wants". Hmm, where did you see the competition? Bell Atlantic owns the wire coming into my house and will not share it with anyone else. And, for many years, it has been milking the long distance companies with "access charges", ostensibly to "maintain inexpensive local service". What a mockery... >> If you are a voter in New Jersey you can do something to prevent >> such outrageous acts of irresponsible corporations. > Again, it depends on the circumstances if this is "outrageous" or > "irresponsible". My local convenience store charges two to things > times the price of the supermarket for certain items. Is that > "irresponsible" or just plain old business? When was the last time that your local convenience store raised its prices TENFOLD? This is a very poor analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be if your local POWER company raised the price of the kilowatt-hour TENFOLD. Do you really believe that anyone would accept this? > And it may not be under the power of the PUC. With phone company > deregulation comes competition. I preferred the old system to prevent That's EXACTLY where New Jersey voters can make the difference. They CAN put this under the power of the PUC, once they realize that Bell Atlantic is milking them shamelessly. Incidentally, has anyone noticed the latest "SIMPLIFICATION" of toll tariffs sent out with the September phone bill of Bell Atlantic? In some cases simplification = 200% increase. Another instance of their shameless hypocrisy and disinformation. > Again you need to be more specific. Was it AT&T offering local > service at all, or just this specific service class? What exactly > "requisite information" did AT&T need that Bell didn't provide? I will try to talk to AT&T lawyers to find out more details. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 19:13:49 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Joseph Wineburgh wrote: > You might want to look at one of their other 'local toll' packages > instead. The last time I checked they had one for maybe $50/month for > unlimited calling within the LATA (973, 908, 201, 732). I don't > remember what the plan was called, but this might suit your needs and > give you added benefits as well depending on your calling patterns ... Three times someone recommended I check out this "unlimited calling plan," and three times a Bell Atlantic customer service rep told me there was no such thing. The situation with calling plans is much worse up here in Mahwah, than in Morris County, since there are very few areas to which I can make a local untimed call. There were no national ISP's that were a local call until this past year. Most of the ISP's group their POP's around Hackensack and Paterson, which are toll calls from here. Calls to Morris county from here have always been expensive toll calls. I couldn't get ISDN service because part of the current deal is that I would have lost all of my regional toll plans, and my monthly bill would probably double. Now it looks like my monthly service may double, anyway. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges Date: 5 Sep 1999 04:35:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > course you should realize that to be really "true" to an office > officially an exchange name would only be used on those exchanges that > were in use up til the introduction of ANC (all number calling) which I'm more liberal. For instance, in Jenkintown PA, 885 came out as a number, but I still call consider that as TUrner, like the others. A lot of places got, and continue to get, additional exchanges that follow the original pattern. Whenever practical, I hope the phone companies continue to do that. For reasons I don't understand, Bell Atlantic in the Philadelphia area seems to go out of its way NOT to do that. For example, in aforementioned Jenkintown, instead of adding more 88x's, they started with 57x. > sixties except for some holdover cities such as Philadelphia which was > using 2L-5N numbering well into the late 70's or maybe even the early > 80's. Philadelphia converted in 1980, I believe it was the last to do so. To this day, a few businesses in Philadelphia still label their trucks with 2L-5N, and plenty of store signs remain. But memories are fading, and virtually everyone now is on ANC. Funny how the public can deal with names. I'm told some sections, especially the nicer neighborhood (ie Chestnut Hill, which happened to be served by CHestnut 2,7,8) was quite upset at the change. The transit authority tried renaming its rail lines by color-codes, though it didn't push it. One route that served several colleges became the "Green Lines". The college students readilly picked up that name, but native residents strongly resisted. (We had some nasty debates over this on Usenet.) Today, though colors are coordinated on maps and signage, the traditional names remain the official ones (Broad Street Subway, Market Frankford Subway Elevated, and Subway Surface lines). [As an occassional visitor to Chicago, I wish they kept the old L route names. If I want to go to Howard, I take a "Howard train", easy enough.] > the phone number 312-RAvenswood-8-7425 which of course also spells Can anyone honestly say they prefer "728" over the smooth flowing peaceful sound of "Ravenswood"? Ravenswood: I think of a quiet forest, with a little brook, birds singing, air pure and clean. Now 728. I 'ate' lunch. Big deal. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, Chicago no longer has 'Howard trains' or 'Ravenswood trains' or 'Evanston trains'. Now they have Red, Blue, Green, Purple, Brown, Orange and Yellow trains. It is up to you to figure out where the train is going. The Chicago Transit Atrocity would also prefer that you purchase a monthly travel pass directly from one of the vending machines or else at their office instead of handing over your dollar bills and coins to those thieving collectors they have working in the subway. In fact in the subway itself now you *have* to use the vending machines; they do not allow any of the former collection agents -- who still sit in the same cages but now do nothing, because the union won't allow Transit Atrocity to fire them -- to handle money at all. In return for their years of thievery, CTA gave them all promotions and now they are known as 'customer service assistants' and they sit in the little cages and basically do nothing all day. It is rare anyone bothers to ask them any questions or ask for assistance. The neighborhood called 'Ravenswood' used to indeed be a very bucolic, country setting, a hundred years ago when it was not part of the city but was a suburban, rural area. A guy by the name of Doctor Raven owned a great deal of the land there, and the woods which belonged to Raven, ie, Raven's Woods eventually was incorporated into the city. During the Great Train Robbery which went on for a number of years at the Transit Atrocity's money counting room and with the collection agents renamed customer service assistants, CTA's finances got so bad they basically scrapped the Ravenswood line entirely in order to have money and equipment to run the main line, which you refer to as Howard. Yeah I like RAvenswood better than 728 myself come to think of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnston Subject: Ode to the Teletype? Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 22:38:47 -0700 Organization: Netus Internetworking Has anyone an "Ode to the Teleytype"? I have a fully functional (ASR-33) that I restored sitting here in my office to remind me of my roots. I added one small feature -- an RS-232 to current loop converter that allows me to connect it to an OLD PC (one that supports 110baud). Quite a conversation piece. I am still looking for old units in Southern California to pick up for spare parts for my "hobby" of restoring them for friends. I am STILL looking for an old BRP (we called 'em burpees) the then really fast tape punch units. If anyone has spares or old gear laying around that they want to dump, I will part with a few bucks to take them off of your hands (don't send them to the junk heap just yet). Thanks! Chris Johnston - 714-939-3950 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if St. Louis is too far away or not, but you really need to speak with Herb Stein, since he has several he wants to get rid of. Let me introduce you: Chris, meet Herb! Herb, meet Chris! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 01:49:14 -0400 Someone describing themselves as "Hung up on in Hanover" wrote: "I'm getting about one hang up a day now and the RBOC says that there is no way that they can trace the calls to find out who is making them. Is this true? I'm sure the telemarketer's are using a outbound wats line or ISDN or T1/3 or something and not sending CID info on purpose." Callers don't send CID info -- the originating central office does that. My suspicion is that these boiler rooms have T1s *direct to their IXC* for their WATS lines, making caller ID or ANI difficult since the leased lines wouldn't have phone numbers associated with them. (If they had local CO lines they'd have phone numbers for each line even if the lines were provided over ISDN or T1 facilities.) Even so, the telco can tell that those calls are coming from a particular IXC and ought to be able to get the IXC's help in tracing the call back to the IXC's WATS customer. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 23:03:51 EST From: Kyler B. Laird Subject: How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet? After several (7?) years with a GTE cellular phone, I finally bought three new digital StarTACs recently. I decided to stick with GTE and use their America Choice plan in order to switch to primarily using the cell phones instead of our wired phones. This hasn't worked well, though, because the signal is awful both at work (Purdue) and home (not far from campus). I've tried calling *111 a few times. Sometimes I get someone extremely helpful. Today that happened. He told me that I had something about authentication mis-set on my accounts and he said he'd fix it. Cool. After talking with him, I thought I'd try the phone again. I called it (at home) from our landline. No ring. It wasn't until I put up the antenna that it rang. I called again to see if there was anything that could be done to improve the signal. It's not like we're out in the boonies here. The woman I got on the second call was different. She told me that my phone was not guaranteed to work if it's in my pocket with the antenna in. She said that I'd need to get a belt holster for it. (I have one.) After several iterations she verified (verbally) that by putting it in the holster (instead of a couple inches away in a cotton pocket or out on my desk), the signal would be good enough to make it work even with the antenna down. Aaargh! Where do they get these idiots?! (Had she been nice about not knowing anything about RF principles I wouldn't have minded, but she was rude and condescending.) Anyway ... is there a way to get better coverage in an area? I convinced a bunch of people at work to get GTE StarTACs and now they're all annoyed because they rarely work in our building. Thanks, kyler ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #375 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 5 17:47:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA29579; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909052147.RAA29579@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #376 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 99 17:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 376 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator (Paul W. Schleck) The Beginnings of Nationwide Time on the Railroads (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (Bruce Wilson) Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters (John R. Myers) Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging (Al Iverson) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Marty Bose) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Julian Thomas) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Bruce Wilson) Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help (Chris Johnston) Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phone (Jonathan Loo) Re: Info About an International (US/EU) GSM Setup Needed (Robert Berntsen) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Bruce Wilson) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Todd E. Toles) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: pschleck@novia.net (Paul W. Schleck K3FU) Subject: Re: Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator Date: 5 Sep 1999 10:08:02 -0500 Organization: Newscene Public Access Usenet News Service I remember Bill Pfeiffer, too. I recall voting for the creation of the rec.radio.broadcasting newsgroup when it was offered up for vote quite a few years ago (1991?). When Mark Salyzyn and I managed to create rec.radio.info (modeling ourselves after rec.music.info) in 1993, we had the chance to have much mutual technical discussion and exchange of advice with Bill about newsgroup moderation. We even set up some automatic pre-approval for periodic information postings that spanned both groups, some of which persists to this day on the rec.radio.info side. Bill always put out a quality product on rec.radio.broadcasting, though we didn't always agree on everything (Bill could have his headstrong opinions as much as anyone else). The object lesson for me after Bill's house burned down was to immediately go out and buy property insurance ($100/year for me, and highly recommended if you want to avoid such a tragic slate-wiping experience). I do hope that the object lesson in this most recent tragedy isn't, "Wear your seat belt." Posters in other newsgroups have noted that the {Minneapolis Star- Tribune}, possibly taking its information from an AP wire story, incompletely characterized Bill as a "delivery driver." Others have let the newspaper know about other contributions Bill has made over the years. One can only hope that some correction or update, possibly in the form of a good obituary, will appear (please, no Moderator's Note rants about the "running dog yellow journalists sucking at the teat of advertisers, etc., etc." at the end of this post). Goodbye Bill, you will be missed by all of us. Paul W. Schleck pschleck@novia.net http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ ICQ# 44218003 Finger pschleck@novia.net for PGP Public Key [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About two hours ago, I was contacted by Val Davis, a long-time participant in rec.radio.broadasting and a person who had also been a close friend of Bill Pfieffer and asked if I would serve as a sort of technical advisor during the interim while the newsgroup and web site gets re-established. Val Davis will serve as an 'interim moderator' and I will put the technical effort into seeing that the newsgroup continues. Val said to me on the phone his contacts all felt that 'the show must go on', and I agree with that. Although nothing is set in stone at this point, as I am able to get Val up to speed on the technical side of things, he will most likely then continue to hold the newsgroup and website in trust pending some decision by the regular participants on the appointment of a new moderator or webmaster, etc. The important thing right now, today, is that the news has to continue to flow out to the net as normally as possible, with as little interupption as possible. Val and I have agreed to try and begin issuing messages to rec.radio. broadcasting in the next day or two based on the queue of messages coming in waiting for processing. It will be a thing of getting the backlog caught up, getting him some scripts he is comfortable with and knowledgeable about; making arrangements with the administrator at the physical location where the processing is done (and where the airwaves.com alias is pointed) to put it all in the care of Val, etc. So if you do not see as much of me here in the next few days as in the past, don't feel I have abandoned telecom ... I will just be trying to get Bill's group back on track, but I will be around here also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 11:12:59 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: The Beginnings of Nationwide Time on the Railroads Telecommunications history buffs will by now have noted that EBay has a rather constant small number of various models of the once-ubiquitous Western Union "Naval Observatory Time" clocks being auctioned. These pendulum clocks, made by the Self-Winding Clock Company of New York, rewind themselves by means of a small motor or solenoid (in different models of the clocks) and can be set at the top of the hour by energizing a solenoid that was once connected to a telegraph line pulsed once an hour from a local "master clock" in each city; the local city master clock was updated at noon each day to a pulse from the national master site at Washington, DC. (Shades of the "strata" of today's hierarchy of digital transmission clocking -- is there nothing "new" in the world?) There's now a website containing an article that seems to be of the prehistory of the Western Union national time service. As one might expect, the orthodox Western Union history leads to the notion that the notion of a coordinated national time was conceived by the great minds of Western Union. However, as is so often the case with technology history, it's not difficult or unusual to find there were smaller precursors, and that's what this URL shows: http://www.inch.com/~ziggy/RREXTRA.HTM/sttime.Html ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:04:00 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters > My fading and erratic memory realls SPRINT beginning as result of an FCC > ruling that allowed private non-telco companies to resell excess > microwave capacity in the first 'by-pass' of AT&T long distance > services. Yep. The "foot in the door" was their being allowed to operate as "private line" carriers, so a company with geographically diverse locations would contract with them to link its various sites, but the public at large couldn't just dial into and use the networks. > The best known was Goshen's little company called Microwave > Communications Inc (just called "MCI" now) that wanted to provide > alternate long distance circuits for trucking companies and the > instigator of the Carterphone decision later. I think Carterphone began process of opening up the terminal equipment market, beginning with answering machines. (It's hard to believe now how paranoid the telcos once were with respect to connection of "foreign equipment" to their networks.) ------------------------------ From: John R. Myers Subject: Re: Sprint's Fantastic New World Headquarters Date: 5 Sep 1999 17:17:47 GMT Organization: John R. Myers / Palo Alto, California, USA Jack Daniel wrote: > I'm sure the company's roots are over 100 years old if you include the > railroad protion. Maybe starting with railway telegraph ? Pat, I can confirm this version of the story. I jumped into the Southern Pacific Communications Company shortly after Congress acted on the resale and sharing question. One time I borrowed a slide show from the Marketing folks to liven up a rather dull professional talk. (They had some dramatic shots of helicopters delivering microwave towers to snowcapped mountains, etc.) The script for the marketing talk made the point that the Southern Pacific Company was incorporated under a Federal (not State) charter more than a hundred years ago to build and operate railroad and telegraph lines. Of course, this little story has no bearing on the question of how the present-day Sprint can claim to have been in business for a hundred years! John R. Myers / Palo Alto, California ------------------------------ From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) Subject: Re: Problems BAM Text Messaging Organization: See sig before replying Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:10:00 -0500 In article , Jeffrey J. Carpenter wrote: >> Then, after issuing the DATA command, put the following: >> "To: NPANXXYYYY@message.bam.com," substituting your correct phone >> number. The message will go through, even though it seems like it >> should not. Am I unreasonable to assume that this is a bug? > It is a bug. Delivery using the "To:" address in the headers as > opposed to the envelope "To:" address is wrong. I believe it is > completely unacceptable. > This error means that you cannot use aliases or mailing lists that > contain the phone email addresses, which is a problem for us. > When we tested this service last year, we were able to get in contact > with the manager responsible for the service. He indicated that he > understands the problem, but they have no plans to fix it. > We selected AT&T wireless. It's either a bug, or a poorly-implemented method of spam filtering. Either way, I agree that it is unacceptable. Possible ways around it? If you're a unix/shell geek, write a little script that catches mail to that address and reformats it properly, and sends it along to the new address. I do this using shell scripts, called by Sendmail, for other various reasons. Here's a good general reminder when working with mail forwarding: Don't just blindly forward your mail somewhere else. Forward it somewhere else AND keep it in the mailbox it was sent to, if possible. For example, if your ISP or School uses sendmail, they'll tell you to set up a file called ".forward" in your home directory. That file should contain the address that you'd like your mail forwarded to. For example, for bob@school.edu, he might want his mail forwarded to bob@example.com. So he'd set up a .forward file containing "bob@example.com" -- but if example.com eats his message he'll never see it and have no way to recover it. What I do for my .forward setups is I set them up to contain: bob bob@example.com That first line, with just your username on the school.edu system, means leave the mail here. Combined with the second line, it means leave a copy here and forward a copy to bob@example.com. That way if example.com eats the message, you can still retrieve it by logging into your .edu account and reading it there. Of course, you have to clean out your edu mailbox once in a while. I think that's a small price to pay for helpful redundancy. Al Iverson RRSS/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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:40:35 -0800 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges When I was going to college I worked every summer in the ELgin Main in San Leandro, CA, which is now known as SNLNCA11. I still live in San Leandro, and have a phone number that would be ELgin 1-xxxx to an oldtimer. Marty ------------------------------ From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 18:56:17 GMT In , on 09/04/99 at 06:18 PM, Joseph Singer said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early or middle 1960's I had the > phone number 312-RAvenswood-8-7425 which of course also spells 'Patrick'. > PAT] Best one I had was many years ago in Lexington Mass VO2 3269 which could also be rendered as TOADBOX. Julian Thomas: jt 5555 at epix dot net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove numerics for email Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 05 Sep 1999 14:54:15 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Named Telepone Exchanges I'm old enough to remember when our phone number went from 4904 to 7-4904 then to CRestwood 7-4904. (Other exchange names introduced at that time included BLackburn, BRowning, CHerry, and AMherst). There was no relationship whatsoever between the names and any established area within the community. Some people (such as my mother) found it easiest to find the appropriate letters under the numbers on the dial and use the exchange name when dialing, but it seemed most (me and my father being two) found translating the letters to the more easily seen numbers preferable, thinking of (and dialing) BLackburn 5-5555 as its numeric equivalent, 255-5555, and the use of exchange names didn't last very long. ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnston Subject: Re: Modem-to-Modem Connection Help Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 22:46:10 -0700 Organization: Netus Internetworking Hi Carla: In the old days, we were able to set one modem in Answer and one in Originate. You can still set these modes. All you should need (if you can hack NT's RAS) is to do just this and then add the ATA to one side. You may also need 48 volts of battery in series with the mess. I can't say that this will work, but we did such an experiment with a pair of 300 baud modems many many moons ago. Chris Carla Decker wrote: > I have a project where I need to be able to connect two PCs together > using two modems over a telephone cable that *DOES NOT* have dial tone. > I also need to use RAS & DUN to take care of a requirement for TCP/IP. > > Here's my configuration: > > PC <-----> Modem <------------------> Modem <-----> PC > RAS 9600 No Dial Tone 9600 RAS > SVR > Client > The configuration is dictated, and not negotiable. I can get the > configuration to work using Hyperterminal. Unfortunately, Hyperterminal > doesn't give me TCP/IP capabilities. When I try to use RAS, I can't get > the RAS Server to answer. Any suggestions would be most helpful! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 02:48:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones If you call 1-800-CALL-ATT from a public pay phone and follow the voice prompts for a collect call you will reach a live operator. According to the operator, the rate for a live operator assisted collect call is higher than the rate for an automated collect call. I specifically asked the operator for the rate for making the call from a coin phone and they quoted the automated rate. I explained the system was requiring me to go to an operator and asked for the live operator assisted rate. Then I asked how to use the automated system from a coin phone, since the automated rate was lower. The operator didn't know. I asked to speak to the operator's supervisor. The operator's supervisor claimed that if I follow the voice prompts the system would automatically give me the automated system, which is cheaper. I told the supervisor this is not the case, and explained that if I follow the voice prompts exactly as the supervisor instructed then I would always get a live operator. The supervisor said that what I was saying was false and refused to accept a complaint about the issue. ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: Info About an International (US/EU) GSM Setup Needed Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:05:55 +0200 Tom Byfield wrote in message: > I need to arrange a cellphone setup that meets the following > criteria: > (1) the handset *must* work in the US and Europe; > - Europe: UK definitely, the rest of the EU pref- > erably, and former Yugoslavia and other parts > of eastern Europe would be great. A handset for Europe should definitely be a dual band GSM (900 - 1800). This will in fact cover most of the world. In UK you will have access to Orange (GSM 1800), with better prices than some of the more established carriers. > - US: northeast definitely, west coast preferably, > and the rest of the US would be great; USA is more complicated. In US there is approx. 16 GSM operators up and running, and an additional 9 that prepare service. The coverage is approx. 55 % of the US population. If you choose to stay with GSM in the US, you can find handsets that work on the 1900 MHz in US and 900 MHz in Europe (Bosch and Ericsson). I believe Motorola has a triple band phone (900-1800-1900) but I do not have personal exsperiance with it. Thus you can have service with the same handset and will have good service both in Europe and N.America. Canada has service on GSM 1900 for 52% of the population. There is another solution, and that is to have one handset for Europe (Nokia 6150 would be exelent), and another for US. This could be the Nokia 6190. You could add an analoge module to the 6190 allowing you to roam in on some analoge networks. The charger and batteries for the 6190 and the 6150 are the same. They both can use the same SIM-card. Or you could have an UK SIM-card and f.instance an Omnipoint SIM-card. Having two different SIM-cards, would give you a higher probability that you will have roaming service. DO NOT BUY the 6190 from Omnipoint. They will fool you by not giving you the security code for the handset, so the handset is locked to their SIM-card. > (2) I'll be based in the UK for most of the fall, so a > carrier/plan there would probably make sense, but I > expect to be calling the US a fair amount. Unfortunately you have to check plans for the different providers. Check their roaming agreement list. Look at http://www.gsmworld.com/gsminfo/gsminfo.htm to determine coverage. Under UK and USA or any other country you can look at the different carriers, and even contact them. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:13:58 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? My wife's become increasingly upset (and suspicious of what I might be doing behind her back) by the frequency of hang-up calls at home during the day. I suggested using *69 to trace them, but she says "The number dialed cannot be reached." (We don't have caller ID.) It's been at least a year ago now that she got calls from an ex- husband of many years before; and *69 produced the same result. This was apparently because he was calling long-distance from another state (which I suspected after using switchboard.com, his name being somewhat unique, and finding a listing in southeast Missouri). Although I don't know why they'd place the calls then hang up, I suspect the hangups she's now getting during the day might be out of area telemarketing calls. How much might it cost (and is it even possible) to skip caller ID and go straight to ANI at home? :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I may be wrong and will stand corrected if I am, but I believe your only absolute entitlement to ANI comes when you are paying for the calls, ie. the calls arrive on an 800 number. If you have an 800 number, you are entitled to ANI both in the form of a monthly printout of same with your phone bill, and/or 'real time' ANI when the number is delivered with each call perhaps on a caller-id display box. I think what you would have to do therefore is get an 800 number from a carrier who is equipped to provide real-time ANI -- and it won't be an inexpensive proposition -- have that line turned on, then have your existing number automatically forwarded to the 800 number. If you simply have your existing number intercepted with an announcement that 'calls are being taken by 800-xxx-xxxx' my thinking is that certain people may grow suspicious and not call. You do not want that; you want to quietly lure them into calling and exposing themselves to you. You will not be able to get an 800 number which merely forwards or translates into your existing number (which is mostly how it is done now-days) because your *existing* number has to be forwarded to the 800 number ... and having each of them point at the other will result in problems. Probably you should get a dedicated line for the 800 number with a display unit, etc. But the short answer to this is I do not think you have a guarentee of identification of the calling number unless you are paying for the call, and even then, the ANI could simply point to a payphone at a gas station along the highway somewhere. An alternative is you can force the telco to place a 'trap' on your line subject to some stringent requirements. Telco does not wish to be placed in the position of being your private detective agency. They do not like getting sued on privacy violations, etc. If you wish to press criminal charges, you can fill out a form that most telcos use in which you agree as follows, (1) that results from the trap are turned over to the police or prosecutor in your area. You do not get to see the results first; and must obtain the information on the trap results from the police. (2) You promise to prosecute the caller, and **you have to agree to prosecute prior to seeing the results**. Now that can get awkward, as I am sure you can understand. Maybe based on the results, you do not want police to be involved, and the police/prosecutor says, well fine, they do not like being in the trick-bag either, faced with the same problem telco gets into revealing information about phone calls, etc. My advice would be if you are not dealing with or interested in criminal prosecution of the harassing caller to go with plan one: calls inbound on an 800 number and you getting the results, but it might get expensive and might wind up giving you little or no new information at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: 5 Sep 1999 13:31:00 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > Someone describing themselves as "Hung up on in Hanover" wrote: > "I'm getting about one hang up a day now and the RBOC says that there > is no way that they can trace the calls to find out who is making > them. Is this true? I'm sure the telemarketer's are using a outbound > wats line or ISDN or T1/3 or something and not sending CID info on > purpose." > Callers don't send CID info -- the originating central office does > that. My suspicion is that these boiler rooms have T1s *direct to > their IXC* for their WATS lines, making caller ID or ANI difficult > since the leased lines wouldn't have phone numbers associated with > them. (If they had local CO lines they'd have phone numbers for each There's still ANI, which provides the BTN or "billing telephone number" associated with the call. The call won't be routed between telephone carriers if there's no ANI, and probably won't even be able to be routed within a single telco's network. So, basically, whoever said they couldn't trace the calls was lying to you. The _can_, they just don't _want to_. I suggest you involve law enforcement, and/or file a complaint with your state regulator regarding the telco's dishonest response. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my reply above to Bruce Wilson. Yes, you can get law enforcement involved, and in doing so, you force telco's hand and get them involved also with a trap placed on your line to register incoming calls, etc. Where this can occassionally go sour is that you have to agree in writing to prosecute first, **regardless of the trap results and before you are even entitled to know the results of the trap**. Now if the trap results show that ex-spouse is charting your whereabouts each day so s/he can show up at your home in the middle of the night and kill you all while you are in bed asleep, then yes, I think you would want to get the police involved and see what they think about all that. On the other hand, what if it is merely a neighbor with a minor grudge, or a child you know or who perhaps is related to you? Or someone you consider a close friend but who has some sort of mental illness or delusion or fantasy or whatever; the kind of person you would prefer to deal with quietly on your own. Police don't have options available like that. If you get a trap put on your line, both telco and police will strongly warn you, "DO NOT DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYONE." You do not tell your wife, or the rest of your family. You certainly do not tell your neighbors, the people at your church or the people where you work. NO ONE is to know that a trap is in place, lest the person you think least likely to be the offender is warned and stays away. Then after a day or three, the police tell you they have the results and would you please come in and sign off on the prosecution, in order that you might learn the identity of the person involved. If you are lucky, it was 'merely' some ex-spouse ax-murderer who planned on sneaking into your home that night while you were asleep ... but sadly, more often than not it was a young child who had been repri- manded by an adult neighbor or his school teacher, or who thought that sort of prank would be funny. Or perhaps it is a co-worker who has designs on you and chooses to harass your family members. Or a spouse who wants to see what the other spouse is up to while they are gone, or a lover, or a significant other, or an in-law or a nosy neighbor. Statistics in the past have shown that most harrassing phone calls are not chosen at random by picking a phone number and calling over and over; they are the effort of someone who knows you in one capacity or another. That's the problem with 'getting law- enforcement involved' as you suggest. Once 'involved', you may not like the direction things move in. Tracing on an inter-telco, even an international basis, are quite possible if the right people at telco are motivated to handle it. Should I reprint here the report I gave a few years ago of the fellow in Chicago who plagued the staff of Buckingham Palace with obscene calls for a couple weeks before efforts of British Tel, AT&T and Illinois Bell finally brought his fantasy to a screeching halt? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Todd E. Toles Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:21:32 -0500 lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'hammer and anvil chorus' was a >> very familiar sound also to the people who worked in or visited a >> Western Union public office. Most WUTCO public offices were gone by >> the middle or late 1960's in favor of having customers call in their >> telegraph messages over the phone to a central location. > The last time I was in Chicago, a few years ago, I passed a Western > Union building downtown, across from the La Salle Street commuter > railroad terminal (the new one.) There was a public office open in > the lobby (protected by heavy thick glass). I wonder if it's still > there. Nope. The former WU building is now home to a bunch of internet-related companies and CLECs. It's been remodeled and IMHO is very nice looking now. I *THINK* there is still a WU office in another building in the area. > The public office at 427 South Lasalle was opulence to the extreme. > Elegant marble counters, marble writing desks where the customer would > be seated to compose the message he would take over to the clerk; > large highback leather chairs in the carpeted waiting area where you > could sit if you were expecting a telegram; brass spitoons and huge > glass ashtrays always clean; a very high vaulted ceiling with elegant > glass globes for lighting; ceiling fans always spinning sort of > slowly keeping the room at a nice temperature, and of course at least > one Western Union clock in each office. The din from the machines was > always present except rarely for a few seconds of total silence once > or twice a day perhaps at irregular intervals. This is all gone. The lobby area for 427 South LaSalle is has been restored though. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #376 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 5 19:08:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA02217; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:08:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:08:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909052308.TAA02217@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #377 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 99 19:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 377 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Western Union in the 1980's and 90's (Mark J. Cuccia) Legislators Chosen to Devise Plan on Area Code Splits (Paul Gloger) Having No Long Distance Provider? (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: GSM in the US (Robert Berntsen) Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail (Bruce Wilson) Secure Browsing? Not So Fast (Monty Solomon) Playing Chicken With Secret Faxes (Monty Solomon) Re: Problems With BAM Text Messaging (Dan Srebnick) Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: International Calls & CIDs (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Riser Management (Allan M. Olbur) Debate Flares Over Microsoft 'Spy Key' (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 5 Sep 1999 14:55:22 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Western Union in the 1980's and 90's L. Winson (lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote in "Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down": > My biggest question is how WU missed the boat on the explosion of > data communications that AT&T basically monopolized. WU was playing > around with high tech -- it even launched a satellite and had > microwave transmission -- but otherwise it didn't seem to do much > of anything except money transfers and mailgrams. One would think > they would've tried at least to launch their own long distance > company to compete with AT&T as MCI and Sprint did. > In downtown Philadelphia and Trenton, there are a few manhole > covers marked "WUTC" (in Phila there's also KTCO for Keystone > Telephone Co). I suspect a long time ago WU gave up owning and > operating its own physical wire plant, depending solely on AT&T for > line service, and dependent on AT&T rates. And PAT noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually WUTCO did try long distance > phone service for a few years, back sometime in the 1980's. Yes, WUTCO did try to start a competitive (voice) long distance service at divestiture and during the implementation of Equal Access. If you had equal access in your central office, and if you had someone else for your primary LD carrier (or even if WUTCO was your primary carrier, but it was redundant to dial), you could place calls over WUTCO Long Distance with 10-220+. In the "evolved" fg.D CAC code format, this is 101-0220+, which is now part of MCI's "Telecom-USA", this code for the service that is 99-cents for the first twenty min's (or less, even if only five seconds), and something like 9-cents a minute (or it might be less with the recent reduction of rates) for all minutes (or fractions) over twenty. In the early 1980's, WUTCO still had Telex (which they began to introduce in the late 1950's), and also had TWX. WUTCO had "taken over" the marketing of TWX service in the US around 1970 or 71, but "The Bell System" still switched the service over the DDD Telephone Network. Around 1981, TWX in the US began to be switched on WUTCO's own network. When this happened, the "N10" special area codes for TWX in the US (510, 710, 810 and 910) were "reclaimed" from their use on the Telephone Network to provide TWX switching, since TWX was not switched on the Telephone Network. Thus AT&T was able to ultimately re-assign them for regular geographic (POTS) telephone area codes. TWX in Canada was unaffected by this, and continued to be handled by the Telecom-Canada telcos, routed over the Canadian part of the DDD Telephone Network. CNCP was still doing Telex in Canada, as well as telegrams, etc. WUTCO had several digital switches around the US to handle TWX, Telex, and EasyLink service. And WUTCO had their Westar (domestic) communications satellites, as well as some microwave. But much of the "local" area transmission facilities (loops) for WUTCO's TWX and Telex was still being leased from the local telco, and maybe some inter-city facilities were leased from AT&T. Around 1990 or 91, WUTCO sold most of their services, unloading them onto AT&T. This included Telex (WUTCO's own teletype service since 1958), TWX (which had been AT&T's from 1931-1970, AT&T/WUTCO in the 1970's, and WUTCO's in the 1980's), EasyLink (which I think is now part of AT&T's email), and some other miscellaneous functions. I know that WUTCO also was trying to provide some form of automated air-to-ground service, but I don't think this was taken over by AT&T. WUTCO does continue to provide its various money/financial transaction services, as well as telegrams/mailgrams/etc. In Canada in the early-to-mid 1990's, AT&T invested in Unitel which was the new company name for CNCP's Telex and Telegram operations. Unitel also began to provide a long distance service in competition to the traditional Telecom-Canada (Stentor) member provincial telcos' toll services. These operations are now provided under the name AT&T-Canada Long Distance Services. My _guess_ as to why WUTCO never really continued as a major player in the telecommunications/information industry is that WUTCO was considered a _common carrier_ by regulatory, and as such, they might have been prohibited -- or at least had to jump through a lot of government/regulatory "hoops", to enter into new services and technologies, while Sprint and MCI (and others), which had less regulatory involvement, were able to be more innovative. Also, I'd guess that most people have always thought of Western Union as being an "older" telegram company, and few people would think of using the few "new" services WUTCO was able to provide. But as for the telegram functions, off and on in the 1970's and 1980's, I remember several radio and TV commercials for WUTCO mailgrams and telegrams. In the late 1970's, there was an ad campaign of humorous radio commercials for WUTCO's mailgrams, done by Don Knotts (Barney Fife). In the 1980's, I remember seeing TV commercials for WUTCO telegrams, where there was somebody, such as a busy office executive or stage/ screen actor, being bombarded by everyone around them (secretaries, agents, co-workers, etc) with incoming mail, phone calls, appointments, etc. The person was too busy to take all of this "information overload". Then a short, young man in a "WUTCO uniform" approaches the crowd screaming "TELEGRAM!". The busy person rushes over to the Western Union boy, tips him, and opens up the telegram, usually announcing a family wedding or birth. The WUTCO slogan was something like nobody is too busy to refuse a telegram. Of course, since telegrams have become extremely RARE in the past twenty-plus years, ANY telegram these days could be considered QUITE a novelty! 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: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 13:29:56 -0700 From: Paul Gloger Subject: Legislators Chosen to Devise Plan on Area Code Splits Some marvelous political lunacy, as nicely reported in the Los Angeles [California] Times, September 1, 1999: Los Angeles County - Six state legislators were selected Tuesday to come up with a compromise version of a bill that would block future area code splits and overlays. The committee must hash out a compromise plan and submit it to both houses by Friday [Sept. 3], officials said. Supporters of the measure are pressing to have the bill passed and signed by Gov. Gray Davis before the current session ends Sept. 10. .... The bill would prevent future splits and overlays, such as those being proposed for the San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles and the South Bay, officials said. It also includes a number of conservation measures, including a reduction in the amount of phone numbers allocated to phone companies at one time from 10,000 to 1,000 and the creation of separate area codes for pagers, cellular phones and other electronic devices requiring telephone lines. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:06:37 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Since I make about two long distance calls in a year and various long distance services are now starting to impose minimum monthy fees (with the others no doubt to follow once it is clear they can get away with it), I've been trying to find an answer to what seems like a simple question: Can I call up my local phone company (BellSouth in this case) and tell them I don't want to have any long distance provider at all? Or is this actually verboten by some sort of FCC regulation (which I can't find on the FCC web site because I have no idea what to search for)? (I'm perfectly happy to dial 10-10-something twice a year when I need to make an LD call). If this is legal, can someone point me to some chapter and verse which I'll no doubt need to recite to many thousands of supervisors to prove to them that I can actually do this? If its not legal, does anyone know a good long distance provider without minimum monthly fees (and one that is unlikely to impose them in the future)? I know, of course, that my long distance habits apparently make me some kind of deviant pervert, but I'd still like to know the answer :-). >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just because you are a pervert does not make you a bad guy; some of my best friends are perverts, and in fact, my own pervert-ability has been the topic of discussion on the net at one time or another. The phone company is not allowed to discriminate against guys who are perverts. They have to give you service like anyone else. Tell your service representative to set your carrier PIC code as 'none', and furthermore to put a freeze on any changes to it. They may tell you the computer will not allow it to be both set at 'none' and frozen as such; if so, that's okay, just have it set at 'none'. And starting the next day when you wake up, following their 2:00 AM update or whatever time they do it, you will find that 1+anything will return an intercept message saying 'your call cannot be completed as dialed', as will zero+ anything. Ditto, double zero 'cannot be completed as dialed', etc. The only calls that will complete are seven digit calls within your local calling area, and calls to 800/888/877 numbers. For any type of 'toll call' you will need to dial 1010 plus the carrier of choice plus the number. While you are at it, you might want to have 900 blocked (although it should be with PIC=none anyway) and also add on 'billed number screening' to prevent third party charges from reaching you. I have all the above on my line, and then when I wish to make a long distance call I 'dial around' into MyLine and use the outgoing call arrangement there. Be sure and be specific in telling the service representative you want NONE (that's spelled N-O-N-E) as your long distance choice. On your phone bill the next month, you may get the usual charge for 'change of default carrier' or maybe when you place the order the service rep who takes your call will be a fellow pervert and write off the service charge; you know, professional courtesies and all that. And each month on your phone bill thereafter, a little line on the bill somewhere will say, 'our records show you have not selected a long distance carrier'. That's right, and you do not plan to select one, either. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: GSM in the US Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:26:18 +0200 Ed Ellers wrote in message: > Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) wrote: >> Keeping one's existing phone is the least of it. The fact is with GSM, >> the phone is the SIM card. What most cell phones are is simply a >> handset with GSM. You can interchange handsets, and you still have the >> same "phone", just like changing handsets at your house still is the >> same "phone." > That's fine within a country -- it means that you can switch phones by > moving the SIM card, rather than having to call customer service, > though this seems a dubious advantage to me. But when you go to > Europe (or elsewhere outside North America) you still can't use the > same GSM phone that you use here, unless you happen to have bought a > special phone that works on the bands in use in the country you're > visiting (*and* has regulatory approval in that country, don't > forget). That means that the SIM card is only usable if you buy or > lease a phone in that country to put the card in. The advantage of using the same SIM-card is of course that you keep your phone number. Anybody can call you without knowing where you are and reach you. In addition, the SIM-card contains your phone directory and your recent messages, which thereby are carried over to the new handset (and back again). In the same way you can upgrade your handset to a newer model. It is however, wise to keep a copy of the phone directory on a spare SIM-card or on a computer, in case your phone is lost or the SIM-card failes. There are more and more models with multiple randio bands to allow service all over. The last 13 months, GSM has gained another 100 mill. customers to a total of 200 mill. This of course makes the marked for dual and triple band phones, first of all for the rest of the world that visit North America, but also for US/Canadian customers that frequently go abroad. The coverage in the USA for GSM is now approx. 55% of the population, and in Canada 52% of the population. This is through 26 carriers (one in Canada). Regards R. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 05 Sep 1999 14:43:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail > Is there any way to get a fax/phone switch to work with telco > voicemail without distinctive ring? I can understand why the > voicemail won't work because the switch picks up the phone and > generates a ring to the caller. > Command Communications seems to be the only fax/phone switch I can > find, and they say their switchs definitely won't work with telco > voicemail. > Funny thing is, one business I work with had a Command Communications > switch that worked fine with voicemail, but it died a year or so ago. > The switch is so old it's no longer made. I'm having trouble understanding how such a CPE switch could work with telco voice mail and how that one apparently did. It seems activation of telco voice mail depends on either line busy or failure to answer within the specified number of rings; and the switch's going off-hook would preclude the latter unless it were able to fool the CO into thinking it hadn't gone off-hook until either connected fax or phone went off-hook. Am I missing something? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 14:58:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Secure Browsing? Not So Fast by James Glave 1:45 p.m. 2.Sep.99.PDT As soon as a new Web service was launched this week promising completely anonymous and private Internet use, along came a renowned crypto expert to punch a huge hole in the claim. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21561.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:29:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Playing Chicken With Secret Faxes WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A chicken processing plant has been bombarded with stray faxes from U.S. security officials preparing for a visit to Auckland by President Clinton, the New Zealand Herald reported Friday. http://news.lycos.com/stories/Entertainment/Oddly-Enough/19990903RTODD-CHICKEN.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:24:17 EDT From: Dan Srebnick Subject: Re: Problems With BAM Text Messaging Apparently Comcast Cellular One has the same problem in NJ. I had set up an email alias some time ago to send pages to my cellphone. They would never work, whereas emails to mynumber@comcastpcs.textmsg.com would page me. Now I know why. Dan Srebnick ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Safety Requirements For Telephone Lines Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 08:40:44 -0500 > For those that do not know, substations are a work of art ... They put > in a grid of 1 inch * 1/8 inch copper bar on a 3 foot grid throughout > the entire substation!!! This is so that if there is an earth fault, > the voltage of all the earth rises, and anyone on the property is > safe. Is there a light bulb by the door wired to earth inside and outside the grid, next to a sign "DO NOT CROSS WHEN LIGHT IS ON" ? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just my luck I would show up at the crossing some day when the light bulb was burned out. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: International Calls & CIDs Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 17:10:17 GMT Only tangentially related, but interesting. Last time I called someone in Kiev (from Boston), the person in Kiev told me her caller ID box showed a local Kiev number. (Her first question was "what are you doing in Kiev?" That's how I found out.) -Joel ------------------------------ From: dtm37@aol.com (Allan M. Olbur) Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:27:40 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Riser Management Is there an interest to secure a riser closet/MDF/computer room with a real-time monitoring system? Allan M. Olbur InfraTech Inc. www.infratechinc.com 847-229-0115 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 14:37:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Debate Flares Over MS 'Spy Key' by James Glave Questions lingered Friday over whether or not security experts overreacted to a scientist's charge that Microsoft built a backdoor in Windows for a US spy agency to enter. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21589.html MS Denies Windows 'Spy Key' by Steve Kettmann and James Glave 10:20 a.m. 3.Sep.99.PDT Microsoft is vehemently denying allegations by a leading cryptographer that its Windows platform contains a backdoor designed to give a US intelligence agency access to personal computers. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21577.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the original article here, but chose not to run it. After some discussion with a couple of people my personal feeling was that something seemed fishy about the whole thing. The person who made the accusation never did respond to various inquiries about exactly *where* in the code this back door was located, or *how* it was to be used. One correspondent here said he thought it best to toss the whole thing in the trash. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #377 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 6 05:32:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA22999; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 05:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 05:32:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909060932.FAA22999@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #378 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Sep 99 05:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 378 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Esther Dyson: Queen of The World (Jay Fenello) Re: More History on Exchange Names (Andrew Emmerson) Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General (Ray Mereniuk) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Having No Long Distance Carrier (Derek Balling) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (Art Kamlet) Re: Real-Life ADSL/Cable Data Rates (Michael Sullivan) Re: International Calls & CIDs (Darryl Smith) Local Caller-ID Number on Long Distance (Mark J. Cuccia) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 06 Sep 1999 03:53:17 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World Despite repeated charges of media bias in the continuing blackout of the real ICANN story, the vast majority of media outlets remain silent on this issue! But word is slowly getting out. In addition to articles in the New York Times and Business Week, here's the latest from ClickZ . . . Excerpts from: http://www.searchz.com/Articles/0831994.shtml Esther Dyson: Queen of The World By Dana Blankenhorn The fact is that ICANN's work involves more than appointing some extra registrars and setting them to work. The power to name is also the power to un-name, and since Ms. Dyson took her new job, a lot of people have come to recognize that. I can bring all this home to you with one question: What should be the rules under which someone gets, and keeps their domain? Well, some folks are asking, you've created a rule, and a way to enforce that rule, so haven't you actually built both a law and an enforcement mechanism? And if you have a law against cyber-squatting, with a virtual "death penalty" (taking away a name someone is using effectively removes them from the web) why not apply it against other forms of behavior we don't like? Please, follow that last link, read what's behind it, and tremble. You've got one law, you've got a process, and you've got a sentence. It was all done with the mildest of intentions. But what you've also got there is the beginnings of a world government, which can enforce all kinds of rules simply by changing the contract you sign when you apply for a domain name. And if ICANN won't do it, cyber-vigilantes will. If ICANN chose it could ban pornography, simply by stripping such sites of their names, it could enforce product safety standards, prevent the online manipulation of stocks, and stop hate speech in its tracks. By simply denying names to those who violate whatever strictures it chose, ICANN could make the Internet a pure and beautiful place, where no one dared violate any law for fear of virtual death! Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc.  770-392-9480 What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: More History on Exchange Names Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:31 +0100 (BST) Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk Two brief comments: 1. Many North American dials _did_ have Z on the dial, in the zero position, specifically to trap calls where subscribers actually dialed ZEN. 2. The Bell System had a list of 'preferred' exchange names so it is entirely logical that certain names would crop up in more than one locality. Over here in Britain this was not the case. Our telephone administration (the Post Office in those days) first used names with a geographical significance, normally names of streets and districts. Once these had run out, then they would choose names of famous writers, artists and other historical figures who had a connection with a particular part of a city. A few exchange names, such as CENtral, NORth and VICtoria, cropped up in more than one city, because these names applied 'legitimately' in each of these locations. Andrew Emmerson ------------------------------ From: Raymond D. Mereniuk Organization: FBN Technical Services Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:16:45 -0800 Subject: Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus) wrote > Yes it is -- very directly. Yes and no actually. Yes for some equipment purchases from foreign manufacturers. No for expenses for goods and services originating in Canada. Nortel (Northern Telecom) is Canadian? > Canadian carriers buy switching and transmission equipment in a > North American or global market. They pay the same prices as their > U.S. counterparts -- perhaps more, because they don't buy as much. Is this really true? I can buy new computer equipment at discount retail in Canada cheaper than US$ wholesale converted to C$. In particular memory. In the auto market the same is true for some models, they are actually cheaper in Canada. Very often prices are determined by distribution costs and what the customer will pay rather than the actual cost of the good plus a markup. A couple of examples, a cable modem connection in the US is US$39.95 and in Canada it is CAN$39.95. Big difference if you try to use your conversion rate ideals! The real probable reason for the difference is the psychological price level a consumer is willing to pay for a particular good or service. Same with the US rate of US$19.95 for unlimited Internet access versus a CAN$19.95 rate for the same service in Canada. The second example is the cost of pharmaceuticals in India, a very small fraction of the cost of the exact same drug in North America. The drugs are priced at what the market will pay. How is this possible? Back to the accounting issues, a good accountant can be better than a magician. > And when they raise the money they need to buy equipment, pay > employees, etc, they have to go to North American money markets, > where they pay the same interest rates as U.S. carriers -- again, > perhaps more, because they are smaller. Canadian Telcos would not in normal circumstances pay the same interest rates as American Telcos as they would borrow money in Canada and our interest rates are usually higher than those in the USA with a few exceptions. Picky I realize but no worse than complaining of my improper use of a double negative. Yes I realize Canadian Telcos could borrow money in an US$ dominated financial deal but that would expose them to an exchange risk which would not be prudent for a company whose revenue is dominated in CAN$s. I apologise for my late response to this message but I was on the road for the last 10 days. Just to clarify an issue here, are you, Mr. Angus, in anyway a paid lobbist for the Canadian Telcos? Or, do you accept any funding from the Canadian Telcos? My position is merely that of an individual speaking out for a fair deal in a market where the big guy always seems to get his way. Back to an issue in one of your previous messages. I sense part of the reason for your bringing up the differences in the CAN$ cost of telephone service versus the US$ cost is to justify further rate increases to Canadian rate payers. The big problem with this arguement would be that the Canadian Telcos would never lower their rates as the CAN$ exchange rate rose. This on its own is reason enough to toss the exchange rate based comparisions out the window for anything more than philosophical discussion. Why can't the Telcos, as a high technology type operation, follow the lead of the rest of the high technology companies and offer the consumer more for less every year? Virtually, Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "Need Someone To Tell You What To Do?" FBN - The Consultants http://www.fbn.bc.ca/consultg.html ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:01:22 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > In article , Ed Ellers > wrote: SNIP >> Callers don't send CID info -- the originating central office does >> that. My suspicion is that these boiler rooms have T1s *direct to >> their IXC* for their WATS lines, making caller ID or ANI difficult >> since the leased lines wouldn't have phone numbers associated with >> them. (If they had local CO lines they'd have phone numbers for each > There's still ANI, which provides the BTN or "billing telephone > number" associated with the call. The call won't be routed between > telephone carriers if there's no ANI, and probably won't even be able > to be routed within a single telco's network. ANI does not pass through the entire connection. The terminating office does not receive any ANI. Since ANI is for billing it does not need to be passed any farther than the billing tandem office. It is of no help in tracing an LD call. > So, basically, whoever said they couldn't trace the calls was lying to > you. The _can_, they just don't _want to_. I suggest you involve law > enforcement, and/or file a complaint with your state regulator > regarding the telco's dishonest response. No the telco did not give a dishonest response. They only know which IXC handled the call and which trunk the call came in on. They have no originating information at all. I guess they could say the calls are coming in from MCI or AT&T etc. Call them and ask which one of there customers is calling and hanging up. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my reply above to Bruce Wilson. > Yes, you can get law enforcement involved, and in doing so, you > force telco's hand and get them involved also with a trap placed > on your line to register incoming calls, etc. You will have a very hard time getting law enforcement involved with this type of call. If he goes to the police and asks them to have these calls traced so he can get some money from a telemarketer, they may arrest him. There are no threats made just someone hanging up when he answers. Even if they did request a trace from the phone company. They will get the same response as the original poster. The call is not traceable under any normal or reasonable condition. I have never had a law enforcement agency argue with me yet when I tell them the call could not be traced. SNIP > Tracing on an inter-telco, even an international basis, are quite > possible if the right people at telco are motivated to handle it. > Should I reprint here the report I gave a few years ago of the fellow > in Chicago who plagued the staff of Buckingham Palace with obscene > calls for a couple weeks before efforts of British Tel, AT&T and > Illinois Bell finally brought his fantasy to a screeching halt? PAT] With enough effort it could be done. But it would probably take a threat to national security to get this many companies involved. They are not going to this amount of effort for hang up calls to a private residence. Even if they did they could bill the requesting individual for the trace. Since he was wanting the trace to get a couple of hundred dollars from the calling party and he would no doubt be billed a couple of thousand dollars for the trace. It isn't economically feasible. If it were a case of national security the NSA could tell in about a minute were the calls were coming from. There may be hope. As soon as all the snooping equipment is installed in all the phone COs for the FBI they probably could trace the calls for him. They may be monitoring his line for some other reason and already have the calling number on file??? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 20:15:00 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Having No Long Distance Carrier > And starting the next day when you wake > up, following their 2:00 AM update or whatever time they do it, > you will find that 1+anything will return an intercept message > saying 'your call cannot be completed as dialed', as will zero+ > anything. Ditto, double zero 'cannot be completed as dialed', etc. Unless you live in an area with many interconnected local NPA's, e.g., the San Francisco Bay Area, LA, Chicago, NYC, DC, etc. > The only calls that will complete are seven digit calls within your > local calling area, seven == seven or ten > and calls to 800/888/877 numbers. For any type > of 'toll call' you will need to dial 1010 plus the carrier of choice > plus the number. While you are at it, you might want to have 900 > blocked (although it should be with PIC=none anyway) Setting PIC=none will have no effect whatsoever on 700/900/976 blocking. The use of the numbers in those NPA's implies the use of the long-distance carrier who receives the call (whoever that may be). They function identically to 800/888/877 dialing. The number, in essence, dictates the IXC, in and of itself. D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I should have said 'calls in his local calling area' rather than 'seven digit numbers' because as you point out many places have more than one 'local' area code involved. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges Date: 5 Sep 1999 23:15:01 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article : >> the phone number 312-RAvenswood-8-7425 which of course also spells > Can anyone honestly say they prefer "728" over the smooth flowing > peaceful sound of "Ravenswood"? Ravenswood: I think of a quiet > forest, with a little brook, birds singing, air pure and clean. Now > 728. I 'ate' lunch. Big deal. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, Chicago no longer has ... > Yeah I like RAvenswood better than 728 myself come to think of it. PAT] But the local Yellow Cab probably prefers 444-4444, painted large on their cabs, rather than HIghland 4 - 4444. And FWIW, before telephone numbers in movies became 555-xxxx they were, surprise, KLondike 5 - xxxx. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, Yellow Cab of Chicago had the number 225-6000 for (count-em!) *seventy-six years*. Yeah ... A photograph at the Chicago Historical Society is dated 1910 and shows a Model-T Ford from that year. On the side of it is painted, 'Yellow Cab Company, Phone Calumet-6000'. Their (at one time) competitor, Checker Cab had the number MOnroe-3700, or 666-3700 in later years. Yellow bought out Checker about 15 years ago, and merged their telephone/radio dispatch operations into a single unit with the phone number 312-TAXICAB ... Can you imagine having the same telephone number for 76 years at a place of business? