From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 3 17:46:36 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA22849; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:46:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910032146.RAA22849@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #451 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Oct 99 17:46:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 451 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toll-Free "Local" Numbers? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: The Bad Witch ICANN (James Bellaire) Re: No Address on TELECOM Digest Posts? (Derek Balling) Re: Where is the True Power? (Ted Byfield) CPSR "Governing the Commons" Conference Writeup (Ted Byfield) Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Mark W. Schumann) A Way to Harvest Numbers (David Charles) Re: October 1999 Scientific American Report on High Speed Internet (Satch) Re: Penna PUC Examiner Rejects Bell-GTE Merger (Steven Lichter) Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Javier Henderson) Bill Pfieffer Memorial Site (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: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Toll-Free "Local" Numbers? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 17:33:43 GMT In article , mlevin@meadhall.com says: > Interesting. I have known for some time (actually, a friend of mine > discovered this) that she can call my 617 area Bell Atlantic Mobile cell > phone from any 617 or 781 area Bell Atlantic payphone for free. Don't > know about COCOTs though. That's interesting -- I think BA has some problems determining rates and charges to cell carrier exchanges. I'm an Omnipoint subscriber in 401 and any BA payhone can call my cellphone without having to pay for it. Most of the COCOT's around here don't even know that most cell exchanges exist. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:55:46 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: The Bad Witch ICANN At 01:50 AM 10/3/99 -0400, Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > ... Once upon a time a domain name was a secure piece of virtual > real estate that you could confidently build a business on ... > And the people were happy. > Then Network Solutions sought to shore up its assertion of list > ownership by adding revocation to its domain name contract: > Network Solutions (NSI) > http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html > Revocation. The registrant agrees that Network Solutions shall have the > right in its sole discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise > modify a domain name registration upon thirty (30) calendar days prior > written notice ... Is that all you are going to quote? Why not finish the paragraph! "upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice, or at such time as Network Solutions receives a properly authenticated order from a court of competent jurisdiction, or arbitration award, requiring the revocation, suspension, transfer or modification of the domain name registration." The INTENT of adding paragraph 7 was to allow NSI to revoke domains upon court order, non-payment, etc. Although the wording above is loose, the language was added at a time where there were major problems with domain hoarding, and NSI had no way of revoking a domain (canceling the contract). The debate at that time was over individuals registering brand names of companies, therefore making the brand names of the companies unavailable for use by those companies, and making it harder for said companies to attract visitors as the preferred names were long gone. NSI also added the trademark wording at that time as well, and the URL you are quoting? "This file last modified 2/25/98." Hardly new changes. The language you quote does not mean that the domain companies are out to get your domain and sell it to the highest bidder. If that were so, Tim Koogle of Yahoo! would have had me a long time ago! (I heard him talking about TK's law on CSPAN.) James Bellaire @ TK.COM - Registered w/NSI since 02 Apr 1995 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The entire paragraph was not printed all over again because it has been printed here in the past at least a couple times. If the registrars 'accredited by ICANN' intend to only cancel domain names based on the fact that the owner of same has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to pay for it then the contract should read that way. If they only intend to cancel because a court orders them to do so, then the contract should read that way. No one begrudges them the right to collect their fee, however out- rageous it may be; they do have expensive taste after all, when it comes to flying around the world and holding secret meetings. I'd personally feel better if they spent their money 'in the commmunity' instead of giving it to high-priced saloon-keepers in Santiago and to attornies who originally promised pro-bono representation and then snuck in billings for more than five hundred thousand dollars at the last minute when they discovered Vint Cerf could play MCI-Worldcom for fools a second time around, but that's just my opinion. I cannot sit here and say they should ignore or defy orders of the court regards cancellation or reassignment of domain names either, although for once it would be refreshing if they would take a protective stance regards small individual web site owners and netizens (as in 'the net is for everyone' as they mockingly say) instead of just responding to the highest bidder and the loudest, most obnoxious lawyer. But you see Jim, its not just that the contract allows for cancellation for the perfectly valid reasons of non-payment or in obeyance of court orders. The pertinent parts of the contract have been printed here previously: if all else fails, if they have been paid, if they are unable to get a court order to roust you from your domain name, if they have no valid excuse at all to give, then they do not have to give a valid excuse, they can just take it anyway. This is because ICANN has stated (and now made part of their 'accreditation' process for all registrars) that they do not want any 'messy enforcement problems'. Sometimes people pay their bills on time, and sometimes courts do not rule in favor of large corporations. So what are Vint and Esther to do in a case like that? How can they finish Cerfing the Net if the courts won't always hand over things to them on a silver platter? Thus the 'deuces wild' provision we are forced to sign if we want to be here in the first place: "When we say it is ours, then by God, it is ours. Any reason; no reason. We don't need any reason." Then they complain there has to be some way to correct technical errors by the registrar, etc. Fine, build that in also. What most of us on the net are saying is that a secret meeting in a far-away land where the participants whisper back and forth to each other, and certain unspoken agreements and understandings are reached is not 'reason-enough' for our satisfaction. They insist they 'have no reason and do not need a reason' simply because if the truth were known about their real reasons, they'd have to hang their heads in shame; they've traded the traditions and intentions for the net in exchange for power and influence for themselves. By all means, let's have some 'rogue registrars' please; some that put the net community ahead of their personal self-interests. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 09:10:14 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: No Address on TELECOM Digest Posts? Adam Kerman wrote: > Gee. I said I didn't want to discuss spammers' rights. No right > enumerated in statute? The right of your heart to continue beating, > the right to breathe isn't enumerated either. Let's call it a natural > right. I would think those fall under the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". This so-called "right" to send e-mail is something that spammers have made up. > If you have access to e-mail AND you follow the rules AND you know of > an authentic mailbox, you may send Mail. You may send mail to people who are willing to accept. Just because you pay for your end of the connection does NOT grant you permission to use resources (disk space, bandwidth) on MY end without my permission. > Even a spammer may send Mail; > they simply neglect to follow the rules, such as authentication, terms > of service of their bandwidth providers, the rules of networks they > connect with, and so on. Perhaps a spammer even has a natural right to > use Mail as long as he is properly identified. He can send messages; > he doesn't have the right to expect that other networks will receive > it. To say that I wholeheartedly disagree with this paragraph is an understatement of epic proportions. > I don't see that RFC823 is applicable. But here's a citation from RFC822: > 4.1. SYNTAX > authentic = "From" ":" mailbox ; Single author > / ( "Sender" ":" mailbox ; Actual submittor > "From" ":" 1#mailbox) ; Multiple authors > ; or not sender Let's continue the definitions, shall we? mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address / phrase route-addr ; name & addr-spec addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address local-part = word *("." word) ; uninterpreted ; case-preserved domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal domain-ref = atom So what does this MEAN? This means that you could, in fact, put "abuse@localhost" in your From address. It fits the definition fine. > The standard makes use of the words "authentic" with the From header, > to identify a single author, and with the Sender header, to identify > the actual submitter. Furthermore, unambiguous language refers to > From, such as "contains the identity", "authenticated machine > address", etc., and similar language applies to Sender. Authentic is just a FIELD TYPE, not a description. On my machine "abuse@localhost" is an authenticated machine entry. I have the following in /etc/aliases: abuse: dredd So on my machine, (localhost), that address is valid. >> No standard also requires me to, by very nature of posting an opinion >> to a public forum, to be also forced to accept e-mail, possibly paying >> for the mere privilege of receiving it without regard as to whether it >> is read or deleted. > At the time you are sending the message, a valid mailbox must appear > in the From header. There is no ambiguity on that point. Fine, and the above meets the ambiguity test. >> What rules? Show me the rules. The RFC's are, for this purpose, "the >> law of the land", and I have yet to find one that explicitly states >> that I must use a functional e-mail address. All I have to use is one >> which complies with the standard, not one that is accurate. > A nonexistent e-mail address in the From header is nonstandard. Your > interpretation is not supported by the clear languange of the > standard. However, any address @ localhost can be "made" valid, which will completely fubar the spammer and still follow the spec. Garrett A. Wollman wrote: >> We're not talking about wheat from chaff on Usenet. We're talking about >> people getting their e-mail addresses harvested from Usenet and then >> flooded with spam because of it. > So fix the spammers, or learn to live with it. I've been posting to > Usenet regularly for the past decade, but the amount of spam I > received which is traceable to Usenet is next to nil. (Hint: the vast > majority comes from poorly-secured mailing-lists.) I wish I had your problem. I posted with an address at an alternate domain on Usenet a couple weeks ago. The ONLY time this address has been made public is Usenet, about a half-dozen posts or so. I've already gotten about 30 pieces of spam in the last week for this address. I far prefer to play within the rules (see the above message to someone else regarding perfectly valid RFC822 addresses that will not work for spam harvesting), and still prevent spam from occurring (or trying). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poorly-secured mailing-lists? Well I > hope you were not looking at me when you said that. I think I take > excellent precautions with my list. But I cannot help it if someone > subscribes who secretly is a spammer then when the Digest reaches > them each day it just gets piped through a script which plucks out > all the 'From:' lines and adds them to a file somewhere. PAT] ... or they just scan the archives online each day looking for new issues. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:18:38 -0400 From: Ted Byfield Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? gds@best.com (Greg Skinner) wrote: > The previous efforts (AlterNIC, eDNS) failed in part because of the > actions of people like Eugene Kashpureff. However, lack of money was > also a factor, as was opposition from other Internet professionals to > a split root. I just attended the CPSR "Governing the Commons: The Future of the Global Internet Administration" conference in Alexandria (9/23-24), where there was much debate about the viability of alternative/ex- panded root servers -- including from would-be maverick registrars. I won't try to summarize hours of discussion beyond saying that the main fracture in the debate was between the DIY crowd (exemplified by Peter Deutsch of 'archie' fame), who argued that the solution to the current frustration with ICANN/NSI/DoC was to ignore them and to establish/acknowledge alternative DNS authorities, on the one hand; and the 'end of the net, mpeg at 11' crowd, who argued that doing so would cause chaos. Deutsch argued that pragmatism at every level would lead people to shun any authority that was propagating conflicts and name collisions; to which the would-be registrars responded that they had been trying exactly that, but thus far had not been able to propagate their new gTLDs. I must say, of all the bickering and complaining, Deutsch's ebullient DIY approach was a breath of fresh air. To fight ICANN at the level of official acceptance and integration of reform is important -- I'd never suggest that people give up that fight. But I will say that trying to force them to acknowledge and accept any fundamental innovation (e.g., to accept new gTLDs) is a waste of time: the only solution could be a sustained grass-roots effort to acknowledge alternative authorities -- which amounts to no- thing more than configuring systems to refer to one or two more name- servers. Someone -- Karl Auerbach from Cisco, I think -- said he'd been doing so for quite some time, with no problems and much satisfaction. The proceedings of the conference are online, and for anyone who's interested in these questions, they're well worth a look. I particularly recommend the presentations of Tony Rutkowski, Milton Mueller, and Michael Fromkin, all of whom argued more or less that ICANN amounts to little more than a programmatic effort to conflate DNS with intellectual property structures. >> One would be much more productive lobbying for a new, free, >> government subsisted TLD for non-commercial use, or at least the >> blessing to organize a non-profit one. I don't think so. The taxonomic purpose of gTLDs -- to describe the na- ture of the entity -- is dead, over, done. Expanding the gTLD structure would only precipitate yet another feeding frenzy of redundant domain names, and to designate it as strictly noncommercial would require enforcing that limitation -- by whom? According to what criteria? With what forms of redress and appeal? etc., etc., etc. to say nothing of the fact that these taxonomic categories absolutely defy the logic (or, more precisely, lack thereof) of the net, where subjective criteria define what it or isn't appropriate or relevant. To declare a gTLD as 'noncommercial' is a bit like Ben Franklin's proposal to invent a new punctuation mark to designate irony: irony BEGINS here and ENDS here. heh ... yeah, right ... There are two solutions, neither of which will happen: (1) Get rid of gTLDs completely; (2) declare DNS to be fundamentally, forever, and in every way unrelated to, independent of, and unencumbered by intel- lectual property. Anything short of those two measures will fail to solve 'the problem,' which is the need, imposed by the systematic as- pirations of intellectual property law, for 'IP' holders to protect their interests. To establish a new gTLD that's off-limits to IP law would be the equivalent of declaring an 'anything goes' region, where the law simply doesn't apply. Look at John Perry Barlow's 'declara- tion of the independence of cyberspace' for prior art in this regard. Cheers, Ted ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:52:56 -0400 From: Ted Byfield Subject: CPSR "Governing the Commons" Conference Writeup Greetings. TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in an article I wrote about the recent CPSR "Governing the Commons: the Future of Global Internet Administration" conference (Alexandria, 24-25 Sept.) I did for _Telepolis_. It's got a pic of an ICANN-GAC organizational chart by Tony Rutkowski, which is definitely worth a peek. ;) Cheers, Ted ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: 3 Oct 1999 12:31:56 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Satch wrote: > The Cloud IS the silver lining. The Internet and its culture used to > be underground, not in the view of the people. Today, we have the > Vice President claiming to be one of the inventors of the thing! The > Internet has fulfilled its original goal: provide connectivity at low > cost with high survivabiilty. As a person working on ARPAnet back in > 1972 I can look at the end product with quite a bit of pride. [snip] > So you have to make a decision. Do you change the way you do things > to adapt to the change of the Internet to Stage 3? Do you try to > fight it? Do you go on to something else? > This IS depressing. I really don't see it that way. "We" are still the underground. All ICANN can take away is a few of the top-level domain names. If PAT's worst fears are realized -- and that isn't unlikely -- so what? So the noncommercial web sites move out of COM, NET and ORG. We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. So the high-profile names are taken. That's a _good_ thing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation rather soon, personally. I am now looking into .us to obtain an alter- nate name. It also might be good to begin learning the *number* of the sites you visit as well as their name. It would be good to have as much of this in place as possible as soon as possible (that is, names for your sites with alternate registrars, etc) so that when the real purge gets underway as I believe it will once ICANN has solidified its power and base of operations a bit more most netizens will be able to wave bye-bye to the net as we knew it and continue on with very few interupptions or loss of continuity. PAT] ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: A Way to Harvest Numbers Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:41:16 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I was in the UK recently and saw an advert for a service of the type that would usually be on a premium rate number, but was on an 0870 number. (Calls to such numbers are charged as national calls within the UK and at the normal rate to the UK from elsewhere). This seemed unusual, however I assumed that the service provider received a cut of the termination changes for the calls (as the "free" ISPs in the UK do), and that is how they make their profit. I tried ringing the number, from Ireland, using a pre-paid calling card and received a recorded announcement. This said that the service could not be used on the 0870 number if caller ID was withheld and suggested ringing again without withholding caller ID or ringing a premium rate number to access the service anonymously. I had not withheld caller ID, but it would be unlikely that it would have been delivered on an international call on a pre-paid calling card. I would therefore guess that the real source of income for the service provider may be selling lists of numbers that have called the service for targeted telemarketing. David Charles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 13:28:38 GMT From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Subject: Re: October 1999 Scientific American Report on High Speed Internet Organization: SBC Internet Services Alledgedly jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) said on 02 Oct 1999 in the following: > Still, T1 has traditionally been priced for > commercial voice access, which is much more costly and more than most > people can afford for data access. > Er -- I think that the BSTJ article written by the father of T1 (Dixon > Penick of Bell Labs at the time) will show that T1 was initially > developed for multiplexing voice channels between central offices. And your point was? The original purpose of T1 was to replace analog FDM systems with a digital TDM system for multiplexing calls on a trunk line to reduce the cost of carriage of long-distance service. The main advantage of T1 over FDM was that the line is easily and cheaply repeatered with far less degradation of the signal over distance The reference to "commercial voice access" is aimed at the widespread deployment of tarriffed T1 services to provide digital voice trunks to PBX systems, and more recently digital voice trunks to remote access servers such as the Ascend MAX series. Also the article didn't talk about it, one reason that T1 is so expensive is that it *is* used extensively to carry voice traffic, so the uptime requirement for T1 trunks is very strict indeed -- you wouldn't want a 911 call to be blocked because a T1 trunk dies, now would you? _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 03 Oct 1999 14:37:52 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Penna PUC Examiner Rejects Bell-GTE Merger In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > The Phila Inquirer reported on 10/1 that an examiner for the Penna PUC > rejected the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE because it would neither > boost competition nor reduce phone rates. I thought that the rejection was made by an Administrative Law Judge, and that the PUC does not have to go by his ruling, but they do most of the time, but not all the time. Just look at the overlay A/C rulings in California. I for one as a retired GTE employee don't like the merger. It is not really a merger if you look at it, just a buyout. GTE as a whole is worth a lot more then Bell Atlantic and is a better run company. I for one hope that the FCC kicks it back and other states look at the merger again. I believe that BA will just sell off a majority of GTE operating areas and keep stuff that is near their areas or large areas. I think all they want it the wireless and the in place long distance and internet backbone. If you look in the future the GTE chairman in a few years gets a golden hand shake and BA takes over. It should not effect me other than my stock and it sure is no good for the customer base. BA sucks BIG TIME!!! 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: Javier Henderson Subject: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 02 Oct 1999 23:44:37 -0700 Organization: Completely disorganized Greetings, Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US support pulse dialing? I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... Thanks. -jav ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 14:24:00 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Bill Pfeiffer Memorial Site In case you missed the earlier announcement I sent out, the memorial site for Bill Pfeiffer is now online and accepting visitors at http://bill-pfeiffer.n3.net (or) http://www.airwaves.com ... if you knew Bill personally, or only knew him because of his several efforts to contribute to the net community, you may wish to visit the memorial and share with those who were actually able to attend in person on September 16 in Stanton, MN. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #451 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 3 20:10:42 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA28028; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:10:42 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910040010.UAA28028@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #452 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Oct 99 20:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 452 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Distinctive vs. Selective Ringing (was Phone/Water Meter) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Where is the True Power? (Steven) Re: Where is the True Power? (Greg Skinner) Re: The Bad Witch, ICANN (Steve Winter) Changing Domain Registrars (Terry Knab) Re: 4th Year Project Help (Kenneth A. Becker) Re: It Makes You Think (A Tale of WW2) (Andrew Emmerson) Differences Between Voice, Data, Video, Text and Graphics (marley8384) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (John R. Levine) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Steve Winter) Keystone Telephone (Julian Thomas) Re: Freelancers and Copyrights (Bill Levant) A Page Devoted to Thwarting Third-Voice (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: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 15:12:07 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Distinctive vs. Selective Ringing (was Phone/Water Meter) The subject of 'distinctinve' ringing came up with the 'telemetering' of the water meter via a phone line, and the old 'party lines' was mentioned. Today, telco can have two types of 'distinctive' ringing. One is where you can have two or three unique telephone numbers assigned to the same line. All phones on the line are supposed to ring when any of the phone numbers are called to, and the line is "on-hook". Call Waiting (if also subscribed to on the line) would also work. Each telephone number will have a unique ring-cadence or call-waiting beep sequence, such as a single (long) ring/beep, two (short) rings/beeps per ring-cycle, short-long-short ring/beep per cycle, etc. The other is where you subscribe to a particular service that you control by a *XX code (usually *63 to turn-on the feature or add/modify your list; and *83 to turn-off the feature; the *63 could be rotary/pulse dialed or even touchtoned as 11-63 as well, similarly the *83 could be entered as 11-83). You can set up a list of six/ten/twelve telephone numbers (depending on the capabilities of your central office switch) of particular incoming callers. Whenever a call comes to you from one of these numbers (as long as complete end-to-end SS7 signaling capability is available), your phone will ring in a specific cadence (or call-waiting beep a specific cadence), usually short-long-short. Again all of the phones on the line are supposed to ring. As for _SELECTIVE_ ringing (and the old party-line days), in a two-party system, one customer was wired "tip-to-ground" and the other customer was wired "ring-to-ground" on the loop. When the number of the 'tip-side' customer was dialed, ONLY THEIR phone(s) would ring, while the 'ring-side' customer's phone(s) would remain silent. Another method of providing 'selective' ringing (common in many non-Bell telcos) was to have 'tuned' ringers for party-line combinations of more than two customers. Half of the customers were wired 'tip-to-ground' while the other half of the customers were wired 'ring-to-ground'. Each of the customers on the same half of the party line had 'tuned' ringers, wired only to respond to a particular AC frequency. Most 'default' ringer tunings (as used in Bell territory) was 20-cps, but other ringing AC frequencies could range from 16-Hz to 66-Hz. In most Bell territory, 'multiparty' (4-party, 8-party, 10-or-more party) was provided with a combination of distinctive ringing and selective ringing. Half of the parties were 'ring-to-ground' and the other half of the parties were 'tip-to-ground'. All parties had 20-Hz ringers. Only one-half of the customers' phones would ring on an incoming call to any number on 'their' side of the party-line, while all of the phones on the other side of the party-line remained silent (although you might hear a 'ting' of bell-tap if the electrical balance was 'just right' -- I remember reading one of PAT's replies about the snoopy neighborhood gossips who put their party-line telephone on a metal washtub to amplify any ring-tap of a call to another party on their line!). The way to identify _WHICH_ party was being called on 'that' side of the party line was by a 'distinctive' ringing cadence. There was another way that Bell could provide fully _selective_ ringing on a four-party line, and a more selective way of ringing on eight-party lines, and this further subdivided the party line by two, by using a 'positive' bias vs. a 'negative' bias on the bells in the phones. A four-party line would have: customer-A: 'tip-side' and 'positive ringer bias' cusotmer-B: 'tip-side' and 'negative ringer bias' customer-C: 'ring-side' and 'positive ringer bias' customer-D" 'ring-side' and 'negative ringer bias' An eight party line would add four more parties on to the above set-up, pairing one customer to each of the above. The new 'paired' customers would both have their phones ring if either party was dialed, while all of the other phones would remain silent. The two phones that rang would know which of the two customer was called by a distinctive ringing cadence (one long or two short rings, etc). As for 'telemetering' by phone (water, gas, power, alarm, etc) ... the dial-in in the overnight hours _could_ be done by a 'selective' tip/ring set-up similar to the old party-lines, but most likely is done by a seizing of the line at the central office serving the customer to be 'metered', but with a 'flagging' as to _NOT_ ring the line. The loop would be set to 'answer off-hook' and then make a data connection with a modem in the meter being read. Anyone on the line going off-hook to make an outgoing call would interrupt the data transmission and the data connection would be dropped along with the telephone line connection. That customer can then disconnect and then go back off hook for a real dialtone to make an outgoing call. If the customer is already on a call when the telemetering is to be done, then the line would appear to the central office switch as with a call in progress. Call-waiting on the line has nothing to do with this, since the central office doesn't actually "ring" to the line being 'telemetered', so the line appears 'busy' to the telemetering equipment at the central office. With newer forms of technology out there such as ADSL and ISDN, I personally do _NOT_ like the idea of 'telemetering' via the phone line voice/data channel that _I_ use for my _own_ telephone/fax/data calling. If the utility company wants to 'telemeter' my gas/water/power/etc. usage by 'wire', then let _THEM_ use their own infrastructure they may have in place, or else let _THEM_ pay telco for copper/etc., or else let _THEM_ pay for some more advanced 'add-on' technology (i.e., ADSL) if they want to 'telemeter'. I don't like the idea of some _OTHER_ company making use of the line(s) that _I_ pay telco for _MY_ use. I thought that the days of party-lines were over! And alarm companies and medical-alerting services ("I'm falling and I can't get up") should likewise use separate loops or more advanced (ADSL/ISDN-like) 'add-on' technology to a phone line! 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: When I was about 12 years old I had a friend the same age and we would talk on the phone, in the same kind of language and the same kinds of comments as most kids that age. My family had a single line but his family was on a party-line. We were talking one day when there as a 'click' on the line, and I warned him he had better shut up because 'someone is listening'. His response was, "oh, that's just Mrs. (name). That old witch has been our party- line neighbor for many years. If she does not know everything there is to know about our family by now, I don't see what difference it would make if she listens or not." We waited silently for a couple seconds and then another 'click' and Mrs. Old Witch replaced her receiver. An oddity about party-lines in the days of manual service was that if you lifted the receiver and asked for a number on your party-line, the operator would just say 'the line is busy' without checking further than the usual tip-to-sleeve busy test. The operators did not know who was a party to whom. So you had to say to the operator, 'this is a call on my party line, to (number)' and the operator would have you hang up the receiver then start ringing the number back per the cadence, etc of the other party. After a couple such rings, *then* you went back off hook and waited. Likewise, sometimes kids trying to be funny would ask the operator for their own number, but the operator's response would always be, 'the line is busy'. The payphone in the cafeteria at the school he and I attended had the number 9216, but very few students knew the number. 'Someone' wrote a lewd message on the wall of the phone booth saying 'for a good time, call Mary, phone 9216' with a description of what this fictional Mary-person would do to any guys who came to her home. One of our not-so-bright classmates read the message and decided to call 'Mary'. After a couple seconds he hung up the phone. He waited a couple minutes and tried again. This went on the rest of the lunch hour and then again the next day. Finally he complained to the rest of us that he 'had been trying to call this person named Mary for two days, but the operator kept telling him the line was busy'. I told him Mary must be very popular if she was on the phone all that time talking to losers like himself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:02:12 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer OK, so that's three of us who would like to see a new free TLD. So what does it take to make one? What is the organization that issues/governs the .us, .uk, .de, etc names. US states have them, so you don't have to be a country. The European Union had one when they were little more then a pipe dream. Who do we have to contact and what qualifications do we have to fill to get one of these names into the global system? The technical and logistical details should be trivial. A few name servers and financing/service/equipment donated by people/companies because they believe in the project or just plain want the PR. If the organization was allowed to provide web hosting, dynamic DNS, etc at market rates it could be profitable in its right. What do we do with all the extra money, give it away? And then of course the problem. How do you keep it from becoming commercialized. No corporations? DBAs? One name per person? One name per household? Extended family? First come first serve? Even if John Smith registers TomJones.FREE to run a smear campaign? What are the rules, who makes them, how are they changed? Seems to me this is the problem. Every time you make something idiot proof those damn idiots go and get smarter. I'm quite serious. We need a decent charter and a way to get the TLD accepted into whatever global database is used. There are enough knowledgeable and gifted people out there to do the rest. Steven gds@best.com says: > In article , Steven > wrote: >> People have already built new root servers and they have not been very >> successful. Perhaps Bill Gates could make one and pre configure >> windows/mac to use it, but others would have a bit harder time getting >> people to switch. To be perfectly honest I don't understand why everyone >> hasn't started their own TLDs. I like the idea of a root server revolt, >> but it doesn't seem it would work? > I have never really understood the ORSC approach to new TLDs. They > have the technical knowledge and historical understanding of the > Internet to do this. I believe they could pull this off if they made > a concerted effort to document and promote their service to the > Internet community. > The previous efforts (AlterNIC, eDNS) failed in part because of the > actions of people like Eugene Kashpureff. However, lack of money was > also a factor, as was opposition from other Internet professionals to > a split root. >> One would be much more productive lobbying for a new, free, >> government subsisted TLD for non-commercial use, or at least the >> blessing to organize a non-profit one. > I think this is an excellent idea. .org was originally set aside for > that purpose, but NSI controls it now. They're not going to give it > up; the USG is not going to pry it away from them. It's time to start > from scratch. > gregbo > gds at best.com ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Date: 30 Sep 1999 20:32:01 GMT In article , Pat Townson wrote, in response to Cortland Richmond: : > And anyway, the net is an international, world-wide thing. Why should > people in other countries get stuck with what our politicians here > decide to do? Jon Postel and the IAHC, through the gTLD-MoU, tried to have the IANA functions administered through an intergovernmental body. The USG intervened, at the behest of NSI, ORSC, and other groups that opposed what Postel and company were doing, claiming that they were selling the Internet out to the Europeans, and depriving netizens of their right to choose what type of root service they wanted. Thus, the Green Paper, White Paper, ICANN, etc. The feuding between the warring factions has brought us to the point where politicians and lawyers will now make the decisions. In article , Ted Byfield wrote: > To fight ICANN at the level of official acceptance and integration > of reform is important -- I'd never suggest that people give up that > fight. But I will say that trying to force them to acknowledge and > accept any fundamental innovation (e.g., to accept new gTLDs) is a > waste of time: the only solution could be a sustained grass-roots > effort to acknowledge alternative authorities -- which amounts to no- > thing more than configuring systems to refer to one or two more name- > servers. Someone -- Karl Auerbach from Cisco, I think -- said he'd been > doing so for quite some time, with no problems and much satisfaction. In my opinion, there's nothing at all wrong with this; indeed, the more people point at the alternative roots, the more the new TLDs will "exist", thus presenting attractive alternatives to NSI, its registrars, and any other registry which has some kind of agreement with ICANN. Keep in mind however that not all sysadmins will have the authority to make additions to their root.cache files. People who control their own resources -- independent ISPs, personal sites, and so forth, have this option. Admins at large companies do not. It would require corporate authorization to do this. This is particularly true in the case of ISPs and IAPs that offer service to large numbers of users (e.g. AOL, Mindspring, etc). So the corporations would have to be convinced that these modifications would not upset stability. So the burden is on the advocates of alternate roots to prove to the rest of the Internet community that they can guarantee at least the level of stability we currently have. gds at best.com ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: The Bad Witch ICANN Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 19:39:45 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Judith Oppenheimer spake thusly and wrote: > Revocation. The registrant agrees that Network Solutions shall have the > right in its sole discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise > modify a domain name registration upon thirty (30) calendar days prior > written notice ... That is astounding. How do you spell m o n o p l y? It is actually quite scary, unless of course NS is perpetually run by honest and benevolent souls with impeccable judgment and integrity ... but then, they would be as upset with such a policy ... scary stuff, very scary stuff. Steve (who at least has some of his domains service marked and trade marked.) 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: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Changing Domain Registrars Organization: The Home Office Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 18:52:52 GMT I haven't seen this addressed yet, but is there a process that will allow a person to change their domain registrar away from NSI? (I, for one am *very* disgusted with the way they do business and want to get rid of them.) I haven't seen anything that says such a thing is doable ... thoughts? Terry E. Knab News Administrator Nyx Public Access Unix ------------------------------ From: Kenneth A. Becker Subject: Re: 4th Year Project Help Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 17:58:33 -0400 Organization: Wavestar mmakrzem@my-deja.com wrote: > I'm an Electrical Engineering student at the University of Waterloo. > As a fourth year project I would like to design a tracking system to > find objects. I envision a system with a transmitter and receiver, > where the receiver can gather the distance and direction of the > transmitter from the receiver. > Can anyone here help me get started. I haven't had any Radio theory > courses in school yet so I'm pretty blind in the RF phenomenon. > I will have about eight months to design and build the project with > the help of three other students. I think I'm rather in shock. Here you are: an electrical engineering student at a relatively prestigious school. Presumably in a department of electrical engineering at the same mentioned school. Finally, this department would also presumably be staffed by professors, graduate students, and others who are >>also<< electrical engineers. And you're going to the >>internet<< for a blind question about radio tracking methods? Geez, if said university also has a biology department, there are even people over there who >>use<< such things on random animals they want to track! There are several possibilities here. 1) You're working 'way off campus, and can't get to the campus to bang on some people's doors. 2) The EE Department has been completely taken over by computer engineers who don't know an E-field from an H-field. 3) You've been studying all night and don't have the strength (for the next week) to drag yourself down the road from the dorm to the professors' offices. 4) The professors (or just the professors who know) hate undergraduates. This might actually be possible: I've met a few. But, still .... We'll leave any further reasons to the imagination. However, if you're stuck on the basics, look up the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) website. They sponsor radio tracking events (wild weasels?) where various hams run around trying to DF another ham who has placed him- or herself in a particularly hard to DF location. I suspect that they sell more than one book (probably in the campus library) that describes the basics and how to actually build a DF set or two. Come to think of it, walking into the university library and doing a search on radio tracking might be a useful course of action. I imagine there are journal articles and books that cover the subject in ridiculous detail. Really, I'm sorry if I come off sounding a little acerbic here. But, come on, there's probably more information >>at<< the university on the subject than there is in the entire internet! I mean, people of various stripes have been doing radio location since World War 1! Ken Becker Lucent Technologies ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: It Makes You Think (A Tale of WW2) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 21:33 +0100 (BST) Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk In article , shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote: > One interesting detail was that the the people working with the system > "learned" to understand the inverted speech! Yes, I've heard this too. I've also heard a guy who swore that he could read RTTY transmissions over the air. Andrew Emmerson ------------------------------ From: MARLEY8384@aol.com Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:43:38 EDT Subject: Differences Between Voice, Data, Video, Text and Graphics I was given an assignment yesterday to answer the question, "In a digital world, what are the differences between voice, data, video, text, and graphics?" This paper is to be turned in next Saturday. I have been searching the web for information, but am getting very broad responses. I am very new at these studies and wondered if you could point a new 44 year-old student in the right direction. Thank you for your help. ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 17:58:43 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio The support doesn't require any additional equipment like DTMF does. Around here lines are programmed as combined dial type. This means that the switch will take either pulse or DTMF on all lines. Javier Henderson wrote: > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled > telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival > information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also > given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm > sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? > > I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1999 19:48:30 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? For what it's worth, Vista-United Telephone, the Florida LEC that serves Lake Buena Vista (a/k/a Disney World and adjecent area) and Celebration (Disney's Potempkin village) says in their tarriffs that they support only tone dialing, not pulse. As far as I can tell, they've never supported pulse dialing. The company was set up when Disney World was built about 25 years ago. Before that it was an empty swamp with no telephones, or anything else, at all. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 14:23:18 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: > Maybe not, but I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten > years back making it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer > by using a bogus id. It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly gained access. 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: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Keystone Telephone Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 20:29:58 GMT Anyone have any information on this company? It was one of the last Bell competitors -- operated in Philadelphia, and was absorbed into the Bell System in the late 1940's. I'm curious as to the circum- stances of its demise and assimilation. I can remember seeing in the 1950's a sign outside a building noting the availability of *Bell* Telephone booths inside. Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! An aquarium is just interactive television for cats. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:39:23 EDT Subject: Re: Freelancers and Copyrights > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So what happens to those of us who > rely entirely on freelance contributors? Must I know go and seek > permission from each writer before storing back issues of the Digest > in the archives? What nonsense! PAT] 1) Probably not, at least for myself; I hereby declare the text of all of my postings here (unless otherwise specifically noted) to be in the public domain. Besides, unless I'm missing something, you ALREADY pay your contributors the same amount [nothing] for current publishing rights as you pay for the right to archive [also nothing]. Since you don't pay for contributions in the first place, how can you be "ripping off' your contributors? 2) I think the appeals court decision is nuts ... but take note: it was only a three-judge panel. Only the most significant/important/ interesting cases are heard by the full Court of Appeals. Watch for this one to be reargued before the full circuit court. 3) There's always the US Supreme Court, where (I bet) this one will end up. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 02:47:16 -0400 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: A Page Devoted to Thwarting Third-Voice I don't know if you know about this site, but I suspect many of you will like it: http://www.cse.msu.edu/~bowersj2/ "This is a site quickly put together to act as a clearinghouse for Third Voice combat techniques." Apparently you CAN pretty much keep people from using Third Voice on your site if you are willing to follow the instructions given at this site in case anyone wishes to experiment with it. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #452 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 3 22:28:44 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA03509; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:28:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 22:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910040228.WAA03509@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #453 TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Oct 99 22:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 453 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Jack Decker) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (L. Winson) Re: Changing Domain Registrars (Coredump) Re: Changing Domain Registrars (John R. Levine) Open-Access Forum This Week (Adam M. Gaffin) Re: Help Needed With Old Phone (Keelan Lightfoot) Re: No Address on TELECOM Digest Posts? (Garrett Wollman) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Darryl Smith) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Mark Crispin) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Steve Winter) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Rob Levandowski) 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, 03 Oct 1999 21:04:46 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? On 02 Oct 1999 23:44:37 -0700, Javier Henderson wrote: > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled > telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival > information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also > given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm > sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. Flawed assumption. In Michigan, for example, virtually all of the phone companies (large and small) charge extra for Touch Tone. This charge is something I'd love to see eliminated, especially since Ameritech (the largest phone company in the state) no longer gives new customers (or customers that move, etc.) the right to order service without Touch Tone. Therefore, in Ameritech territory at least, you have some people using rotary dial phones or dial-pulsing phones, but paying the Touch-Tone rate, and then in other cases there are folks who are only paying the rotary dial rate but who have the ability to use Touch Tone because they have "grandfathered" rotary service and either Ameritech is incapable of turning off Touch Tone at the switch (I believe this is true on some percentage of switches), or they simply neglected to. And we are not talking a small chunk of change here, Ameritech charges right around $2.50 per month extra for Touch Tone (I think if Ameritech were a group of doctors, they'd still be using leeches). Speaking of Michigan, I know that the Michigan Telecommunications Act is supposed to come up for a rewrite soon. I had thought it was this year, but then someone said it wouldn't happen until the year 2000 (anyone know for sure)? This (the elimination of a separate charge for Touch Tone) would be one of several consumer-oriented things that they COULD put into the next revision of the act, but probably won't. The thing I would MOST like to see here is an expansion of local calling areas. There has been no new Extended Area Service in Michigan since the 1960's, and I could take you to several places where it is a toll call from one side of the street to another. In one GTE area here, you can drive from one village (Holton) into the next village (Twin Lake) along M-120 (the most direct route), and if you suddenly decide you need to stop and call back to your home in Holton it will be a toll call. But if you keep going for a few more miles down the road (still heading away from Holton), you will be in the Muskegon exchange, and can make local calls to both Holton and Twin Lake from there. The local calling areas in Michigan have NO rhyme or reason to them and in many cases are ridiculously small. It is no wonder that we've had so many area code splits here. But I have just about given up on expecting either the Michigan Public Service Commission or our esteemed lawmakers to actually do anything that will substantially benefit the telephone consumer in this state, such as dropping Touch Tone charges or expanding local calling areas. [Note that if anyone wants to have a discussion about Michigan-specific telephone issues, there is a mailing list available for the purpose at http://www.maillist.net/mi-telecom.html - it's an extremely low traffic list at the moment, but it is available.] > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? At least as long as they need to in order to enable them to charge extra for Touch Tone (note I did not use the word "justify", there is no justification for it!). Jack (make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to send a private reply) ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L.Winson) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 4 Oct 1999 01:09:02 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled > telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival > information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also > given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm > sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. I'm not sure how the tarrifs are nowadays. The touch tone charge is being dropped, but not quite yet. The {Wall Street Journal} reported a while back that a substantial number of people still have traditional rotary phones and service. However, the point of phone mail is well taken. I've converted a number of older people who would otherwise stick with rotary because they got tired of being unable to get through to businesses. (And it seems to me almost every business today is answered by a computer and without touch-tone you're outta luck.) In my area we have compulsory ten digit dialing on all calls, which gets tiring on a regular phone. Adding 1010272 for certain toll calls is even more so. Of course you can get a new phone that switches between pulse and rotary, but that's essentially a pain. The switches are tiny and hard to get to. If you go to the trouble of getting a new phone, you might as well upgrade. ------------------------------ From: coredump@NOxSPAM.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: Changing Domain Registrars Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 00:32:10 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 18:52:52 GMT, tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) wrote: > I haven't seen this addressed yet, but is there a process that will > allow a person to change their domain registrar away from NSI? (I, > for one am *very* disgusted with the way they do business and want to > get rid of them.) > I haven't seen anything that says such a thing is doable ... thoughts? I suggest you contact one of the alternate registars, explain to them that you want to change your registration to them and ask them how you would go about doing it. If it's doable, they should be happy to help. Core coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump Dodging pot-holes on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1999 21:57:48 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Changing Domain Registrars Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I haven't seen this addressed yet, but is there a process that will > allow a person to change their domain registrar away from NSI? Sure. There are several competitive registrars active right now, including register.com and the CORE registrars you can find out about at www.corenic.org. There are a few more including AOL who are authorized to be registrars but haven't actually started. When I registered telecom-digest.com, telecom-digest.net, and telecomdigest.org to forestall a rerun of the telecomdigest.net fiasco, I did it through CORE registrar joker.com in Germany. Their service is good, and they're a lot cheaper than NSI, too. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: world!adamg@uunet.uu.net (Adam M Gaffin) Subject: Open-Access Forum This Week Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:54:29 GMT Organization: The World Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA Top telecom news and features this week from Network World. Note: You no longer have to register to use Network World Fusion. Open-access Face-off: AT&T and GTE Read what James Cicconi, AT&T's executive vice president and general counsel and John Raposa, associate general counsel for GTE, have to say, then jump into our forum with your comments and questions. Cicconi and Raposa will answer you -- and each other -- this week in this threaded discussion. http://www.nwfusion.com/cgi-bin/WebX.cgi?forum-230@@.ee6d7b5 SBC merger support: Grass-roots with a twist Senior Editor David Rohde looks at the Campaign for Telecommunications Access, a group that supports SBC's proposed buyout of Ameritech in filings with the FCC that turns out to be funded largely by, of course, SBC. http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/76998_10-04-1999.html Mariposa scales up voice/data box Users who have considered ATM-based access devices to squeeze voice and data onto a single dedicated access line -- but rejected them because they usually only scale to smaller branch offices -- are getting a new option. http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1999/1004carrier.html Cable & Wireless readies managed VPN service http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/76828_10-04-1999.html HDSL2 could mean cheaper T-1s for you http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/76961_10-04-1999.html MCI/Sprint merger? Wall St. smiles, users frown http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/77027_10-04-1999.html Bell Atlantic expected to win long-distance approval in N.Y. http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/77040_10-04-1999.html Minnesota DSL ruling may be key Upstart DSL service providers are applauding a recent Minnesota decision that could lead to faster provisioning of DSL services. http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1999/77224_10-04-1999.html Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 18:40:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Help Needed With Old Phone From: Keelan Lightfoot Peggy Cannon wrote: > Unfortunately, I'm not even sure where to look for answers. My > questions are, how old is the phone and can I get it to work with my > current phone configuration. I know nothing about phones. On the > bottom of this phone it says Monophone and Automatic<>Electric. It's > an old rotary black phone that has a lock for the handle. I suppose > my description shows you how much I really don't know. It also has > the original cable, with yellow, green and red wires. Can you help > me? What do you mean by 'it has a lock for the handle'? Does this telephone have an octagonal base with a rubber trim around the perimeter of the bottom of the telephone? If it has this, then is probably a model 40. Some model 40's had a chrome handle under the handset, rather than a black handle, and chrome rings around the microphone and earphone caps. I just found a site full of pictures of Monophones ... do any of the telephones on this page: http://home.ici.net/~andhow/ae_desk.html look like the one you have? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will trust that some of our readers > who are familiar with Automatic Electric from the long-ago days will > write you to get more specifics and offer advice. -snip- > If I am correct, > older Automatic Electric phones differed from Bell (Western Electric) > phones in at least one obvious way: with Bell/WECO the finger stop > was mounted firmly at about the four o'clock position and the dial > was thin, black metal. With AECO, the finger stop was closer to the > five o'clock position and itself would slide down a bit to nearly > the six o'clock position when your finger pressed against it. I > believe also the dial was a silver color and it was made of thicker > (in depth) metal. Not completely correct -- In my Monophones (Model 40 & 80), the finger-stop is at the five o'clock position, but it is stationary. The only phones with the moving finger-stop that I know of were those with the dial in the handset (Northern Electric/WE Contrempra, Trimline). The dial mechanism in the model 40 is quite similar to the 80, except that the model 40 uses an interesting mechanism to hold the number card in, and the dial is made out of a punched and pressed sheet of brass. The lower half of the dialing mechanism on the model 40 is a pressed piece of steel, whereas the model 80 uses a die-cast lower half. The regulator mechanism, springs & gears all appear to be interchangable between all AE dials. The dial on my Model 40 is black. The difference between WE and AE dials is quite noticeable -- WE dials make 'gear-sounds' during the wind-up and wind-down, but AE dials only make 'gear-sounds' on the wind down. Also, AE dials whine more during the wind-down. > If you get dial tone after wiring it in the line, > it is possible the modern phone system may understand the pulsing > it gets when you dial a number. No guarentees as to how it will > sound to people when you talk on it or how well you will hear them. > First let's find out if it works at al by attaching it to the phone > wires as described at the junction box in your home. PAT] My Model 40 behaves quite well on my line, but if you open the case up, (at least with my monophone), you have to be careful where you route wires, as they will mess with operation of the bell and dial if the position of the wires are not perfect. It sounds fine on a phone line, and plays well with all the phones it shares it's line with. The earphone and microphone elements are compatible between the 40 and much newer 80, so if you need to replace one, just find a cheap model 80 and use the element from it. - Keelan Lightfoot - http://www.bzzzzzz.com/beehive/keelanl/pbx/ ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: No Address on TELECOM Digest Posts? Date: 4 Oct 1999 01:12:26 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , PAT said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poorly-secured mailing-lists? Well I > hope you were not looking at me when you said that. No, I'm specifically referring to unmoderated mailing-lists which do not take sufficient precautions to ensure that they will not form a conduit for spam. For example: all of the spam which has made it past *my* anti-spam measures over this past weekend got here because I subscribe to which doesn't appear to have any. Most of the spam I get *other than* from a mailing-list comes from address-harvesting Web crawlers. (Aside: Remember when Lycos was run by people who knew Greek? None of this *dog* nonsense ...) Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: Darryl Smith Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:23:47 +1000 Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy G'Day, Here in NSW, Australia one of the local FM stations advertises where speed traps are on the radio every morning. The Police did not like it, but there was nothing they could do about it, which they found when then went to court. In New Zealand there is a case where some people put up a sign in front of a speed trap, saying 'Speed Trap Ahead'. The case was lost by the police when they tried to charge the people who put up the sign. The reasoning was that preventing someone from commiting a crime is not in itself a crime!!! In addition in Australia, one of the radars is in the 10 GHz band. This is actually a secondary allocation. Hams also have this allocation. However all the anti-posession of radar detector laws are state, whereas ham laws are federal, and our constitution says that state laws cannot overule federal laws -- which means I can have in my posession a radar detector, for propergation experiments :-) As for the road toll, in the last 20 years in NSW the road toll has been going down. Something like 10,000 people are now alive because of this. That is 0.2% of the population. The reasons? Random Breath Testing, with penalties to suit. Police targeting speeding. And police targeting people driving more than two hours without a break [ This long weekend they have 'Stop, Revive' survive' stations open with toilets, free coffee and Kit Kats.] We also cannot use cell phones whilst driving over here, without hands free. I have one comment to make here. I have a ham radio in the car, with a foot shitch for the PTT, and a hands free mike. There are times when I have been talking and then realised that I have not been taking much attention to the road ... Darryl Smith, VK2TDS POBox 169 Ingleburn NSW 2565 Australia Mobile Number 0412 929 634 [+61 4 12 929 634 International] ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 10:44:46 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On 30 Sep 1999, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Steven wrote: >> So long as they don't work this deal with other countries then anyone >> can continue to get a foreign license/international license, valid in >> the states, for a very modest fee. > Don't try this at home. Rather, don't try this in the place in which > you live. Generally, if you are a permanent resident (regardless of > whether or not you are a citizen), you must obtain driving privileges > through the local jurisdiction. By the treaty that created the > international license, it isn't valid at home. More importantly, there is no such thing as an "International License". The only thing that exists is an international driving permit, which is a translation of your locally-issued driver's license and which is not valid without your locally-issued driver's license. Basically, it simply tells the police that this foreign-language document you're carrying is a driver's license, and indicates the country that issued it and the details. A US-issued international driving permit is absolutely useless and invalid in the USA. There's two forms of the "international license" scam. In one, they just sell you a international permit and let you find out on your own that it's worthless. In the other, they sell you a foreign license and foreign permit, usually from some banana republic, so it looks legal. However, as you'll discover in prison, the banana republic will tell the US government that they did not issue the license, and that the number comes from stolen blank license stock (more likely, provided by a bribed clerk). By the way, the Drivers License Compact has been around for many years, and is generally A Good Thing. Previously, if you were pulled over for speeding in another state, you were tossed into the slammer until you were brought up to a magistrate and paid the fine. Under the Drivers License Compact, they just give you a ticket and send you on your way. -- 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. ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 21:12:26 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Dana Paxson spake thusly and wrote: > I checked the data on Rochester, New York, (my home area) and > found the same set of traps I've known about for years ... and a few > I didn't. I remember reading somewhere that the police like that web site because drivers slow down in their area. (Thus making the area safer which is their goal.) 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: robl@macwhiz.com (Rob Levandowski) Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Organization: MacWhiz Technologies Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 08:33:04 -0400 In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to dwpaxson@acm.org: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for pointing out that very good > site. Since I do not drive a car -- I don't know how to drive -- that > site was interesting to me but not something I personally would study > in detail as a motorist might do. I think it is too bad that police > have nothing better to do than hide in bushes and give out tickets to > guys for some minor infraction that is legal in the other 49 states, > but illegal in that little town .. it almost reminds me of the way > they handle arrests for having illegal drugs: police get to keep all > the money, the drugs, the automobile and everything else. If illegal > drugs are that bad for the community (I agree they are) then shouldn't > the money and other things of value seized be given to drug rehab > programs and drug education services? Ditto the money the police > get in those speed trap things; the money should go to driver's edu- > cation programs for teenagers instead of into their own coffers. > Otherwise people get the impression there is just a lot of politics > and greed involved. PAT] Pat, You (and interested Digest readers) should check out the book "A Speeder's Guide to Avoiding Tickets," written by retired New York State Trooper James M. Eagan. (ISBN 0380807580) Mr. Eagan's rationale for writing a book that essentially gives people help in exceeding the speed limit without getting a ticket, is that he feels the nature of speed enforcement is hypocritical. If it were about enforcing the law, you'd get pulled over for doing 56 in a 55. Instead, there's a variable "leeway" that is not well defined. It's about the revenue. He has some very good ideas, and most especially, he details what you should do if you see an officer trying to pull you over: turn on your interior lights if it's dark out; wave your right arm to let him know you see him, put on your turn signal indicator; merge right leaving room for his car and understanding that he may be moving much faster than you -- you should speed up if you need to in order to avoid causing the officer to slam on his brakes; slow down gradually, the officer had to move pretty fast to catch up to you, and his brakes are probably already heated up from slowing down for people that didn't get out of the way; make sure you pull off somewhere safe, where the cars can be seen (i.e., not just after the brow of a hill or a corner, not on a bridge, etc.); pull as far off the road as you can; roll down the window well before he gets there; don't root around inside the car before the officer steps up to your window -- wait calmly with your hands on the wheel or in plain sight; don't call the officer "sir" -- it sounds insincere, call them "officer" or better yet, "deputy," "trooper," etc. as appropriate, or best of all, by their rank if you can identify it; if your ID is in the glovebox, leave it open, but if it's in the center console, close it after retrieving your information -- this way the officer can see there's no gun in the glovebox, and not have to worry you're going to grab a gun out of an open center console ... these are the big tips that I remember. The idea is, if you do all the right things, not only will you put the cop at ease, but you may also cause him to come to the conclusion that you are an off-duty cop, and therefore have him let you off easy. Since you never *said* anything about being a cop, it's not imperson- ation. It's just that the average citizen doesn't know how to act during a traffic stop ... Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #453 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 4 17:08:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA11413; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910042108.RAA11413@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #454 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Oct 99 17:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 454 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #202, October 4, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Leonard Erickson) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Joseph T. Adams) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Jeremy Greene) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (The Old Bear) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Dave Garland) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Leonard Erickson) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Bruce Wilson) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (David Charles) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (Alan Fowler) 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, 4 Oct 1999 11:08:20 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #202, October 4, 1999 TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin http://www.angustel.ca Number 202: October 4, 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 Business Services........ http://www.teleglobe.ca/ Telus Communications.................. http://www.telus.com/ TigerTel Services ................. http://www.tigertel.com/ ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Call-Net Chair Slams Crescendo ** Bell Canada to Buy Majority of Aliant Shares ** Payphone Firm Ordered to Stop Misleading Ads ** Bell and Union Settle Pay Equity Fight ** Oil Companies Ban Cellphones at Pumps ** Optel in DSL Joint Venture ** CRTC Reduces Local Loop Service Charges ** Rate Set for Access to Municipal Hydro Poles ** Bell Canada Tests DSL TV Distribution ** Bell Negotiating to Buy Telus Stake in Sympatico ** Three Ontario Exchanges to Get Number Portability ** Teleglobe IDD Rates Deregulated ** Cantel Plans Network Upgrade ** Clearnet Adds 100 Minutes for $5 ** Microcell Adds Time to Prepaid Service ** Further Private-Line Routes Deregulated ** Terms for LD Competition in the North ** Teleglobe Cuts Earnings Forecast ** BCE Emergis Units Sold ** Executive Appointments ** Canquest, Bruce Offer Prepaid Wireless ** Carleton U Opens DSP Lab ** Chandran Heads New Nortel Unit ** Why the Turmoil at Call-Net, Telus? ============================================================ CALL-NET CHAIR SLAMS CRESCENDO: In a letter to shareholders, Lawrence Tapp, Chairman of Call-Net Enterprises, says that the current takeover bid by Crescendo Investments will "promote fire-sale prices" for the company. Crescendo, he says, wants to make a "quick trading profit at the expense of Call-Net long-term shareholders, employees, and customers." (See Telecom Update #201) ** Microcell says that two of its shareholders, Telesystem and Groupe Videotron, are in talks to buy all or part of Call-Net's 11% share in the PCS company. ** Call-Net has named former MCI executive Kevin J. Bennis as Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer, and as President and CEO of Call-Net's U.S. operations. BELL CANADA TO BUY MAJORITY OF ALIANT SHARES: Bell Canada Says it will offer $27 a share to buy up to 15.8 million of The outstanding common shares of Aliant (the company formed by the merger of Bruncor, Island Tel, MTT, and NewTel: see Telecom Update #186), to increase its ownership from 41% to over 51%. Bell will finance the deal, to close by December 31, through a combination of debt and equity to be issued to Bell's shareholders, BCE and Ameritech. PAYPHONE FIRM ORDERED TO STOP MISLEADING ADS: The federal Competition Tribunal has issued an interim order requiring Mississauga-based Universal Payphone Systems to stop using "misleading representations" when promoting its payphone business opportunity. BELL AND UNION SETTLE PAY EQUITY FIGHT: Bell Canada and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union have reached a $59-Million settlement in their five-year-old pay equity dispute, which was due to be heard by the Human Rights Tribunal this fall. In July, the Supreme Court refused to hear Bell's challenge against the Tribunal's authority to hear the case. OIL COMPANIES BAN CELLPHONES AT PUMPS: Despite the absence of any documented problems, Canada's oil companies are urging customers to turn off their mobile telephones while using gas pumps. Imperial Oil (Esso) will post signs at pumps; Petro- Canada, Shell, and Sunoco are advising retailers to tell customers not to use the phones. OPTEL IN DSL JOINT VENTURE: OCI Communications, parent of CLEC Optel Communications, has formed a joint venture with U.S.-based Rhythms NetConnections to offer high-speed DSL Internet access to businesses and service providers across Canada. CRTC REDUCES LOCAL LOOP SERVICE CHARGES: Decision 99-15 reduces telco service charges for each CLEC local loop order in Bell Canada territory from $112.50 to $100 (business) and $50 (residence). In other telco territories the charge drops from $84.50 to $80 (business) and $40 (residence). The business rate applies to apartment buildings. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-15.htm RATE SET FOR ACCESS TO MUNICIPAL HYDRO POLES: The CRTC says it has jurisdiction under the Telecom Act to set the rates which municipal power utilities charge cablecos for renting space on hydro poles, and sets the annual rate at $15.89 per pole. (Decision 99-13) http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-13en.htm BELL CANADA TESTS DSL TV DISTRIBUTION: Bell Canada is using Digital Subscriber Line technology from Waterloo, Ontario- based PixStream in trials which deliver ExpressVu's TV and music channels over standard phone wires in two Toronto apartment buildings. BELL NEGOTIATING TO BUY TELUS STAKE IN SYMPATICO: According to published reports, BCT.Telus is discussing with Bell Canada the possible sale to Bell of its 16.2% stake in MediaLinx Interactive, which owns the Sympatico Web site and brand name. THREE ONTARIO EXCHANGES TO GET NUMBER PORTABILITY: Three additional Ontario exchanges will be equipped for number portability this fall: Stoney Creek (October 28), Aurora (November 10), and Markham (November 10). (See Telecom Update #201) TELEGLOBE IDD RATES DEREGULATED: The CRTC has deregulated Teleglobe's wholesale GlobeaccessTel service and any retail Canada-overseas international direct dial services it may choose to offer. (Decision 99-14) http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-14.htm CANTEL PLANS NETWORK UPGRADE: Rogers Cantel has signed a $500 Million equipment contract with Ericsson Canada. The equipment will be used to upgrade Cantel's network in preparation for next generation wireless data services. CLEARNET ADDS 100 MINUTES FOR $5: Clearnet's PCS service now offers a minimum of 200 minutes (up from 100) of local calling a month on its Talk and Talk-a-Lot plans; the monthly charge is now $5 more. MICROCELL ADDS TIME TO PREPAID SERVICE: Microcell has increased the number of minutes included in its prepaid "Fidomatic" PCS offerings. The company now offers 225 minutes (up from 142) for $50, and 100 minutes (up from 71) for $25. FURTHER PRIVATE LINE ROUTES DEREGULATED: In Order 99-913, the CRTC deregulates additional High Capacity and Digital Data Service interexchange private line services offered by the ex-Stentor telcos. (See Telecom Update #183) http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0913.htm TERMS FOR LD COMPETITION IN THE NORTH: In Public Notice 99- 21, the CRTC opens a proceeding to set the terms and conditions for toll competition in Northwestel territory. The process will include regional consultations and a public hearing, with a decision by the end of 2000. To participate, notify the CRTC by December 15. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-21.htm TELEGLOBE CUTS EARNINGS FORECAST: Teleglobe Inc says its 1999 profit will be US 48 to 50 cents per share, about half of its original estimate. The company cites higher expenses at Excel, reduced revenues from Excel's former business service unit, and reduced margins on international voice traffic. BCE EMERGIS UNITS SOLD: BCE Emergis has sold its TotalNet Internet subsidiary to PSINet, and its sports and leisure division to MicroTempus. Emergis says the divestitures will allow it to focus on e-commerce. BELL SELLS ALARM BUSINESS TO AMERITECH: Bell Canada has sold its Bell Gardium security subsidiary to SecurityLink, a unit of Ameritech. Bell will continue to market security services through its Bell World and Espace Bell stores. CANQUEST, BRUCE OFFER PREPAID WIRELESS: Independent telco Bruce Municipal Telephone Services has contracted with Chatham-based Canquest Communications to offer prepaid cellular in Bruce's operating territory on the eastern shore of Lake Huron. CARLETON U OPENS DSP LAB: Carleton University in Ottawa, in partnership with Nortel Networks and Texas Instruments, has opened a $500,000 Digital Signal Processing laboratory. CHANDRAN HEADS NEW NORTEL UNIT: Nortel Networks has combined wireless, wireline, optical, circuit, and packet capabilities in a new Service Provider and Carrier Group, headed by Nortel Executive VP Clarence Chandran. WHY THE TURMOIL AT CALL-NET, TELUS? Takeover fight at Call-Net; top executives quit at BCT.Telus -- Ian Angus discusses the reasons for the upheaval at two of Canada's major phone companies in the October issue of Telemanagement, available this week. Also in Telemanagement #169: ** Managing Customer E-Mail: Success Secrets of Effective Call Centers ** 17 Contenders to Bid in Canada's First Wireless Auction ** Cisco Unveils IP-Based PBX and ACD Systems To subscribe to Telemanagement call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit the Telemanagement page at http://www.