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Real-Life ADSL/cable Data Rates Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 04:49:35 GMT Charles Platt wrote: > I'm writing for a national magazine, discussing broadband alternatives. > I'm having a hard time finding reliable statistics about data transfer > rates in the real world. I'll settle for anecdotal information at this > point. > If you have a cable modem, or ADSL, I'd be very interested to know > your best and worst speeds (upstream and downstream). I won't be > discussing all the various factors that determine the performance; I'd > just like a few best/worst numbers. If you can estimate the incidence > of service interruptions that you must endure on your system, that > would be helpful too. > I note that {Computer Shopper}, that bastion of buy-it-now! optimism, > mentioned recently that their best connect speeds for ADSL or cable > were 600 Kbps. (I assume they were referring to download, not upload!) Charles, I have Bell Atlantic's Infospeed DSL 640k/90k. My upstream rate appears to have been consistently in the 90k range when sending files to both local and distant sites via FTP, but I can only estimate, based on the approximate upload time and file size. I don't do much uploading, and I have no tools for automating this measurement. Downstream, I first measured speed via a number of online sites that purport to measure DSL speed, but because these sites are on faraway sites, my DSL speed may or may not be the constraining factor; an overloaded 'pipe' 2000 miles away may be slower than my DSL connection and cause underreporting of speed. My speeds were a bit disappointing, but I wrote this off because of the distance of the server with which I was connecting. Moreover, one cannot rely on the speeds reported in the status line of Netscape because uncompressed data can appear to flow more quickly than the line's actual speed due to the use of compression algorithms. Then I discovered on the Internet that there are configuration keys in the Windows registry that may adversely affect connection speed; optimizing these keys was said to improve throughput significantly -- and particularly one known as RWIN, or receive window. I obtained a free program known as ISPEED that allows me to test my connection speed while varying these settings. A quick first test, using the Windows defaults, showed a download speed of 15828 kilobytes/sec, or 126 kb/s for user data. This was a connection to a distant site, though. I managed to raise this a bit with some simple fiddling with the settings. Later, after placing a 2 MB file on a local site (my BellAtlantic web site), I did some more fiddling with the parameters and got my speed up to 65,900 kilobyte/sec, or 527.2 kb/s, or better, consistently. This is pretty good, considering that the claimed 640k connection carries a lot of overhead as well as the user-layer traffic. For a distant site, I put the same 2MB file on a Bay Area site, and my consistent speed exceeds 31,000 kilobytes/sec, or 248 kb/s, thus proving that my local speed is not the constraining factor. That intervening links constrain speed is shown by the fact that, after the tweaking, my reported speed from the speedtest.mybc.com test site is 261,951 kb/s; from MSN's www.computingcentral.com/topics/bandwidth/speedtest.asp site, my speed is reported as 538.3 kb/s; and from 2Wire's site at www.2Wire.com/dlp/dlp_theater.html my speed is reported as 583.1 kb/s. Hope that's helpful. I'd appreciate knowing what publication you are planning to write the article in, so I can keep an eye out for it. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: Darryl Smith Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 17:35:20 +1000 Subject: Re: International Calls & CIDs Well, I am from Australia. I was in New Zealand recently, and took my GSM phone ... It worked as soon as I turned it on over there, which was neat. The display came up with 'BSNZ, standing for 'Bell South New Zealand', although they have recently sold the mobile network to Vodaphone of the UK. I had a few phone calls when I was in New Zealand. They all came up with some New Zealand phone number that was obviously part of a PABX or some other system, as the numbers were of the series 09 1234 0000. This was the number that displayed if someone rang me from New Zealand or from Australia. I know that there is no CID from Israel to Australia from either land lines or mobiles; at least not to mobiles in Australia. Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:07:18 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Local Caller-ID Number on Long Distance In "Re: International Calls & CIDs", Dr. Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) wrote: > Only tangentially related, but interesting. Last time I called > someone in Kiev (from Boston), the person in Kiev told me her > caller ID box showed a local Kiev number. (Her first question was > "what are you doing in Kiev?" That's how I found out.) This situation is common on many long distance calls within the NANP, and I would assume within other country codes / networks as well. I've used some LD carriers to call friends in Toronto ON, where they have gotten local 416-NXX-xxxx Toronto numbers on their box rather than "OUT OF AREA" or "UNAVAILABLE", or whatever New Orleans number I am calling from. Once, someone called me from Nevada via some carrier, and my Caller ID box displayed a New Orleans number using a "Main" c.o.code (504-5XX-xxxx). What is probably happening is that the particular carrier involved is placing a "POTS" telephone call (feature group 'A') over the local network on the terminating end. Thus, the ultimate called party sees the local telephone number that is used to complete the final leg of the connection. "Feature Group 'A'" was (is) the type of connection that was used in the 1970's and well into the 1980's, for the competitive "Other Common Carriers", where one placed outgoing calls over MCI, Sprint, etc., by dialing a (local) "POTS" number (which could charge zoned local message units or measured rates, coins, mobile airtime, even short-haul toll), which then answered with the competitive carrier's dialtone. Then you entered, WITH TOUCHTONES, an account code and the ultimate destination number. Depending on the carrier involved, the order could vary as to whether the account/card number was entered before destination number, or the other way around with the destination number entered before the account/card number. The connections between the local telco and the other carrier's switch were "POTS" type, 2-wire, _LINE-SIDE_ connections. The 950-xxxx and "Equal Access" (primary carrier as well as using older 10-XXX+ or current 101-XXXX+ CACs) originations are called Feature-Group-B (950-) and Feature-Group-D (101-XXXX+). Most of the current 800- access methods are fg.B-like, BTW. These are usually tandem-like, 4-wire (but sometimes still on 2-wire), but also _TRUNK-SIDE_ connections, _similar_ to what the local telcos connected with to an AT&T toll or tandem switch in the predivestiture days. ANI is capable of being passed, as well as SS7 Caller-ID, of the _ORIGINATING_ line or loop which places the call. But the terms fg.A, fg.B/D, etc. don't just apply to the originating (calling party's) connection to their long distance carrier, but ALSO to the _terminating_ (called party) side of the connection as well! In a terminating fg.B/D type of connection, there is 4-wire (altho' sometimes 2-wire) _TRUNK-SIDE_ termination, usually capable of passing SS7 Caller-ID, of the _ORIGINATING_ party's line or loop. But if fg.A is used to connect at the called end, whatever carrier was used to get there has some form of "Point of Presence" (POP), but instead of direct trunks into the local telco's tandem and local switches, they have regular POTS loops which give dialtone. That carrier then dialpulses or touchtones on the dialtone they get when they seize that loop to make the final connection of the call. And that is why the ultimate destination called party sees Caller-ID of the local line at the distant end that the carrier used to complete the connection in that distant end local network. This is similar to how many PBX's make local calls, including our own PBX at work. When one dials '9', the _PBX_ responds with a second dialtone (_NOT_ the local 'public' telco switch responding with an outside line dialtone). The PBX registers the local number (or 1-800/888/877-) number dialed. Then, I'm 'put on hold' by the PBX, which then seizes one of a number of local "POTS" 2-wire (probably ground-start) loops with the 'public' telco central office. Dialtone is given to the PBX from the telco 'public' c.o., the PBX sends out touchtones of what I dialed (it theoretically could be dialpulse), and then I'm cut thru a voicepath by the PBX. But the local called party sees the Caller-ID of whichever loop on the 'public' telco central office that the PBX used that particular time, to place the outgoing local call, and _NOT_ the telephone number of the actual PBX "DID" extension I'm placing the call from. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #378 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 6 19:13:33 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA20876; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 19:13:33 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909062313.TAA20876@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #379 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Sep 99 19:13:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 379 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Debate Flares Over MS 'Spy Key' (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Debate Flares Over MS 'Spy Key' (Thor Lancelot Simon) The Microsoft/NSA Crypto Brouhaha (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Alan Boritz) California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) (Lauren Weinstein) Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phone (Joel Hoffman) Business Manager Linked to Prostitute Through Hotmail Hole (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Debate Flares Over MS 'Spy Key' Date: 6 Sep 1999 03:26:27 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Questions lingered Friday over whether or not security experts > overreacted to a scientist's charge that Microsoft built a backdoor in > Windows for a US spy agency to enter. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the original article here, but > chose not to run it. After some discussion with a couple of people > my personal feeling was that something seemed fishy about the whole > thing. The person who made the accusation never did respond to ... > was located, or *how* it was to be used. One correspondent here > said he thought it best to toss the whole thing in the trash. PAT] Pat's essentially got it on the money. NTBUGTRAQ has a lot of good information on it, which I will attempt to summarize here. First, what this is not: Even if it turns out that the "NSAKEY" is a key owned by the NSA (and Microsoft denies this), it isn't something that the NSA could use to directly hack into your computer. (Of course, if the NSA wants to do such a thing, they can use any number of known Windows security holes ... none of them require knowledge of any key, and all of them work just as well for the NSA as they do for any other attacker.) What this is: First, we need to understand a bit about the Windows Cryptography Services architecture. Windows provides cryptography services to applications through their "CryptoAPI". This looks something like: [ApplicationThatWantsToUseCrypto]--[CryptoAPI]--[CSP] Where: ApplicationThatWantsToUseCryptography is some application that wants to encrypt and decrypt stuff (or sign things, or verify signatures, or do other cryptopgraphy relayed things), and wants to use Windows-provided services to do it. CrpytoAPI is the Microsoft standard interface between applications and CSPs. CryptoAPI doesn't itself do any crpytography for applications -- it just fcilitates the process. CSPs are Cryptography Service Providers, which actually encrypt and decrypt sutff. Microsoft ships with Windows a CSP that the government deems acceptable for export (i.e. 56 bits or less). They don't need government approval to do this, because it's 56 bits or less. Microsoft also ships the CryptoAPI with Windows. This API can be used to interface any form of encryption, as long as there is a CSP for that form. That is, I can use a 128 bit CSP, or a 200 bit CSP, or whatever ... CryptoAPI doesn't care -- it just passes stuff between the application and the CSP. But since the CryptoAPI will facilitate encryption with keys longer than 56 bits, it's the position of the US Government that it is export-controlled software. That may or may not be legally correct -- I'm not well-versed enough in the relevant law to know -- but regardles, Microsoft seems to be going along. So: It turns out that the Government will allow Microsoft to export the CryptoAPI as long as (1) Microsoft makes it so that it won't load just any CSP -- it will only load CSPs signed by Microsoft, and (2) Microsoft agrees not to sign CSPs that the government doesn't approve of. So, Microsoft generates a public/private key pair, sticks the public key in the CryptoAPI and puts code in there to prevent a CSP from loading if it isn't signed by the private key, and Microsoft keeps the Private Key secret. Now, this doesn't mean that you can't write code that uses strong encryption without getting your encrpytion code signed by Microsoft. All it means is that you can't write a CSP and have other applications use it, unless your CSP is signed by Microsoft. Now, we find out that there isn't just one key pair that can sign CSPs. There's two. And: In Microsoft's source code, the second one is named: NSAKEY. (This is just a variable name. For example, both programs below do the same thing, even though I used different variables: Prog#1: main(){char aaa="Hello World.\n"; printf(aaa);} Prog#2: main(){char nsa="Hello World.\n"; printf(nsa);} There's nothing spy-like about the second program, even though I named a variable "nsa". But, in the case of the Microsoft CryptoAPI, some people got curious/concerned about why Microsoft might name the key NSAKEY. Microsoft claims that they named it "NSAKEY" because it was the NSA that insisted that they have a backup key. (This is a tad suspicious, because why would the NSA want there to be a second key.) Previously, they apparently had claims that the key was there to signify that the NSA has approved the code. (Huh? Lots of groups and managers at Microsoft also approved the code before it got released, but we don't have a key in there to signify those approvals ...) But, in any event, Microsoft specifically says they have the private key that goes with the "NSAKEY" public key. But let's assume that the scare-mongers are right, and that the NSA has the private key that goes with the NSAKEY public key. All that means is that the NSA could write CSPs that could be used in Windows, without getting Microsoft's approval. This really isn't so bad. For many reasons: (1) You have never needed a key to write a CSP. Having a key makes it easy. If you don't have a key, you just have to replace Microsoft's key with your own key in memory (this is doable), and then replace all of Microsoft's CSPs with your own CSPs that are signed by your key (this is doable). Yes, it's much harder if you don't have the key. But the NSA has the resources to do hard things. The kid down the street might need to know a private key to get a CSP in. The NSA doesn't. (2) Implementing trojan CSPs isn't necessary something the NSA would need to do anyway. Let's say they write one and want it on my computer. Coming up to my front door and telling me that they are the NSA and they would like me to install this new CSP they wrote in my computer isn't likely to work. It's even less likely to work on an international terrorist. So they have to find a way to hack into the computer and install software. And possessing the "NSAKEY" private key is no help here. Furthermore, once they get into the machine, why would they want to go around implementing CSPs. Once you're in, you can do so much more. (3) Even if they want to implement a CSP, and they don't have the NSAKEY private key, and they don't want to replace all Microsoft's CSPs, all they have to do is disassemble the cryptography DLLs, add another public/private keypair to them, reassemble them, and replace them on the target machine. The "replace them on the target machine" is about the same difficulty as installing a CSP (in either case, you need write access to the filesystem). Disassembling (and reverse engineering) the crypto code would be hard, but, again, not beyond the NSA's resources. So, in short: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe Microsoft here. Even if the NSA does have the private key that corresponds to the "NSAKEY" public key, it doesn't enable them to do anything they weren't able to do before. Furthermore, as pointed out in the original announcement, this backfired on the NSA anyway: Since the NSAKEY isn't currently used for signing anything that comes with Windows, you can replace NSAKEY with your own key without breaking anything. And once you've done that, you can write CSPs, sign them with your own key, and run them. As Andrew Fernandes said: Export Control for Windows CSPs is now effectively dead. Woops. -- Brett ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Debate Flares Over MS 'Spy Key' Date: 6 Sep 1999 00:12:16 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > by James Glave > Questions lingered Friday over whether or not security experts > overreacted to a scientist's charge that Microsoft built a backdoor in > Windows for a US spy agency to enter. > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21589.html > MS Denies Windows 'Spy Key' > by Steve Kettmann and James Glave > 10:20 a.m. 3.Sep.99.PDT > Microsoft is vehemently denying allegations by a leading cryptographer > that its Windows platform contains a backdoor designed to give a US > intelligence agency access to personal computers. > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21577.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the original article here, but > chose not to run it. After some discussion with a couple of people > my personal feeling was that something seemed fishy about the whole > thing. The person who made the accusation never did respond to > various inquiries about exactly *where* in the code this back door > was located, or *how* it was to be used. One correspondent here > said he thought it best to toss the whole thing in the trash. PAT] Well. The details are hardly secret. Microsoft's CAPI ("Cryptography API" where API is "Application Programming Interface" as usual) is designed to allow loadable cryptography modules to provide enhanced security to various pieces of the Windows operating system. Because the U.S. typically does not allow the export of such "cryptography with a hole" interfaces, where an overseas entity could just obtain or produce strong crypto and drop it into the "hole" in the existing framework, Microsoft requires that such modules be signed with a secret key known only to Microsoft before Windows will accept them. It transpires that there are, in fact, not just one, but three such keys. This was determined by disassembly of the CAPI module loading object code in Windows. An analysis of a Microsoft patch which accidentally went out the door without its debugging symbols (which show the names of variables as they were in the source code) stripped off yielded the information that one of those three keys was called "__NSAKEY". Given what the module does, this isn't terribly surprising to me, and I doubt that it's evidence of any nefarious intent. The NSA probably wants the ability to provide CAPI modules for use within the U.S. Government which it does *not* wish to provide copies of to Microsoft in order to have them signed. __NSAKEY presumably exists in order to let them sign the modules themselves, so that their (intra-governmental) consumers can load them without Microsoft's say-so. An interesting question is just what the third key might be for. The paranoid might (even semi-reasonably) suggest that this key, if it were in the posession of, say, the FBI, could be tailor-made for exercising the authority the FBI coincidentally just asked Congress for: entering the home of the subject of an investigation, unloading his usual CAPI module which provided strong crypto of some sort, and loading a module supplying cryptography with a flaw known to those tapping his communications. Using various techniques (such as generation of weak or known keys) this could be done *without* impacting interoperability with whoever the subject might be communicating with. Again, we have a situation where the government agency in question might not care to provide copies of its new crypto modules to Microsoft for signing, yet would still need an unaltered copy of Windows to load them without complaint ... The patch, unfortunately, did *not* contain the debugging symbol with the name of the mysterious third key. So we lose any hint that might have provided. And of course it's entirely possible that it was intended for some non-nefarious use -- probably more likely than that it was intended for some underhanded use by government snoops. I personally consider it far more likely that __NSAKEY, which all the fuss has been raised about, is intended to keep NSA-developed government ciphers secret from Microsoft than to help snoop on the public at large. There are plenty of other ways to do that. What's really a shame is the blatantly unconstitutional program of export controls which make all this secret skulduggery necessary instead of just allowing simple, reasonable APIs for drop-in crypto of the user's choice. Soon the courts may knock them down, and it'll be about time. But that's probably a subject for another forum ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 99 20:23 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: The Microsoft/NSA Crypto Brouhaha Greetings. By now most of you have probably seen or heard something of the controversy surrounding Andrew Fernandes' (Cryptonym) announcement implying that Microsoft had provided the National Security Agency a key to the Windows 95/98/NT Crypto Applications Programming Interface (API). His main evidence? A secondary key variable with the string "NSAKEY" buried in the code. The problem? He doesn't appear to have any information beyond that variable to indicate that such a key has actually been provided to anyone outside of Microsoft. Nor have I received any response from him to my request for additional information. Microsoft strongly asserts that the variable name only represents the presence of the key required by export regulations to obtain NSA certification of the Windows crypto code, and that they have not provided any keys to NSA or anyone else. While Microsoft's response to this furor could certainly be termed defensive, and perhaps even somewhat disingenuous, I am inclined to believe them. I have a sense that there is some grandstanding going on amongst some of the persons ready to jump on anything that would make it appear that Microsoft was engaged in some sort of security conspiracy. As much as Microsoft can be faulted for a variety of security, privacy, and other problems with their software, the collusion theory just doesn't add up. However, there is a clear moral to this whole episode. It's very difficult to trust crypto software whose innards are not available for inspection. Closed-source crypto, such as the package under discussion in this case, is impossible to verify or completely test, and can play directly into the hands of the "conspiracy theorists" who are ready to believe the worst. This is certainly a good example of why the open-source model seems to be the only way to fly when it comes to crypto systems and software. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:23:48 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , roy@endeavor.med. nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: >> I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without paper tape drives > I thought all ASR-33's had tape drives. If it didn't have a tape drive, > it was a KSR-33, no? Yeah, you're right. I hate them both. In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: >> If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not >> be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without >> paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am >> very glad they're no longer in circulation. > Could you elaborate on what it was about them that you didn't care for? 1. Noisy. 2. Heavy. 3. Often smells of hot, dusty, oil, combined with the odor of kerosene- or benzine-based inked ribbons. 4. Difficult to read printed copy, unless if the ribbon was changed often. 5. Even rubber gloves couldn't prevent someone from getting ink on their hands when changing ribbons. 6. Tape drive very difficult to deal with on days with many typos (hey, it was always the keyboard's fault! ;) I'm sure there's more I haven't mentioned. > How did they compare with other Teletype products (eg earlier or > later models, and the heavy duty 35.) Oh, I think I dislike all of the Teletype products equally. The Extel's that followed them (in broadcast newsrooms) were much less noisy, though not much better on print quality and definitely not as sturdily built. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Sep 99 09:20 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) Greetings. While the current push for a legislative ban on area code splits and overlays in California could be viewed as theoretically technologically undesirable legislation, it's important to realize how we've reached this state of affairs and why many people are now supporting it as a stopgap measure. I've long been a fan of overlays in most situations -- I've been dialing 11 digits for most calls since central offices permitted local dialing that included 1+area code. There are however many people who really hate the idea of overlays and forced 11 digit dialing -- especially when both are viewed as really unnecessary in many situations. For example, overlays could technically be done without requiring 11 digit dialing for calls within the same area code. A big deal? Not to me -- but it is to many others, and you can't just discount these sorts of opinions. There are also competitive concerns with overlays in some situations, with a wide range of varying validity. Most people now dislike area code splits -- they're a serious hassle and expense for those who end up with the new area code, and they often don't even solve the problems for more than a few years. But the fight between splits and overlays has created an untenable situation in many areas. The story here in L.A. is representative. The CPUC's decision-making process in this regard is difficult to fathom. First they proposed an overlay for 310, started the forced 11 digit dialing period, then held off on the implementation of the new code. Meanwhile, out in the Valley, they first proposed an overlay for 818, then reversed themselves (seemingly at the urging of Burbank/North Hollywood who all along wanted to preserve both 7 digit dialing *and* 818 for themselves) and decided on a split. This split has the boundary drawn in such a way as to give the Burbank/North Hollywood folks what they want, but to force many other nearby Valley communities (including where I sit!) into a new area code. Such splits cause the worst of both worlds for the people in the new code. They have all the disruption of a split and changed numbers, *and* they end up having to dial 11 digits on more calls anyway since their "home" area code is smaller. (This is the irony of splits of course, the more splits, the smaller the area codes, the more the 11 digit dialing -- that's why such dialing has become so common in the L.A. area already.) Outside of the obvious questions about the drawing of the split boundary and what influenced it, the irony is that the entire written reasoning of the CPUC report was basically unchanged from that in the earlier overlay proposal. In essence, the CPUC said, "Here's a detailed explanation of why an overlay is best. Our decision is instead to do a split ..." Now, here's the best part. Along with their 818 split decision, they declined to set the split implementation dates at this time, instead calling for number utilization studies--clearly implying that they are questioning the real need to be doing either of a split or overlay. Herein is the underlying problem, I believe. People have begun to realize that sloppy handling of numbering resources is a key reason for many of the problems, not just the "explosion of phone-based technology" we hear about most of the time. The allocation of phone numbers in 10,000 blocks for every local service "competitor" (most of whom it seems hardly anybody in the real world has ever heard of) in every rate center, regardless of their utilization of those numbers, has been devastating. There's a sense that the situation is out of control, and I believe that's the real focus behind AB 818 -- to call attention to this issue and to put pressure on the various parties involved to change the current policies that are inconveniencing large populations of phone users unnecessarily. At some point down the line we will indeed require some new area codes (with overlays clearly the preferred method). But number pooling (stopping the 10,000 number block allocations) could help a lot, and technology-based area codes may also have some positive roles to play. The current situation has become an intolerable mess, and I think that this has now become clear to the average phone user. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@vortex.com Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:33:47 GMT In article , Jonathan D Loo wrote: [in reponse to my compalint that 1-800-call-att doesn't provide touch-tone computer service to AT&T's cell phones, requiring the use of an operator:] > If you call 1-800-CALL-ATT from a public pay phone and follow the > voice prompts for a collect call you will reach a live operator. > According to the operator, the rate for a live operator assisted > collect call is higher than the rate for an automated collect call. I didn't ask what the rate would be from my cell phone via a live operator. I assumed (silly me) that since they were giving me no choice it would be the same rate, but I couldn't even place the call because I was driving and hadn't memorized the (long international) number. Also, I was trying to make a calling-card call. > [...] > The supervisor said that what I was saying was false and refused to > accept a complaint about the issue. I tried to get a supervisor, but couldn't. The operator told me she would file a complaint, but that I would have to call back to get the result. They wouldn't call me. (Which, actually, is an improvement from the days when they would promise to call and not call ...) Notice how none of this nonsense goes on outside of the USA? >This< is the result of "competition." Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:22:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Business Manager Linked to Prostitute Through Hotmail Hole (CNN) -- A Swedish business manager was exposed as contacting a prostitute as a result of a breach on Microsoft's Hotmail service that made it possible for anyone to read his e-mail or that of any Hotmail client, it was reported Friday. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/hotmail.fallout/index.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #379 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 6 21:01:39 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA24735; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:01:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909070101.VAA24735@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #380 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Sep 99 21:01:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 380 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Ed Ellers) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Fred Goldstein) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Syd Barrett) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (spam_phree) Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail (Brian Elfert) Obituary: William Pfeiffer, 44, Radio Web Site Creator (Val Davis) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: 6 Sep 1999 12:28:09 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Steve Uhrig wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> In article , Ed Ellers >> wrote: >>> Callers don't send CID info -- the originating central office does >>> that. My suspicion is that these boiler rooms have T1s *direct to >>> their IXC* for their WATS lines, making caller ID or ANI difficult >>> since the leased lines wouldn't have phone numbers associated with >>> them. (If they had local CO lines they'd have phone numbers for each >> There's still ANI, which provides the BTN or "billing telephone >> number" associated with the call. The call won't be routed between >> telephone carriers if there's no ANI, and probably won't even be able >> to be routed within a single telco's network. > ANI does not pass through the entire connection. The terminating > office does not receive any ANI. Since ANI is for billing it does not > need to be passed any farther than the billing tandem office. It is of > no help in tracing an LD call. "Does not need to" or "is not"? All the GR's I have here (I don't, however, have a copy of the LERG, so if you do, feel free to quote chapter and verse at me about how I'm wrong again) seem to suggest otherwise, as do numerous traces of real SS7 traffic from real LEC networks I've seen. Certainly, when I was doing AIN interoperability work, a substantial concern was that we not allow applications to "lose" the BTN (a real possibility with a malicious or broken AIN application) which was assumed by various elements in the network to always be present. >> So, basically, whoever said they couldn't trace the calls was lying to >> you. The _can_, they just don't _want to_. I suggest you involve law >> enforcement, and/or file a complaint with your state regulator >> regarding the telco's dishonest response. > No the telco did not give a dishonest response. They only know which > IXC handled the call and which trunk the call came in on. They have no > originating information at all. I guess they could say the calls are > coming in from MCI or AT&T etc. Call them and ask which one of there > customers is calling and hanging up. I don't believe this to be correct. Normal SS7 signaling preserves this information across carrier boundaries, as does Equal Access Multi Frequency signaling. If you're suggesting that this is not the case, I'd like a concrete example, please. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my reply above to Bruce Wilson. >> Yes, you can get law enforcement involved, and in doing so, you >> force telco's hand and get them involved also with a trap placed >> on your line to register incoming calls, etc. > You will have a very hard time getting law enforcement involved with > this type of call. If he goes to the police and asks them to have > these calls traced so he can get some money from a telemarketer, they > may arrest him. There are no threats made just someone hanging up when Oh, may they? Why, exactly? Care to give another concrete example? > he answers. Even if they did request a trace from the phone Repeated hangup calls are certainly within the definition of harassment of my local police department (the NYPD) though a larger problem here is that they basically don't have time to care about harassing phone calls at all. Shame, isn't it? > company. They will get the same response as the original poster. The > call is not traceable under any normal or reasonable condition. I have > never had a law enforcement agency argue with me yet when I tell them > the call could not be traced. Of course not -- I'm sure they're glad to not have the work to do. Who's the last cop you met who had a lot of free time on his hands? [snip] > If it were a case of national security the NSA could tell in about a > minute were the calls were coming from. There may be hope. As soon as Oh? How, pray tell? They can't have access to information that's not there -- so if your assertion that the calling party address is not preserved in intercarrier signaling is correct, this one's very probably false, and vice versa. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 13:44:35 -0400 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in reply: > Where this can occassionally go sour is that you have to agree in > writing to prosecute first, **regardless of the trap results and > before you are even entitled to know the results of the trap**. Now if > the trap results show that ex-spouse is charting your whereabouts each > day so s/he can show up at your home in the middle of the night and > kill you all while you are in bed asleep, then yes, I think you would > want to get the police involved and see what they think about all > that. On the other hand, what if it is merely a neighbor with a minor > grudge, or a child you know or who perhaps is related to you? Or > someone you consider a close friend but who has some sort of mental > illness or delusion or fantasy or whatever; the kind of person you > would prefer to deal with quietly on your own. Police don't have > options available like that." I can think of another reason for this policy -- what if someone found out that the harassing caller was someone he knew and decided to "deal with (him/her) quietly on (his) own" with, say, a .357 Magnum? Police and telcos wouldn't appreciate at all being used for such a purpose. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, precisely. Telco tries to keep out of the middle of those things, for very good reason. They'll produce their records when ordered by the court to do so, for example with a search warrant, but no one can then say then no one can say that telco was responsible for something as a result of someone getting 'spied on'. It is a pretty good policy, IMO, even though it does present problems for the 'casual investigator' who would like to make a few short-cuts in order to get what information is needed for one reason or another. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:20:50 GMT > My wife's become increasingly upset (and suspicious of what I might be > doing behind her back) by the frequency of hang-up calls at home > during the day. I suggested using *69 to trace them, but she says > "The number dialed cannot be reached." (We don't have caller ID.) > [...] > I think what you would have to do therefore is get an 800 number from > a carrier who is equipped to provide real-time ANI -- and it won't > be an inexpensive proposition -- have that line turned on, then have > your existing number automatically forwarded to the 800 number. If If this would work, it sounds like it would be a good business opportunity. Some 800 carrier could, for a fee, offer to let you forward your number to their line, and record the ANI data for you. They could either route the calls into voice mail, or forward them on to yet another phone. Last year I started getting fax calls 24hour/day, all from unkonwn sources. I would have been very happy to spend a few dollars to find out who was doing this to me. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 09:53:53 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? At 05:47 PM 9/5/1999 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a query about not getting Caller ID: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I may be wrong and will stand corrected > if I am, but I believe your only absolute entitlement to ANI comes > when you are paying for the calls, ie. the calls arrive on an 800 > number. If you have an 800 number, you are entitled to ANI both in the > form of a monthly printout of same with your phone bill, and/or 'real > time' ANI when the number is delivered with each call perhaps on a > caller-id display box. So far so good. > I think what you would have to do therefore is get an 800 number from > a carrier who is equipped to provide real-time ANI -- and it won't > be an inexpensive proposition -- have that line turned on, then have > your existing number automatically forwarded to the 800 number. If > you simply have your existing number intercepted with an announcement > that 'calls are being taken by 800-xxx-xxxx' my thinking is that > certain people may grow suspicious and not call. You do not want that; > you want to quietly lure them into calling and exposing themselves > to you. Uh, no. ISTM that a key difference between ANI and Caller ID, besides the billing vs. other number that might show up, is that with caller ID, you get the *originating* number for a forwarded call, since that's the caller, but with ANI, you get the *forwarding* number. That's the party calling the 800 number. So if old Anonymous calls a ABC-DEFG which is forwarded to 800-XYX-YZZY, then the ANI on the 800 call will be ABC-DEFG. After all, Anonymous is paying for a call to ABC-DEFG, and that number is reverse-charge calling the 800 number. Besides, if this subterfuge had worked, the whole *67 compromise would have been unacceptable, as those dastardly pizza shops and other alleged privacy violators could have done as you suggested. Trap'n'trace, turned on by the telco, should get the ANI of incoming calls. But of course they don't take that very lightly. They do that for people with badges, not annoyed civilians. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Syd Barrett From: Syd Barrett Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 01:02:50 GMT Organization: @Home Network wrote in message news:telecom19. 372.1@telecom-digest.org: > Today, I stumbled across a FAQ that reveals the probability that the > majority of these calls are coming from a telemarketer's predictive > dialing machines. And what's even more nefarious is that these bozos are calling *me* at 4am. Every other day for the past couple of months, I'll be disturbed from slumber, and dial *69 (don't yet have CID). I'll hear a couple of rings and then the message I'll get says the following: 'The caller is outside the calling area in which this service is offered, or wishes to remain anonymous. No further information is available.' *Click!* Is there any way I can file harassment charges, since I deem being awakened at 4 in the morning harassment? ------------------------------ From: spam_phree@nospam.yahoo.com (Spam Phree) Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:04:46 GMT You are being very myopic and perhaps in collusion with the telemarketing industry. These "predictive dialers" have an "acceptable abandoned call rate" or 3-7%. On average, these telmarketers are open 10 hours a day, seven days a week, making 400,000 calls a month. Thats a lot of hang ups. It is harassing. I get one hang up a day now, on average. Each call lacks caller ID info, and the ones I do get to answer are telemarketers. The practice of abandoning an "initiated" telemarketing call without identifying the name of the caller and their phone and address is a violation of law under 47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and its implementing regulation 47 CFR 64.1200(e)(2)(iv). This is a fact, it has been proven over and over in court and I do not care to argue this point. If someone is breaking the law, the RBOC should investigate. If you had your way, the RBOC should be able to *lie* without consequence about their ability to trace, and I am wrong for not bending over and tolerating the violation of law and the interruption of my privacy. BTW, I am making more than a few hundred dollars when I settle or get a judgment. The law cited specifically allows for triple damages when the telemarketer intentionally violates the law. The telemarketers association is on record as publicly stating that a "3.5% abandoned call rate and resulting legal claims are acceptable" for the amount of profits bilked from wherever they get their profits from (i.e. senior citizens, et al) I will not give up trying to stop the calls as you intimate I should. The calls are just as harassing and taxing as threatening calls. I will keep the group posted. I would still appreciate any suggestions on how to get the phone company to work with me. I have already received help from the group that identifies the outgoing lines as T3 or DS3 that bypass the telemarketers RBOC and go right to a long distance Compamy. I have also received the specs and laws concerning their ability and requirement to identify the calls as to thier origin. Thanks to all that have helped. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please do keep us posted on your results. I imagine everyone will be interested. To my way of thinking, telemarketers and spammers are about the same in their lack of morals and ethics. Both deserve severe punishment when caught. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 13:58:56 GMT blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) writes: > I'm having trouble understanding how such a CPE switch could work with > telco voice mail and how that one apparently did. > It seems activation of telco voice mail depends on either line busy or > failure to answer within the specified number of rings; and the > switch's going off-hook would preclude the latter unless it were able > to fool the CO into thinking it hadn't gone off-hook until either > connected fax or phone went off-hook. I don't know how that particular fax/phone switch worked with telco voicemail, but it did work all the same. You're right that it shouldn't work. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 12:53:48 -0500 From: Val Davis Subject: Obituary: William Pfeiffer, 44, Radio Web Site Creator http://www.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=80898735 Obituaries: William Pfeiffer, 44, radio Web site creator Lucy Y. Her / Star Tribune William Pfeiffer, the creator, editor and moderator of the newsgroup rec.radio.broadcasting and its companion Web site http://www.airwaves.com died in a car crash Wednesday in Apple Valley. He was 44. He was delivering pizza for Pizza Hut in Rosemount about 6:40 p.m. whe n his car collided with another at 140th St. and 140th Path, said his fiancee, Cindy Freeman of Milwaukee. Pfeiffer started the newsgroup in 1991 while living in Springfield, Mo. "He had a love of radio unlike anybody I have ever known," said Kent Peterson, a cameraman for KMSP-TV (Channel 9), in the Twin Cities. He had been logging on to the newsgroup since 1992. Peterson said Pfeiffer started the newsgroup to help improve radio. "He felt he succeeded, but it was a project that will be never completed," he said. "Radio will never be completed. Bill wanted to make it as close to perfection as possible." Radio was Pfeiffer's passion, Peterson said. Both men helped author a rulemaking proposal to the Federal Communication Commission that would allow the creation of new regulations to allow low-power broadcast serv ice for small community-based stations. The proposal is in the approval stage, Peterson said. "It was one of the many things Bill was very excited about." Alan Freed, of Beat Radio in Minneapolis, met Pfeiffer through the new sgroup. They had a professional relationship through the Internet for two years before meeting in 1997. "He was an intelligent, well-spoken and passionate person in what he was doing," Freed said. "He was a pioneer." In December 1996, Pfeiffer was living with his mother in Springfield, when a fire destroyed their home. His mother died shortly afterward and Pfeiffer's collection of airchecks and radio paraphernalia were ruined. He later moved to Milwaukee to start over in radio, and then moved to Northfield, Minn., in 1998 to work for KYMN (1080 AM) for five months. Besides the Web site and newsgroup, Pfeiffer was a pizza deliverer, a Web-page designer and a disc jockey for Midwest Sound and Light in Minnea polis. He also often volunteered to teach children how to use computers, said Val Davis of Emmetsburg, Iowa, another friend whom Pfeiffer met through rec.radio.broadcasting. Pfeiffer grew up in Chicago, where he often spent his evenings trying to tune into distant stations, Davis said. "He always was into the technical side of radio, like who was on the radio and where," he said. Freeman, who met Pfeiffer 10 years ago, said she was attracted to his personality. They had been engaged for only a few weeks and had planned to get married next summer. "He was very forthright, and he was always building me up," she said. "He taught me what I know about Web design and computers. I love Bill, and [his death will] leave an empty space in my life for a long time." Services are pending. Copyright 1999 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the present time, Minnesota authorities are attempting to locate any 'next of kin' who wish to claim his remains or any of his possessions, which were few. He had one sister, whose whereabouts are unknown, and a father who may or may not be alive. As to his location, Bill once commented in a personal discussion, 'I do not know and do not care to know.' His body remains in the custody of the coroner's office pending someone claiming it. Of all the times we met socially over the years, the one that stands out more clearly than any in my mind was Thanksgiving Day, 1980. I invited Bill and his mom to be my guest for dinner that day. We went to Berghoff's in downtown Chicago, and after dinner as I was taking them back home in a cab, Mrs. Pfieffer reached in a bag she was carrying and handed me a pair of mittens she had made on her sewing machine at home. She had made a pair for Bill to wear in the winter, and wanted me to have a pair also. Such a happy little family they were, the two of them. She was in her late sixties then, and Bill was about 23 or 24 years old, and delivering pizzas on the occassions when he had a car that would run. I miss them both. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #380 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 6 21:49:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA26858; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:49:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909070149.VAA26858@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #381 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Sep 99 21:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 381 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Stan U.) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Ralph Sprang) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Bill Levant) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Steven Lichter) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (John E. Connerat) Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones (David Lind) Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Local Loop Responsibilities (Alan Boritz) Re: Water Amplifies Electricity? (Martin McCormick) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 5 Sep 1999 20:52:39 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? PAT responded to Thomas A. Horsley's (Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net) to "NO-PIC" as such: > Tell your service representative to set your carrier PIC code as > 'none', and furthermore to put a freeze on any changes to it. They > may tell you the computer will not allow it to be both set at > 'none' and frozen as such; if so, that's okay, just have it set at > 'none'. And starting the next day when you wake up, following > their 2:00 AM update or whatever time they do it, you will find > that 1+anything will return an intercept message saying 'your call > cannot be completed as dialed', as will zero+ anything. Ditto, > double zero 'cannot be completed as dialed', etc. > The only calls that will complete are seven digit calls within > your local calling area, and calls to 800/888/877 numbers. For any > type of 'toll call' you will need to dial 1010 plus the carrier of > choice plus the number. Carrier Access Codes are not just 1010-xxx. The are actually of the format: 101-XXXX+. Most of them are of the form 101-0XXX (which had been 10-XXX+), thus the so-called "ten-ten". But there are presently NUMEROUS CACs of the form 101-5XXX+ and 101-6XXX+. These co-existed (along with the permissive expanded 101-0XXX+) during the last few years of 10-XXX+, since there were no CACs assigned of the older form 10-10X+, 10-15X+, 10-16X+. And as time progresses, NANPA will begin assigning CACs of the forms 101-2XXX+, 101-3XXX+, etc. Also, changing to "no-PIC" will probably only give you "no" preferred inTER-LATA carrier. You won't be able to dial toll calls or 0+ calls to points _OUTSIDE_ of your LATA unless prefixed with a 101-XXXX+ CAC first. This also included 011+ and 01+ International Calling which would also need a CAC prefix first. BUT ... inTRA-LATA toll calling _WILL_ still be possible as (1+) and 0+, and will most likely be handled by BellSouth, unless someone else has taken over your inTRA-LATA (so-called "local-toll") toll service. If you aren't making any inTRA-LATA (local-toll) toll calls, you will ALSO have to tell BellSouth that you want "no-PIC" on your "local-toll" calling, and to "freeze" that as well. To call a Long Distance Operator of a 101-XXXX+ carrier, you can dial that 101-XXXX+ code, followed by 0+ a wait for time-out, '00', or 0+ '#' (pound). A single '0' by itself followed by either a pound ('#') or wait-for-time-out will connect you with the BellSouth Operator who will only be able to assist on local and inTRA-LATA toll calling. If you have BellSouth's "Area Plus" service, depending on which state or LATA you live in, you might have the entire LATA as unlimited calling. You should request BellSouth as your "local-toll" PIC, and FREEZE it at that. Depending on which area you live in (i.e., Atlanta, Miami, etc), there might be local calling dialed as TEN digits, and some might be local dialed as "1+ten-digits". If it is local (or under your Area Plus - or similar - plan if you subscribe to it), any "no-PIC" blocking of inTRA-LATA should still allow you to dial _LOCAL_ calls which might now have to be dialed as (straight) ten-digits or 1+ ten-digits. If you don't have blocking of local directory or other local pay-per-call "N11" codes (here in Louisiana, 211 is a three-digit local PAY-per-call code), these could still be reached. > While you are at it, you might want to have 900 blocked (although > it should be with PIC=none anyway) I don't think that 900 is necessarily blocked on a "no-PIC". However, BellSouth is SUPPOSED to block, at the customer's request, with NO extra charges, access to 900, access to "local" 976 pay-per- call, and access to "local" N11 pay-per-call. You might need to request each one of these blockings individually. However, changing to "no-PIC" _MIGHT_ incur a one-time "PIC-change" charge, even though you are changing to "no" carrier! You might be able to talk to a supervisor to remove these charges - they CAN remove them if they bill them and you request that it be removed since you are DROPPING long distance. > and also add on 'billed number screening' to prevent third party > charges from reaching you. I have all the above on my line, Tell the BellSouth rep that you want _BOTH_ Collect-blocking (i.e., NO incoming collect calling), AS WELL AS 3rd-party-blocking. However, you might not necessarily want collect blocking if there might be the rare emergency when a family member needs to call you collect. BTW, be aware, that even with collect and 3d-number-blocking, there _ARE_ many carriers (and tele-sleaze) out there that do _NOT_ honor the database of screened billed numbers. > Be sure and be specific in telling the service representative you > want NONE (that's spelled N-O-N-E) as your long distance choice. > On your phone bill the next month, you may get the usual charge > for 'change of default carrier' or maybe when you place the order > the service rep who takes your call will be a fellow pervert and > write off the service charge; you know, professional courtesies > and all that. And each month on your phone bill thereafter, a > little line on the bill somewhere will say, 'our records show you > have not selected a long distance carrier'. That's right, and you > do not plan to select one, either. PAT] ALSO, in addition, call up WHOEVER your current "default" carrier is and inform them to CANCEL your account. Make sure you get some form of confirmation number or whatever. It is always still possible that one or another, or SEVERAL NUMEROUS carriers will try to bill you some form of monthly fee, even when you have "no-PIC" (both inTRA and inTER LATA) with BellSouth. The LD carrier(s) can try to bill you monthly fees either via your BellSouth bill or by billing you directly, claiming that you have had an account with them. If you CONFIRM cancellation _AND_ take care of the things mentioned above, HOPEFULLY you won't get "crammed" with extra charges from "other" companies you don't intend to do business with ever, or ever again! 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: stanri@yahooREMOVETHISPART.com (Stan U.) Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 02:12:41 GMT Organization: @Home Network Pat wrote: > The only calls that will complete are seven digit calls within your > local calling area, and calls to 800/888/877 numbers. For any type > of 'toll call' you will need to dial 1010 plus the carrier of choice > plus the number. Just two weeks ago I dropped all LD carriers from my home line. When I called Bell Atlantic, they were helpful, even to the point of getting ATT for me so that I could inform them that I was dropping them as my LD carrier. I'm in AC 401, but a few 508's are local non toll calls. I asked Bell what would happen if I dropped all LD carriers. They told me (and I tested it a few days later) that if the call was LD it would go over LD carrier lines. But local (non toll) calls would go over Bell Atlantic lines and could be dialed the same way I always have been. Like everyone else, I hate spam. To reply, remove the "REMOVETHISPART" from the email address. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 06:06:19 -0700 From: Ralph Sprang Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Organization: CCNmail (http://www.ccnmail.com:80) My local phone company (Cincinnati Bell) insists I must have a carrier assigned, and if I do not choose one, it will be CBLD by default. Their point is that I MUST pay the long distance line fees -- you know, the ones the FCC says should be $0.79 per month or so, and ATT charges $2.73 a month for. That's my complaint -- I don't paying three dollars a month for something I NEVER use. At least it's not a monthly fee, according to the phone company . CCNmail for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.ccnmail.com ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:23:35 EDT Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider > Setting PIC=none will have no effect whatsoever on 700/900/976 > blocking. The use of the numbers in those NPA's implies the use of the > long-distance carrier who receives the call (whoever that may > be). They function identically to 800/888/877 dialing. The number, in > essence, dictates the IXC, in and of itself. Wait a minute. For 900 and 976, I agree with you, but aren't "700" numbers carrier-specific? 700-555-4141 dialed over MCI routes to an MCI recording; 700-555-4141 dialed over AT&T routes to an AT&T recording, etc. With "NONE" as your IXC, you wouldn't be able to dial any 700 number without using a 101-XXXX prefix code, and the *prefix code* (not the number itself) would determine routing. Bill ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 06 Sep 1999 01:15:03 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? In article , Tom.Horsley@worldnet. att.net wrote: > If this is legal, can someone point me to some chapter and verse which > I'll no doubt need to recite to many thousands of supervisors to prove > to them that I can actually do this? > If its not legal, does anyone know a good long distance provider > without minimum monthly fees (and one that is unlikely to impose them > in the future)? I asked that same question of PacificBell, I wanted no LD on my daughter's phone among other things. I was told that I could have it, but that the PUC/FCC had also mandated a charge for not having one, plus you would still get charged all those other little nickle and dime taxes that go to line the government and Congressman's pockets. Also you still could get grabbed by some little known carrier such as Gouge the Heck out of you LD and PORNO/MailBox service, PIC block or not. I found that GTE LD had a plan that charged no service fee each month, plus with my blocking all calls that are out of the local area they get nothing anyways, but the taxes appear on my master bill. One last thing, we have a Pic block on all our numbers; who in their right mind would slam a telco employee? Anyway, my daughter's phone was slammed to some out of the way company which charges $10.00 a month for the services they claim to offer, including voice mail, then a bunch of 900 numbers appeared. PacificBell could not say how it could happen, but all the charges were sent back and since my daughter's phone was blocked for toll/LD anyway, there is no way they could have been made by her or anyone else. They claimed that they had an audio tape of someone at that number giving the ok. The only thing that they could have gotten from calling that number is an answering machine with my daughter's voice on it saying something that I could never understand, but her friends do. I got a bill direct from the slimeball company and called them direct and made it very clear HELL would freeze over before they got anything since we did not make the change and no LD/900 or any other chargable calls could have been made from that phone, they said they were and I would have to pay and they just hung up. Months later a collection bill came and when I called them told them the story and also advised them my daughter was 15 years old and could not sign a contract with anyone and should they continue or make any reports I would make there life really bad in more ways then they could ever think of. That was the end of it and I heard that the company got the collection back and never called me or made any kind of report on it again. I also heard that the Texas company never can do business in California or 49 other states, so I guess they are toast. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c) ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: 05 Sep 1999 21:27:55 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > Tell your service representative to set > your carrier PIC code as 'none', and furthermore to put a freeze on > any changes to it. Thanks, I'll give it a shot. > The only calls that will complete are seven digit calls within your > local calling area, and calls to 800/888/877 numbers. For any type > of 'toll call' you will need to dial 1010 plus the carrier of choice > plus the number. Really? Even intra-lata calls that have always been billed by BellSouth, not my long distance carrier, but still need to be dialed with 1+ten-digits? I do find it fascinating that AT&T wants $5 a month minimum fee for being your long distance carrier, but then runs 10-10-345 and only charges a 10 cent fee per call. >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:31:52 EDT From: Jonathan D. Loo Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > Be sure and be specific in telling the service representative you > want NONE (that's spelled N-O-N-E) as your long distance choice. I heard somewhere that there actually are long distance carriers named "none" or "don't know" or "don't care." Is this true? Jonathan D Loo, P. O. Box 30533, Bethesda, Maryland 20824, U. S. A. jloo@polaris.umuc.edu / Save a life: learn first-aid and C. P. R. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There were a couple like that until the Federal Trade Commission or the FCC put them out of business. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:42:19 -0400 From: John E. Connerat Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Thomas A. Horsley wrote: > Can I call up my local phone company (BellSouth in this case) and tell > them I don't want to have any long distance provider at all? Or is > this actually verboten by some sort of FCC regulation (which I can't > find on the FCC web site because I have no idea what to search for)? > (I'm perfectly happy to dial 10-10-something twice a year when I need > to make an LD call). About eight months ago, I tried to do this on my second line, which I was using only for outgoing modem calls. Over the course of 12 months, I had made no long distance calls, yet I was paying about $1.80 per month for the Carrier Line Charge and the Universal Connectivity Charge. (Minimum services charges weren't yet implemented.) When I called BellSouth here in Georgia, the representative said that she could change my PIC to none; however, BellSouth charges $0.53 per month not to have a default carrier. This was not to *change* my carrier to none; rather, it was an ongoing monthly fee for not having a 1+ long distance carrier. When I asked her why, she stated that it was a standard charge, and she wouldn't elaborate further. I told her "thanks, but no thanks." Trying to outsmart them, I called AT&T and told them that I wanted to cancel service on this line. Although they had my second number in their computer, they told me that they wouldn't have to do anything to cancel the account because my local provider would alert them when I no longer wanted them as a carrier. I told them to cancel it anyway, but the representative there simply said he would "note it in the computer" that it was canceled. I was left with the distinct impression that he didn't nothing to cancel my account, and the next two bills still showed them as my provider. Since I switched to a cable modem shortly thereafter, I canceled my second line altogether, but I would be curious if your experience is the same. John Connerat Atlanta, GA ------------------------------ From: David Lind Subject: Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:24:46 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > It seems AT&T has just changed its 1-800-CALL-ATT calling card so that > calls from an AT&T cell phone must go through an operator. This is > obviously very annoying. > (The reason one might want to use a calling card from a cell phone is > that int'l calling card rates are MUCH, MUCH less than the cell phone > rates. E.g., over $1.00/min to Europe vs. 10-25 cents/min via the > calling card.) > The bottom line is that to make an AT&T calling card call from an AT&T > cell phone, one has to talk to an operator, give him/her the number > from which you are calling< (why can't they get this automatically?), > your calling card number, and the number you are calling. It takes a > long time, and is very inconvenient if you don't know the number by > heart and are, say, driving. > AT&T claims the switch was for technical reasons, but it obviously > worked until a few weeks ago. I suspect the switch is to dissuade > people from taking advantage of the inexpensive int'l rates. There are lots of alternative 800 access number calling cards that offer inexpensive domestic and international rates from a cell phone. Don't let AT&T get in your way. Globaltel and Acculink come to mind. I use Acculink and it seems to work well although I did get a couple of bad lines calling the U.K.(.12/min.) from a cell phone. www.Ld.net/?phoneheaven ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:12:27 GMT >> Is there any way to get a fax/phone switch to work with telco >> voicemail without distinctive ring? I can understand why the > I'm having trouble understanding how such a CPE switch could work with > telco voice mail and how that one apparently did. > It seems activation of telco voice mail depends on either line busy or > failure to answer within the specified number of rings; and the > switch's going off-hook would preclude the latter unless it were able > to fool the CO into thinking it hadn't gone off-hook until either > connected fax or phone went off-hook. There's at least one manufacturer out there (I forget which) that makes a box that answers the phone, and if the call is supposed to go to voice mail, the box uses the telco call-forward feature to forward the call back to the same incoming number the box is on, which line, of couse, is busy, and so the telco voice mail picks up. Pretty clever, actually. Joel ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Local Loop Responsibilities Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:45:21 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Alan Boritz wrote: >> Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>> Kevin Stone wrote: >>>> The conduit comes in underground through the foundation. GTE hasn't >>>> called me yet but I guess I'm just expecting the worst when trying to >>>> get them to do something out of the norm. >>> I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but I'm sure I read it here first: >>> There is an exception to the general rule that the point of demarcation >>> must be on the outside of a building if the service enters underground. >> There's no exception, because there's no "general rule." Depends >> entirely upon the telco's current business policy. > Carterphone? Has no relation to this scenario? > In any event, his point of demarcation is already established. It > would require a physical change to relocate it outside. A change that would require a new pathway inside (assuming that the existing conduit could not be used) may become too costly, since the customer would be responsible for providing it. ------------------------------ From: wb5agz@dc.cis.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: Water Amplifies Electricity? Date: 6 Sep 1999 19:32:26 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma Several people hit on parts to the reason why water and electricity can be much worse for our health than electricity on dry skin. What happens is that the skin becomes more conductive when wet. One can take an Ohm meter and do a little experiment which is rather instructive. Hold the two probes between a thumb and forefinger so that they are parallel and about half an inch apart. You should get a reading that varies as you hold the probes with varying degrees of firmness, but should show a general range of values. Now, run water over your fingers and take another reading. The wet skin will pass electricity more easily than does the dry skin. One will get still more conductivity through a human body if the contact point between the skin and the electricity has a large surface area. This happens nicely if a person is submerged in water. One's whole body is now part of the circuit. Shocks that simply cause a tingle with dry skin may be fatal in this situation. The numbers one gets from the Ohm-meter drift around quite a bit while holding the probes and this demonstrates a good point. There is a lot of variability when it comes to skin conductivity and electric shocks. It is hard to predict a safe level so the best bet is to do one's best to make sure not to take any chances. We are mostly salt water inside and that is an excellent conductor. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #381 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 7 01:06:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA04553; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:06:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909070506.BAA04553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #382 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Sep 99 01:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 382 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Named Exchanges and OLD Numbers (Michael Maxfield) Re: California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) (Steven Lichter) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Alan Boritz) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Joey Lindstrom) "One Number" Need Advice (Rick Gutierrez) First Satellite-Based OC-3 (Monty Solomon) Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You (Robert Shaw) Nokia: Web, Email via TV Signal (Monty Solomon) Qwest, U.S. West Get Federal Antitrust Approval (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Named Exchanges and OLD Numbers Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:22:11 PDT From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Michael Maxfield wrote: > My great grandfather's trade card (the father in law of the above GF) > at 81st Street and South Chicago Avenue only shows: > "Telephone 1xxx South Shore" For purposes of the second part of this post, the number was 1289. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] > as much a matter of 'which sounds nicer' as anything else. The South > Chicago neighborhood, then and now is thought of as a heavily indus- > trial area and not a 'desirable' residential area; meanwhile just a > bit north, in the seventies along Lake Shore Drive in those long-ago > times you had the South Shore Country Club, Well, my GGF's machine shop was 8050 South Constance, but his house at 8039 South Constance was supposedly something else according to the July 9, 1935 {Daily Calumet}. Somehow I doubt that the area is any less desirable these days then my GF's old neighborhood, Larrabee Street, which in the 60's turned into some projects and now into some form of yuppified housing project. > In its recent past as 773-768, the phone exchange has not served > quite as much opulence, to say the least. A few pockets are still > okay, but most of it is pretty dreadful and dreary. PAT] And then Pat writes in a later posting: > A photograph at the Chicago Historical Society is dated 1910 and > shows a Model-T Ford from that year. On the side of it is painted, > 'Yellow Cab Company, Phone Calumet-6000'. Their (at one time) > competitor, Checker Cab had the number MOnroe-3700, or 666-3700 in > later years. Yellow bought out Checker about 15 years ago, and > merged their telephone/radio dispatch operations into a single > unit with the phone number 312-TAXICAB ... Can you imagine having > the same telephone number for 76 years at a place of business? PAT] You just caused me to pop over to www.anywho.com and look up the current phone number of my GGF's former shop, F. Hennebohle Steam & Hydraulic Specialties (now owned by some tool company ... at the same location), and the number listed is ... 773-768-1289 ... SOUth Shore 1289. I don't know how long (prior to c.1935) he held that number, but his shop was in that location since the time he was forced to move it from South Chicago Avenue and Baltimore Avenue because of the railroad. This number is perhaps older than Yellow's 76 year old number since he quit Illinois Steel in 1889 to open his own shop (9048 Brandon Ave.) Mike Maxfield [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It could well be about the same age. About twenty years ago, Illinois Bell held a just-for-fun contest and inquired, 'who has had their phone number the longest time?' and there were two categories, one for business and one for residence. Yellow Cab with their CALumet-6000 was either the winner or the runner-up in the business category, and they had had the number for more than a half-century at that point. A couple of places had the same number on the premises longer than that, but it was a different business (thus different subscriber) than originally involved. I lived in an apartment building once which had a switchboard and front desk arrangement. The switchboard was HYde Park-3-6700 and that had been its number about fifty years at that point since the building was erected in the 1920's. I moved out, the building turned into a total slum over the next twenty years or so, and the switch- board of course was long since gone. I walked in the place one day just to look around, something like twenty years after I had lived there. A room in the corner which had been the manager's office when I lived there was still used as a rental office, and the phone on the desk (just a single line or maybe two lines) had the same number, 493-6700. In the earlier switchboard days, there were around fifteen or so 'hunt lines' attached with it. Now it was just that one single black desk phone. The building had been through six or eight owners since I had lived there; apparently each one more greedy and cash-starved than the one before him, and the building looked that way. All the nicer buildings from those days in Chicago are now slums. The 80th and Constance area is 'iffy'; let' put it that way. Both of the local synagogues are gone; one is just vacant land, the other was sold to some black church. An Illinois Bell central office is a few blocks away at 89th and Constance. There are worse areas in Chicago to live in; at least there are a few stores still in that neighborhood, in the form of high-priced 'convenience marts', but mostly just liquor stores, taverns and Illinois State Lottery agencies. No banks, offices, theatres, nice restaurants or anything like that. If that company had the same phone number since 1935, they certainly would be one of the oldest in that neighborhood; probably a few of the janitors for the older highrise buildings still have the number that formerly had been the switchboard 20-30 years before, like where I had lived. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 07 Sep 1999 01:11:18 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) In article , lauren@vortex.com wrote: > I've long been a fan of overlays in most situations -- I've been > dialing 11 digits for most calls since central offices permitted local > dialing that included 1+area code. There are however many people who > really hate the idea of overlays and forced 11 digit dialing -- > especially when both are viewed as really unnecessary in many > situations. For example, overlays could technically be done without > requiring 11 digit dialing for calls within the same area code. A big > deal? Not to me -- but it is to many others, and you can't just > discount these sorts of opinions. There are also competitive concerns > with overlays in some situations, with a wide range of varying > validity. To me the overlay is a total waste of time and money, they should just add an extra digit to the exchange and the number and get it over with, they will have to do this shortly anyway. The PUC person I talked to in a rather heated meeting in Riverside over the pending 909 A/C split said whoever kept 909 would get an overlay in less then a year. You wonder what state hospital these fools were released from when the state in its cutbacks let the less dangerous loonies out. His reason was that not all exchanges could handle this; well by requiring the extra dialing within an area code it would require just as much translation as not. Besides, they can just mandate the upgrading of the exchange as they have been doing. This reminds me of a woman in Moreno Valley, California who would call her son in Colton, and she claimed that she never had to dial a 1 before his number; you see at that time the exchange was SATT ACCESS. I got the trouble ticket since the complained about the toll charges that she got when we converted to full SATT with a System 7 Director; you see it was still step. I told her that she must have had to dial the 1 before or she would have never gotten though. She still did not think so, but what else could I tell her and the problem went back to repair and to the business office. I never knew the outcome and really did not care. Why not just go back to dialing a 1; that way you will know it is a toll or L/D call. People in the 714 side of Huntington Beach only had to dial 10 digits A/C and phone number to reach the old 213 side of the city, but they had to dial 8 or 11 digits if they had to pay for it. Maybe we should just go back to the Pony Express, but then the PUC would say we would have to dial all 11 digits to get them also. The Hell with that, just fix it for the next 50 years not for the next 50 minutes; what do I know I only had to work on this stuff for the last 30 plus years. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? (c) ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:48:00 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:29:37 -0400, Alan Boritz wrote: >>> Your argument makes sense but only to a point. Let's say a million >>> Chinese refugees washed up on shore near San Francisco. The US >>> government, in an unusual turn (for them)... >> By all means, try to convince the masses of the importance of Internet >> traditions by using offensive ethnic slurs and endlessly rambling >> nonsequitors. You're not qualified to speak on this topic since >> you haven't learned your lesson yet. > Offensive ethnic slurs? "Chinese refugees" is an offensive ethnic > slur? Better tell that to the local newspaper editors then, because > that phrase has been turning up daily. We've had at least three > boatloads of them turn up on Canadian shores in the last few weeks, > with more (so they say) on the way. I think quite a few people would react negatively if someone had phrased the same thought as, "Let's say a million Canadian refugees showed up at the brewery ..." On second thought, you probably wouldn't understand that one, either, eh? > They're Chinese people, and they're refugees. There's nothing > offensive about either word, and pairing them together does not make a > "slur". You have a child's understanding of language, and a somewhat provincial outlook on the world's population. Perhaps with a more globally oriented perspective you may not be so quick to a specific face on the refugees in your example. > I assume, therefore, that you're in the USA and not Canada. Wrong. > -- American > media, after all, pays no attention to events in Canada (except when > Swiss aircraft plow into our waters, apparently). The media gives exposure to the worst aspects of humanity, since that's what gets them more advertising revenue, but then that's the nature of their business. > You and the rest of the PC crowd are awfully damned quick to accuse > people of being racist. No, it's a *telecommunicating* crowd, and it's been around long before there were PC's. However, the "crowd" doesn't always open it's collective mouth. > You might want to actually have another look at what was said. Nah, I've seen enough. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 13:55:59 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:48:00 -0400, Alan Boritz wrote: >> Offensive ethnic slurs? "Chinese refugees" is an offensive ethnic >> slur? Better tell that to the local newspaper editors then, because >> that phrase has been turning up daily. We've had at least three >> boatloads of them turn up on Canadian shores in the last few weeks, >> with more (so they say) on the way. > I think quite a few people would react negatively if someone had phrased the > same thought as, "Let's say a million Canadian refugees showed up at the > brewery..." On second thought, you probably wouldn't understand that one, > either, eh? Sure, because of your addition of "at the brewery" - and only for that reason. Show me the equivalent part of my original post. My example was "ripped from the headlines" - boatloads of Chinese refugees continue to show up on the shores of British Columbia, and in turn this story seems to be ripped directly from the storyline of "Lethal Weapon 4". But it's ACTUALLY HAPPENING and that is the reason I chose it for my example. How that makes me racist, I simply don't understand ... but I'm sure you'll enlighten me. Your type always does. >> You and the rest of the PC crowd are awfully damned quick to accuse >> people of being racist. > No, it's a *telecommunicating* crowd, and it's been around long > before there were PC's. However, the "crowd" doesn't always open it's > collective mouth. PC, in this context, meant "politically correct", not "personal computer". Open mouth, remove foot. How could I possibly have meant personal computer when talking about racism??? Some people make other people's words fit their own perceptions, and you are a classic example. 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 know America is getting absurd. Washington's blaming Hollywood, Hollywood's blaming Washington, and the rest of us are so zoned out on "Hard Copy," "ER," and that new pizza with the cheese in the crust that we don't even care where we're headed anymore. -- Dennis Miller ------------------------------ From: Rick Gutierrez Reply-To: rickg@ameritech.net Subject: "One Number" Need Advice Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 07:12:04 -0500 I am currently a subscriber to Access Line with Ameritech in Chicago. Ameritech is getting out of Access Line, and I am impacted because I will lose my 815 area code phone number and NO 815 area code numbers will be assigned by Access Line. I now must take another area code in Chicagoland (not ideal, most users also reside in 815) or take an 800 number at the cost of 10 cents per minute anytime the line is activated. Does anyone else know of similar services? I'm not looking for anything complex. I basically need to redirect all calls to home, office, mobile at my discretion; the ability to receive and hold inbound faxes. I know of only two services, Access Line and opusassistant.com Thanks for your feedback! ******************************************************** * SEND ME AN ALPHA PAGE, CLICK HERE: * * mailto:rickg@interpage.net * * * * Stop by and say hello, CLICK HERE: * * * * http://www.ameritech.net/users/rickg/rickg.html * * * ******************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:43:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: First Satellite-Based OC-3 By: Sylvia Dennis, Newsbytes. September 04, 1999 UUNet and ICG Satellite Services have teamed up to launch the world's first commercial satellite-fed OC-3 service. http://www.currents.net/newstoday/99/09/04/news4.html ------------------------------ From: Robert Shaw Subject: Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You! Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:40:55 +0200 Patrick, I'm somewhat disappointed to see TELECOM Digest also become a platform for ICANN bashing. Having participated in the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) in 1996/1997, I was once (and thankfully am no more) at ground zero of the three-ring circus that attempted to overhaul the administration of the Internet generic top level domains. How this has turned into a bizarre discussion of "Internet governance" is beyond me. When the IAHC started its work in 1996, I doubt that any of us had ever heard of the term Internet governance. In fact, we were very careful to limit the scope of our activity and would have been accused of absurd hubris to equate this work with the much grander sounding "Internet governance". Someone once said "trying to govern the Internet is like trying to herd cats: it just doesn't work". And as someone else noted -- "cats are clearly much smarter than dogs: the proof is that you could never tie eight cats together and get them to pull a sled in one direction". One could argue that what we need is a few dogs pulling in the same direction. But, of course, on the Internet, no one knows if you're a dog. I, along with another rotating group of committee members who worked on this problem, experienced enough bizarre characters, self-proclaimed representatives of organizations that are nothing more than a few web pages, anonymous people hiding behind fake identities, and conspiracy theories to last a lifetime. The IAHC was sued, attacked in thousands of emails on mailing lists, compared to communists against free enterprise, claimed to be lackeys of foreign powers, part of a secret plot to move the Internet to Switzerland, ad nauseum (all copiously fanned by Gordon Cook's writings). No motive that we could possibly have had was too base. No possible accusation has been left unsaid. I read enough false press reports about our work to forever distrust quasi-real-time web journalism. Getting seriously involved in this topic is the best way to become intimately familiar with your email filters -- and a thick skin. And with ICANN, it is deja-vu all over again. In any endeavour, there are always going to be people who disagree with you. What is different is that the Internet allows those who have endless energy and access to email (and large distribution lists) wonderful opportunities to attack with whatever dirt they can dream up. Some are very clever in how they do it. I put Mr. Fenello into that category. So it is especially strange to see TELECOM Digest falling into this same trap and being used for this platform of ICANN bashing by these supposed "experts". The warning bells go immediately off when one of your postings on this topic starts with an email from Jeff Williams, a one-man (?) argument against anonymity on the Internet. As your message from Mr. Williams shows, he claims to speak for a group called the INEGroup which represents over 95,000 members. This claim pales next to other assertions about himself: for a sampler, see http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08018.html. Some folks got so fed up with his claims that they created a web site at http://www.inegroup.net/ to debunk him. He has another identity, Brian C. Hollingsworth, who supposedly works for some Internet commission of the European Union, but who has to post from the same ISP in Texas as Mr. Williams. :-) Of course, when confronted with this, Mr. Williams says he forwards on Mr. Hollingsworth's messages using his Nextel mobile phone in Europe to post his messages (or some silly stuff like that). I guess Mr. Williams' expertise does not include spectrum allocation or radio transmission technologies. Now Patrick, let's move down in your same posting where you have a mail from a supposed 'Jeff Mason' at Planet Communications Computing Facility - this mail can be found at the archives http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Archives/msg00590.html. The mail is sent to a "Sr. Francis Fanego" at . Amazing coincidence that both use the same name 'pccf', isn't it? Well, let's go to www.samspade.org and find out who pccf.net is. Samspade says pccf.net belongs to the same person the mail is supposedly being sent from. Huh? And the billing contact is shown as who the mail is send to (Fanego). Huh? Another coincidence? Note the primary name server is vrx.net. O.K., so now we have another address, bigbird.earth-net.net. Who's that? Again we use Samspade to look it up and lo and behold, this is clearly somebody who wants to hide. Note no telephone or fax numbers, a public email service address at 'altavista', and another fake name "John Hunt" I recognize from the IAHC days. Again the name servers are at vrx.net. Who's vrx.net? It's a service run by Richard Sexton, one of the people that Network Solutions, Inc., the current provider of .com, .net, and .org services, tried to appoint to the ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that NSI has much to gain by delaying ICANN; as ICANN and the US Department of Commerce have pointed out repeatedly. Is there a connection? You judge. The lesson here is that you should be careful what you believe and where it is coming from. There is no doubt that there are good people who disagree with what ICANN is doing (and that includes me sometimes). However, moving from the platitudes in the USG White Paper to specific decisions on how to fairly introduce competition in the domain name system is undoubtedly going to leave lots of people unhappy for economic or other reasons. Giving them a platform here (in many cases when you cannot even ascertain their true identity or who they're working for) distorts the ICANN process to no good end. Robert Shaw ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your very informative and helpful note. My one main objection to ICANN and its cliquish friends at the Internet Society are the degree of secrecy they have maintained since the beginning. I certainly do not have any love lost for the folks at NSI either, but I believe where ICANN/ISOC has raised so much hostility on the net has been because of their stubborn refusal to say any more than they absolutely have to say, and then, they distort it also. If any of these folks, NSI or ICANN are going to have considerable power and sway over the net, its websites and news groups, they have simply got to be more open, forthright, direct and to the point about what is happening. ICANN has adopted procedures where *not a single netizen or small website* will have any say-so at all. Their policy thus far has been to place everything regarding the 'rules and regulations' into the hands of large, multinational companies and a small group of their own advisors, most of whom are venture- capitalists like Esther Dyson. Have you seen the contract webmasters will be required to sign in order to get or keep their domain names when they come up for renewal, and how the sole judge of your right and mine to be on the net (because without a domain name you do not exist) is going to be in the hands of Esther Dyson and a handful of her friends, all of whom at this point are deeply in debt to companies like MCI-Worldcom, Cisco and others who have given them loads of money? You don't think those large companies are going to want to get paid back eventually, one way or another? Your point about 'Jeff Williams' is well-taken. You are not the first person to write to me since I printed his thing. In fact, many of the anti-ICANN people have said to me not to listen to him at all. I am about finished printing that stuff; I have one more planned in a day or two, but frankly I have a lot better stuff to do with my time also than allow this forum to be a constant anti-ICANN medium. But my problem is, I am finding relatively few netizens these days who had even heard of Internet Society or ICANN before I mentioned it; a couple thought it was some sort of 'social organization' for people who had computers on line, and a couple who had heard of it thought it was 'a group that advocates free-speech for people on the web' ... when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. I've printed letters here from people who hastened to assure me that, 'they have every right to be here, why they are not going to harm you old-timers, etc ... they have a right to do things according to their own customs, etc ...' Well, Mr. Shaw, maybe all the stories going around the net about ICANN are just vicious lies being spread by NSI to discredit them. Maybe they have nothing but the most benevolent plans for everyone, and all that stuff in their contract that web sites and ISPs will be required to sign to keep their domain names is just there 'because the lawyers made them do it' and all that. Maybe when they all flew off to Santiago for a meeting which they kept secret even though they promised the Commerce Department that their meetings would all be open in the future it was just a clerical error that they forgot to print the minutes of the meeting at their website until large numbers of netizens were banging on their door asking for answers. They promised to elect a new board when Commerce demanded it, and now they say the present board will stick around for another year instead. Why? Couldn't they get any netizens to volunteer to be part of the board? They have not complied with a single demand made of them by Commerce; they remain secret, and the occassional thing we find out about them is when a piece of email from Vint Cerf makes the rounds where Vint is saying he can spin a yarn to scare all the big companies into obeying ICANN/ISOC demands by telling them how their internet stocks will all go bad if they do not cooperate. I'll openly admit I no longer know what to believe, but Mr. Shaw, if you maintained a newsgroup and web site with lots of newcomers passing through every day, wouldn't you feel remiss if you did not tell them there are some things going on in the background that may cause a very profound change in their net/virtual life in the near future and they had better see about it and decide for themselves? Even though I do not know what to believe, I will tell you who I would believe, or would like to believe: Mister Vint Cerf. If *he* asked for space to explain their position, I would give him all the space he wanted. I'll bet there are a lot of moderators and webmasters who would gladly pre-empt their own agendas for the day and host his message. It would be an important message and one that we all need to hear. We need the TRUTH, and we need it fast. But somehow I just don't think we are going to have any broadcast messages to the net anytime soon from anyone at ICANN/ISOC about the 'state of the net' which forces me to draw the conclusion maybe the other side isn't wrong after all, despite their three-ring circuses with Jeff Williams as ringmaster and their other cast of all-star clowns. Even losers get things right once in a while. Would you like to see President Clinton, or other world leaders going around secretly like that, whispering among themselves and responding to their detractors not by answering the questions raised, but simply calling the other side 'a bunch of losers'? Then why should the net have to endure it? Please give my regards to Corazon and others on the staff there in Geneva with whom I've had conversations in the past, and relay my sincere thanks for ITU's continued support of this Digest. Without ITU, the past few years would have been quite difficult, if not entirely impossible. Thank you for writing, and for ITU's continued financial contributions to the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:17:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nokia: Web, Email via TV Signal Wired News Report 3:00 a.m. 3.Sep.99.PDT European telecom giant Nokia unveiled a wireless device that lets you watch TV, surf the Web and send email. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/21567.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:13:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Qwest, U.S. West Get Federal Antitrust Approval WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust regulators quietly approved Qwest Communications International Inc.'s $35 billion acquisition of U S West Inc., the smallest of the five regional Bell companies, the Justice Department said Friday. http://news.lycos.com/stories/Technology/19990904RTTECH-TELECOMS-USWEST.asp Justice OKs Qwest-US West $35B telecom deal clears a key regulatory hurdle; FCC scrutiny awaits September 03, 1999: 6:49 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust regulators quietly approved Qwest Communications International Inc.'s $35 billion acquisition of US West Inc., the smallest of the five regional Bell companies, the Justice Department said Friday. http://www.cnnfn.com/1999/09/03/deals/wires/qwest_wg/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #382 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 7 22:50:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA18083; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:50:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909080250.WAA18083@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #383 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Sep 99 22:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 383 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #198, September 7, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Western Union 'Operator-25' (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (pteng@ptd.net) Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phone (Joel Hoffman) Re: California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) (Joseph Singer) Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General (Ian Angus) Charges For Calling Toll-Free Numbers (Jeremy Greene) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 7 Sep 1999 11:49:49 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #198, September 7, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 198: September 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/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Teleglobe.................. http://www.teleglobe.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Inc............... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Consortium Proposes Wireless Internet Service ** Sprint Launches Local Service in Toronto ** Consumer Groups Appeal Bell 411 Increase ** AT&T Canada Announces Board of Directors ** Another Satellite Carrier Bankrupt ** Glitch Hits High-Speed Sympatico in Ottawa ** Bell, NCR Launch Windows NT PBX/LAN ** AT&T Completes Acquisition of IBM Canada Net ** CRTC Examines CAT for Abitibi, Cochrane ** Barr to Leave Lucent ** Cantel Prepaid Service Reaches 200,000 Mark ** Lucent Holds Telecom Law Seminars ** CRTC Plans Introductory Seminar ** Bell Plans Montreal City Portal ** Telecom Institute Opens ** Angus Launches New Web Site ============================================================ CONSORTIUM PROPOSES WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE: Microcell Telecommunications, ID Internet Direct, and Look Communications have formed a joint venture, Inukshuk Internet, to provide wireless Internet access service across Canada. They have applied for a 2500 MHz Multipoint Communications System license from Industry Canada. SPRINT LAUNCHES LOCAL SERVICE IN TORONTO: On September 1, Sprint Canada launched local telephone service for residential and business customers in parts of Toronto, Markham, and Mississauga. The company says it will serve all of 416 and 905 by year-end. ** New pricing packages for residential and small business customers are now available in Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver. CONSUMER GROUPS APPEAL BELL 411 INCREASE: The Consumers' Association of Canada, Action Reseau Consommateur, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization have jointly appealed the CRTC's decision to allow Bell Canada to charge for Directory Assistance calls when the operator can't find the number. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which submitted the appeal, says it made 100 DA calls for listed numbers and received incorrect information 25% of the time. AT&T CANADA ANNOUNCES BOARD OF DIRECTORS: AT&T Canada, which became a public company by merging with MetroNet, named its new Board of Directors on September 2. Chairman is Purdy Crawford QC, who is also chair of Imasco and CT Financial Services. ANOTHER SATELLITE CARRIER BANKRUPT: Another satellite phone company, ICO Global Communications, filed for Chapter 11 protection in U.S. bankruptcy court on August 27. ** Rival Iridium LLC, which filed for bankruptcy protection three weeks ago, has appointed a restructuring team, headed by director Joseph Bondi. Leo Mondale, who was named Chief Financial Officer of Iridium in April, has now resigned. ** A third satellite phone company, Globalstar, says its service will be less expensive, and predicts that it will turn a profit by the end of 2000. GLITCH HITS HIGH-SPEED SYMPATICO IN OTTAWA: Most users of Bell Canada's Sympatico High Speed Edition in the Ottawa area were without service for parts of August. Sympatico blames a software failure in a firewall, and says the problem is now repaired. BELL, NCR LAUNCH WINDOWS NT PBX/LAN: Bell Canada and NCR are jointly selling InstantOffice, a Windows NT system which can include PBX, voice mail, auto attendant, computer-telephony applications, LAN hub, modems, and other features. The two companies say that in future the system will provide Voice Over Internet Protocol functionality. AT&T COMPLETES ACQUISITION OF IBM CANADA NET: AT&T Corp, has completed acquisition of the IBM Global Network business in Canada. Ninety former IBM employees in Markham are now part of AT&T Global Network Services, part of the AT&T Solutions Group. CRTC EXAMINES CAT FOR ABITIBI, COCHRANE: CRTC Public Notice 99-20 seeks comment on setting contribution rates and a Carrier Access Tariff for independent telcos Abitibi- Consolidated and Cochrane PUC. To participate, notify the CRTC by October 15. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-20.htm BARR TO LEAVE LUCENT: Ken Barr, President of Business Communications Systems at Lucent Technology Canada, has announced that he will be leaving Lucent at the end of October. Lucent has not yet named a replacement. CANTEL PREPAID SERVICE REACHES 200,000 MARK: Rogers Cantel says that its prepaid Really Simple Wireless service, launched in May 1998, now has 200,000 customers. LUCENT HOLDS TELECOM LAW SEMINARS: Lucent Technologies Canada is sponsoring free half-day seminars for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, led by telecom lawyer Tony Keenleyside of McCarthy Tetrault, in Montreal (Sept. 8), Toronto (Sept. 9), Winnipeg (Sept. 14), and Regina (Sept. 15). For information, see Lucent's Web site at http://www.lucent.com/dns/telecomlaw CRTC PLANS INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR: "CRTC 101," is a free one- day seminar for newcomers to the communications industry, to learn about the Commission and how to deal with it. Sessions will be held in Hull, Quebec, on October 25 (English) and October 26 (French). To register, contact Sheila Perron by September 24 -- 819-997-4268 (tel); 819-997-4245 (fax); sheila.perron@crtc.gc.ca. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/news/RELEASES/1999/I990903e.htm BELL PLANS MONTREAL CITY PORTAL: Directory publisher Bell ActiMedia will own 55% of Montreal.ca, an Internet portal devoted to Montreal, which will be launched in November. Other participants in the $5-Million project are Transcontinental Group, Communications Voir, and Societe Radio Canada. TELECOM INSTITUTE OPENS: Beginning Oct 4, the new International Institute of Telecommunications in Montreal will offer University-level education in telecommunications to students from participating universities and employees of telecom companies. For information, see http://www.iitelecom.com ANGUS LAUNCHES NEW WEB SITE: The address is the same -- http://www.angustel.ca -- but the look is different and there are many new features. Our new Web site opens for business at noon, Eastern Time, on Tuesday, September 7. ** Tell us what you think of the changes by e-mail to editors@angustel.ca ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week 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: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:48:30 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Western Union 'Operator-25' Since Western Union has been a recent topic in TELECOM Digest, I thought I'd share this bit of nostalgic trivia having to do with WUTCO, and a commercial for 'Autolite' heard on radio in the late 1940's and early 1950's. From about 1948 to 1954, the CBS Radio drama, "SUSPENSE", was sponsored by Autolite products for your car. (Suspense actually ran on CBS Radio from 1942-62, and had other sponsors, or was commercial-free, at one time or another during the other years). In many episodes of Suspense from the "Autolite" years, in some of the commercials it is said that to find out the location of the Autolite dealers near you, to call Western Union _BY_NUMBER_, and ask for 'Operator-25'. Some commercials continue with a female voice deliberately distorted slightly, as if speaking into a telephone, saying that she will be happy to locate the nearest Autolite dealer. I assume that "Calling Western Union _by_number_" meant to dial (Exchange)-4321, or whatever the local number was for WUTCO, rather than calling the local telco '0' Operator. Asking a telco operator for "Operator-25" could mean a specific _telco_ operator position or function, _other_ than what Western Union was doing for Autolite. Of course, in a manual exchange, or by dialing '0' from an automatic dial exchange, and asking the local telco operator for _WESTERN_UNION_ "Operator-25" would probably get one routed to the WUTCO position that had the details of Autolite dealer locations, since the local telco operator knew that when one specifically asked for Western Union, that she would take up a direct trunk to the WUTCO clerk, or dial (locally) to the WUTCO office. And I would guess that by simply asking the WUTCO clerk for "Operator-25" indicated to him/her that you wanted information on locating the nearest Autolite dealer. I wonder if today, someone calling 800-325-6000 (Western Union) would be able to ask for "Operator-25" and find out information on the nearest Autolite dealer! The WUTCO clerk probably wouldn't know _WHAT_ to do! Incidently, asking many local telco operators today to connect one with WUTCO will probably mean she will connect you (at charge) to local directory. The last time I asked an AT&T '00' Operator for Western Union, she connected me (at no charge) to 800-555-1212. You would then have to ask local directory or "toll-free" directory for the number for Western Union, and then dial it yourself! But similar "message/information/answering" services are still used today. There are specific unique 800 numbers which all route to the same answering desk/bureau, but each 800 number identifies a _particular_ specific function or company that the info-desk/bureau (or telemarketing boiler room) deals with. Or else there might be a common number (usually toll-free) but there are unique "extensions" to ask for which identifies a function or a "company" that the service contracts with. Sometimes, the specific unique (toll-free) number or "extension" will identify the "source" of the advertisement or commercial - i.e., a particular radio/TV station or network or cable channel, or newspaper/magazine, since that "source" will get some form of compensation based on the number of people or inquiry calls that they "deliver". 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: WUTCO's 'Operator 25' simply served as a tip-off to what the call was about; any operator was 'Operator 25'. It did not automatically identify Autolite or anyone else using the service. It functioned a lot like the Bell System's 'Operator 7'. If you asked your operator to connect you with 'Operator 7' in some town, that told them you were returning a person-to-person call you had missed earlier, and that it was to be billed to the person who had called you to start with. Any operator would then connect you to the distant city, where any inward operator, on hearing the 'operator 7' thing would locate the toll-ticket which had been set on the side pending completion of the person-to-person call. I wonder if person- to-person is even offered any longer. The last I heard a few years ago, it was quite expensive. And actually, I believe the Bell System operator in those long ago days also knew that 'Operator 25' meant to connect the party with Western Union. Their 'operator number' series for special functions did not overlap with WUTCO's operator number series for special functions. WUTCO also had an operator number that was used to advise someone who sent a telegram that there had been some trouble in making delivery. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ptengnospam@ptd.net Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:36:28 GMT Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:23:48 -0400, aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > In article , roy@endeavor.med. > nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: >> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: >>> I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without paper tape drives >> I thought all ASR-33's had tape drives. If it didn't have a tape drive, >> it was a KSR-33, no? > Yeah, you're right. I hate them both. > In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com > (L. Winson) wrote: >>> If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not >>> be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without >>> paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am >>> very glad they're no longer in circulation. >> Could you elaborate on what it was about them that you didn't care for? > 1. Noisy. > 2. Heavy. > 3. Often smells of hot, dusty, oil, combined with the odor of > kerosene- or benzine-based inked ribbons. > 4. Difficult to read printed copy, unless if the ribbon was > changed often. > 5. Even rubber gloves couldn't prevent someone from getting ink > on their hands when changing ribbons. > 6. Tape drive very difficult to deal with on days with many typos > (hey, it was always the keyboard's fault! ;) > I'm sure there's more I haven't mentioned. >> How did they compare with other Teletype products (eg earlier or >> later models, and the heavy duty 35.) > Oh, I think I dislike all of the Teletype products equally. The > Extel's that followed them (in broadcast newsrooms) were much less > noisy, though not much better on print quality and definitely not as > sturdily built. I worked for Western Union for a short period of time in the late 1960's as an apparatus shopman at Allentown, Pa. We repaired and rebuilt almost everyting that WU used from clocks to teletypes. If I had to choose one machine that was the easiest to maintain and the most reliable, I would pick the model 28 KSR or ASR. They actually had places where you could adjust functions for maximum performance and were made of real metal. My experience with the model 33 was that you had to bend parts to try to do any adjustment. We referred to it as a "bend and hammer" machine as far as adjustments were concerned. By the way, Pat, if you ever wanted to hear the Anvil Chorus, that was the place. There were about 100 work stations each with a teletype in some state of repair and when they all got going at once the noise was deafening. Tom Lager ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT Incompatible With AT&T Cell Phones Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:49:49 GMT >> It seems AT&T has just changed its 1-800-CALL-ATT calling card so that >> calls from an AT&T cell phone must go through an operator. This is >> obviously very annoying. > There are lots of alternative 800 access number calling cards that > offer inexpensive domestic and international rates from a cell > phone. Don't let AT&T get in your way. Globaltel and Acculink come to > mind. > I use Acculink and it seems to work well although I did get a couple > of bad lines calling the U.K.(.12/min.) from a cell phone. AT&T is .10/min to the UK, and I've almost never had a bad line. I'm quite surprised to find that AT&T's personal network plan offers just about the lowest int'l rates. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 05:56:00 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: California Area Code Split Legislation (AB 818) stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) wrote: > To me the overlay is a total waste of time and money, they should just > add an extra digit to the exchange and the number and get it over with, > they will have to do this shortly anyway. You make it sound as if it's just a simple matter of adding one extra digit to someone's switch. If you'd read any of the problem and *immense* complexity of changing telephone numbering from the ingrained 3+3+4 format that has been used in the NANPA since the late 40's this is no small undertaking. Something *will* have to be done, but it's no small matter to either increase the subscriber number or area code number length. As has been said before, it's no simple fix to the numbering crunch that we're in. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus) Subject: Re: Canada's Yak Plan and Canadian Telco System in General Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:26:25 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote: > Just to clarify an issue here, are you, Mr. Angus, in anyway a paid > lobbist for the Canadian Telcos? Or, do you accept any funding > from the Canadian Telcos? If the discussion is sinking to this level, it is time to end it. For the record: I have many clients in many parts of the industry, including, from time to time, telcos, ISPs, CLECs, end-customers, governments, and others. No one familiar with my work would ever describe me as a lobbyist for anyone. My many criticisms of the Canadian telcos are on the public record. > I sense part of the reason for your bringing up the differences > in the CAN$ cost of telephone service versus the US$ cost is to > justify further rate increases to Canadian rate payers. This is getting laughable. It was you who started this discussion with your unproven assertion that Canadian phone rates are unreasonably high -- a claim no knowledgeable observer supports. I merely pointed to the results of a recent study (by the Yankee Group, which I have no affiliation with) which concluded that "Canadian telcos are leading the pricing game in North America, and Canadian consumers are the beneficiaries." As I said in my first message, I don't normally respond to newsgroup postings -- the bizarre turn this discussion has taken illustrates why. I consider this discussion closed. Ian Angus Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Charges For Calling Toll-Free Numbers Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:51:59 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I am trying to figure out whether my calling card company is allowed to bill me 7.5 cpm for paging me at a toll-free pager number. The company provides me with one-number, follow-me service. I have an 877 number that people can call to reach me. They get a greeting, then they press "1" to speak with me, and the system rings several pre- programmed numbers where I might be. I can call into the system and it will bridge me in with a caller who is on hold. I can also call into the system and make outgoing calls at 7.5 cpm for each leg of the call. The company is NetCall Communications dba PersonalOffice, with offices in Chicago and Boston. They have no tariff on file in my state. The PUC says calling-card companies must file tariffs. But they also say that "enhanced" services are not regulated or tariffed. The voicemail component of my service I suppose would not be regulated. MCI Worldcom provides the actual interstate transmission, as it is the carrier for outgoing calls and is the RespOrg for my 877 number. The PersonalOffice web site listed simply the 7.5 cpm for incoming and outgoing legs of a call. I signed up via email and this rate was confirmed. I assume this is the full extent of my contractual agreement with them, since they are not tariffed. My issue is this: if I have a voicemail message, the system notifies me by calling my numeric pager. My pager number is toll-free. However, PersonalOffice is billing me 7.5cpm for the pager calls, and listing them on the bill as "SYSTEM PAGE." They insist they are allowed to do this. I know that carriers are not allowed to bill for calls to toll-free numbers. But since they are acting partly as an "enhanced service" provider, can they treat it as usage of their "enhanced services" platform, and not as a pure telephone call? They never disclosed that I would be billed for toll-free calls. But they never told me I wouldn't. I checked the FCC website for info, but couldn't find any. If enhanced service providers are allowed to charge for stuff like this, then where is the line between an enhanced services provider and a telecommunications provider? Thanks, Jeremy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #383 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 7 23:45:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA20179; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:45:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909080345.XAA20179@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #384 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Sep 99 23:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 384 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Strange Response (Wes Leatherock) Re: Having No Long Distance Carrier (Derek Balling) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Fred Goodwin) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Alan Gore) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Alan Gore) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Walter Dnes) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Jonathan D Loo) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Tom Bennett) Bruce Schneier Comments on "NSA" Key in Microsoft CryptoAPI (M. Solomon) Cell Phone-Driving Ban (Monty Solomon) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (John Nagle) Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down (Ken Stox) Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail (Jim Wall) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 7 Sep 1999 14:20:35 CDT From: Wes Leatherock Subject: Strange Response Pat, I'm no longer able to read TELECOM Digest, but I thought this exchange, which seems rather curious, might be of interest to readers. Wes Leatherock 3116 Sunset Blvd. Oklahoma City OK 73120-2333 (405) 751-3288 August 7, 1999 Public Utility Commission of Texas 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard Austin, Texas 78757 I was surprised to find on August 3 I was blocked from using the long distance carrier of my choice on a call from a coin telephone in Galveston. There was no number on the telephone. The letters "USLD" were written in longhand in the space where the telephone number would be expected. Twice I dialed 1-800-600-BELL, the access number for Southwestern Bell Long Distance. (The call was to a number within the same regional calling area, which South- western Bell would be allowed to handle.) Both times I reached only an error message of some sort which provided no useful information except that it was "error 13." So I dialed "0-Operator." The male operator who answered identified his company as something like "Alcatel." He said there was no way to reach a Southwestern Bell operator. Southwestern Bell is the local exchange carrier in Galveston. As noted, the coin telephone had no number posted on it. It was located at the Burger King in about the 2800 block of 61st Street in Galveston. Sincerely, W. A. Leatherock -------------------------------------------- Public Utility Commission of Texas 1701 N. Congress Avenue P. O. Box 13326 Austin, Texas 78711-3326 August 19, 1999 Mr. W. A. Leatherock 3116 Sunset Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120-2333 Dear Mr. Leatherock: The Office of Customer Protection (OCP) is in receipt of letter of complaint dated August 7, 1999, concerning the problem you experienced at a pay telephone located at the Burger King in the 2800 block of 61st Street in Galveston, Texas. I appreciate you taking time to write and hope that you find the following information helpful. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) regulates limited aspects of private pay telephone service such as access to a preferred long distance carrier, the maxmimum charges for intrastate calls, and the posting of information on pay telephones. Because the pay telephone in question did not accurately reflect who the pay telephone owner is, OCP staff is unable to conduct an investigation of your complaint. As a result, no further action will be taken in this matter unless you provide our office with additional information regarding the pay telephone. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Office of Consumer Protection, toll-free, at 1-888-782-8477, and a staff member will be happy to assist you. Sincerely, Denise E. Taylor Senior Enforcement Investigator Office of Costomer Protection ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 07:36:57 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Having No Long Distance Carrier > Wait a minute. For 900 and 976, I agree with you, but aren't "700" > numbers carrier-specific ? 700-555-4141 dialed over MCI routes to an MCI > recording; 700-555-4141 dialed over AT&T routes to an AT&T recording, etc. > With "NONE" as your IXC, you wouldn't be able to dial any 700 number > without using a 101-XXXX prefix code, and the *prefix code* (not the number > itself) would determine routing. Not all 700 numbers behave that way. Take, for instance, (and I have no idea what its called now) AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing System, which used to be accessible via a 700 number... I have no idea whether it still is or not, but you would dial this number and regardless of who you had, you ended up dialing into AT&T's system. 700 is pretty wonky all-around, near as I can tell, though. What's important is that there ARE 700 #'s that "carry" their IXC info around with them, so removing your PIC is not an effective 700 block. D ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:02 -0500 You must continue to pay certain Federal and State access charges on your local line (even if you have outgoing LD disabled) because you can still *receive* LD calls on your line. I am not aware of any way to block *incoming* LD calls, but that's to say its impossible. 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 ------------------------------ From: agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:43:04 GMT Organization: Software For PC's stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) wrote: > ...my daughter's phone was > slammed to some out of the way company which charges $10.00 a month > for the services they claim to offer, including voice mail, then a > bunch of 900 numbers appeared. PacificBell could not say how it could > happen, but all the charges were sent back and since my daughter's > phone was blocked for toll/LD anyway, there is no way they could have > been made by her or anyone else. They claimed that they had an audio > tape of someone at that number giving the ok. The only thing that > they could have gotten from calling that number is an answering > machine with my daughter's voice on it saying something that I could > never understand, but her friends do. Sounds like "American Business Alliance". agore@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke http://www.alangore.com ------------------------------ From: agore@primenet.com (Alan Gore) Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:36:00 GMT Organization: Software For PC's blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) wrote: > Although I don't know why they'd place the calls then hang up, I > suspect the hangups she's now getting during the day might be out of > area telemarketing calls. We get these out-of-area hangup calls all the time, sometimes several in one day (Phoenix area). Everyone I know gets them too, and no one knows where they are coming from. agore@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke http://www.alangore.com ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 22:34:03 -0400 On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 19:04:46 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom spam_phree@nospam.yahoo.com (Spam Phree)wrote: > I will not give up trying to stop the calls as you intimate. > The calls are just as harassing and taxing as threatening calls. > I will keep the group posted. I would still appreciate any > suggestions on how to get the phone company to work with me. This group is full of telecomm practioners, not legal practioners. IANAL, and neither are most of the rest of this group. Plunk down some money, talk to a criminal lawyer, get him to file some type of criminal harassment charges against "John Doe", and file a subpeona. The telco would be in deep legal trouble if they simply handed out subscriber info to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who complained about untraceable phone calls. They insist on subpeonas to protect themselves against lawsuits. > If someone is breaking the law, the RBOC should investigate. Wrong on that point. The RBOC is not the police. Criminal investigations are best handled by police. The RBOC has the duty to supply information requested by the police under a subpeona. Pay a lawyer to get that subpeona filed properly. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:39:15 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> No the telco did not give a dishonest response. They only know which >> IXC handled the call and which trunk the call came in on. They have no >> originating information at all. I guess they could say the calls are >> coming in from MCI or AT&T etc. Call them and ask which one of there >> customers is calling and hanging up. > I don't believe this to be correct. Normal SS7 signaling preserves > this information across carrier boundaries, as does Equal Access > Multi Frequency signaling. If you're suggesting that this is not the > case, I'd like a concrete example, please. Well I am in a switch eight hours a day. There are several numbers on ACT through out the switch, including all the switch room phones. Calls coming in with out of area CID show only the incoming trunk information on the trace printout. I see hundreds of them every day. It appears you are confused as to how a switch does a trace on trunk calls. >>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my reply above to Bruce Wilson. >>> Yes, you can get law enforcement involved, and in doing so, you >>> force telco's hand and get them involved also with a trap placed >>> on your line to register incoming calls, etc. >> You will have a very hard time getting law enforcement involved with >> this type of call. If he goes to the police and asks them to have >> these calls traced so he can get some money from a telemarketer, they >> may arrest him. There are no threats made just someone hanging up when > Oh, may they? Why, exactly? Care to give another concrete example? If you need an example just call your local police and tell them you are getting hang up calls and that *57 says the call can't be traced and see what they have to say. No doubt they will ask if you are being threatened. When you say no the will politely say there is nothing they can do. I have been involved in probably a hundred traces involving local law enforcement agencies, the only ones the local law enforcement are truly concerned about are threats to life. I have had to wait as long as two hours for them to show up on domestic threatening calls. They would not prosecute unless they could verify the connection on the old step switches. BTW it takes three successful traces in this area before they will even consider prosecution. You should have seen them try to figure out how to handle the local Highway Patrol Dispatcher calling in BOMB threats to the county sheriff. Since the guy was armed none of them wanted to go to the Highway Patrol post to verify the trace. They kept trying to get us to send a telephone employee out. No volunteers there either. >> he answers. Even if they did request a trace from the phone > Repeated hangup calls are certainly within the definition of > harassment of my local police department (the NYPD) though a larger > problem here is that they basically don't have time to care about > harassing phone calls at all. Shame, isn't it? Not enough of a problem to warrant the type of manpower required to trace an LD call. Do you have any idea how many people get hang up calls in the middle of the night from fax machines that have incorrect phone numbers programmed in them? It is a lot more common that you would think. BTW not all fax machines put out the normal fax tone either so the calls appear to be someone calling and hanging up when you answer. The really upsets little old ladies that live alone. They report this problem most often. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:36:10 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? In article was written: > *Click!* Is there any way I can file harassment charges, since I deem > being awakened at 4 in the morning harassment? I believe there is a Federal regulation that restricts unsolicited commercial phone calls to certain hours of day. Check with http://www.ftc.gov/ or http://www.fcc.gov/ for information. Now, I believe the Federal regulation only applies to *commercial* phone calls. You may be able to get a lawyer and sue these people. Much better in my opinion, than putting them in jail. A good short-term work-around would be to turn off the ringer at night. Jonathan D Loo, P. O. Box 30533, Bethesda, Maryland 20824, U. S. A. jloo@polaris.umuc.edu / Save a life: learn first-aid and C. P. R. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But turning off the ringer prevents him from hearing those calls he *would* want to take such as a family emergency. Many telcos offer 'call rejection' as well (is it star-60?) where you can set up a directory of numbers from which you will not accept calls. One provision allows for 'last number to call me' whether or not the number is known. Granted, telco still has to be able to identify it, and even though it may not work in all cases with calls marked 'outside' or 'unknown' it will work with calls that were 'private', where ID was withheld on purpose. So the first night you get woke up like that, just do *60 (I think #01 at that point, but check with telco), and that number henceforth will never ring through to you again. Like 'callback last number that called me' you may get the response that it cannot be done with the number that called, but at least you tried. And often as not, it will 'stick' and you will hear no more from the offender. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Bennett Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:17:23 -0400 Organization: ECDC Unisys Corp. Tredyffrin > Last year I started getting fax calls 24hour/day, all from unknown > sources. I would have been very happy to spend a few dollars to find > out who was doing this to me. I presume you tried receiving a few in an attempt to identify the source? A PC with a fax modem and software is an effective way to do this. I believe the sending of unsolicited faxes and faxes which don't identify the sender are illegal, never mind the harrassment aspect of it. Whenever this has happened to me -- at least since it became illegal -- it has turned out to be a wrong number. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:30:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bruce Schneier Comments on "NSA" Key in Microsoft CryptoAPI FYI A few months ago in my newsletter Crypto-Gram, I talked about Microsoft's system for digitally signing cryptography suites that go into its operating system. The point is that only approved crypto suites can be used, which makes thing like export control easier. Annoying as it is, this is the current marketplace. http://www.counterpane.com/nsakey.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:08:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cell phone-driving ban BROOKLYN, Ohio (AP) -- Police have started ticketing drivers for chatting on cell phones in this Cleveland suburb under a law believed to be the first of its kind in the country. http://cnn.com/US/9909/02/cell.phones.ap/index.html ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Date: 7 Sep 1999 05:21:54 GMT Organization: Netcom aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >>> If you had to work with them every day as part of your job you may not >>> be so nostalgic. I've had to work with the ASR33 with and without >>> paper tape drives, and all it's brothers, sisters, and cousins, and am >>> very glad they're no longer in circulation. >> Could you elaborate on what it was about them that you didn't care for? > 1. Noisy. You have to oil them frequently. They're much quiet if properly lubricated. The manual for the 33 printer mechanism specified a life of one year of continuous operation unoiled, 3 years if oiled monthly. The 35 had a much longer life, but assumed lubrication. The felt disc in the printer clutch had to be oil-soaked for proper operation. > 2. Heavy. > 3. Often smells of hot, dusty, oil, combined with the odor of > kerosene- or benzine-based inked ribbons. > 4. Difficult to read printed copy, unless if the ribbon was > changed often. > 5. Even rubber gloves couldn't prevent someone from getting ink > on their hands when changing ribbons. It's not that hard once you get the technique right. > 6. Tape drive very difficult to deal with on days with many typos > (hey, it was always the keyboard's fault! ;) The 33 punch tended to wear out fast if you didn't use oiled paper tape. Few people did, though. The 33 was essentially viewed as disposable. The 35 could be kept going for decades if properly maintained. UNIVAC used to use modified 35 printer mechanisms (FIELDATA 6-bit code, no shifts), as operator consoles. These worked slowly, but reasonably well. The printer was built into a desk-sized system console, with a purely electrical keyboard not made by Teletype. Big shops often kept a spare printer mechanism around, and a few times we changed the printer mechanism without stopping the computer. On one occasion, when we didn't have a spare, I fixed a 35 printer with a bobby pin; one of the cotter pins had fallen out. Those were clever mechanisms, all designed by Ed Klienschmidt. That guy designed all the mechanical teletypes, plus the ones made by his own Klienschmidt Corporation. Died a few years ago, at, as I recall, age 92. John Nagle www.animats.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 20:27:31 +0000 (GMT) From: stox@dcdkc.fnal.gov (Ken Stox) Subject: Re: Teletype Plant Torn Down Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory In article , aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> How did they compare with other Teletype products (eg earlier or >> later models, and the heavy duty 35.) > Oh, I think I dislike all of the Teletype products equally. The > Extel's that followed them (in broadcast newsrooms) were much less > noisy, though not much better on print quality and definitely not as > sturdily built. Of course, where did ExTel get it's name ? Ex-Teletype employees. Let us not forget some of the better things that came out of Teletype: 1) The Ink Jet printer ( 1965 ) 2) The DMD-5620, 630, and 730 Graphical terminals. Of course, I'm not biased. :-) ------------------------------ From: Jim Wall Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch With Voicemail Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:07:11 -0700 The SoloPoint 'S' line of products all do this (in addition to voice mail screening and voice mail management). The S-210 without caller ID and the S-310 with Caller ID are ... oops, sorry. I went into a minor sales mode. Anyway, it is done by answering the call, waiting for FAX detection, and then using three way calling to route the call back to yourself (which is busy so it ends up in voice mail). Oh, and thanks Joel, we thought it was clever also. SoloPoint has a patent applied for that covers this. For more information: www.solopoint.com Jim all (Yes, I do work for them). Brian Elfert wrote: > Is there any way to get a fax/phone switch to work with telco > voicemail without distinctive ring? I can understand why the > voicemail won't work because the switch picks up the phone and > generates a ring to the caller. > Command Communications seems to be the only fax/phone switch I can > find, and they say their switchs definitely won't work with telco > voicemail. > Funny thing is, one business I work with had a Command Communications > switch that worked fine with voicemail, but it died a year or so ago. > The switch is so old it's no longer made. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #384 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 8 01:33:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA23797; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:33:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:33:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909080533.BAA23797@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #385 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Sep 99 01:33:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 385 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet? (Steven J Sobol) WTB: Old Voice Crypto Gear (Henry Titchen) Smile for the US Secret Service (Monty Solomon) Talking About a Wireless Giant (Monty Solomon) Lucent's High-Speed 'Stinger' (Monty Solomon) Remote Loopback of CSU (alcazar3@my-deja.com) Re: International Calls & CIDs (Steven) Help With Two Lines (Ken Piper) Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Steve Sobol) Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You! (Jay Fenello) Cable Net Customers Fight the System (Monty Solomon) Re: Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet? Date: 8 Sep 1999 00:07:58 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 23:03:51 EST, laird@ecn.purdue.edu allegedly said: > After several (7?) years with a GTE cellular phone, I finally bought > three new digital StarTACs recently. I decided to stick with GTE and > use their America Choice plan in order to switch to primarily using > the cell phones instead of our wired phones. This is the same setup I currently have. AmericaChoice + ST7760 . > This hasn't worked well, though, because the signal is awful both at > work (Purdue) and home (not far from campus). I've tried calling *111 > a few times. Sometimes I get someone extremely helpful. Today that > happened. He told me that I had something about authentication > mis-set on my accounts and he said he'd fix it. Cool. > After talking with him, I thought I'd try the phone again. I called > it (at home) from our landline. No ring. It wasn't until I put up > the antenna that it rang. How does it work outside your house? Also, I always dial *611 for customer service, or 800 669-5665 from a landline phone. Those numbers do definitely work for Ohio, but I don't know if they're the same numbers for Indiana. > I called again to see if there was anything that could be done to > improve the signal. It's not like we're out in the boonies here. Did you talk to Customer Care, or Tech Support? Ask for Tech Support next time. > Aaargh! Where do they get these idiots?! (Had she been nice about > not knowing anything about RF principles I wouldn't have minded, but > she was rude and condescending.) She shouldn't have been rude. If she was, complain to her supervisor. But do understand that GTE's frontline customer service reps are not the most technically oriented people, and they do have another group of people that are technically oriented (the tech support group). If the CC rep didn't know how to fix your problem she should have forwarded you to Tech Support. > Anyway ... is there a way to get better coverage in an area? I > convinced a bunch of people at work to get GTE StarTACs and now > they're all annoyed because they rarely work in our building. You're surprised that a cell phone doesn't work inside a building? You shouldn't be ... they don't always work inside every building; depends on the specific building. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org I am the president and sole shareholder of NSTC. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that my opinions do represent the official opinions of the company :) ------------------------------ From: henryt@perth.dialix.com.au (Henry Titchen) Subject: WTB: Old Voice Crypto Gear Organization: DIALix Internet Services Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 03:27:00 GMT Hi, I am interested in purchasing old voice encryption gear. Perhaps gear that was used with radio or telephone systems. I am interested in both military and commercial gear. I am also interested in any accessories,advertising brochures or technical manuals. Best Regards From, Henry. PS: Please reply via e-mail. PPS: I am not interested in old voice inversion devices ... sorry. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:31:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Smile for the US Secret Service by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. 7.Sep.99.PDT WASHINGTON -- A New Hampshire company began planning in 1997 to create a national identity database for the federal government, newly disclosed documents show. Image Data's US$1.5 million contract with the US Secret Service to begin digitizing existing driver's license and other personal data was widely reported early this year. But documents unearthed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center reveal the details and scope of the project. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/21607.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:33:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Talking About a Wireless Giant Reuters 3:00 a.m. 7.Sep.99.PDT LONDON -- Vodafone Airtouch PLC, the world's largest mobile phone group, confirmed Monday it was talking to Bell Atlantic about possibly linking up their US mobile networks to cover the entire country. Britain's Vodafone is strong in western states, following its US$62 billion takeover in January of US operator Airtouch, while Bell is strong in the East. http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/business/story/21602.