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 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:30:24 PST Organization: Shadownet steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) writes: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: >> Maybe not, but I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten >> years back making it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer >> by using a bogus id. > It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly > gained access. As I recall the wording, the use of a forged ID to get your system to do *anything* (including forward mail you wouldn't otherwise) would fall under the law. But even if I'm right, it's not "showy" enough to interest a federal prosecutor. :-( Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Joseph T. Adams Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: 4 Oct 1999 12:01:05 GMT Organization: Quality Data Division of JTAE Steve Winter wrote: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: >> Maybe not, but I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten >> years back making it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer >> by using a bogus id. > It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly > gained access. They have, albeit indirectly. Only a small bit of access, granted, but stealing just a little bit of money (or time) is still illegal. Joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:48 BST From: Richard@office.mandarin.com (Richard D G Cox) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Reply-To: Richard@office.mandarin.com Organization: Mandarin Technology When shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) originally said: >> I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten years back making >> it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer by using a bogus id steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) replied as follows: > It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly > gained access. The UK Computer Misuse Act quite specifically refers to "modifying the information stored in a computer" rather than just to "access"; clearly sending email does just that, and if the actual SMTP access would have been blocked if the sender had used their real From: ID, then arguably that access might indeed be an offence under UK law. Of course, until such a case is brought and if necessary appealed, nobody will be sure! I should add that the CMA applies regardless of the location from where the access to the computer is obtained. Richard Cox (remove the "office" part of my e-mail address for genuine e-mail only!) ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:48:46 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Javier Henderson wrote in message news:telecom19. 451.10@telecom-digest.org: > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled > telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival > information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also > given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm > sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? > I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... Ha! Tell that to Bell Atlantic. They will still soak you for $4 to have touch tone on a trunk line in Massachusetts. Funny thing is, even if you ask them to remove it, you can still make Touch tone calls. (At least on a DMS switch.) Basically it is a total rip-off. I wonder if BA would qualify for one of those "RICO" prosecutions ... Residential touch-tone was $.98 until the DTE ruled that Bell did not have to pay reciprocal compensation on calls to an ISP served by a CLEC. In a sudden moment of generosity, BA "passed the savings on" and cut the charge in half to $.49. Why does anyone tolerate this? Is this charge supposedly to pay for digital switch upgrades? There haven't been any analog switches in Mass. for a year or two. Haven't the LEC's paid off the costs of installing digital switches by selling Centrex and CLASS services? And doesn't Touch tone use less resources on the switch? On the subject of voicemail systems requiring touch tone: I worked for a company that had a dinky little voice processing system, and it could deceipher pulse signalling just fine. You just couldn't press the * or # keys. -Jeremy ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:57:17 -0400 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Jack Decker writes: > In Michigan, for example, virtually all of the phone > companies (large and small) charge extra for Touch Tone. This charge is > something I'd love to see eliminated, especially since Ameritech (the > largest phone company in the state) no longer gives new customers (or > customers that move, etc.) the right to order service without Touch > Tone. . . . I had the pleasure of working with a regional Internet Service Provider which maintained several thousand POTS lines used for dial-in only to its modems located in dozens of locations. A review of the billing for these lines showed that Bell Atlantic routinely provisioned them to support tone dialing at an additional cost of about one dollar per line per month -- or many, many thousands of dollars per year. Needless to say, Bell Atlantic was reluctant to remove the unordered "feature" and even more reluctant to rebate the sums paid in the past. Of course, if you want a telephone line that just lets you talk digitally to the central office switch with no need for things like AC ring signal voltages, pulse- or tone- conversions, dial-tone generation, analog audio signals to report call progress ("ringing"/ "busy"), etc., you can order an ISDN BRI. But that will cost you a lot more. This seem to follow the same logic as charging higher prices for un-leaded gasoline, non-caloric sweeteners, non-fat foods, etc. I guess the magic of the new economic millenium is that business can charge the customer more for things it doesn't provide. ;) ------------------------------ From: dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) Date: 04 Oct 99 01:22:19 -0600 Subject: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: Wizard Information Jack Decker wrote: > Flawed assumption. In Michigan, for example, virtually all of the > phone companies (large and small) charge extra for Touch Tone. This > charge is something I'd love to see eliminated, Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Until a couple of years ago, USWest in Minnesota charged extra for Touchtone. Then they eliminated the charge, while simultaneously raising the base rate, heralding the change as "a reduction in cost for the majority of subscribers", i.e. people who had been paying $2.50/mo extra for Touchtone. Of course, it was a rate increase for people who hadn't been buying that option. -Dave ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:22:44 PST Organization: Shadownet Javier Henderson writes: > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled > telephone "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival > information, movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also > given that most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm > sure most telephones in use are touch-tone. > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? > I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... On older exchanges, for some years yet. They (probably) aren't yet at the point where they can afford to upset all the "old folks" who still have wired in dial phones. But since pulse dialing definitely uses more resources (in the sense that the dial decoder gear is tied up longer) there *is* some small pressure to get rid of it. I expect that in many places, it'll be done by raising the charge for having pulse dialing supported on your line. And eventually they'll offer some sort of swap deal to get the old phones replaced. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 04 Oct 1999 12:39:55 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? > I'm not sure how the tarrifs are nowadays. The touch tone charge > is being dropped, but not quite yet. The Iowa Utilities Board ordered it dropped in Iowa in about 1987. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:33:32 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I have come across at least two different systems for alarm monitoring or meter reading over a telephone line which should no affect normal operation. I understand that these are both used in some countries in Europe, but I am not sure how widely. The first of these uses an extension of the protocols used to carry caller ID. These extensions allow data to be sent in both directions and to allow operation without a ringing signal. If the user attempts to make a call, the operation of this system is interrupted; I presume that this would also occur for an incoming call. The second sytem uses signals at lower frequencies than the voiceband (below 200 Hz). This system is intended to operate even during during a call without interference in either direction (although I presume it would not function during ringing). David Charles ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 05:45:25 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) wrote: > My only direct experience with one of these setups was when it was > installed at my dad's house; and it may be he had to sign something in > conjunction with that. I know we were told the water company > initiated the call to the box and that we wouldn't be aware of it > happening when it did. The only way I could see that working would be > if some form of distinctive ring, to which the phones or other > connected devices wouldn't respond, were used. Bruce, I'd be more inclined to use an audio frequency tone burst to wake up the water meter and get it to send its data. Regards, ,-._|\ Alan Fowler. (Alan M. Fowler FIEAust CPEng) / Oz \ Mail Address: PO Box 1008G, North Balwyn 3104 Vic, AUSTRALIA. \_,--.x/ Phone: +613-9857-7128 Member, Melbourne PC User Group. v Home page: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/whitethorn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #454 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 4 18:58:23 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA16176; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 18:58:23 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910042258.SAA16176@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #455 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Oct 99 18:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 455 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (The Old Bear) Enonymous Offers Free Online Privacy Protection (Monty Solomon) QWEST Circuit Delivery Failures (Robert Harrold) Re: A Way to Harvest Numbers (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Multiplexing Internal Wiring (ellis@ftel.net) Re: May Your Net Connection Be as Fast as Mine (Kevin DeMartino) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Barry Margolin) Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Changing Domain Registrars (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: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 00:35:53 -0400 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos A high-minded protest: School, others in Lexington protest plan for Microwave Tower in Steeple By Caroline Louise Cole LEXINGTON - On its white and wood shake steeple, there is no visible sign that construction on a controversial microwave antenna project has begun at the Follen Community Church. But on the side of a construction dumpster sitting by the church's driveway someone scrawled an angry message: "Blood money." The message exemplifies the intense animosity the project has engendered, causing some members to leave the church and souring relations between Follen and its neighbors. "The level of anger this has stirred up has just stunned us," said the Reverend Lucinda Duncan, pastor of Follen, a Unitarian Universalist church whose founder was among the first to speak against slavery in the early 19th century. "We can't say enough how sad it is that we have alienated good people who are our friends, neighbors, and church members." Duncan said at least five people have left the church over the antenna issue. And officials of the neighboring Waldorf School reported last week that students from as many as two dozen families would leave the school due to health concerns if the antennas are installed. Using church steeples to hide microwave antennas has become, in recent years, a popular way for church congregations to make easy money and communications companies to site equipment without blemishing the New England landscape. But what started out 21 months ago as a seemingly innocuous revenue- raising endeavor for the 160-year-old congregation has turned into a nightmare for the church and its leaders. It has led to picketing by parents of students from the Waldorf School and people living in the East Lexington community who fear the antennas will create a serious health hazard. It has brought officials of the school to the point of suing the church and the town of Lexington. It has left church leaders powerless to renege on their antenna agreement with Nextel Communications, which refuses to stop the project despite the animosity it has engendered. It has pitted two of the town's most liberal institutions against each other, rattling the peace of what has been a quiet, close-knit section of this historic town. When Nextel approached the church's parish council with an offer to pay $27,600 a year to lease the spire for 20 years, Duncan said the discussion centered on "whether our little church should get involved with big business." The church approved the lease overwhelmingly in April 1998 and then the town followed, granting Nextel a special permit that June. The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired their concerns that their children's health would suffer from microwaves coming from the antennas. "I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health," George Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it inception. Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas "emit a low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, kidney and spleen," and can cause cancer. After these fears were presented to the church leadership, the parish council asked Nextel twice to release it from its 20-year contract. "They told us politely, 'No,'" Duncan said, noting that even in the face of the controversy, a majority of the church's 320 members "are comfortable with the safety of this technology." "But it is important to us to be good neighbors, so on that basis, we asked to be released from the contract," Duncan said, adding that the church "has a high number of physicists, scientists, and engineers who are comfortable with the technology." Patricia McSweeney, a spokeswoman for Nextel, which has a regional office in Lexington, said this week that the company cannot find another suitable location. McSweeney said the vast amount of studies on the emissions that would come from the antennas show there are no hazards. "Nextel would not do anything to endanger the children at Waldorf School," McSweeney said, noting the antennas are focused away from the school. Still the issue has been so divisive, Duncan said, the church's lawyer pored over the contract to see if he could find a loophole that would let the church out of its agreement with Nextel. "He concluded there was no possible way for us to break it and that if we did not honor it, each elected lay officer could be sued individually along with the church," Duncan said. "The idea that the church and our other assets could be lost is too high a price to pay, given the church's heritage." Waldorf School officials say they have not exhausted their legal options and plan to ask a judge to block the project, arguing the building permit was issued illegally. But in the end, they are hoping the church stops the project on its own. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:55:18 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Enonymous Offers Free Online Privacy Protection By Eric Auchard MENLO PARK, Calif. (Reuters) - Online window shopping often comes at a steep price in terms of consumer privacy. Many computer users ignore just how much personal data they give away to marketers when they surf the Web. Setting to build a business out of solving such threats to privacy, Enonymous.com, a closely-held San Diego start-up, Monday plans to unveil a free online privacy utility that protects the identities of shoppers on the Web from marketers. http://news.lycos.com/stories/Technology/Internet/19991003RTNET-INTERNET-PRIVACY.asp [TELECOM Digest Editor's note: Why is this new service any different than what I offer via http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html ? My service offers the same thing, at no charge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Harrold Subject: QWEST Circuit Delivery Failures Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:02:15 -0400 Organization: Epoch Internet Has anyone else had problems with QWest being Extremely late delivering T-1 connections? We have had a circuit on order for over four months now and were wondering if anyone else was encountering the same 'It should be in Next week' stall ... Robert Harrold Mr. Micro Computer Systems root@mrmicro.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:48 BST From: Richard@office.mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: A Way to Harvest Numbers Reply-To: Richard@office.mandarin.com Organization: Mandarin Technology d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) wrote: > I was in the UK recently and saw an advert for a service of the type > that would usually be on a premium rate number, but was on an 0870 > number. Calls to such numbers are charged as national calls within > the UK and at the normal rate to the UK from elsewhere). This seemed > unusual, however I assumed that the service provider received a cut > of the termination charges for the calls (as the "free" ISPs in the > UK do), and that is how they make their profit. There is normally a termination payment to customers receiving calls on UK 087(0) numbers; however in some cases the "payment" is dressed up as a rebate on charges for other telecomms services so that the called party can almost-truthfully claim they are not receiving income from the calls. > I tried ringing the number, from Ireland, using a pre-paid calling card > and received a recorded announcement. This said that the service could > not be used on the 0870 number if caller ID was withheld and suggested > ringing again without withholding caller ID or ringing a premium rate > number to access the service anonymously. There is at least one provider that offers services "of the type that would usually be on a premium rate number" by charging for them on a bill sent directly to the renter of the telephone line. Some of those bills are reported to have a remarkably similar appearance to those sent out by one of the real Telcos - but that's not illegal over here. To do this, such businesses would need to be able to obtain the calling number(s). > I had not withheld caller ID, but it would be unlikely that it would > have been delivered on an international call on a pre-paid calling card. Some calling card routing platforms do send the "number withheld" signal when according to the code of practice, they shouldn't. But as they are no more than re-originators, the number that would otherwise be sent will be that of the platform, not of the caller (the technology they use is similar to that sometimes used in the US for cellular call origination.) > I would therefore guess that the real source of income for the service > provider may be selling lists of numbers that have called the service > for targeted telemarketing. I dread to think what "targeted telemarketing" might take place if linked to *some* of the premium-rate types of calls! But in fact any use of the calling numbers in this way would almost certainly be an offence against the UK's Data Protection Act, and I don't think that is likely to happen. If David Charles would like to mail me directly in total confidence with the numbers concerned (removing the "office" part of my email address) I can then see if any of them match any cases we have on file. Richard Cox ------------------------------ From: ellis@ftel.net Subject: Re: Multiplexing Internal Wiring Date: 4 Oct 1999 17:31:53 GMT Organization: Franklin interNet http://www.franklin.net In article , Linc Madison wrote: > Not in California, it wouldn't. The service is not tariffed or > offered, probably because of concerns over exacerbating the already > horrific numbering crunch. > Maybe after we get settled into thousands-block pooling and other > conservation measures, we might be able to get distinctive ringing. Until I moved last year I certainly had distinctive ringing in California (GTE). Has it been withdrawn? http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/ ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: May Your Net Connection Be as Fast as Mine Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:29:54 -0400 In V19 #448, Jack Decker said: > Well here is a thought for you. Suppose that the government were to > pass a law saying that as of a certain date, no more copper or > aluminum wire could be buried or strung overhead in public > rights-of-way by any utility company EXCEPT for three purposes > (which he lists). Specifically EXCLUDED would be any communications- > related use (except for emergency repair). While I sympathize with Jack's desire to replace copper with fiber, I don't think it's a good idea to engineer telecommunications systems by government mandate. My objections are mainly ideological, but forget about ideology. Mandating fiber as a replacement for copper is unnecessary. Broadband networks are in the process of being developed without any government mandate. In V19 #448, David Devereaux-Weber points out a special report in the October issue of Scientific American on broadband Internet access: > http://www.sciam.com/featarch.html There are basically five ways for implementing broadband Internet access, which I am defining as the ability to handle video streams at a data rate of 1.5 Mb/s or greater. (See my posting in V19 #449.) These five approaches are summarized below. (Note that much of the information listed below came from other sources besides Scientific American, and the conclusions are mine). Asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL): -- With ADSL technology, broadband signals are transmitted over existing phone lines. Data rates of 1.5 Mb/s or greater can be achieved over about 80% of the existing twisted pair lines in the U.S. using ADSL techniques. Hybrid fiber-coax (HFC): -- With HFC, feeder cables between the headend and the distribution nodes are fiber, while the distribution cables from these nodes to the subscribers are coax. In a particular neighborhood, HFC can simultan- eously support broadband Internet access for a limited number of subscribers. Close to 90% of the household in the U.S. are passed by coax cable, although the percentage of households actually subscribing to cable is considerably less. Thus, HFC can potentially provide broadband Internet access for up to 90% of U.S. households. Fixed wireless: -- Systems such as the local multipoint distribution service (LMDS) provide radio links between a node and subscribers within a radius of a few miles. The capacity of the system must be shared among the subscribers within the line of sight of the node, which probably makes this type of system unsuitable for providing broadband access in areas densely populated by subscribers. However, an LMDS type of system can be very useful for extending broadband access into sparsely populated areas, particularly areas where ADSL and HFC are not available. This could be particularly important if the government mandates (God forbid) universal Internet access. Satellite: -- Satellite systems have much bigger footprints than terrestrial radio systems. In a geosynchronous system, where the satellite maintains a fixed position relative to a point on the earth, the footprint can cover most of the continent. This is great for video broadcasting, but not so good for providing broadband Internet access, where the system capacity must be divided up among all the subscribers within the footprint. However, for sparsely populated remote areas with an underdeveloped telecom infrastructure (Siberia, for example), a satellite system may be this best way to provide Internet access. Fiber-to-the-home (FTTH): -- If cost were no object, FTTH would clearly be the way to go. As the article in Scientific American by Paul Shumate points out, fiber costs are coming down. A key factor in reducing fiber costs is the capability of a single fiber to carry many signals. Unlike the case of ADSL where each subscriber has his/her own twisted pair, a fiber can be shared by many subscribers (except for the last 100 feet or so from the curb to the house), similar to the situation with coax cable. ADSL, HFC, and fixed wireless can be viewed as interim solutions on the way to FTTH. I would guess that in the next several years ADSL and HFC will provide 80-90% of the broadband Internet access for fixed (non-mobile) sub- scribers in the U.S., mostly in urban/suburban areas. (I don't want to sound like a chauvinist by focussing on the U.S., but I don't know much about telecom in other countries.) I'm guessing that fixed wireless will pick up the remaining 10-20%, mostly in rural areas. I don't see much of a role for satellite in providing broadband Internet access in the U.S. However, satellite systems can be expected to continue to broadcast video. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 21:06:47 GMT In article , Richard D.G. Cox wrote: > The UK Computer Misuse Act quite specifically refers to "modifying the > information stored in a computer" rather than just to "access"; clearly > sending email does just that, and if the actual SMTP access would have > been blocked if the sender had used their real From: ID, then arguably > that access might indeed be an offence under UK law. Of course, until > such a case is brought and if necessary appealed, nobody will be sure! Generally, fake From addresses have little to do with getting around filters and gaining access (the spammer could easily obtain a new, valid address that's unlikely to be in anyone's filters yet). They're usually used to prevent the spammer from being mail-bombed, both by irate recipients and from the ordinary bounces that will result from all the obsolete addresses in their lists. I think it would be very difficult to get most spamming prosecuted under any of the existing computer misuse or computer trespass laws. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:01:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) wrote: >> Revocation. The registrant agrees that Network Solutions shall have the >> right in its sole discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise >> modify a domain name registration upon thirty (30) calendar days prior >> written notice ... > That is astounding. How do you spell m o n o p l y? > It is actually quite scary, unless of course NSI is perpetually run by > honest and benevolent souls with impeccable judgment and integrity ... > but then, they would be as upset with such a policy ... scary stuff, > very scary stuff. > Steve (who at least has some of his domains service marked and trade > marked.) NSI's policy monopoly has simply been transferred to ICANN; its anti-user contract, cloned via the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Policy and Agreement ... New registrars are only sales reps for NSI, and PR fodder for ICANN ... Your service and trademarks are useless in this arena, since no challenge from another party is needed for your domain names to be "canceled, deleted or transferred" at any registrar's discretion. tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) wrote: > I haven't seen this addressed yet, but is there a process that will > allow a person to change their domain registrar away from NSI? (I, > for one am *very* disgusted with the way they do business and want to > get rid of them.) What's the point? All the new registrars, including Core's, have the same anti-user policies as NSI ... plus you've always been able to transfer your domain name from sales rep to sales rep among the thousands of service companies (ISP's etc.) that sell domain names ... there's no difference now except that registrars -- new sales reps -- have been added ... But you're not moving away from NSI -- it remains the .com registry ... Rather than quibble over details, why don't those of you who DON'T agree that "your domain name can be canceled, deleted or transferred at any time" contact your congressional representatives and complain long and loud till they do something about it ... The coma-like complacency among web site owners, is what's astounding. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, as you know I have banged on some of these same people for a long time now with little or no success in getting them to realize what is happening. All I suspect I have accomplished in many cases is to further jeopardize my own well-being in the process. I do not think appealing to the govern- ment is going to solve things. Remember please that the whole Internet thing has been a thorn in their side for many years now. Many is the congress-critter who has responded in an ignorant way to anything involving the net. All they know, and all they care is that the net -- like everything else -- must be kept under control one way or another lest their own empire come toppling down. And as more and more of the traditional ways in which the masses are controlled, via radio, the print media, etc are losing control, the demands made on the congress-critters from those who count, ie the ones with lots of money, are getting louder and louder. I see the solution -- at least a short term solution, for I do not think the pressure to conform is ever going to lessen on us -- is through the use of so-called 'rogue registrars'; registrars who do not act as sales reps for ICANN/NSI and instead attempt to serve the people of the net. I think we have to encourage and assist them in serving as a 'root'. John Levine mentioned registering a couple of the names used by this site with a registrar in Germany who apparently doesn't follow the 'rules' as closely as others. And being in Germany, I assume they are safely outside the reach of ICANN and the United States government. Ditto with registrars in Canada. I guess what I am saying is we may have to rebuild 'root' from scratch as webmasters begin transitioning from one to the other. I would encourage people to hold registrations with a couple places until it has reached the point that the 'rogue' registrars have pretty much built their databases to the point it does not matter what ICANN and its friends at the Internet ('is for everyone') Society have to say about it any longer. Then dump ICANN/NSI/affiliated registrars and let them just fight and bluster and make threats to each other. If they want to insist they are the 'one, true root' let them go ahead and make that claim. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Changing Domain Registrars Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:08:12 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) spake thusly and wrote: > When I registered telecom-digest.com, telecom-digest.net, and > telecomdigest.org to forestall a rerun of the telecomdigest.net > fiasco, I did it through CORE registrar joker.com in Germany. Their > service is good, and they're a lot cheaper than NSI, too. Are they as reliable and "accepted" as Network Solutions? Would Network Solutions then have to recognize those domains as "taken"? An enquiring mind is a terrible thing ... 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, that is a good point. I wonder what John Levine might have to say about the idea of netizens attempting to transition 'root' away from its present holders and to (what are now thought of as) 'rogue registrars' and what kind of recognition they would receive from the 'establishment'. Maybe John and/or others will comment on the resulting confusion, if any, as the result of 'non-accredited' (by NSI/ICANN standards) doing their thing. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #455 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 5 17:17:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA00467; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:17:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910052117.RAA00467@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #456 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Oct 99 16:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 456 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Keelan Lightfoot) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Ed Ellers) Re: Changing Domain Registrars (John R. Levine) Re: QWEST Circuit Delivery Failures (Brian Iler) Re: UK Free ISP and CLID (John R. Levine) Tech Wanted (billx@bigfoot.com) Long Live the Goal of Access for All of Cleveland Freenet (Ronda Hauben) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Ed Ellers) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (G. Randers-Pehrson) Re: The Bad Witch ICANN (Bill Levant) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal 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, 04 Oct 1999 20:34:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? From: Keelan Lightfoot Javier Henderson wrote: -chop- > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US > support pulse dialing? > I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... I would think that they would support pulse dialing as long as they support POTS service, seeing as pulse dialing requires no additional hardware -- if the exchange can detect an off-hook condition, it should have no problem detecting a pulse. The only overhead required for pulse dialing (I would think) would be in software. (I can't be sure -- I don't know how low-level the software is in a PSTN exchange) In my crusty old PBX (SG-1A), all pulse dialing and off-hook detection is detected by one board -- 'Impulse Analyzer', which Northern Telecom describes as: 'Times on-hook, off-hook, dialing, and flash signals and generates appropriate control signals suitable for use in the system.' Just noticed something -- 'Times on-hook, off-hook, dialing, and **flash** signals' -- a flash is basically a Pulse '1' being dialed. The way I see it, as long as manufacturers of PSTN exchange equipment support 3 way calling, call waiting, etc., they will probably support pulse dialing, and I don't think that they will drop those services any time soon. On another note, I had heard from someone that lives in Edmonton, AB, that after Telus acquired Ed-Tel (I think that was it's name), all their pulse dial phones stopped working. They had to go out and buy 3 *brand new touch tone telephones*. They probably went to a Telus phone-mart too :> I don't want to bash Telus -- they were really nice to me, and a really friendly guy in their repair department was very helpful in unlocking my old rotary payphone, removing the lock, and offering information on the payphone, at no charge :) I guess looking into the obsolete innards of my payphone was a break from staring at the surface-mount/LSI innards of Millenum payphones all the time. I'm not even a Telus customer! :) - Keelan Lightfoot ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:02:34 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio Jeremy Greene wrote: SNIP > Why does anyone tolerate this? Is this charge supposedly to pay for > digital switch upgrades? There haven't been any analog switches in > Mass. for a year or two. Haven't the LEC's paid off the costs of > installing digital switches by selling Centrex and CLASS services? And > doesn't Touch tone use less resources on the switch? No, it takes more. With pulse dialing no additional equipment is needed. With DTMF you need a DTMF receiver. In fact the lack of available DTMF receivers during periods of very heavy usage is often the cause of slow or no dial tone problems. Those with pulse service receive much faster dial tone in this instance because they don't have to wait for a receiver to become available for their call. Leonard Erickson wrote: > But since pulse dialing definitely uses more resources (in the sense > that the dial decoder gear is tied up longer) there *is* some small > pressure to get rid of it. I expect that in many places, it'll be done > by raising the charge for having pulse dialing supported on your line. > And eventually they'll offer some sort of swap deal to get the old > phones replaced. Pulse dialing does not require more switch resources than DTMF. The switch monitors the on hook off hook status of all lines in the switch every few milliseconds regardless of whether the line is in use or idle. Dial pulses are just a series of on hook off hook events which the switch is monitoring for in the first place. DTMF on the other hand requires a DTMF receiver to receive the DTMF tones. Dial pulse does not require any special receiver. In fact in Ohio DTMF lines are programmed as combined dial type instead of tone dialing only. I guess this is just in case you flip the pulse tone switch to pulse by accident, you can still call out. If the line is programmed as DTMF only the switch will ignore dial pulses. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:03:36 -0400 Javier Henderson wrote: > Given our ever-increasing reliance on DTMF-controlled telephone > "things" (banking, voice mail, airline departure/arrival information, > movie tickets, you name it), at least in the US, and also given that > most (all?) telcos don't charge extra for DTMF anymore, I'm sure most > telephones in use are touch-tone. BellSouth, at least in Kentucky, still charges *existing* residential customers $1 less per month if they didn't order Touch-Tone dialing, though it's standard on newly ordered lines. > The question is, for how much longer will CO's in the US support pulse > dialing? > I'm guessing "for a long time", but I'm still curious ... "For a long time" is as good a guess as any. All the analog switches still in use have both pulse and tone support; I suspect it's simply a matter of software ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1999 19:01:35 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Changing Domain Registrars Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> When I registered telecom-digest.com, telecom-digest.net, and >> telecomdigest.org to forestall a rerun of the telecomdigest.net >> fiasco, I did it through CORE registrar joker.com in Germany. Their >> service is good, and they're a lot cheaper than NSI, too. > Are they as reliable and "accepted" as Network Solutions? Would > Network Solutions then have to recognize those domains as "taken"? Well, sure, of course they do. There's a shared registry at whois.crsnic.net and http://www.crsnic.net which lists all domains registered by all registrars. It's run by NSI but it's officially separate from their registrar business. Try these two to see the different registrars I've used: http://www.crsnic.net/cgi-bin/whois?whois_nic=telecom-digest.net http://www.crsnic.net/cgi-bin/whois?whois_nic=telecom-digest.org All domains registered by all registrars go into the same zone files for com/org/net accessible from the standard root servers. They wouldn't be very useful otherwise. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:49:15 -0700 From: Brian Iler Subject: Re: QWEST Circuit Delivery Failures Organization: Western NRG, Inc (805) 658-0800 2 questions come to mind: (1) Where are you located (2) Where is the remote end located (if any) The only time I've ever had problems dropping a T-1 with ANY carrier has been with international circuits. If this was happening to me, I'd find out who the sales rep's boss, and his bosses boss were and start raising hell. Good Luck to ya. Brian A. Iler, CCDA Western NRG, Inc Robert Harrold wrote in message news:telecom19.455.3@telecom-digest.org... > Has anyone else had problems with QWest being Extremely late delivering > T-1 connections? We have had a circuit on order for over four months > now and were wondering if anyone else was encountering the same 'It > should be in Next week' stall ... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1999 20:05:56 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: UK free ISP and CLID Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> ... the service could not be used on the 0870 number if caller ID was >> withheld and suggested ringing again without withholding caller ID or >> ringing a premium rate number to access the service anonymously. >> I would therefore guess that the real source of income for the service >> provider may be selling lists of numbers that have called the service >> for targeted telemarketing. I doubt it's anything that nefarious, particularly since as noted harvesting CLID for telemarketing isn't legal in the UK. Free ISPs either require no registration, or only the skimpiest Hotmail-style registration. They use CLID so they have some idea of who their users are, and particularly so they can ban the numbers of people who've been spamming or otherwise misbehaving. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: billx@bigfoot.com Subject: Tech Wanted Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:40:09 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Cutting edge tech wanted for So. Florida position. Must be experienced on Key, PBX and Voice Mail. Leadership skills required. Call 561 683-0440 and or fax resume 561 683-7985. Ask for Marian. ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet Date: 5 Oct 1999 01:05:27 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu Cleveland Freenet closed on October 1, 1999 The Cleveland Freenet was something very special in the history of the development of the Internet as it made access to the Internet avaialable to all in the community. It made access available to school children in Cleveland as I learned when I gave a talk at a conference in Cleveland in 1988. The teacher introducing me told me how her students loved being online and communicating with other students. It made access available in special new forms. Unsung pioneers like Dr. Bohl of the St. Silicon Sports Medicine Clinic on the Cleveland Freenet would respond to questions from users with sports medicine problems from the earliest days of St. Silicon Hospital till the closing of the Freenet on October 1, 1999. Dr. Bohl would post the questions sent to him as anonymous posts and would provide a helpful response that was available for all who looked in on the clinic newsgroup. One user had an experience where an injury that more than 20 doctors in the Detroit and Ann Arbor areas of Michigan were not able to diagnose and treat was identified by Dr. Bohl. From the email the user wrote to him, he provided information about what the problem was likely to be, along with the proviso that this was general information not a particular diagnosis. Because of his online clinic it was possible to get the needed treatment to cure the injury, and then to even correspond with the doctor via email in an early use of email between patient and doctor. Also all who looked in on the online clinic newsgroup would be able to learn about the nature of sports medicine injuries and the varieties of their treatment from the helpful responses to individual questions posted on the newsgroup. The Freenet made an email mailbox available to each user so they could use and participate in email. Shortly after I signed onto the Cleveland Freenet I had the thrill of receiving a New Year's greeting from a friend in Australia. One of the most important aspects of Cleveland Freenet was when it provided a free and helpful means for its users to explore and to post to Usenet newsgroups. After a post on Freenet I was soon receiving email from numbers of people and also the posts generated interesting and sometimes prolonged discussion. It was only the fact that Cleveland Freenet provided totally free access that made it possible for me to participate in Usenet. And for years afterwards, Cleveland Freenet made it possible to have a connection to Usenet newsgroups. When the green card lawyers wrote their infamous book advising on how to spam the Net, they advised spammers to stay away from the Freenets, warning them of the acceptible use policy of the Freenets which required responsible use from its users. Sometime after I first got onto Cleveland Freenet, a U.S. government official from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) posted requesting input on what users felt should be the role of the U.S. government in providing access to the Internet to citizens. Many people posted their responses. Several people responded that it was important that all have access, as citizens would be empowered by an ability to be online. Again in 1994 the U.S. government, this time via the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), sponsored an online conference requesting input from users about their ideas on providing universal access to the Internet. On Cleveland Freenet this conference was carried as a local newsgroup making it easier to participate than in the mailing list form, as the volume of comments was very great. Learning from the experience of the Cleveland Freenet, Canadian Freenets were started. The Freenet movement in Canada soon became a grassroots movement to make access available to all Canadians. Also Freenets were set up in some in European countries, including Finland and Germany. The development of the Cleveland Freenet provided a model for how the U.S. government could encourage and support a low cost means of access to the Internet for all. The U.S. government has missed this opportunity and both the U.S. government and the people of the U.S. have lost something very important. The notion of a system of computer communications networks making email and Usenet access available to all has provided an inspiring and important goal. The global communications that the Internet makes possible and affordable is a very precious treasure and a signficant new development for our times. The Cleveland Freenet has provided a body of experience showing that such a goal is far from impossible. Those who recognize the importance of this goal need to redouble their efforts to make the vision of all having access to e-mail, Usenet newsgroups and a browser, a reality. A special thank you to all who contributed to make the experience of the Cleveland Freenet such an important one in the development of the Internet. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few days ago I spent some time on the mailing list here, swapping out email addresses for readers who had been at that site to wherever they told me to move them. At one time, I suppose eight or ten years ago, there were quite a few Freenet-type sites around. Are any of them operating any longer? I suppose there is not a lot of room or tolerance for anything like that on the net today, and it is very unfortunate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI Date: 5 Oct 1999 01:20:13 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 12:01:24 -0400, joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com allegedly said: > The coma-like complacency among web site owners, is what's astounding. Many (like me) probably don't think complaining will do any good at all. > is ever going to lessen on us -- is through the use of so-called > 'rogue registrars'; registrars who do not act as sales reps for > ICANN/NSI and instead attempt to serve the people of the net. I > think we have to encourage and assist them in serving as a 'root'. I like that idea, but we need to get the domains into the root nameservers for them to be useful. That'll be tough. North Shore Technologies JustTheNet Dialup Internet Access Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Geauga Co., Lake Co., Portage Co., Lorain Co., OH Nationwide Access coming soon! Watch this space for details or dial 1.888.480.4NET for more info! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There may have to be new root name- servers established, or at least alternate root nameservers. Then it will be a thing where first one nameserver is queried, and if needed, the other nameserver is queried as part of the process of getting from one site to another. Do you remember in the early days of Usenet how things worked? If you wanted to start a newsgroup and went through all the procedures which were involved, including a netwide discussion and voting process, and provided you 'won' the vote, then the newsgroup was installed and automatically carried by every sysadmin at their sites. Regardless of any one admin's personal opinion about the group, the 'gentlemans agreement' was I accept all of your news and you accept all of mine. Your users get the benefit of all my news and my users get the benefit of all your news. And what happened if you lost the vote to establish your newsgroup? Well, you could still start your group if you wished, in the 'alt' hierarchy. But unlike the 'established' and 'respectable' groups in the Usenet hierarchy which were assured installation everywhere once the months of tedious discussion and vote-taking were over with, those people who chose to start a newsgroup as an ALTernate to the estab- lished forums of Usenet could do so anytime. It was as simple as typing a few keystrokes to 'newgroup' yourself on your own news spool at least, but the real job was in convincing other admins to put it on their spools as well. Or if a Usenet group 'xxxx' was already established but you had disagreements with the people there and did not want to stay part of it, then you created 'alt.xxxx' as a place where things would be different. Again, you had to find sympathetic admins to install it as well, otherwise you sat there and talked to yourself. One of the earliest ALTernate (or was it Alter Net?) groups dealt with the topic of sex, and this was because everyone wanted to talk about it, but it was considered unseemly for inclusion on the spools at places where academia was in charge. It just wouldn't do -- never, never do -- to have it on Usenet, you see. So as a result the alt.sex newsgroup was started. Remember how some places would carry all the Usenet groups but refuse to carry any alt. group, because the alt. things did not have the same degree of 'respecta- bility' (to say the least!) as was found in Usenet? Maybe it is time to go that direction again. Read the above and you will see it certainly is not a historical precedent for one group of netizens to go one way, while others go another direction. It took a few years before many/most of the alt groups which were established sort of on-the-fly in the middle or late 1980's got any decent degree of propogation. I think it is time to begin an 'alternative internet' for lack of a better name. Maybe call it 'Peoples Internet' or something, with domain names of the form xxxxxx.ind for 'independent'. Encourage qualified and competent persons to begin registries and to between them maintain a root nameserver, or maybe two nameservers. Encourage admins to edit their configs to query *our* nameservers as well as *ICANN* nameservers. Would all admins do it? Of course not, but I think quite a few would, and more would begin doing it over a period of a few years, particularly when it was not presented to them as an 'either/or' situation, ie. take ours or take theirs but not both. Regards the complaint, 'this would split the net', the same objection was raised with alt years ago, that it would 'split Usenet' and take away participants, etc. What they meant of course was that it would take power away from some of those who controlled Usenet, and anyway, it did no such thing. Most newer netizens have no idea that group names beginning with 'alt' are not part of Usenet. All they know is they are just one more bunch of newsgroups to look at. To them, it is all under the generic name 'news'. I think the same thing would happen now with an alternative root. Those in power would hate it, and insist that it was 'splitting the net'. They would apply heavy pressure whenever possible on admins to not resolve based on the alternate but only upon themselves, just as admins were pressured in some cases years ago to not carry any of the alt groups but only 'pure Usenet'. If they had given in to those demands, they would have not carried comp.dcom.telecom either since this group comes from the INET side of things going back to the early 1980's, but the INETs which were merged in as part of the newsgroup renaming in 1985 were always the favorite children while the ALTs were the black sheep in the family. I would expect propogation to go to hell where any new alternative nameservers was concerned at least for a short time, but somehow the net will survive and by the year 2010 or so, most people will not know the difference once again, and .ind or whatever we chose to call it would be just one more place to go for a good time. But we would have our guidelines and agreements and the other non-aligned sites would have theirs. We'd always have their root as part of the name resolving process and invite them to use ours if they were not too stubborn to do so. Eventually, just as the print media -- our enemies largely by their own choice as they see the handwriting on the wall -- still none the less open their own web sites out of necessity that they stay in the loop, so would the non-aligned registrars and roots start looking to see what we were up to. They'd have to; their users would demand it. Consider how long places like MCI Mail, Compuserve and AOL had their own non-interconnected email. Then they finally got the message in their thick skulls: you *will* interconnect on email and you *will* interconnect on news or you will die ... ditto today my friends; start doing your thing, the others will come around eventually, and the ones who won't -- well, that will be a tragic loss, won't it. Believe me, they'll come around eventually. To close this, how about a couple of trite expressions. 'They' say the hardest step one takes is the first one. 'They' also say that as great as it feels when a cancerous growth has been removed from your body, agreeing to go under the knife to start with is a very scary proposition. And I will say that the day Martin Luther tacked his notice up on the church door was probably not the happiest day in his life either. But sometimes you just have to say 'we are out of here' and go your own direction. Maybe 2000 is the year the net should begin its own reformation. Thanks for reading today! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 21:50:08 -0400 The Old Bear quoted: > The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were > the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors > didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired > their concerns that their children's health would suffer from > microwaves coming from the antennas. > 'I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health,' George > Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said > this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it > inception. > Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas 'emit a > low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, > kidney and spleen,' and can cause cancer." Low frequencies? That would be between 30 and 300 kilohertz. I have an awfully hard time believing that a wireless telephone site would be radiating both LF and microwave energy at the same time. These guys need to get their story straight. ------------------------------ From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 02:00:28 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , steve@sellcom.com wrote: > Glenn Randers-Pehrson spake thusly and wrote: >> All they need to do is to look for a GIF comment that says GifBuilder >> (that's free software, whose author was apparently forced by U-NO-who >> to stop distributing it) or "built with DEMO copy of ..." or "built >> with UNREGISTERED copy of ...". > What about the US flag at www.whitehouse.gov that was created with > unregistered shareware? ;O) The file has no comments, and it has an application extension block that reads "AdobeIR 1.0" which I would presume means that it was built with Adobe Image Ready 1.0, which I believe is LZW-licensed. Whether their copy of ImageReady was actually paid for, there's no way to tell by examining the image file. Obviously it wasn't built with "unregistered shareware" but I suppose it might have been built with pirated software, in which case Unisys wouldn't have gotten its cut. By the way, I have been using that particular image for months as a test case for auto-converting animated GIFs into MNGs with ImageMagick. Glenn Randers-Pehrson PNG/MNG Development Group ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 19:44:01 EDT Subject: Re : The Bad Witch ICANN > How do you spell m o n o p l y? With another "o" after the "p", among other things. Bill P.S. Now you have to stay after the next Digest comes out to bang the erasers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #456 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 5 19:58:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA06796; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:58:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910052358.TAA06796@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #457 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Oct 99 19:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 457 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell-Phone Use Aloft May Not Be Danger That Airlines Claim (Mike Pollock) US West Prepaid Cards, and Other Stuff (Babu Mengelepouti) MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Monty Solomon) MCI/Sprint Merger (David Esan) Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (Bruce Wilson) Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (J. Baptista) Chicago Telephone Co. (Andrew Emmerson) Hard Times For Jeff Slaton and Other Spammers (Babu Mengelepouti) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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: Mike Pollock Subject: Cell-Phone Use Aloft May Not Be The Danger That Airlines Claim Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:09:43 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! By JON G. AUERBACH Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL As anyone who has flown has heard, using a cellular telephone aboard an airplane is dangerous. American Airlines warns passengers that cell phones "may interfere with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems." Similar warnings come from Delta, United and Continental. British Airways links cellular interference to potential problems with compasses and even cabin pressure. What the airlines don't tell passengers is that there is no scientific evidence to support these claims. What concerns there are about cellular phones in airplanes dwell in the realm of anecdote and theory -- and to some extent in that of plain finance. There is money to be earned or lost by cell-phone companies and airlines if cell phones are used in-flight. Battery of Tests A 1996 study commissioned by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration looked at thousands of flight records and failed to find a single instance in which equipment was affected by a wireless phone. The study was conducted by RTCA Inc., a nonprofit organization that sets industry standards for airplane electronics. Plane makers Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie have bombarded their aircraft with cell-phone frequencies and discovered no interference with communication, navigation or other systems. One likely reason that no problems were found: cellular phones don't operate on any of the frequencies used by airplane systems. "The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications systems. Using cell phones aloft on commercial and private aircraft is banned not by the FAA but by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telephone use. In prohibiting airborne use in 1991, the FCC was mainly concerned about cell phones' potential to interfere with ground-to-ground cellular transmission. The FAA has never outlawed cell-phone use in airplanes. But the agency supports the FCC ban "for reasons of potential interference," according to an FAA advisory. Despite the findings of the 1996 RTCA study, the FAA remains concerned about anecdotal evidence of cell-phone interference in flight records, says an FAA spokeswoman. The FAA isn't the only party still concerned. Boeing continues to advise airlines against cell-phone use in the sky. That's because the electrical charge from the batteries in most handsets exceeds the plane maker's standards. Although Boeing's tests have never shown this to be a problem, in theory the electricity emanating from the device could create interference with airplane systems. Economic Incentive The airlines and telecommunications companies also have an economic incentive to keep cell phones turned off in the air. The carriers receive a cut of the revenues from the telephones installed onboard. The two main providers of this air-phone service, GTE Corp. and AT&T Corp., charge about $6 for a one-minute call, more than 20 times typical cell-phone rates. These in-flight telephones also operate on cellular technology -- using a single airplane antenna to which the onboard phones are typically wired. AT&T and GTE, which recently agreed to sell its Airfone service, decline to discuss air-phone financial arrangements, as do several airlines. But Mr. Sheehan says airlines pocket about 15% of all air-phone revenue generated on their planes. GTE declines to discuss Airfone revenues, but analysts estimate the unit's annual revenues at $150 million. Some airlines also restrict cell-phone use on the ground, which isn't covered by the FCC ban, and which the FAA leaves to the airlines' discretion. Mr. Sheehan says he believes air carriers have resisted allowing cell-phone use on the ground because it "detracts from the revenue they get from the air phone." Airlines deny this, and say the bans are for the benefit of the passengers. "We don't believe it's a good safety issue" to allow normal cell phones, says Andy Plews, spokesman for UAL Corp.'s United Airlines. "We'd like people to use the air phones." A Sponge in the Sky The FCC's concern about air-to-ground cellular interference is real enough. From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time; from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once. If allowed, this would limit call capacity, which would mean less revenue, says Howard Sherry, chief wireless scientist at Telcordia Technologies Inc., formerly the research arm of the Baby Bell telephone companies, in Morristown, N.J. The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups. And airborne cellular calls are sometimes free because the signal is moving so fast between cells that the software on the ground has difficulty recording the call, says Bentley Alexander, a senior engineer at AT&T's wireless unit. Jailed in England The FCC says no passengers in the U.S. have been prosecuted for violating its regulation because airlines have diligently enforced the ban. But Neil Whitehouse, a British oil worker, is serving a one-year jail sentence in England for refusing to switch off his cell phone on a 1998 British Airways flight from Spain. Sue Redmond, a British Airways PLC spokeswoman, says Mr. Whitehouse put the plane at risk because cellular phones can disrupt the plane's automatic pilot, cabin-pressure controls -- and "every system that is needed to keep that airplane safe for flying." One expert witness at Mr. Whitehouse's trial was Daniel Hawkes, the head of avionics systems for the Civil Aviation Authority, the British counterpart to the FAA. In a telephone interview, Mr. Hawkes says phones have a "potential for a problem," but he concedes that there is no "hard evidence" of any problems. Still, he says it wouldn't be wise to allow cell phones on airplanes because the constant chatter might annoy other passengers. "You'd probably have more instances of air rage," he says. Indeed, the recent trend by some U.S. airlines to allow cell-phone use in planes parked at the gate coincides with growing passenger frustration with flight delays and poor service. These carriers include Northwest Airlines Corp., United, AMR Corp.'s American and Delta Air Lines Inc. Letting passengers chat on the ground is "good passenger service," says Delta spokesman John Kennedy. The Early Days Cell phones on airplanes first became an issue in the late 1980s. At the time, many wireless devices, including laptop computers and audio-cassette players, were proliferating. The responsibility for setting guidelines fell to the FCC, which has joint jurisdiction with the FAA for regulating wireless use on aircraft. Cellular companies were overwhelmingly opposed to allowing cell phones in the air, but broadly supported their use in aircraft on the ground. At first, the FAA favored banning cell phones at all times. In a 1989 letter to the FCC, the FAA warned that cell-phone use could "significantly increase the risk to aviation safety," whether "operated on the ground or in the air." This position was supported by most of the major airlines. Trans World Airlines Inc. told the FCC that allowing cell-phone use, even on the ground, "could be a detriment to public safety." The cell-phone companies were already on the record as being opposed to in-flight use -- but for different reasons. In a 1988 letter to the FCC, McCaw Cellular Communications Inc. wrote that air use could cause "highly disruptive interference to cellular systems" because of the "greatly increased transmitting range" that cell phones have aloft. Nynex Mobile Communications Co. warned that air use would "likely result in significant interference to other cellular transmission." Debating on the Ground As the FCC continued to mull regulations, cellular companies sought to debunk the FAA's claims of potential cellular interference with critical aircraft systems while the plane is on the ground. McCaw, Motorola Inc. and Alltel Mobile Communications Inc. -- now a unit of Alltel Corp. -- noted the absence of scientific studies to support these claims. If cell phones do truly interfere, Alltel wrote in a 1990 letter to the FCC, "one wonders why problems have not resulted from the widespread use of cellular telephones in airport lobbies, parking lots and other facilities in close proximity to aircraft." McCaw cited the wide use of walkie-talkies by airport employees and ground crews. In 1991, the FAA backed off on ground use, saying airlines and pilots could use their own discretion. Later that year, the FCC passed its regulation banning airborne cellular use. The ban didn't apply to preinstalled air phones. As an integral part of the airplanes, those devices had to undergo strict FAA tests before they were allowed on planes. Those tests showed no problems. As passenger carry-ons, cell phones have never been run through the FAA equipment-testing process. The installed air phones also posed no problems for cell systems on the ground. The outside aircraft antenna that carries the air-phone calls also connects to a ground-based cellular network -- but with cells that are spaced much farther apart to avoid multiple phone-to- ground links. The issue began heating up again in 1992, when Rep. Bob Carr, then a Michigan Congressman, and vice chairman of the Transportation Appropriations subcommittee, asked the FAA for a detailed look at alleged cellular interference. Rep. Carr had been reprimanded by a United flight attendant for using his cell phone while a flight to Chicago was delayed on the ground in Detroit. Mr. Carr, a pilot, says he regularly used his cell phone while flying on commercial planes in the late 1980s. He says he is convinced the airline ban was, and is, "bogus" and not founded in science. The FAA asked RTCA to look into the issue. 'Incident Reports' When anything goes wrong on a flight, pilots or operators are required to file "incident reports," which are collected in a database kept by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. RTCA, which began its study in 1992, sifted through a decade's worth of such incident reports, about 70,000 in all, covering both commercial and private flights. RTCA, formerly called the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, also was given access to confidential reports kept by some airlines in later years. Of 384 incidents that pilots suspected involved electronic interference, RTCA found most were baseless or didn't appear to be related to any electronics. Only ten "had the potential for being interference from electronic devices carried onboard," says Mr. Sheehan. Of those ten, none involved a cell phone. In theory, any device that emits electronic waves -- including laptops, electronic games, pacemakers and hearing aids -- has the potential to cause interference to an airplane. Part of the problem is that airplanes are packed with a huge amount of electronic equipment, from radios and navigational equipment to smoke detectors and in-flight video. These systems can interfere with one another. Moreover, planes in the air are constantly flying through what engineers call a thick electronic soup of emissions from television and radio towers, satellite transmissions and other emitters. This makes pinpointing a single interference event in many cases nearly impossible. Six years ago, Boeing received word that a laptop computer was suspected of shutting off the autopilot system on one of its jets during a commercial flight from London to Paris. The pilot conducted tests by turning the computer on and off, which the airline said again triggered the autopilot error. The airline "felt 100% confident that it was a particular laptop" causing the problem, says Bruce Donham, a senior electromagnetics engineer at Boeing. Boeing sent engineers to Europe, purchased the laptop from the passenger, and tried unsuccessfully to re-create the problem from the same seat and during the exact time of the flight. Later, Boeing arranged to fly the empty plane on the London to Paris route, moving the laptop throughout the aircraft. No interference was discovered. The aircraft maker then brought the laptop back to Seattle and tested it in a Boeing lab. Mr. Donham says the tests showed no correspondence between electronic emissions from the laptop and the autopilot computer. 'No Empirical Data' After its study, RTCA decided to recommend allowing laptops, electronic games and CD players in the air because it couldn't duplicate interference. To be safe, RTCA recommended banning all electronics during critical phases of a flight, which are generally considered to be during takeoff and landing, when a plane is below 10,000 feet. As for cell phones, RTCA's study found "no empirical data" linking their use to safety issues on the ground or in the air. But the RTCA ran out of money and time before it could conduct tests using actual cell phones in various aircraft. So the organization, acting conserva- tively, recommended that cell phones and other so-called intentional transmitters -- such as radio-controlled toys -- be banned in the air. Aircraft makers conducted their own tests for interference as the use of wireless devices grew. Airbus, the No. 2 plane maker, was close to releasing its first fully computerized jet in the mid-1980s. It brought that jet, the A320, to a French Air Force base in Toulon, and parked it within 10 feet of a series of radar beams and electronic transmitters, including ones that simulated cell phones and other wireless devices, says spokesman David Venz. "There was no impact" on aircraft systems, says Mr. Venz. Boeing put its jets through a similar test in 1991, and no interference was found, Boeing says. But when the airlines, concerned about growing cellular use on the ground, came to the company seeking guidance in 1993, Boeing advised them not to allow intentional transmitters, including cell phones, on the ground or during flight. Mr. Donham, the Boeing engineer, says the company adopted a "conservative position" because it didn't know enough to clear them. Boeing kept testing. In 1995, engineers at the aircraft maker conducted a four-hour test on a 737, setting up about 20 cell phones throughout the jet and monitoring the plane's radios, navigational equipment and other controls. A variety of flight conditions were simulated. The results: "Absolutely nothing," says Mr. Donham. Airbus has told airlines it sees no problem with onboard cell-phone use anywhere. "We haven't come up with any indication" that cell phones have "any negative impact," says Mr. Venz, the spokesman. Mr. Donham says Boeing is revising its cell-phone guidelines to suggest use on the ground is now acceptable. But Boeing still advises the airlines against cell-phone use in the air because the devices exceed the company's guidelines for electrical emissions. Mr. Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on many occasions. When asked whether cell phones should be included among the list of devices such as laptop computers that are now permitted above 10,000 feet, he says "that would be OK. It's not a problem." Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:56:47 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: US West prepaid cards, and other stuff... Joseph Singer wrote: > I was told however, that USWest is *not* issuing any more of these > pre-paid debit cards as it was found that their popularity was not > strong enough for them to continue to issue the cards! This seems > like a colossal waste of money to me! I'm sure that the Millenium > instruments are not cheap and for USWest to replace all of their stock > with these phones only to negate one of the benefits of the phones > seems stupid to me. I'd say that part of the problem is that they > didn't promote these new phones' capabilities to people so they never > would buy phone cards. In most of the European cities it's rare to > find a coin operated phone any more because people have gotten used to > using the smart card phones. I really wonder what this is going to mean for laptop users in airports. US Worst has installed many Nortel Millenium phones with data jacks in airports throughout their territory. It's not uncommon in Sea-Tac International Airport and the Portland International Airport to see several people using these jacks simultaneously. The reason that this is important is that the the *only* way to use the data jacks on the "laptop-ready" phones is to pay with a calling card--including one of USWest's prepaid calling cards. Since the cost for 0+-handled local calls is substantially more than the 35 cents for a coin-sent-paid or prepaid-card-sent-paid (?) call, it looks like the refusal by US West to continue issuing their prepaid product does not bode well for laptop users. One thing that I have noticed which is very interesting is that it appears *any* Nortel Millenium phone will accept a prepaid card from *any other* LEC that issues the cards. I have used my US West prepaid cards in BCTel, Bell Canada, and GTE Nortel Millenium phones as well as US West ones. I meant to buy a Bell Canada card when I was in Toronto and test it here, but judging by the behavior of the US West card in other phones, it is likely that it would have worked as well. That could have resulted in a substantial discount for me if I'd bought a card in Canada, based on the currency difference. It does not bode well for US West customers if the prepaid calling cards are discontinued. I just received a billing insert stating that surcharges per call on the US West card were rising to 80 cents to $6.05 (!) per call. When I called US West to clarify what the charge would be for local calls using the calling card, I reached a representative who obviously had little to no knowledge of the calling card product, and when I insisted on speaking to someone who clearly understood how the calling card rates were structured, she simply transferred me back to 1-800-244-1111 (the main customer service number!). It was somewhat fitting that the Muzak-on-hold was a song whose lyrics go "...I'm only human, I'm born to make mistakes." I then called back, and after waiting on hold a long time, was connected to someone who knew to transfer me to the "calling card department." However, the calling card department could not answer my questions about how local calls placed through the 1-800-4USWEST access number were billed. So when I insisted on correct information, they transferred me back to 1-800-244-1111 *sigh*. I think that it will take a complaint with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to get correct information out of them, as usual. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:08:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a deal that would break all corporate buyout records, MCI WorldCom Inc. agreed to buy rival telecommunications company Sprint Corp. for $115 billion, sources close to the deal reported Monday. MCI WorldCom made the offer as BellSouth Corp. made its own eleventh-hour bid for Sprint, the country's third-largest long-distance carrier. The boards of both companies voted to approve the plan Monday, but neither offered any comment on the deal. http://CNN.com/US/9910/05/sprint.mci.01/ ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com Subject: MCI/Sprint Merger Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:52:03 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I was amazed at the size of the merger. 119 billion dollars is one report I read. To put this in perspective I found the following: The Gross Domestic Product (the total market value of all the goods and services produced in a given country in a year) of the US is 8,163 billion dollars. For some other countries we can find: Ukraine - $115 billion Norway - 112 Peru - 110 Romania - 103 Israel - 100 Singapore - 93 Hungary - 75 Kazakstan - 57 It seems to me that MCI could have purchased everything that was built or done in any of these countries for the price of Sprint. It is hard to imagine how much money we are talking about. I had some trouble actually find these statistics. The CIA site had only selected countries. If someone can find (and post) a complete list of GDP's I think it would be informative. David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something else about the deal that interested me was MCI's statement that as the two companies begin to be merged as one over the next year or two, it will allow for a large savings in efforts that are otherwise being duplicated. As I read that, I thought of Sprint's remarkable new corporate head- quarters in the Kansas City area and how because of the huge size of their employee base, they are moving a couple hundred employees at a time into the new center on a weekly basis over the next two years. And I thought there was a lot of money invested in that project. My goodness; so, will MCI locate itself now in the new (not even yet finished!) Sprint world headquarters or will Sprint abandon/cut back on that and gradually get installed in existing MCI facilities? Which name will they keep, or will they continue to use both names or will they come up with a new name entirely? One hundred nineteen billion dollars ! As for me, I'll be quite contented if a couple readers here renew their subscriptions for another year or two and fifty dollars arrives in my post office box this week. That whole thing really does numb the brain, doesn't it ... so where do things go from here? PAT] ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 04 Oct 1999 14:24:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters A second report from earlier this year on the 'Phonemasters': Star-Telegram.Com | News Online Service Provider of Dallas and Fort Worth and the Homepage of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Found at: http://netarrant.net/news/doc/1047/1:ARL52/1:ARL52032599.html Updated: Thursday, Mar. 25, 1999 at 22:25 CST Five hackers, including one from Grand Prairie plead guilty to $1 million phone scam. By Tawnell D. Hobbs Star-Telegram Dallas Bureau DALLAS -- In what FBI officials are calling a historic case, five men, including one from Grand Prairie, have pleaded guilty to an international computer hacking scheme that cost telecommunication companies and their customers more than $1 million. U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins said yesterday that the case is significant because it's the first time FBI agents were able to capture and decipher keystrokes on high-speed analog telephone lines often used by hackers. "The FBI was actually able to see what they typed as they typed it," Coggins said. The retrieved information let the FBI know the hackers' meeting places and places they planned to hack, he said. Calvin "Zibby" Cantrell, 29, of Grand Prairie pleaded guilty to one count of theft and possession of unauthorized calling-card numbers and one count of unauthorized access to telecommunication computer systems. From October 1994 through February 1995, according to court documents, Cantrell used his personal computer to illegally access Sprint computer systems in Dallas and Sacramento, Calif., by using an illegally obtained log-in name and password of a Sprint employee. Hackers usually use "sniffer programs" to get employee log-in and password information, FBI special agent Mike Morris said. The programs copy the first 100 to 300 bytes of computer information, which is usually log-in information, he said. Cantrell then downloaded, transferred and stole thousands of Sprint calling-card numbers, which the hackers commonly referred to as "tobes." In 20 minutes, 82 "tobes" could be downloaded with a computer program one of the hackers created. Cantrell then sold and transferred the calling-card numbers for $2 each. Cantrell's hacking didn't stop with selling stolen calling-card numbers. Court documents show that in 1994 he also hacked into GTE's computer telephone system and created and activated a telephone number for his own use. The number was then forwarded to an AT&T conference center to generate calls to various "900 phone sex" numbers overseas. Documents show that Cantrell was paid $2,200 from a German named "Ike" for generating a volume of calls to his "900 phone sex" numbers. Companies and individuals lost between $1.1 million and $1.5 million, Coggins said. Cantrell faces a possible maximum punishment of 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $500,000. Coggins would not disclose how the FBI found out about the scheme, although he did say that every investigation launched started with a tip. The other men charged were between the ages of 22 and 28 at the time of the crimes. They are Jonathan M. Bosanac of Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.; Corey Lindsley of Portland, Ore.; Thomas Gurtler of Ohio; and Golan Benoni, formerly of San Francisco. The men, including Cantrell, were released on their own recognizance and will face sentencing in Dallas, where the case originated, Coggins said. Tawnell D. Hobbs, (972) 263-4448 (submitted to the Digest by) Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 07:46:01 EDT From: J. Baptista Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters There's one thing I've noticed about hacking that concerns me. Some countries like the U.S. arrest them. Other countries and commercial interests hire them. The question I have is who's going to end up on top? Countries that arrest, or those that hire? Cheers, Joe Baptista Planet Communication & Computing Facility baptista@pccf.net Public Access Internet Research Publisher 1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1999 00:47 BST From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Chicago Telephone Co. Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk Hallo there, I thought you might be able to throw some light on this. The disk shown in the attached picture file (not included in the Digest) looks very old to me. The object -- a celluloid covered disc of aluminium -- appeared recently on eBay and was described as a private telephone permit. I suspect it's what we call a dial dummy -- a circular plate that covers the aperture in a telephone case where a dial would normally go. In case you can't read the writing, it says: PRIVATE TELEPHONE Only for the use of lessee, who has agreed by contract to forbid others using it. SEE DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC TELEPHONE. Always call by number and repeat when requested. Always ring for disconnection. THE NUMBER OF THIS TELEPHONE IS: ----. Report trouble to Chicago Telephone Company, 207 Washington Street, Chicago. CHICAGO TELEPHONE COMPANY From all this, I deduce it was a magneto telephone connected to a non-public exchange that was not a PBX but was happy to connect third parties with one another. It has me beat but perhaps there's a simple explanation. If there is, I'd be delighted to know! Cheers, Andrew Emmerson tel: 01604-844130, international +44 1604-844130 fax: 01604-821647, international +44 1604-821647 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chicago Telephone Company was the predecessor of Illinois Bell. In the early 1920's when AT&T was purchasing every independent phone company it could get its hands on, Chicago Tel was one that it obtained. Like all the acquisitions AT&T made at that time, its name was changed to whatever Bell. The address given of 207 Washington Street then was for many years after that an Illinois Bell central office called 'Franklin' so named because of its location at the intersection of a street by that name. It is directly across the street from 212 (now West) Washington Street which was the Illinois Bell headquarters building for a half-century or so, which had also been the headquarters of Chicago Telephone Company. In the 1920's acquisition by AT&T, nothing changed but the ownership and the name. In the case of the object you mention, which I think dates from maybe 1900-1910, I think all they were trying to say in the writing was that the subscriber probably was paying a flat rate for his service and had to agree not to resell the phone service to anyone else, or give it away. If someone not part of the subscriber's family or company, etc needed to use a phone, they were to look in the phone book for the location of the nearest public phone they could use instead. I am surprised it did not include an admonition against the use of profane language. The Chicago Telephone Company phone directories in the earliest years of this century had an 'Admonition to Subscribers' printed on the cover or the front inside page which asked customers that, "When speaking with our operators, kindly use the same language and courtesy with which you would wish to be addressed. Would you want our operators to respond to you with a curse or profane language when explaining they were unable to connect your call? Please speak to them in the courteous way we instruct them to speak with you." ... it was quite common that if someone had been trying to get through to a number that was constantly busy (train station schedule information, etc) that on hearing the operator's response that 'the line is busy' the customer would cuss at the operator because of it; something like, "g-- da---it, cut in on the line and tell them to can the sh-- and hang up so someone else can get through to them!" The operators had to listen to that all day long from people. How much is the price on e-bay for the item. I'd pay a hundred dollars maybe; those things are all over the place. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 13:44:30 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Hard Times For Jeff Slaton and Other Spammers > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, a few phone calls each day > help keep the spammers away. Dump all over their toll-free numbers > and remind them what happened to Jeff Slaton ... poor Jeff! Is he > around on the net any more at all? I think the day his phone bill > from Southwestern Bell was delivered by Federal Express in a large > cardboard box he just about died and went to spammer's heaven. And > you can make it possible for others to meet the same fate. Please > make your pledges today to eliminate spam on the net. Use our > business directory to get started now. > Background music: "Somewhere, Over the Rainbow" with a picture of > a delivery truck pulling up in front of a spam-hive; delivery person > smiling as he carries a box marked 'AT&T Billing Department' to the > hive and hands it over to the pathetic creature who answers the door. > Caption on screen says, 'netizens made this gift possible'. PAT] Actually, as I recall, Jeff was in Albuquerque, and the local exchange carrier in almost all of New Mexico is US Worst... uh... *cough* ... West. Southwestern Bell territory is not encountered until the next state east, which is Texas. Also, Jeff's toll free service was provided by Allnet, if I recall properly. Allnet is now Frontier (carrier access code 1010444), a particularly litigious carrier who thinks nothing of suing its (former) customers who don't pay up... :) A little bird told me that Jeff's bill was over $100,000 for that month, back when spam was still relatively uncommon, and the wrath of Netizens extended to his toll-free number. His product, if I remember correctly, was a series of perl scripts that would strip email addresses out of newsgroup postings, and dump them into a ready-made format for another of his scripts that he used for spamming. I don't remember what he called it, but it was a name befitting his email address: spamking@marketing.com. Nowadays, of course, long distance is substantially cheaper -- provided that the caller isn't originating from a pay telephone. The 30 cent mandatory compensation paid to payphone owners, however, can actually make such calls much more expensive to the recipient. So I encourage everyone to take the TELECOM Digest Business Directory on the road with them, or on their lunch break. What better thing to do while waiting for an airplane than shop by phone? There are many fine products in the Business Directory, such as web hosting available from 1-800-730-6761. Be sure to keep them on the line until they answer ALL of your questions ("What's a domain name? I have AOL, is FTP part of the AOL program? I want to put my junkyard on the Internet, can you do that?"). And you certainly might want to inquire about a few products like Chinese Aphrodisiacs (1-888-248-1529) on your lunch hour, to spice up your time at home with your partner. Pick a favorite COCOT to make the calls, one owned by a business you like, perhaps. The possibilities are endless. Yes, the volume of toll-free numbers in spam has gone up ... but that just means many more opportunities to spend your free time shopping by phone. And if a few more spammers get their phone bills delivered by UPS in large cardboard boxes, perhaps there will be fewer of them ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Slaton's phone bill was about $100,000 *the first month* ... but because of calls which were billed after the cycle cutoff and people who saw the appeal on the net over the next couple weeks, his two subsequent billings combined totalled about the same amount. By the time it was over with, the total billings were closer to about a quarter-million dollars. Do the math and see how easy it is to cause a phone bill for anyone of that amount ... if one percent of the netizens (how many is that, a hundred thousand?) make two or three calls each which run at minimum 35-40 cents each when payphone surcharge is included, how much are we talking about? What if only two or three percent of the netizens responded? And some netizens, in their zeal and enthusiasm to play the game make dozens of phone calls! Despite the fact that there are more spammers with 800 numbers than ever before and that phone rates are cheaper than ever before, there are also more netizens than ever before ... there is absolutely no reason that any spammer who dares to list an 800 number on the net should not receive at least a $20-30 thousand dollar phone bill within a month. And don't you worry about who actually winds up getting the bill and having to pay it. If some Spamsering Service handles the lines, let *them* sharpen up the axe and go after their users. Your job is to make those monthly billings happen and I am sure Frontier, Sprint and MCI would agree with me -- for once! -- entirely. Although the need is greater than ever before as we begin to discover how many of those pathetic creatures there are, I feel certain netizens will meet the challenge and help science find a cure for spamming. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #457 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 5 20:59:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA09406; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:59:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910060059.UAA09406@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #458 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Oct 99 20:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 458 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (L. Winson) What is the Best NMS for Telecom? (Mike Snyder) First USA On-Line Debiting (Matt Bartlett) Prepaid LD Calling Cards w/Cell Phone? (Frank Prindle) Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Rory Matthews) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (T Pelliccio) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (S. Lichter) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Brad Houser) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (J.F. Mezei) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Steve Winter) Domain Name Seizure Policies (Judith Oppenheimer) Employment Opportunity: Telecom Technician - PBX Programming (D. Shreve) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (Herb Stein) Re: Enonymous Offers Free Online Privacy Protection (Paul Rubin) Problem With a Merlin Legend (Dr. Dialtone) Re: Multiplexing Internal Wiring (Rupa Schomaker) Re: Chicago Telephone Company (wiring65@aol.com) Scanner Segment on NPR (Mike Pollock) 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: 5 Oct 1999 22:48:47 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS MCI and Sprint are merging which will create a huge telecommunications carrier. The spokesman for Sprint said "this is what consumers want -- one stop shopping for all services". Ummm ... wasn't the whole point of the old Bell System divesture -- of which MCI played a big role to make happen -- to eliminate one stop shopping? ABC News quoted Consumers Reports has saying telephone rates have INCREASED by $2 billion for small users, $2-$5 a month, in recent years. Government opposition to this is not expected. We had a working Bell System. The powers that be decided having a single source was not in the public interest and forced it to break up. Now MCI, a direct beneficiary of that breakup, wants to return to the old ways of doing business. Of course, MCI is very much against allowing local Bell companies to offer long distance even though it wants the right to force the local companies to sell it circuits wholesale for it to resell at a profit. IMHO, this is clearly wrong. But can anything be done about it? ------------------------------ From: mike_snyder@hotmail.com (Mike Snyder) Subject: What is the Best NMS for Telecom? Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:33:02 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hello. I work for a CLEC which has the folowing types of Network Elements: SONET ADMs (Fujitsu, Positron & Lucent) SONET DACs (Alcatel & Lucent) Lucent Class 5 switches Newbridge ATM switches Cisco Routers We offer voice, data (Frame rely, raw ATM) Various voice services Access to other LD carries My question is what is the best Network Management System (Manager of MAnagers) out there? I know HP OV OEMF, OSI NEtExpert, Lucent's array of Mgmt products, but what would be the best to manage all these equipment types? Presently, we are upgrading to Lucent's connectvu for the switch config. We use Newbridge's 46020 for the ATM, Ciscsworks for the cisco's and OSI NexExpert for all teh transport gear. I am trying to do a comprehensive analysis to determine the following: 1.) What is considered the best in the telecom industry 2.) What all is available 3.) What functionality does each platform offer. Where can I go to get additional inofrmation. I tried all the big vendor's web pages, but most stuff is marketing hype. I am looking for a NMS which will offer Fault, Configuration and Performance Management in one pacakge ... that is, if one exists. Please help! Any advice/comments will be appreciated. Mike ------------------------------ From: Matt Bartlett Subject: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:23:35 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Last month I made an online payment with FirstUSA credit card. It was in the amount of $157.40. They deducted it automatically from my checking account. I specified it was an one-time only payment. Today, I call up my bank to reconcile my check book, and it is telling me that I had two $25 widthdrawals today. A CSR told me that FirstUSA tried to withdraw the $157.40 twice today. It was already paid last month. When I called FirstUSA today, all the woman would tell me, reading from a script, is "First USA is aware of the problem and is making corrections". She refused to answer if FirstUSA would handle the $50 bounced check fee from my bank. And conviently her supervisor is out at lunch. Anyone else have any problems with online payments with First USA? Matt Bartlett mbartlett@cyberdude.com ------------------------------ From: Frank Prindle Subject: Prepaid LD Calling Cards w/Cell Phone? Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 07:58:54 -0400 I noticed something curious yesterday. If I place an LD call using one of those prepaid calling cards (where you call an 800 number) from a cell-phone, I had always assumed the cell-phone would rack up its usual airtime minutes, and the LD card would deduct the LD minutes. But quite amazingly, the cell-phone minutes don't deduct at all, it's like an airtime-free call. Why would they do this? I only noticed it because the cell-phone is using Mobile Minutes, reading the remaining minutes at the beginning of each call, and I placed two calls in a row. Then I went back and tried it again, and sure enough, no minutes charged! (Note: on regular 800 numbers, the phone definitely deducts minutes.) (Why use an LD calling card with a cell-phone? ... well Mobile Minutes charges $.25/min LD surcharge, while a card (on sale) comes in at about $.11/min.) Frank Prindle prindle@nospamvoicenet.com (sans the nospam) ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:14:34 PDT Hello, I've got a question you guys might be able to help me with. Lately while in telco boxes I've been noticing those little red caps on a few cable pairs, and I'm just curious what exactly they are for. Could they possibly be some kind of test lines, or just important lines you wouldn't want toyed with? I had occasion to plug my handset onto some of these and usually couldn't get a dial tone, though I once got modem noise. Any comments would be appreciated. (By the way I'm down here in Bellsouth territory if that helps any.) Rory C. Matthews ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:56:50 GMT In article , rh120@columbia.edu says: > Cleveland Freenet closed on October 1, 1999 > The Cleveland Freenet was something very special in the history > of the development of the Internet as it made access to the Internet > avaialable to all in the community. > It made access available to school children in Cleveland as I > learned when I gave a talk at a conference in Cleveland in 1988. The > teacher introducing me told me how her students loved being online and > communicating with other students. Go and visit http://www.osfn.org then telnet to osfn.org and setup an account. We're RI's free-net. Word was that Cleveland shut down because of Y2K issues -- we're running identical hardware/software and have taken steps to mitigate any Y2K issues, why they didn't is beyond me. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 05 Oct 1999 22:20:41 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to rh120@columbia.edu: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few days ago I spent some time on the > mailing list here, swapping out email addresses for readers who had > been at that site to wherever they told me to move them. At one time, > I suppose eight or ten years ago, there were quite a few Freenet-type > sites around. Are any of them operating any longer? I suppose there > is not a lot of room or tolerance for anything like that on the net > today, and it is very unfortunate. PAT] There are still lots of Freenets around; many have moved away from the format that started on the Cleveland Freenet which is where I first started via a telnet to get and post to newsgroups. I too was sad to see the net go away, though I did not use it much for reading groups because it was hard to use the interface they were using after I got used to others and was able to better configure to keep out unwanted E-mail. It did teach me alot. I only use AOL though since I'm able to filter out much better here. 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: Brad Houser Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 12:27:05 -0700 Organization: Intel Corporation The Old Bear wrote in message news:telecom19. 454.6@telecom-digest.org: > This seem to follow the same logic as charging higher prices for > un-leaded gasoline, non-caloric sweeteners, non-fat foods, etc. You are assuming that the stuff was never there to begin with. Your logic makes sense if in the example of "batteries not included", but clearly it costs more to take the fat out. > I guess the magic of the new economic millenium is that business can > charge the customer more for things it doesn't provide. ;) As long as someone is willing to pay for it. This is not new, it is classic supply and demand. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:00:32 GMT In article , ed_ellers@email.msn.com says: > "For a long time" is as good a guess as any. All the analog switches > still in use have both pulse and tone support; I suspect it's simply a > matter of software Even the digital switches will accept pulse well into the future. I know that our DMS-100 accepts pulse and tone on my line and at work the 5ESS- 2000 accepts pulse/tone too. Pulse dialing is inherent to any local loop. Digital loops are another story. As a curious side note I've got a Samsung DCS PBX in my office that translates pulsed digits to DTMF. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:22:29 -0400 In Bell-Canada (Quebec) territory, DTMF has been mandatory for a number of years, but they still charge for it. Only existing rotary customers are allowed to continue. For three lines, I get charged (CAD) $7.65 which translates to $2.55 per line per month. This is on top of the $17.43 per line I pay for basic phone service. I end up paying 81.21 for three lines (two basic lines and one with all features). OK, lets be the devil's advocate: It is exactly because a touch tone line allows you to access plenty of new services that the telcos think that they should charge you more for it :-) :-) :-) In the past, I understand that telcos had to spend more for provision of DTMF and hence charge extra. But now that this is reversed with DTMF standard and rotary requiring more logic/hardware, I wonder if a legal/regulatory action might now force the telcos to change their policies that charge for for DTMF. How much revenue do they stand to lose? ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 00:58:24 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Judith Oppenheimer spake thusly and wrote: > Rather than quibble over details, why don't those of you who DON'T > agree that "your domain name can be canceled, deleted or transferred > at any time" contact your congressional representatives and complain > long and loud till they do something about it ... You raise chilling and unrefutable points. But do you really trust the gummit more than NSI. Man, this just gets scarier and scarier ... Has the phrase, "between a rock and a hard place" already entered your mind? You sure know how to bring out the pessimist in this guy ... Steve (wishing he had something positive to suggest) 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:07:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Domain Name Seizure Policies Pat, you noted in a recent posting that a registrar in Germany you'd used didn't have the seizure policy in its contracts, and that perhaps registrars outside of the U.S. would be a good alternative to the problematic U.S.-based registrars ... I don't know about the particular German registrar you used, but below is a list of ICANN accredited registrars (some not yet operational), all of whom are required by the ICANN Accreditation Policy to have the seizure language in their contracts: France Telecom/Oleane (France) interQ Incorporated (Japan) Melbourne IT (Australia) Active ISP (Norway) Domain Direct (Canada) EPAG Enter-Price Multimedia AG (Germany) GANDI (France) InterNeXt, Inc. (France) NetBenefit (United Kingdom) NetNation Communications, Inc. (Canada) Nominalia (Spain) Port Information System AB (Sweden) PSI-Japan (Japan) TotalWeb Solutions (United Kingdom) Virtual Internet (United Kingdom) World-Net (France) Of the operational outside-U.S. registrars, Melbourne IT's site is in English. Its policies on com.au names http://www.ina.com.au/policy/policyfr.html) is even more restrictive than its policies on .com, although bottom line, they reserve the right to revoke your domain name at their discretion. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:56:14 -0700 From: d_shreve@DELETEnvbell.net (Dennis L. Shreve) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Technician - PBX Programming Organization: CustomTelecom & Computing Telecommunications Technician - PBX Programming Part time dial in remote programming of Siemens/Rolm Saturn 2E and D9200 Telecom switches. 3-5 years MAC and NOM experience. Certifications and voice mail a plus. No travel. Immediate 20-30 hrs. + sporadic yet ongoing tasks. Dennis L. Shreve Custom Telecom & Computing 775.677.0887 ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 04:23:57 GMT In article , blw1540@aol. comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) wrote: >> Can anyone explain how this might work? > Are you familiar with "distinctive" or "custom" ring service? It's > like a throwback to party line days, when the individual subscribers > on the line each had different ring patterns, but phones these days > won't recognize and accept anything but a standard ring pattern, so > only a device connected to the line that does will respond when a > nonstandard ring's sent over the line. That's why the water company's > device will respond when called by the water company but your phones > don't ring. Someone better explain that to my phones then. All of them cheerfully ring at the different ringing cadences when the appropriate number is called SBC here is Missouri calls it Distinctive Ringing I believe. The FAX modem, of course, has no trouble with it either. I suspect that there is a slightly different technology at work here but have no idea what it is. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Subject: Re: Enonymous Offers Free Online Privacy Protection Date: 5 Oct 1999 06:49:49 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Monty Solomon : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's note: Why is this new service any different > than what I offer via http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html ? > My service offers the same thing, at no charge. PAT] The new service (according to the news article) stores your personal info in client side files, and fills in shopping forms automatically. I haven't tried it out yet but will do so soon. ------------------------------ From: Dr. Dialtone Subject: Problem With a Merlin Legend Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 06:34:36 -0400 I have an unusual problem with a Merlin Legend 2.1 v4. When attempting to dial out on an outside trunk by dialing 9. 3 BIS 10's out of 49 sets respond with a reorder tone. I do hear the second dialtone but any digits dialed after that is followed by a reorder tone. I have checked the station translations and compared it with the functioning sets and can't find anything different. I have checked ARC, Restrictions and disallow list and can't find anything that would cause this problem. Has anyone on the list encountered this type of problem? I contacted Lucent and they were stumped. Thanks for your response! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Multiplexing Internal Wiring From: Rupa Schomaker Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:06:09 GMT Organization: @Home Network ellis@ftel.net writes: > In article , Linc Madison > wrote: >> Not in California, it wouldn't. The service is not tariffed or >> offered, probably because of concerns over exacerbating the already >> horrific numbering crunch. >> Maybe after we get settled into thousands-block pooling and other >> conservation measures, we might be able to get distinctive ringing. > Until I moved last year I certainly had distinctive ringing in > California (GTE). Has it been withdrawn? I just received a flyer in my GTE phone bill that offered distinctive ringing as a service. I don't think that PacBell offers it though. -rupa ------------------------------ From: wiring65@aol.com (Wiring65) Date: 06 Oct 1999 00:15:02 GMT Subject: Re: Chicago Telephone Co. I believe that the current address to which you have referred is Ameritech's downtown Chicago office. > Report trouble to Chicago Telephone Company, 207 Washington Street, > Chicago. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is an Ameritech (nee Illinois Bell) office, but not the headquarters or 'downtown Chicago' office. That is across the street. '207' is an odd number; it is on the south side of the street; it is (or was, whatever) the 'Chicago-Franklin' central office, also in past lives the 'Franklin Coin Office' (for payphones in the downtown area). What you term the 'downtown Chicago office' which used to also be the headquarters for Ameritech/Illinois Bell was at '212' on the *north* side of the street and occupying almost the entire city block. Since it occupies nearly the entire block and part of the lobby now used for the main entrance is on the other end of the building, they refer to it as 225 West Randolph Street, in other words the south side of the next street north. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Scanner Segment on NPR Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:26:04 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! On 3 October the "This American Life" program on National Public Radio featured a segment on scanning and scannists, including cordless and cell phone monitoring. Click here for the description: http://www.thislife.org/pages/archive99.html#141 and here for the audio: http://www.thislife.org/ra/141.ram Mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #458 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 6 03:10:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA23751; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 03:10:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910060710.DAA23751@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #459 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Oct 99 03:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 459 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (satch@concentric.net) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Terry Kennedy) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Truman Boyes) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Herb Stein) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Heywood Jaiblomi) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Jeremy Greene) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Herb Stein) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Tad Cook) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Greg Skinner) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (Brian Roy) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (J. Singer) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (Gary Novosielski) Question on GR303 via ATM (Paul Eskola) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bruce Wilson) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Charlie Cremer) Last Laff: End of the Century (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 05:46:47 GMT From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly rorymath@hotmail.com (Rory Matthews) said on 05 Oct 1999 in the following: > I've got a question you guys might be able to help me with. > Lately while in telco boxes I've been noticing those little red caps > on a few cable pairs, and I'm just curious what exactly they are for. > Could they possibly be some kind of test lines, or just important > lines you wouldn't want toyed with? I had occasion to plug my handset > onto some of these and usually couldn't get a dial tone, though I once > got modem noise. Any comments would be appreciated. (By the way I'm > down here in Bellsouth territory if that helps any.) Interesting. Back in my days as a broadcast engineer, we radio guys were told that red caps were used to mark priority circuits. In our case, we had four circuits that were marked priority from our Stereo FM studios to our transmitter site: * Our three STL circuits (two live, one standby) * Our transmitter remote control circuit That didn't stop a phone installer from pulling the STL one day. In the studio, we heard through the right channel "Bob? Hey, Bob? Can you hear me over this f**king pair, Bob?" We had to patch the standby STL circuit in to get our right channel feed back. We also had to send a report to the Common Carrier Bureau about the language that made it through our transmitter, and the "steps we took to prevent it from happening again." Fortunately the field engineer who took our report was amused, and we dodged the $5K pink slip for profanity. How about the day the PBX installer shorted our remote control line? Twenty seconds after he did that, the transmitter dumped off the air. The equalizer coupler on the stand-by STL line didn't like the DC pulsing our remote control did, so we had to station someone at the transmitter until Illinois Bell could find and fix the short. Those red caps worked ... most of the time. _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:32:20 GMT Rory Matthews writes: > I've got a question you guys might be able to help me with. > Lately while in telco boxes I've been noticing those little red caps > on a few cable pairs, and I'm just curious what exactly they are for. > Could they possibly be some kind of test lines, or just important > lines you wouldn't want toyed with? I had occasion to plug my handset > onto some of these and usually couldn't get a dial tone, though I once > got modem noise. Any comments would be appreciated. (By the way I'm > down here in Bellsouth territory if that helps any.) Do they still do that? Red caps/strips indicated Special Safeguarding Measures (SSM) circuits. I have a Bell poster titled "Who turned out the lights?" which depicts a craftsperson shorting a pair of protector terminals, and the path that that pair took all the way back to the generating station. Black caps indicated SSP circuits. I suppose these days the telco uses red caps for all specials. Be careful clipping on those - some of them have really nasty voltages on them. A real copper T1 can have simplex power of +/- 130V or so, and I once experienced a 10 POTS line on 2 pair box that used +/- 300V simplex power. Not to mention you can seriously annoy the people who are using those circuits (a non "data safe" butt set will cause hits on the line even in monitor mode, and going to talk mode will definitely clobber the circuit). Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Truman Boyes Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 23:06:58 EDT Organization: SuperLink Internet Services (732) 432-5454 We usually get these put on our copper T1's, when pulled from the 21x. This can be helpful is keeping people from pulling those pairs when looking for available POTS lines. .truman.boyes. ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 03:27:03 GMT They're marking pairs that we don't want to mess with. Could be ISDN, T1 etc. Any kind of, what the phone company refers to as, special circuits. You likely annoyed someone with your handset. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 03:45:01 GMT Organization: Uncle Heywood's Trousers of Fun In Bell Canada territory, the red caps indicate "special services" lines which range from broadcast to OPX and data lines. You can't be first... But you could be next! Ask for details ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:48:34 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. "...while in telco boxes..." - you mean the green cabinets along the side of the road, with the Bell logo on them? I don't think those were intended for public access... ;-) Red caps are used on terminal blocks to cover digital pairs, such as a T1 circuit. There are various other ways of flagging the pairs, but I assume the red caps are there to keep you from frying your brains out on the 100V+ that a T1 span carries. I once discovered this as I tried to push the red caps back onto a live circuit. (Actually it was an HDSL circuit ... I don't know if that runs at a different voltage than T1.) It was not pleasant. Plugging your handset into these is probably a bad idea, unless the handset was designed to do so. -Jeremy ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 03:08:09 GMT What we have here is a failure to communicate. There is no, as in NONE, evidence that RF is an issue. We have a witch hunt going on. Eastman is an idiot.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHwrong. In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > The Old Bear quoted: >> The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were >> the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors >> didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired >> their concerns that their children's health would suffer from >> microwaves coming from the antennas. >> 'I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health,' George >> Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said >> this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it >> inception. >> Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas 'emit a >> low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, >> kidney and spleen,' and can cause cancer." > Low frequencies? That would be between 30 and 300 kilohertz. I have > an awfully hard time believing that a wireless telephone site would be > radiating both LF and microwave energy at the same time. > These guys need to get their story straight. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 21:53:03 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Ed Ellers wrote: > The Old Bear quoted: >> The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were >> the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors >> didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired >> their concerns that their children's health would suffer from >> microwaves coming from the antennas. >> 'I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health,' George >> Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said >> this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it >> inception. >> Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas 'emit a >> low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, >> kidney and spleen,' and can cause cancer." > Low frequencies? That would be between 30 and 300 kilohertz. I have > an awfully hard time believing that a wireless telephone site would be > radiating both LF and microwave energy at the same time. > These guys need to get their story straight. Not surprising. Remember that the Unitarian congregation that owns the church is made up of a lot of "physicists, scientists, and engineers who are comfortable with the technology." The Waldorf School was founded by Rudolph Steiner, who taught that all matter is made up of four elements: Earth, Water, Fire and Air. No wonder the Waldorf folks reaction to the cell site is so superstitious. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ------------------------------ From: Greg Skinner Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Date: 06 Oct 1999 01:07:44 GMT I am not so sure more TLDs (alternative or not) will really solve the problem. For TLDs to be effective businesses, they will have to compete in price with the established registries. So domain registration will be cheap. For large businesses, and many small ones, registering in lots of TLDs will be a drop in the bucket. A worthwhile investment in protecting their intellectual property. Also, there will be little disincentive for cybersquatters to register in multiple TLDs, hoping that someone will come along and want to spend big bucks for them. You could make the argument that if you create enough TLDs, you create a disincentive for multiple registrations. However, there have been studies done by the IAB that suggest that DNS will not scale on a system-wide basis on the order of thousands of TLDs. (Granted, there is some difference of opinion on the limit.) gds at best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why do you persist in talking in terms of 'effective business'? You have said similar things in other messages here in the past. I will repeat again, I am *not* interested in just one more registrar with a TLD making millions of dollars at the expense of the net, and its primary, principal users, individual, private citizens. I want a TLD and a registrar (or two or three) who maintain it in a responsible way according to community wishes. I expect them to be not-for-profit 'utility' functions or services. I expect them to maintain a root name server for it. If you already have a domain name elsewhere, then you do not need one in the new TLD I propose, and registrars would attempt to discourage multiple placements like that. Don't worry, if we want to visit your site we will query the name server which covers you, presuming we do not already have it in the name server for the new TLD I propose. If you want to come and visit a site on this TLD, all you have to do is query your name server, and if the people who operate your name server refuse to query us then that is between you and them to argue over. If on the other hand you wish to completely drop your .com .org or .net name and take a new name in the new TLD I propose -- even your existing name if it is available -- *and follow our rules, which I assure you will be considerably less oppressive than what you are dealing with now* -- then you are welcome to do that. In other words, Greg, I am proposing that beginning as soon as possi- ble, and continuing over the next two or three years that we build an alternate root from scratch, maintain it with ethical and honest registrars and technical people, send all queries first *to our own root to be resolved* and then to the other root if necessary for resolution. The managers of other top level domains -- and you know who I mean! -- would be perfectly free to query our root name server also if they were not too pig-headed and stubborn to do so, or thought they could lock us out with some sort of power play. I am not trying to run a business here; I am talking about a service for the net where small, individual web site owners -- people like myself for example -- don't have to worry about having their domain name ripped off and being silenced because ICANN happens to take a dislike to them or some mega-giant corporation decides they need the name instead, which is the way it is set up now. *Must I* ask Judith to post those oppressive rules here all over again? I hope not! PAT] ------------------------------ From: briroy@gcfn.org (Brian C Roy) Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet Date: 5 Oct 1999 23:59:54 -0400 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few days ago I spent some time on the >> mailing list here, swapping out email addresses for readers who had >> been at that site to wherever they told me to move them. At one time, >> I suppose eight or ten years ago, there were quite a few Freenet-type >> sites around. Are any of them operating any longer? I suppose there >> is not a lot of room or tolerance for anything like that on the net >> today, and it is very unfortunate. PAT] I'm happy to report that the Greater Columbus Freenet is still alive and well, and still using pretty much the same(gopher) format they started with. They've just recently started offering PPP connections ( for a fee) to help support the free part of the system. I read news on this system, and use it for my primary email, because I actually LIKE using pine for mail and tin for news. Brian Roy KB8TEY briroy@freenet.columbus.oh.us OR briroy@gcfn.org ------------------------------ Reply-To: dov@oz.net Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:25:36 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet PAT wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few days ago I spent some time on the > mailing list here, swapping out email addresses for readers who had > been at that site to wherever they told me to move them. At one time, > I suppose eight or ten years ago, there were quite a few Freenet-type > sites around. Are any of them operating any longer? I suppose there > is not a lot of room or tolerance for anything like that on the net > today, and it is very unfortunate. PAT] I got my internet feet wet with a "freenet" here in Seattle through the Seattle Community Network. There are still a number of freenets available including the Seattle Community Network, Tri-cities (Washington) freenet, Eugene Free Net, Vancouver (BC) Community Net, Victoria Free-Net, TINCAN in Spokane, Washington, Aztec Arizona Telecommunications Community, Chebucto Community Net (Halifax), DANEnet (Dane County, Wisconsin), Greater Detroit freenet, Edmonton Freenet, Genessee Freenet, Los Angeles Freenet, National Capital Freenet (Ottawa), Nyx (Denver), Prairie Net (Champagne-Urbana), Toronto Freenet and Twin Cities Freenet (Minneapolis/St. Paul) and probably others that I don't know. AOL may have the greater exposure, but there are still lots of people who use the freenets for one reason or another. Also, these freenets are a real community and people really care about their community. Joseph (formerly and still jsinger@scn.org) Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:24:35 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter I just had one of these gadgets installed today. My water company calls the system "HOMER" for Hands-Off MEter Reading. (But wasn't the old way "hands-off" too?). It's connected at one end to the water meter with a three-wire cable, and at the other end to a normal RJ-11 phone jack. Actually, this is the second attempt at installing it. They tried once a few years ago, but were unable to get the thing to function. Watching their debugging attempts, I learned a little about the device. PAT's description of the protocol is exactly right, it uses the telco's "line test" functions. No ringing voltage of any kind is used, distinctive, selective, or otherwise. The phone never rings or tries to. What happens is that the line appears to go "off hook" but it is done from the telco side. Inbound callers would surely get a busy signal. The reason it wouldn't function at my house is that I had a gadget on the line that interfered with it. "It was a Radio Shack Hold Module", a device that would attach to the phone line at any jack, and let you put any extension on hold by flashing the hookswitch twice, so that you could then pick up the call at another extension. The water company installer(s) couldn't figure out the problem at first, so they threw a butt set and voltmeter on the line and listened in as someone at the telco (or maybe "watco") test desk initiated a polling cycle to my meter. When the "HOMER" system dropped the line voltage, my Radio Shack gizmo would respond by going off-hook itself for a second. The HOMER system thought this was someone lifting a phone in the house, and it aborted the test. When I disconnected the hold module, the trouble cleared up. When it was working right, line voltage dropped, and then there were bursts of modem tone back and forth, lasting a total of a second or so, and then the line was released. I'd guess it was 1200 baud or less from the sound of it and the fact that none of the now-common modem mating songs were required. Just click, bleep-bloop, hang-up. Since I still wanted to keep my hold module, the water company folks just packed up their things and departed, defeated, but they left in place the phone jacks and new water meter with the three-wire cable. That made the installer's job today very easy. Oh, the hold module finally quit working reliably and I heaved it out a few months ago. Since Radio Shack doesn't make them any more, I thought I might as well let the water folks hook up their HOMER box that they were so all-fired hot to get installed. What the system is between the phone and water companies, I couldn't tell you, but today's installer said that they were having a lot of trouble with it in some areas, due to Bell Atlantic's ongoing upgrades from copper to fiber. He said there was a workaround available, and that's how he was spending a lot of his hours lately. He said it was slow going because telco was more interested in getting the phone system up and running before worrying about the meter reading functions. Hey, I should hope so! I agree with Mark that the water company really ought to pay for their own pair of wires, but when I compare "leasing" them mine at no charge for two seconds a month, against the inconvenience of paying estimated readings, or waiting for the human meter reader to not show up, I just caved in and let them do it their way. ------------------------------ From: Paul Eskola Subject: Question on GR303 via ATM Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 22:45:19 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Does anyone have experience with using ATM as a transport for voice calls to a GR303 LDS? Do you really get any benefit from this? Wouldn't the ATM link have to be a Circuit Emulated set of T1's into the switch, thereby cutting any bandwidth savings? Could AAL2 be used on individual DS0's between the RDT and the switch? Any discussion would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 06 Oct 1999 03:28:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal What effect's this likely to have on the new Sprint campus construction in which Pat was so interested? Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In any merger of two companies, usually 25-30 percent of the total combined work force is laid off. MCI-Worldcom -- who I suspect is going to be calling the shots here -- has stated that 'a lot of duplicate functions can be eliminated or combined in the new operation' ... a lot of people on Sprint payroll will not be needed any longer. The new campus being built was designed to bring *all* Sprint employees around the USA into one central location in so far as possible. Are they now looking at 25-30-40 percent more space at the 'campus' than they need? Its not like they rented some space in an old office building in downtown Kansas City and brought in some rental furniture ... that campus cost some BIG $$ on its own. Is MCI going to move a lot of its operations into the new campus since it is practically built and cost a bundle to put there, or are going to say to the Sprint employees they decide to keep that they'll all move to Mississippi and set up shop there instead? I can guarentee you Sprint wil have at least 25 percent fewer employees by this time next year ... maybe 40 percent fewer. Companies do not merge and then keep two duplicate IP departments, two duplicate customer service departments, etc. So what happens now to the fancy new campus? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ccremer@netscape.net (Charlie Cremer) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 03:48:07 GMT Organization: Noddy Blighters On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:02:34 -0400, Steve Uhrig wrote: > Jeremy Greene wrote: >> Why does anyone tolerate this? Is this charge supposedly to pay for >> digital switch upgrades? There haven't been any analog switches in >> Mass. for a year or two. Haven't the LEC's paid off the costs of >> installing digital switches by selling Centrex and CLASS services? And >> doesn't Touch tone use less resources on the switch? > No, it takes more. With pulse dialing no additional equipment is > needed. With DTMF you need a DTMF receiver. In fact the lack of > available DTMF receivers during periods of very heavy usage is often > the cause of slow or no dial tone problems. Those with pulse service > receive much faster dial tone in this instance because they don't have > to wait for a receiver to become available for their call. > Leonard Erickson wrote: >> But since pulse dialing definitely uses more resources (in the sense >> that the dial decoder gear is tied up longer) there *is* some small >> pressure to get rid of it. I expect that in many places, it'll be done >> by raising the charge for having pulse dialing supported on your line. >> And eventually they'll offer some sort of swap deal to get the old >> phones replaced. > Pulse dialing does not require more switch resources than DTMF. The > switch monitors the on hook off hook status of all lines in the switch > every few milliseconds regardless of whether the line is in use or > idle. Dial pulses are just a series of on hook off hook events which > the switch is monitoring for in the first place. DTMF on the other > hand requires a DTMF receiver to receive the DTMF tones. Dial pulse > does not require any special receiver. > In fact in Ohio DTMF lines are programmed as combined dial type > instead of tone dialing only. I guess this is just in case you flip > the pulse tone switch to pulse by accident, you can still call out. If > the line is programmed as DTMF only the switch will ignore dial > pulses. Excuse me? When a phone comes off-hook, how does the CO equipment know if it is pulse or DTMF? That can't be resolved until the dialing begins. I dispute the suggestion that pulse phones may get a dial tone sooner than DTMF, especially with modern ESS equipment. Here in Southwestern Bell territory, every line is equipped for pulse and DTMF; but if you don't pay extra for DTMF, they have to disable it in the CO. So far as I am aware, there is no provision for disabling pulse and having DTMF alone. The extra charge for DTMF makes no sense at all. Charles Cremer The email reply address of this message is valid, but never read. ------------------------------ Subject: Last Laff: End of the Century Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 20:51:13 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) "The big corporations are suddenly taking notice of the web, and their reactions have been slow. Even the computer industry failed to see the importance of the Internet, but that's not saying much. Let's face it, the computer industry failed to see that the century would end." - Douglas Adams [quotation is from about 00:14:58 into the program: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events99/battleground/battleground1. ram] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #459 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 6 14:23:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA14650; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:23:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910061823.OAA14650@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #460 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Oct 99 14:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 460 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Brian Vita) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Bob Goudreau) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Ed Ellers) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Michael Spencer) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Arthur Ross) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Peter Simpson) Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (Satch) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Steve Winter) SS7(C7) Message? (Hyunsu Jung) Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? (Matthew Black) Who Owns This Prefix? (Jim Hornbeck) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Ed Ellers) Re: Telephone Dry Cell Battery (Stewart Fist) 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, 06 Oct 1999 07:32:30 -0400 From: Brian Vita Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple At 03:10 AM 10/6/99 -0400, was written: > The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were > the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors > didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired > their concerns that their children's health would suffer from > microwaves coming from the antennas. > 'I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health,' George > Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said > this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it > inception. > Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas 'emit a > low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, > kidney and spleen,' and can cause cancer." I find this whole argument by the folks in Lexington to be ridiculous. We are talking about a cell phone tower that puts out a relatively low power signal. If we travel a mile or two to the Southwest, we end up at Bear Hill in Waltham. Bear Hill is one of the hills that circle Boston and is used extensively as an antenna farm for all sorts of signals, a majority of which are heading over Lexington for Boston. A mile or so to the West we have Bedford with Hanscom AFB with its share of antennas, radar and other goodies. If we jump to the Northwest, we have WRKO with 50,000 watts of AM radio. If memory serves me correctly, there's at least one commercial AM/FM site in Lexington proper. Do they really think that the additional 1Kw or so of combined output of the cell site is going to do them in? Brian T. Vita, President Cinema Service & Supply, Inc., 75 Walnut St., Peabody, MA 01960-5626 (978)538-7575/Fax (978)538-7550/Sales (800)231-8849/Sales Fax (800)329-2775 ***Visit Our Online Store at www.cssinc.com*** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:05:18 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote: >> These guys need to get their story straight. > Not surprising. Remember that the Unitarian congregation that owns > the church is made up of a lot of "physicists, scientists, and > engineers who are comfortable with the technology." The Waldorf > School was founded by Rudolph Steiner, who taught that all matter is > made up of four elements: Earth, Water, Fire and Air. No wonder the > Waldorf folks reaction to the cell site is so superstitious. Being someone who grew up half a mile away from this site (and attended the Catholic church across Mass. Ave. from what is now the Waldorf School, with my family sometimes parking in its driveway), I'm familiar with all the institutions in the story. The Waldorf school is housed in an old building that was formerly a public school (named Monroe Elementary IIRC -- no, I didn't attend there; I went to Bowman Elementary instead). After the Baby Boom peaked, the number of students in the Lexington public school system started dropping in the late 1970s, and the town began closing some of the older schools, including Monroe. Waldorf started operating in the building a few years after it closed, but I'm not sure if the Waldorf chain actually bought the facility, or just leases it from the Town of Lexington. Given that the Town is one of the parties being sued by Waldorf, I wonder if they could make the whole problem go away by just declining to renew the school's lease the next time it comes up for renewal (again, assuming the town still owns the building) ... As a native Lexingtonian, I am ashamed to see the town that houses the headquarters of Raytheon and a portion of the campus of MIT's famed Lincoln Laboratories is also afflicted by a group of loopy Luddite ignoramuses. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only that Bob, but the people at the school were doing something I consider highly unprofessional by getting the students involved in protest demonstrations at the church. The *students* should never be involved in any of it. They are there, ostensibly for their classroom educations, not for being used as pawns in a dispute the adults are having. Far too often we see this however, that when one side in a dispute has little or nothing else to use in their favor, ie. facts, they drag out a bunch of little folks, make them all as pathetic looking as possible and give them signs to carry around thinking, hoping, if nothing else a guilt trip dumped on the other side will accomplish what their lack of facts could not. Those children should have been in their classrooms during school hours, and any protest marches/demonstrations should have been after school hours. It happens all the time though, to the detriment of children. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:48:21 -0400 L.Winson wrote: > Of course you can get a new phone that switches between pulse and > rotary, but that's essentially a pain. The switches are tiny and hard > to get to. Depends on the phone. A lot of newer AT&T/Lucent phones, when used in pulse mode, will *temporarily* switch to tone mode by pressing the * key; when you hang up the phone goes back to pulse mode for your next call. My mother's cordless phone is like this, and saves her a lot of trouble. (Come to think of it, her old Sony cordless phone used the same technique -- no need to find the little switch there either.) ------------------------------ From: Michael Spencer Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 06 Oct 1999 03:35:35 -0400 Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology I still have dial. I'm in Canada, not the US. The local telco flatly refused to replace my two-party line with private until the mid-80s, when they did it without asking. I could have touchtone if (1) I paid more and (2) I was willing to buy or rent one of numerous cruddy, anti-ergonomic and easily damaged little pieces of ... um ... little phone sets to which the rest of the world seems to have become accustomed without complaint. I *like* the big, clunky dial phone with a real bell. I just hate the ones that sound like the french fry cooker at McDonalds having a panic attack, fall apart without provocation and are so light that a gentle twich on the handset cord yanks them off the table. I've dropped the old dialphone down the stairs without harming them. I whacked the wrong thing during a renovation and dropped a heavy timber plus half the contents of the attic on one, knocked a chunk out of the case but it works fine. If I'm determined to interact with voicemail or whatever, I use a simpleminded program I cobbled up that tells my modem to tonedial the keystroke. But one of these days MT&T is going to unilaterally upgrade me. In anticipation, I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks and feels approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell ringer but has a keypad and generates dialtones. Can someone tell me the trade nomenclature or number for such a phone? Better, where can I get a couple? And if it were to come from the US, do you know of any problem using it on a Canadian phone system? Piecing together bits of info, I gather that the Canadian K-Mart stores bought a carload of them, remaindered (by Nortel?). When they didn't move as novelties, they withdrew them. The trail is cold and I don't know where they all went. Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada mspencer@mit.edu URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 07:21:31 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... > As anyone who has flown has heard, using a cellular telephone aboard > an airplane is dangerous. > American Airlines warns passengers that cell phones "may interfere > with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems." Similar > warnings come from Delta, United and Continental. British Airways > links cellular interference to potential problems with compasses and > even cabin pressure. > What the airlines don't tell passengers is that there is no scientific > evidence to support these claims. What concerns there are about > cellular phones in airplanes dwell in the realm of anecdote and theory > -- and to some extent in that of plain finance. There is money to be > earned or lost by cell-phone companies and airlines if cell phones are > used in-flight. This article made me cringe. While it's not totally wrong, it's far from right. I can only speculate about possible motives for the ground prohibitions, e.g. to generate Airphone business. As to the claims of possible hazards to safety-of-life systems on the ground, indeed that is, IMHO, zero. In-flight, however, I side with the airlines. It is not the normal, intended radiation from the various devices that is the hazard; it is the *un*intended radition and accidental nonlinear intermod products that may affect unintended receivers, e.g. the ILS glideslope, other aids to navigation. There have been anecdotal reports from airline crews of "events" that were thought to be due to some passenger- carried gizmo, although these are impossible to prove one way or the other. The probability of harm is admittedly low, but the consequences could be terribly serious. But the article is most misleading in that it suggests that the cellular and PCS systems would actually work in flight. While the occasional isolated analog call might sometimes succeed, there are serious problems. Cellular systems are not designed for subscribers at 30,000 feet moving at 500 knots. Their RF characteristics depend critically on the fact that the customers are in what the radar folks would call "ground clutter." The difference between 800 MHz propagation near the ground and free space is enormous, e.g. a few tens of km range on the ground vs. thousands of km in free space, for typical cellular transmitter powers and receiver sensitivities. The large losses found near the ground are critical to the isolation of the users in one cell from those in other cells. From a commercial A/C in flight to cells on the ground, the effective propagation is near that of free space. Large numbers of cells would be visible. There would be intolerable interference and confusion about handoff. And, most likely, the digital systems are not designed for Doppler of this magnitude. One of my engineering acquaintances from Bell Atlantic Mobile tells me that they have been getting inquiries about airborne use since time immemorial. The answer has always been something like "Don't even think about it." I expect the Journal has already heard from them, or from the CTIA. ... and all this is aside from the annoyance factor. Airplane seats make lousy phone booths, as anyone who has sat near an Airphone user can attest. Some restaurants now try to capitalize on their wireless phone prohibitions in their advertising. -- Best regards, -- Arthur Dr. Arthur H. M. Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 ------------------------------ From: Peter_Simpson@ne.3com.com (Peter Simpson) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 06:53:29 -0400 Subject: Cell-Phone Use Aloft May Not Be The Danger That Airlines Claim Interesting and well written article. I wonder if they considered TDMA phones like GSM. My understanding is that the low-frequency "TDMA" part of GSM is what disrupts fire alarms and the like, not the 800/900/1.2G carrier itself. That is, the effect seems to be caused by the low frequency amplitude modulation, the detected RF and lack of it, rather than interference with reception of a radio signal on a particular frequency. This would show up as low frequency pulses on poorly shielded control wires. I live near a cellular tower, which supports several TDMA systems, and, though I cannot hear the conversations, I can clearly hear the "stuttering" TDMA pulsing on my shortwave receiver. The input stages are apparently being overloaded by the pulses of RF and I'm hearing the result. It seems to be a 10's of hertz rate (I have Nextel and 800 MHz TDMA cellular, as well as their data channels, on the tower). [If the above is all Greek to you, TDMA stands for Time Domain Multiple Access, a method of sharing a radio frequency among several users. It uses a scheme which enables each transmitter in turn, for a brief "time slot". Every one gets a turn, usually on the order of a fraction of a second, then everyone gets another turn...etc. So YOUR cell phone transmits, then waits, then transmits again, with the length of the wait being proportional to the number of other users on the channel. The result is that you transmit a sequence of RF "pulses"] Peter Simpson, KA1AXY ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 05:37:59 GMT From: satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly baptista@pccf.net (J. Baptista) said on 04 Oct 1999 in the following: > There's one thing I've noticed about hacking that concerns me. Some > countries like the U.S. arrest them. Other countries and commercial > interests hire them. > The question I have is who's going to end up on top? Countries that > arrest, or those that hire? First, that's not hacking, by any group that had invented the term to describe themselves or peers. You are talking about cybercrime, or cracking, or electronic vandalism. Just because some hack of a headline writer back in the late 70s got lazy and used the term "hacker" doesn't make it correct usage. I believe that the countries who bear down on cybercriminals are going to come out on top. We have a cadre of security experts who, while engaging in cracking activities in their youth, didn't relish the act in and of itself and ceased doing it when better alternatives became available. These people have matured into sober capable -- and still creative -- adults who do very well in detecting and blocking cracking activity. Some of the cybercriminals will be brought "into the bright side" as their attitudes change and their brillence becomes obvious, just as some criminals become consultants to law enforcement in the process of rehabilitation. Where I have the most fear is with countries (governments) who hire the crackers and cybercriminals to perform espionage on their behalf. This is why I look at the curbing of general crypotgraphy world-wide as a bad thing -- it makes it easier for governments to spy on intellectual property industries all over the world. _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 02:18:33 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Glenn Randers-Pehrson spake thusly and wrote: > In article , steve@sellcom.com > wrote: >> Glenn Randers-Pehrson spake thusly and wrote: >>> All they need to do is to look for a GIF comment that says GifBuilder >>> (that's free software, whose author was apparently forced by U-NO-who >>> to stop distributing it) or "built with DEMO copy of ..." or "built >>> with UNREGISTERED copy of ...". >> What about the US flag at www.whitehouse.gov that was created with >> unregistered shareware? ;O) > The file has no comments, and it has an application extension block > that reads "AdobeIR 1.0" which I would presume means that it was built > with Adobe Image Ready 1.0, which I believe is LZW-licensed. They changed it. It used to have a comment in the root of the animation. Maybe they read one of my posts about it? ;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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ From: hsjung@nuri.net (Hyunsu Jung) Subject: SS7(C7) Message? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:41:57 +0900 Organization: Inet Internet Services Thanks in advance. I've been making a call test using SS7(C7) signalling between my site(Cisco's VCO) and other site(NT DMS 300). We're using the SS7 protocol of ITU-T "Blue Book" and T1 line When I get a call from other site, that call failed. so I monitor the signalling link through the analyzer. I found that the "extra octets " was in the IAM message as follows. |0000---- |National use |0 | |00001010 |Calling Party's Category |Ordinary calling subscriber | |00000011 |Transmission Medium Reqt |3.1 kHz audio | |00000110 |Pointer to parameter |6 | |00000000 |Pointer to parameter |0 | |Extra octets | |***B4*** |Extra Octets |03 80 90 a2 | |Called party number | |00000111 |Parameter Length |7 | |-0000100 |Nature of Address |International number | |0------- |Odd/Even Indicator |Even number of address signals | I found the extra octets in ITU-T recommendations, but I didn't find. If anyone know that meaning of "extra octets",could oyu explain to me in detail? I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me that meaning! Best Regards, hyunsu jung email:hsjung@nuri.net ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? Date: 6 Oct 1999 15:28:16 GMT Over the past year I must have received 50 letters to change my CLEC from GTE California to GTE Communications. The promotion includes at least 100 prepaid long distance service at about 10 cents per minute, plus two call handling features such as caller ID or three-way calling. Unused minutes are nonefundable. GTE Communications also offers a no frills plan without the prepaid long distance for $25.00 per month. That's $7.75 more than my current basic service. Anyhow, the reason they spun off this separate company is because GTE California is not permitted to offer long distance service. My question is whether a decision by GTE California to share their customer information with GTE Communications constitutes a breach of nonpublished rules? Some of you may remember when earlier this year GTE California "accidentally" distributed street address and reverse directories containing 50,000 nonpub numbers. It seems they haven't learned. +------------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services BH-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The rules are that telcos may -- in fact are required -- to share non-pub numbers with long-distance carriers, or other premium charge service providers *for billing purposes only*. They are not allowed to give out non-pub information for marketing purposes. You as a non-pub subscriber are not permitted to 'hide' from the long distance carrier for the purpose of being billed for your calls but all other rules pertaining to privacy are supposed to be maintained. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Hornbeck Subject: Who Owns This Prefix? Date: 6 Oct 1999 15:47:19 GMT Organization: Netcom Let's see if I can phrase this question in a coherent manner. I have a cell phone with Airtouch. I want a particular phone number if it's available. The local Airtouch area doesn't have that prefix in any of its area codes. The local Airtouch folks say they don't have access to the other market areas. How can I search for that prefix (546-xxxx) in all of the Airtouch areas? I think there are 15 or 25 Airtouch marketing areas. Once again, TIA jim hornbeck horn@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:42:28 -0400 L. Winson wrote: "Ummm ... wasn't the whole point of the old Bell System divesture -- of which MCI played a big role to make happen -- to eliminate one stop shopping?" As best I can tell, the reason for the divestiture was that local exchange competition was *not* expected for a long time, if ever, meaning that the only way to open up the developing competition in long distance and customer premises equipment was to take both out of the hands of the local Bell companies. (Personally, if the deal is allowed to go through I hope the FCC forces Sprint PCS to allow equal access to long distance carriers.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:42:25 +1000 From: Stewart Fist Reply-To: fist@ozemail.com.au Organization: Independent writer and columnist Subject: Re: Telephone Dry Cell Battery Does anyone know what type/voltage of dry cells were used by Morse in the first (the two wire) Baltimore-to-Washington telegraphy line, and how far they could drive the circuit between repeater/relays? Stewart Fist - writer and columnist See http://technology.news.com.au/opinion/ http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives) http://www.electric-words.com (main archives) 70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #460 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 6 16:36:14 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA20319; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:36:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910062036.QAA20319@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #461 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Oct 99 16:36:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 461 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (Uwe Brockmann) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bud Couch) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Jeremy Greene) Re: Chicago Telephone Co. (Eric Bohlman) Re: MCI/Sprint Merger (Dennis Metcalfe) Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Michael Spencer) Revocation of Domain Names (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Greg Skinner) Re: The Bad Witch ICANN (Steve Winter) Re: Y2K Activities (Steven) 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: uwe@netcom.com (Uwe Brockmann) Subject: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Date: 6 Oct 1999 19:19:09 GMT Organization: Mindspring/Netcom Online Services, Inc. Reply-To: uwe@netcom.com Erbia is my primary residential long-distance carrier. They offer the lowest rates that I have been able to find. However, the service has had a lot of problems that I had not expected. Here is my experience so far: The Low Rates monthly fees - $1.04 FCC PIC-C Surcharge - approx. 4% Universal Access Fee - no other monthly fees interstate - $0.069/minute - rate applies 24/7 - billed in 1 s increments - 1 s per call minimum - no monthly minimum usage requirement intrastate - rate varies from state to state - example: $0.0759/minute within Georgia international - rate varies from country to country - example: $0.1493/minute to Germany - billed in 6 s increments - 18 s per call minimum Erbia also guarantees that they will never raise their rates. The Problems 1. Erbia resells long-distance capacity provided by TeleHub. TeleHub recently cut off all of Erbia's customers leaving them with no primary long-distance carrier! 2. When I first signed up for the service last year, it was provided by a different company. I believe it was called "Advanced Communication Techniques" which may be the same company as "PK Communications" or "PK Consulting". They were way behind in billing. It took several months before I got my first bill which only covered calls that I had made months earlier. 3. After the company somehow morphed into Erbia earlier this year the billing became more regular. However, even though I usually paid my monthly bill shortly after receiving it, it took Erbia an extra month to credit my account. As a result every monthly bill erroneously claimed that I had not paid last month's charges. 4. On my last bill they even charged me a small $0.26 finance charge even though I had paid my previous bills in full and on time. 5. Erbia's customer service phone number cannot handle the current call volume. 6. Last year, a few weeks after signing up with this carrier and long before receiving my first bill, my long-distance service was suddenly disconnected. I called TeleHub and my LBOC, BellSouth. Both blamed each other. They continued to blame each other even after I got them on the phone together. However, they then managed to reconnect me within an hour. Neither side ever told me what the problem had been or whose fault it had been. Most of the BellSouth people I talked to had never heard of TeleHub before. Other Information TeleHub operates their own nationwide ATM network which supposedly runs on top of OC-12 or DS-3 trunks provided by MCI/WorldCom. TeleHub claims that they can reach about 85% of the U.S. population with their network. Calls to or from the rest of the country are routed over regular lines provided by MCI/WorldCom. Before the MCI/WorldCom merger TeleHub was working with WorldCom. Supposedly TeleHub can offer lower long-distance rates by using packet-switched ATM technology rather than traditional circuit-switched technology employed by other long-distance carriers without loss of transmission quality. TeleHub has a web site at http://www.telehub.com. However, this web site was down when I tried to reach it yesterday and today. TeleHub does not list a toll-free number. Today I was unable to reach a human at the only phone number, +1 847 263 4200, that directory assistance lists for TeleHub's Gurnee, IL, headquarters. Instead I got instructions to call the long-distance provider listed in my phone bill, i.e. Erbia. A call to +1 700 555 1212 still indicates that my long-distance provider is TeleHub. However, +1 long-distance dialing does not currently work for me. Neither does the 00 number for the long-distance operator. A few months ago, when the 00 number was still working, the phone was answered with "Century" which was, apparently, the name of a company hired by TeleHub to provide long-distance operator services. Erbia mails monthly bills directly to me instead of billing through the LBOC. Erbia sent me an e-mail which I enclose below. They blame TeleHub for the problem and indicate that they are taking legal action against TeleHub. They are looking for a new long-distance carrier for their service. In the meantime they recommend that their customers use one of several dial-around services. They promise to credit customers' accounts with the difference between the dial-around charges and the lower Erbia rates at a later time. Does anybody know more about what is going on at TeleHub? Can anybody relate their experience (good or bad) with other low-cost long-distance carriers? Here is the e-mail I received from Erbia: > From: "Patrick Oborn" > To: > Subject: erbia Network Outage > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:07:18 -0700 > Organization: PK Communications > Dear valued customer, > Greetings. This email is being sent to you because you are an erbia > communications long distance customer. At this time, we would like to thank > you for your business - and also to make you aware of a very serious problem > we are having. > Our network provider (TeleHub) has recently shut off all of our customers > illegally. We are in the process of finding a new network provider, and > also pursuing legal action against TeleHub. This outage has negatively > affected all involved, and we want you to know that we are working around > the clock to bring full resolution. > In the meantime, please use a casual access code (we suggest 10-10-636, > 10-10-297, or 10-10-321). erbia will credit your account with the > difference of your bill and erbia's 6.9 cent/min rate. Please keep your > receipts, as we will need to provide our accountants with written proof to > authorize your refunds. > Also, if you have a PIC Freeze in place, please remove it. Our new network > provider identification code (PIC) will go out to your Local Telephone > Company within the next 2-4 days - enabling you to continue enjoying the > quality and savings that erbia provides. > Don't forget to check out our new online billing system at > http://erbia-customer.com/support if you haven't had a chance already. > If you have any questions or concerns, please EMAIL us at > mandy.boggs@erbia.com - our toll free support hotline (877-777-3515) is, and > will continue to be, flooded with calls for the next several weeks. > However, we usually respond to email within 10 hours or less. > Thank you very much for your patience and understanding. Your satisfaction > is our business. > Best Regards, > erbia communications, Inc. > http://erbia-customer.com Uwe Brockmann, uwe@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 11:38:24 -0700 Organization: ADC Kentrox Monty Solomon wrote: > NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a deal that would break all corporate buyout > records, MCI WorldCom Inc. agreed to buy rival telecommunications > company Sprint Corp. for $115 billion, sources close to the deal > reported Monday. > MCI WorldCom made the offer as BellSouth Corp. made its own > eleventh-hour bid for Sprint, the country's third-largest > long-distance carrier. The boards of both companies voted to approve > the plan Monday, but neither offered any comment on the deal. > http://CNN.com/US/9910/05/sprint.mci.01/ Let's see ... AT&T has 42% and everybody is always threatening anti- trust action. MCI is around 30 and Sprint is close to 20%. With this deal, the combined company would have a better than 50% market share, and the two largest then would control about 92%, which is just where Bell was when they were forced into divestiture. If this goes through, we'll all know that the right palms were greased. Unless Janet sits on them, the lawyers in the anti-trust division have got to be seeing a slam dunk. Bud Couch |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.