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:39:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lucent's High-Speed 'Stinger' Reuters 7:30 a.m. 7.Sep.99.PDT Lucent Technologies Inc. said Tuesday it is poised to pierce the area of high-speed, high volume voice and data telecommunications sent over traditional telephone lines with the introduction of its new product, the Stinger. http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/21609.html ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com Subject: Remote Loopback of CSU Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 09:41:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi! When doing remote loopback tests for CSU, what type is used, analog or digital? ... And why? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: International Calls & CIDs Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:13:45 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer You are probably getting the CLI off a line that belogs to the company terminating the call. I see this all the time, usually with small viop operators. Steven In article , joel@exc.com says... > Only tangentially related, but interesting. Last time I called > someone in Kiev (from Boston), the person in Kiev told me her caller > ID box showed a local Kiev number. (Her first question was "what are > you doing in Kiev?" That's how I found out.) ------------------------------ From: piper@pcis.net (Ken Piper) Subject: Help With Two Lines Date: 8 Sep 1999 00:20:49 GMT I have two lines in my home. One is for my computer. The problem I'm having is that there is another jack in my house on the same line as my data one. How do I switch it to the main one? Thanks for the help. Ken [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Assuming that the wiring colors are consistent throughout your home at all jacks, the red/green wires represent one phone pair, and the yellow/black represent the second phone pair. Let us say the computer is on line one (red/green) and your voice calls are on line two (yellow/black). Lift off the plastic cover of the jack where the computer is plugged in, and note where the red/green wires attached to the jack *cover* are attached on the four screws underneath. Your computer modem will in almost every case *think* it is on line one, thus wherever the red/green wires from the plastic cover are tied down, it is important to note the colors it is tied to. If the wiring of that jack is consistent with telco standards, the two little horseshoe like metal anchors will be attached to the red/green wires which travel around your premises. If they are, fine. If not, okay also. We mainly want to detirmine what the computer considers to be line one. Now go to the other box in your home. Take off the plastic cover there. See where the red/green wires from the plastic cover are terminated in that case. From what you are saying, it appears to me they will be terminated on the same colors as the computer. If so, then unfasten them and place them on the yellow/black wires that travel around your house. Now your single line phone at that location will consider itself to be on line one (i.e. its red/green wires are attached somewhere, but NOT to the red/green of the main wiring). Assuming you have a single line phone, you MUST use the red/green wires from the cover of the jack to be connected to something. In the case of your computer, you likewise must use the red/green from the cover, so the idea is to have one set of red/ green from the associated cover plate on the actual red/green of the house wiring, and have the other set of red/green attached to the yellow/black. After you do this, use the single line telephone now ultimatly to the yellow/black, and dial the number for that line. You should get a busy signal. Likewise, use the computer modem to ring the number associated with the yellow/black and it should make the phone ring. All the above assumes you have fairly traditional wiring and modern boxes, along with a single line phone for one line and the computer modem for the other line. The problem you seem to be experiencing is that the person(s) who lived there before you had only a single line in one room and an *extension phone* in the other room, in which case yes, you would want all phones at all locations to tie into red/green, which traditionally is where line one is located. If when you open the jack where you are wishing to have the phone for your second line and you discover there is a yellow/black set from the plastic cover to the house wiring already in place (most likely attached to the yellow/black of house wiring then I suggest you disconnect those two in the process of tying down the red/green where they had been. Then take a tiny bit of electrical tape, tape over the horseshoe like anchors of the yellow/black from the plastic cover and just tuck them inside the cover out of the way when you screw it back in place. If you look carefully at the modular plug which goes into the phone, you will see that the red/green wires attach to pins 2 and3 while the yellow/black wires attach to pins 1 and 4. Phones with only one line are frequently supplied with a modular cord that only has the two center pins in the connector, that is, pins 2 and 3. This is the reason you *must* use the red/green wires from the cover place to the house wiring -- regardless of where you attach them to the house wiring itself -- in order to make the phone work. Likewise if you look at your modem's modular connector to the phone jack, I'll bet you see the same thing; just the two center pins meaning it is demanding red/green for itself also. So one or the other has to get out of the way and accept yellow/black as its connection back to the phone company central office. Now we could take your modem apart and resolder the connections in there where we want them, but I assume you would rather do something much easier, like adapt the new phone for the other line instead ... (grin). If you happen to see yet a third pair of wires in the house wiring, they will probably be blue/white. You can safely ignore these, making sure they are neatly tucked away and not touching anything when you replace the cover. If this does not cover your situation, then please let me know. If your jacks or other connection points on the house wiring have 'a bunch of little pointy things' or you write back and tell me that your home used to be an answering service and you are connecting up where the switchboard used to be, etc, then I may have to rethink my advice somewhat. Please let me know your results. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steve Sobol) Subject: Bell Atlantic DSL billboard in Boston Date: 8 Sep 1999 00:52:05 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET So this weekend I made my annual Pilgrimage to Boston, my second home :) We went downtown to see a play (Shear Madness, which, btw, was excellent). We park at the Radisson Hotel, facing a billboard for Bell Atlantic's InfoSpeed DSL service. I stare at the billboard for a few minutes to make sure I am reading their claim correctly. I come to the conclusion that it did indeed say that an InfoSpeed DSL connection could run at 126 times the speed of a 56K modem. That was Saturday. I'm still trying to do the math. It doesn't compute. Any comments? :) North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: Jay@Iperdome.com (Jay Fenello) Subject: Re: Installment 2: Have Vint and Esther Got a Deal For You! Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:23:18 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Robert Shaw wrote: > Patrick, > I'm somewhat disappointed to see TELECOM Digest also become a platform > for ICANN bashing. Having participated in the Internet Ad Hoc > Committee (IAHC) in 1996/1997, I was once (and thankfully am no more) > at ground zero of the three-ring circus that attempted to overhaul the > administration of the Internet generic top level domains. How this > has turned into a bizarre discussion of "Internet governance" is > beyond me. > When the IAHC started its work in 1996, I doubt that any of us had > ever heard of the term Internet governance. In fact, we were very > careful to limit the scope of our activity and would have been accused > of absurd hubris to equate this work with the much grander sounding > "Internet governance". > Someone once said "trying to govern the Internet is like trying to > herd cats: it just doesn't work". And as someone else noted -- "cats > are clearly much smarter than dogs: the proof is that you could never > tie eight cats together and get them to pull a sled in one > direction". One could argue that what we need is a few dogs pulling in > the same direction. Hi Bob, How do you reconcile your comments above, with those of your boss in the ITU's own magazine: I am pleased that the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference held in October-November 1998, gave ITU a very clear mandate for a role in questions of Internet governance (see ITU News, No. 10/98, pages 17-18). The need for an impartial international organization to be involved in Internet governance was clear nearly four years ago. I recall underlining this need at the Internet Days event, which we organized in April 1995. The IS Department has participated very actively, on ITU's behalf, in key Internet governance forums, notably the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) for domain name issues and the Memorandum of Understanding on Internet generic Top Level Domain names (gTLD-MoU), for which ITU is the depositary. --Lucio Goelzer http://www.itu.int/journal/199901/E/html/n0199E.htm (at bottom) More comments below ... > But, of course, on the Internet, no one knows if you're a dog. I, > along with another rotating group of committee members who worked on > this problem, experienced enough bizarre characters, self-proclaimed > representatives of organizations that are nothing more than a few web > pages, anonymous people hiding behind fake identities, and conspiracy > theories to last a lifetime. > The IAHC was sued, attacked in thousands of emails on mailing lists, > compared to communists against free enterprise, claimed to be lackeys > of foreign powers, part of a secret plot to move the Internet to > Switzerland, ad nauseum (all copiously fanned by Gordon Cook's > writings). No motive that we could possibly have had was too base. No > possible accusation has been left unsaid. I read enough false press > reports about our work to forever distrust quasi-real-time web > journalism. Getting seriously involved in this topic is the best way > to become intimately familiar with your email filters -- and a thick > skin. > And with ICANN, it is deja-vu all over again. In any endeavour, there > are always going to be people who disagree with you. What is different > is that the Internet allows those who have endless energy and access > to email (and large distribution lists) wonderful opportunities to > attack with whatever dirt they can dream up. Some are very clever in > how they do it. I put Mr. Fenello into that category. On this we agree, it *is* deja-vu all over again. Rather than debate issues of substance, you would rather resort to personal attacks and inuendo. It's the IAHC all over again :-( I'm just happy that Pat is willing to put all sides in this debate online for public discussion, even though his future funding may lie in the balance. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 770-392-9480 "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer) > Robert Shaw > ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor > International Telecommunication Union > Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your very informative and > helpful note. > Please give my regards to Corazon and others on the staff there in > Geneva with whom I've had conversations in the past, and relay my > sincere thanks for ITU's continued support of this Digest. Without > ITU, the past few years would have been quite difficult, if not > entirely impossible. Thank you for writing, and for ITU's continued > financial contributions to the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:16:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable Net Customers Fight the System by Roberta Furger Dan Calic is a man on a mission. After months of suffering through access problems and long hold times for customer service, he's leading the charge to create the first-ever bill of rights for cable Internet customers. http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,12313,00.html ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Obituary: William D. Pfeiffer, r.r.b. Moderator Date: 8 Sep 1999 00:29:38 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 20:56:15 EDT, ptownson@telecom-digest.org allegedly said: > With much sadness I report the passing of Bill Pfeiffer, It's a shame that it had to happen that way. I'm a participant in r.r.b. I used to be interested in comms, having written for the school paper in high school, even having majored in Communications at the University of Dayton for a couple years. I changed my mind when I realized how competitive the industry is, and when I realized my likelihood of making a good living was rather low even if my skill set was real high. But I continued to be an interested outsider, and that's how I participate in r.r.b., contributing things when I can, but mostly just lurking and learning. As a moderator and editor, he was extremely even-handed, something that is not always easy to do, and you could hear his love of the industry with each and every Airwaves article that he wrote. He will indeed be missed. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org I am the president and sole shareholder of NSTC. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that my opinions do represent the official opinions of the company :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To bring you somewhat up to date, his death occurred when the vehicle he was driving (he was a pizza delivery person for Pizza Hut) 'got in the way' of a car full of four younger men who were traveling about 75 miles per hour. I believe it was a case where the driver was DUI ... a court will decide what took place and who must bear responsibility. A concern yesterday was that following his death, his home was placed under coroner seal pending notification of relatives. The trouble is, there was only one 'next of kin', a half-sister and she was very diffi- cult to locate. Fiancees and close friends do not count. She was located, promptly stated she wanted nothing to do with it, and that she did not wish to be contacted further. At least, with the authori- ties having confirmed that for themselves, the seal could be removed and his fiancee given permission with friends to enter his home. *Now*, the funeral can be planned, and word reaching me is that they will attempt to do this next Wednesday. Since Bill did not have any insur- ance, the expenses involved will be met by the county, and he will be buried with others similarly situated. The county then has the right to seize his possessions and sell them to offset the costs of his burial. Cindy, his fiancee and some of his friends from r.r.b. will donate what they can, in the hopes of being able to save some of his possessions from being taken by the county. Let me ask you all one very big favor: if you are out partying, and people have been drinking, if one of the guys you know decides to leave, **take his keys away**. Do ANYTHING you can do to stop him no matter how much he protests. Because if he drives away intoxicated, gets in an accident and kills an innocent person, how are you going to live with yourself? Thank you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #385 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 8 14:59:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA18990; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:59:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:59:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909081859.OAA18990@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #386 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Sep 99 14:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 386 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "SAC" NPA's and "PIC-Blocking" (was Re: No LD Provider) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World (Walter Dnes) Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Cellular/PCS Carriers Lose Half Million Dollars Daily to Fraud (M Solomon) Lucent Enhances DSL Power (Monty Solomon) Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal (Jack Decker) Off Topic: Drunk Drivers and Wasted Lives (Joey Lindstrom) Webcam Experiences Wanted (Fred Atkinson) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 08 Sep 1999 12:14:49 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: "SAC" NPA's and "PIC-Blocking" (was Re: No Long Distance Provider) Bill Levant (Wlevant@aol.com) wrote: >> Wait a minute. For 900 and 976, I agree with you, but aren't "700" >> numbers carrier-specific ? 700-555-4141 dialed over MCI routes to >> an MCI recording; 700-555-4141 dialed over AT&T routes to an AT&T >> recording, etc. >> With "NONE" as your IXC, you wouldn't be able to dial any 700 >> number without using a 101-XXXX prefix code, and the *prefix code* >> (not the number itself) would determine routing. Derek Balling (dredd@megacity.org) replied: > Not all 700 numbers behave that way. Take, for instance, (and I have > no idea what its called now) AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing > System, which used to be accessible via a 700 number... I have no > idea whether it still is or not, but you would dial this number and > regardless of who you had, you ended up dialing into AT&T's system. > 700 is pretty wonky all-around, near as I can tell, though. What's > important is that there ARE 700 #'s that "carry" their IXC info > around with them, so removing your PIC is not an effective 700 > block. Actually, I think that Bill Levant is correct here. Having "NO-PIC" for inTER-LATA _WILL_ block all 1+/0+ 700 calling, _UNLESS_ a CAC (Carrier Access Code) of 101-XXXX+ is dialed first. If AT&T is _NOT_ your "primary" inTER-LATA carrier, then dialing to 0-700-456-100X without dialing any CAC in front of it would be handed off by your local telco to your inTER-LATA "PIC", whoever they may be. If you have "no-PIC" for inTER-LATA, then the call is supposed to fail in your local central office. You still can place AT&T Alliance Teleconferencing calling (assuming the line is unrestricted in other ways), by dialing 101-0288-0-700-456-100X. The final 'X' digit indicates the particular conference bridge that you wish to reach. -1000 routes you to the bridge closest to you. X=1 indicates the bridge in Reno NV (it used to be in southern CA), X=2 indicates the bridge in the Chicago IL area, X=3 indicates the bridge in the White Plains NY area, X=4 indicates the bridge in the Dallas TX area... I don't know if AT&T Alliance has other bridges up and running yet. There are also various AT&T 700-45X codes for "Meet Me" pre-arranged conferences using Alliance. Also, AT&T's 700-456-200X codes were/are supposed to be for data/modem broadcasts/conferences, and their use of 700-456-300X was/is supposed to be for automated video conferences. I know that the audio functions are still around, and they mention the default number of 0-700-456-1000, to route you to the conference bridge closest to you. In some brochures on Alliance from the 1980's, they mention that if AT&T is not your main "dial-1" carrier, you will need to dial 10ATT+ before the 0-700-45X-xxxx for Alliance. That would now be "10-10-ATT+" (actually, 101-0288+). As for the possibility of dialing to 700 without any "PIC" or using any 101-XXXX+ CACs, there _MIGHT_ be some local telcos (independents?) which have the SAC NPA 700 being _MIS_translated in the switch, thus "defaulting" 700 to AT&T or else to whoever your previous primary carrier was. Or maybe that telco has chosen some "default" IXC for 700 even for "no-PIC" lines, again probably some misconception on the part of the switch techs (or those above) or else it was just misprogrammed or mistranslating in the switch. As for the _other_ SAC NPAs: 500 and 900 (assuming that 500 still will "live on" even after AT&T discontinues "True Connection" - there _ARE_ other carriers with 500-NXX assignments, and I guess that AT&T will retain theirs' and use them for some other similar purpose?), having "no-PIC" won't really block your access to these to SAC NPAs. The 500-NXX or 900-NXX part of the ten-digit number is six-digit translated in the originating local telco's switch to determine the service-provider to hand the call over to. You can't dial (or at least you are not _supposed_ to be able to dial) a "CAC" (101-XXXX+) before 1+/0+ 500 or 900. The 500-NXX or 900-NXX determines the carrier. Over the past three years, the FCC and the industry have on several occasions hashed over some forms of "portability" of 500 and 900 numbers, similar to the way toll-free portability works. Nothing has been finalized yet, AFAIK. Regarding toll-free (800/888/877/etc.), the entire seven-digit part of the 800/888/etc. number determines the ultimate routing and/or service provider to handle the call. Actually, the FULL TEN-digit toll-free number is _DATABASE-DIPPED_ into a translation database. Except for some VERY FEW 800-NXX codes assigned to telcos in the Caribbean, the 800-NXX (or 888-NXX, or 877-NXX, etc) by itself as a six-digit SAC+NXX does _NOT_ really determine the carrier/telco/service provider anymore. It _USED_ to back in the later 1980s and until around 1992/93 but by 1993, the database network was fully functional in the US, with Canada joining in by 1994. You can have "no-PIC", and even all forms of "toll/code" restrictions from your local telco. But you are supposed to still be able to dial to 1+ 800/888/877/etc. for those numbers available from your service area. Also, you are _NOT_ supposed to be able to dial a 101-XXXX+ CAC before any 800/888/877/etc. number. Also, while not applicable (yet) from within the US, Canada has their own SAC NPA of 600 (which is an historical continuation of the old 610 for TWX in Canada). The 600 SAC NPA in Canada is used for "Caller-Pays Airtime" cellular, internal data/ISDN functions/networks), and future (existing?) "fixed mobile" satellite phones for use in some fo the more remote parts of northern Canada. The service provider or telco or carrier is determined by six-digit translation of the 600-NXX. So, assuming that "no-PIC" is available in Canada, this would not necessarily restrict calling to 600 numbers. Also, use of a 101-XXXX+ CAC would seem to be not permissible whether one has a PIC or one has "no-PIC". Finally, while not really dialable from within the NANP, there is also the 456 SAC NPA. This was assigned by NANPA in August 1993 to "International Inbound Services". It seems to be mostly for switched-56 data, but it could be used for global corporate networks that want a special NANP number dialable from outside of the NANP, to route into their global PBX tie-line system. The carrier to route the call from overseas to the NANP is determined by the 456-NX(X) code. Even though the ITU has mandated that a full first _SEVEN_ digits be translated from the (outgoing gateway) switch in the originating country, many countries might still only be translating six-digits. Thus, with the country code +1, some countries might only be able to up-front translate +1-456-NX, a total of six-digits. So, NANPA _still_ assigns any NANP-carrier desiring any 456-NXX codes as such that the rest of the "tens-block" be reserved for future requests by that carrier. AT&T has 456-289 and 456-288. At this time, no other carrier can be assigned any 456-28X code. If AT&T desires any further 456-NXX code(s), they will be assigned them from the 456-28X range. _IF_ dialing _BETWEEN_ two different NANP countries can be done for 456-NXX numbers, then the 456-NX(X) would determine the routing or carrier, and having "no-PIC" wouldn't block such dialing. Also, use of a 101-XXXX+ CAC wouldn't be allowed neither. So, 700 is the ONLY SAC NPA that would become "void" in a "no-PIC" situation, but still reachable by the 101-XXXX+ CAC; Similarly, 700 seems to be the ONLY SAC NPA where one _CAN_ (sometimes _MUST_, whether or not in a "no-PIC" situation) use a 101-XXXX+ CAC _before_ dialing 1+/0+ to the 700 number. 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: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: Esther Dyson: Queen of The World Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:31:36 -0400 On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 03:53:17 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Jay Fenello wrote: > Well, some folks are asking, you've created a rule, and a way to > enforce that rule, so haven't you actually built both a law and an > enforcement mechanism? And if you have a law against cyber-squatting, > with a virtual "death penalty" (taking away a name someone is using > effectively removes them from the web) why not apply it against other > forms of behavior we don't like? > Please, follow that last link, read what's behind it, and > tremble. You've got one law, you've got a process, and you've got a > sentence. It was all done with the mildest of intentions. But what > you've also got there is the beginnings of a world government, which > can enforce all kinds of rules simply by changing the contract you > sign when you apply for a domain name. With all due respect, I believe Jay has cause-and-effect backwards here. More later on in the message. > And if ICANN won't do it, cyber-vigilantes will. > If ICANN chose it could ban pornography, simply by stripping such > sites of their names, it could enforce product safety standards, > prevent the online manipulation of stocks, and stop hate speech in its > tracks. By simply denying names to those who violate whatever > strictures it chose, ICANN could make the Internet a pure and > beautiful place, where no one dared violate any law for fear of > virtual death! Jay believes that ICANN can usher in one world government by such a grip on the internet. Actually, it would require one world government in the first place in order to implement such total control. That's what I meant by cause-and-effect being backwards here. The only reason the current system works as well as it does is because "everybody" co-operates (sort of). Zone files don't accomplish much by simply sitting on ICANN's computers. They have to be downloaded by authoratative servers, who allow other servers to to download from them, etc, and eventually your ISP's nameserver downloads at least a portion of the zone files. Assume that ICANN decides its "the info-highway, my way, or the doorway". Assuming they can survive court challenges in the US, their "new and improved" system will affect all the ISP's who continue to co-operate with them. Nothing to prevent a bunch of ISP's, or for that matter, a bunch of countries, from getting together and setting up their own master server(s), and disseminating their zone files. So your ISP doesn't subscribe to them? You can always hardcode the nameserver IP address into your dial-up settings. Granted, using a nameserver on the other side of the planet will slow things down for you, but it will still work. And in a worst-case scenario http://208.31.42.81 will still reach Pat's web site. In case you think this is a pipe dream, remember how the spam blacklists DSSL/DUL/IMRSS/ORBS/RRSS work. You're effectively using an auxilary zone file. Consider a spam received via an open relay recently. With some ugly procmail code I've implemented, I can spawn nslookup and check whether 194.184.72.2 is in the RRSS list. Note that the dotted quad is reversed. This not a typo. > /user/.6/wa/waltdnes >nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com > Server: ns1.interlog.com > Address: 198.53.145.18 > Non-authoritative answer: > Name: 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com > Address: 127.0.0.2 This answer came from my default nameserver, i.e. my ISP's machine. If my ISP's nameserver had trouble with the lookup, I could always the master server of the database. > /user/.6/wa/waltdnes >nslookup 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com some.other.server.com > Server: some.other.server.com > Address: 10.11.12.13 > Name: 2.72.184.194.relays.radparker.com > Address: 127.0.0.2 This is not recommended, because it defeats the whole load- sharing philosophy behind the current nslookup paradigm. The point I'm trying to make is that from here it's a small step to setting up a competitive nameserver hierarchy. Logically similar to getting a different 411 operator, depending on which competitive local carrier you subscribe to. If things get to the point where it's illegal to use an unapproved nameservers anywhere on the planet, then we'll already have one world government. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: 8 Sep 1999 01:26:36 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Steve Uhrig wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >>> No the telco did not give a dishonest response. They only know which >>> IXC handled the call and which trunk the call came in on. They have no >>> originating information at all. I guess they could say the calls are >>> coming in from MCI or AT&T etc. Call them and ask which one of there >>> customers is calling and hanging up. >> I don't believe this to be correct. Normal SS7 signaling preserves >> this information across carrier boundaries, as does Equal Access >> Multi Frequency signaling. If you're suggesting that this is not the >> case, I'd like a concrete example, please. > Well I am in a switch eight hours a day. There are several numbers on > ACT through out the switch, including all the switch room phones. > Calls coming in with out of area CID show only the incoming > trunk information on the trace printout. I see hundreds of them every > day. It appears you are confused as to how a switch does a trace on > trunk calls. Possibly. Or possibly we're arguing at cross-purposes here. I'm saying that I've seen plenty of packet-level traces of SS7 IAM messages associated with calls inbound from IXCs, and that the ANI was, in fact, present in those messages. I'm sure you know more about what the switch you work at does when you tell it to trace a call than I do -- and I'm also quite sure that appropriate telco personnel can, in fact, using appropriate monitoring systems, see any information they care to that's in the IAM that sets up any call they care to, including the ANI, if present -- and unless I misunderstand, you're not saying it isn't. In fact, if you're really curious, I can give you step-by-step instructions for using a HP SS7 protocol analyzer to pick out the data field in question. >>>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my reply above to Bruce Wilson. >>>> Yes, you can get law enforcement involved, and in doing so, you >>>> force telco's hand and get them involved also with a trap placed >>>> on your line to register incoming calls, etc. >>> You will have a very hard time getting law enforcement involved with >>> this type of call. If he goes to the police and asks them to have >>> these calls traced so he can get some money from a telemarketer, they >>> may arrest him. There are no threats made just someone hanging up when >> Oh, may they? Why, exactly? Care to give another concrete example? > If you need an example just call your local police and tell them you > are getting hang up calls and that *57 says the call can't be traced > and see what they have to say. No doubt they will ask if you are > being threatened. When you say no the will politely say there is > nothing they can do. I have been involved in probably a hundred traces That's fascinating, but you said "they may arrest him", which is what I asked you about. Why, exactly, might the police arrest him for asking them to help trace a harassing telephone call, as you claim? The fact is that automatic dialing systems in the telemarketing industry commonly drop calls with no identification, etc. if there's no operator (at the telemarketing shop) available to take the call when the computer realizes a person's answered it. Telemarketing shops hate to *under* utilize their personnel, so most of them aim for a 3-5% overutilization; that means that 3-5% of the calls they make will, from the recipient's point-of-view, be 'hangup calls'. This is in explicit violation of the federal law and implementing regulations with respect to telemarketers and they don't care -- they know neither police nor telco will help trace, they won't be brought to court, and they won't have to pay out any damages as provided in the statute. This is typical telemarketer sleaze and they've even admitted quite publically that they do it. What they're really begging for -- and I wish the FCC would do it -- is a new Station Type Identifier (like the one used for prisons) required to be assigned to all telemarketing facilities. Then a trivial AIN application could, at any subscriber's option, block all such calls. Hell, this would even generate huge new revenues for the LECs at, say, a few bucks per month to have the service turned on. But of course the telemarketers have big lobbying clout (god knows why, they must annoy even congresscritters, and you'd think some would be annoyed enough even to not care about the money) and the LECs all like to say nothing can be done, and we're stuck with the current situation, where everyone but the sleazy telemarketers lose as they continue to get away with practices explicitly forbidden by statute and nobody will help. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know about specifically 'arresting' such a person, but I suspect police would look askance at such a request and make the assumption rightly or wrongly that the person was attempting to build a civil case against the offenders and wanted the police to do his leg work for him. It is hard to predict how police are going to respond from one day to the next about one situation or another, but it is quite likely if he pressured them enough to deal with his particular problem some police officer might toss out a line like, 'get out of here and do not keep bothering us or I will lock you up.' Police are prohibited from involving themselves in civil disputes. As to exactly when, at what point it crossed over to becoming a criminal matter is an area where police have a great deal of latitude. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:06:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellular/PCS Carriers Lose Half Million Dollars Daily to Fraud Losses Are on the Rise as Faceless Fraudsters Make Their Mark September 7, 1999 - In 1998, cellular/PCS carriers lost a total of $33.4 million to fraud in the United States alone. By 2003, this is expected to exceed $57 million. This data comes from a new report from International Data Corporation (IDC), The Faceless Fraudsters Make Their Mark: Cellular/PCS Fraud, 1998-2003. http://www.idc.com/Data/Networking/content/NT090799PR.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, and you know something else? The last time a hacker broke into the Acme Universal Corporation's web site, it cost them about a million dollars to repair the damage. I know its true because they issued a press release about it when it happened, and the newspapers would not have any reason to lie about something like that. I don't think the cellular industry would have any reason to lie either, and am sure all the figures they present in their report have been carefully audited. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:29:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Lucent Enhances DSL Power New product combines broadband data, high-quality voice on existing phone lines. by Reuters September 7, 1999, 6:40 a.m. PT Lucent Technologies on Tuesday said it is poised to pierce the area of high speed, high volume voice and data telecommunications sent over traditional telephone lines with the introduction of its new product, the Stinger. http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,12631,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:13:09 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: The Trouble With the Newcomers - Rebuttal On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:48:00 -0400, aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > In article , Joey Lindstrom > wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:29:37 -0400, Alan Boritz wrote: >>>> Your argument makes sense but only to a point. Let's say a million >>>> Chinese refugees washed up on shore near San Francisco. The US >>>> government, in an unusual turn (for them)... >>> By all means, try to convince the masses of the importance of Internet >>> traditions by using offensive ethnic slurs and endlessly rambling >>> nonsequitors. You're not qualified to speak on this topic since >>> you haven't learned your lesson yet. >> Offensive ethnic slurs? "Chinese refugees" is an offensive ethnic >> slur? Better tell that to the local newspaper editors then, because >> that phrase has been turning up daily. We've had at least three >> boatloads of them turn up on Canadian shores in the last few weeks, >> with more (so they say) on the way. > I think quite a few people would react negatively if someone had > phrased the same thought as, "Let's say a million Canadian refugees > showed up at the brewery ..." On second thought, you probably wouldn't > understand that one, either, eh? Mr. Boritz, I think you are being over-sensitive, and far too politically correct. I saw nothing offensive whatsoever about Mr. Lindstrom's comments. >> They're Chinese people, and they're refugees. There's nothing >> offensive about either word, and pairing them together does not make a >> "slur". This is absolutely correct. > You have a child's understanding of language, and a somewhat > provincial outlook on the world's population. Perhaps with a more > globally oriented perspective you may not be so quick to a specific > face on the refugees in your example. Mr. Boritz, perhaps you should not be so quick to assume that someone is making a "slur" when clearly none was intended. I will tell you what, there are some days I hope I don't live to a ripe old age ... I don't think I can take much more of a world where people are ready to take offense at every single thing someone might say. Maybe I'm a throwback to an earlier time, but in my opinion, people like you are making the world a worse place to live, not a better one. I have no problem when people point out that a real, actual slur has been committed, but to go around just looking for reasons to take offense is not right (and personally, I tend to try to avoid being anywhere near people who do that, simply because if I can't avoid them it's far too much of a temptation to *deliberately* say things that I know will make them steam and fume -- I kind of figure they have it coming for trying to make everyone else's life miserable). >> You and the rest of the PC crowd are awfully damned quick to accuse >> people of being racist. > No, it's a *telecommunicating* crowd, and it's been around long before > there were PC's. However, the "crowd" doesn't always open it's > collective mouth. This comment is mainly why I'm responding. I've been part of this "telecommunicating" crowd for probably a good decade now, not that this gives me any more standing than someone who just joined the group yesterday. But if you are suffering from some delusion that there's a silent majority out here that agrees with you, I would submit that perhaps there are more than a few of us who have a decidedly different opinion. Where I grew up, people used to tell ethnic jokes all the time, and it never seemed to bother anyone -- in fact, in high school the guy that I knew who had the biggest repertoire of Polish jokes was a guy who was himself of Polish descent (we thought perhaps he was jealous because most of the jokes were told about the Dutch, which was the largest local indigenous group). The point was, back then we were able to laugh at ourselves without taking everything personally (or thinking that every mention of our nationality applied to us personally), and I think our quality of life is diminished if we have to be careful about even mentioning some nationality because someone like you is just spoiling for a fight. I even tend to think that perhaps some of the random acts of violence we see in society today occur because people no longer have the option to let off steam verbally. Used to be that if someone got mad at someone else, they'd have a good old fashioned shouting match, call each other every name in the book perhaps, but that would be the end of it. Now you can still get angry, but you had better be real careful about what you say, so people bottle it up inside until perhaps it comes out in other, even less acceptable ways. I wonder if the rise of "politically correct" speech and the increase in those who are "going postal" in about the same time frame is a just coincidence? Well, Mr. Boritz, if this message offends you, so be it. I do NOT agree with you and since you seem to think that silence implies agreement, I figured I'd better speak out to let you know that at least one person here does not agree with you and is willing to go on public record as saying so. I will NOT let people like you dictate my speech. In my opinion, you are simply being overly-sensitive. I'm sure you have your reasons for thinking you are right, but please don't suffer under the delusion that everyone else here feels the same way you do. Jack Decker Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address in order to reply via private e-mail. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:27:01 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Off Topic: Drunk Drivers and Wasted Lives On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:33:18 -0400 (EDT), editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: > Let me ask you all one very big favor: if you are out partying, and > people have been drinking, if one of the guys you know decides to > leave, **take his keys away**. Do ANYTHING you can do to stop him > no matter how much he protests. Because if he drives away intoxicated, > gets in an accident and kills an innocent person, how are you going to > live with yourself? Thank you. PAT] Amen. At the risk of going seriously off-topic, let me add this: About eight years ago, I picked up three gentlemen from a bar called "Longhorn's" here in Calgary, in the course of my duties as a taxi driver. They wanted to go to a nearby bar called "The Ranchman's". When I say nearby, I'm talking about half a city block. I looked at them and said "do you really want to do this by taxi? It's a short walk." The response was, "We're too drunk to drive and too lazy to walk." So I drove them. But the road had a concrete median and the bar was on "the wrong side of the road", and in order to get them to the bar they wanted, I had to overshoot, pull a U-turn at the next intersection, and drive back. They wanted nothing to do with that, insisting that I stop the car in front of the bar (on the wrong side of the street) and that they'd jaywalk across. I assured them it was no problem to take them all the way around -- their response was "stop this f'ing car right f'ing now", so I did. And they jaywalked. Three of them began the trip across the street. Only two of them made it to the other side. The third was mowed down by a drunk driver in a Mazda RX-7 doing an estimated 83km/h in a 60 zone. I'll never forget the sound his body made as it bounced off the hood of the car, or the sound of his brother (who was one of the other two guys) screaming, and how it took about five or six burly guys from The Ranchman's to keep him from killing the driver. I'll never forget the sight of the horrible wreckage of what was once a proud father-of-three. I was a battle-scarred taxi veteran, but I was so shook up I didn't work again for about nine days after this. In court later on, it was determined that the driver was a bartender at another bar further up the same road. He had just come off duty and had had "just a couple" of beers. His breathalyzer test showed him just barely OVER the legal limit. "Just a couple" of beers is all it took for a young man to lose just enough judgment to speed past another vehicle that was slowing down to allow someone to cross the road. That's all it takes. Whenever I hear someone saying "I'm ok to drive", I wanna reach over and throttle them, knock some sense into their thick heads. If you're too freakin' cheap to take a taxi home, then what the heck are you doing knockin' back beers at $4 a crack in a bar? Where the hell are your priorities? Believe me, although I never knew Mr. Pfeiffer and indeed was not even aware of his very existence until now, my sympathies are completely with his fiance and his friends. I've not yet managed to lose a loved one in this way, but I've seen just what a horrible way it is to go, and the overpowering feeling of SENSELESSNESS that it brings. You find yourself wondering how such things can happen. What I find most ironic is that, in most drunk-driving accidents, it's rarely ever the drunk driver himself who is seriously hurt or killed - it's always someone else, someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, with one ironic exception: on my first night back on duty, nine days after this accident, I was coming to a stop at the end of a residential street as it t-intersected with a major road (17th Avenue SW). As I approached the stop sign, I saw a tire, complete with rim but missing the rest of the vehicle, zipping along 17th at about 50km/h. I turned the corner in the opposite direction the tire came from, drove down a few blocks, and came across a pickup truck wrapped around a light standard - missing an entire wheel of course (along with lots of other stuff that had come loose in the crash). The driver's door was open and he apparently was alone - he was still inside and the windshield, though cracked, was intact, so nobody else had been thrown from the vehicle. The driver was very dead, and on the ground outside the vehicle was an open bottle of Jack Daniels, the contents having spilled out into the street. I've got no sympathy whatsoever for that guy. His wife and kids ... that's another matter. 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 Government! Three-fourths parasitic and the rest stupid fumbling- Oh, Harshaw conceded that man, a social animal, could no more avoid government than an individual could escape the necessity of bowel movements. But simply because an evil was necessary was no reason to term it "good." He wished that government would wander off and get lost! -- Thoughts of Jubal Harshaw, "Stranger In A Strange Land" (Robert Heinlein) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for yet another illustration, as ugly as it was. Friends do not allow friends to drive -- or go anywhere alone -- when they are intoxicated. Oh, he will hate you for it at the time, you and the other guys who took away his keys, restrained him, made him stay where he was, etc ... but that's okay; the next day he will realize you probably saved his life. The guys in Minnesota involved in the situation with Bill also must be considered; now they have a burden they will live with for the rest of their own lives. Imagine how *their friends* must feel, knowing that with maybe a little effort it might have ended in a different way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 05:21 EDT From: Fred Atkinson Organization: Personal Copy Subject: Webcam Experiences Wanted Is there anyone out there that has some experience running Webcams on your home PC? I recently purchased one, but the video quality is so poor that I am returning it to the seller for refund. Please send me a direct email to: fatkinson@mishmash.com if you can help me choose one of acceptable quality. Thanks, Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can purchase webcams these days for less than a hundred dollars through any number of website mail order places, and in various stores. Most of these are very small units, about the size of a package of cigarettes or maybe a bit larger. The one I have is like that. The quality will be good enough for use in televideo applications, one-person visual presentations on the net, and similar very limited situations. They are quite good enough for the endless stream of amateur porn which clutters up things like Microsoft Net Meeting. Has anyone here used Net Meeting and *not* been pestered to death with requests for 'adult' chats/picture exchanges and similar? In the online directories for ils.microsoft.com you have to specifically indicate, 'no adult chat' if you do not want to be bothered. To get *good* quality for large panoramic photos, such as street scenes, or the interior of an office, etc you need to spend a bit more money. Obviously, if you spend the amount of money a network television station would spend for equipment, and interface it to your computer, you will have some very good images. The catch is, what do you want, and how much can you afford to spend for it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #386 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 8 16:31:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA23259; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909082031.QAA23259@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #387 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Sep 99 16:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 387 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Larry Lang) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Danny Burstein) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Roy Smith) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Jason Fetterolf) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Do Phone Companies Ever Build New COs? (Miguel Cruz) Re: Smile for the US Secret Service (Michael David Jones) Re: Remote Loopback of CSU (Bud Couch) Re: Remote Loopback of CSU (Rolf Hahn) Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service (Jason Fetterold) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? (Danny Burstein) International and Domestic Calls Search Engine (spamfreeuser@my-deja.com) Re: Strange Response (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Western Union 'Operator-25' (Andrew Green) Re: Cell Phone-Driving Ban (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 01:01:33 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:33:18 -0400 (EDT), Steve Sobol wrote: > So this weekend I made my annual Pilgrimage to Boston, my second home :) > We went downtown to see a play (Shear Madness, which, btw, was > excellent). > We park at the Radisson Hotel, facing a billboard for Bell Atlantic's > InfoSpeed DSL service. > I stare at the billboard for a few minutes to make sure I am reading > their claim correctly. > I come to the conclusion that it did indeed say that an InfoSpeed DSL > connection could run at 126 times the speed of a 56K modem. > That was Saturday. I'm still trying to do the math. It doesn't compute. > Any comments? :) Well, here in Calgary I'm a customer of a company called "Cadvision". Currently I live in an area that's rather distant from their ADSL NAP, so I only get about 640kbps on my downloads. But I'm moving shortly to an area that's well-serviced and close to the NAP, and the name of the service they're offering there is "Cadvision 7000K", ie: 7000kbps. That is exactly 125 times faster than a 56K modem, assuming the 56K modem actually ran at 56K. In fact, the very best speed you can get out of 'me is 53K, or just over 132 times slower than 7000K. In both cases (53K and 7000K), they're talking about "the best possible" speeds given ideal (or, really, perfect) operating conditions, and that many factors can drive those numbers down. I snicker with unabashed glee when I read here about people who are getting gouged by the various ILEC's and their ADSL offerings stateside -- I pay the same money for a connection ten times faster. :-) For information on Cadvision's offering (and no, I'm just a satisfied customer), check out: http://www.cadvision.com (Note: this service is only available in Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- but other ISP's should easily be able to offer something similar, thus my invitation to you to see what's POSSIBLE) 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 believe that US schools have a Search and Destroy program, aimed at any hint of creative thinking exhibited by students." --Frank Zappa ------------------------------ From: Larry Lang Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 07:33:36 -0400 Organization: Paradyne Corp; Largo, Fla Reply-To: llang@eng.paradyne.com They are advertising a 7 meg downstream ADSL service. If you multiply 126 x 56K, the answer is 7,056K or 7 meg. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston Date: 8 Sep 1999 08:14:20 -0400 In sjsobol@NorthShore Technologies.net (Steve Sobol) writes: [snippages] > I come to the conclusion that it did indeed say that an InfoSpeed DSL > connection could run at 126 times the speed of a 56K modem. > That was Saturday. I'm still trying to do the math. It doesn't compute. Eyup: there's an Infospeed offering ("power infospeed" for $189.95/month) giving a nominal downlink speed of 7.1 megs. Which, when divided by 56k, gives you 126. Now as to whether you really get 7.1 meg ... but then, again, you don't really get 56k, either. In any event it certainly is a _lot_ faster. Oh, keep in mind that Infospeed is an ADSL ([A]symmetrical) arrangement, so this is the _downlink_ rate. the _uplink_ is only, err.. hmm, don't see it in the literature ... but should be something like 1 meg. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:32:58 -0400 Sure. 126 * 56 kbps = 7056 kbps. DSL is available in various speeds. Higher speeds cost more, and have more stringent limits on distance from the central office where it's available (if it's available at all). Bell Atlantic shows three speeds (640k, 1.6M, and 7.1M) available on their web site. The 7.1M service costs $190/month. That's a bit steep for residential use, but is certainly the bargain from the cost/bandwidth standpoint. Of course, that's assuming you really do get 7.1M; the web pages are all very careful about saying "up to X bps", which leads me to believe they don't actually promise any particular bandwidth availability, just a bit clock rate. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 09:02:22 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston Organization: Apollo Concepts Telecom Consulting The billboard needs to have the "1" from the 126 times removed! The max DSL speed (1.5Mbps) is about *26 times* the speed of a 56Kbps modem (1,500,000 bps divided by 26,000 bps = 26.785) ... for the DSL service I offer through providers Covad and Northpoint ... the potential numbers should be the same for Bell Atlantic. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:39:38 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston In article was written: > I come to the conclusion that it did indeed say that an InfoSpeed DSL > connection could run at 126 times the speed of a 56K modem. They do offer 7.1 megabit per second service in some areas. Jonathan D Loo, P. O. Box 30533, Bethesda, Maryland 20824, U. S. A. jloo@polaris.umuc.edu / Save a life: learn first-aid and C. P. R. ------------------------------ Subject: Do Phone Companies Ever Build New COs? From: usenet@admin.u.nu (Miguel Cruz) Organization: Posting from Washington, DC Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:58:50 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Original item did not appear here. PAT] In article <7r51v3$tg6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, wrote: > My phone company is the worst phone company in the world, Ameritech > (I have no choice). Ameritech is a fine telephone company. You sound like someone who's never used Telstra (number one worst phone company in the universe, including all manufacturers and recyclers of tin cans and string), GTE, NYNEX (new name, same craphouse service), almost any of the European telephone companies, or actually much of anything else. Reminds me of a story from when I lived in Saudi Arabia in 1997. One of my co-workers was having dinner at someone's home. Suddenly, three men in ambiguous government uniforms burst into the house. Talking only among themselves, they looked around for a while and then stomped off into the back room. The stunned hosts and guest just sat there, not knowing if they were going to be arrested, or what. There was some noise in the back, and the wife wondered if something was happening to her children, but her husband said he thought she better stay put in the dining room. After a while, the men returned from the back, left wordlessly through the front door, and drove away. The man went to the back room to see what had happened. When he came back to the dining room, there were tears in his eyes. His wife, fearing the worst, screamed. Trying to be calm, my co-worker put on his most reassuring voice and asked the man what he had seen. "Our telephone!" the man gasped between tears of shock that soon emerged as joy. "We ordered it in 1985! I'd totally forgotten about it! It's finally here!" > My question is do phone companies ever in an extroardinary act of charity > build new COs? I'm sure this is a total pipe dream question, but I'm just > curious. Ameritech will really have to build new COs if it ever wants to > equip a significant portion of the Metro Detroit area. Proper COs? They decommission them more often than they build them. However, advances in switch technology are making it easier and easier to use small remote slave switches to service new development areas. If you are in an area of moderate density that is not seeing radical growth, then it's pretty unlikely they'd put in anything new rather than just packing it into their existing facility. Your best hope is probably to wait for DSL technology to improve (which shouldn't be long). miguel ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Smile for the US Secret Service Date: 8 Sep 1999 10:59:49 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Monty Solomon writes: > by Declan McCullagh > 3:00 a.m. 7.Sep.99.PDT > WASHINGTON -- A New Hampshire company began planning in 1997 to > create a national identity database for the federal government, newly > disclosed documents show. Newly disclosed? I read about these guys in my local newspaper a while back. People in three or four states were getting up in arms about the states selling DMV data (including pictures) to them. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu On Ted Williams: The strength of his wrists, the speed of his swing, the uncoiling of his hips are exceptional ... Yeah, he could do it. He could hit .400. - Babe Ruth, spring training, 1941 ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Remote Loopback of CSU Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 08:59:31 -0700 Organization: ADC Kentrox alcazar3@my-deja.com wrote: > When doing remote loopback tests for CSU, what type is used, analog or > digital? ... And why? DDS or T1 CSU? Not that it makes a difference, since they are both digital devices: ones and zeros come in, ones and zeros go out. Therefore, *all* CSU loopbacks are, by definition, digital. The loopback commands are all digital words or signals as well. One exception: 15 years ago, the original Bell 550 CSU used a separate physical pair with a D.C. voltage on it to control loopbacks. In the hyper-time world of electronics, this is at least two eons ago. Now, if you asking if there is (or is not) regeneration applied at the T1 loopback point ... there is. The reason is that, even though practice is to engineer the end sections as half distance, this is really only applied to the CO end (where S/N ratio is important due to the noisy environment), and is more often honored in the breach at the customer end. If the repeater sensitivity is 30 dB and the end section is engineered at 20 dB, a simple no-regen loop would appear at the last repeater at -40 dB, beyond its range. The difference between the two standard CSU loopbacks is that the line loopback simply regenerates the incoming signal (at least as how the CSU sees it) and sends it back. The payload lookback sends a new framing signal (and CRC calc for ESF) as well, which makes it useful for distinguishing between problems in the two directions. Bud Couch |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.| bud@kentrox.com | -Tom Lehrer | Insert disclaimer here | "Therefore you're guilty!" -EEOC | ------------------------------ From: Rolf Hahn Subject: Re: Remote Loopback of CSU Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:43:12 -0700 Organization: ADC Kentrox alcazar3@my-deja.com wrote: > When doing remote loopback tests for CSU, what type is used, analog or > digital? ... And why? CSUs can have both types of loopbacks. The loopback points in a CSU are typically called (line loopback) and (payload loopback). A line loop you could consider analog because it loops all the data back including bipolar violations. A payload loopback runs the data through a T1 framer device. The framer cleans up the bipolar violations, re-calculates the ESF CRC and preserves the payload. By using both of these loops, one could figure out transmit from receive direction problems. Rolf Hahn ADC Kentrox ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 11:40:32 -0400 Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: MCI Worldcom Residential Customer Service From: jason@itw.com(Jason Fetterolf) Organization: Apollo Concepts Telecom Consulting This is a another follow-up to a thread from Aug 31st: I orginally wrote: > When you say 9 cents/min to Europe, what country(ies), specifically are > you talking about? Alan Gore Responded: >> I get 9c to Germany and Switzerland, if I call on Sundays. The MCIWorldcom plan you are on has the following rate per minute structure: Period Germany Switz UK France M-Sa 20 cpm 25 10 22 Sun 9 cpm 9 9 9 In addition, you have a $ 3/mo fee for the MCI-1 International plan and MCI typically charges 7% for their USF when most other carriers (or at least the ones I represent) charge 4% of the total usage charges. Also, this is a residential plan that bills in full minute increments, that increases the true cost per minute by at least 10%, as compared to 6 second incremental billing. So, the *real* cost per minute is more like 10.2 cpm on Sundays (.09 x 10% + 3% extra USF + 1% extra for $ 3/mo billing fee - based upon $ 300/mo in usage) and 22 cpm to Germany and 28 cpm to Switzerland for M-Sa. And since you (Alan) said that you spend approx $ 300/mo, mostly to these 2 countries, then if you spoke just on Sundays, then $ 300/ $0.09 = 3333 mins divided by (60 min in an hr) divided by (4.5 Sundays in an avg month) = 12.34 hrs per Sunday that you spend talking to Germany and Switzerland (assuming 1 phone line). I find it hard to believe that anyone can talk for 12+ hrs in one Sunday on a regular basis, and further, that one can restrict 80% or more of their calling to just that one day when you have the level of usage that you claim you do. If one's usage is only $ 20/mo or something I can see waiting til sundays to make All calls, but not in your case. * If you are not making 80% or MORE of your Germany/Switzerland calls (thats 9.8hrs /ea Sun in your case) on Sunday only, then you are paying more than 12 cpm on average, and should use a plan like Star Telecom offers.* Star Telecom, for instance, has a plan with the following rate per minute structure: Period Germany Switz UK France M-Sa 12 cpm 17 7.9 14 Sun 12 cpm 17 7.9 14 All calls are billed in 6 sec increments, no monthly fees, no minimums, standard 4% USF AND flat domestic rates of 7.9 cpm, or lower, depending on volume. I realize that I got into a little bit of minutia here, but my point is this: occasionally, the "Big three" carriers will offer some great off-peak rate to residential customers, but there are factors involved that drive up the actual cost of the call, and opportunity cost factors that make these plans unreasonable for most businesses. Anyone that makes a good volume of calls and/or is running a business should not fool around with restricting their calls to one day of the week for the sake of a lower off-peak rate. Please feel free to ask for more details. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: Having no Long Distance Provider? Date: 8 Sep 1999 08:02:08 -0400 In Fred Goodwin writes: > You must continue to pay certain Federal and State access charges on > your local line (even if you have outgoing LD disabled) because you > can still *receive* LD calls on your line. > I am not aware of any way to block *incoming* LD calls, but that's to > say its impossible. I'm just wondering about lines that are used for, umm, "value-added" calls such as "976" (and similar exchanges) which generally can NOT be completed by inter-exchange carriers. Since they don't receive inter-lata calls, are they still required to pay this additional fee? Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: spamfreeuser@my-deja.com Subject: International and Domestic Calls Search Engine Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:41:46 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Dear fellow newsgroup users, I thought you guys may find this link useful. It searches for lowest long distance/international rates. Have been using it for international calls. Pretty good!! http://longdist.net/?icq Cheers, Lee [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hmmm. Yeah, sometimes we find spam to be useful. Thanks for writing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:58:42 EDT From: Jonathan D Loo Subject: Re: Strange Response Pat, this article was blank. In article you write: [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not know what happened. Assuming it may have gotten lost at other sites carrying c.d.t. as well, here it is repeated again below. Thanks for letting me know. PAT] Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:20:35 CDT From: Wes Leatherock Subject: Strange Response Pat, I'm no longer able to read TELECOM Digest, but I thought this exchange, which seems rather curious, might be of interest to readers. Wes Leatherock 3116 Sunset Blvd. Oklahoma City OK 73120-2333 (405) 751-3288 August 7, 1999 Public Utility Commission of Texas 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard Austin, Texas 78757 I was surprised to find on August 3 I was blocked from using the long distance carrier of my choice on a call from a coin telephone in Galveston. There was no number on the telephone. The letters "USLD" were written in longhand in the space where the telephone number would be expected. Twice I dialed 1-800-600-BELL, the access number for Southwestern Bell Long Distance. (The call was to a number within the same regional calling area, which South- western Bell would be allowed to handle.) Both times I reached only an error message of some sort which provided no useful information except that it was "error 13." So I dialed "0-Operator." The male operator who answered identified his company as something like "Alcatel." He said there was no way to reach a Southwestern Bell operator. Southwestern Bell is the local exchange carrier in Galveston. As noted, the coin telephone had no number posted on it. It was located at the Burger King in about the 2800 block of 61st Street in Galveston. Sincerely, W. A. Leatherock -------------------------------------------- Public Utility Commission of Texas 1701 N. Congress Avenue P. O. Box 13326 Austin, Texas 78711-3326 August 19, 1999 Mr. W. A. Leatherock 3116 Sunset Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120-2333 Dear Mr. Leatherock: The Office of Customer Protection (OCP) is in receipt of letter of complaint dated August 7, 1999, concerning the problem you experienced at a pay telephone located at the Burger King in the 2800 block of 61st Street in Galveston, Texas. I appreciate you taking time to write and hope that you find the following information helpful. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) regulates limited aspects of private pay telephone service such as access to a preferred long distance carrier, the maxmimum charges for intrastate calls, and the posting of information on pay telephones. Because the pay telephone in question did not accurately reflect who the pay telephone owner is, OCP staff is unable to conduct an investigation of your complaint. As a result, no further action will be taken in this matter unless you provide our office with additional information regarding the pay telephone. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Office of Consumer Protection, toll-free, at 1-888-782-8477, and a staff member will be happy to assist you. Sincerely, Denise E. Taylor Senior Enforcement Investigator Office of Costomer Protection ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Western Union 'Operator-25' Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:02:00 -0500 Mark J. Cuccia writes: > Some commercials continue with a female voice > deliberately distorted slightly, as if speaking into a > telephone, saying that she will be happy to locate the > nearest Autolite dealer. Since we're on the subject, there's another form of that radio "telephone operator" commercial which I've heard frequently on "Suspense" and other old-time radio shows, and which leaves me baffled: The phone rings (i.e. in the room; they're calling us). You hear the receiver lifted, but the first -- and only -- voice you hear is the operator at the _other_ end, who says something along the lines of, "You can get Autolite batteries, Autolite plugs and other Autolite products at your Autolite dealer." Then in an absurdly singsong, robotic voice, she adds, "Switch to ... Autolite!" I take it this is some spin on a standard phone company practice of long ago (no, not telemarketing :-) but I don't know what it is. Is it something to do with ordering a long-distance call, then waiting for the operator to call you back? What's the significance of the "Switch to ..." phrase; would that normally be directed down the line at another operator? Pausing here while PAT switches to History mode for us. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was not supposed to make any sense or be connected to the plot; it was a piece of advertising; a commercial message stuck into the program. No, they did not call you back; after you told them where you were located, they looked up the nearest dealer from their index card database and told you where to go. You were being told to start using Autolite. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Cell Phone-Driving Ban Date: 8 Sep 1999 15:50:39 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:08:02 -0400, monty@roscom.com allegedly said: > BROOKLYN, Ohio (AP) -- Police have started ticketing drivers for > chatting on cell phones in this Cleveland suburb under a law believed > to be the first of its kind in the country. > http://cnn.com/US/9909/02/cell.phones.ap/index.html You won't get ticketed if you use a handsfree kit. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org I am the president and sole shareholder of NSTC. Thus, I feel comfortable saying that my opinions do represent the official opinions of the company :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #387 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 8 19:07:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA29402; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:07:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199909082307.TAA29402@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #388 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Sep 99 19:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 388 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Modems Over "Dark" Copper (E. Cummings) Re: Cell Phone-Driving Ban (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Charges For Calling Toll-Free Numbers (Steven) Re: Webcam Experiences Wanted (Andrew) Easing Telephone-Line Congestion (Monty Solomon) Re: Internet's 30th Birthday! Al Did it, Kinda (Todd Judge) Seeking NPA/NXX Database (Ben Sprei) Inexpensive T-1 Service on Tap From Start-Up (Monty Solomon) Can Iridium Satellite Service Achieve a Soft Landing? (Monty Solomon) Re: Bell Atlantic DSL Billboard in Boston (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Tracing Phone Calls (Jonathan D. Loo) Re: Having no Long Distance Provider (Jonathan D. Loo) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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 g