| bud@kentrox.com | -Tom Lehrer | Insert disclaimer here | "Therefore you're guilty!" -EEOC | ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:14:24 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Matt Bartlett wrote in message news:telecom19. 458.3@telecom-digest.org: > Last month I made an online payment with FirstUSA credit card. It was > in the amount of $157.40. They deducted it automatically from my > checking account. I specified it was an one-time only payment. > Today, I call up my bank to reconcile my check book, and it is telling > me that I had two $25 widthdrawals today. A CSR told me that FirstUSA > tried to withdraw the $157.40 twice today. It was already paid last > month. > When I called FirstUSA today, all the woman would tell me, reading > from a script, is "First USA is aware of the problem and is making > corrections". She refused to answer if FirstUSA would handle the $50 > bounced check fee from my bank. And conviently her supervisor is out > at lunch. > Anyone else have any problems with online payments with First USA? I have had problems with online payments taking three or four days to post to my account, when their web page indicates that they will be posted in two days. I think they switched to a new online payment system a few months ago, because I had to re-enter my checking account info. The old online payment system was _really_ slow, sometimes taking four or five days. Can anyone who is familiar with the industry explain why what seems like a simple overnight wire transfer would take so long? Are there genuine reasons, or are they just stalling in order to collect more interest? Their customer service is pretty awful. They gouge you with fees and deceptive terms and conditions. In order to actually accomplish anything, you may have to write to them, by certified mail. Personally, I would not open a new account with them again. They are on my list of companies such as Bell Atlantic that ought to qualify for a RICO prosecution. :-) -Jeremy (Return address doctored to thwart canned meat) ------------------------------ From: ebohlman@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman) Subject: Re: Chicago Telephone Co. Date: 6 Oct 1999 08:55:19 GMT Organization: Netcom Wiring65 (wiring65@aol.com) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is an Ameritech (nee Illinois Bell) > office, but not the headquarters or 'downtown Chicago' office. That > is across the street. '207' is an odd number; it is on the south side > of the street; it is (or was, whatever) the 'Chicago-Franklin' central > office, also in past lives the 'Franklin Coin Office' (for payphones > in the downtown area). What you term the 'downtown Chicago office' Franklin's been at 311 W. Washington for quite some time now; I first saw the building 24 years ago, it looked like it had definitely been built as a CO rather than something else, and it looked like it was quite old at the time. > which used to also be the headquarters for Ameritech/Illinois Bell was > at '212' on the *north* side of the street and occupying almost the > entire city block. Since it occupies nearly the entire block and part > of the lobby now used for the main entrance is on the other end of > the building, they refer to it as 225 West Randolph Street, in > other words the south side of the next street north. PAT] 212 W. Washington has been vacated by Ameritech and has been, or is in the process of being, converted to condos. The newer building at 225 W. Randolph is still occupied by Ameritech. BTW, Ameritech is now leasing space in suburban COs to walk-in retail businesses; the Winnetka CO has a bank branch on the first floor, and the Evanston CO has had signs up indicating retail space for lease. I guess the conversion to digital switching has not only freed up space but lowered noise levels to the point where other businesses can occupy the same buildings. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right about the Franklin CO address, and I stand corrected. I even sat here and said it was named because of the intersecting street, yet any Chicagoan should know that the intersection at 200 West is Wells Street and that Franklin Street intersects at 300 West, therefore the Franklin CO at 311 West Washington is across the street *southwest* of what used to be the main headquarters building rather than across the street *southeast*. The building on the *southwest* corner of Wells/Washington which would logically have a street number of 201 or 203 West Washington and be *southeast* of the former HQ across the street is or used to be a combination restaurant, bar and grill place where large numbers of telco employees would hang out after work, during lunch or whenever they slipped away for a few minutes. Now this forces me to rethink the location of '207 Washington' as given in the original message. Given the other clues in the original message about Chicago Telephone Company and the style of telephone piece in question, I would say it probably dates to about 1900 or 1905. My reasoning is, the renumbering of Chicago street addresses to the presently used system occurred in, I think, 1912 designating the current State/Madison Streets 'zero starting point in all dir- ections'. Prior to that renumbering, there were no directional designations on streets that I am aware of. Instead of two city blocks per hundred numbers as now, it was stretched out a little differently. Also, they did not use the 'south/east sides of streets get odd numbers; north/west sides of streets get even numbers' as now. It was a hodge-podge of numbering as you walked along. Another clue is that Illinois Bell simply took over all CTC facilities in place; nothing was physically changed to any other location. I suggest therefore that '207 Washington' under the old numbers most likely became '212 West Washington' or '311 West Washington' under the new (as of circa 1912) street numbering system. The definitive answer, should anyone in Chicago wish to pursue it, would be found at the Municipal Reference Library on the 7th floor of City Hall. There, you may consult microfilm of the 'Chicago City Directory' for the years 1873 through 1921 (the last year the city directory was published). I believe the versions in later years included address translations between old and new addresses. There is also a map of the city as it existed in 1900 and other texts you may review. *None* of the material can be removed from the library for any reason. The Chicago Historical Society also has duplicates of much of the above, and microfilm of telephone directories from 1878 to the present time, as does the Chicago Public Library. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: MCI/Sprint Merger Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 12:38:52 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 15:52:03 GMT, davidesan@my-deja.com wrote: > I was amazed at the size of the merger. 119 billion dollars is one > report I read. To put this in perspective I found the following: Although I have not followed this all that closely, I do recall the original MCI offer was 65 billion, topped by Bell South at 72 billion ... how did something worth 65 billion just a couple of weeks ago suddenly get to be worth 119 billion? Did they discover a whole 'nother company down in the basement that everyone forgot about or is the stock market so buoyant that any absurd set of numbers can be made to work ... until the balloon pops? Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: Michael Spencer Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: 06 Oct 1999 04:06:57 -0400 Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology > We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected > second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation > rather soon, personally. Thinking about "Walled City" as in Gibson's _Idoru_? "They turned the killfile inside out ..." A shared, distributed place on the net that isn't in any fixed place and isn't, somehow, on the net? Is anyone thinking about how this might translate from Gibson's fantasy into workable IP technology? Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada mspencer@mit.edu URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 05:39:57 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Revocation of Domain Names I'm just catching up on a great big pile of Digests -- haven't read in about a week, been too busy moving into a new house (to inaccurately quote someone else here recently, "the house is 45 years old, but it's new to me!"). In regards to the discussion about what Netsol and other registrars are doing re: the language in their contracts that states they can take away your domain name at any time for any reason, I agree that this is completely unreasonable. For the time being, I'll take them at their word that this language is there just to cover their own asses. I really believe that if they started yanking domain names just because they didn't like the colour of certain netizens' hair, it wouldn't stand up in court, no matter what the "contract" says. Restraint of trade could be cited quite easily, along with a host of other legal arguments. I think domain names should be handled like phone numbers. I dunno what US tariffs look like, but I was browsin' through my white pages the other day and read part of the Telus tariff here in Alberta, which states essentially that you, the customer, do *NOT* own the telephone number and that the telco can change it - but they MUST have a valid reason for doing so - you do have protection against an unreasonable and arbitrary change. IE: if a company called "FLOWERS" decided they wanted a telephone number that spelled out this word, and I happened to be using it, I could *NOT* be forced into relinquishing it. An obvious "valid reason" that comes quickly to mind would be an area code split, something we recently went through in Alberta - a dimbulb up in Edmonton tried to sue Telus because he had to outlay money for new stationary, etc., but the judge tossed it out based on this tariff. As for domain names, it would take some work to hammer out just what exactly constitutes a "valid reason", but it could be done. And it should be done. What pisses me off here is that when Netsol was a monopoly, it was much easier to make a case against them if they arbitrarily yanked your domain name: they're a monopoly, and you signed that contract only because they were the only game in town. Now, with the ICANN-pushed contract language appearing in the contracts of all the new "competing" registrars, we are being led to believe that there is competition (and thus if you don't like one company's terms you can go find another), yet in fact IT IS STILL A MONOPOLY, run by ICANN. Worse, it's very likely a judge will fall for this nonsense also. If you're looking to set up a domain name, and you're feeling a little paranoid about it, I suggest you check out the .NU domain. As you can see from my return email address, I'm using them - though originally I chose them only because that particular combination of letters had a specific appeal to me. I've just had a good look at their policies and they're quite favourable, IMHO. You can find them at: http://nic.nu (then click on "Policies-Pricing") This is the TLD for the island nation of Niue, but in actuality is run out of (I think) Boston, Mass. In a nutshell, here's how things differ a bit from the standard Netsol contract: 1) There's no provision for ARBITRARY revocation of domain names. You have to violate a specific section of the contract (more on this in point #3), *OR* they have to be ordered by a court to revoke your name. 2) There's no provision that allows them to arbitrarily change the terms of this contract and that your continuing to use the domain name constitutes your acceptance of those changes (I found that part of Netsol's contract particularly galling... I agree to their contract, send them my money, they change the contract two weeks later and my choice is either accept it or WALK AWAY FROM THE MONEY I PAID!!!) 3) They're aggressively anti-spam. They maintain a domain-wide abuse address (abuse@mail.nic.nu) to be used for reporting spammers using the .nu TLD. Anyone caught using the .nu TLD for spamming purposes will find themselves losing *ALL* of the domains they've registered. THIS I LIKE!!! :-) 4) Fees are $45 for the first two years. After that, renewals are priced at (your choice) $25/1 year, $45/2 years, or $65/3 years. So, 'tis cheaper than .COM, .ORG, or .NET. On the down side, it costs you $10 to make technical changes to your domain (ie: moving to new DNS servers, etc. Updates to personal information, ie: your phone number, address, etc., are free). Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the .nu TLD or with its operators other than as a satisfied customer. I never really paid much attention to this contract agreement until this discussion came up here -- and was MIGHTILY pleased that the terms are far, far more favourable than I was expecting - thus, my hearty recommendation. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / / I took lessons in bicycle riding. But I could only afford half of them. / Now I can ride a unicycle. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Date: 06 Oct 1999 16:45:33 GMT In article , Pat Townson wrote in response to me: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why do you persist in talking in terms > of 'effective business'? Whether or not a business is for-profit or non-profit (or even NO profit -- just a hobby) it must be able to support its operation. There is a significant investment required in software, hardware, network connectivity, personnel, etc. in running a registry. They must be able to finance their operation such that they are able to deliver the service they promise. gds at best.com ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Re : The Bad Witch ICANN Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:45:16 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) spake thusly and wrote: >> How do you spell m o n o p l y? > With another "o" after the "p", among other things. > Bill > P.S. Now you have to stay after the next Digest comes out to bang the > erasers. Ahem ... would you believe that was just a spelling test? (but for who, eh?) 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Y2K Activities Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:22:26 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer If all our computers blow up at midnight then how can we send you e-mail? I personally expect to experience difficulty operating my computer shortly after midnight due to the Y2Keg problem. I should also be able to help test various other devices. I will probably be using the telephone (being nagged by the wife for being out so late), and making heavy withdrawals from the ATM to pay for all the boosing. I don't see how there could be a problem with the condom vending machines in the toilet, as they are completely mechanical, but I imagine they will be getting a thorough workout as well. I'm at least half a day ahead of you so when I sober up for lunch Ill drop you a line and let you know how the computers are running. That should still give you a few hours to prepare for the end of the world. I don't anticipate any problems with riots, shortages, etc here. Most of Asia grinds to a halt for a week every lunar new year. The worst that could happen is we get it a few weeks early this year. Steven AKnight@exchange.hsc.mb.ca says: > Patrick, > As an avid reader of the Telecom Digest, I admire the work you put > into it, and the world wide interest it generates. And, on that vein, > I would ask if you or your regular contributors have considered > putting up a notice site for New Years Eve. It could be beneficial to > us Norte Americanos if some of the gentlemen in the southern > hemisphere would consider e-mailing the results of the clock roll over > at midnight on New Years Eve. ( eg: were any problems encountered, and > what were they?) > 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 [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: As the 1940's hit, 'September Song' phrased it, " ... for the days whittle down, to a precious few ... September, October ... " we are getting there, aren't we ... I got a curious joke in personal email the other day, and since I do not remember it all, it won't be much of a joke when told here, but it had to do with the McDonald hamburger signs in front of each of their restaurants. It seems those signs all now say 99 billion have been eaten to-date, and it is about time to change the sign to say 100 billion have been eaten. The trouble is, the signs were all construc- ted so many years ago when no one considered there would ever be a time so that many of those things would be consumed. As a result, the sign only has room for two digits, and the result will be the signs all claim that '00 billion' of their things have been eaten in the past 45 years since the first McDonald's opened in Des Plaines, IL in 1955 and the second one in Skokie, IL in 1956. Now when the public sees that 'zero zero billion' McDonald's ham- burgers and or assorted value meals have been consumed in the past nearly half-century, they'll lose confidence in the system and begin rioting. In their riots, all the McDonald/Burger King type places will get destroyed and with all of them gone and the vast wasteland left where they used to be, and no where else to eat, everyone will be reduced to living in wide open spaces and eating beetles, cockroaches or other insects still left crawling around. McDonald's advertising and public relations people are said to have formed a top-level, blue-ribbon committee to insure that all of their signs will be 'hundred billion compliant' sometime in the next couple months before the rollover occurs, but they may miss the deadline because of internal squabbles over the best way to re-align the digits and the rest of the words on the sign to make it all fit together nicely. Top executives of McDonald's are in daily meetings with President Clinton to keep him advised of their progress in the event he needs to bring out the big, tough Marines who are in training at Quantico, VA, declare martial law and a national emergency, and open emergency shelters for McDonald's employees. I don't know about you, but this has me quite concerned. I am packing up my survivalist gear and heading for the hills today. I'll try to capture the largest and fattest cockroaches and beetles and keep them with me in my underground bunker. Write your congress-critter today and ask him why didn't McDonald's start making these preparations years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #461 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 7 20:27:02 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA13654; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:27:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:27:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910080027.UAA13654@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #462 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Oct 99 20:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 462 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Worldcom and Mergers (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Richard Shockey) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Michi Kaifu) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Lou Coles) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bob Goudreau) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bruce Larrabee) Re: MCI/Sprint Merger (Chris Kaschig) Re: Red Caps on End of Wires (Coredump) Re: Red Caps on End of Wires (Rory Matthews) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Walter Dnes) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (David Clayton) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Louis Raphael) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Mark Brader) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal 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, 06 Oct 1999 15:31:34 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Worldcom and Mergers > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In any merger of two companies, > usually 25-30 percent of the total combined work force is laid > off. MCI-Worldcom -- who I suspect is going to be calling the shots > here -- has stated that 'a lot of duplicate functions can be > eliminated or combined in the new operation' ... a lot of people on > Sprint payroll will not be needed any longer. The new campus being > built was designed to bring *all* Sprint employees around the USA into > one central location in so far as possible. Are they now looking at > 25-30-40 percent more space at the 'campus' than they need? Its not > like they rented some space in an old office building in downtown > Kansas City and brought in some rental furniture ... that campus cost > some BIG $$ on its own. Is MCI going to move a lot of its operations > into the new campus since it is practically built and cost a bundle to > put there, or are going to say to the Sprint employees they decide to > keep that they'll all move to Mississippi and set up shop there > instead? I can guarentee you Sprint wil have at least 25 percent fewer > employees by this time next year ... maybe 40 percent fewer. Companies > do not merge and then keep two duplicate IP departments, two duplicate > customer service departments, etc. So what happens now to the fancy > new campus? PAT] MCI Worldcom has a fairly illustrious history of actually keeping many duplicate operations. In fact, they still maintain about four duplicate telecommunications networks. I have an account with MCI Worldcom that I have had since the time that they were Metromedia Communications, based in, I think, East Rutherford, New Jersey. Metromedia was, you might remember, the first company to offer a flat-rate calling card with no surcharge of any sort. I obtain- ed one of these cards in order to make long distance calls on my own bill, so I didn't have to endure the endless questioning of my mother what those "strange charges on the bill were" (I was a teen at the time). Metromedia Communications had the 10488 (10-ITT) carrier access code, and I think that they came about by buying some or all of ITT's telecommunications assets when ITT decided to get out of the communications business altogether and start running hotels (ITT is now ITT Sheraton). Well, Metromedia later merged with LDDS, to form the company LDDS Metromedia. LDDS was, if I remember correctly, run by a cigar-chomping, whiskey-drinking Mississippian by the name of Bernie Ebbers. The company was later renamed LDDS Worldcom, then finally just "Worldcom." Meanwhile Worldcom bought WilTel, the telecommuni- cations arm of Williams Pipeline Company (carrier access code 10-555). I think that the "LDDS side" was still buying wholesale fiber capacity from Williams even though the combined company OWNED the legacy ITT system outright. Close to four years passed between the time that LDDS and Metromedia merged (during which time the combined company aquired a few other carriers and had become the fourth largest telecommunications company in the US) until the billing systems were combined. And when it was finally done, it was done messily -- one month, I just got a bill with no call detail saying "Please pay this amount." I called and protested, since I had paid my bill in full the month before, and was informed that the only thing that had "imported to the new billing system" was the "total amount due." Obviously, I wasn't going to pay some random amount with no substantiation of why I owed it, so in a VERY RARE concession, I was credited the amount due (LDDS Metromedia Worldcom almost NEVER gave credits for ANYTHING). Today, it is, I think, ten years past the merger of LDDS and Worldcom, and more than five years since WilTel was aquired by Worldcom. And, of course, MCI and Worldcom are one company. The combined company STILL operates multiple telecommunications networks. The 1010555 carrier access code still routes calls over the old WilTel network, the 1010488 carrier access code still routes calls over the legacy analog (!) ITT network, and MCI had a couple of networks of its own -- both the MCI network and the Telecom*USA network. Additionally, there are still multiple billing systems in place, and the divisions of the company operate as separate entities and even COMPETE with each other. I don't think that WorldCom has done a good job AT ALL of integrating operations; their track record is evident of this. It would not surprise me if ten years from now, WorldCom was still operating over FIVE separate telecommunications networks and two or three separate billing systems. Some things I expect will be combined -- employee benefit packages and the like. And suppliers can be consolidated also. But there are likely to be substantial operations in Kansas City for a long time. In fact, I think that the East Rutherford office that was headquarters of Metromedia so long ago is still in operation. ------------------------------ From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:41:35 -0500 Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > Ummm ... wasn't the whole point of the old Bell System divesture -- of > which MCI played a big role to make happen -- to eliminate one stop > shopping? No it was to create competitive markets in telecom services. IMHO the government did not go far enough ... the ILEC's should have been forced to divest themselves of the Local Loop itself. There should have been a pure separation from the true monopoly physical plant and the provisioning of service i.e. dial tone. What you are going to see now is one stop shopping from five or six companies instead of one. > ABC News quoted Consumers Reports has saying telephone rates have > INCREASED by $2 billion for small users, $2-$5 a month, in recent > years. I really do not understand why people find the fees suprising. Essentially what is happening is that the carriers are exposing the true cost of service and the government mandated fees (taxes) for things like Universal Service and Local Number Portability, 911 enhancements etc. Local Rates were bound to go up once the Bell System cross subsidies were eliminated. > We had a working Bell System. The powers that be decided having a > single source was not in the public interest and forced it to break > up. We had a system that gouged long distance callers in order to support dirt cheap local service. It was socialism pure and simple. Monopolies, like the old Bell System were no longer in the public interest ... that's why we have the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. Divestiture worked. > Now MCI, a direct beneficiary of that breakup, wants to return to > the old ways of doing business. No it just wants to be big enough to compete effectively with ATT, SBC, Bell Atlantic, Qwest, Level3 etc. My judgment is that despite Kinnard the FCC Commissioner the merger will go through since WorldCom will effectively argue that once BellAtlantic and SBC are allowed into the LD market the competitive balance will be essentially restored. I've seen private surveys that indicate that ATT and WorldCom will surely lose between 20-30% market share in LD services within 18 months of the approvals. ATT and WorldCom are very aware of this. Much of this is based on the experience of SNET in CT which was the only ILEC the FCC allowed to sell LD. They grabbed 30% LD market share in 18 months, or so I'm told. There will still be five or six major Long Distance players so there will still be a very competitive market. > Of course, MCI is very much against allowing local Bell companies to > offer long distance even though it wants the right to force the local > companies to sell it circuits wholesale for it to resell at a profit. The ILEC's should be forced to sell the circuits ... (see above) why can't I choose my local carrier the same way I choose my LD carrier? Are you really suggesting that SBC and Bell Atlantic are paragons of "public service" ... there is only thing they understand and are desperate to avoid ... real competition for local phone service. > IMHO, this is clearly wrong. But can anything be done about it? Nope ... sorry.. you have the telecom system the FCC and Congress and the Telecom Lobbyists wants you to have ... and IMHO is a better one than the old Bell System. We have more services at lower prices than ever in the history of the Telecom industry ... and a great deal of new jobs and national wealth has been created in the process. Its not perfect ... but a heck of a lot better that the old days. ------------------------------ From: Michi Kaifu Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:36:35 -0700 Ed Ellers wrote: > (Personally, if the deal is allowed to go through I hope the FCC > forces Sprint PCS to allow equal access to long distance carriers.) That was the case when AT&T bought MaCaw, at least at the beginning, but if I remember correctly, the equal access requirement drifted away later. I remember back then some smaller long distance carriers hated to handle all the trouble of paperwork/provisioning/CS related to equal access, while LD traffic that would be newly generated for them is miniscule. It is mentioned in some news reports that LD traffic from wireless is increasing, but my guts tells me it still is very small, in a scale of LD world. So, in terms of spirit, it makes a lot of sense, but in a real world economy, I don't think equal access scheme works for wireless. Provisioning and customer service are way too much complicated and costly compared to landline for such a small LD traffic. Sometimes, Wall Street people and telecom industry people misjudge the extent people use the cell phones especially for LD and for roaming, because their usage pattern is the "exceptions" among all the users. Michi Kaifu ENOTECH Consulting michi@pop.net ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 22:56:33 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Ed Ellers wrote in message news:telecom19.460.12@telecom-digest.org: > L. Winson wrote: > "Ummm ... wasn't the whole point of the old Bell System divesture -- of > which MCI played a big role to make happen -- to eliminate one stop > shopping?" > As best I can tell, the reason for the divestiture was that local > exchange competition was *not* expected for a long time, if ever, > meaning that the only way to open up the developing competition in > long distance and customer premises equipment was to take both out of > the hands of the local Bell companies. I think we have to look at market and market share. AT&T [today] has 48% of the LD market which is not considered too dominant. If allowed WorldCom/MCI/Sprint will have 34% combined. RBOC's today do not compete, not with each other and in most areas, not with anyone else. WorldCom after gulping down MCI was expected to "rest", now we have the Sprint "dinner", myself I think WorldCom will order up Earthlink/Mindspring for desert. > (Personally, if the deal is allowed to go through I hope the FCC > forces Sprint PCS to allow equal access to long distance carriers.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:19:01 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal Bud Couch wrote: > Let's see ... AT&T has 42% and everybody is always threatening anti- > trust action. Could you please be more specific? I'm not aware of any particular antitrust actions pending or threatened against AT&T based on its share of the long distance market, which continues to decline steadily. > MCI is around 30 and Sprint is close to 20%. Extremely incorrect. Not even the Communications Workers of America union quotes numbers that high in its press release opposing the merger (http://www.cwa-union.org/pressreleases/pressRelease.asp?id=129), which notes that MCI's market share is only 26 percent and Sprint's is only 11 percent. > With this deal, the combined company would have a better than 50% > market share, No, they will have a 37 percent share, still behind AT&T's 43 percent. > and the two largest then would control about 92%, No, 80 percent. > which is just where Bell was when they were forced into divestiture. A complete non-sequitur, since AT&T was one company not two roughly-equal competitors (as MCI+Sprint would be vs. AT&T), and its divestiture was of *local* telcos, not long distance services. AT&T came *out* of the divestiture with over 90 percent LD market share, but even such a dominant piece of the pie hasn't been able to prevent it from steadily eroding ever since then. BTW, I hereby nominate "Southern Pacific Microwave" as the new name of the combined Sprint/MCI entity :-). Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 07 Oct 1999 02:23:22 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal The "official" line given to employees is that "construction will continue as planned ..." ------------------------------ Date: 06 Oct 1999 19:35:00 +0200 From: ckaschig@gmx.de (Chris Kaschig) Subject: Re: MCI/Sprint Merger Organization: Bonzo's home > Which name will they keep, or will they continue > to use both names or will they come up with a new name entirely? According to dpa ('Deutsche Presseagentur') the new name will be just "WorldCom" - (no "MCI" any longer); no idea by whom this info is authorized. Chris ------------------------------ From: coredump@NOxSPAM.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:15:41 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company Rory Matthews writes: > I've got a question you guys might be able to help me with. > Lately while in telco boxes I've been noticing those little red caps > on a few cable pairs, and I'm just curious what exactly they are for. > Could they possibly be some kind of test lines, or just important > lines you wouldn't want toyed with? I had occasion to plug my handset > onto some of these and usually couldn't get a dial tone, though I once > got modem noise. Any comments would be appreciated. (By the way I'm > down here in Bellsouth territory if that helps any.) If you don't know what they are, what are you doing in the box screwing with them? People with protected data circuits get real unhappy when they get knocked down, and have been known to go to extreme lengths to find out why. I've heard of more than one tech that lost a job over it. Core coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump Whooping it up on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Re: Red Caps on End of Wires Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:18:34 PDT Boy curiousity killed the cat. Heh, I suppose had I really gotten a shock though I wouldn't mess with one of those ever again. > "...while in telco boxes..." - you mean the green cabinets along the > side of the road, with the Bell logo on them? I don't think those were > intended for public access... ;-) Well as you may or may not have guessed, I'm not actually an employee myself, but rather a teen with an interest in telecommunications. I'm sure you're saying "then don't go messin' around in the box!" or something along those lines. Thing is I don't go plugging into peoples lines to make free calls, and I am truly sorry if I annoyed anyone by plugging into that pair with my homemade set (made from parts bought at Ace Hardware no less). I've always tried to learn using more legal methods but that has usually proved impossible. The times I have asked employees questions that whole 'veil of secrecy' you tend to encounter when asking certain question has gotten in the way. I guess I'll have to be content with what you guys throw in the bin ;-). Rory Matthews [TELECOM Digest Moderator's Note: Well Rory, you can ask us whatever you would like and I am sure the guys here will try to answer you as best they can. I know I will do that. Thanks for visiting us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 02:35:23 -0400 On 4 Oct 1999 01:09:02 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L.Winson)wrote: > However, the point of phone mail is well taken. I've converted > a number of older people who would otherwise stick with rotary > because they got tired of being unable to get through to businesses. > (And it seems to me almost every business today is answered by a > computer and without touch-tone you're outta luck.) I have a pulse-dialing phone/fax/answering-machine combo. One feature is that one button can temporarily flip it to tone mode when online. I save the tone surcharge, but still can navigate voice mail menus. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:45:59 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au ccremer@netscape.net (Charlie Cremer) contributed the following: > Excuse me? When a phone comes off-hook, how does the CO equipment know > if it is pulse or DTMF? That can't be resolved until the dialing > begins. I dispute the suggestion that pulse phones may get a dial tone > sooner than DTMF, especially with modern ESS equipment. If a line is programmed as pulse only, the switch doesn't have to allocate a DTMF Tone Receiver when it goes off hook, so dial tone can be presented quicker. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 05:07:08 GMT Michael Spencer wrote: > But one of these days MT&T is going to unilaterally upgrade me. In > anticipation, I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks > and feels approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell ringer > but has a keypad and generates dialtones. Can someone tell me the > trade nomenclature or number for such a phone? Better, where can I > get a couple? And if it were to come from the US, do you know of any > problem using it on a Canadian phone system? It'll work fine, except that the American models have a jack on the ear/mouthpiece to which the twirly cord connects. This jack seems to be a potential breaking point, which didn't exist on the Canadian models. Which is why I'd slightly prefer a Northern Telecom. > Piecing together bits of info, I gather that the Canadian K-Mart > stores bought a carload of them, remaindered (by Nortel?). When they > didn't move as novelties, they withdrew them. The trail is cold and > I don't know where they all went. I got mine in a fax/telecom junk shop in St-Laurent (a suburb of Montreal). They're not that hard to find in such places. Cost me $10, but well worth it. Also, try garage sales. Louis "Improve your computer - type "DELTREE C:\WINDOZE" at the DOS prompt." ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 7 Oct 1999 01:48:30 -0400 Organization: - Michael Spencer writes: > I *like* the big, clunky dial phone with a real bell. I just hate the > ones that sound like the french fry cooker at McDonalds having a panic > attack, fall apart without provocation and are so light that a gentle > twich on the handset cord yanks them off the table. > But one of these days MT&T is going to unilaterally upgrade me. In > anticipation, I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks > and feels approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell ringer > but has a keypad and generates dialtones. Sometimes known as a 2500 set. > Can someone tell me the trade nomenclature or number for such a phone? I have a rented one from Bell Canada. A few months ago the retainer clip broke off the jack, so I took it to the Phonecentre to get it fixed. After they got over the shock of dealing with someone who was still renting an ordinary phone, they decided that they had to replace the whole phone -- and in order to do that they had to order one in, because they didn't keep it in stock at the Phonecentre. Some uncertainty was expressed over whether one would be available, but it was. And it was defective(!!) -- one key needed to be pressed harder. They ordered another one in, and this is the one I have now. In doing this, the only term they used when talking to me about it was "basic touch-tone phone". > Better, where can I get a couple? Dunno. I could have bought instead of renting it from Bell Canada; maybe the same applies in Nova Scotia. For what it's worth, mine was manufactured by Northern Telecom. Mark Brader | "Fighting off all of the species which you Toronto | have insulted would be a full-time mission." msbrader@interlog.com | "Deja Q", ST:TNG, Richard Danus My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #462 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 7 21:07:20 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA15045; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:07:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:07:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910080107.VAA15045@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #463 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Oct 99 21:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 463 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Gail M. Hall) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (ralphies@my-deja.com) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (Jason Fetterolf) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Where is the True Power? (Linc Madison) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? ( Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Old Phones, was Pulse Dialing ... For How Long? (Bruce M. Binder) Re: Who Owns This Prefix? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Freelancers Win Online Copyright Database Ruling (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? (Barry Margolin) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Curt Squires) 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: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: 7 Oct 1999 16:55:09 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Michael Spencer wrote: > [Schumann talking here:] >> We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected >> second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation >> rather soon, personally. > Thinking about "Walled City" as in Gibson's _Idoru_? "They turned the > killfile inside out ..." A shared, distributed place on the net that > isn't in any fixed place and isn't, somehow, on the net? > Is anyone thinking about how this might translate from Gibson's > fantasy into workable IP technology? I'm still not seeing the cause for concern. DNS _does_ this already. DNS is not in any fixed place. You can choose a root server, or make your own. "They" can do whatever they want with the top-level domains. "We" can always sublet the second-level domains or run "our" own root servers. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 22:46:49 GMT Organization: APK Net On 06 Oct 1999 04:06:57 -0400, Michael Spencer posted to comp.dcom.telecom: >> We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected >> second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation >> rather soon, personally. > Thinking about "Walled City" as in Gibson's _Idoru_? "They turned the > killfile inside out ..." A shared, distributed place on the net that > isn't in any fixed place and isn't, somehow, on the net? > Is anyone thinking about how this might translate from Gibson's > fantasy into workable IP technology? I haven't read the Gibson, but I remember the old BBSs where you called in to a certain phone number, gave your id and password and got in. If you didn't have those, you didn't get in. No biggie, I would think. But with everyone running to the Internet these, I don't know if companies that wrote BBS software such as Wildcat! PCBoard, et al are even still in business. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: ralphies@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:56:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. The following was posted at www.erbia com erbia Announcement Network Update October 5, 1999; 12:00 PM EST erbia has made its final decision on the two new underlying carriers. We believe that these two carriers will provide strong service that is in your best interest. All our customer account records, including toll- free services, have been transferred to our new primary carrier and they have already begun processing them. It will take 24-48 hours to go through the complete processing. After the processing is complete, all services will be restored. In order to assist us in the conversion please remove all PIC freezes. Also, please do not create any new PIC freezes at this time. You will NOT be charged a PIC charge for service restoration. We would like to apologize to you again for the inconvenience and sincerely thank you for your patience and understanding. When this is all over we will provide new and exciting service plans to benefit you, our customers. Richard J. Gibbs, President & COO erbia, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:39:12 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Organization: Apollo Concepts Consulting Reply-To: jason@itw.com In response to Uwe Brockmann, uwe@netcom.com: > The Problems > 1. Erbia resells long-distance capacity provided by TeleHub. TeleHub > recently cut off all of Erbia's customers leaving them with no > primary long-distance carrier! Telehub did not just cut off Erbia's customers, but also ALL other users of their network, ie PromiseNet, and OPEX aka Premiercom, and likely others ... > 2. They were way behind in billing. It took several months before I > got my first bill which only covered calls that I had made months > earlier. Many companies which use Telehub's network have been behind in billing ... beware -- if a telephone company can't bill, they cant stay around long! > 5. Erbia's customer service phone number cannot handle the current > call volume. Everybody's calling to complain that they have no LD carrier, that's why! As a matter of comparison, ATT had the same problem (long delays) when they just offered their 7 cent one rate plan about a month ago. > 6. Last year, a few weeks after signing up with this carrier and long > before receiving my first bill, my long-distance service was suddenly > disconnected. I called TeleHub and my LBOC, BellSouth. Both blamed > each other. They continued to blame each other even after I got them > on the phone together. However, they then managed to reconnect me > within an hour. Neither side ever told me what the problem had been > or whose fault it had been. Most of the BellSouth people I talked to > had never heard of TeleHub before. Most BellSouth people dont *want* to hear of anything that means they will have to learn a new PIC code to enter in to their system! > Other Information > TeleHub operates their own nationwide ATM network which supposedly runs > on top of OC-12 or DS-3 trunks provided by MCI/WorldCom. > Supposedly TeleHub can offer lower long-distance > rates by using packet-switched ATM technology rather than traditional > circuit-switched technology employed by other long-distance carriers > without loss of transmission quality. OPEX aka Premiercom has been in the process of migrating its traffic off of Telehub to Frontier over the past few months due to fast busys and calls not going through, etc. The ATM technology is cheaper, but it can NOT currently handle the traffic being sent over it. Forget about the MCI/Worldcom name associated -- to have a good quality voice call sent and received reliably takes more than just "use" of a big name carrier's network for back up. Bottom line -- Telehub's network is new technology, and it has limited capacity. Until they get the capacity up and work out some bugs, you would be better off using a good old reliable switched fiber optic network from somebody like Frontier. No, you dont get the rates quite as cheap as Erbia -- BUT it will work, day in day out, just like ATT's but for a lot less! > TeleHub does not list a toll-free number. Telehub is more like a wholesaler -- they dont want to talk to end users -- that's Erbia's job. > Does anybody know more about what is going on at TeleHub? Can anybody > relate their experience (good or bad) with other low-cost long-distance > carriers? If you want consistent good experiences from a low cost carrier, then see the link below -- UNitel is just 5.9 cpm (one minute billing), with not as attractibe INstate rates, but no monthly fees besides the PICC. Unitel is a reseller for Frontier, and I have used it and know of many other people and Businesses that spend $1000's /mo on the Frontier network that are very happy with it. See: http://unitelagent.com/index.cgi?apollo for details. If you desire six second billing from the same company, then email me directly for details. Regards, Jason Fetterolf ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:03:44 -0500 Arthur Ross wrote: > In-flight, however, I side with the airlines. It is not the normal, > intended radiation from the various devices that is the hazard; it is > the *un*intended radition and accidental nonlinear intermod products > that may affect unintended receivers, e.g. the ILS glideslope, other > aids to navigation. Right. You cannot predict or characterize what kind of intermod might be produced by the nearly-infinite number of possible combinations of passenger-carried electronics. An electronic system _designed_ for aircraft use is shielded for certain frequencies, and well-characterized in general. Plus, the pilots have control over it. I used to work in engineering for Airfone (as Airfone and later as GTE Airfone) and also In-Flight Phone (now defunct). I spent a LOT of time in screen rooms, using copper-foil tape and blank PCB stock to shield and isolate problem circuits in our equipment. When a pilot suspected the in-flight telco gear was causing a problem he would simply pull the breaker for that equipment. If the problem went away he'd leave it turned off and we'd catch major hell when the airplane landed. There's no cockpit breaker for little Timmy's Gameboy or Dr. Executive's GSM laptop. > Cellular systems are not designed for subscribers at > 30,000 feet moving at 500 knots... > From a commercial A/C in > flight to cells on the ground, the effective propagation is near that > of free space. Large numbers of cells would be visible. There would be > intolerable interference and confusion about handoff. And, most > likely, the digital systems are not designed for Doppler of this > magnitude. > One of my engineering acquaintances from Bell Atlantic Mobile tells me > that they have been getting inquiries about airborne use since time > immemorial. The answer has always been something like "Don't even > think about it." I've been out of the industry for about five years, but I recall conversations with cellular tech people about airborne cellphone use. At that time most (all?) cellphones were analog. The main problem with airborne use was that the phone would lock up one uplink frequency across the entire ground network. This doesn't happen much with commercial passengers, but General Aviation (private planes) are responsible for most of the offenders. There's not actually a problem with handoffs, since the call pretty much stays in the originating cell until the whole system drops under the horizon. Two things work against airborne cellphones, though: First, the cell site antennas are specifically designed to have practically no gain in the "up" direction -- in fact they have a downward "tilt." I couldn't get my analog cellphone to work at all in my 23rd-floor office less than two miles from the nearest cell site. The second mitigating factor is that when the cellular provider's computers spot a particular ESN turning up on many ground sites simultaneously they simply lock that phone out of their system. Perhaps permanently. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:52:27 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? In article , Steven wrote: > OK, so that's three of us who would like to see a new free TLD. So > what does it take to make one? What is the organization that > issues/governs the .us, .uk, .de, etc names. US states have them, so > you don't have to be a country. No, there is no U.S. state that has a top-level domain. Each state has a second-level domain under .US, and there are some TLD's that coincidentally match the two-letter abbreviations for some U.S. states (for example, .CA is Canada, not California; .IL is Israel, not Illinois). There are also some states that have second-level domains under .GOV (.ca.gov, .ohio.gov, .hawaii.gov, etc.). You don't have to be a country, but you have to be pretty close in order to get a geographic TLD assigned. ------------------------------ From: colonel@monmouth.com (World's Largest Leprechaun) Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: 7 Oct 1999 19:50:12 GMT Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation In , juhave@iobox.fi wrote: > Of course commercial sites are probably targeted, but I just may have to > either remove all buttons or change them to jpegs ... I'd suggest PNG instead. PNG is designed for the web. It's more efficient than GIF, and far more efficient than JPEG for buttons and similar graphics. It's also technically better in other ways, and is totally free and open. "The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." --Franco Spisani G. L. Sicherman work: sicherman@lucent.com home: colonel@mail.monmouth.com ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 7 Oct 1999 16:58:14 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , The Old Bear wrote: > Of course, if you want a telephone line that just lets you talk > digitally to the central office switch with no need for things like AC > ring signal voltages, pulse- or tone- conversions, dial-tone > generation, analog audio signals to report call progress ("ringing"/ > "busy"), etc., you can order an ISDN BRI. But that will cost you a > lot more. Bizarrely, my BRI line (Ohio, Ameritech) supports analog pulse dialing. ------------------------------ From: Bruce M. Binder Subject: Re: Old Phones, was Pulse Dialing ... For How Long? Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:48:54 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Michael, et al.: > I could have touchtone if (1) I paid more and (2) I was > willing to buy or rent one of numerous cruddy, anti-ergonomic > and easily damaged little pieces of ... um ... little phone > sets to which the rest of the world seems to have become > accustomed without complaint. > I *like* the big, clunky dial phone with a real bell. > I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks and > feels approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell > ringer but has a keypad and generates dialtones. Can someone > tell me the trade nomenclature or number for such a phone? > Better, where can I get a couple? And if it were to come > from the US, do you know of any problem using it on a > Canadian phone system? Not all of the rest of the world has become accustomed without complaint. Some of us still think the standard desk phone of the 1960s and 70s, called the Model 500, is one of the most ergonomic pieces of equipment ever designed. It was designed by the famous industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss. See http://www.si.edu/organiza/museums/design/exhib/hd/start.htm for an online exhibition of his work, including the telephone, at Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum Smithsonian Institution. The updated touch-tone version of this telephone is called the Model 2500. You can usually find Model 2500s for sale on eBay. I don't know if they will work on the Canadian phone system. Both the 500 and the 2500 have the G-1 handset that, in my opinion, is the most comfortable telephone handset ever made. I don't know why no manufacturer makes a phone with a handset anything like it. Why don't cordless phone makers sell cordless hadsets that people can cradle on their shoulders instead of flat rectangular ear-smashers? Here's my idea, free to any manufacturer that wants to use it: make a cordless phone in the shape of the Model 500. Use the G-1 handset, put the battery charge terminals where the switch hook is, put the push buttons in the handle, put a built-in answering machine in the base, if you want. Retro is in, right? VW Beetles, swing dancing, etc. I'd buy one. [Change green to blue in my address to send me e-mail.] Bruce ___ __ __ ___ ( ,)( \/ )( ,) ) ,\ ) ( ) ,\ (___/(_/\/\_)(___/ Bruce M. Binder ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Who Owns This Prefix? Date: 7 Oct 1999 00:10:56 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 6 Oct 1999 15:47:19 GMT, horn@netcom.com allegedly said > Let's see if I can phrase this question in a coherent manner. > I have a cell phone with Airtouch. > I want a particular phone number if it's available. > The local Airtouch area doesn't have that prefix in any of its area codes. > The local Airtouch folks say they don't have access to the other market > areas. > How can I search for that prefix (546-xxxx) in all of the Airtouch areas? > I think there are 15 or 25 Airtouch marketing areas. You're not even guaranteed that 546-xxxx is a cellular prefix. You couldn't get 440-546-1234 for example, because while Airtouch operates in area code 440, 546 is a landline prefix serviced out of an Ameritech CO. And why would you want to look in other marketing areas? What's the attraction of having a cell phone whose AC is halfway across the country from your home or office?! North Shore Technologies JustTheNet Dialup Internet Access Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Geauga Co., Lake Co., Portage Co., Lorain Co., OH Nationwide Access coming soon! Watch this space for details or dial 1.888.480.4NET for more info! ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:21:21 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Freelancers Win Online Copyright Database Ruling On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT), David B. Horvath, CCP wrote: > The problem is that authors wrote articles for magazines/newspapers > that included "one-time print media" (i.e., *this* issue of Harpers'). > The publishers then went out and put the articles on databases or > CD-ROM without paying royalties to the authors. One-time is different > from multi-use (otherwise the publisher could pay the writer for it > once and use the same article in many different magazines -- or > publish a book of them). Mad Magazine has operated this way for 47 years. Of course, in their case, the contract signed with the freelancers specifically state multi-use. :-) I just bought a 7-CD set of the entire run of Mad Magazine, from 1952 to 1998, and there's not a page missing, nor did they have to pay anyone any royalties. It's a position (insisting on multi-use with no royalties) that has cost them some contributors, notably Don "One Fine Day" Martin, but it's a business model that works and allows them to remain advertising-free. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / I hooked up my accelerator pedal in my car to my brake lights. I hit the / gas, people behind me stop, and I'm gone. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:51:20 GMT In article , Matthew Black wrote: > Over the past year I must have received 50 letters to change my CLEC > from GTE California to GTE Communications. The promotion includes at > least 100 prepaid long distance service at about 10 cents per minute, > plus two call handling features such as caller ID or three-way calling. > Unused minutes are nonefundable. GTE Communications also offers a > no frills plan without the prepaid long distance for $25.00 per month. > That's $7.75 more than my current basic service. > Anyhow, the reason they spun off this separate company is because GTE > California is not permitted to offer long distance service. > My question is whether a decision by GTE California to share their > customer information with GTE Communications constitutes a breach > of nonpublished rules? [Note: I work for another business unit of GTE, but I have no connection to any of their telco businesses -- I'm not even a GTE customer -- and I do not speak for the company in any way.] It's not clear that they actually shared their customer information. Often, to avoid privacy violations, a company will send out mailings to their own customer list on behalf of third parties, rather than sharing their mailing list itself. They sell this as a service, and GTE Communications would have to pay for it. GTE California would presumably have to offer this to all comers, not just GTE Communications. The third parties would not become aware of your identity unless you actually replied to the ads. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:10:04 -0500 From: Curt Squires Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting FirstUSA was the focus of an ABC News Nightline program about a month ago, regarding erroneous late fees and other practices. See http://abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl990831.html C ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #463 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 7 21:13:45 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA15565; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 21:13:45 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910080113.VAA15565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #463 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Oct 99 21:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 463 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future (Gail M. Hall) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (ralphies@my-deja.com) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (Jason Fetterolf) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: Where is the True Power? (Linc Madison) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? ( Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Old Phones, was Pulse Dialing ... For How Long? (Bruce M. Binder) Re: Who Owns This Prefix? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Freelancers Win Online Copyright Database Ruling (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? (Barry Margolin) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Curt Squires) 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: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: 7 Oct 1999 16:55:09 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Michael Spencer wrote: > [Schumann talking here:] >> We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected >> second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation >> rather soon, personally. > Thinking about "Walled City" as in Gibson's _Idoru_? "They turned the > killfile inside out ..." A shared, distributed place on the net that > isn't in any fixed place and isn't, somehow, on the net? > Is anyone thinking about how this might translate from Gibson's > fantasy into workable IP technology? I'm still not seeing the cause for concern. DNS _does_ this already. DNS is not in any fixed place. You can choose a root server, or make your own. "They" can do whatever they want with the top-level domains. "We" can always sublet the second-level domains or run "our" own root servers. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: Its All About Greed and the Net of the Future Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 22:46:49 GMT Organization: APK Net On 06 Oct 1999 04:06:57 -0400, Michael Spencer posted to comp.dcom.telecom: >> We move to US, or to a friendly country domain with well-connected >> second-level servers, or we carve out a chunk of ORG. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think we should begin that evacuation >> rather soon, personally. > Thinking about "Walled City" as in Gibson's _Idoru_? "They turned the > killfile inside out ..." A shared, distributed place on the net that > isn't in any fixed place and isn't, somehow, on the net? > Is anyone thinking about how this might translate from Gibson's > fantasy into workable IP technology? I haven't read the Gibson, but I remember the old BBSs where you called in to a certain phone number, gave your id and password and got in. If you didn't have those, you didn't get in. No biggie, I would think. But with everyone running to the Internet these, I don't know if companies that wrote BBS software such as Wildcat! PCBoard, et al are even still in business. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: ralphies@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:56:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. The following was posted at www.erbia com erbia Announcement Network Update October 5, 1999; 12:00 PM EST erbia has made its final decision on the two new underlying carriers. We believe that these two carriers will provide strong service that is in your best interest. All our customer account records, including toll- free services, have been transferred to our new primary carrier and they have already begun processing them. It will take 24-48 hours to go through the complete processing. After the processing is complete, all services will be restored. In order to assist us in the conversion please remove all PIC freezes. Also, please do not create any new PIC freezes at this time. You will NOT be charged a PIC charge for service restoration. We would like to apologize to you again for the inconvenience and sincerely thank you for your patience and understanding. When this is all over we will provide new and exciting service plans to benefit you, our customers. Richard J. Gibbs, President & COO erbia, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:39:12 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Organization: Apollo Concepts Consulting Reply-To: jason@itw.com In response to Uwe Brockmann, uwe@netcom.com: > The Problems > 1. Erbia resells long-distance capacity provided by TeleHub. TeleHub > recently cut off all of Erbia's customers leaving them with no > primary long-distance carrier! Telehub did not just cut off Erbia's customers, but also ALL other users of their network, ie PromiseNet, and OPEX aka Premiercom, and likely others ... > 2. They were way behind in billing. It took several months before I > got my first bill which only covered calls that I had made months > earlier. Many companies which use Telehub's network have been behind in billing ... beware -- if a telephone company can't bill, they cant stay around long! > 5. Erbia's customer service phone number cannot handle the current > call volume. Everybody's calling to complain that they have no LD carrier, that's why! As a matter of comparison, ATT had the same problem (long delays) when they just offered their 7 cent one rate plan about a month ago. > 6. Last year, a few weeks after signing up with this carrier and long > before receiving my first bill, my long-distance service was suddenly > disconnected. I called TeleHub and my LBOC, BellSouth. Both blamed > each other. They continued to blame each other even after I got them > on the phone together. However, they then managed to reconnect me > within an hour. Neither side ever told me what the problem had been > or whose fault it had been. Most of the BellSouth people I talked to > had never heard of TeleHub before. Most BellSouth people dont *want* to hear of anything that means they will have to learn a new PIC code to enter in to their system! > Other Information > TeleHub operates their own nationwide ATM network which supposedly runs > on top of OC-12 or DS-3 trunks provided by MCI/WorldCom. > Supposedly TeleHub can offer lower long-distance > rates by using packet-switched ATM technology rather than traditional > circuit-switched technology employed by other long-distance carriers > without loss of transmission quality. OPEX aka Premiercom has been in the process of migrating its traffic off of Telehub to Frontier over the past few months due to fast busys and calls not going through, etc. The ATM technology is cheaper, but it can NOT currently handle the traffic being sent over it. Forget about the MCI/Worldcom name associated -- to have a good quality voice call sent and received reliably takes more than just "use" of a big name carrier's network for back up. Bottom line -- Telehub's network is new technology, and it has limited capacity. Until they get the capacity up and work out some bugs, you would be better off using a good old reliable switched fiber optic network from somebody like Frontier. No, you dont get the rates quite as cheap as Erbia -- BUT it will work, day in day out, just like ATT's but for a lot less! > TeleHub does not list a toll-free number. Telehub is more like a wholesaler -- they dont want to talk to end users -- that's Erbia's job. > Does anybody know more about what is going on at TeleHub? Can anybody > relate their experience (good or bad) with other low-cost long-distance > carriers? If you want consistent good experiences from a low cost carrier, then see the link below -- UNitel is just 5.9 cpm (one minute billing), with not as attractibe INstate rates, but no monthly fees besides the PICC. Unitel is a reseller for Frontier, and I have used it and know of many other people and Businesses that spend $1000's /mo on the Frontier network that are very happy with it. See: http://unitelagent.com/index.cgi?apollo for details. If you desire six second billing from the same company, then email me directly for details. Regards, Jason Fetterolf ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:03:44 -0500 Arthur Ross wrote: > In-flight, however, I side with the airlines. It is not the normal, > intended radiation from the various devices that is the hazard; it is > the *un*intended radition and accidental nonlinear intermod products > that may affect unintended receivers, e.g. the ILS glideslope, other > aids to navigation. Right. You cannot predict or characterize what kind of intermod might be produced by the nearly-infinite number of possible combinations of passenger-carried electronics. An electronic system _designed_ for aircraft use is shielded for certain frequencies, and well-characterized in general. Plus, the pilots have control over it. I used to work in engineering for Airfone (as Airfone and later as GTE Airfone) and also In-Flight Phone (now defunct). I spent a LOT of time in screen rooms, using copper-foil tape and blank PCB stock to shield and isolate problem circuits in our equipment. When a pilot suspected the in-flight telco gear was causing a problem he would simply pull the breaker for that equipment. If the problem went away he'd leave it turned off and we'd catch major hell when the airplane landed. There's no cockpit breaker for little Timmy's Gameboy or Dr. Executive's GSM laptop. > Cellular systems are not designed for subscribers at > 30,000 feet moving at 500 knots... > From a commercial A/C in > flight to cells on the ground, the effective propagation is near that > of free space. Large numbers of cells would be visible. There would be > intolerable interference and confusion about handoff. And, most > likely, the digital systems are not designed for Doppler of this > magnitude. > One of my engineering acquaintances from Bell Atlantic Mobile tells me > that they have been getting inquiries about airborne use since time > immemorial. The answer has always been something like "Don't even > think about it." I've been out of the industry for about five years, but I recall conversations with cellular tech people about airborne cellphone use. At that time most (all?) cellphones were analog. The main problem with airborne use was that the phone would lock up one uplink frequency across the entire ground network. This doesn't happen much with commercial passengers, but General Aviation (private planes) are responsible for most of the offenders. There's not actually a problem with handoffs, since the call pretty much stays in the originating cell until the whole system drops under the horizon. Two things work against airborne cellphones, though: First, the cell site antennas are specifically designed to have practically no gain in the "up" direction -- in fact they have a downward "tilt." I couldn't get my analog cellphone to work at all in my 23rd-floor office less than two miles from the nearest cell site. The second mitigating factor is that when the cellular provider's computers spot a particular ESN turning up on many ground sites simultaneously they simply lock that phone out of their system. Perhaps permanently. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:52:27 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Where is the True Power? In article , Steven wrote: > OK, so that's three of us who would like to see a new free TLD. So > what does it take to make one? What is the organization that > issues/governs the .us, .uk, .de, etc names. US states have them, so > you don't have to be a country. No, there is no U.S. state that has a top-level domain. Each state has a second-level domain under .US, and there are some TLD's that coincidentally match the two-letter abbreviations for some U.S. states (for example, .CA is Canada, not California; .IL is Israel, not Illinois). There are also some states that have second-level domains under .GOV (.ca.gov, .ohio.gov, .hawaii.gov, etc.). You don't have to be a country, but you have to be pretty close in order to get a geographic TLD assigned. ------------------------------ From: colonel@monmouth.com (World's Largest Leprechaun) Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: 7 Oct 1999 19:50:12 GMT Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation In , juhave@iobox.fi wrote: > Of course commercial sites are probably targeted, but I just may have to > either remove all buttons or change them to jpegs ... I'd suggest PNG instead. PNG is designed for the web. It's more efficient than GIF, and far more efficient than JPEG for buttons and similar graphics. It's also technically better in other ways, and is totally free and open. "The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." --Franco Spisani G. L. Sicherman work: sicherman@lucent.com home: colonel@mail.monmouth.com ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 7 Oct 1999 16:58:14 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , The Old Bear wrote: > Of course, if you want a telephone line that just lets you talk > digitally to the central office switch with no need for things like AC > ring signal voltages, pulse- or tone- conversions, dial-tone > generation, analog audio signals to report call progress ("ringing"/ > "busy"), etc., you can order an ISDN BRI. But that will cost you a > lot more. Bizarrely, my BRI line (Ohio, Ameritech) supports analog pulse dialing. ------------------------------ From: Bruce M. Binder Subject: Re: Old Phones, was Pulse Dialing ... For How Long? Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:48:54 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Michael, et al.: > I could have touchtone if (1) I paid more and (2) I was > willing to buy or rent one of numerous cruddy, anti-ergonomic > and easily damaged little pieces of ... um ... little phone > sets to which the rest of the world seems to have become > accustomed without complaint. > I *like* the big, clunky dial phone with a real bell. > I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks and > feels approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell > ringer but has a keypad and generates dialtones. Can someone > tell me the trade nomenclature or number for such a phone? > Better, where can I get a couple? And if it were to come > from the US, do you know of any problem using it on a > Canadian phone system? Not all of the rest of the world has become accustomed without complaint. Some of us still think the standard desk phone of the 1960s and 70s, called the Model 500, is one of the most ergonomic pieces of equipment ever designed. It was designed by the famous industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss. See http://www.si.edu/organiza/museums/design/exhib/hd/start.htm for an online exhibition of his work, including the telephone, at Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum Smithsonian Institution. The updated touch-tone version of this telephone is called the Model 2500. You can usually find Model 2500s for sale on eBay. I don't know if they will work on the Canadian phone system. Both the 500 and the 2500 have the G-1 handset that, in my opinion, is the most comfortable telephone handset ever made. I don't know why no manufacturer makes a phone with a handset anything like it. Why don't cordless phone makers sell cordless hadsets that people can cradle on their shoulders instead of flat rectangular ear-smashers? Here's my idea, free to any manufacturer that wants to use it: make a cordless phone in the shape of the Model 500. Use the G-1 handset, put the battery charge terminals where the switch hook is, put the push buttons in the handle, put a built-in answering machine in the base, if you want. Retro is in, right? VW Beetles, swing dancing, etc. I'd buy one. [Change green to blue in my address to send me e-mail.] Bruce ___ __ __ ___ ( ,)( \/ )( ,) ) ,\ ) ( ) ,\ (___/(_/\/\_)(___/ Bruce M. Binder ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Who Owns This Prefix? Date: 7 Oct 1999 00:10:56 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 6 Oct 1999 15:47:19 GMT, horn@netcom.com allegedly said > Let's see if I can phrase this question in a coherent manner. > I have a cell phone with Airtouch. > I want a particular phone number if it's available. > The local Airtouch area doesn't have that prefix in any of its area codes. > The local Airtouch folks say they don't have access to the other market > areas. > How can I search for that prefix (546-xxxx) in all of the Airtouch areas? > I think there are 15 or 25 Airtouch marketing areas. You're not even guaranteed that 546-xxxx is a cellular prefix. You couldn't get 440-546-1234 for example, because while Airtouch operates in area code 440, 546 is a landline prefix serviced out of an Ameritech CO. And why would you want to look in other marketing areas? What's the attraction of having a cell phone whose AC is halfway across the country from your home or office?! North Shore Technologies JustTheNet Dialup Internet Access Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Geauga Co., Lake Co., Portage Co., Lorain Co., OH Nationwide Access coming soon! Watch this space for details or dial 1.888.480.4NET for more info! ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:21:21 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Freelancers Win Online Copyright Database Ruling On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT), David B. Horvath, CCP wrote: > The problem is that authors wrote articles for magazines/newspapers > that included "one-time print media" (i.e., *this* issue of Harpers'). > The publishers then went out and put the articles on databases or > CD-ROM without paying royalties to the authors. One-time is different > from multi-use (otherwise the publisher could pay the writer for it > once and use the same article in many different magazines -- or > publish a book of them). Mad Magazine has operated this way for 47 years. Of course, in their case, the contract signed with the freelancers specifically state multi-use. :-) I just bought a 7-CD set of the entire run of Mad Magazine, from 1952 to 1998, and there's not a page missing, nor did they have to pay anyone any royalties. It's a position (insisting on multi-use with no royalties) that has cost them some contributors, notably Don "One Fine Day" Martin, but it's a business model that works and allows them to remain advertising-free. / From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom / Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU / Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU / I hooked up my accelerator pedal in my car to my brake lights. I hit the / gas, people behind me stop, and I'm gone. / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is This Sharing of my Non-Published Number? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:51:20 GMT In article , Matthew Black wrote: > Over the past year I must have received 50 letters to change my CLEC > from GTE California to GTE Communications. The promotion includes at > least 100 prepaid long distance service at about 10 cents per minute, > plus two call handling features such as caller ID or three-way calling. > Unused minutes are nonefundable. GTE Communications also offers a > no frills plan without the prepaid long distance for $25.00 per month. > That's $7.75 more than my current basic service. > Anyhow, the reason they spun off this separate company is because GTE > California is not permitted to offer long distance service. > My question is whether a decision by GTE California to share their > customer information with GTE Communications constitutes a breach > of nonpublished rules? [Note: I work for another business unit of GTE, but I have no connection to any of their telco businesses -- I'm not even a GTE customer -- and I do not speak for the company in any way.] It's not clear that they actually shared their customer information. Often, to avoid privacy violations, a company will send out mailings to their own customer list on behalf of third parties, rather than sharing their mailing list itself. They sell this as a service, and GTE Communications would have to pay for it. GTE California would presumably have to offer this to all comers, not just GTE Communications. The third parties would not become aware of your identity unless you actually replied to the ads. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:10:04 -0500 From: Curt Squires Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting FirstUSA was the focus of an ABC News Nightline program about a month ago, regarding erroneous late fees and other practices. See http://abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl990831.html C ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #463 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 7 23:11:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA20604; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:11:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910080311.XAA20604@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #464 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Oct 99 23:11:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 464 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FAX Teergrube Anyone??? (Walter Dnes) Problem With a Merlin Legend (Joseph Wineburgh) GETS Now Has a Web page (Garrett Wollman) Book Review: Net Wars - Online Book For You (TELECOM Digest Editor) Norway's Royal Palace Deluged With Phone-ins After Prank (Arthur Ross) Demand for Bonded T1 CSU/DSU (Mark Doyle) Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Gail M. Hall) Looking For Information on a WE Conferencing Mike (Steve Gaarder) Siemens Listened to the Whining About the 2420 Gigaset (Steve Winter) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Adam Sampson) Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully (Monty Solomon) Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? (YL/KL Woo) Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps (Dale Neiburg) Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (John David Galt) Information Wanted About PCD3311C Circuits (Janne Kankkunen) Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (Bryan Joseph) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Steven) Re: Revocation of Domain Names (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Revocation of Domain Names (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Revocation of Domain Names (Steve Winter) Digest Quality and Quantity (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: Walter Dnes Subject: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 02:35:22 -0400 I don't have the knowledge to design the circuitry or software, but I'm running this idea up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes. Here in Canada we don't have an equivalent to USA's TCPA against junk faxes. I use a passcode-protected fax machine at home. After making the initial connection, you have to enter the correct passcode to successfully send a fax to me. The machine also accepts faxes from whitelisted phone numbers. This allows me to fax stuff home from work or receive faxes from the people I know. Junk fax attemps get rejected. Every couple of months, the fax prints out a journal listing of the last 35 fax "transactions", including unsuccessful attempts. The rejects take approximatly 13 or 14 seconds usage time. Certain anti-spam internet sites use a "teergrube" (German for tarpit) hack on sendmail to tie up for as long as possible any machine that attempts to relay via them. I'm wondering if it's possible to apply this algorithm to incoming faxes. I.e., if an incoming FAX isn't from a whitelisted number, and it doesn't have the correct passcode dialed, rather than merely dump the connection after 13 or 14 seconds, I want the sender to spend as much time as possible "retransmitting bad blocks" and "retraining", etc. Does anybody on this list know the guts of fax protocols well enough to say if this is or isn't possible? I don't expect big business to manufacture such faxes. They would hurt big business. But quite a few people use computers to receive incoming faxes. How difficult would it be to write fax-receiver software with such features? As many junk faxes are long distance, pushing a connection beyond one minute would probably hit the junkers in their pocketbooks. Comments??? Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Problem With a Merlin Legend Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:50:09 -0400 I am unclear as to whether you have tried swapping a different (working) set into the same port or putting the (suspected bad) set in another port to verify whether it was the set or the port. We have had ports as well as sets go bad! Only other thing is some kind of restriction, although from what you describe with the secondary (public network) dialtone then reorder when pressing keys, I'd suspect hardware problems. Call Lucent again and have it escalated to tier 3 if they are still stumped. Sometimes it takes more than one call to get to someone that really knows the system well. Please let us know what you find out! #JOE Dr. Dialtone wrote: > I have an unusual problem with a Merlin Legend 2.1 v4. When > attempting to dial out on an outside trunk by dialing 9. 3 BIS 10's > out of 49 sets respond with a reorder tone. I do hear the second > dialtone but any digits dialed after that is followed by a reorder > tone. I have checked the station translations and compared it with the > functioning sets and can't find anything different. I have checked > ARC, Restrictions and disallow list and can't find anything that would > cause this problem. Has anyone on the list encountered this type of > problem? I contacted Lucent and they were stumped. ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: GETS Now Has a Web Page Date: 6 Oct 1999 20:57:26 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science A few years back there was some interesting information in this forum on the Government Emergency Communications System, which is the only (so far as this reader knows) user of Special Area Code 710. A random walk through Federal emergency-management Web pages led me to the actual National Communications System Web site, on which can be found the GETS home page. This confirms the usage of the 710-NCS-GETS phone number to access the service, and also discusses some of the other services facilitated by the OMNCS (Office of the Manager of NCS) as a part of this program. See . Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Date: 6 Oct 1999 16:42:43 -0500 Subject: Book Review: Net Wars - Online Book For You I want to take a minute to mention to all of you about an on-line book being offered free of charge to the net for your reading pleasure. Entitled 'Net Wars' it was written by Wendy Grossman and published by New York University Press. The full text is online and available *free of charge* to the net community. Ms. Grossman is a relative newcomer to the net, having first gotten online in 1993 in the months just before the 'killer-app' known as the World Wide Web became generally available. Ms. Grossman does an excellent -- I rate it four stars! -- presentation of the modern, present day (post-1993) internet, and while she does not cover earlier history in any great detail, her overview of where things have gone in the past five years is remarkably accurate and detailed. I recommend the book highly to all of you. http://www.nyupress.nyu.edu/netwars.html Its the complete text, and totally free to the net. If you wish to purchase a printed copy you may do that also, and instructions are given at the site. After you read it, your reviews will be welcome and encouraged here. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:07:35 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Norway's Royal Palace Deluged With Phone-ins After Prank Dow Jones Newswires -- October 7, 1999 Norway's Royal Palace Deluged With Phone-ins After Prank OSLO (AP)--Norway's Royal Palace has been deluged with telephone calls as the result of a practical joke that could only be pulled off in the age of hi-tech communications. The prankster has been sending a text message to thousands of Norwegians' cellular phones that gives a number and then states: "Urgent, call...and ask for Harald," or Sonja, or Haakon. "He's expecting your call and knows what it's about," the news media reported Thursday. Harald is the king of Norway. Sonja is the queen and Haakon, the crown prince. In the past two weeks, the palaces has received about 2,000 such calls, and some days as many as 200, hopelessly overloading the small switchboard staff, the Oslo newspaper Verdens Gang reported. "This is unbelievably tiresome," palace secretary Magne Hagen was quoted as telling the newspaper. "It is not a good joke." Text messages can be sent from one cellular phone to another, or from a computer via the Internet. The prankster could have programmed a computer to keep sending the message to random mobile phone numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:57:41 -0700 From: Mark Doyle Subject: Demand for Bonded T1 CSU/DSU Organization: SBC Internet Services I am doing research to determine if there is a decent market for a Dual T1 DSU/CSU that bonds the 2 T1s together over dedicated or Frame Relay links. It would have the extra benefit of redundancy. Is anyone looking for this solution and at what price? Mark Doyle Engage Communication www.engagecom.com ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" sign? Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 22:46:51 GMT Organization: APK Net I just read another story about restricting cell phone usage in today's _Plain Dealer_. BP Amoco is making a rule now forbidding use of cell phones in their gas stations. They plan to put up signs to that effect. (I don't know how they plan to enforce this, though, because the money-collecting persons are usually behind glass trying to stay alive while still doing the job of collecting the customers' money.) But anyhow, I wonder what a standard internationally understood "DO NOT USE CELL PHONE" sign would look like. It seems to me they would have to make the phone symbol an obvious cell phone rather than a "regular" telephone and then use the red circle with the line across it. Is there such an international standard symbol already? Or will people have to just figure that out for themselves. Cell phones are also prohibited in some places like near operating rooms or other areas of hospitals where the signals could interfere with equipment. I can imagine that other places might want to put up such signs, such as in church sanctuaries or school classrooms. BTW, a story on the other side of our newspaper's front page says the Ameritech SBC deal has been approved in Washington. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 17:21:48 EDT From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Looking For Information on a WE Conferencing Microphone A friend of mine dug up a rather odd specimen: a Bell System "1A Microphone". It looks like something designed for teleconferencing. It has a base about six inches square and a couple high. From this there protrudes a rectangular stalk about three feet high, with small holes at intervals on one side. The base has an LED on each side, and two of the sides have "MIKE OFF" buttons. It connects via a DB9 connector in the base. Does anyone know anything about it? Thanks, Steve Gaarder Network and Systems Administrator gaarder@cmold.com C-MOLD, Ithaca, N.Y., USA ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Siemens Listened to the Whining About the 2420 Gigaset Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 17:35:35 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com It looks like Siemens listened to all of the whining about the Gigaset 2420 problems and fixed just about all of them in the new 2420+. (I will "*" the things I whined about) In a nutshell here are the "enhancements" in the 2420+ Simplified Menu Improved Call Handling Improved Call Transfer * Time and Date sets from Caller ID Answering Machine Configured per Line Cordless handset pick-up after answering machine starts * Barge in from any handset to existing call (configurable on or off) Message waiting indicator on cordless handsets (VMWI) (for both telco voice mail or Gigaset answering machine messages) Quick Access to Desk Station Directory (jump to entry using first letter of entry) Intercom Directory (pick list by Phone Name) Line Access Control by Line for each phone Directory Transfer between Desk Station and handsets Two line Caller ID Display 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 00:18:38 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Reply-To: azz@gnu.org steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) wrote: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: >> Maybe not, but I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten >> years back making it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer >> by using a bogus id. > It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly > gained access. Ahem, but yes, they have, when they sent their mail. At the time the mail went from their system to their upstream SMTP host, they would have authenticated with a "HELO " at the start of their SMTP session. SMTP servers like sendmail can and do drop connections through failed authentication (HELO from the wrong hostname, MAIL TO: a blocked address etc.). I see no moral or procedural difference (obINAL here) between this exchange and logging on to a shell account with an illicitly-obtained password; it makes no more difference that their mail client may have performed the above exchange than it does if J. Random Cracker uses nessus or another piece of security-scanning software to automatically communicate with another host. Adam Sampson azz@gnu.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 02:45:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully http://home.swbell.net/evansjim/CRthreats/extortion.htm ------------------------------ From: YL/KL Woo Subject: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:18:17 +0800 Hi, I would like to buy a cordless phone in Japan. Does anyone here know or have experience if those local models work out of Japan ... say in the US, UK or Singapore? I mean, I don't care about the 100V, and the Alpha-3 features. I just want one because their desgins are so cool. Since I can read some Japanese, I don't mind the Japanese interface. I know that my 3Com modem works in Japan. Does that mean Japanese fixed line phone works out of Japan? I mean is there any difference in the dial tones of Japan and those in USA, UK, Singapore? Would appreciate if you could reply to wooly@earthling.net. Domo Arigato! Yew-Liang ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:03:44 -0400 In TELECOM Digest, issue 449, Ed Ellers quoted BBC News Online: > [snip!] > Alison Bell, a 36-year-old surgeon from west London, cut her leg badly > after falling from a step ladder while working on renovations at her > family's cottage near Fishguard. > The hearing in Milford Haven was told that Dr. Alison Jane Graham Bell, > who was based in London, would have survived the freak accident if > help had arrived quickly. >http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F461000/461724.stm Astonishing! Was the doctor any relation to that "other" A. Graham Bell, or is this just another remarkable synchronicity? Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 "...And I have heard many impudently say, that they have chosen their Wives, and Wives their Husbands, by dancing. Which plainly proveth the Wickedness of it." --Philip Stubbes: The Anatomy of Abuses, 1573 ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:07:13 GMT Organization: Tomatoweb.com NewsReader Service J. Baptista wrote: > There's one thing I've noticed about hacking that concerns me. Some > countries like the U.S. arrest them. Other countries and commercial > interests hire them. > The question I have is who's going to end up on top? Countries that > arrest, or those that hire? I see this as depending more on the attitude of the cracker than that of the government involved. "Captain Crunch" went straight, and got hired. Kevin Mitnick, at least so far, appears determined to keep attacking, so he may never see the light of day. (Which may be excessive, but how can we ever protect ourselves if he does?) John David Galt ------------------------------ From: Janne Kankkunen Subject: Information Wanted About PCD3311C Circuits Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 04:38:32 PDT Hello! Do you happen to know where can I find some information about PCD3311C/PCD3312C- circuits? Janne Kankkunen ------------------------------ From: Bryan Joseph Subject: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:34:46 -0400 Organization: Picus Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please reply to bryan@picus.com . ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:34:41 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer You are supposed to apply for a license within 30 days or something after moving to wherever, permanent resident, resident, whatever. If they can't issue you one then what? Do you lose your driving privileges because the rest of the world doesn't issue S/S numbers? The international license is not valid in the country where the license it was issued against was issued. You can probably drive on your foreign license in the US without the international license anyway, so its not a big problem. Ill try this anywhere I please, thank you very much, and I will run into no problems because it is perfectly legitimate. Steven ahk@chinet.com says... > Steven wrote: >> So long as they don't work this deal with other countries then anyone >> can continue to get a foreign license/international license, valid in >> the states, for a very modest fee. > Don't try this at home. Rather, don't try this in the place in which > you live. Generally, if you are a permanent resident (regardless of > whether or not you are a citizen), you must obtain driving privileges > through the local jurisdiction. By the treaty that created the > international license, it isn't valid at home. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Revocation of Domain Names Date: 7 Oct 1999 00:08:26 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 05:39:57 -0600, Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU allegedly said: > the ICANN-pushed contract language appearing in the contracts of all > the new "competing" registrars, we are being led to believe that there > is competition (and thus if you don't like one company's terms you can > go find another), yet in fact IT IS STILL A MONOPOLY, run by ICANN. > Worse, it's very likely a judge will fall for this nonsense also. Nah. All of those new registrars MUST play by the same rules. At least as far as I can tell. Point that out to the judge. North Shore Technologies JustTheNet Dialup Internet Access Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Geauga Co., Lake Co., Portage Co., Lorain Co., OH Nationwide Access coming soon! Watch this space for details or dial 1.888.480.4NET for more info! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 23:11:09 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: Revocation of Domain Names Joey Lindstrom wrote: > In regards to the discussion about what Netsol and other registrars are > doing re: the language in their contracts that states they can take > away your domain name at any time for any reason, I agree that this is > completely unreasonable. For the time being, I'll take them at their > word that this language is there just to cover their own asses. I'll remember that logic the next time I sit down to a contract negotiation. > I think domain names should be handled like phone numbers. I dunno > what US tariffs look like, but I was browsin' through my white pages > the other day and read part of the Telus tariff here in Alberta, which > states essentially that you, the customer, do *NOT* own the telephone > number and that the telco can change it - but they MUST have a valid > reason for doing so - you do have protection against an unreasonable > and arbitrary change. IE: if a company called "FLOWERS" decided they > wanted a telephone number that spelled out this word, and I happened to > be using it, I could *NOT* be forced into relinquishing it. BUT (and I cannot believe at this point that toll free numbers compare favorably to domain names in user-friendliness), [portability-based] guidelines and rules for toll free numbers (a) not only do not contain any "we can revoke your number at any time" language -- which incidentally, is why no one can be forced to relinquish a number -- but (b) the guidelines also contain language that says, in essence, "The subscriber has the ultimate right to control his toll free service and number." And that ain't in domain name contracts. > What annoys me off here is that when Netsol was a > monopoly, it was much easier to make a case against them if they > arbitrarily yanked your domain name: they're a monopoly, and you signed > that contract only because they were the only game in town. Now, with > the ICANN-pushed contract language appearing in the contracts of all > the new "competing" registrars, we are being led to believe that there > is competition (and thus if you don't like one company's terms you can > go find another), yet in fact IT IS STILL A MONOPOLY, run by ICANN. > Worse, it's very likely a judge will fall for this nonsense also. Bingo. > If you're looking to set up a domain name, and you're feeling a little > paranoid about it, I suggest you check out the .NU domain. All well and good, but for the foreseeable future, if you are a business entity, .com rules. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Revocation of Domain Names Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 17:41:25 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Joey Lindstrom spake thusly and wrote: > I really believe that if they started yanking domain names just because > they didn't like the colour of certain netizens' hair, it wouldn't > stand up in court, no matter what the "contract" says. Restraint of > trade could be cited quite easily, along with a host of other legal > arguments. They would open a big door for someone else to step in and take over if they got trigger happy or greedy about it, and if the big ISPs elected to honor the new registrar ... but ewe ... I don't want to think of the mess that sort of war would make. I want to think that trade mark and service mark owners (like SELLCOM) have a secure spot by having that domain registered. I really want to think that so much, I really really do. I really feel so much better when I think that ... I really want to think that ... I sure hope I am right. 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Digest Quantity and Quality Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:55:00 EDT As many of you have probably noticed, in recent days the output of this Digest has been sort of skimpy. There has not been as much output as I would like, nor has the editing quality been as good as I prefer. The problem has been that I am continuing to fill in as a substitute moderator for rec.radio.broadcasting, and that task is taking some time that would otherwise be spent here on telecom. So I apologize that the output the past week or two has been sort of skimpy. Things will hopefully get back to normal and up to speed again soon. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #464 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 7 23:45:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA22267; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:45:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910080345.XAA22267@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #465 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Oct 99 23:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 465 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "ICANN Has Neither the Authority Nor the Resources" (Judith Oppenheimer) DNRC Files Complaint With ICANN (Jay Fenello) Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Tad Cook) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (L. Winson) Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? (Louis Raphael) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (Robert Eden) Re: Y2K Activities (Brian Elfert) Last Laugh! All Digest Readers Have Won Fifty Dollars! (Michael Maxfield) 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, 07 Oct 1999 00:03:47 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: "ICANN Has Neither the Authority Nor the Resources" - Mike Roberts "... the marketplace is allowed to determine the terms under which registrars and domain-name holders will deal. This approach allows the parties to choose provisions that reflect local business conditions, legal jurisdictions, and other considerations. "ICANN has neither the authority nor the resources to be a consumer protection agency, and in any event there are existing protections for abuses ... such as better business bureaus, trade commissions, etc in most of the countries in which domain name activity is present." Mike Roberts, Interim President/CEO, ICANN, Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:24:35 PDT Guess that puts the trademark question to bed ... Judith Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com"> Publisher of ICB Toll Free News Publisher of WhoSells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 10:44:11 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: DNRC Files Complaint with ICANN Over Uniform Dispute Policy HERNDON, October 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name issues, today filed a formal complaint with ICANN on their proposed Uniform Dispute Policy (UDP). "We object to any uniform dispute policy, especially one that skews the playing field towards large trademark holders" said Mikki Barry, president of the DNRC. "Under this proposal, only the domain name holders are contractually obligated to follow the rules, while trademark holders continue to have their traditional options available. This not only inhibits competition, but it gives special rights to trademark holders that do not exist in any other medium." The DNRC also protested the use of a small drafting committee, and the way that suggestions were filtered through an ICANN attorney. It was yet another example of ICANN circumventing the White Paper's call for bottom-up, consensus processes. In addition, the DNRC noted how the UDP goes well beyond the mandate of curtailing cybersquatting and reverse domain name hijacking. Reverse domain name hijacking is hardly mentioned in either the rules or the UDP, and most of the other provisions go well beyond the stated purpose of the UDP. These objections join a long list of other complaints against ICANN, including the expansion of their mandate from "technical management" to policy issues that will likely impact civil liberties world-wide, ICANN ignoring its own rules and by-laws, and ICANN's refusal to give individuals any say at the ICANN table. The Domain Name Rights Coalition was formed in 1996, and has worked for national and international policies which are fair and equitable to all users of the Internet ever since. It has also worked to protect the Internet as a global medium of communication and free speech, and it is well known for its vigilant fight against the Domain Name Dispute Policy of Network Solutions, Inc. and similar policies recommended by the World Intellectual Property Organization. CONTACT: Mikki Barry www.domain-name.org 703-925-0282 SOURCE: Fenello.com, Inc. www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 ------------------------------ Subject: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 19:08:41 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) CLEVELAND (AP) -- BP Amoco plans to ban the use of cellular telephones at its U.S. gasoline pumps by the end of the year, a newspaper reported today. The precautionary measure is prompted by concerns that electronic impulses from a cellular phone could help ignite fires if gasoline or gas fumes are present. The risk is slight, but London-based BP Amoco doesn't want to take any chances, Linda McCray, a BP spokeswoman in Cleveland, told {The Plain Dealer}. The company will begin posting warning signs at all Amoco and BP stations by the end of the year, McCray said. "We are unaware of any incidents here in the U.S. in which a cellular has been linked to a fire or an explosion," she said. "This is strictly a precautionary measure we are taking." The BP Amoco ban, which was implemented earlier this year at BP stations in the United Kingdom and Australia, will prohibit the use of personal electronic devices such as cellular telephones, compact disc players and pagers near gas pumps. The San Francisco-based Chevron Corp. also plans to ban cell phones. The company will place warning decals on gas pumps later this year, said Nancy Malinowski, a Chevron spokeswoman. The city of Cicero, Ill., a Chicago suburb, recently passed the first law in the nation banning the use of cellular phones at gas stations. Cell phone manufacturers have included warnings against such use in owner's manuals for years because they say that under certain conditions, cell phones could help generate sparks. The American Petroleum Institute, which is looking into the reports, has so far found no substantiated reports of such incidents. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: 8 Oct 1999 02:23:28 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > What you are going to see now is one stop shopping from five or six > companies instead of one. Five or six companies? For the average small-potatoes user? Certainly not now. > We had a system that gouged long distance callers in order to support > dirt cheap local service. It was socialism pure and simple. Long distance rates are not comparable between now and them because the rate structures are completely different. Many rate plans require a monthly service charge which is usually NOT added to rate comparisons. High volume far distance users are probably paying less. Low volume short distance users are definitely paying more. (Short haul inter- state calls had far lower rates before than now when all rates are uniform regardless of distance.) Further, long distance calls from pay phones or via calling card or operator assistance cost substanti- ally more. An additional problem today is fingerpointing between LD and local companies over access charges. The end consumers end up paying for charges to BOTH, (And of course there's the added bureaucracy of splitting charges between different companies.) And another un-counted cost is the telecom staff employed by large users to manage their systems. Previously this work was done by the phone company itself. Regardless of the merit of requiring a company to have its own staff (or hire a telecom consultant), those costs need to be added to long distance rate costs. > Monopolies, like the old Bell System were no longer in the public > interest ... that's why we have the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. It is not merely "monopolies" but also excessive concentrations of market power. A merger of this magnitude at the present time repre- sents a significant increase in concentration and is not in the public interest. > My judgment is that despite Kinnard the FCC Commissioner the merger > will go through since WorldCom will effectively argue that once > BellAtlantic and SBC are allowed into the LD market the competitive > balance will be essentially restored. Without question, no mergers should be allowed until the local companies are allowed to offer full services. > The ILEC's should be forced to sell the circuits ... (see above) why > can't I choose my local carrier the same way I choose my LD carrier? Unlike years ago when each customer required a dedicated copper pair and carrier systems were expensive and limited, it is easy today to lay high capacity fiber. Cable companies rapidly wired much of the country with coax, then came back and wired them with fiber. There is no reason a competing company couldn't build its own independent local loop. Indeed, such a company would have an advantage over the Bells since its plant would be more modern. > Are you really suggesting that SBC and Bell Atlantic are paragons of > "public service" ... there is only thing they understand and are > desperate to avoid ... real competition for local phone service. I have been a Bell Atlantic customer for a great many years and have been very satisified with their service. I have tried to use MCI and have been quite unhappy. (I also wish MCI didn't keep phoning me for seven straight days even though each time I told them I wasn't interested. I also wonder why they quote me rates that are more expensive than what I'm paying now.) > We have more services at lower prices than ever in the history of the > Telecom industry ... and a great deal of new jobs and national wealth > has been created in the process. > Its not perfect ... but a heck of a lot better that the old days. A great deal of jobs have been created in the competing companies. MCI hires lots of sales people. I know for myself, my costs have gone up and my service quality has gone down. Bottom line: MCI and Sprint merger is not in the public interest. The original goal was competition. Let's keep it that way. ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 03:13:33 GMT Junk faxes are indeed quite tiresome. I vaguely remember recently sending one back, followed by a number of sheets of paper with just a line across them :-). How about using fax receiving software, and setting it to (fax) 2400 bps if you don't like the caller ... crude, but it would lengthen the call. Also, you could easily have your computer swallow it all up in the general direction of /dev/null, unlike a paper-based fax machine, so you can happily listen to the whole thing. Louis Walter Dnes wrote: > Certain anti-spam internet sites use a "teergrube" (German for > tarpit) hack on sendmail to tie up for as long as possible any > machine that attempts to relay via them. I'm wondering if it's > possible to apply this algorithm to incoming faxes. I.e., if > an incoming FAX isn't from a whitelisted number, and it doesn't > have the correct passcode dialed, rather than merely dump the > connection after 13 or 14 seconds, I want the sender to spend > as much time as possible "retransmitting bad blocks" and > "retraining", etc. Does anybody on this list know the guts of > fax protocols well enough to say if this is or isn't possible? "Colleges don't make fools, they only develop them" - George Horace Lorimer ------------------------------ From: Robert Eden Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:43:30 -0500 Jason Fetterolf wrote in message: > Telehub did not just cut off Erbia's customers, but also ALL other > users of their network, ie PromiseNet, and OPEX aka Premiercom, and > likely others ... When it worked, 700-555-4141 reported my line as being with MCI/WorldComm and I got dumped too. I wonder if Telehub was really the problem. "We're sorry, the number you are calling *FROM* has been disconnected." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Y2K Activities From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 14:42:30 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor made a poor attempt at humor: > I got a curious joke in personal email the other day, and since I do > not remember it all, it won't be much of a joke when told here, but it > had to do with the McDonald hamburger signs in front of each of their > restaurants. It seems those signs all now say 99 billion have been > eaten to-date, and it is about time to change the sign to say 100 > billion have been eaten. The trouble is, the signs were all construc- > ted so many years ago when no one considered there would ever be a On a serious note, most new McDonald's locations have signs that say 'billions and billions served'. They probably got sick of changing the numbers every few months. Brian ------------------------------ Subject: Last Laugh! All Digest Readers Have Won Fifty Dollars! Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 19:01:42 PDT From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Here's one for your 800 number book. Haven't been near a payphone yet to try and claim my $50. Mike. Forwarded message: From wwwpublications@hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 17:25:54 1999 From: wwwpublications@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 22:26:34 -0300 Message-Id: <199910080126.WAA22523@brasilvision.com.br> Reply-To: wwwpublications@hotmail.com To: tweek@netcom.com Subject: Your $50 This advertisement is never sent unsolicited. Your email address has been submitted to us indicating your interest in our publications. If you are not interested in our publications and wish to be removed from our lists, simply do NOT respond and ignore this email. Your email address will be removed from all future mailings. Thank You. Your Personal Pass Code Number is: 0575085308 To redeem, please call toll free 1-800-377-8977 Congratulations! You have won $50. To redeem your $50, please dial the following toll free number and have your pass code ready. Toll-Free Number: 1-800-377-8977 And your Personal Pass Code Number is: 0575085308 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #465 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 14:47:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA11939; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:47:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910111847.OAA11939@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #466 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 14:47:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 466 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson DoJ Children's Home Page Hacker Story Exposes Double Standard (B Mengele) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Bruce Wilson) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bruce Wilson) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Lou Coles) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Lou Coles) Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia (ralphies@my-deja.com) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (James A. Young) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (Syd Barrett) First Merger Cutbacks ... Not Exactly (Clifton T. Sharp Jr.) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 10 Oct 1999 23:47:28 PDT From: Babu Mengelepouti Subject: DoJ Children's Home Page Hacker Story Exposes Double Standards CyberWire Dispatch // copyright October 8, 1999 // All rights reserved Jacking in from the "Mr. Rogers" port: By Lewis Z. Koch CWD Special Correspondent The Department of Justice has either lost its collective mind, lost all sense of its own history or is just too damned busy trying to figure out who really gave the order to waste a couple dozen kids in the Waco debacle. The DOJ has produced a "Hacking Story" kids web page (www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/) and on it they have cartoon woman holding "the scales of justice" -- only she's not blindfolded. The page also has a bewigged judge, peering over his glasses, looking stern, squinting down approvingly as perhaps the thumb screws are tightened on another hapless hacker who has fallen into the clutches of a Justice Department searching for another "teachable moment." Now -- and I am not making this up -- there is an "Internet Do's and Don'ts" on this kids page subtitled "Think about it." This about this: your tax dollars paid for this. The "Think About It" section starts off, "People who break into computers ('hackers') destroy property and records and invade privacy. What's privacy worth to you?" That's a very good question boys and girls. To understand it, how about a bit of a history lesson first. Perhaps we should we ask what privacy is worth of the family of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. whose privacy the FBI invaded for years, bugging his bedrooms and his phone conversations. What was Dr. King's privacy worth? Or the other people whose privacy was invaded as they interacted with Dr. King? Or are there two standards of privacy, boys and girls -- one for the government rule-breakers and one for hacker rule-breakers? This is called a "double standard" boys and girls. Can we spell "hypocritical?" Perhaps we should do an Internet search with the key words "black bag jobs" and "FBI." (And for extra credit, try "Iran-Contra.") The page goes on to ask, "What information about you (or your parents) do you think is private: medical information? ..." Good question. But perhaps an even better one to ask, boys and girls, is why is all that medical data available in the first place? Why isn't it encrypted? You know, in code, so no one can read it? We'll come back to that, later. It might be that the insurance companies want the data to be open, so they can easily read it as it goes from Internet site to Internet site, medical data traveling across the Internet, just as carefree as can be. The insurance companies want to make it easy for themselves, so they can keep track of all the medical records. Precautions to keep it out of the hands of, say, the FBI or private detectives, or people who can monitor all those records speeding about the Net would cost money, and insurance companies need lots of money, so they can give part of it to politicians. The insurance companies like to share and we all know sharing is a good thing, isn't it, boys and girls? Yes, Jenny, you have a question? What, Aetna doesn't share with you? Shame on them. Maybe you should run for Congress. Yes, you'll get extra credit. Maybe the DOJ should put up a web page for insurance companies, asking them all kinds of fun questions. Inquiring little minds want to know. The DOJ kids page would have children worry about hackers knowing what grade you got in English or Math or how much money you have and how much money you owe and your letters to a friend and a boyfriend or girlfriend. Are those good questions boys and girls? Well, on the one hand, most fifth graders, frankly, don't give a shit (oops, sorry about that boys and girls) -- aren't all that concerned about grades or how much freaking money an eleven year old is making. And as to the money they owe ... please, let's not get carried away boys and girls. The DOJ kids page goes on like some blithering 3rd grade teacher in Kansas set to make a fulsome argument for creationism, "When you write something, how important is it to be able to find it again ... How important is it that data in computers not be altered ... [like] grades? ..." Maybe next week, boys and girls, we can all sit down and write a Freedom of Information request and find out how many people worked the wonderful prose on the kids page. And then we can total up how much they make a year in our special math class! I'll bet it goes way, way, way over $100,000. You think that is a lot of money, don't you? Do you know the expression "chump change" boys and girls? Time to write another letter, boys and girls. This one goes to the Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley. You know him from your fun history books, the son of Richard J. Daley, who had his Red Squad break into peoples' homes, bug their bedrooms and offices phones looking for information for decades until a Federal Judge had to tell them to stop. Mayor Daley wanted to know all about people who disagreed with him. And that's the same Richard J. Daley whose handpicked State's Attorney's police murdered two Black Panther members while they slept in their beds. Well, Richard J's son, William M., is the man who, along with lots and lots of FBI agents and CIA agents and NSA agents, has been fighting for weak encryption rather than strong encryption. Strong encryption, boys and girls, prevents people from reading your personal correspondence or records. Now the Department of Justice wants to bug your computers to prevent you from utilizing strong encryption the way it is supposed to work. Weak encryption makes it so much easier to read your grades. Let's have a show of hands. Who wants the government to know everything about us and for us to not know anything about the government? Anyone? Anyone? Later, let's all look up "data mining" on the Internet. We can probably find out lots of cool things about your parents that they don't want you to know. Now let's talk about the best part of the "Think About it" page: "Some hackers think that if they 'don't alter anything' or 'don't mean to alter anything' they haven't done any harm. But they are stealing telephone and computer time. They also crash systems so they won't work. How do we use information systems today? What would happen if systems like the air traffic control system or the 911 system suddenly stopped working?" Now, let's be real good students, boys and girls. What's real strange about those ideas? Remember when we learned that word "stereotype?" It's bad to stereotype, isn't it boys and girls? Rachel or Brian, can you tell me what the stereotype is here? Riiiiighht. Good. Both of you! You want to know who, exactly, are those "some hackers" the page refers to. Do they have names? The kids page seems to be telling us that all hackers are bad. Well, one group of hackers calls themselves L0pht. And they have cool names like Silicosis, Brian Oblivion, John Tan, Dr. Mudge, Kingpin, Space Rogue, Weld Pond and Dildog. Some of them also belong to a hacker group called "Cult of the Dead Cow." Isn't that a great name to scare a U.S. Attorney! Almost makes you want to be a hacker, doesn't it? You get to testify before the United States Senate and describe how thoughtless the United States government is when it tries to hide software vulnerabilities. You know what? United States Senators were so impressed they even autographed their own pictures for them! Isn't that cool? Tomorrow we'll look up the words "duplicity" and "stupidity." So I guess the lesson is "some hackers" can be good hackers, unless the DOJ kids page authors or the DOJ itself wants to challenge the United States Senate. What do you think? Maybe MTV would even do a celebrity death match segment DOJ v. the Senate. How about those last ideas boys and girls, about systems crashing? Why is it some people have become centa-billionaires or just plain billionaires by making computer software full of flaws and mistakes and bugs, causing the programs to crash all by themselves or to be crashed by some silly 16-year-old script kiddie? Are these very rich men ever asked why a multitude of software users is made to endure their bug-ridden products? No, Rebecca, no need to answer, that was what we call a "rhetorical" question. What do you think your parents would do to General Motors or Ford if their car or truck totally self destructed by itself or fell apart at the slightest fender bump? Yes, Brian? Oh, I see, well I am sorry about your father's Yugo ... You know the concept of "bankruptcy?" Don't you think it's only fair, boys and girls, that the software billionaires should shoulder some of the responsibility for the flaws in their product rather than putting the blame on the heads of "some hackers?" Maybe the Justice lady should put her blind folds back on and administer justice without fear or favor. What do you think, children? Tomorrow's assignment, boys and girls, is to read the latest issue of Phrack, write a synflood script and wear your "Free Kevin Mitnick T shirts" at assembly. Yes, Brian? Of course you get extra credit for your creative use of "Back Orifice," but tomorrow, please restore the school's network to its rightful owner. Thank you. Class dismissed. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 10 Oct 1999 02:42:34 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? > We had a system that gouged long distance callers in order to support > dirt cheap local service. It was socialism pure and simple. No, the separations process recognized the reality that all of the local service plant, from the connection to a long-distance trunk at the CO to the subscriber's phone, was part of the long-distance network when used to make long-distance calls and the LEC should be compensated for its use. The expensive alternative would've been to have had two complete sets of local plant and the subscribers two phones, one for local cals and one for long-distance. To the extent there's been "socialism" in utility rate-setting, it's been the practice of setting residential rates at artificially low "affordable" levels and using business rates to make up the resulting shortfall in the total revenue requirement. > Monopolies, like the old Bell System were no longer in the public > interest ... that's why we have the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. Rate regulation was intended to serve as a substitute for competition; and telcos were regulated monopolies because of the economic ineffeciency of duplicate plants. >Divestiture worked. The problem with introducing competion was "cream-skimming" -- lower rates for high-volume (usually big business) customers, with low-volume customers left holding the bag. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 10 Oct 1999 02:27:43 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal > The "official" line given to employees is that "construction will > continue as planned ..." This refers to ...? Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It refers to the Sprint World Head- quarters campus in the Kansas City area on which there still remains about one year of work and a few more buildings before it is complete. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:00:53 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises L. Winson wrote in message news:telecom19.465.4@ telecom-digest.org: >> What you are going to see now is one stop shopping from five or six >> companies instead of one. > Five or six companies? For the average small-potatoes user? Certainly > not now. Yes now even including the 10-10 #'s. > A great deal of jobs have been created in the competing companies. > MCI hires lots of sales people. I know for myself, my costs have gone > up and my service quality has gone down. But according to your posts you're not an MICWorldcom customer. Why don't you blame BellAtlantic ? > Bottom line: MCI and Sprint merger is not in the public interest. > The original goal was competition. Let's keep it that way. It's not MCI ... it's MCIWorldCom, a totally different company than was MCI. ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:03:02 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Coredump wrote ... Coredump? What a horrid nick, do you delight in giving old BAL programmers nightmares? ------------------------------ From: ralphies@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Trouble at TeleHub and Erbia Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:52:08 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. The following was posted at www.erbia com erbia Announcement Network Update October 8, 1999 erbia would like to apologize to you again for the inconvenience and sincerely thank you for your patience and understanding. For those loyal customers who have suffered through this network conversion with us, we would like to thank you by extending to you 200 free minutes of interstate calling time in the month of December 1999. In addition we will extend to our current customers reduced cost Internet service at $9.95 per month, a savings of $4.00 per month off of our regular price of $13.95 per month. Some of you have experienced difficulties using the 10-10-297 dial- around number, to assist you during this short period of difficulty, we have two additional dial-around numbers for you to use, 10-10-811 or 10- 10-636. Please retain your invoices for these services so that we may credit your erbia account with the difference. In order to assist us in the conversion please remove all PIC freezes. Also, please do not create any new PIC freezes at this time. You will NOT be charged a PIC charge for service restoration. Richard J. Gibbs, President & COO erbia, Inc. ------------------------------ From: James A. Young Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:37:24 -0700 Organization: U S WEST Interprise The Minneapolis water department installed a system that sounds very similar to what you described in my house several years ago. I had no problem with it until last summer when I ordered a DSL connection from US West. I tried to "do it yourself" install and couldn't get it to work at all. US West sent out a tech to trouble shoot the problem and it turned out to be the water meter line. The installers had spliced into a line rather than run their wire 5 feet farther to the main wiring block. The ragged splice was enough to keep the DSL connection from working. Once we isolated the problem, resplicing the connection seemed to fix everything. It kind of annoyed me that a) they were using my phone line in the first place, b) they had sliced into one of my phone wires and done such a crummy job that it caused the DSL service not to work (heck, even my amateur wiring that I'd installed myself worked better than what they had done.) and finally c) I had to pay for and put a line filter on their box to keep it and the DSL connection from interfering with each other. grumble, grumble, grumble ... Gary Novosielski wrote: > I just had one of these gadgets installed today. My water company > calls the system "HOMER" for Hands-Off MEter Reading. (But wasn't the > old way "hands-off" too?). It's connected at one end to the water > meter with a three-wire cable, and at the other end to a normal RJ-11 > phone jack. Actually, this is the second attempt at installing it. > They tried once a few years ago, but were unable to get the thing to > function. Watching their debugging attempts, I learned a little about > the device. > PAT's description of the protocol is exactly right, it uses the > telco's "line test" functions. No ringing voltage of any kind is > used, distinctive, selective, or otherwise. The phone never rings or > tries to. What happens is that the line appears to go "off hook" but > it is done from the telco side. Inbound callers would surely get a > busy signal. > The reason it wouldn't function at my house is that I had a gadget on > the line that interfered with it. "It was a Radio Shack Hold Module", > a device that would attach to the phone line at any jack, and let you > put any extension on hold by flashing the hookswitch twice, so that > you could then pick up the call at another extension. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Syd Barrett From: Syd Barrett Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 21:48:02 GMT Organization: @Home Network Gary Novosielski wrote in message news:telecom19. 459.12@telecom-digest.org: > I just had one of these gadgets installed today. My water company > calls the system "HOMER" for Hands-Off MEter Reading. (But wasn't the > old way "hands-off" too?). It's connected at one end to the water > meter with a three-wire cable, and at the other end to a normal RJ-11 > phone jack. Actually, this is the second attempt at installing it. What about all the supposed fibre many utilities have in the ground? How far does it extend? Is it only between substations and distribution points and such? Here in Virginia Power land, the meters are still read the old-fashioned way -- by a guy in a grubby uniform clutching a clipboard. Anybody in VA know any poop about when Virginia Power will make any switches to automated meter-reading? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:59:56 -0500 From: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. Subject: First Merger Cutbacks ... Not Exactly Organization: as little as possible Followup to my earlier note. The next day I went back to Ameritech's web site and tried once again to get information for Illinois. This time, when asked my zip code, instead of a little clickable map I was given a message to check for information at ; couldn't go there, as it prompted me for a password. Checked 'whois' on the domain, and that was quite informative: GTE CORPORATION (WIRELESSYOURWAY-DOM) 600 Hidden Ridge IRVING, TX 75015-2092 US Domain Name: WIRELESSYOURWAY.COM Administrative Contact: TAYLOR, DON-WN-BAHE (DT10554) don.taylor@GTE.NET 972 718 8027 Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact: GTE CORPORATION (GC1260-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET 972 718 3798 Record last updated on 29-Sep-99. Record created on 07-Jun-99. Database last updated on 9-Oct-99 05:21:36 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET 4.2.49.2 DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET 4.2.49.3 No news that the web address, 128.11.41.236, identifies reverse-DNS style as gtecom7.cam-colo.bbnplanet.com. Called the new customer service number before closing time. Waited about five minutes on hold until a guy with a strong accent spoke loudly into his headset to me, to inform me that Ameritech would continue to provide my cellular service, and that I'd be notified if any changes were afoot. "We wouldn't surprise you with that." Today, tried the web site again. Everything says "Ameritech Cellular". But I have a good guess as to who has recently licensed that name. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cliff Sharp | "Speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." | | WA9PDM | -- Jim Nitchals, founder, FREE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- http://www.spamfree.org/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #466 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 17:18:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA17830; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:18:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910112118.RAA17830@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #467 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 17:18:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 467 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Dry Cell Battery (Andrew Emmerson) Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Dave Harvey) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (Terry Knab) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Linc Madison) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Jeremy S. Nichols) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Michael Sullivan) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Ed Ellers) First Merger Cutbacks? (Clifton T. Sharp Jr.) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (Alan Boritz) Re: MCI/Sprint Merger (Michi Kaifu) Re: DNRC Files Complaint With ICANN Over Uniform Dispute Policy (D Clayton) Re: Webcam Experiences Wanted (Paul Robinson) Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Satch) Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (M Pollock) Long Distance Then and Now (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: Telephone Dry Cell Battery Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:16 +0100 (BST) Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk In article , fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) wrote: > Does anyone know what type/voltage of dry cells were used by Morse > in the first (the two wire) Baltimore-to-Washington telegraphy line, I think the answer is none -- they had not been invented! The voltaic pile itself was not invented until the year 1800 and this was of course wet, with a stack of discs in the recurring sequence of copper, zinc and felt soaked in sulphuric acid. Volta then produced his more practical 'voltaic cell', which consisted of a vessel containing diluted sulphuric acid in which a zinc and a copper plate (the electrodes) were immersed. This generated a voltage of around 0.78V and could be linked in a series or 'battery'. A great many scientists carried out further research, continuously producing improved versions. They included the Briton John Daniell (1836), the Frenchmen Leclanch and Grenet (1856), and the German Bunsen (1843). The dry battery came later, when domestic applications needed it (telephones, buzzers, annunciators). Andrew Emmerson ------------------------------ From: Dave Harvey at Medical Connections Subject: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:27:17 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I am an occasional traveller to the US, and have a UK based GSM/PCS account. I could hire a PCS phone when travelling to the US, but as the prices are very high, I am looking at buying one second-hand instead. However, in the UK (and most of Europe) handsets are "locked" by the phone companies, so that they may only be used with their own SIMs, unless you pay to have them "unlocked" once your mimimum contract has expired. Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not, so I wonder whether this system exists in the US. Do I need to watch out for "locked" phones, or is this practice not used in the US (banned by FCC etc.?) All thoughts much appreciated. Dave ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet Organization: The Home Office Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:31:03 GMT Brian C Roy wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A few days ago I spent some time on the >> mailing list here, swapping out email addresses for readers who had >> been at that site to wherever they told me to move them. At one time, >> I suppose eight or ten years ago, there were quite a few Freenet-type >> sites around. Are any of them operating any longer? I suppose there >> is not a lot of room or tolerance for anything like that on the net >> today, and it is very unfortunate. PAT] > I'm happy to report that the Greater Columbus Freenet is still alive > and well, and still using pretty much the same(gopher) format they > started with. They've just recently started offering PPP connections > (for a fee) to help support the free part of the system. > I read news on this system, and use it for my primary email, because I > actually LIKE using pine for mail and tin for news. And then there is Nyx.net, which has been in existance since '92. I must say proudly, we have NO, repeat NO network abuse problems. In the last two years, for example, we have terminated only 12 accounts for abuse. As it stands, we do just offer terminal/shell access for now, (I can't say if that will change anytime in the future) but our secret? We require anyone who wants an account to send us proof of who they are (notarized statment, copy of driver's license, etc..). You'd be surprised at how few problems we do have. I'd like to think Nyx is one of the few services of its type that is still true to the spirit of the Internet. And we're a community, which many free sites (sadly including freenets) aren't. Terry E. Knab News Administrator Nyx Public Access Unix ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:29:49 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy In article , Steven wrote: > You are supposed to apply for a license within 30 days or something > after moving to wherever, permanent resident, resident, whatever. If > they can't issue you one then what? That's a meaningless hypothetical question. There is no circumstance in which the state of your residence CAN'T issue you a drivers license. They may refuse to, if you don't meet the legal requirements, but there is never any inability. > Do you lose your driving privileges because the rest of the world > doesn't issue S/S numbers? No. You don't have to be a US citizen, nor even a US resident, to get a Social Security number. If the state in which you are assuming residence requires a SSN to issue a drivers license, then you get an SSN or you don't get a drivers license. > The international license is not valid in the country where the > license it was issued against was issued. You can probably drive on > your foreign license in the US without the international license > anyway, so its not a big problem. > I'll try this anywhere I please, thank you very much, and I will run > into no problems because it is perfectly legitimate. It is not legitimate to drive in the U.S. on a foreign-issued drivers license if you are a full-time permanent resident of the U.S. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: 10 Oct 1999 20:48:23 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Steven wrote: > ahk@chinet.com says ... >> Steven wrote: >>> So long as they don't work this deal with other countries then anyone >>> can continue to get a foreign license/international license, valid in >>> the states, for a very modest fee. >> Don't try this at home. Rather, don't try this in the place in which >> you live. Generally, if you are a permanent resident (regardless of >> whether or not you are a citizen), you must obtain driving privileges >> through the local jurisdiction. By the treaty that created the >> international license, it isn't valid at home. > You are supposed to apply for a license within 30 days or something > after moving to wherever, permanent resident, resident, whatever. If you have moved somewhere (legally), you are a permanent resident. The time you have to obtain a local license will vary by jurisdiction. In my state, Illinois, a new resident validly licensed elsewhere may drive without an Illinois license for the first 90 days. > If they can't issue you one then what? Do you lose your driving > privileges because the rest of the world doesn't issue S/S numbers? Where in the world are there no national identity numbers? In the United States, there are some permanent residents who are foreign nationals who don't qualify for Social Security Numbers because they don't or can't have jobs. If there is some reason to report their unearned income, then they must get Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers from the IRS which are in Social Security Number format. In Illinois, drivers don't need a Social Security Number if they are exempt from having one (or are in a recognized religious order that prohibits its members from having one) and may substitute the ITIN or some other number at his discretion. > The international license is not valid in the country where the > license it was issued against was issued. You can probably drive on > your foreign license in the US without the international license > anyway, so its not a big problem. In your earlier message, you seemed to imply that you could drive with your international license at home or obtain a license from a foreign country without actually residing there. I can't find a provision in Illinois law prohibiting the state from issuing a license to a nonresident. Maybe that's implied under state's rights. Under federal law, a CDL cannot be issued to a nonresident. > I'll try this anywhere I please, thank you very much, and I will run > into no problems because it is perfectly legitimate. You'll try what, driving with a license issued by a jurisdiction that you weren't residing in or driving on an international license in the country in which you reside? You may do what you like. May I advise you to carry sufficient bail money with. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy S. Nichols Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:06:48 -0500 Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus The use of cell phones in airplanes is illegal ... http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=6775331292+1 7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Subpart H--Cellular Radiotelephone Service Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones. Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft: "The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations." Jeremy S. Nichols, P.E. jsn@tc.umn.edu Minneapolis, MN j.nichols@ieee.org ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:15:28 GMT Jeremy Greene wrote: > Why does anyone tolerate this? Is this charge supposedly to pay for > digital switch upgrades? No. It's to keep the base rate down. PUCs and Telcos like to avoid rate increases. Under traditional regulation, the PUC decides how much total revenue a regulated telco is entitled to project over the next year, and after doing that, the rates get set to recover the permitted amount. If they eliminate a revenue source, they have to make it up. Thus in a hypothetical scenario, if Telco is entitled to budget for $100M of revenue, and currently $95M comes from base rate and $5M comes from the touch tone fee, elimination of the touch tone fee would require an upward adjustment of the base rate of $5M, or about 5%. In fact, the vast majority of subscribers would enjoy a small rate decrease (since they wouldn't have to pay the touch tone add-on), but the few people who don't currently pay for touch tone would have to pay more. These people tend to be older subscribers, many on fixed incomes. The politial ramifications are obvious. That's why it doesn't happen as often as it might. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:15:42 -0400 Charlie Cremer wrote: > Excuse me? When a phone comes off-hook, how does the CO equipment > know if it is pulse or DTMF? That can't be resolved until the dialing > begins. I dispute the suggestion that pulse phones may get a dial tone > sooner than DTMF, especially with modern ESS equipment." The CO *does* know, from its class-of-service database, which lines *may* use DTMF and which are not allowed to. Pulse *phones* as such won't get a dial tone faster, but pulse-only *lines* could. (FWIW, even when all phones had to be leased from the telco, there were still situations where a Touch-Tone customer may have had one or more rotary phones as well as Touch-Tone sets -- for one thing the Trimline set was only available in rotary for the first two years or so, and in the 1970s there was a program in which the Bell companies would install Western Electric parts, leased at the same rate as a 500 set, in a housing built to WECo specs and supplied by the customer. A lot of so-called "French phones" were made this way, and often they would not accomodate a DTMF dial.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:21:21 -0500 From: Clifton T. Sharp Jr. Subject: First Merger Cutbacks? Organization: as little as possible On September 17 the wife and I bought cell service from Ameritech. Today I was talking to a friend who has a basic pay-as-you-go plan with them. He expressed an interest in going digital and I mentioned Ameritech's basic plan for that. Tonight he got on the site, called me and complained that he couldn't get any information for Illinois; all the links were for Milwaukee, Indiana, Michigan, etc. Having just been to that site a few days ago I told him he was crazy... and found the same thing at the site. I went to the page where, days ago, they were willing to sell me pagers and cell phones; instead of the dozens of items offered then, I got about five answering machines and cordless phone items. So I went to call the 24-hours-7-days support number at 1-800-221-0994, my brand-new "answer book" in front of me to help navigate the voice-mail jail. The number has been changed. At the new number, no help was available because "Our offices are now closed. Our hours are 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Friday, and 8 AM to 7 PM Saturday." First service cutback from the SBC/Ameritech merger? Funny thing, I can't find anything in the FCC's 30 conditions about them having to divest one cell company or the other (the "A" carrier here is SW Bell d/b/a CellularOne). But they seem to be in the process of divesting anyway. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Cliff Sharp | "Speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." | | WA9PDM | -- Jim Nitchals, founder, FREE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- http://www.spamfree.org/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 23:24:03 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Brian Vita wrote: > At 03:10 AM 10/6/99 -0400, was written: >> The public hearings the town held prior to issuing its permit were >> the first time the church learned it had done something its neighbors >> didn't like, Duncan said. That's when residents and parents aired >> their concerns that their children's health would suffer from >> microwaves coming from the antennas. >> 'I think these antennas are extremely dangerous to health,' George >> Eastman, a spokesman for the Waldorf School board of directors, said >> this week, expressing fears that have been part of the debate since it >> inception. >> Eastman, who has two children at the school, said the antennas 'emit a >> low-frequency radio wave which penetrates the fluid organs ... the brain, >> kidney and spleen,' and can cause cancer." > I find this whole argument by the folks in Lexington to be ridiculous. > We are talking about a cell phone tower that puts out a relatively low > power signal. > If we travel a mile or two to the Southwest, we end up at Bear Hill in > Waltham. Bear Hill is one of the hills that circle Boston and is used > extensively as an antenna farm for all sorts of signals, a majority of > which are heading over Lexington for Boston. A mile or so to the West > we have Bedford with Hanscom AFB with its share of antennas, radar and > other goodies. If we jump to the Northwest, we have WRKO with 50,000 > watts of AM radio. If memory serves me correctly, there's at least > one commercial AM/FM site in Lexington proper. Do they really think > that the additional 1Kw or so of combined output of the cell site is > going to do them in? There's at least one site in Lexington, proper, with at least three cellular and/or PCS systems. By now there may be more. It's on the southern edge of Lexington on the east side of 128. A well manicured and maintained disguise cellular tower would be a pale comparison to what's coming off the roof of the Stride Rite building. ------------------------------ From: Michi Kaifu Subject: Re: MCI/Sprint Merger Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:44:55 -0700 dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) wrote: > Although I have not followed this all that closely, I do recall the > original MCI offer was 65 billion, topped by Bell South at 72 billion > ... how did something worth 65 billion just a couple of weeks ago > suddenly get to be worth 119 billion? Did they discover a whole > 'nother company down in the basement that everyone forgot about or is > the stock market so buoyant that any absurd set of numbers can be made > to work ... until the balloon pops? The "whole 'nother company down in the basement" is Sprint PCS. Both $65bil. and $72bil. does not include the value of the "tracking stock" of PCS, which is not really a separate entity from Sprint but the stocks are separately valued and traded. PCS tracking stock's market cap is approx. $33bil., so the whole deal, if PCS is included, was in north of $100bil. from the beginning. Wireless business is a strange child full of contradictions. It is supposed to be an engine of growth, but most often is a money-losing operation. It is very difficult to turn out "profit" because you have to continue investing for so many years, but people believe that the payback period is shorter than the landline. Wall Street pushed Bernie so hard to buy wireless business, while forced Mr. Esrey to separate tracking stocks because it is losing money. Well, don't get me wrong ... I love wireless, just as you love your strange child. And there goes another one ... ckaschig@gmx.de (Chris Kaschig) wrote: > According to dpa ('Deutsche Presseagentur') the new name will be just > "WorldCom" - (no "MCI" any longer); no idea by whom this info is > authorized Someone was saying on TV discussion that it's because Sprint people just can't stand to have any "MCI" name on their head. My husband is saying that both MCI and Sprint have pretty negative image, and that it would be a disaster to combine the two, while Worldcom is relatively unknown among "regular consumers" (not TELECOM Digest readers). I think both insights are really true (especially after spending four days to reach the right customer service person, simply to ask for a return kit for an accessory I bought from Sprint PCS -- of couse, it was they who shipped a wrong stuff). Michi Kaifu ENOTECH Consulting michi@pop.net ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: DNRC Files Complaint With ICANN Over Uniform Dispute Policy Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1999 18:09:57 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Jay Fenello contributed the following: > HERNDON, October 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition > (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of > entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name > issues, today filed a formal complaint with ICANN on their proposed > Uniform Dispute Policy (UDP). ...... Exsqueeze me?, I thought that DNRC stood for: "Dogbert's New Ruling Class" (see www.dilbert.com) ... :-) Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ Date: 09 Oct 1999 21:12:37 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Webcam Experiences Wanted From: Paul Robinson In article , Fred Atkinson writes: > Is there anyone out there that has some experience running Webcams > on your home PC? I have a small video camera I purchased for $59. It's supposed to have a $30 rebate, so if it does come through my net cost will be $29 (not counting tax and the 33c in postage). I am not really surprised at the low quality of the picture (what do you expect from a device that costs less than a good quality still 35mm camera) but that you can do this at all for this price. For taking simple pictures such as snapshot equivalents, such as for use on a web page -- which is what I use it for -- it is more than adequate. I've used it on both my home computer and my office computer since both have USB ports. > I recently purchased one, but the video quality is so poor that I > am returning it to the seller for refund. The problem I have noticed more than anything else is light. Offices use florescents and sometimes have outside windows, and as a result the light level in an office (that a camera notices) can sometimes be considerably higher than that in a home. Unless I adjust light sources in my room the area on camera is usually very dark, whereas in my office it is often fine. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:43:47 GMT From: satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) Subject: Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) said on 07 Oct 1999 in the following: > Cell phone manufacturers have included warnings against such use in > owner's manuals for years because they say that under certain > conditions, cell phones could help generate sparks. > The American Petroleum Institute, which is looking into the reports, > has so far found no substantiated reports of such incidents. I very much enjoyed your essay on BP Amoco. Perhaps they feel that gasoline as dispenses by their pumps is as dangerous as dynamite with electrical blasting caps. That's the only explanation I can think of for this ban. For years, it's been a known thing that emitters of RF can generate enough power in a blasting cap to trigger ignition. This is caused by RF energy building up in the wiring for the blasting cap, causing a standing wave to generate enough heat to trigger the cap. If you have noticed, all electrically triggered explosive devices are shipped with the wires shorted together, and sometimes shipped in all-metal containers, to avoid the problem with the explosives in storage. As for gas explosions caused by sparks igniting vapor: The only case I know of involving gas and radios was an older tube-type CB radio with an open relay that was installed in a car. (I don't think this was in a filling station; instead, I think it was kids working on a car in a driveway.) When the transmitter was keyed, the relay pulled in. When the transmit key was released, the relay dropped out and apparently the arcing across the opening contacts ignited the vapor. No one was injured, and it didn't start a sustained fire. Modern CB radios, business-band radios, and cellular phones all use solid state switching -- there isn't a open relay anywhere to be seen. Is this another case of the lawyers getting a burr up where the sun don't shine? _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:05:33 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! The Reuters report at http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/991007/3t.html quotes Howard Miller, a spokesman for London-based BP Amoco, as saying, "What we're saying is turn off everything -- phones, pagers, laptops, diskettes -- that uses a battery." This goes right along with the current posted warnings to turn off engines while refueling. After all, cars have batteries, don't they? Mike ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 04:22:30 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Long Distance Then and Now On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:45:24 -0400 (EDT), L. Winson wrote: > Long distance rates are not comparable between now and them because > the rate structures are completely different. Many rate plans require > a monthly service charge which is usually NOT added to rate comparisons. > High volume far distance users are probably paying less. Low volume > short distance users are definitely paying more. (Short haul inter- > state calls had far lower rates before than now when all rates are > uniform regardless of distance.) Further, long distance calls from > pay phones or via calling card or operator assistance cost substanti- > ally more. I know that this statement is completely false in the Canadian marketplace, and I can't see how it could possibly be true in the USA. Are you saying that, prior to 1984, you could get 7 cents/minute long distance 24/7 nationwide in the USA? Certainly, many of these plans do require a monthly service charge but many DO NOT -- and even when you factor that charge in, and compare how people prior to 1984 would be doing if they were making the same calls today as they were then, I'm sure it would be lower. As I've said here before, I once -- many moons ago -- made a lengthy overseas phone call to my uncle in the UK. Telus, the ILEC here in Alberta, charged me $1.75 per minute for that call. I swore then and there that I'd switch to anybody -- and I mean *ANYBODY* -- the day I was allowed to switch away from Telus. As soon as Unitel (now AT&T Canada) began offering long distance, I switched. I later moved to Sprint Canada and also signed up with them for local dial tone on the very day it became available. Today, I make that same call to the UK via Sprint Canada for 22 cents/minute. Or, I use Wintel and get it for only 14/cents per minute. Neither company charges me any monthly minimum. Plus, Sprint Canada knocks a couple of bucks off my local phone service each month if I also have their long distance service on my line. Competition has been good for *ME*, and I don't make a lot of long distance calls. My local service costs about 60% higher than it did 15 years ago, but when you factor in both inflation and the long distance savings -- even with my relatively low usage pattern -- I come out ahead. Plus, if I don't like what my phone company's doing, I can tell 'em to go to hell and switch to a new one. This I like. I do, however, doubt that Arthur C. Clarke's prediction (in "2001: A Space Odyssey") of the removal of all long distance rates on December 31st, 2000 -- thus making every call a local call -- will come true. Sure is a nice thought though ... From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU (After we die,) do we go on a journey into something more magnificent, or do we merely get buried and remade into bridge-mix for worms? Well, you know, we just don't know. And that question often tugs on us like harder than Newt Gingrich trying to water ski. Death haunts us because the only guarantee that comes with the gift of life is that sooner or later you're gonna have to return that gift to whatever cosmic Nordstrom's we inhabit. -- Dennis Miller ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #467 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 17:56:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA19709; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:56:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910112156.RAA19709@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #468 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 17:56:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 468 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telco Mergers and Name Changes (Mark J Cuccia) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Fred Goldstein) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Eric Friedebach) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Johnnie Leung) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steve Winter) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Chicago Telephone Co. (Al Varney) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 10 Oct 1999 21:26:37 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Telco Mergers and Name Changes The proposed merger of Sprint and MCI may have made some big news for everyone, and the "re-alignment" of telcos in Canada over the past few years has been watched by Canadians and telecom-minded people as well. But there has been one particular merger that took place this past summer that seems to have been overlooked. Earlier this year, the four provincial telcos (and their holding companies) in the Maritime Provinces announced a merger. All four companies have been partially owned by Bell Canada Enterprises Inc, which is the holding company of Bell Canada telco in (most of) Quebec and Ontario. BCE also holds in part or full, Northern Telephone in parts of rural eastern/northern Ontario and Telebec in parts of western/central Quebec (as well as some exchange territory scattered all over Quebec, some of these were once operated by Contel), and also BCE holds NorthwesTel in northern British Columbia and the three northern territories of Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut). Bell Canada (or BCE) has also announced plans to 'align' itself with SaskTel and MTS (Manitoba), since (GTE) BCTel in British Columbia and Telus are merging, and also the Stentor (once known as Telecom Canada, and TCTS -- the Trans-Canada Telephone System) Alliance is supposed to be completely 'dissolved' by the end of this year. Also, Bell Canada and Ameritech are supposed to have some form of 'affiliation'. Anyhow, when the four partially BCE-held Martitime Province telcos agreed to merge earlier this year, I was hoping that maybe they would choose the name "Maritime Bell". But no, the name chosen was "Aliant". All of the above has been reported in Canadian business circles, as well as in telecom circles throughout North America and the Internet, particularly in TELECOM Digest and Angus Telemanagement. However, the name 'Aliant' struck me as a bit odd, since a few years back, the (independent) telco in Lincoln NE, once known as Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph, changed its name to 'Aliant'. I recently tried to go to the URL for the Canadian 'Aliant', at http://www.aliant.ca and it went to the new company name for the Maritime Province telcos. But I was still curious about how 'Aliant', formerly Lincoln (NE) Tel & Tel, so I went to http://www.aliant.com from my Bookmarks file. The page came up that the URL had changed to http://www.alltel.com (?!) Yes, by going through the "newsroom" section of Alltel, I found out that late last year (in December), the independent 'group' telco Alltel (which took over some GTE and Contel territory a few years back when GTE and Contel decided to merge), and 'Aliant' formerly LT&T (Lincoln NE) decided to merge. The merger was approved by the FCC and thus became 'official' in July of this year. The 'Aliant' name was removed from the Lincoln NE telco and replaced by Alltel in September. The other large-size city with an independent telco that was still "home grown" was Rochester NY. Rochester Telephone became known as Frontier a few years ago. Frontier is a group-owner of (incumbent) independent LECs in several markets, and also has a long-distance subsidiary, which had been known as Allnet (101-0444+). But even before Allnet and Rochester Tel became Frontier, Rochester Tel had a long-distance subsidiary, mainly available from New York state, called RCI - Rochester Communications Intl. The history of telephony in both Rochester NY and Lincoln NE is very similar. Both towns had competing non-connected Bell and independent, until the "late-teens" or early 1920's, sometime after "Kingsbury". In Nebraska, both Omaha and Lincoln had both a Bell exchange and a non-connected competing independent. Sometime after "Kingsbury", it was agreed to have a 'swap-off'. Bell acquired the indepdent in Omaha, and the independent acquired the Bell in Lincoln. Incidently, Omaha was the VERY FIRST place to have "Panel" switching in the early 1920's. In New York state, both Rochester and Buffalo had both a Bell exchange and a non-connected competing independent. After "Kingsbury", the 'swap-off' occurred where Bell acquired the independent in Buffalo, and the independent acquired the Bell in Rochester. Also, both the Nebraska (Omaha and Lincoln) and New York state (Buffalo and Rochester) independents, before the 'swap-off', had DIAL (Step-by-step) while the Bell exchanges were 'strictly manual'. Many independents throughout the US (and Canada) back then had MANY innovations that Bell refused to implement! As for the MCI-Worldcom / Sprint merger, I wonder how this could affect the Sprint incumbent independent LEC operations of United Telephone (which really is the 'parent' company of Sprint Long Distance) and the acquired exchanges of Centel incumbent independent. United (Sprint) acquired Centel in the early 1990's, similar to the GTE acquisition of Contel. At that time, GTE sold off several GTE and Contel exchanges, some to Alltel (as mentioned above), and some to Citizens' Telecom/Utilities. Also, "Call-Net" in Canada is partially owned by (US) Sprint. They operate as Sprint-Canada, and provide competitive Long Distance (interconnecting mostly with US-Sprint in the US) as well as emerging CLEC services. I wonder if this may become known as "Worldcom-Canada". Ironically, Stentor and more specifically with the dissolution of Stentor, the Bell Canada 'group' has a business associationship with MCI! AT&T (US) has a part ownership of what was known as Unitel (which was somehow associated with Rogers-Cantel; and Unitel was once the telecom operations of the railroads CN and CP - this included Telex/Telegraph, as well as incumbent 'independent' telco exchange operations in northern BC / Yukon / old 403 parts of NWT known as NorthwesTel, and in parts of Newfoundland known as Terra Nova Tel; these incumbent LEC operations of CNCP were sold to BCE's Newfoundland Tel and for the northern territories to BCE in the late 1980's when CNCP or Unitel wanted to provide competitive Long Distance). Unitel is now known as AT&T-Canada which provides competitive long distance and emerging CLEC services. Yet prior to the mid-1970's, AT&T / WECO / Bell Labs still had a small, but ever decreasing part ownership in Bell Canada / NECO / Bell Northern Research! Who knows, maybe with all of the mergers and name-changes going on, we might just end up with "One Bell Telephone System" 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- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:38:16 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? In V19 I465, Lee Winson wrote: >> What you are going to see now is one stop shopping from five or six >> companies instead of one. > Five or six companies? For the average small-potatoes user? Certainly > not now. There is no one-stop shopping. There are rebillers and aggregators, but a smart buyer will shop around for the best deals on each portion. In the LD space, there are hundreds or thousands of nominal LD carriers, but it really comes down to there being a handful of separate networks with a bunch of resellers. AT&T, MCI Worldcom, and Sprint are the major suppliers to the LD resellers. Qwest, Level3 and Williams have various amounts of fiber in the ground, but don't have the switching superstructures. They seem more interested in selling bandwidth to ISPs. (GTE and Frontier own IRUs on Qwest fibers, Frontier has its own minor LD operations.) But when you come to the high-volume big-bucks 800 service sector, the big three stand alone. (Judith Oppenheimer is invited to corroborate or correct me.) It costs millions and millions to develop the specialized software that drives the fancy 800 services that large users depend upon. You don't buy that off the shelf from Lucent or Nortel! So the little guys don't have it. (Again, resale doesn't count.) With Sprint and MCIW merging, it comes down to two players. That invites collusion; with only one competitor, it's easy to raise or hold up prices knowing that the one other guy is unlikely to blink. WIth three or more vendors, collusion breaks down rapidly -- witness how PCS (six licenses per market) caused a rapid drop in prices by the original cellular duopolists. >> We had a system that gouged long distance callers in order to support >> dirt cheap local service. It was socialism pure and simple. Not socialism, which is govt. ownership, but a govt.-supported monopoly capitalism. More mercantilist than socialist. > Long distance rates are not comparable between now and them because > the rate structures are completely different. Many rate plans require > a monthly service charge which is usually NOT added to rate comparisons. > High volume far distance users are probably paying less. Low volume > short distance users are definitely paying more. Gimme a break. Zero-minute callers yes. But in 1985, LD was around 27 cents per minute if you had a good deal; of that, maybe 15 cents went to the LECs as access charges. Today access charges average more like four cents/minute, and the LD carriers give a dime a minute for a low-volume user with no "plan fee". The LD carriers do get socked monthly "PICCs" by the ILECs, which they pass back; that's just a deception by the FCC to raise local rates indirectly. > (Short haul interstate calls had far lower rates before than now > when all rates are uniform regardless of distance.) Usually, but that was "postalizing" before 1984, and the use of heavy LEC per-minute access charges rather than percentage-based universal service surcharges forced further postalization. > An additional problem today is fingerpointing between LD and local > companies over access charges. The end consumers end up paying for > charges to BOTH, (And of course there's the added bureaucracy of > splitting charges between different companies.) It's a straightforward charge, vs. Ye Olde Bell System's "separations" method, which had some hidden bureaucracy of its own. > And another un-counted cost is the telecom staff employed by large > users to manage their systems. Previously this work was done by > the phone company itself. Regardless of the merit of requiring > a company to have its own staff (or hire a telecom consultant), > those costs need to be added to long distance rate costs. Gimme a break!!! I was a telecom manager at a good-sized company back in the late '70s, and there were more people doing that job then than now. The phone company was the enemy, pure and simple. We shopped around within the monopolist's tariffs for things like WATS (six bands to choose from), foreign exchange, etc., and we used trunk queueing and any other angle we could figure out. Plus we had to audit bills for frequent errors. At least that last element hasn't changed much. And rental PBXs were another costly nightmare. Any company who let the monopoly telco "take care of them" was being ripped off big time. > It is not merely "monopolies" but also excessive concentrations of > market power. A merger of this magnitude at the present time repre- > sents a significant increase in concentration and is not in the public > interest. Well I agree with that! > Without question, no mergers should be allowed until the local companies > are allowed to offer full services. Non-sequitur. Do you think that if Bell Titanic gets its Section 271 approval in New York, they're suddenly going to rent backhoes and trench the lower 48 states? It's a resale job. And it sounds like SBC's mandated entry into 30 out-of-territory local markets will be just a resale job, acting as sales agents for the local ILECs. Big whoop. SNET long distance was resale. ALL of the RBOCs made resale agreeements with the Big 4 (before Worldcom bought MCI) in preparation for eventual Section 271. In any case, the RBOCs are doing a great job of evading their legal obligations to open up their networks to competitors. I'm working on some interconnect-agreement stuff now, and while they talk about being "open" for Section 271 purposes, the terms they're demanding now are guaranteed to prevent a CLEC from ever breaking even. And that's if they bother to even negotiate. As far as I'm concerned, any ILEC who hasn't passed Section 271 by now (none have!) should be penalized by being banned from even asking for the next five years, and fined big time if they don't meet all of their obligations within five months. OF course it'll never happen. > Unlike years ago when each customer required a dedicated copper pair > and carrier systems were expensive and limited, it is easy today to > lay high capacity fiber. Cable companies rapidly wired much of the > country with coax, then came back and wired them with fiber. There is > no reason a competing company couldn't build its own independent local > loop. Indeed, such a company would have an advantage over the Bells > since its plant would be more modern. You are kidding, of course. Run the numbers. If you have to overbuild an existing outside plant and have less than half of the incumbent's take rate, your cost/subscriber will be much higher no matter how hard you try. RCN tried it and they're losing money big time, and they're mosty peddling TV. (Paul Allen apparently needs another tax loss.) MediaOne does do a nice job of cable telephony, but that's an incumbent CATV with enough market share on the TV front to finance the cable. NOBODY pulls new copper, and fiber is too costly for anybody whose monthly bill is under four figures. > I have been a Bell Atlantic customer for a great many years and have > been very satisified with their service. Is Ripley's still in business? ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:17:34 -0400 Actually, some pagers do transmit. I happen to have a Skytel 2-way pager with an internal rechargeable battery that outputs at (I believe) just under 1 watt. I also have a Blackberry (or Bell South interactive pager) which also transmits at around 2 watts. While the pager(s) don't seem to have an exposed antenna, the phones do. Touch it to a nice earth ground while transmitting and you might just get a spark. The real issue, however is "What is more likely to set off a fire". My personal belief is that there is a much greater chance of someone else starting their car/lighting a cigarette (yes there are idiots that still do this)/etc. and triggering an explosion than a phone running at 1 watt (or under). Again, they're just being litigious sensitive -- everyone is getting sued for everything these days. One other thing to consider is the 'vapor recovery' systems installed in most (if not all) of the pumps in the US these days. They do seem to cut down on the vapors coming out of the tank. I'm not sure other countries have mandated such a system, so there may be substantially more vapors lingering around their pumps to begin with. JOE ------------------------------ From: Eric Friedebach Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:32:42 -0400 Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations In V19 #465 of the Digest, it was reported that: > The BP Amoco ban, which was implemented earlier this year at BP > stations in the United Kingdom and Australia, will prohibit the use of > personal electronic devices such as cellular telephones, compact disc > players and pagers near gas pumps. > CD players and pagers? Better shut off the AF/FM radio too. Come to > think of it there are all sorts of electronic gizmos in your average > late model car like air bag sensors, electronic fuel ignition, etc. To > be safe we should shut off the engine, disconnect the battery and then > push our cars the last 100 feet to the gas pump. Of course this is silly and unenforceable. But by adopting this policy, the gas company can then shed some of their liability by saying *We tried to warn you* should an accident ever occur. Blame the personal injury lawyers for this one. Eric ------------------------------ From: Johnnie Leung Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:46:53 -0700 Organization: U S WEST Interprise Tad Cook wrote in message news:telecom19.465.3@ telecom-digest.org: > Pagers are banned? They don't emit radio waves. Depends on the pager. At work we use SkyTel pagers (made by Motorola) which are essentially cell phones minus the audio part. Johnnie Leung ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:47:42 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) spake thusly and wrote: > (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody > can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny > signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers > are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) > CLEVELAND (AP) -- BP Amoco plans to ban the use of cellular telephones > at its U.S. gasoline pumps by the end of the year, a newspaper reported > today. What about potential sparks from their "pay at the pump" credit card processing machine? 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:19:03 GMT In article , tad@ssc.com says: > (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody > can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny > signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers > are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) You forgot those of us that are amateur radio types. Imagine a signal that can go anywhere from 1.8MHz to 10GHz in certain bands, and at power levels from thousandths of a watt to 1500 watts. Then throw in different modulations types like CW, SSB, AM, and FM. It's all media hype that causes this. Little by little you'll see cell phones banned from many places, just because they can. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Chicago Telephone Co. Date: 10 Oct 1999 21:32:55 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Eric Bohlman wrote: > Franklin's been at 311 W. Washington for quite some time now; I first > saw the building 24 years ago, it looked like it had definitely been > built as a CO rather than something else, and it looked like it was > quite old at the time. Chicago-Franklin was the site of the first No. 1A ESS switch, which went into service 23 years ago (actually October 15, 1976). I spent way too many evenings (second shift) working on the switch that spring. The entrance foyer, elevators and lighting were from the 1910s or so. So were the restroom facilities. :) It appeared the floor had been cleared of a panel switch some decades earlier. There were still some fuse-boards (fuses and wires held on a wooden panel via brass screws) visible, and one motor-driven interrupter frame (vertical shaft driving several horizontal camshafts). Wish I'd taken some pictures of the place ... Al Varney ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #468 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 18:32:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA21645; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:32:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910112232.SAA21645@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #469 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 18:32:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 469 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft (Arthur Ross) Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? (Michi Kaifu) Re: Who Owns This Prefix? (Linc Madison) Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (Steven) Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps (Steven) Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? (Brad Ackerman) Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? (Steve Winter) Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? (Steven) Floyd/NJ Telecom Problems and Hams (Cortland Richmond) Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (Nospam) Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter (Kim Brennan) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Richard Shockey) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Michael Belli) Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires (Coredump) Re: DNRC Files Complaint with ICANN Over Uniform Dispute (Gordon Hlavenka) dogbert@dilbert.com (Gordon S. Hlavenka) 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, 11 Oct 1999 09:07:54 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote: > I've been out of the industry for about five years, but I recall > conversations with cellular tech people about airborne cellphone use. > At that time most (all?) cellphones were analog. The main problem with > airborne use was that the phone would lock up one uplink frequency > across the entire ground network. This doesn't happen much with > commercial passengers, but General Aviation (private planes) are > responsible for most of the offenders. > There's not actually a problem with handoffs, since the call pretty > much stays in the originating cell until the whole system drops under > the horizon. Two things work against airborne cellphones, though: Precisely the point. Cellular gets its high capacity, in part, through frequency re-use. In the analog service, you're not assigned a single frequency over the entire city; you get it only over a limited area. It is re-used for other callers elsewhere nearby. Airborne use screws that up. The airborne user is heard by, and hears, cells, all over town that happen to be trying to use that same channel. The manifestation of it is different in the CDMA systems, which have universal frequency reuse, but it's still a problem. Handoff is problematic because any potential serving cell that is close to the current serving cell in strength should be a soft handoff participant. Actually, there might be a problem with getting sufficient SNR from any particular cell or small enough subset of cells that the soft handoff works. > First, the cell site antennas are specifically designed to have > practically no gain in the "up" direction -- in fact they have a > downward "tilt." I couldn't get my analog cellphone to work at all in > my 23rd-floor office less than two miles from the nearest cell site. > The second mitigating factor is that when the cellular provider's > computers spot a particular ESN turning up on many ground sites > simultaneously they simply lock that phone out of their system. > Perhaps permanently. Quite so, although those "downtilted" antennas are really quite broad and sloppy -- not sharp searchlight beams of coverage, and the downtilt is not much -- usually something like 15 degrees. The difficulty with operation in high rises is more likely due to too *much* coverage, not too little. This too has been a long-standing problem. Phones in Manhattan high-rises often see cells miles away in Connecticut, New Jersey, or Long Island. Creates a sort of handoff & billing mess, although the operators seem to have learned to cope with it. We just recently went through this exercise on the 35th floor of a lower east side building ... was cured by putting a repeater *inside* the building that tipped the balance in favor of the local cell(s). -- Best -- Arthur ------------------------------ From: Michi Kaifu Subject: Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:05:28 -0700 YL/KL Woo wrote: > I would like to buy a cordless phone in Japan. Does anyone here know > or have experience if those local models work out of Japan ... say in > the US, UK or Singapore? I am pretty sure you can "use" any Japanese cordless phones, as long as it is a regular analog single line phone, at least for the purpose of conversation. I know that American phones work in Japan. It may not be "legal", due to the different wave spectrum and/or power output regulations, but police will not come to grab you because of it, so don't worry! Also, if it has an answering machine function, there may be some problem. I myself have no experience on the answering machine side. Good luck. Michi Kaifu ENOTECH Consulting michi@pop.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:12:48 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Who Owns This Prefix? In article , Jim Hornbeck wrote: > Let's see if I can phrase this question in a coherent manner. > I have a cell phone with Airtouch. > I want a particular phone number if it's available. > The local Airtouch area doesn't have that prefix in any of its area codes. > The local Airtouch folks say they don't have access to the other market > areas. > How can I search for that prefix (546-xxxx) in all of the Airtouch areas? > I think there are 15 or 25 Airtouch marketing areas. Just as long as you're not looking for 546-2623! (For the mnemonically impaired, that's LINCMAD) Of course, I'm guessing that you're looking for something more like JIM-xxxx or JHORNBEck or something like that. ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:47:54 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer Countries have far less to fear from this then corporations. There has always been the theoretical scheme to bring down the US communications system by taking out x number of tandem switches. You need a lot more then interrupting weekend calls to Grandma to overthrow a government. Its a lot of media hype, it always has been. Its only in the movies where teenage kids guess a password and starts a nuclear war. Companies, on the other hand, use guys like these all the time. Actually they use people who get the job done and don't get caught, but close enough. You just don't hear much about it because people don't talk about it. They don't need to go on IRC and brag about selling AT&T calling cards for two bux. They are too busy spending their exceptionably large earnings to waste time chatting. You have to keep in mind that despite the over glorification of the whole situation by an author who obviously specialises in paperback romance novels, there was really nothing special going on here. What did they have, access to? Certainly nothing to endanger national security, and certainly nothing an average collage kid couldn't get taking a summer job. But I must applaud the author. I haven't seen such a piss poor written sensationalist piece of crap in decades. Its nice to see that hackers today aren't doing anything new. Its nice to see that the media hasn't grown up either. Steven baptista@pccf.net says ... > There's one thing I've noticed about hacking that concerns me. Some > countries like the U.S. arrest them. Other countries and commercial > interests hire them. > The question I have is who's going to end up on top? Countries that > arrest, or those that hire? ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:48:35 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer And how is this death linked to a PCS phone. Did she cut her leg with one? Perhaps her death is also linked to the fact they they did not keep a fully staffed hospital at the isolated cottage just in case she cut her leg with a cel phone. West Wales? Sounds more like west coast to me. Steven ed_ellers@email.msn.com says: > From BBC News Online: > "An inquest in west Wales has heard a woman who bled to death at her > isolated cottage was unable to summon help because of poor reception > on her mobile phone. > "Alison Bell, a 36-year-old surgeon from west London, cut her leg > badly after falling from a step ladder while working on renovations at > her family's cottage near Fishguard. > "The hearing in Milford Haven was told that Dr. Alison Jane Graham > Bell, who was based in London, would have survived the freak accident > if help had arrived quickly." > http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F461000/461724.stm ------------------------------ From: bsa3@cornell.edu (Brad Ackerman) Subject: Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? Date: 11 Oct 1999 16:49:48 -0400 Organization: NERV GeoFront, Tokyo III YL/KL Woo writes: > I would like to buy a cordless phone in Japan. Does anyone here know > or have experience if those local models work out of Japan ... say in > the US, UK or Singapore? The phone would certainly *work*. However, its use in the US or UK is probably illegal due to differing frequency assignments. The legality of this would probably depend on the exact frequency used. Brad Ackerman N1MNB "44% [of Americans] believe in strict Biblical bsa3@cornell.edu creationism. Four million also believe that PGP: 0x62D6B223 they have been abducted by aliens." http://skaro.pair.com/ -- _The Economist_, 4 Sep 1999 ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:21:16 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Walter Dnes spake thusly and wrote: > Certain anti-spam internet sites use a "teergrube" (German for > tarpit) hack on sendmail to tie up for as long as possible any > machine that attempts to relay via them. I'm wondering if it's > possible to apply this algorithm to incoming faxes. I.e., if > an incoming FAX isn't from a whitelisted number, and it doesn't > have the correct passcode dialed, rather than merely dump the > connection after 13 or 14 seconds, I want the sender to spend > as much time as possible "retransmitting bad blocks" and Big difference from some one "sending" to you and trying to "relay through" you. That approach you mention seems in line with the old doorknob string to the shotgun trigger approach to burglary prevention. While it might get a burglar, it might just as easily get a fireman, so it is not really a prudent thing to do. I have what I believe to be a much more ethical and prudent solution that is (with all due respect) somewhat more vicious than your idea. Get in touch with the FCC and make arrangements with them to forward the spam FAXes to them. That is what we do here and it definitely provides a warm fuzzy feeling (especially when they send an occasional letter about their dealings with the companies and stuff.) I would love to publish their contact info here that I use, but they have asked me not to do that. 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: FAX Teergrube Anyone??? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:19:02 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer This would be a pretty easy thing to make. You just keep retraining down to the slowest speed possible. Each time it takes 10-15 seconds. You could have well over a minute there. Then you allow them to send the fax, but it'll be going at a fraction of the normal speed. When you reach the end of the page you don't acknowledge receipt as successful and you might even get them to dial again. You could also do things like not generate the fax answer tone for 20 seconds or so after answering. You can insert various gaps like this into certain parts of the transmission to string it out even further. I figure you could turn a one page fax into a five minute call if you really tried. Steven waltdnes@interlog.com says... > I don't have the knowledge to design the circuitry or software, but > I'm running this idea up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes. Here > in Canada we don't have an equivalent to USA's TCPA against junk > faxes. I use a passcode-protected fax machine at home. After making > the initial connection, you have to enter the correct passcode to > successfully send a fax to me. The machine also accepts faxes from > whitelisted phone numbers. This allows me to fax stuff home from work > or receive faxes from the people I know. Junk fax attemps get rejected. > Every couple of months, the fax prints out a journal listing of the > last 35 fax "transactions", including unsuccessful attempts. The > rejects take approximatly 13 or 14 seconds usage time. > Certain anti-spam internet sites use a "teergrube" (German for > tarpit) hack on sendmail to tie up for as long as possible any > machine that attempts to relay via them. I'm wondering if it's > possible to apply this algorithm to incoming faxes. I.e., if > an incoming FAX isn't from a whitelisted number, and it doesn't > have the correct passcode dialed, rather than merely dump the > connection after 13 or 14 seconds, I want the sender to spend > as much time as possible "retransmitting bad blocks" and > "retraining", etc. Does anybody on this list know the guts of > fax protocols well enough to say if this is or isn't possible? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:45:16 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Floyd/NJ Telecom Problems and Hams New Jersey Amateur Radio operators WERE active in Hurricane Floyd communications, and the ARRL Web Extra (members only) site at http://www.arrl.org/members-only/extra/ reports that Amateurs in the Borough of Ramsey and in Springfield were called on. In Springfield, the police dispatch center was relocated to the Emergency Operations Center -- but not only because the 'phones were down; the PD basement flooded to the ceiling and it lost business phones, 911, all radio communications and electrical power. Cortland ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:35:11 -0400 From: Nospam Subject: Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 Bryan Joseph on Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:34:46 wrote: > Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an > overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please > reply to bryan@picus.com . See: Travis Russell's book, _Signaling System #7_, McGraw-Hill, 1995 ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 11 Oct 1999 19:32:15 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Phone Line Attached to Water Meter > Here in Virginia Power land, the meters > are still read the old-fashioned way -- by a guy in a grubby uniform > clutching a clipboard. Anybody in VA know any poop about when > Virginia Power will make any switches to automated meter-reading? Hmm, my house (in Virginia) is served by Virginia Power ... but it has a radio transmitter on it, so that the meter readers can just drive by the house and get the consumption readout ... no need to get out of the vehicle. (And a good thing too, since the meter is in the fenced in backyard ... fenced in with an "unclimbable" fence, as dictated by the code for swimming pools.) Kim Brennan 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/duoindex.html ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: Richard Shockey Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:42:02 -0500 Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC > An additional problem today is fingerpointing between LD and local > companies over access charges. The end consumers end up paying for > charges to BOTH, (And of course there's the added bureaucracy of > splitting charges between different companies.) I would certainly agree with this sentiment. This is a failure of the both the state and federal regulation. Access charges to the local loop should be uniform and understood by both carriers and consumers. But the problem is that ILEC's have no real incentive to offer unbundeled elements to its potential competitors. This was the central problem of the 1996 act. The local loop itself should have been divested from the company that actually provides service. In addition this would have isolated this new "LoopCo." for investment and Universal Service provisions and perhaps made it more attractive for fiber deployment. > It is not merely "monopolies" but also excessive concentrations of > market power. A merger of this magnitude at the present time repre- > sents a significant increase in concentration and is not in the public > interest. >> My judgment is that despite Kinnard the FCC Commissioner the merger >> will go through since WorldCom will effectively argue that once >> BellAtlantic and SBC are allowed into the LD market the competitive >> balance will be essentially restored. > Without question, no mergers should be allowed until the local companies > are allowed to offer full services. Well this is the central issue IMHO ... it seems pretty clear that both Bell Atlantic and SBC will be given permission to resell LD within the next 12 months so the competitive balance will be restored very quickly and on that basis the merger is probably acceptable under most of the anti-trust formulas I've seen. Combinations that result in less than 30% market share have never been held up. > Unlike years ago when each customer required a dedicated copper pair > and carrier systems were expensive and limited, it is easy today to > lay high capacity fiber. Cable companies rapidly wired much of the > country with coax, then came back and wired them with fiber. There is > no reason a competing company couldn't build its own independent local > loop. Indeed, such a company would have an advantage over the Bells > since its plant would be more modern. Well the best numbers I've seen is that it would cost $1000.00 per household to bring fiber to the curb. It would not be economic to build such a plant at this time unless it was clear that multiple service providers had access to to the plant and the opticial lambda's. (Telephone, Video, IP etc) In addition there is no current regulatory scheme for an unprovisioned "fiber only" local loop. I am pleased to see that many local communities are considering building their own unprovisioned fiber plants, especially in rural communities and then simply reselling access to that plant to qualified service providers. I consider this a very positive trend. > Bottom line: MCI and Sprint merger is not in the public interest. > The original goal was competition. Let's keep it that way. Bottom line: the public interest has nothing to do with it any more its about money and market share. The Sprint/MCIWorldCom merger will not result in creating a monopoly or grant the merged company overwhelming marketshare. ------------------------------ From: Michael Belli Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:12:37 -0700 Organization: Vyzynz Oy! Problems with FirstUSA online payments? Don't even get me started. When I first signed on with FirstUSA's online payments, I thought it would be convenient. Instead, it was a nightmare. You're supposed be able to read and print your statements, but for months the formatting on the printouts was totally screwed up. Then they started having problems with the payments, so that at first they showed they had deducted the money from my account, only to have that deduction disappear days later (my bank never received a request for the payment from them). I'm still with FirstUSA, but I've given up on online payments with them. Mike Belli u2.lvcm.com/ldn 5.9 cent US long distance, 5 cent calling cards, and $12.95 unlimited 56k internet Matt Bartlett wrote: > Last month I made an online payment with FirstUSA credit card. It was > in the amount of $157.40. They deducted it automatically from my > checking account. I specified it was an one-time only payment. > Today, I call up my bank to reconcile my check book, and it is telling > me that I had two $25 widthdrawals today. A CSR told me that FirstUSA > tried to withdraw the $157.40 twice today. It was already paid last > month. > When I called FirstUSA today, all the woman would tell me, reading > from a script, is "First USA is aware of the problem and is making > corrections". She refused to answer if FirstUSA would handle the $50 > bounced check fee from my bank. And conviently her supervisor is out > at lunch. > Anyone else have any problems with online payments with First USA? ------------------------------ From: coredump@NOxSPAM.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: Red Caps on Ends of Wires Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:03:20 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:03:02 -0500, Lou Coles wrote: > Coredump wrote ... > Coredump? Yep Core coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump Trying to make a buck on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: DNRC Files Complaint with ICANN Over Uniform Dispute Policy Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:20:49 -0500 Jay Fenello wrote: > HERNDON, October 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition > (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of > entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name > issues, today filed a formal complaint with ICANN on their proposed > Uniform Dispute Policy (UDP). > "We object to any uniform dispute policy, especially one that skews > the playing field towards large trademark holders" said Mikki Barry, > president of the DNRC. I have already informed Dogbert of this infringement against his trademarked "Dogbert's New Ruling Class." (See http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/aboutdz/html/faq_site.html#Ruling to join the _real_ DNRC.) Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: dogbert@dilbert.com Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:15:18 -0500 I just picked this up on comp.dcom.telecom. Seems like somebody's got a trademark infringement problem ... HERNDON, October 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name issues, today filed a formal complaint with ICANN on their proposed Uniform Dispute Policy (UDP). > We object to any uniform dispute policy, especially one that skews > the playing field towards large trademark holders" said Mikki Barry, > president of the DNRC. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #469 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 19:50:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA25318; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:50:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910112350.TAA25318@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #470 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 19:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 470 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Peter Corlett) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Peter Corlett) Re: Who Owns This Prefix? (Terry Knab) Re: Who Owns This Prefix? (Will Middelaer) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Phydeaux) New Job Site (Emily Barker) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (J.F. Mezei) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Linc Madison) Visit ephones.com to Research Wireless Needs (humphrybbear@my-deja.com) Re: Worldcom and Mergers (Bruce Larrabee) And They Wonder Why I Delete All the Cookies (Dave O'Shea) Summary Notes From NAMES (Jay Fenello) PCCF Opens DNS Speakers Corner - ICANN / Internet Governance (J. Baptista) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Jim Youll) Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (Quixote) Re: Help Me Name That Mystery Piece of Telecom Equipment (Quixote) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Joel B. Levin) Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps (Justa Lurker) Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet (Dave) Free Electronics and Computer Engineering Course Online (Troy Lilly) 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@cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 11 Oct 1999 09:00:13 GMT Michael Spencer wrote: > [...] I've been trying to find one of those phones that looks and feels > approximately like a desktop dial phone, has a bell ringer but has a > keypad and generates dialtones. Ewww, tacky. I've certainly seen pushbutton phones where the digits are arranged round a dial, but it strikes me that apart from being a novelty, they're not particularly pleasant to use. I'd suggest a phone with a "proper" keypad. This doesn't mean you won't have a real bell in it. When we moved into this flat, we found a "Tribune" phone made by BT. It has the old "balls and lines" logo on it, which would date the phone into the 1980's, at a time where remote of BT's network would only do pulse. (The whole UK has tone dialling now, at no extra charge.) It's a touch-tone phone with a real bell, with real bell-tinkle whenever the modem went on and off-hook. Instead of a switch to set the ring volume through a resistor or something else to quieten a buzzer, there's a lever to muffle the bell. It's in brown plastic rather than bakelite though, although I believe they were made in a range of colours. I suspect you wouldn't even want this beast. Perhaps what might suit you better is to obtain a PBX (which you could hide in a cupboard somewhere) and plug your old phone into that. ------------------------------ From: abuse@cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: 11 Oct 1999 08:07:13 GMT Barry Margolin wrote: > Generally, fake From addresses have little to do with getting around > filters and gaining access (the spammer could easily obtain a new, valid > address that's unlikely to be in anyone's filters yet). They're usually > used to prevent the spammer from being mail-bombed, both by irate > recipients and from the ordinary bounces that will result from all the > obsolete addresses in their lists. I set up the mailserver for the company I work for. Originally, I nailed it down, only allowing mail from certain IP address ranges. This worked until somebody took their laptop home, and expected relaying mail to still work when they are dialed in from a random ISP. So, it got reconfigured to allow relay if the sender or the recipient was on the list of domains we accept mail for. This works -- it's not especially efficient, but everybody is happy. Now, suppose Joe Random Spammer finds our relay. Normally, they will not be able to relay anything, since a made-up return address is sure to be rejected. However, if they are smart, they may well work out that we've set up our server in this way, and set a return address to be the same as the domain name of the server. This will then be happily relayed. > I think it would be very difficult to get most spamming prosecuted under > any of the existing computer misuse or computer trespass laws. What, forgery, theft of service, denial of service, and bringing the company into disrepute? I'm sure we could throw the book at them on that one. We had one ISP offer to help us prosecute one of their customers for "merely" trying to log into one of our webservers as Administrator 115 times in 10 seconds. (Shame the machine ran IRIX, and not NT.) ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: Who Owns This Prefix? Organization: The Home Office Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:44:27 GMT Steven J Sobol wrote: > You're not even guaranteed that 546-xxxx is a cellular prefix. "Cellular prefixes" don't exist exclusively anymore. I learned that when I got service with Southwestern Bell in Missouri. For example, my cell number was a 816-383-xxxx number, which is *also* used for DID type services. We also have 816-390-xxxx and 816-387-xxxx which are assigned to BOTH cellular and landline numbers. PCS numbers are 816-617-xxxx numbers. So, to say that a number is a cellular prefix is *quite* misleading in today's age of number conservation. I do note that SWBell Mobile has corrected this in later additions. We now have 816-261-xxxx and 816-262-xxxx which are allocated to Cell numbers. I know of no landline numbers that fall into those prefixes. This also applies to pagers too. My pager number is an 816-236-xxxx number, yet those are just rented numbers within a block of DID type numbers (One ISP in town has a 236-xxxx number, as does a tele-marketing firm, etc.) And one pager co. has 816-901-xxxx as pager numbers, yet there are residences that have been given that prefix as their number. This is *still* possible in small rural areas where Sprint, SW Bell, and the like where the need for an extra prefix isn't there. Typically what they'll do is block off 1,000 numbers for cell phones and take the chance they won't fill them up. (This is more common than you might think though.) > You couldn't get 440-546-1234 for example, because while Airtouch > operates in area code 440, 546 is a landline prefix serviced out of an > Ameritech CO. You *could* if Airtouch has that block within that prefix, which is entirely possible. On the other side, some paging co or PCS provider may have part of it. ------------------------------ From: Will Middelaer Subject: Re: Who Owns This Prefix? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:25:36 -0400 >> How can I search for that prefix (546-xxxx) in all of the Airtouch areas? >> I think there are 15 or 25 Airtouch marketing areas. > And why would you want to look in other marketing areas? What's the > attraction of having a cell phone whose AC is halfway across the > country from your home or office. A quick peek at my own phone reveals 5 = J K L 4 = G H I 6 = M N O (I am going to guess that he is going for JIM here, but I could be wrong.) So, I am guessing that the original poster that started this thread, Jim Hornbeck, hopes to get a vanity cell phone number that includes his name, regardless of where the number is located. Ours is not to question why, our is simply to help solve problems. Will Middelaer Occasional non-lurker ------------------------------ From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:46:46 EDT Gee -- all this nonsense about things that *may* cause "sparks" -- even though nobody has ever seen this. I wonder when they're going to actually enforce the rules about *smoking* in gasoline stations. I regularly see both employees and customers smoking cigarettes -- and they look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them to stop. reb reb at taco.com ------------------------------ Subject: New Job Site From: emily.barker@telecom-jobs.co.uk (Emily Barker) Organization: Telecom & Engineering Jobs Date: 11 Oct 1999 10:21:03 +0100 For all UK/European Telecom, Engineering and Networking Jobs http://www.telecom-jobs.co.uk We even give stuff away ... Thanks, Emily ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:15:11 -0400 Arthur Ross wrote: > In-flight, however, I side with the airlines. It is not the normal, > intended radiation from the various devices that is the hazard; it is > the *un*intended radition and accidental nonlinear intermod products > that may affect unintended receivers, e.g. the ILS glideslope, other > aids to navigation. During flight/cruise, the sensitive stuff such as ILS is not used. This is why airlines ask you to turn off al toys during take off and landing. If they allow powerful laptops with DSP chips, stereo sound, cd-rom players, large LCD screens, and power consumption (and hence potential for RFI and EMI) that makes a cell phone pale in comparison, then I am not too worried about the cell phone causing aircraft to crash. Digital cell phones in North America operate mostly at 1900mhz (except for the legacy systems that tagged digital onto their analog AMPS stuff.) > serious problems. Cellular systems are not designed for subscribers at > 30,000 feet moving at 500 knots. Does the speed really make a difference? They support folks travelling at 100kmh on a downtown highway. > of free space. Large numbers of cells would be visible. There would be > intolerable interference and confusion about handoff. And, most > likely, the digital systems are not designed for Doppler of this > magnitude. If there is a frequency shift that is significant, doesn't that mean that the phone wouldn't "hear" the towers and vice-versa? But more importantly, most of a flight is spent over rural or unpopulated areas, so I am not sure you would monopolise channels over a huge number of towers. However, in rural areas, since there is little 1900mhz coverage, your phone would revert to analog at 800mhz. But in rural areas, the towers are few and spaced apart, and traffic light, so you wouldn't be causing that much harm. Also, as far as 1900mhz is concerned (not sure about the old 800mhz stuff), if you're in a plane, your only way out is through your window. 1900mhz does not penetrate a fuselage. Therefore, even if the plane is at 30k feet, your phone would only see and talk to a fairly narrow field of view, not the "wide area" that has been mentionned. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1999 14:08:07 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? In article , L. Winson wrote: > (Short haul interstate calls had far lower rates before than now when > all rates are uniform regardless of distance.) No, they didn't. There was quite a difference between the call just over the state border (for example, Manhattan to Hoboken) and the call across the country, but the short-haul rates were not "far lower" than the uniform rates we see today. Today's interstate rates are comparable to or lower than the short-haul rates of 20 years ago. ------------------------------ From: humphrybbear@my-deja.com Subject: Visit ephones.com to Research All Your Wireless Needs Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:20:05 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hi, Thought you might be interested in this site. Please take a look. ephones.com is a new wireless Internet portal offering a wide range of products including cellular/PCS phones, pagers, cellular modems, Palm devices, as well as long distance services from national carriers such as AT&T Wireless Services, Nextel, SkyTel, MCI WorldCom Wireless, Sprint, Pagemart, and Qwest Communications. You can research, compare and purchase all your wireless needs by visiting ephones.com at www.ephones.com ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 11 Oct 1999 22:46:52 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Worldcom and Mergers There were some indications that the new SPrint campus -- as large as it is -- was going to be a bit over-crowded when all was said and done ... so, empty space may not be all that big an issue. ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: And They Wonder Why I Delete All the Cookies Organization: snaip.net Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 04:10:01 GMT I was reading an ad in "Interactive Week" for a company called Naviant. (www.naviant.com) One of their products is a REALLY detailed database about individuals. From their "High Tech Households" file, they claim to be able to tell you about individual people within a household: E-mail addresses, phone numbers, household income, age, gender, and educational background, registration dates for products they have purchased, etc., etc., etc. The purpose, apparently, is to send targeted advertisements. They claim unparalleled accuracy since it is based on user-provided data (sold to them by companies we do business with, one can assume?). Of course, none of us would ever lie to any of those companies, would we? Vive' le Digotage! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:46:21 -0400 From: Jay Fenello Subject: Summary Notes From NAMES After almost a month's worth of discussions, a Harvard Law class list has generated much controversy between ICANN's president and council, and several of its many critics. First, Mike Roberts, president of ICANN, admitted that a certain business model would not be considered by ICANN, in direct contradiction to the ICANN By-Laws. Then, Joe Sims, corporate counsel to ICANN, became abusive after he was questioned on ICANN's processes to date, or rather, lack thereof. This latest episode started as the result of a discussion about consensus, and the reasons why voting is not wanted within ICANN. That's when David Post, a respected legal scholar from Temple University, agreed that this ICANN board "has manipulated the definition of consensus in rather egregious ways"! Now, Joe is trying to direct the conversation away from past excesses, and towards the new action items on his agenda. ICANN critics, however, know that this is just a distraction, as the excesses of the past have resulted in an ICANN that is already captured. This can be seen in the current power structures within the various Supporting Organizations, and the bogus processes they are using to elect the first batch of ICANN board look-alikes. Frankly, I'm grateful to Harvard for creating a forum where the critics of ICANN can finally get some answers from the ICANN board! If you'd like to monitor the action, please check out the public newsgroup at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/listarchive/ Respectfully, Jay Fenello, New Media Relations http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480 ------------------------------ From: J. Baptista Subject: PCCF Opens DNS Speakers Corner - ICANN / Internet Governance Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 04:39:30 -0400 Organization: COGECO Hello: It's a pleasure to announce that we have setup a toll free number to collect opinions on what you think of DNS governance issues. The service will allow you to remain anonymous. U.S. Residents only - unfortunately. The toll free number is 1-877-494-4980 extension 757. We will post these voice messages to a web page and the comments made may be made available to over 100,000 domain name system administrators who are part of our BIND 1999 survey. For now this is a small test of the service so please excuse the rough voice on the other end of the line. You'll be hearing my voice, which hopefully will be replaced with a much nicer sexy femfatal voice later in the week. Cheers Joe Baptista Planet Communication & Computing Facility 212.894.3704 x1033 Public Access Internet Research Publisher 419.821.8581 fax Centro Planetario de Communicaciones y Computacion 888.830.5744 x3223 ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:02:23 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Greg Skinner wrote: > I am not so sure more TLDs (alternative or not) will really solve the > problem. For TLDs to be effective businesses, they will have to > compete in price with the established registries. So domain > registration will be cheap. For large businesses, and many small > ones, registering in lots of TLDs will be a drop in the bucket. A > worthwhile investment in protecting their intellectual property. > Also, there will be little disincentive for cybersquatters to register > in multiple TLDs, hoping that someone will come along and want to > spend big bucks for them. Make a list of all the TLD's that are in use (.com .org .net, edut, gov, mil etc) plus all the international ones. Make a root server that dishes ANYthing that's not one of those. All ISP's point their nameservers to NSI's monopoly AND to the alternate root. Make registration free - everything else on the net is free. This fee must fall next. Now you have an infinity of "TLD's" and "domain names" removing anyone's ability to squat. Social rules: Enforce only "no mass registrations", require a valid contact for all domains, require a live server at the end of each domain, and leave it at that. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not completely eliminate all the fees simply because the people who would work at this project need to be compensated somehow. You are talking about full-time employment for at least a few people, although granted probably far fewer people than NSI's thing, and none of these people would be traveling all over the globe and staying in first class hotels and such for secret meetings, so there would not need to be as much money. Then too, they would not be trying to Make Money Fast on the Internet, but you would have to ask for some money as part of the process. I'd have no objection to a sliding scale type fee arangement where excess funds collected each year would be distrib- uted in a few ways: (a) an across-the-board reduction in the next year's fees if appropriate; (b) a fund to provide no-charge domain name registration for public service, religious and educational sites; (c) a fund to provide a modest stipend to moderators of news- groups who agreed to spend at least X hours per day/week preparing their service, re good editing, grammar, dumping spam, etc, and perhaps I would include on that the many artists, musicians and other creative people who have shared their work with the net, giving them some modest stipend each year to encourage them to continue their efforts. I am sure it could all be done easily for just a few dollars for each domain name registration, but a full published accounting on the net would be required at least once every year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Quixote Subject: Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:17:20 -0000 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America International Point Codes are a 14 bit host address. They are NOT segmented into network, cluster, host, like their ANSII counterparts. Other than that, ( must make for interesting level 3 routing) the concept of trunk CIC codes, ISUP, TCAP, remains pretty much the same There are some British ( who else ) exceptions, but even they have to translate back to either ITU or ANSII before leaving their own nework. Bryan Joseph wrote in message ... > Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an > overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please > reply to bryan@picus.com . ------------------------------ From: Quixote Subject: Re: Help Me Name That Mystery Piece of Telecom Equipment Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:40:58 -0000 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Not sure of this specific box, however, it sure sounds like a basic lightening protection and fuse arrangement. Yes, dirty connections on the fuses can cause trouble with high speed modem connections. I use to live in a 100+ year old house which had three boxes (one for each tenant) very similiar to what you are describing. Cleaning the connections, checking the spark gaps, and or removing the lighting protection (for the duration of a test call only) should help you figure this one out. I had a corroded and touching spark gap. ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:41:48 GMT In , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > I do, however, doubt that Arthur C. Clarke's prediction (in "2001: A > Space Odyssey") of the removal of all long distance rates on December > 31st, 2000 -- thus making every call a local call -- will come true. > Sure is a nice thought though ... My PCS account features free domestic long distance -- that is, I pay the same airtime rate for calls next door as across country. (Since I rarely exceed my included minutes allowance, that translates to free long distance.) To the extent that cellular and PCS phones count, the prediction has more or less come true, even if in some instances it is (currently) a promotional tariff only. /JBL ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: British Doctor's Death Linked to PCS Coverage Gaps Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:42:07 GMT It was Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:03:44 -0400 , and Dale Neiburg wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > In TELECOM Digest, issue 449, Ed Ellers quoted BBC News Online: >> The hearing in Milford Haven was told that Dr. Alison Jane Graham Bell, >> who was based in London, would have survived the freak accident if >> help had arrived quickly. > Astonishing! Was the doctor any relation to that "other" A. Graham > Bell, or is this just another remarkable synchronicity? 999 come quick! I need you! - Oops, out of area. Of course if you go back a few years PCS wouldn't have been there anyhow. What she needed was a good cordless phone connected to a landline. JL ------------------------------ From: diamond@nauticom.net (Diamond Dave) Subject: Re: Long Live the Goal of Access For All of Cleveland Freenet Organization: The BBS Corner / Diamond Mine On-Line Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:45:37 GMT On 5 Oct 1999 01:05:27 GMT, rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) wrote: > Cleveland Freenet closed on October 1, 1999 > The Cleveland Freenet was something very special in the history > of the development of the Internet as it made access to the Internet > available to all in the community. I too will miss the Cleveland Freenet. Back in the early 90's when the Internet was still in its infancy, I used the Cleveland Freenet as a stable E-mail address and access to USENET. I used a 2400 baud modem -- back then that was the fastest thing on the market! Even though I was in college at the time and they provided Internet accounts, those accounts were disabled at the end of each semester and had to reapply for an account the next semester. The Cleveland Freenet filled in the void. I had a lot of fun on the Freenet, but I do agree that most text messaging services are going by the wayside. I still run a text-based Bulletin Board System (BBS) but it too has gone down in popularity. A lot of text-based systems that were once dial-up only have moved to the Internet by using a protocol called Telnet. I have a list of nearly 600 of these primarily text-based messaging systems (BBS, Freenet, etc). Its called the Telnet BBS Guide. It can be found at: http://www.thedirectory.org/telnet Though the Web is popular with a lot of people, there are still people who prefer the text-only systems. I am one of them! Dave Perrussel Webmaster - Telephone World http://phworld-tal-on.com ------------------------------ From: Troy Lilly Subject: Free Electronics and Computer Engineering Course Online Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:13:06 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services This site is completely free for all ages to learn from basic to advanced. http://home.att.net/~troy.lilly/index.htm http://home.att.net/~troy.lilly/AC.htm We have a link to the most free downloads you'll find anywhere. http://home.beseen.com/technology/twayne01/index.htm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #470 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 21:52:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA01578; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:52:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910120152.VAA01578@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #471 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 21:52:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 471 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: First Merger Cutbacks? (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Keith Jarett) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Adam H. Kerman) Need Information on Difference Between Q.764 ISUP and Q.767 ISUP (H. Sun) Re: Need Suggestions for Digital Padding (Quixote) X.790 Implementation (Mostafa Hashem Sherif) Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Dial Mechanism (Anthony McGowan) Re: Differences Between Voice, Data, Video, Text and Graphics (Quixote) Message Waiting Detector (Rabah Chaarani) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Juha Veijalainen) A Curious Conversation (Paul Tholfsen) 10-10-Name-Your-Price (Monty Solomon) Cyberwarfare: The Business Opportunity (Monty Solomon) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Nils Andersson) Re: Worldcom and Mergers (Lou Coles) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Lou Coles) Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? (Ed Ellers) Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Matt Ackeret) Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Toan Tran) Cellphone Myths (Tad Cook) Wiring Help Needed (Mark) Re: Demand for Bonded T1 CSU/DSU (David Temkin) 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: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 11 Oct 1999 22:41:52 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: First Merger Cutbacks? The "new" SBC had to sell one of their cellular properties in the Chicago area -- one company cannot own two systems. The one sold was the old Ameritech Cellular -- GTE bought them. It's not a merger cutback per se; just normal merger divesting known about for months. BIL ------------------------------ From: Keith Jarett Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:12:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact > I can't find a provision in Illinois law prohibiting the state from > issuing a license to a nonresident. Maybe that's implied under > state's rights. Under federal law, a CDL cannot be issued to a > nonresident. I assume that CDL refers to a commercial license. Here's a real example of what the various posters have been arguing about. A close relative of my wife lives in Europe and visits the US legally once every year or two. Driving is much more of a necessity here than in Europe, and the licensing process in Europe is difficult and extortionately costly. So we did the logical thing and got a US driver's license. You can even take the written test in the language of your choice; the driving test requires reasonable understanding of the tester's instructions. A room-temperature IQ and a pulse are likely sufficient to get a license in the US, which illustrates the opposite extreme from Europe's stringent licensing. When the requirement was added to prove legal presence, a properly stamped European passport was sufficient; residency was not required. When the Social Security number requirement was added, the SSA obligingly issued a ("work not authorized") number when presented the state DMV form requiring it. This US license could be combined with an international license to allow occasional driving in Europe. If the underlying license is from a first-world country (the US in this case) I'd expect many fewer problems with driving under an international license. I agree it could get dicey in case of a traffic stop or accident, especially if the vehicle is registered to the driver at a local address. As for me, I have a US license and a clean driving record. I rarely exceed 90th percentile speed on roads carrying significant traffic. Driving a red sports car, it's about the only viable strategy. I always try to anticipate the next bonehead move by the other guy. I sometimes fly on deserted two-lane roads, but if there's nobody there to see it, maybe it didn't happen. :-) Even in these cases, it pays to be careful. Just a few months ago, my restrained speed and some great anti-lock brakes saved the life of a suicidal motorcyclist rounding a blind hairpin on the wrong side of the road. I'm still amazed that he kept the bike upright. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: 11 Oct 1999 18:38:03 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Linc Madison wrote: >steven@primacomputer.com wrote: >> Do you lose your driving privileges because the rest of the world >> doesn't issue S/S numbers? > No. You don't have to be a US citizen, nor even a US resident, to get > a Social Security number. No. But you do have to be able to work legally in this country. Individuals who cannot work here but have unearned income must get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS. > If the state in which you are assuming residence requires a SSN to issue a > drivers license, then you get an SSN or you don't get a drivers license. That doesn't apply to people whose religious convictions won't allow them to have Social Security Numbers. Does anyone know what that court case was about and what religious denomination that applies to? Based on international treaty (and probably the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which applies to persons and not citizens), a state couldn't discriminate against foreign nationals ineligible for Social Security Numbers. Illinois law is rather explicit: Foreign nationals have the same driving privileges here that we have in that country. If a license bureau refused to license a foreign national for lacking a Social Security Number, it would encourage discrimination against Americans living abroad for lacking a comparable national identity number. ------------------------------ From: hsjung@nuri.net (HyunSu Jung) Subject: Need Information on Difference Between Q.764 ISUP and Q.767 ISUP Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:10:00 +0900 Organization: Inet Internet Services Hello, I have a difficulty connecting the SS7(C7) between Korea and USA. I guess the problem is in the SS7 protocol stack difference. I need the detailed info on the difference between Q.764 ISUP and Q.767 ISUP. Could somebody help me with this? Thanks in advance. Have a good day! Best Regards, HyunSu Jung ------------------------------ From: Quixote Subject: Re: Need Suggestions for Digital Padding Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:52:02 -0000 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Larry, The ADTRAN channel bank, I believe, can do T1-T1, drop and insert, and padding. Larry Lang wrote in message ... > To get right to the point, I am looking for a device that would go in > series with a T1 link and will allow me to inject digital padding into > the stream. I am in a lab environment and have a "Class 5" CO > simulator but it cannot be programmed to provide loss. The T1 streams > I am dealing with come from a DSLAM and run to the switch. This is a > voice system and the end to end loss is only 6db which is provided by > the endpoint units. ------------------------------ From: Mostafa Hashem Sherif Subject: X.790 Implementation Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:18:30 -0400 Organization: AT&T Can someone point to me a product that has implemented ITU-T recommendation X.790? Thanks in advance. Mostafa Hashem Sherif AT&T Room C5-2D18 200 S. Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 USA PHONE: +1 732 420 2448 FAX: +1 732 368 1769 mhs@hogpb.att.com ------------------------------ From: Anthony McGowan Subject: Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Mial Mechanism Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:46:47 -0700 I would like to get a schematic detailing how to rewire my 1940 Western electric 302 to use a modern four wire dialing mechanism. I assume some of the old wires are not used such as the yellow ground on the modular cord and maybe some of the hook leads, etc. Thanks for any help you can supply on this project. anthony ------------------------------ From: Quixote Subject: Re: Differences Between Voice, Data, Video, Text and Graphics Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:48:32 -0000 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America The interpretation of data is in the function of the receiving client. Therefore, there is NO difference in the physical layer of the bit stream. However, it is highly desireable the the receiving client understand what it is suppose to do with the received data. This is usually accomplished in the preamble of any digital message ie, Message Tranfer Protocol AA from address BBB to address CCC Message Type DD SubType EE Please Acknowledge ability to recieve this. ACK received streaming data follows expect FF bytes end of data occurs checksum follows please ACK checksum checsum ACK received OR checsum ACK failed End transmission resending last streaming data The specifics of the above, is of course, what the plethora of regulatory committees attempts to define. MARLEY8384@aol.com wrote in message ... > I was given an assignment yesterday to answer the question, "In a > digital world, what are the differences between voice, data, video, > text, and graphics?" This paper is to be turned in next Saturday. I > have been searching the web for information, but am getting very broad > responses. I am very new at these studies and wondered if you could > point a new 44 year-old student in the right direction. Thank you for > your help. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:36:07 -0700 From: Rabah Chaarani Reply-To: crabah@uqac.uquebec.ca Subject: Message Waiting Detector Hi, About the message waiting detector; it flashes when you have voice mail. Is there any way to make a circuit for that? I'll be grateful for any information you can provide. Thank you and have a nice day. ------------------------------ From: juhave@iobox.fi (Juha Veijalainen) Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:58:22 GMT In article , gmhall@apk.net says: > Is there such an international standard symbol already? Or will > people have to just figure that out for themselves. Probably not a standard sign, but the combination of 'no parking' traffic sign with a picture of a mobile phone is quite simple and understandable. Red circle, a picture of a phone inside the circle and a red line over the phone. Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland, http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Some random words: bomb,steganography,cryptography,reindeer ** Mielipiteet omiani ** Opinions personal, facts suspect ** ------------------------------ From: ptholfsen@netos.com (Paul Tholfsen) Subject: A Curious Conversation Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:05:55 -0700 I live in Bellingham, WA (AC 360), and called the US West operator to inquire of the location of a new prefix in a nearby community. Here's a summary of the dialogue. Me: Can you tell me the city for prefix 392? Op: Do you know what area code you're in? Me. Certainly. Op: Well, what is your area code? Me: It's 360. You mean you don't know? Op: That's right. The city for 392 is Bellingham. Me: Just for curiosity, where are you located. Op: In south Texas. Me: (sotto voce) Good Grief Me: (after a moment's reflection). Wait a minute. Has US West taken over Texas? Op: No. We just do work for them. Me: Well, at least you're not in Bangladesh. Op: Maybe later. Who knows. When I first moved to Bellingham in 1968, the operators were in town. Later they moved to Seattle, then to places like Pendleton, OR and Phoenix, AZ So what's going on? Is RBOC operator service now being contracted out to Texas, Ireland, India? And is their software so dumb, it can't identify where incoming calls come from? Paul Tholfsen Bellingham, WA ptholfsen@netos.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:09:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 10-10-Name-Your-Price By Bernhard Warner NEW YORK - Just when the proposed merger of Sprint and MCI WorldCom threatens to narrow consumers' choices among long-distance phone companies, a brand familiar to Internet shoppers is itching to enter the phone wars: Priceline.com. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,6890,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:10:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cyberwarfare: The Business Opportunity http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6870,00.html Grab your digital trench coat -- and your business plan. The U.S. has announced that it will enter the cyberspook business in earnest by establishing a new center to combat (and practice) online espionage. On its face, this was not a business story, and outlets played it straight, allowing generals and senators to speak gravely of cyberwarfare. But between the martial drumbeats, a few hints fell to the effect that this initiative could help U.S. businesses in a big way. ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Date: 11 Oct 1999 05:20:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... What happens on mountaintops? I take long hikes in So Cal, and when I am on top of even a modest mountain, I get very good signal strength, but often very flaky communications -- I sometimes try to call people while at the top. Clearly, I am lighting up quite a few cellsites, without doing anything illegal. However, legal is not the same as practical and workable. Regards, Nils Andersson > The second mitigating factor is that when the cellular provider's > computers spot a particular ESN turning up on many ground sites > simultaneously they simply lock that phone out of their system. > Perhaps permanently. ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: Worldcom and Mergers Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:14:41 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Babu Mengelepouti wrote in message news: telecom19.462.1@telecom-digest.org: > But there are likely to be substantial operations in Kansas > City for a long time. The "campus" built in KC, KS will have employees from Ks & Mo working there for a long time. Sprint *still* has many non-campus employee's in the KC area. > In fact, I think that the East Rutherford office that was > headquarters of Metromedia so long ago is still in operation. ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:11:56 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Bob Goudreau wrote in message news:telecom19. 462.5@telecom-digest.org: > BTW, I hereby nominate "Southern Pacific Microwave" as the new name > of the combined Sprint/MCI entity :-). Bob it will be Worldcom. For Worldcom, MCI was just dinner. There is _nothing_ Pacific about Worldcom or Sprint. You see an AT&T / PacTel deal, that's a tidal wave. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Japanese Land-Line Phone Work in US/UK? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:04:54 -0400 YL/KL Woo wrote: > I would like to buy a cordless phone in Japan. Does anyone here know > or have experience if those local models work out of Japan ... say in > the US, UK or Singapore?" Last time I heard, U.S.-standard telephone sets can be used in Japan, so I would expect the reverse to be true. (Sony co-founder Akio Morita, who passed away this past Sunday, wrote in his autobiography "Made In Japan" that Japan was the only country aside from the U.S. and Canada where they could be used.) Strangely enough, there were reports a few years ago that some Japanese mass merchants were importing Japanese-made cordless phones *from the U.S.* and selling them at prices far below what a Japanese domestic model could be sold for. ------------------------------ From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 11 Oct 1999 17:24:06 -0700 Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article , Mike Pollock wrote: > The Reuters report at http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/991007/3t.html quotes > Howard Miller, a spokesman for London-based BP Amoco, as saying, > "What we're saying is turn off everything -- phones, pagers, laptops, > diskettes -- that uses a battery." This goes right along with the What about the alarm fob that people have on their keychains? That uses a battery! mattack@area.com ------------------------------ From: Toan Tran Subject: Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 11 Oct 1999 18:11:14 GMT Organization: HP Integrated Circuit Business Division, Palo Alto, CA Tad Cook wrote: > (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody > can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny > signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers > are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) IMHO, it's a moot point. we already have electrical/electronic impulses generated from a running ignition system. How about all the spark generated from a starter solenoid? Should we turn off our engine before reaching the gas station and start the car after we have left it? Toan Tran Hewlett Packard, California Design Center toan@cdc.hp.com ------------------------------ Subject: Cellphone Myths Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:46:37 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) MSNBC had an article on cellphone myths last Friday at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/320335.asp There is also a video clip on that page of Geraldo Rivera (I think PAT told us his real name is Jerry Rivers!) interviewing David Mikkelson, who runs the urban legend page at www.snopes.com. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:32:05 -0400 From: Mark Subject: Wiring Help Needed Hi, Thanks for your site -- it's really a treat. I bought a red bar phone a while back, but I have never been able to make it functional. I was told it was in working order, but I can't figure out how to connect it to my phone line. I bought an adaptor from Radio Shack, but it didn't work once I connected it. The wire has the standard four wires in four different colors. Is there a webpage or do you know anyone who could tell me how to connect it? It looks great, but I'd really like to be able to actually use it! Thanks much, Mark Milano NYC ------------------------------ From: David Temkin Subject: Re: Demand for Bonded T1 CSU/DSU Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:27:51 -0400 Digital Link already makes a similar unit, for around $1,000. I've used them many times before. They can bond up to 4 T1's and spit it out a single V.35 port. -Dave Mark Doyle wrote: > I am doing research to determine if there is a decent market for a > Dual T1 DSU/CSU that bonds the 2 T1s together over dedicated or Frame > Relay links. It would have the extra benefit of redundancy. > Is anyone looking for this solution and at what price? > Mark Doyle > Engage Communication www.engagecom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #471 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 11 23:40:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA07000; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:40:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910120340.XAA07000@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #472 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Oct 99 23:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 472 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic/NY Metro "Discarding" Analog Customers (Doug Reuben) Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? (Harry Dodsworth) Direct Access Test Unit (Rory Matthews) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steven J. Sobol) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Robert D. Weller) Seeking Older 416 Code Updates (Jonathan St-Pierre) Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully (Mike) Re: Siemens Listened to the Whining About the 2420 Gigaset (Dave O'Shea) Need Up to Date Area and Country Codes (Rob Cleary) 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: dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: Bell Atlantic/NY Metro "Discarding" Analog Customers Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:59:30 EDT We recently received a notice on two of our company's Bell Atlantic Mobile NY Metro Analog accounts that BAMS was discontinuing their unlimited off peak $10 add-on package and capping it at 250 minutes per month. Although no reason for this change is given, it seems clear that they want to push their analog customers over to digital as in the same paragraph where they alert customers to this change in their service plans they note "... we still have many digital plans with unlimited off peak airtime which you can choose from". They of course don't mention that you have to go out and buy new equipment from them, obtain a new two year (or maybe one) contract from them, and suffer the OVERALL inferior quality of Qualcomm's CDMA digital used throughout BAMS's NY system. (Not that TDMA is anything to write home about; however, but for the utterly sloppy and incomptetent way AT&T Wireless implements the product, it *sounds to me* to be a good deal better [and stay away from AT&T Digital if you are in the NY Market! Everyone I know who has/had used it hates it and it's commonly the object of jokes and articles epitomizing poor cellular coverage].) I've pointed out before that there are some advantages to digital -- if you are in a strong coverage area and talk a lot on the phone, the sound quality is richer than analog (only in strong coverage areas) and the battery life is a lot longer than analog. But venture to an area with less-than-perfect coverage and the digital signal becomes distorted and develops a metallic sounding "twang" during conversation. Additionally, the call is effectively half-duplex, so that if both parties talk at the same time, essentially only one gets through, and sounds almost like you are on some satellite-routed international call or making a call via some IP Telephony or Internet phone device or service. CDMA also has the tendency to just drop a call for no apparent reason, even in strong coverage areas, right in the middle of a conversation. While this change only seems to apply in the NY Metro Market (00022), the off peak unlimited plan allowed me to dictate messages, call to the west coast and abroad, and clear out voicemail and faxes while I was driving home and to do so in areas WHERE COVERAGE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR .06 watt analog or even lower-powered digital phones. These areas include those where handoffs a tricky or fail with non-3 watt phones, such as various sections of central New Jersey to the BAMS/Philly 00008 and BAMS/Atlantic City-Ocean County 00250 system. Handoffs are also problematic between the NY/00022 system and the Poughkeepsie/Orange County 00486/00404 (can't recall which is which, I think 486 is Pough but it's hard to tell now). Moreover, digital handoffs between the NY-00022-B side and the CT-00119-A side (yes, digital phones can switch from side to side during a system handoff) work so poorly that I can't rely on it to work during a call. Other areas are just poorly covered, such as I-80 near Newton, I-78 10 miles east of JCT US-22 in Alpha (near the PA border), Staten Island's south shore, Cold Spring Harbor (Long Island at JCT NY-25A and NY-108), the Taconic State Parkway north of Peekskill Hollow, and a littany of other places where coverage is barely adequate for a 3 Watt phone let alone a digital or .06 watt analog phone. (A more complete list of coverage problems in BAMS and other markets is available at http://www.wirelessnotes.org -- no ads, cookies, or anything, just a lot of long-winded lectures about poor coverage and all! :) ) As a matter of fact, coverage is poor (or perhaps, not yet optimized for less than 3-watt mobiles) in so many of the areas outside the immediate urban core that anyone who obtains a digital account with BAMS could probably get out of their contract just by saying that they are regularly dropped whenever they made a calls for more than a few minutes away from NYC but still in the 00022 NY Metro Market. With this having been said, if BAMS should choose to compel us to either drop service (and since this is a modification to their agreement you can cancel it WITHOUT an early termination penalty) or use a digital phone (which due to the coverage and other reasons enumerated about will simply not work for me/us), I'll simply drop our NY accounts from BAMS and use our existing Nextel or ATTWS (analog) accounts until something better comes along (and Nextel's mobile to mobile feature is a lot more attractive than BAMs as no toll charges are involved for any calls in your home area; BAMS does invoke tolls if it crosses their traditional toll-free service boundaries). Additionally, I've reviewed our New England market usage and determined that a number of accounts current with BAMS may be better serviced by Cell One/VT (00313) and Cell One/Boston (now that they dropped most of their most offensive and silly charges). Is this punative? Sure. Do they care? Probably not ... but I'd love to hear the voice to the BAMS rep who tries to save the "churn" and tell me about all their wonderful digital plans when I then say "You know, since you guys are making me go through all this trouble to have to change accounts and all, not only am I cancelling the NY accounts, but I have four more accounts out of Philly, Boston and Vermont that I want to cancel at the same time which are no longer under contract. Can you help me with those too?" It's one thing to stop offering a service plan to new customers while grandfathering old ones. It's quite different to force customers off existing plans -- even before the contract terms expires (eg, we can't decide to cancel or modify the contract if WE want, but Bell Atlantic can at THEIR whim change the contract, incovenience us, and suffer no loss for it). IMO, it's an outrageously heavy-handed approach, and I will not continue to reward them for it by either obtaining a practically useless digital account and new digital phone or keeping other accounts in other markets open when good alternatives exist elsewhere. (And if we did switch to digital to replace the analaog accounts, what's to say that two months later BAMS doesn't decide to change its digital plans and cap the unlimited off peak airtime? We'll then have obtained -- and paid for -- two digital phones which we no longer need either.) Finally, I'm not "anti-digital"; indeed, we have two BAMS digital accounts (and one with GTE) which we use in urban areas. Digital pricing is MUCH better than analog, and offers caller ID, voicemail, first incoming minute free, etc, etc. But handheld coverage -- and especially digital -- just doesn't work well nor hand off properly in many areas, and we thus NEED (it's not an option) 3-watt analog service. (Not to mention how much safer it is to have a 3-watt phone in poor coverage areas than a handheld.) If BAMS is no longer interested in our business, we will need to find alternatives to them, but it seems to be a penny-wise pound-foolish approach as it alienates long-time customers and forces them to re-evaluate their service with BAMS. As a result of our re-evaluation, and if they proceed with this course of behavior, I will order the cancellation of two NY Analog accounts, a Philly digital account (and switch to Comcast's analog service), a Vermont analog account (and switch to Cell One/VT), and potentially a Boston digital account, as well as getting rid entirely of the GTE/SF account. So add it up, 5 accounts with monthly *base* (non-usage) revenue of about $150.00 in total all gone. Maybe if they spent a little less time having Darth Vader travel all over touting the great digital service and more time building out their network so that handhelds work reliably this wouldn't be an issue. But if they intend to coerce analog customers over to their digital network, have them buy new equipment, and at the same time force them to accept a lower overall level of service they can find some other idiots to pay them. We sure won't. Overall, a pretty poor show from Bell Atlantic Mobile, leaving some soon to be ex-customers very disappointed with them. (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org. You can also write to the addresses on that page for more information regarding alternatives to BAMS in the NY Metro market.) Regards, Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / www.interpage.net dsr1@interpage.net http://www.interpage.net +1 (617) 696-8000 ------------------------------ From: af877@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Harry Dodsworth) Subject: Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? Date: 12 Oct 1999 01:31:27 GMT Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada (el cheapo type, made in China). In the instructions I was surprised to read that it complied with FCC and Canadian regulations. It was actually stamped CE, which I think is a British approval rating. Can the phone be used in Canada with a change of line cord and are British phones generally North American compatible? I'd like to know before I plug it in and damage either the phone or the phone system :-) Harry Dodsworth Ottawa Ontario Canada af877@freenet.carleton.ca ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Direct Access Test Unit Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:30:37 PDT Hello again, This is not really a question but more of a request for comments. A couple days ago on one of my exploratory forays I came across something I've always read about (in various phreaker texts) but never actually experienced. It was the number for a DATU, or Direct Access Test Unit. So I dug up some of those old text files and found out these DATU's are really kinda interesting. I spent quite a while on it and decided who better then you guys to better explain some of it's uses to me (Word to the wise: You guys working in the Central Office might wanna change the default passcode for these things. '1111' just isn't very secure at all ;-). So if any of you gentlemen could describe some of its functions to me in a little more detail, especially 'audio monitor', I'd be much obliged. Thanks in advance. Rory Matthews (InDagator) PS: A friend of mine hinted at a kind of 'Administrator mode' that I might find on it. Is there any truth behind that? If so could you describe what can be done in this mode? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Rory, if it is a word to the wise you are seeking, let me toss in a few words. You are a very smart guy. Don't get too smart. One thing those units like to do is use something similar to Caller-ID (I say similar, because unlike CID, using *67 does not allow you to hide or remain secret in this case) to make a nice, detailed audit trail of which telephone number called, at what time, and the subsequent keys pressed. The whole thing dumps out to a printer on command, and security representatives at the telephone company smile when they see a new baby phreakling has entered the world and discovered the secret and forbidden pleasures of playing with his telephone. Then one day they'll get a belly full of it all, and show up at your home with a police officer and a search warrant; they always do, eventually. They'll take away boxes and boxes full of books, manuals, electronic parts and anything that vaguely looks like it might be phreaker tools, and they'll take you away also. Some cynics have suggested that telco deliberatly leaves simple-minded passcodes on those things because they enjoy luring guys like you into doing things that get you in trouble. Its their corporate contribution to the corrections industry intake pool, and all that. Your parents will be mortified; the people where you go to school will read about it in TELECOM Digest or my competitor the New York Times, where John Markoff will write about the extensive manhunt which went on and his role in catching you; and you will be kept in jail for years while the authorities try to calculate the millions of dollars in damage they say you caused. When the amount is finally decided upon, you'll be required to repay it all from your prison wages (after the cost of your room and board is deducted) before you can go free. You will never be allowed to use a phone again in your life without first getting permission from your probation officer. Maybe the correctional center needs somebody to run their switchboard. So don't go getting all enthusiastic about your new discovery, okay? You wanted a word to the wise, so I gave you a couple hundred words. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 12 Oct 1999 00:44:12 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:17:34 -0400, jwineburgh@chubb.com allegedly said: > Actually, some pagers do transmit. I happen to have a Skytel 2-way > pager with an internal rechargeable battery that outputs at (I > believe) just under 1 watt. Skytel 2-Way pagers do indeed transmit. Skyword Plus pagers, the ones with the guaranteed messaging service, operate on the 2-Way network and also can transmit (you can't type replies but you do have the option to equip your pager to send canned replies back). > The real issue, however is "What is more likely to set off a fire". My > personal belief is that there is a much greater chance of someone else > starting their car/lighting a cigarette (yes there are idiots that > still do this)/etc. and triggering an explosion than a phone running > at 1 watt (or under). Again, they're just being litigious sensitive -- > everyone is getting sued for everything these days. Right. Although I used to work for BP and I don't consider them to be the smartest company in the world, I can't fault them for doing a little CYA. On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:47:42 -0400, steve@sellcom.com allegedly said: > tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) spake thusly and wrote: >> (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody >> can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny >> signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers >> are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) >> CLEVELAND (AP) -- BP Amoco plans to ban the use of cellular telephones >> at its U.S. gasoline pumps by the end of the year, a newspaper reported >> today. > What about potential sparks from their "pay at the pump" credit card > processing machine? I speak as someone who has worked as a BP cashier and has had to occasionally fix the damned things ... :) Actually, I didn't touch the insides of the magstripe reader, the keypad or any of that stuff; more often it was just unjamming paper out of the printer. But I have been around people who have performed surgery on the keypads/magstripe readers. There is an electrical current, but it must not be very much of one. I never had a repair tech ask me to shut down a pump whose cardreader he was working on. On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:46:46 EDT, reb@taco.com allegedly said: > Gee -- all this nonsense about things that *may* cause "sparks" -- > even though nobody has ever seen this. I wonder when they're going to > actually enforce the rules about *smoking* in gasoline stations. I > regularly see both employees and customers smoking cigarettes -- and > they look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them to stop. I think sometimes, especially at the bigger stations, cashiers have so much to pay attention to that it's not always possible to notice everyone -- especially if they are standing behind a pump. I did catch a few people smoking when I worked for BP. Some of them didn't even realize it and thanked me for point that out to them. A couple got nasty with me ... which was ok, because I had control over whether the pump got turned on or not. :) North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Watch for the new web site! Coming Soon to a Web Browser near you!) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations From: rweller@h-e.com (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:27:39 -0700 Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc. This may have already been covered. The nasty little secret in this report is not that there is a danger of fire or explosion, it's an EMI problem. The gas companies have reported losses from people who intentionally (or perhaps not) hold their cell phone (or other transmitter) up to the electronic pumps and get free gas. I'm in the EMI control business and have seen numerous reports of pumps getting reset by CB, ham, and land mobile radios in vehicles. The modest power of a cell phone is less likely to cause this upset, but certainly possible. One simply fills the tank 7/8 full, then initiates a "reset", and complains to the attendant. The attendant fixes the pump, and you fill your tank the other 1/8, paying only for that amount. I've never tried this, but it seems straight-forward enough. Bob Weller Sonoma, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:26:55 PDT From: Jonathan St-Pierre Subject: Seeking Older Area Code 416 Updates I am seeking area code 416 exchange updates from 1979 through 1990. Dave Leibold does not have those in his database. Can anyone help? ------------------------------ From: Mike Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:10:33 -0500 Organization: Primary Network http://www.primary.net Monty Solomon wrote: > http://home.swbell.net/evansjim/CRthreats/extortion.htm Monty, On your site, you posted: > Consumers Union will not sell you additional copies of the entire > magazine or book containing the article of interest, nor will we sell > you reprints of the specific article. We will also deny permission for > you to reproduce the article, in whole or in part, or quote from the > article or book. This is probably what they objected to, "in whole or in part". Had you asked W. J. Wintman BEFORE you paraphrased it, you might have been able to do so. My advice? Consult an attorney for the legal ramifications of what they can and can not do. If they've overstepped the legal boundary, then it's up to you to show them the limit of their zealousness. If they haven't, then simply remove all material from your website, that in any way pertains to them, until everything calms down. Mike J ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: Re: Siemens Listened to the Whining About the 2420 Gigaset Organization: snaip.net Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:55:01 GMT Steve Winter wrote in message news:telecom19. 464.9@telecom-digest.org: > It looks like Siemens listened to all of the whining about the > Gigaset 2420 problems and fixed just about all of them in the > new 2420+. (I will "*" the things I whined about) Sounds like almost exactly the things my wife finds frustrating about it too. Wonderful set, but needs some work. Question is, is there an upgrade path that doesn't involve chucking your three-month-old set? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:51:03 -0400 From: Rob Cleary Subject: Need Up Todate Area and Country Codes Patrick, are there any web sites that carry all of the latest country and US area codes. I am a switch tech and can't seem to find someone who had everything in one place. I really need them in text format or an Excel spread sheet that would include the codes, names of all the locations, and a break down of zones like Mexico has. I have to generate call detail records which needs to include this information. Thanks in advance, Rob Cleary [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Linc Madison is one guy you need to visit with soon at his web site. Eric Morson and John Cropper are two others; Dave Leibold is still a fourth. Check out the sites at http://www.lincmad.com and http://areacode-info.com for starters. I hope that helps. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #472 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 12 01:07:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA11088; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:07:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910120507.BAA11088@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #473 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Oct 99 01:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 473 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Keystone Telephone (L. Winson) Lucent Hell, Help (Mark Wells) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Barry Margolin) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Steve Winter) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Hudson Leighton) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (L. Winson) Telecom Employment Statistics Wanted (Bill Gildea) Re: Bell Atlantic/NY Metro "Discarding" Analog Customers (Steven J. Sobol) Announcements (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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Keystone Telephone Date: 12 Oct 1999 01:23:03 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Anyone have any information on this company? It was one of the last > Bell competitors -- operated in Philadelphia, and was absorbed into > the Bell System in the late 1940's. I'm curious as to the circum- > stances of its demise and assimilation. The selling point of Keystone was it was for business customers only "when the Keystone rings, you know it's a business call". A second benefit was their offered flat rate service to business customers while Bell only offered message rate. In downtown Philadelphia there are still manhole covers that say "KTCo" (as well as WUTCo). Keystone always operated the entire service for some communities, such as Cape May NJ. I'm not sure of the reasons for its demise. The merger of their system into the Bell System required converting Philadelphia from 3L+4D to 2L+1+4D. I had once looked up the conversion in the newspaper but the microfilm was hard to read. It simply said the conversion went well, with about 25% of the customers misdialing. There was nothing the day before conversion (on July 4th). I presume research of other newspapers would reveal information on what happened to Keystone. Unfortunately, I know of no index for Philadelphia newspapers. (The story may or may not have been big enough to warrant mention in the New York Times, which is indexed and widely available). I too would be more interested in information if anyone else can add it. I remember reading the city's transit operator, SEPTA, converting its privately owned telephone system to Bell Centrex because it was old and too hard to maintain. Subway cashier's booths had AE 40 phones. It said the system was a Keystone system -- perhaps they provided it originally and then sold it off when they folded. (The City of Philadelphia also had a private dial phone system, and I wonder if it too was provided by Keystone.) > I can remember seeing in the 1950's a sign outside a building noting the > availability of *Bell* Telephone booths inside. Yes, the older phone booths always had signs "Bell Telephone" on them, rather than just "phone" or "telephone". ------------------------------ From: Mark Wells Subject: Lucent Hell, Help Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:35:18 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I've got three remote phone attached to a Lucent system through their ISDN extenders. To attach each phone requires a separate ISDN line according to Lucent. Data across the extenders is only through a serial port. Ther has got to be a better way! We believe that we can remove the extenders and the ISDN lines leaving a T1 in place. Then through routers and the like connect the three phones back to the Lucent system and the two computers back to the network. Are we silly? Does anyone have an idea if this will work? If you do, send your ideas about the equipment we need to buy. TIA. Mark ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 02:34:39 GMT In article , Peter Corlett wrote: > I set up the mailserver for the company I work for. Originally, I > nailed it down, only allowing mail from certain IP address > ranges. This worked until somebody took their laptop home, and > expected relaying mail to still work when they are dialed in from a > random ISP. Tell them that when they're using a random ISP, they should use the ISP's mail relay, not yours. > So, it got reconfigured to allow relay if the sender or the recipient > was on the list of domains we accept mail for. This works -- it's not > especially efficient, but everybody is happy. > Now, suppose Joe Random Spammer finds our relay. Normally, they will > not be able to relay anything, since a made-up return address is sure > to be rejected. However, if they are smart, they may well work out > that we've set up our server in this way, and set a return address to > be the same as the domain name of the server. > This will then be happily relayed. Spammers are aware that this is a common configuration, and they do take advantage of it. Many sites that wish to allow this make use of POP-then-relay configurations. The user first logs into the POP3 server (which requires a username and password), and it puts the client IP address in an access list that sendmail checks. 30 minutes later it removes the address from the access list. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:44:36 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Adam Sampson spake thusly and wrote: > steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) wrote: >> shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) spake thusly and wrote: >>> Maybe not, but I *distinctly* recall a federal law passed about ten >>> years back making it illegal to obtain access to or use of a computer >>> by using a bogus id. >> It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly >> gained access. > Ahem, but yes, they have, when they sent their mail. At the time the > mail went from their system to their upstream SMTP host, they would > have authenticated with a "HELO " at the start of their SMTP > session. SMTP servers like sendmail can and do drop connections > through failed authentication (HELO from the wrong hostname, MAIL TO: > a blocked address etc.). > I see no moral or procedural difference (obINAL here) between this > exchange and logging on to a shell account with an illicitly-obtained You make an irrefutable point, but convincing a jury of same would be another matter. Also, a running an email server could be considered an invitation the same as an "open for business" sign. Of course if someone has been given no trespass notice, an "open for business" sign would not provide a loophole. A reasonable person would understand the difference between an attempt at communication and an email bomb or other such hack etc. Of course most folks are not running their own smtp server and it is the server that is being logged into by the sender. Oops, sorry, I said your point was irrefutable and then refuted it ... Well, anyway, you certainly raise an interesting point. 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 Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:13:08 -0500 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. In article , Johnnie Leung wrote: > Tad Cook wrote in message news:telecom19.465.3@ > telecom-digest.org: >> Pagers are banned? They don't emit radio waves. > Depends on the pager. At work we use SkyTel pagers (made by Motorola) which > are essentially cell phones minus the audio part. A radio receiver is also a transmitter, a very weak one but still a transmitter. http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 12 Oct 1999 04:14:56 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 12 Oct 1999 00:44:12 GMT, sjsobol@JustThe.Net allegedly said: > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:17:34 -0400, jwineburgh@chubb.com allegedly > said: >> Actually, some pagers do transmit. I happen to have a Skytel 2-way >> pager with an internal rechargeable battery that outputs at (I >> believe) just under 1 watt. > Skytel 2-Way pagers do indeed transmit. Skyword Plus pagers, the Alright. Brainfart -- I should know better. There is no such thing as a Skyword Plus "pager". Skyword Plus is the name of the service, and you typically use either a Motorola PageFinder or a Motorola PF1500 with Skyword Plus. Sorry, guys. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Watch for the new web site! Coming Soon to a Web Browser near you!) ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Date: 12 Oct 1999 03:31:02 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS >> short distance users are definitely paying more. (Short haul inter- >> state calls had far lower rates before than now when all rates are > I know that this statement is completely false in the Canadian > marketplace, and I can't see how it could possibly be true in the USA. > Are you saying that, prior to 1984, you could get 7 cents/minute long > distance 24/7 nationwide in the USA? I repeated my original quote for emphasis. As to what I was paying before 1984, for my calls it was 5c or even 3c a minute. Why so cheap? Well, notice I said "short haul". I happen to live near a state border which is also a LATA boundary. Calls 10 miles away cost me the same as a call across the country. As it happens, I very rarely call across the country, but I do call friends and family across the LATA boundary quite often. And I pay dearly for it now because rates are flat regardless of distance. Even moderate distance calls (say 100 miles) were quite cheap. I also noted that certain classes of calls are much more. Pay phone calls for example. ------------------------------ From: Bill Gildea Subject: Telecom Employment Statistics Wanted Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:01:22 -0400 I am developing a business plan for our company and would like to search for some statistics on the number of people employed in the telecom industry, changes by job type, etc. Would any of your articles have that kind of information? My search attempt of your site was futile. Bill Gildea Senior Recruiter A.E. Feldman Associates, Inc. 445 Northern Blvd. Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel:(516)719-7900 Fax:(516)466-5122 bill@execrecruiter.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not something that we have in the archives here, but perhaps some readers can respond for me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic/NY Metro "Discarding" Analog Customers Date: 12 Oct 1999 04:13:07 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET Doug, Tell me more about CDMA800 coverage in New York, please. One of these days I'm going to get back there ... and I carry a Motorola StarTAC 7760 hooked up to GTE's AmericaChoice nationwide calling package. As a very happy, quite loyal, longtime GTE Wireless customer, as well as (hopefully) a near-future GTEW reseller (if my salesrep gets off his butt and calls me back), I'm also interested in the BA/GTE merger. I like GTE an awful lot, and I've not heard too many negative things about Bell Atlantic Mobile on this newsgroup ... certainly far fewer things than I've heard about either AT&T or Sprint, and the consensus seems to be that Omnipoint and BAMS are the carriers of choice in the Metro New York area (although I've heard people grumbling about Omnipoint lately). Thanks for your time. Regards **SJS North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Watch for the new web site! Coming Soon to a Web Browser near you!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:55:47 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Annoucements I apologize that telecom-digest.org was shut down much of Saturday and part of Sunday. Something went wrong with massis.lcs.mit.edu and it had to be rebooted. As a result, the archives and web site was unavailable for most of a day in total. Things seem to be back to normal today and I thank Mr. Wollman of LCS/MIT for taking the time over the weekend to reboot massis and get things moving again. As I pointed out last week, because I am also handling on a temp- orary basis the rec.radio.broadcasting newsgroup and Airwaves Radio Journal which is its companion mailing list, that has taken away some of the time which normally would be given to telecom; this has left the output of TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom sort of skimpy right now for which I apologize also. Last point: Your financial contributions are *really* needed at this point to help me finish out the year without relying too much on the goodwill of the charities in Junction City. :( Please do what you can: Patrick Townson/PO Box 765/Junction City, KS 66441-0765 and thanks in advance. Help me pay my rent! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #473 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 12 14:05:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA07810; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:05:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910121805.OAA07810@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #474 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Oct 99 14:05:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 474 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Numbering Error (TELECOM Digest Editor) Telecom Update (Canada) #203, October 12, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications TT&T (James Bellaire) AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Troubles at TeleHub and Erbia (Tom Kostera) I Need to Know How to Become an CLEC (Michael E. Winsett) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (J.F. Mezei) CCITT #5 Converter (kraso@my-deja.com) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Antilles Engineering, Ltd) New Proposal by IETF (John Eichler) Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:18:28 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Administrivia: Numbering Error I really have to fix that bug in my software sometime soon! It happened again. You got the REAL issue 472 overnight Monday into Tuesday, and then you got the REAL issue 473 sent with a subject line of 472 a second time ... Please take the true issue 473 which was issued about 1:00 AM Tuesday morning, and edit the subject line to also be 473. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:16:01 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #203, October 12, 1999 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin http://www.angustel.ca Number 203: October 12, 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 Business Services........ http://www.teleglobe.ca/ Telus Communications.................. http://www.telus.com/ TigerTel Services ................. http://www.tigertel.com/ ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** MCI WorldCom, Sprint Approve Merger ** Battle for Call-Net Heats Up ** Norigen Launches Local Service in Toronto ** CRTC Opens SaskTel Proceeding ** Ameritech, SBC Merger Approved ** Bell Mobility Offers Wireless E-Mail ** CTI, Waterloo Hydro Join for Local Service ** Telecom 99 Opens in Geneva ** Telus Files Wireless Payphone Tariff ** Teleglobe's Excel to Market Look TV ** JDS Buys NJ Fiber Components Maker ** Cantel System Cuts Wireless Fraud ** Amtelecom Decides Not to Sell Itself ** Eicon, Jetstream Partner for Voice Over DSL ** Preparing for 10-Digit Dialing ============================================================ MCI WORLDCOM, SPRINT APPROVE MERGER: MCI WorldCom and Sprint Corp. have approved a definitive merger agreement, in a transaction valued at approximately US$129 Billion. The combined company, to be called WorldCom, will have pro forma 1999 revenues of more than $50 Billion, a market value of $290 Billion, and operations in more than 65 countries. ** Because the deal must be approved by a variety of state, federal, and international authorities, it is not expected to close until sometime in the second half of 2000. ** The deal has significant implications for Canada, because MCI WorldCom is allied with Bell Canada, while Sprint is allied with Call-Net. BATTLE FOR CALL-NET HEATS UP: The shareholders of Call-Net Enterprises, parent of Sprint Canada, will meet this Thursday, October 14, to vote on Crescendo Partners' proposal to oust the Board and sell the company. Some recent developments: ** Call-Net and Sprint Corp. suspended negotiation of an expanded alliance in order to allow both parties to evaluate the implications of the planned WorldCom-Sprint merger. Call-Net says it expects discussions to resume shortly. ** BCT.Telus formally expressed interest in acquiring "all or part of Call-Net" following the shareholders' meeting. Call-Net replied that its Board does not think a sale is appropriate now, but would be open to discussions with Telus at any time. ** Sprint Corp. committed to vote its 1.1 million Call-Net common shares against the Crescendo resolution. ** Call-Net appointed Morgan Stanley as its financial advisor for the sale of Call-Net's U.S. fiber network. ** Institutional Shareholder Services, a voting advisory service, recommended that its clients vote against the Crescendo proposal. ** Crescendo told business reporters that it has the votes needed to win at the October 14 meeting. Call-Net denied the claim. ** Crescendo says it will nominate former Rogers Cablesystems CEO Colin Watson and former Beatrice Foods EVP Randy Benson to be Call-Net's new Chairman and President. Crescendo says it is "in advanced negotiations" with a CEO candidate who is currently "President of a major Canadian telecommunications company." ** Crescendo has quadrupled the fee it promises to pay bondholders to waive provisions calling for immediate debt repayment if Call-Net changes hands. If all bondholders agree, the offer will cost Call-Net $52.7 million. NORIGEN LAUNCHES LOCAL SERVICE IN TORONTO: Norigen Communications, a Competitive Local Exchange Provider, now offers its One Source portfolio of local services in selected buildings in Toronto. Business lines are $35.95; Canada-U.S. long distance is 10 cents/minute -- less bundling discounts of up to 15%. CRTC OPENS SASKTEL PROCEEDING: Public Notice 99-22 opens an examination of SaskTel's proposed transition to federal regulation, to take effect next June (see Telecom Update #201). To participate, notify the Commission by October 21. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/03/pn99-22.htm AMERITECH, SBC MERGER APPROVED: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has approved SBC Communications' $70-Billion purchase of Ameritech, which owns 20% of Bell Canada. BELL MOBILITY OFFERS WIRELESS E-MAIL: Bell Mobility now offers customers e-mail access from PCS phones for 15 cents/minute; there is no monthly charge. CTI, WATERLOO HYDRO JOIN FOR LOCAL SERVICE: Waterloo North Hydro and Combined Telecom Inc. have formed a joint venture, Combined Xchange Telecom, to offer business telecom services in the Kitchener-Guelph region using the utility's fiber network. TELECOM 99 OPENS IN GENEVA: Once every four years, the International Telecommunications Union hosts the largest telecom exhibition in the world in Geneva, Switzerland. Telecom 99 runs from October 10-17, with some 1,000 exhibitors from 48 countries and an expected total of 200,000 visitors. Check the ITU's Web site for regular updates through the week. http://www.itu.int/telecom-wt99/homepage.html TELUS FILES WIRELESS PAYPHONE TARIFF: Telus has completed a year's market trial of its wireless payphone service (see Telecom Update #146) and now plans to introduce the service in hard-to-provision areas of Alberta. The service uses Telus's analog cellular network. Proposed per-minute rates, to be paid by cash card, are $1 (Alberta), $1.50 (Canada), and $2.25 (U.S.). http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1999/8740/t42-145.htm TELEGLOBE'S EXCEL TO MARKET LOOK TV: Ontario and Quebec sales representatives of long distance supplier Excel Canada will now offer customers Look Communications' wireless television service. JDS BUYS NJ FIBER COMPONENTS MAKER: JDS Uniphase (Nepean, Ontario, and San Jose) will pay US$400 Million to purchase New Jersey-based Epitaxx, which makes components for fiber optic networks. CANTEL SYSTEM CUTS WIRELESS FRAUD: Rogers Cantel reports that its fraud detection system, introduced in the Windsor-Sarnia region in 1997, has reduced wireless fraud there by 80%. AMTELECOM DECIDES NOT TO SELL ITSELF: Aylmer-based Amtelecom Group, which operates several independent Ontario telcos, has withdrawn its offer to sell its telecom and other assets. (See Telecom Update #182) EICON, JETSTREAM PARTNER FOR VOICE OVER DSL: Eicon Technology, which makes remote access products, and Jetstream Communications, which makes Voice over DSL equipment, are partnering to jointly market VoDSL to carriers. PREPARING FOR 10-DIGIT DIALING: In the October issue of Telemanagement, Ian Angus explains what telecom managers must do now to prepare for mandatory 10-digit dialing in the Toronto area in 2001. Also in Telemanagement #169: ** Gerry Blackwell profiles WaveRider, Canada's startup supplier of fixed wireless equipment. ** Henry Dortmans identifies a neglected source of telecom insights: receptionists. ** Ian Angus examines Cisco's new IP-based PBX. To subscribe to Telemanagement call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit the Telemanagement Home Page at www.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 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, 12 Oct 1999 09:26:17 -0500 From: NSINFO@nscorp.com (by way of James Bellaire ) Subject: Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc. TT&T NORFOLK SOUTHERN ANNOUNCES ENTRY INTO TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY NORFOLK, VA -- Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) today announced the formation of a new subsidiary, Thoroughbred Technology and telecommunications, Inc., to enter the wholesale telecommunications bandwidth business. The new company is actively pursuing development opportunities in fiber optic and microwave technology using the railroad's 21,600 miles of rights-of-way, an extensive microwave network that includes 400 towers, and numerous sites and facilities throughout the eastern United States with a variety of telecommunications providers. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc. will do business as "T-Cubed." The new company also will explore opportunities for marketing Norfolk Southern's proprietary information systems. "While we continue to concentrate on our core rail transportation business, we believe the time is right to launch new telecommunications and technology business ventures that will add value to Norfolk Southern's extensive portfolio of assets," said David R. Goode, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Norfolk Southern. The company is currently negotiating with long-distance carriers, local telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and cable companies. As deregulation in the telecommun- ications industry unfolds, these companies will be looking for efficient ways to expand their offerings for transmission of voice, data, video and cable signals. "These providers will be seeking ways to reach beyond the major metropolitan markets into regional centers and even smaller locations," said Charles W. Moorman, who will serve as president of the new company. "In the East, where the population densities are higher and so is the cost of real estate, Norfolk Southern offers a unique set of infrastructure assets and expertise to these companies." Moorman has served as vice president Information Technology since 1993. He joined Southern Railway as a student co-op in 1970 and later became a management trainee, holding positions of increasing responsibility in the Engineering and Transportation departments. He was named vice president Employee Relations in 1992. Moorman is a graduate of Georgia Tech and the Harvard Graduate School of Business. Norfolk Southern Corporation, a Virginia-based holding company with headquarters in Norfolk, owns a major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, which operates approximately 21,600 miles of road in 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the Province of Ontario. Norfolk Southern Corporation http://www.nscorp.com [JB Comment: If you've seen how they run their railroad ...] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Really Jim, do you feel its a hell of a way to run a railroad? The last time a railroad got involved in telecom services we wound up with Sprint didn't we ... I wonder what will happen in this case? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:58:23 GMT Another "benefit of competition" is that the AT&T long-distance operator (reachable by dialing 0-0) will no longer give out area code information. I got a prank call, and, before calling back, wanted to know where the area code was, so I called 0-0 and asked the AT&T operator. She connected me to a recording that said "that information is now provided by AT&T double-zero information." Then click. Then a three-tone reorder signal. Then I was cut off. Not only couldn't I get the information for free, but I couldn't get it all. (I had to get it off the 'Net.) I hate competition. I liked service. -Joel Hoffman (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: Tom Kostera Subject: Troubles at TeleHub and Erbia Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:35:45 -0500 I have read a few messages in this particular thread and just wanted to pass some information along regarding what is happening at TeleHub. I used to be employed by TeleHub. On Friday October 1st, all employees were notified to report to work on Monday October 4th to pick up their personal effects and receive their last paychecks. During the last week of September 99% of the network was looped back and effectively shut down by our underlying carrier for non-payment of outstanding bills. I do not know how senior company management is handling the mess this all has caused, as I have been busy looking for employment, but I can say that the website has been down for quite some time. I would not count on any kind of comeback. I wish I had some more information to pass along, but anything else I could say about now would be pure speculation. I am not a spokesperson for TeleHub, as I no longer am employed there. Just wanted to pass the word along to anyone who is affected by this. Tom Kostera 1016444 RIP - Anyone looking for a network planner? crash1@wans.net ------------------------------ From: Michael E. Winsett Subject: I Need to Know How to Become an CLEC Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:49:56 -0700 I need to be able to be my own phone company for our business. I am right now spending over 30 thousand a month on them and need to expand but at that time I will be up to about 420 thousand, so I need to find a way for our business to be the telco, or the CLEC. If any one knows all the people and government agencies involved please let me know, thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could you tell us a little more about your business and telecom requirements? Some readers here may be able to steer you in the right direction. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:04:54 -0400 I remember the time when most phones were like that (even touch tone). But at least in Bell Canada territory, adding a phone, even if you bought it, required that you tell the telco. I assume that the telco had to make sure you did not exceed the load on the line. When new "electronic" phones were introduced, the limit on the number of phones per line seemed to disappear, at least from the customer's point of view. (Since I assume such phones consume a fraction of what the old phones consumed). What was the usual limit on the number of "mechanical bell" phones per line? Is that limit still supported, or have the telcos adapted their switches based on the vast majority using only electronic phones? ------------------------------ From: stan Subject: CCITT #5 Converter Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:29:43 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Reply-To: stan00@iname.com I am looking for an external converter CCITT#5 / 4 or 6 W Tie Line which can be connected to a PBX on the Tie Line side. Do somebody have information on this subject (providers ...) ? Thank you. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:51:30 -0400 From: Antilles Engineering, Ltd Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? There is one overwhelming reason why Sprint should not be merged with WorldCom. It's called "Lack of Competition." In 1996, my firm signed a three-year contract with MCI. The contract read that we would be billed at the tariffed rates (which can change), less a fixed discount that had been negotiated based on monthly dollar volume. Being "new" to the world of term contracts, I erroneously believed that, if anything, the tariffed rates I would be paying would either stay at the initial level or go down, because the trend was that *all* long distance and international rates were going down. Wrong! Over the life of the contract, MCI *raised* tariffed rates five or six different times totaling a 28.5% increase. (Their rate increases almost exactly mirrored tariffed rate increases by AT&T, both in timing and in percentage-increase.) With the contract running out in November of 1999, I told MCI that I would not be renewing the contract and was already in discussions with Sprint who promptly provided me with a very favorable quote both for domestic and for international. (Incidentally, over half of our calls are international so we're very sensitive to those rates.) MCI (by this time, "MCIWorldCom") then countered and said they would match or beat Sprint's prices, which they did. So we now have a one-year contract with WorldCom. But the point is, that without Sprint competing for my business, I would not have been able to negotiate reasonable rates with WorldCom. (As to obtaining a quote from AT&T -- you've got to be kidding!) Sure -- there are other carriers in the second and third tier, but in all cases that I know of (where quality of service and minimal compression is important), these smaller carriers are reselling first tier carrier services and thus, their prices cannot be as competitive on many international routes. S. Johnson President Antel, Inc. ------------------------------ From: John Eichler Subject: New Proposal by IETF Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:27:18 -0500 Pat, This morning I opened my newspaper and saw a front page article on the IETF new proposal. This is a good one. They are considering making one of the components in the new IPv6 address a number unique to your machine. I don't have a copy of this to post here but keep your eye open for this. (It is available at http://www.ardemgaz.com/today/nat/afprivacy12.html today October, 12th.) Being an AP article, it should be everywhere. When will people ever learn. It never ceases to amaze me. John ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:29:26 GMT In article , Mike wrote: > My advice? Consult an attorney for the legal ramifications of what > they can and can not do. If they've overstepped the legal boundary, > then it's up to you to show them the limit of their zealousness. If > they haven't, then simply remove all material from your website, that > in any way pertains to them, until everything calms down. If you read his essay, you saw that they stopped resorting to a legal attack (perhaps because they realized that he wasn't really violating their copyright) and instead complained to the ISP through which his web site is reached. The ISP's TOS probably allow them to cancel his account for any violation of the TOS, and they could probably construe his activity as a violation, regardless of whether it actually infringes their copyright. As he wrote, ISPs have become very willing to cancel accounts on the slightest hint of controversy -- they don't want to risk thousands of dollars in legal fees just to keep a customer paying $20/month. So they capitulate immediately. 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 #474 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 12 15:02:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA10775; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910121902.PAA10775@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #475 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Oct 99 15:02:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 475 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Review: "The Daily Brief", db-admin@incinc.net (Rob Slade) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Arthur Ross) Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple (John Palkovic) Early Batteries (John Shaver) Re: Lucent Hell, Help (Joseph Wineburgh) Telecom Reports & Studies Now at TelephonyWorld (Don Panek) Re: Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? (Andrew Emmerson) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Bruce Wilson) Keystone Telephone (Michael Muderick) Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy (Steven) Re: Consumer Reports Has Become a Bully (John Nagle) Re: First Merger Cutbacks (Fred Goodwin) Last Laugh! Network Solutions - Truth in Advertising (Paulo Santos) 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, 12 Oct 1999 10:32:40 -0800 Subject: Review: "The Daily Brief", db-admin@incinc.net Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca MLDLYBRF.RVW 990829 "The Daily Brief", db-admin@incinc.net, 1997 -, mailto:subscribe-db@gs4.revnet.com, free %A db-admin@incinc.net %C 576 Maxfield Road, Keswick, VA, 22947 %D 1997 - %G mailto:subscribe-db@gs4.revnet.com %I Intelligent Network Concepts, Inc. %O free, http://www.incinc.net %P ~5 p., weekdays %T "The Daily Brief" Admirably living up to its name, The Daily Brief provides a very concise summary of news every weekday. Supported by advertising, and some sponsorship from readers, the mailing list presents capsule summaries of major news stories. The information is concise, and therefore of great value to those whose time is limited. Each story listing contains only a sentence or two, with some additional points where extra details are available. There is no attempt to pad the material in order to expand the space, no pretense of "in-depth" coverage, and no additional Web site to go to for the "full" story. Despite the brevity, I find that there is as much hard information to be gleaned from a Daily Brief capsule as might be available from a regular newspaper story, at least in terms of what one needs to know. After an initial advertisement filling one screen, one or two stories may be listed as Top Stories. (There are not always top stories every day.) There are also five to ten national (US) and international stories, possibly something from health and medicine, a market summary, business stories, currency exchange, entertainment, sports, and sports scores. As with most American works, the material tends to be US-centric. On average, the number of American (national) stories equals or exceeds the number of international stories, and international stories generally have to be monumental disasters to make it to the top. Most business news is American, as is most of the entertainment and sports. However, this minor irritation aside, The Daily Brief is well worth consideration by those with more calls on their time than time to call on. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 MLDLYBRF.RVW 990829 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com The desire of knowledge, like the thirst of riches, increases ever with the acquisition of it. - Laurence Sterne http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:29:32 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Jeremy S. Nichols wrote in TD #467: > Subpart H--Cellular Radiotelephone Service > Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones. > Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, > balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such > aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft > leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must > be turned off. Thank you, Jeremy, for the relevant CFR Part 22 citation. This whole debate, I think, stems from the airlines' trying to kill two birds with one explanation, so to speak. The first issue is that of safety-of-life and potential hazards from in-flight transmitters. The second issue is the fact that airborne operation "breaks" the cellular & PCS services, due primarily to these interference phenomena. The latter is probably the primary reason for the FCC prohibition. It's easier to give the stewardi one simplistic explanation: tell the passengers they can't use their phones in flight for reasons of safety ... a story that can be grasped by even the most ignorant passenger, even though its justification is dubious, except during instrument landings and other critical moments. Can you imagine an in-flight stewardess-generated explanation that invokes dBs of loss, signal-to- interference ratios, and the like? Just the thought of it cracks me up -- definitely wouldn't fly (bad puns fully intended!). Failure to understand this dual purpose for the prohibition is, I think, behind the heated debate, and especially that rather off-base WSJ article. J.F. Mezei wrote in TD #470: > During flight/cruise, the sensitive stuff such as ILS is not > used. This is why airlines ask you to turn off al toys during take off > and landing. If they allow powerful laptops with DSP chips, stereo > sound, cd-rom players, large LCD screens, and power consumption (and > hence potential for RFI and EMI) that makes a cell phone pale in > comparison, then I am not too worried about the cell phone causing > aircraft to crash. Probably correct, but only part of the story. > Digital cell phones in North America operate mostly at 1900mhz (except > for the legacy systems that tagged digital onto their analog AMPS > stuff.) Excuse me? The cellular systems operate at 800 MHz (between 824 and 894 MHz, actually) and PCS systems operate at 1900 MHz (between 1850 and 1990 MHz, actually). In both cases, when the digital service cannot be found, they revert to analog at 800 MHz. In the case of PCS, you are being treated more or less as an analog roamer. There is significant market share for both types. > Does the speed really make a difference? They support folks travelling > at 100kmh on a downtown highway. Yes it does if your receiver's tracking loops aren't designed for a shift of that magnitude. Commercial A/C cruise speeds are in the neighborhood of 550 mph, which is about 250 m/s. At 850 MHz, this translates to a one-way Doppler shift of about 700 Hz. At 100 kmph, the shift is about 80 Hz. Probably isn't too much of a problem for the analog FM service, but could be significant to the digital systems if they aren't specifically designed for it ... limits integration times for various things if not tracked out. > If there is a frequency shift that is significant, doesn't that mean > that the phone wouldn't "hear" the towers and vice-versa? But more > importantly, most of a flight is spent over rural or unpopulated > areas, so I am not sure you would monopolise channels over a huge > number of towers. The primary issue is interference, not shift. Those Doppler shifts are a small fraction of the signal bandwidth in all cases (30 kHz for FM & TDMA digital, 200 kHz for GSM digital, 1.25 MHz for CDMA digital), so it's not enough to shift the signal out of the receivers' passbands. No, it doesn't mean the signal is not "heard." > However, in rural areas, since there is little 1900mhz coverage, your > phone would revert to analog at 800mhz. But in rural areas, the towers > are few and spaced apart, and traffic light, so you wouldn't be > causing that much harm. See my previous comment about enormous differences between free-space propagation and near-the-ground propagation. You may have, potentially, significant interference effects to the optical horizon. By my estimate, the horizon is roughly 200 miles away at an altitude of 30,000 feet, assuming a spherical earth of 4000 mi. radius. > Also, as far as 1900mhz is concerned (not sure about the old 800mhz > stuff), if you're in a plane, your only way out is through your > window. 1900mhz does not penetrate a fuselage. Therefore, even if the > plane is at 30k feet, your phone would only see and talk to a fairly > narrow field of view, not the "wide area" that has been mentionned. EM radiation doesn't penetrate the sheet metal, true, but it pass through the windows just fine, so long as the wavelength is roughly the dimension of the opening, or less. 850 MHz is about 35 cm, and 1900 MHz is about 16 cm. Airplanes are pretty well-ventilated, electromagnetically speaking, even as low as 800 MHz. And it is not likely to have a sharply-defined pattern due to the many sources (windows) and the uncontrolled geometry of phone location inside the aircraft versus window locations. -- Best -- Arthur Dr. Arthur H. M. Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 ------------------------------ From: John Palkovic Subject: Re: Here is the Church and Here is the Steeple Date: 12 Oct 1999 11:43:09 -0500 Organization: Bob's School of Quantum Mechanics Brian Vita writes: > If we travel a mile or two to the Southwest, we end up at Bear Hill in > Waltham. Bear Hill is one of the hills that circle Boston and is used > extensively as an antenna farm for all sorts of signals, a majority of > which are heading over Lexington for Boston. A mile or so to the West > we have Bedford with Hanscom AFB with its share of antennas, radar and > other goodies. If we jump to the Northwest, we have WRKO with 50,000 > watts of AM radio. If memory serves me correctly, there's at least > one commercial AM/FM site in Lexington proper. Do they really think > that the additional 1Kw or so of combined output of the cell site is > going to do them in? Actually, it should be a lot less than 1kW. Output power for a single carrier IS95 sector would be in the 10-50 W range, most cells are three sector cells. So the order of magnitude is 100 W or less. OTOH, the radio technology is iDEN from Motorola and I don't know what typical transmit power iDEN uses. It does stand to reason that it is cellular radio and should be using the same order of magnitude of power as the next cellular technology for the downlink to the mobile. -John Lucent Technologies, Network Wireless Systems ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:25:51 -0600 From: John Shaver Subject: Early Batteries Pat, I have the remains of an early Western Electric battery. The jar and a black bakelite top. The anode and cathode have long since been gone, but it has WE New York Philadelphia and Chicago on it. John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting ... I wonder if some collector would be interested in it. It might be worth something. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Lucent Hell, Help Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:17:12 -0400 I am unclear as to the 'T1' config you speak of. What is the point of having the 'extenders'? Are they part of a call center? You might be better off (price and simplicity) just ordering up two POTS lines at each residence -- one for a phone and one for a 56k modem... It will work, it's just a matter of economics. Cisco is doing voice over IP in two ways; They have modules for their routers which will accept analog phones (or lines into a PBX), as well as a 'Celsius' line of IP Telephones, which plug directly into an Ethernet network and utilize an NT server to control dialing/etc. Keep in mind this is overkill for what you are trying to do, as the routers are probably 2-3k each (one per site), and the T1 depending on distance from the central 'hub' is anywhere from $500/month on up, as well as the fact that it is all new technology; you will need a consultant if no one has the experience programming their IOS for VOIP (read: $$). #JOE ------------------------------ From: credescon@aol.com (Don Panek) Date: 12 Oct 1999 15:57:11 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Telecom Reports and Studies Now at TelephonyWorld Hello everyone. It's been a while since I've posted news about TelephonyWorld. If you haven't visited us in a while you need to see all of the new services we've been adding that will help you stay on top of the converging Voice & Data industry. We've just completed an exciting partnership with Faulkner Information Services and you can now get access to their excellent industry reports and studies at http://www.telephonyworld.com/marketng/study.htm We have over 50 quality reports available Titles include: Wireless LAN Market Trends, Personal Communications Services Market Trends, Digital Subscriber Line(xDSL) Technologies, Emerging Local Loop Technologies, Implementing Business-to-Business Electronic Commerce, Electronic Commerce Security, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Technology, Implementing Voice over IP, Global Telecommunications Alliances, Implementing IPv6, Internet Bandwidth Management Alternatives for Optimizing Network Performance, Internet2, and many more. We've also added new categories to our buyer's guide and added over 25 new company profiles and product listings. Stop by for our FREE newsletter and to see why over 1000 IT professionals visit us every day! Thanks and have a great day! Don Panek TelephonyWorld.com "Bringing the world of Telephony to your Fingertips" http://www.telephonyworld.com ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:09 +0100 (BST) Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk In article , af877@FreeNet. Carleton.CA (Harry Dodsworth) wrote: > It was actually stamped CE, which I think is a British approval rating. Not quite, this is a pan-European mark indicating that the item meets the European electrical safety and EMC standards appropriate for this type of device. > Can the phone be used in Canada with a change of line cord and are > British phones generally North American compatible? There are two major differences: 1. Because more attenuation is allowed in the line plant over here, British phones are more sensitive and deliver more output to line than US ones. So the people you ring with your UK phone may tell you not to shout. Conversely, North American phones sound slightly faint when used on British lines. 2. Over here, the 1.8 or 2.0 microfarad capacitor that goes in the ringer circuit is provided in the main phone socket, _not_ in the telephone. There are three wires from the socket to the phone, i.e. two line wires and a bell wire. Most telephones in practice are made for international markets and you will usually see two empty holes in the phone's printed circuit board where the ringer capacitor should go. Just stick a suitable capacitor here (1.8 microfarads, 250V DC working). The line wires in the line cord are red and white; you can ignore the other two. Andrew Emmerson, Northampton, England. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 12 Oct 1999 12:51:27 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" > Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to > mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not, so I wonder whether > this system exists in the US. Do I need to watch out for "locked" > phones, or is this practice not used in the US (banned by FCC etc.?) AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. Those in my experience can be set to limit the options, but that's user- selectable, not part of the programming which can only be done by a technician. Were I to get a phone for US use, I'd still be inclined to go for analog rather than PCS, just because of the broader coverage, depending on where I planned to be using it. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: More Information on Keystone Telephone Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:01:52 EDT If you want more information on the transition, check out the Philadelphia Urban ARchives at the Temple University Library. They have the full archives of the Philadelphia 'Bulletin'. (Now gone). They will do keyword search. No charge. They even sent me a photocopy of three articles on my keyword. mm ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Drivers License Compact / Extortion Conspiracy Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:59:15 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer How long did it take to get the S/S number? I enquired and was told basically that it would be a long drawn out process as best, and possibly not issued if it was for the sole purpose of getting a driving license. Room temperature IQ and pulse were not an issue, as anyone who has driven in Florida knows, but an S/S number unequivocally was. kjarett99@telecom-digest.zzn.com says... >> I can't find a provision in Illinois law prohibiting the state from >> issuing a license to a nonresident. Maybe that's implied under >> state's rights. Under federal law, a CDL cannot be issued to a >> nonresident. ahk@chinet.com says... > Steven wrote: >> ahk@chinet.com says ... >>> Steven wrote: >>>> So long as they don't work this deal with other countries then anyone >>>> can continue to get a foreign license/international license, valid in >>>> the states, for a very modest fee. >>> Don't try this at home. Rather, don't try this in the place in which >>> you live. Generally, if you are a permanent resident (regardless of >>> whether or not you are a citizen), you must obtain driving privileges >>> through the local jurisdiction. By the treaty that created the >>> international license, it isn't valid at home. >> You are supposed to apply for a license within 30 days or something >> after moving to wherever, permanent resident, resident, whatever. > If you have moved somewhere (legally), you are a permanent resident. > The time you have to obtain a local license will vary by jurisdiction. > In my state, Illinois, a new resident validly licensed elsewhere may > drive without an Illinois license for the first 90 days. One definition of "permanent resident". Very plausible for citizens moving between states, but I'm sure INS would disagree with it. >> If they can't issue you one then what? Do you lose your driving >> privileges because the rest of the world doesn't issue S/S numbers? > Where in the world are there no national identity numbers? In the > United States, there are some permanent residents who are foreign > nationals who don't qualify for Social Security Numbers because they > don't or can't have jobs. If there is some reason to report their > unearned income, then they must get Individual Taxpayer Identification > Numbers from the IRS which are in Social Security Number format. Surprisingly many countries do not require you to produce a national identity number when pumping gas, ordering lunch, etc. A tax ID is not an S/S number, and some places will not accept it as such. When I lived in the states your S/S number was not required when making dinner reservations, etc. My last trip, a few months ago, was quite interesting in this respect. > In Illinois, drivers don't need a Social Security Number if they are > exempt from having one (or are in a recognized religious order that > prohibits its members from having one) and may substitute the ITIN or > some other number at his discretion. Each state is different. I did my case study in Florida and there was no way you'd get a license without an S/S number. Tried the conscientious objector thing. It didn't work. Tax IDs didn't cut it either. >> The international license is not valid in the country where the >> license it was issued against was issued. You can probably drive on >> your foreign license in the US without the international license >> anyway, so its not a big problem. > In your earlier message, you seemed to imply that you could drive with > your international license at home or obtain a license from a foreign > country without actually residing there. Absolutely. Laws about driving are basically the same around the world. Just as a foreigner stopping through Illinois for a few weeks can get an Illinois license, so can a Illinoiser stop through a large number of countries and pick up a license with a simple test. The world would not go vroom if it didn't work this way. > I can't find a provision in Illinois law prohibiting the state from > issuing a license to a nonresident. Maybe that's implied under state's > rights. Under federal law, a CDL cannot be issued to a nonresident. >> I'll try this anywhere I please, thank you very much, and I will run >> into no problems because it is perfectly legitimate. > You'll try what, driving with a license issued by a jurisdiction that > you weren't residing in or driving on an international license in the > country in which you reside? You may do what you like. I'll stick to driving on any valid license. I'm not eager to try any of the amazing combinations people have suggested here. Ill stick to what's tried and proven. > May I advise you to carry sufficient bail money with. Not a worry. Even if I an visiting an country where a sizable percentage of the population is incarcerated, and thinking about an ethnic slur is a crime, I still believe that those who adhere to the law will not be tossed in the slammer simply because of the parochial nature of their average population. ahk@chinet.com says: > Linc Madison wrote: >> steven@primacomputer.com wrote: >>> Do you lose your driving privileges because the rest of the world >>> doesn't issue S/S numbers? >> No. You don't have to be a US citizen, nor even a US resident, to get >> a Social Security number. > No. But you do have to be able to work legally in this country. > Individuals who cannot work here but have unearned income must get an > Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS. As I mentioned in other messages today, a tax ID wouldn't cut it where I was looking. You don't have to be legally able to work to get an S/S number, or to drive. >> If the state in which you are assuming residence requires a SSN to issue a >> drivers license, then you get an SSN or you don't get a drivers license. > That doesn't apply to people whose religious convictions won't allow > them to have Social Security Numbers. I tried this as well, didn't cut it. > Does anyone know what that court case was about and what religious > denomination that applies to? No, if anyone knows of any Id be interested to try it. > Based on international treaty (and probably the equal protection > clause of the 14th amendment which applies to persons and not > citizens), a state couldn't discriminate against foreign nationals > ineligible for Social Security Numbers. Illinois law is rather > explicit: Foreign nationals have the same driving privileges here that > we have in that country. Illinois seems to be a reasonable state. I'd hate to visit there. I might be forced to get a local license! > If a license bureau refused to license a foreign national for lacking > a Social Security Number, it would encourage discrimination against > Americans living abroad for lacking a comparable national identity > number. My point exactly. Perhaps Illinois is a bit civilised, but every state is not. Steven ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully Date: 12 Oct 1999 18:17:48 GMT Organization: Netcom Barry Margolin writes: > In article , Mike > wrote: >> My advice? Consult an attorney for the legal ramifications of what >> they can and can not do. If they've overstepped the legal boundary, >> then it's up to you to show them the limit of their zealousness. If >> they haven't, then simply remove all material from your website, that >> in any way pertains to them, until everything calms down. > If you read his essay, you saw that they stopped resorting to a legal > attack (perhaps because they realized that he wasn't really violating > their copyright) and instead complained to the ISP through which his > web site is reached. The ISP's TOS probably allow them to cancel his > account for any violation of the TOS, and they could probably construe > his activity as a violation, regardless of whether it actually infringes > their copyright. As he wrote, ISPs have become very willing to cancel > accounts on the slightest hint of controversy -- they don't want to > risk thousands of dollars in legal fees just to keep a customer paying > $20/month. So they capitulate immediately. Yes. This is a consequence of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and its "notice and takedown" provisions. There's a "safe harbor" provision for ISPs that take down material claimed to be infringing on a mere notice of infringement. An interesting question is whether a telco can do this. Suppose this person had, say, Pacific Bell DSL service and his own web server. That's a tarriffed service from a regulated telco. They're a common carrier, and can't deny service on content grounds. This is worth looking into. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: First Merger Cutbacks? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:36:38 -0500 larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) wrote: > The "new" SBC had to sell one of their cellular properties in the > Chicago area -- one company cannot own two systems. The one sold was > the old Ameritech Cellular -- GTE bought them. It's not a merger > cutback per se; just normal merger divesting known about for months. Actually, I think it is -- the DOJ ordered (or perhaps conditioned its approval on) SBC and Ameritech to eliminate overlapping wireless properties. 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: Paulo Santos Reply-To: pas@airnav.com Organization: AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/ Subject: Last Laugh! Network Solutions - Truth in Advertising Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:24:12 GMT Talk about truth in advertising. NSI's latest banner ad: Your-Identity.Com Here Today ... Gone Tomorrow http://www.networksolutions.com/affiliates/banners/images/clock_main.gif ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #475 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 13 19:58:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA12529; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:58:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910132358.TAA12529@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #476 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Oct 99 19:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 476 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Mike Fox) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Jeffrey William McKeough) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Nils Andersson) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Eric Blondin) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (John R. Covert) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (nospam) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Ed Ellers) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Kyler Laird) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Seymour Dupa) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Tony Pelliccio) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Phydeaux) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steve Winter) Re: Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? (Paul Wills) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Adam Sampson) Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully (Steven) Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully (John David Galt) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 13 Oct 1999 18:08:46 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Bruce Wilson wrote: > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. That statement is incorrect. On US PCS phones, subsidy locking is standard practice. Sprint PCS does it, all the GSM carriers do it, AT&T does it. There's no menu option for it, and if you weren't aware of it you wouldn't know your phone was subsidy-locked until you tried to activate it on another network. > Were I to get a phone for US use, I'd still be inclined to go for > analog rather than PCS, just because of the broader coverage, > depending on where I planned to be using it. Except analog phones either require service activation with a long-term contract, or credit-card roaming which is very expensive. The original poster is probably a European GSM user who's just looking for a GSM 1900 phone to put his card SIM into. He's probably out of luck unless he rents one. GSM phones in the U.S. are almost always subsidy-locked to a specific provider! The only known exception is the Ericsson I888 from Omnipoint, which isn't a cheap phone. This locking is kind of a "dirty little secret" of GSM here, and most users aren't aware of it, including the people who are selling phones on ebay. Do not buy a used GSM PCS phone on ebay unless you know it's unlocked. If the seller doesn't mention it in his ad, unprompted, that means it's locked. Not that the sellers are trying to con you, but they often don't even know their phones are subsidy-locked. Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: sandris@spdcc.com (Jeffrey William McKeough) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:16:19 GMT In article , Dave Harvey at Medical Connections wrote: > I am an occasional traveller to the US, and have a UK based GSM/PCS > account. I could hire a PCS phone when travelling to the US, but as > the prices are very high, I am looking at buying one second-hand > instead. However, in the UK (and most of Europe) handsets are > "locked" by the phone companies, so that they may only be used with > their own SIMs, unless you pay to have them "unlocked" once your > mimimum contract has expired. Omnipoint phones are locked. I don't know about other US GSM providers. Jeffrey William McKeough sandris@spdcc.com ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Date: 12 Oct 1999 20:05:25 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. Those On the contrary, SIM lock is very common in the US. Now, if somebody is selling phones over the net (or catalog), they may well NOT be locked to a particular system, but BE SURE TO ASK! Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Eric Blondin Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:57:54 -0400 > Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to > mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not, so I wonder whether > this system exists in the US. Do I need to watch out for "locked" > phones, or is this practice not used in the US (banned by FCC etc.?) In Canada "Locked" phones do exist and to the limit of my knowledge so are the american ones (PCS). Cellular services (Analog) do not seem to follow that practice though. The main reason companies lock their phone is that phones are subsidized. When you look at a BellSouth Nokia 6190 you buy it for about 150$ when in fact BellSouth bought it for 400$. After such an investment the company obviously wouldn't want you to go with a competitor (with a compatible technology, here GSM so lets say Omnipoint) using their phone. In Canada Bell and Clearnet use the same technology (CDMA IS-95) and same frequencies, thus their phones are locked and cannot be switched from one network to another. Eric Blondin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:11:09 -0400 From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Dave Harvey had asked: > Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to > mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not ... And got the answer from Bruce Wilson: > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. But Bruce didn't realize that Dave was asking about GSM. In the U.S., as in Europe, GSM phones are almost universally locked if you pay the typical $20-$200 for them, and will usually be unlocked if you pay $400 or more. The lock is called a "subsidy lock" and at least my carrier, Omnipoint, will unlock one phone for each customer in good standing every six months at no charge. What Dave probably doesn't realize is that most PCS phones for sale on eBay are not GSM and won't do him any good; no place to stick his card. AMPS (whether that be analog AMPS or Digital AMPS) phones are generally not locked. Back in the days where there were only analog systems, you were on a contract for monthly service as an incentive to keep you with the same carrier, so there was no requirement that the manufacturers build a locking system into the phone. Now, there are six incompatible systems, so when someone switches carriers, they usually can't use their old phone, and will just buy a new phone when they switch, so again, there is no requirement that the manufacturers build a locking system into the phone. Even with GSM, I know of no market where there is more than one GSM provider, so this is the reason the carriers are generally pretty liberal about unlocking phones for you. All of the carriers are "partners" in the GSM North America association, and the unlocked phone is most likely going to be used on a "partner" system or by someone roaming on the system where it was bought. Omnipoint will sell you unlocked Bosch worldphones (1900-900) for about $450, I think. The first 1900-1800-900 phone will probably cost closer to $700 unlocked when it actually starts being sold. /john ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: 13 Oct 1999 13:07:25 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. In article , Bruce Wilson wrote: >> Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to >> mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not, so I wonder whether >> this system exists in the US. Do I need to watch out for "locked" >> phones, or is this practice not used in the US (banned by FCC etc.?) > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. Those > in my experience can be set to limit the options, but that's user- > selectable, not part of the programming which can only be done by > a technician. Actually, the 'Digital Cell phone $99 no contract' offers from PrimeCo, Sprint, etc are for locked phones- the price of the phone is subsidized by the carrier, and they charge a hefty fee to 'unlock' the phone if you wish to switch the phone to another carrier. > Were I to get a phone for US use, I'd still be inclined to go for > analog rather than PCS, just because of the broader coverage, > depending on where I planned to be using it. All of the PCS phones I have seen are avaiable as a 'dual-mode' phone, with digital service where available, otherwise analog. Some of the best high-minutes plans are 'no roaming fee, nationwide coverage', which is particularly good with a dual-mode phone. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:48:15 -0400 Bruce Wilson wrote: > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. > Those in my experience can be set to limit the options, but that's > user-selectable, not part of the programming which can only be done by > a technician. Analog phones aren't locked, but digital phones (at least the GSM ones) can be. Powertel, a GSM-1900 carrier in the Southeastern U.S., locks its phones to use only its SIM cards but, according to the service agreement, will unlock them on request (presumably for a fee) if you move out of their service area. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:07:01 GMT In article , jsn@tc.umn.edu says: > The use of cell phones in airplanes is illegal ... > http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=6775331292+1 > 7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve > Subpart H--Cellular Radiotelephone Service > Sec. 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones. > Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, > balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such > aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft > leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must > be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each > cellular telephone installed in any aircraft: Here's another example of rules that have many flaws in them. As a radio amateur I have the ability to put a transmitter on an unmanned balloon and telemeter back info or even shoot back an FSTV signal. I doubt this poses any kind of real threat to other aircraft in the sky, beyond running into said balloon. > "The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is > prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in > suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones > while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations." Again, legislation to solve what in reality is a technical problem. The ECPA was another example. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Organization: self Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:39:28 -0500 Is there some technology which could allow cell phones in small planes? A low-power directional antenna pointing downward, perhaps? ------------------------------ From: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com (Mark Brukhartz) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:48:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Arthur Ross explained both problems nicely. Signal propagation to the cabin may also be limited by static charge of the airframe. Under some circumstances, an airframe has a static electric charge different than the surrounding air. Once the windows are sufficiently charged, they will block radio signals. Static charging of the airframe is likelist in convective conditions (weather generally conducive to thunderstorms), while flying through frozen clouds or flying through dry snow. Some highly secure computing facilities are inside rooms wrapped in charged copper mesh. That blocks the radio emissions which could be used to spy upon the data being processed. -Mark ------------------------------ From: laird@pier.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: 13 Oct 1999 18:46:34 GMT Organization: Purdue University J.F. Mezei writes: > Digital cell phones in North America operate mostly at 1900mhz Those aren't "cellular telephones" according to the FCC. Use them at will while aloft (in your own plane). --kyler ------------------------------ From: Seymour Dupa Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 1999 18:55:49 GMT What do you mean, 'rules'? I tried to get some enforcement on that one day and found out there were no laws (in Ohio) prohibiting smoking in gas stations!!! John Phydeaux wrote: > actually enforce the rules about *smoking* in gasoline stations. I > regularly see both employees and customers smoking cigarettes -- and > they look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them to stop. > reb > reb at taco.com If You Always Do the Things You've Done, You'll Always Have the Things You Got. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:13:03 GMT In article , satch@ concentric.hormel42.net says: > I very much enjoyed your essay on BP Amoco. Perhaps they feel that > gasoline as dispenses by their pumps is as dangerous as dynamite with > electrical blasting caps. That's the only explanation I can think of > for this ban. > For years, it's been a known thing that emitters of RF can generate > enough power in a blasting cap to trigger ignition. This is caused by > RF energy building up in the wiring for the blasting cap, causing a > standing wave to generate enough heat to trigger the cap. If you have > noticed, all electrically triggered explosive devices are shipped with > the wires shorted together, and sometimes shipped in all-metal > containers, to avoid the problem with the explosives in storage. True -- depending on how something is wired you could induce a current in it with RF energy. But are blasting caps so sensitive that a .25W signal 1/2 mile away would trigger it? I'd like to see empirical evidence, none of this heresay, that cell phones could actually ignite gasoline vapor. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:29:01 EDT > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:46:46 EDT, reb@taco.com allegedly said: >> Gee -- all this nonsense about things that *may* cause "sparks" -- >> even though nobody has ever seen this. I wonder when they're going to >> actually enforce the rules about *smoking* in gasoline stations. I >> regularly see both employees and customers smoking cigarettes -- and >> they look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them to stop. > I think sometimes, especially at the bigger stations, cashiers have > so much to pay attention to that it's not always possible to notice > everyone -- especially if they are standing behind a pump. > I did catch a few people smoking when I worked for BP. Some of them > didn't even realize it and thanked me for point that out to them. A > couple got nasty with me ... which was ok, because I had control over > whether the pump got turned on or not. :) I live in New Jersey. We have no self service at gasoline stations here. The employees I've seen smoking are often the cashiers/pump-jockeys themselves. I guess they feel that if they smoke inside their little booth with the door *open* (and in the middle of all the pumps) that they're safe from any potiential fire. "It'll never happen to me..." reb reb@taco.com ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:04:57 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Toan Tran spake thusly and wrote: > IMHO, it's a moot point. we already have electrical/electronic > impulses generated from a running ignition system. How about all the > spark generated from a starter solenoid? Should we turn off our > engine before reaching the gas station and start the car after we have > left it? Excellent point. The starter (a motor with brushes even), nice and close to the ground in a covered area with the car body to trap fumes. Someone must do something to ban automobiles from proximity to gas pumps! Just think about it! "Why, we have a station down on the corner and on a Friday night you can here the explosions, and sometimes, when weather conditions are just right and the cars clear the house roof down at the corner we can see them flying up in the air, the kids love it." (YES this *can* happen in America unless something is done). Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: Paul Wills Subject: Re: Can a British Phone be Used in Canada? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:35:59 -0400 Andrew, Great information! I would add, however, that the 1.8 microfarad ringer capacitor should be non-polarized to avoid worrying about the line polarity. >> Can the phone be used in Canada with a change of line cord and are >> British phones generally North American compatible? > There are two major differences: > 1. Because more attenuation is allowed in the line plant over here, > British phones are more sensitive and deliver more output to line than > US ones. So the people you ring with your UK phone may tell you not to > shout. Conversely, North American phones sound slightly faint when > used on British lines. > 2. Over here, the 1.8 or 2.0 microfarad capacitor that goes in the ringer > circuit is provided in the main phone socket, _not_ in the telephone. > There are three wires from the socket to the phone, i.e. two line wires > and a bell wire. > Most telephones in practice are made for international markets and you > will usually see two empty holes in the phone's printed circuit board > where the ringer capacitor should go. Just stick a suitable capacitor here > (1.8 microfarads, 250V DC working). The line wires in the line cord are > red and white; you can ignore the other two. Paul Wills ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:06:07 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Reply-To: azz@gnu.org Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? >>> It is a beautiful thought, but someone sending an email has hardly >>> gained access. >> Ahem, but yes, they have, when they sent their mail. [...] SMTP servers >> like sendmail can and do drop connections through failed authentication >> (HELO from the wrong hostname, MAIL TO: a blocked address etc.). (I notice that I created a new SMTP command there. I meant RCPT TO:, of course.) >> I see no moral or procedural difference (obINAL here) between this >> exchange and logging on to a shell account with an illicitly-obtained > You make an irrefutable point, but convincing a jury of same would be > another matter. Also, a running an email server could be considered > an invitation the same as an "open for business" sign. That is also a good point, especially as the average SMTP server will accept mail from anybody as long as it's to its local domain. It would therefore make sense to provide a warning; currently, my mailserver says: 220 cartman.azz.net ESMTP Sendmail 8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:56:23 +0100 when you connect to it, rather more information than I'd like to give out. Perhaps it should say something like: 220 cartman.azz.net ESMTP Sendmail ** NOTICE: This server will only accept mail for local domains; attempts to relay or perform other unauthorised actions will be considered as intrusion and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law ** ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:56:23 ... rather like my /etc/issue, /home/ftp/welcome.msg and /etc/irc/motd do. > A reasonable person would understand the difference between an attempt > at communication and an email bomb or other such hack etc. It would be simple to extend the "you may not make a telephone call without the intent to communicate" law to cover email. > Of course most folks are not running their own smtp server and it is > the server that is being logged into by the sender. Most Unix-clone (Linux, *BSD etc.) users are, as is anybody running the Turnpike Internet suite supplied by my ex-ISP. Adam Sampson azz@gnu.org ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:23:55 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer nagle@netcom.com says: > Barry Margolin writes: > Yes. This is a consequence of the Digital Millenium Copyright > Act, and its "notice and takedown" provisions. There's a "safe > harbor" provision for ISPs that take down material claimed to be > infringing on a mere notice of infringement. > An interesting question is whether a telco can do this. Suppose > this person had, say, Pacific Bell DSL service and his own web server. > That's a tarriffed service from a regulated telco. They're a common > carrier, and can't deny service on content grounds. This is worth > looking into. The Telco would never do this, as you point out. They would leave it to their wholly owned ISP subsidiary. Steven ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Association for Computing Machinery Subject: Re: Consumer Reports Has Become A Bully Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:45:44 GMT There is a new site dealing with CR's political biases and its promotion of them using questionable science. http://www.consumerdistorts.com/ John David Galt ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #476 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 13 21:10:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA15402; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:10:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910140110.VAA15402@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #477 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Oct 99 21:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 477 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Tad Cook) FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Arthur Ross) Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? (Steve Winter) Cell Phone Safety in the Air (John Shaver) Best DAA and Leased Line Resources? (S.M. Ling) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Mark Brader) Re: Need Suggestions for Digital Padding (Alan Fowler) Re: Seeking Information on Railway Codeline Protocols (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:09:45 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found the article which follows to be highly offensive, as I am sure many of you will also. It illustrates quite well the very serious problem with individual privacy where the internet is concerned. I cannot stress enough the need to use privacy-enhancing techniques when visiting web sites, especially those maintained by commercial or government entities. Everyone should have at least one or two 'anonymous, throw-away' email addresses such as those I offer as a public service at no charge via http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice but you can get them other places as well. Just log in at the above, give it any name and identifying data you wish. Then when it gets polluted, just dump it and get another one. Ditto with visiting web sites: I offer anonymous web-surfing as a public service at http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html and everyone is invited to use it. Feel free to use 'secret-surfer' at any time in combination with an anonymous email address. I must discourage you from using these services to break the law in any way, but I do feel you have a right to remain private and not be hassled with unwanted email and snoops getting into your business. And now an article which reminds us why this is so important. PAT] -------------------------------- Some Web Sites Know Who You Are And Can Let You in -- If They Want By MICHAEL MOSS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Brian Dunham has a hot Internet business idea, but he worries that someone will steal it. So last month, the 31-year-old San Franciscan blocked potential competitors from finding his brand-new Web site. When the rest of the world clicks on eframes.com, it sees a Web business that frames and ships digital photographs overnight. But four firms that Mr. Dunham views as likely rivals get only a dummy site sporting this message: "Coming in time for Christmas!" Known to insiders as Web-access blocking, this maneuver is made possible by the growing ability of computer programs to identify Internet users. In a little-known trick -- technically called "domain-name identification" -- Web sites can secretly see where visitors are coming from the moment they click on. The site can then choose to let them in or not. Or it can put up a substitute site. Or it can send them somewhere else altogether. Some companies are using this technique to elbow out competitors. Others are displaying customized ads that only some viewers can see. For a month or so earlier this year, DoubleClick Inc., an Internet advertising firm based in New York, furtively put up three different editions of its home page. Most visitors saw one version, highlighting the firm's accomplishments. Employees of a rival firm could see only another version, with a special press release touting DoubleClick's capture of one of the rival's customers. Clients being wooed saw only a third version. "It's very stealth," says Christopher Saridakis, a DoubleClick vice president. It also offers a reminder that going online is hardly a private affair. "Most people think that browsing the Web is as anonymous as watching TV or reading a newspaper. But it's becoming more like wandering around a trade show with your name tag on," says Jason Catlett, president of Junkbusters Corp., a privacy advocacy and consulting firm based in Green Brook, N.J. Even venture capitalists have to worry. New Internet firms have surreptitiously watched which investors visit their sites, and how often. This tracking tells them who is the most enthusiastic about their venture, and thus whom they should pursue for money. "Absolutely, it was helpful," says Flint Lane, the president of a Princeton, N.J., firm that in January began offering an online bill-paying service called Paytrust. Companies also use this intelligence to size up potential suitors in acquisitions. "They huff out of the room, saying they're done, and then the company sees lots of hits on their site from those same people. They can predict they will be back," says Brad Burnham, general partner at AT&T Ventures, of Basking Ridge, N.J. Cyberspace Footprints "It's interesting how naive people are about the footprints you leave in cyberspace," Mr. Burnham adds. Indeed, a sizable portion of the Australian government left footprints on one hot site. To protest a new Internet content law, sex-site owner Bernadette Taylor this summer posted a long list of agencies -- from the Nuclear Science Department to Tourism Tasmania -- whose Internet addresses showed up in her logs. Like all Web site operators, she could tell how much time each agency visitor spent on her site. "Viewing patterns suggest this was NOT research," she wrote about one agency. The White House and many government agencies also gather the Internet addresses of everyone who visits them. They say it improves their Web sites. Some also acknowledge that the data help catch hackers and terrorists, who can be traced to their Internet service providers. One federal agency has grown skittish. The Internal Revenue Service says it has stopped collecting its viewers" addresses because of concerns that it was risking an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For companies, however, this viewer information has endless possibilities. Entire ad campaigns have been spun from viewing Web site viewers. For example, Al Noyes, senior vice president of marketing and sales at SmarterKids.com Inc., of Needham, Mass., says he discovered that contrary to expectations, people were shopping at his children's-products site from office computers. "So we focused our ads on working moms" and not housewives, he says. Blocking -- and its related tactics -- begins with the digits that identify every Web user. These unique numbers can't always be traced, and an estimated 30% of Internet users remain anonymous by using big services like America Online Inc., which effectively shields its customers behind one Internet access point. One AOL user looks just like another to the digit tracers. But government agencies, organizations and companies often have their own Internet hookups, and when their employees go to the Web from their desks at work, they might as well shout out their employer's name. Operators of the Web site they are visiting can simply look up the visitor's Internet address in any of several reverse directories available free online (www.arin.net is one) and see the corporate name or agency behind the address. Conversely, the site operator can look up a rival company's Internet number and instruct its Web site to block any visitors coming from that address. It takes only five minutes to fix up a Web site to do this. No special software is needed, just simple codes that are familiar to most Web site administrators. When specified numbers come knocking, the computer can block, steer or misdirect the visitor in a matter of milliseconds. Some of the first to use this blocking technology were child pornographers, followed by hate groups and people who sell stolen goods. They looked up the digits used by government investigators and then programmed their Web sites to screen them out. But law enforcement officials soon caught on to the tactic, and a cat-and-mouse game ensued. When Detective Michael Menz of the Sacramento (Calif.) Valley Hi-Tech Crime Task Force sidestepped the block by purchasing Internet access through a local firm, for example, the pornographers tracked him down again and blocked that address as well. He now uses an undercover account, and says the last site he noticed that was blocking law enforcement agencies peddled pirated knockoffs of the film "The Blair Witch Project." 'Couldn't Let Go' Technology firms have been in the forefront of blocking competitors from sniffing around their Web sites. In August 1995, ExperTelligence Inc., a Web development firm in Santa Barbara, Calif., noticed its trial software being openly downloaded by a rival, Allaire Corp., of Cambridge, Mass. "I couldn't let it go," says ExperTelligence Executive Vice President Robert Reali. So he looked up Allaire's Internet access code and designed a special Web site that only Allaire would see. It omitted the real Web site's list of customers, and offered only an old version of software to download. "It didn't bother us at all," says Benjamin Frueh, product manager at Allaire, which eventually discovered the block. "It's flattering for people to think you're enough of a competitor that they have to take these steps." Some blocking is pure spoof. A few months ago, Oracle Corp. employees who clicked on the Web site of their smaller rival Siebel Systems Inc., of San Mateo, Calif., were whisked to Siebel's job opportunities page -- the only part of the Web site they could access. "It was especially funny because at the time they were trying to hire Oracle employees," an Oracle spokesman said. Siebel declined to comment. In the same vein, Cisco Systems Inc, the San Jose, Calif., computer- networking giant, showed a holiday party picture to some of its competitors -- before sending them to the hiring page. Later, Cisco used a reverse-blocking technique to defend itself. A competitor was sending its Web site viewers to an outdated Cisco Web page in order to boast that its product was better. So Cisco grabbed all those referred viewers as they came in and bounced them to the updated site. "People are getting a lot more sneaky," agrees Peter Corless, an Internet services architect with Cisco. Much of the blocking that occurs is aimed at thwarting corporate espionage, and some security experts scoff at its ineffectiveness. A blocked executive can simply use a home computer to get into the site. "The good corporate spy is never going to go directly from A to B," says Mark Fabro, director of professional services of Secure Computing Corp., based in San Jose. "I'm going to use a private account." But often a blocker just wants to slow down any rival snoops until a new venture gets rolling. Says Mr. Dunham, the picture framer, "The longer we can keep people from jumping on it, the better." Advertisers have discovered their own uses for knowing who is visiting a Web site. They can pay for their ads to be shown only to select viewers. International Business Machines Corp, for example, recruited employees by posting ads on Web sites frequented by students. Every school -- whose Internet address would be detected by the Web sites -- got its own pitch: "Is there life after Boston College?" 'This Cool Thing' The technology is also allowing some very personal ads to turn up in seemingly public places. DoubleClick, the Web advertising company, once posted this banner on hundreds of sites throughout the Internet: "Congratulations on the twins, John Nardone." But the only people who could see the banner were Mr. Nardone and his colleagues at Modem Media, of Norwalk, Conn., a DoubleClick client. "I was out for a few days and had 50 people forward me this cool thing," says Mr. Nardone. "They were seeing it all over the Web." Mr. Reali of ExperTelligence suggests that Web sites will soon be able to auction ad space based on the identity of incoming viewers. "If you can see it's really Bill Gates coming to your site, who would bid the highest to show him an ad on golfing?" he says. Web sites can't identify Mr. Gates, for now, but they can spot someone coming from Microsoft. Federal agencies only recently began posting privacy notices divulging that they gather Internet addresses. No law requires such disclosure, and only some companies have voluntarily followed suit. Inevitably, all this snooping around is prompting even casual Internet users to start masking their identity. Companies are selling services that promise to make any computer user entirely anonymous. But these programs have Internet addresses, too. And since computer hackers also use identity shields in their mischief, Web sites are starting to block these as well when they can identify the shields' own addresses. "If you're not going to show me who you really are, why should I give you any service?" says Michael Lambert, a computer security expert. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. There ought to be a way to prepend some phrase or symbol to the address of a site you are visiting which says 'do not release any information about who I am or where I came from, etc.' Then the site you wish to visit could either accept you or reject you, just as is done with Caller-ID on the telephone now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:16:16 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Pat: This was issued yesterday by the FCC. -- Best -- Arthur DA 99-2150 Released: October 12, 1999 Office of Engineering and Technology and Compliance and Information Bureau Warn Against the Manufacture, Importation, Marketing or Operation of Transmitters Designed to Prevent or Otherwise Interfere with Cellular Radio Communications The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) have received several inquiries concerning the use of transmitters designed to prevent or jam the operation of cellular telephones in hospitals, theaters and other locations. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's Rules do not permit these devices to be manufactured, imported, marketed or operated within the United States. Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47 USC 302(b), prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, or use of devices that fail to comply with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Similar prohibitions are contained in the Commission's rules, e.g., 47 CFR Sections 2.803, 2.1203, and 22.377. In addition, in accordance with Section 301 of the Communications Act, 47 USC 301, persons operating or using radio transmitters must be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules. There are no provisions in the FCC's rules that permit the operation of any device intended to interfere with cellular communications. Further, Section 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC 333, prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Communications Act or operated by the U.S. Government. Based on the above, the operation of transmitters designed to jam cellular communications is a violation of 47 USC 301, 302(b), and 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of such transmitters is a violation of 47 USC 302(b). Parties in violations of these provisions may be subject to the penalties contained within 47 USC 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $ 11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year. The equipment can also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. Government. OET and CIB wish to emphasize that the above regulations apply to all transmitters that are designed to cause interference to, or prevent the operation of, other radio communication systems. Questions regarding this Public Notice may be directed to the Commission's National Call Center at 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322). ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: MCI+Sprint - How Come This is OK? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:56:10 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Antilles Engineering, Ltd spake thusly and wrote: > There is one overwhelming reason why Sprint should not be merged with > WorldCom. It's called "Lack of Competition." We use Sprint on some lines and MCI on other lines because of different promotional rates and situations for different times of day. We live in "interesting times". Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:12:07 -0600 From: John Shaver Subject: Cell Phone Safety in the Air Pat, I suspect that those instances where aircraft systems have been interfered with by phones that the problem was that the aircraft wiring harness had problems and thus a small signal from almost any device would leak in. I base that on my early years when I worked on bombers for a aircraft manufacturer. We had terrible problems with the wiring harnesses. When plugs were disconnected and reconnected, not all of the connections worked again. Shielded wires became unshielded and begain to act like receiving antennas for the related systems John Shaver ------------------------------ From: SM Ling Subject: Best DAA and Leased Line Resources? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:20:33 +0800 Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd What is the best value DAA on the market? Any war-stories to share? Any good one to recommend that suppose to work both in two or four wire, dial-line or leased line. I have been searching the web for two days; there does not seem to be much information on leased line circuit, and what consideration should be given when interface a device to it. Can someone also points me to some resources on analog leased circuit? I need to interface a dtmf generator to a leased circuit on one end, and a detector on the other end. There is no power or dial tone when I measure the line. I need to know how much power should I configure the transmitter and do I have to power the line? Thanks. Ling SM ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Date: 13 Oct 1999 03:29:58 -0400 Organization: - Gail Hall asked: >> Is there such an international standard symbol already? Or will >> people have to just figure that out for themselves. Juha Veijalainen replied: > Probably not a standard sign, but ... Red circle, a picture of a > [mobile] phone inside the circle and a red line over the phone. Sure, but what do you put in the picture to identify the phone as cellular? Mark Brader, Toronto "Just because it's correct doesn't msbrader@interlog.com make it right!" -- Jonas Schlein My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: amfowler@melbpc.org.au (Alan Fowler) Subject: Re: Need Suggestions for Digital Padding Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:17:15 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia llang@No_Spam.eng.paradyne.com (Larry Lang) wrote: > To get right to the point, I am looking for a device that would go in > series with a T1 link and will allow me to inject digital padding into > the stream. I am in a lab environment and have a "Class 5" CO > simulator but it cannot be programmed to provide loss. The T1 streams > I am dealing with come from a DSLAM and run to the switch. This is a > voice system and the end to end loss is only 6db which is provided by > the endpoint units. Larry, If your lab staff are used to working with digital logic, such as the 74 series, you should be able to put together a working "breadboard" unit in a day or two. You do not say whether you want to insert the 6 dB pad in all channels, or only selected channels. However that only makes a small difference to the design. Look at the circuit of the T1 line card to see how it extracts the clock, frame synchronising signals and eight bit samples. If it uses discrete components you may be able to break the circuit at a suitable point, and insert the extra equipment. If not you will have to duplicate this part of the circuit. Build a 193 bit shift register from ICs that have both serial input and output and parallel input and output with independent clocking on the serial and parallel clocks. Connect a 6 dB pad between the output and input parallel lines, and arrange for the "parallel" clock pulse to replace the contents of the eight bit shift register with the -6 dB value at the appropriate times. The design should be reasonably straightforward once you get a mental picture of what is required. You only need one eight bit register - pad combination to handle all 24 channels in turn. If you want build a stand alone unit to put in series with the T1 line then I would use a regenerator as the basic unit to recover the clock signal, break it at the mid-point and insert the shift register, frame recovery logic, etc. > I need to be able to add at least another 6db as would be done in a > real switch. Using analog padding is not optional. I know the > Ameritec AM7 CO simulator is capable of providing 0-12 db of loss on > their T1 cards. The vendor of the simulator I have says they cannot > add it as a feature. If anyone has any ideas, please e-mail me > offline. Remove the "No_Spam " from my address. It's thirty years since I was working on PCM and digital switching. Perhaps I am getting rusty, but why do you want to introduce a further 6 dB loss in the circuit? It's my understanding that intermediate switching should be loss free, with only a 6 dB loss end to end. Please let me know how you make out. Regards, ,-._|\ Alan Fowler. (Alan M. Fowler FIEAust CPEng) / Oz \ Mail Address: PO Box 1008G, North Balwyn 3104 Vic, AUSTRALIA. \_,--.x/ Phone: +613-9857-7128 Member, Melbourne PC User Group. v Home page: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/whitethorn ------------------------------ From: wb5agz@dc.cis.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick) Subject: Re: Seeking Information on Railway Codeline Protocols Date: 13 Oct 1999 17:23:19 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma In article , Andrew Emmerson wrote: > The pulses were sent in groups and operated magnets that in turn > advanced a small wheel into which were stuck pins according to that > particular waystation's selcall code. At the end of the first pulse > train, the break in current would allow all the wheels to return under > control of a light spring _except_ in the wheel that had a pin at that > position. Then again and again, so that you selected just one phone, > after which a relay latched in that phone (only) and ringing current > was applied to the line so as to ring that phone's bell. That is interesting because there used to be a very similar system used over two-way radio circuits in the sixties and seventies in services that wanted selective calling capability between a dispatch center and many vehicles in the field. I don't know how many companies manufactured such systems, but one common one was Motorola's C Coder. I have never seen one of the code wheel units, but I did see an encoder unit, once. It looked just like a metal box with a telephone dial mounted on the unit. One pressed a button to start the tone which was either 1500 HZ or 3000 HZ. Dialing numbers on the rotary dial caused breaks in the tone so that 1 was one break and 0 was 10. Dialing a digit also recycled a delay of a couple to three seconds so that if one dialed at any kind of normal pace, the signal which went over the air was a steady tone, interrupted by dial pulses. A particular unit's selective call code was the tone frequency plus the three or four digits to be dialed. A unit whose C Code was 3000 with a number of 1521 was a totally different unit than one whose tone was 1500 with a number of 1521. Electronic versions of this same system, probably with no moving parts still exist today as a legacy. We have a state-wide ambulance network in which the ambulances have the dialing units in them and area hospitals have the C Coder receivers in their emergency rooms. Ambulance drivers need only know the C Code for the hospital they are taking a patient to. Other hospitals who may be in radio range do not have to listen to the traffic because of the selective calling system. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #477 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 14 00:07:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA22616; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910140407.AAA22616@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #478 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 00:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 478 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Troubles at TeleHub and Erbia (No Good) Re: I Need to Know How to Become a CLEC (Internet Desk) Re: Telecom Employment Statistics Wanted (David Ashbaugh) Re: Need Information on Difference Between Q.764 ISUP Q.767 (John McHarry) Re: Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications TT&T (James Bellaire) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Nils Andersson) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Gail M. Hall) Re: A Curious Conversation (Gail M. Hall) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Jim Youll) Questions About ISDN (ken) Can You Help a University Student in Need (Naomi Brown) 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: nogood@gate.net (No Good) Subject: Re: Troubles at TeleHub and Erbia Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:42:22 -0400 Organization: CyberGate, Inc. In article , Tom Kostera wrote: > I have read a few messages in this particular thread and just wanted > to pass some information along regarding what is happening at TeleHub. > I used to be employed by TeleHub. On Friday October 1st, all > employees were notified to report to work on Monday October 4th to > pick up their personal effects and receive their last paychecks. > During the last week of September 99% of the network was looped back > and effectively shut down by our underlying carrier for non-payment of > outstanding bills. My long distance carrier is Comtel who also leased capacity from Telehub. Comtel told ME that MCI was the villain, having shut off Telehub's service due to a disagreement. The story above sounds more likely. Despite repeated promises since October 1 to have things up and running smoothly again "any moment, " I was not able to direct dial my long distance calls until I got my local phone co. (Bell South) to change my pic code yesterday. That was annoying enough for a business, but not until I received a letter in the mail yesterday from a supplier who had been trying to reach me did I realize that my 800 number, serviced through Comtel, had not been working all this time! I knew it was a little too quiet around here ... dialers of the number were told it was no longer in service. As of today it still is not working, and I have no idea how many of my customers I am going to have to contact to let them know I'm still here. You'd be surprised how lacking in creativity some folks can be ... me, I'd look up the toll number, but being in a construction related business, such companies are always coming and going, so many callers would assume we're no longer alive. My girlfriend, the lawyer, says SUE 'EM, but sue who? As some others have reported, this happened once before, only the inconvenience didn't last this long. Yes, it's true I saved a lot of money on my bills with Comtel, but having this happen to my business, I now know it wasn't worth it. One last peep: Why wouldn't the fold-up of Telehub have been in the business news? I looked seemingly everywhere on the net for info on Telehub which would have enlightened me as to what had happened, but I found nothing. 50,000 people (or so Comtel told me) simultaneously losing their long distance service should have merited some ink, no? Noel Gilmore email: replace nogood with ngilmore ------------------------------ From: Internet Desk Subject: Re: I Need to Know How to Become a CLEC Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:26:51 -0600 Organization: U S WEST In article <3802d78f.0@news.pacifier.com>, Michael E. Winsett wrote: > I need to be able to be my own phone company for are business. I am > right now spending over 30 thou a month on them and need to expand but > at that time I will be up to about 420 thou, so I need to find a way > for are business to be the telico, or the CLEC, but if any one knows > all the people and government agencies are please let me know, thanks. Michael: I'm not sure if this will provide you with everything you need, but we have information on our Web site that should provide you with plenty of details to get you started. The URL is: http://www.uswest.com/carrier/customer_specific/clecs/index.html If I can be of further service please let me know. Sam Smith Internet Relations Manager U S WEST Media Relations netdesk@uswest.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:00:05 -0500 From: David Ashbaugh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Telecom Employment Statistics Wanted On Monday, 11 Oct 1999, Bill Gildea wrote: > I am developing a business plan for our company and would like to > search for some statistics on the number of people employed in the > telecom industry, changes by job type, etc. Would any of your > articles have that kind of information? My search attempt of your site > was futile. Try the FCC. They released a 'NEWS' report on September 17, 1999 that contains many tables and charts including Employment and Labor Productivity. You can download a TREND299.PDF file (932 KB) of the report from: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/trends.html You may want to check http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/stats for other areas of information from the FCC. David Ashbaugh GTE Federal Access Pricing david.ashbaugh@telops.gte.com ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Need Information on Difference Between Q.764 ISUP and Q.767 ISUP Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:03:19 -0400 Organization: - On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, HyunSu Jung wrote: > I have a difficulty connecting the SS7(C7) between Korea and USA. I > guess the problem is in the SS7 protocol stack difference. I need the > detailed info on the difference between Q.764 ISUP and Q.767 ISUP. > Could somebody help me with this? It has been a couple years, but Q.767 is ISUP for gateway to gateway. I think Q.764 is national ISUP, and exists in lots of national varients. Q.767 is a subset of national ISUP. There are also a lot of international C7 links that still use TUP, perhaps still the majority. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:11:04 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications TT&T In TELECOM Digest V19 Issue 474: > NORFOLK, VA -- Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) today > announced the formation of a new subsidiary, Thoroughbred Technology > and telecommunications, Inc., to enter the wholesale > telecommunications bandwidth business. > [JB Comment: If you've seen how they run their railroad ...] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Really Jim, do you feel its a hell of > a way to run a railroad? The last time a railroad got involved in > telecom services we wound up with Sprint didn't we ... I wonder what > will happen in this case? PAT] Norfolk Southern took over a slight majority of Conrail and attempted to integrate it into their rail network on June 1st of this year. Their first problems were computer related -- keeping track of trains, people and cargo. Now their yards are clogged, to the point that some days they have to stop trains on the main lines before entering the yards. Sometimes they block crossings with parked trains. At times it is a real mess for shippers and anyone near the railroad. I really don't expect much change in this case ... the NS lines already have bulk fibre optic cables running along them. Owned by AT&T and others. It MAY help a smaller player get around the Eastern US, but that is about it. James Bellaire http://tk.com/telecom/ ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Date: 12 Oct 1999 20:25:34 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now >> High volume far distance users are probably paying less. Low volume >> short distance users are definitely paying more. (Short haul inter- >> state calls had far lower rates before than now when all rates are >> uniform regardless of distance.) Further, long distance calls from >> pay phones or via calling card or operator assistance cost substanti- >> ally more. > I know that this statement is completely false in the Canadian > marketplace, and I can't see how it could possibly be true in the USA. > Are you saying that, prior to 1984, you could get 7 cents/minute long > distance 24/7 nationwide in the USA? Certainly, many of these plans do > require a monthly service charge but many DO NOT -- and even when you > factor that charge in, and compare how people prior to 1984 would be > doing if they were making the same calls today as they were then, I'm > sure it would be lower. The rates are following costs. In the old days, rates were set by government fiat, for the most part. The net effect was that long distance subsidized local service, and connections (i.e. monthly subscription). Since then two things have happened. The phone rates have been largely deregulated, so the rates reflect cost, more-or-less. At the same time, the cost structure has changed, and, for long distance, changed. The cost of long distance transmission has collapsed, while the cost for switching has not -- yet -- collapsed to the same degree. The result is that the cost is distance sensitive, but more to the number of nodes/switches than to the actual distance. Now, with some plausible assumptions on network structure, the number of nodes becomes proportional to the logartithm of the distance, which grows quickly at first and then becomes very flat. This is what long distance rates do, too, no coincidence. Another thing is that for reasons of both ease of description and because of political and custmoer pressure, it is easier to jack up the charge when political boundaries are crossed, which is why international and in some cases interstate/interprovince calls cost more than their domestic or intrastate/intraprovince equivlaents, even when distances are comparable. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:02:56 GMT Organization: APK Net On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 03:04:54 -0400, J.F. Mezei posted to comp.dcom.telecom: > I remember the time when most phones were like that (even touch > tone). But at least in Bell Canada territory, adding a phone, even if > you bought it, required that you tell the telco. The first two modems I bought were under that rule. The front of the user's manual gave the information that we were supposed to give the phone company. I don't know how many people did that, but when I read that it was a rule, I dutifully called the phone company to give them the information. When the breakup occurred and we were told we had to rent our current phone from AT&T or turn it in, then I think they dropped the rule about reporting modems. It seems they had a similar rule about answering machines, but we didn't get an answering machine until much later. I got my first modem around 1986. A lot of people who got modems before that got the kind that just had a place to place the handset. They were 300 baud, and it must have been a pain to use them because I don't see how the rubber stuff would have kept all the outside noise out. BTW, until I bought my first modem we were on a party line using the phone installed from the phone company direct to the wall. When I bought my first modem, I was told by computer user group members that I must have my own line and not a party line. When we switched over to a single line, the phone company said we needed different phones. We had been renting our phones but decided that would be a good time to go ahead and buy our phones. The phone company man came and installed the right kind of connection in the wall so we could get a plug-in phone. We turned in our rented phones. Before the phone man came over, we had gone out to Sears or someplace like that and bought two cheap phones (about $10.00 each). Those phones could switch from pulse to TT very easily. They weren't very good in that they did eventually get hard to hear from but lasted long enough until we could get some use out of them and then replace them with better phones. We still had pulse dialing, and it was easy to set the modem to use pulse instead of TT. It seems, if I remember right, in the days before the breakup, we also had to pay extra to have an extension. The phone company sent a man out to install the extension phone where we wanted it. Now they let customers or outside people put in extensions all they want to, but say that if we do something to goof up the telephone system, we may be forced to take it out. Until this thread came up, I had not even thought about the possibility that new phones manufactured now might not include the capability to use both pulse and Touch Tone dialing! I guess that's similar to the fact that it is getting harder and harder now to find a combination radio/music system that includes a turntable with all three speeds for playing records. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: A Curious Conversation Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:03:00 GMT Organization: APK Net On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:05:55 -0700, ptholfsen@netos.com (Paul Tholfsen) posted to comp.dcom.telecom: > I live in Bellingham, WA (AC 360), and called the US West operator to > inquire of the location of a new prefix in a nearby community. Here's > a summary of the dialogue. Here is the part that sparked my nerves: > Me: Just for curiosity, where are you located. > Op: In south Texas. > Me: (sotto voce) Good Grief > Me: (after a moment's reflection). Wait a minute. Has US West taken over > Texas? > Op: No. We just do work for them. > Me: Well, at least you're not in Bangladesh. > Op: Maybe later. Who knows. > When I first moved to Bellingham in 1968, the operators were in town. > Later they moved to Seattle, then to places like Pendleton, OR and > Phoenix, AZ So what's going on? Is RBOC operator service now being > contracted out to Texas, Ireland, India? And is their software so > dumb, it can't identify where incoming calls come from? We used to be with Ohio Bell, which was bought by Ameritech. For a while they kept that quiet, but then they told us to start writing our checks to Ameritech. Then later, they closed down the Ohio headquarters located in Cleveland. Lots of people got laid off or "bought out." A friend of mine said the company subcontracted out their billing to someplace in California. She said they subcontracted out or assigned some other office in the company (I don't remember which) to process the insurance information for employees to someplace out of town. Employees were told to name a physician (HMO type thing, you know) and that anyone who did not do so by a certain time would have a physician assigned to them. Then employees started getting notices that their company-assigned physician was so-and-so, but that physician was often in a totally far-away location, totally impractical for the employee. I couldn't understand why they did that because there are so many database program available to *ordinary consumers* that can identify locations by ZIP codes and area codes. There was simply NO GOOD REASON for the company to be so stupid as to assign a doctor way out of the employee's place of residence or work. It was either total incompetence or HOSTILITY for the company to do that. It wasn't long before all our calls for service, etc., were to "800" numbers and the people we were talking to were in Chicago, and probably knew very little about Cleveland or other towns in Ohio except for what the company made available to them (if whoever they contracted out the work to did a decent job or not). Now Ameritech has "merged" with SBC, and Ameritech people in Chicago are probably shivering in their boots wondering if they will get the same treatment Ameritech gave the employees in Ohio. I just hope the customers don't suffer too much. I empathize with that operator (in the conversation quoted above)! It would not surprise me one bit to see the phone companies subcontract a lot of their work to companies off shore. Then they won't have to take real responsibility for the service. They can just tell us, well, that's the contractor's fault. They may or may not act like they are interested in really helping us solve problems. I'm not really *against* international trade, but I do think companies should be held accountable for any services they provide, whether or not the actual work is contracted out or not. Maybe being held legally *responsible* will give some incentive to companies to bring more work back in-house and hire people in their service areas to do the work. This should also include responsibility for any working conditions, benefits, etc., that might be required for large companies if contractors were their employees. IOW, don't give them an excuse for denying workers benefits they would have had if they did the work for the company itself. Like I said, that conversation hit a raw nerve here. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:08:32 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > Another "benefit of competition" is that the AT&T long-distance > operator (reachable by dialing 0-0) will no longer give out area code > information. > Not only couldn't I > get the information for free, but I couldn't get it all. (I had to > get it off the 'Net.) > I hate competition. I liked service. That's just ordinary greed, not competition. If there were competition, your local provider would offer this and other services as part of the "local service package" you pay for. ------------------------------ From: ken@postperfect.com (ken) Subject: Questions About ISDN Date: 12 Oct 1999 12:02:30 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Explanation of what ISDN's baudrate and bandwith acually is?? Maybe someone can refer a site on the web that has detailed info. Thanks, Ken ------------------------------ From: Naomi Brown Subject: Can You Help a University Student in Need?! Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:02:05 +1000 To the email gurus who made the world an easier place!! I am a second year university student studying IT. I am in the process of doing an assignment on email, the different forms of email, when it started, proposed uses for it when it began and what is the intention of it for the future. If there is anyone who could be of an assistance, or could point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated. I thought that the people who started the craze of email would be the best people to speak to (and the most knowledgeable!) I look forward to hearing from you soon. Regards, Naomi Brown Quicken Technical Support Ph: 1300 360 641 Fax: 1300 360 642 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #478 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 14 01:39:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA26070; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:39:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:39:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910140539.BAA26070@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #479 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 01:39:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 479 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters (John S. Maddaus) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Eric Blondin) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Bruce Wilson) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (John R. Levine) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Kyler Laird) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Rob Levandowski) Freshman to OSI (Simon CaiMao) Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail (Daniel Aharonoff) For Sale: AT&T Spirit Switch w/6 Digital Sets (Daniel Aharonoff) Please Help Me Find Yellow Page Map (Grold@aol.com) Re: October 1999 Scientific American Report on High Speed Net (Al Varney) Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (Al Cooley) Re: Direct Access Test Unit (Rory Matthews) Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Dial Mechanism (L. Winson) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (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: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: Special Security Report: The Phonemasters Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:56:17 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) wrote: > Countries have far less to fear from this then corporations. There > has always been the theoretical scheme to bring down the US Many countries practice exactly this scheme every day, YOU just don't hear about it. WSJ reported one incident, there are others still pending and in various stages of law enforcement involvement. There are others that the GOV is aware of that the telco's are not. > communications system by taking out x number of tandem switches. You > need a lot more then interrupting weekend calls to Grandma to > overthrow a government. Its a lot of media hype, it always has been. Is that all that was interrupted in NY/NJ during the recent floods? Bank ATMs in New Hampshire didn't work because of a flood in one telco building. > Its only in the movies where teenage kids guess a password and starts > a nuclear war. One of the truly frustrating parts of my work is the above attitude. Sad to say, but in many places, there is no need to guess a password because none exist. Physical access works even better. > Companies, on the other hand, use guys like these all the time. > Actually they use people who get the job done and don't get caught, > but close enough. You just don't hear much about it because people > don't talk about it. They don't need to go on IRC and brag about > selling AT&T calling cards for two bux. They are too busy spending > their exceptionably large earnings to waste time chatting. I know of no reputable telco that knowingly hires ex-hackers/crackers/ phreakers. I do know of some less than reputable CLECs that might be ripe. > You have to keep in mind that despite the over glorification of the > whole situation by an author who obviously specialises in paperback > romance novels, there was really nothing special going on here. What > did they have, access to? Certainly nothing to endanger national Much more than was itemized in WSJ. > security, and certainly nothing an average college kid couldn't get > taking a summer job. If an average college kid could to that, > imagine what a well-funded state-sponsored adversary could do. Hmmmm. > But I must applaud the author. I haven't seen such a piss poor > written sensationalist piece of crap in decades. Its nice to see that > hackers today aren't doing anything new. Its nice to see that the > media hasn't grown up either. Suffice to say that I have seen enough in telco and DoD to scare the hell out of me and keep me in a business that all too often results in attitudes such as the one expressed above. Must be an easier way to make a living. Maybe ignorance is bliss! Damn, I wish the Gov and Telcos would come clean on this just a little bit maybe? satch@concentric.nospam.net (Satch) wrote: > I believe that the countries who bear down on cybercriminals are going > to come out on top. We have a cadre of security experts who, while > engaging in cracking activities in their youth, didn't relish the act > in and of itself and ceased doing it when better alternatives became > available. These people have matured into sober capable -- and still > creative -- adults who do very well in detecting and blocking cracking > activity. Some of the cybercriminals will be brought "into the bright > side" as their attitudes change and their brillence becomes obvious, > just as some criminals become consultants to law enforcement in the > process of rehabilitation. Absolute rubbish. There is no cadre of security experts. There is a SEVERE shortage. Check the employement ads and look at the openings that continue to go unfilled. Even the CIA is posting on hotjobs and monster.com. But, you won't see any telco's hiring. Most entities will not hire a recovered hacker/cracker/phreaker - it simply isn't worth the risk entrusting the crown jewels. Professionally where would you go to get such training legally? There is a small group (meaning a meager handful throughout the country) embedded in the telco provider industry and a larger group in various DoD entities. Worse, there are two sides of this, the offense and the defense (yeah we play these games too). The former NEVER shares information with the latter and we all know that the offense always has an advantage over the defense. Further, while the issues of IP security are starting to garner attention, the issues of telecom security are utterly ignored. The differences are substantial as are the vulnerabilites with SS-7, Q.931 and ATM, etc. There is no single person that can tell you what exactly is connected to the PSTN (would this be acceptable for the security of a LAN?). The convergence of voice/data technologies together with the open competitive environment has created HUGE holes. The security issues are extremely complex technologically and politically. Commercial and DoD facilities are tested daily by well-funded foreign government and criminal elements, not to mention U.S. elements of all types. Your fear below is well founded only they don't need our cast-offs as they have already trained their own specialists. However, the issue isn't just spying and intellectual property, it is nothing less than the complete disruption of the critical infrastructures of the U.S. It frustrates me even more to see the token head-nodding given out by NIPC and the NSTAC. > Where I have the most fear is with countries (governments) who hire > the crackers and cybercriminals to perform espionage on their behalf. > This is why I look at the curbing of general crypotgraphy world-wide > as a bad thing -- it makes it easier for governments to spy on > intellectual property industries all over the world. By the way, what's the difference between "hacking" into a Dec server, a Cisco router, an NT workstation, or a DMS-100 or Lucent 5ESS through remote maintenance modems? John S. Maddaus Merlin Communication Systems Telecommunications security and fraud engineering ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:28:50 -0400 From: Eric Blondin Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" John R. Covert wrote: > Even with GSM, I know of no market where there is more than one GSM > provider, I know there is one or two areas where BellSouth and Omnipoint overlap and directly compete, on the east coast around Atlanta or Columbia if I'm not mistaken. > All of the carriers are "partners" in the GSM North America > association, and the unlocked phone is most likely going to be used on > a "partner" system or by someone roaming on the system where it was > bought. Partners only as far as technology goes, if one can steal customers from one another, they'll gladly do it. The more they are, the more powerful the technology becomes, but except for this they have no monetary ties (GSM Capital for example is funded by all but doesn't offer services, all it does is fund research in GSM technologies ...). Blondin;Eric cell:514-992-5459 tel;fax:514-993-2407 tel;work:514-937-0102 x7201 url:http://www.Eric.Blondin.com org:Microcell Telecom Inc.;Revenu Management adr:Montreal Quebec Canada email:Eric@Blondin.com title:Analyst Reporting fn:Eric Blondin ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 14 Oct 1999 02:38:23 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" > But Bruce didn't realize that Dave was asking about GSM. In the U.S., > as in Europe, GSM phones are almost universally locked if you pay the > typical $20-$200 for them, and will usually be unlocked if you pay > $400 or more. The lock is called a "subsidy lock" and at least my > carrier, Omnipoint, will unlock one phone for each customer in good > standing every six months at no charge. This is absolutely correct. I'd not investigated PCS far enough to learn of the "locking" and it seems I might not have learned of it anyway. This has been _most_ informative (and given me yet another reason to have Zero interest in switching from analog to PCS at this time). Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:46:12 GMT >> American Airlines warns passengers that cell phones "may interfere >> with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems." Similar >> [...] > This article made me cringe. While it's not totally wrong, it's far from > right. [...] > In-flight, however, I side with the airlines. It is not the normal, > intended radiation from the various devices that is the hazard; it is > the *un*intended radition and accidental nonlinear intermod products > that may affect unintended receivers, e.g. the ILS glideslope, other > aids to navigation. There have been anecdotal reports from airline > crews of "events" that were thought to be due to some passenger- > carried gizmo, although these are impossible to prove one way or the > other. The probability of harm is admittedly low, but the consequences > could be terribly serious. And this is what I don't understand. Is it really true that I'm not supposed to bring a pen knife on board, but hundreds of passangers walk onto airplanes with equipment that might make the planes crash? Could that be right? -Joel Hoffman ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1999 23:40:41 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is there some technology which could allow cell phones in small planes? > A low-power directional antenna pointing downward, perhaps? Yup. See http://www.aircell.com. It looks like it's mostly aimed at corporate jets, but it'll work in any old plane. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: laird@freedom.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: 14 Oct 1999 01:31:01 GMT Organization: Purdue University Scot E. Wilcoxon writes: > Is there some technology which could allow cell phones in small planes? AirCell http://www.easternavionics.com/teleph.html > A low-power directional antenna pointing downward, perhaps? ... or go the other way. Use the (cellular) *satellite* systems. Costs are similar/much lower than terrestrial aviation phone service. --kyler ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 01:56:31 GMT >> Long distance rates are not comparable between now and them because >> [...] > I know that this statement is completely false in the Canadian > marketplace, and I can't see how it could possibly be true in the USA. > Are you saying that, prior to 1984, you could get 7 cents/minute long > distance 24/7 nationwide in the USA? Certainly, many of these plans do But the real question is whether the rates would have fallen even without competition. I suspect they would have. Does anyone have a clear rate chart for the entire century? It would be interesting to compare the rates and the rate of decline in telephone prices before and after deregulation. My suspicion is that we'll find a clean curve, with no difference made by deregulation. -Joel Hoffman ------------------------------ From: robl@macwhiz.com (Rob Levandowski) Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Organization: MacWhiz Technologies Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:33:12 -0400 In article , msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) wrote: >> Probably not a standard sign, but ... Red circle, a picture of a >> [mobile] phone inside the circle and a red line over the phone. > Sure, but what do you put in the picture to identify the phone as > cellular? Something resembling a Motorola flip-phone would probably be understood fairly well. Also, I've seen a stylized cellular antenna with the distinctive loops used to signify "cellular." Both are somewhat anachronistic nowadays, but then again, so is the gas-pump icon universally used to identify the fuel gauge on cars. It's been decades since I've seen a pump like that in use near a paved road. ;) Still, people understand what it means -- just like they still understand what "dial" and "ring" mean, even when it's more like "press" and "screech annoyingly" now. Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Simon CaiMao From: Simon CaiMao Subject: Freshman to OSI Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:24:48 +0800 Organization: DSET Hi everyone: I am moving from TCP/IP stack to OSI stack. I wonder if there could any introduction materials available or any tech website address helpful about the OSI stack programming. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: "Daniel Aharonoff" Subject: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:42:01 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I've spend a few hours looking for a stand-alone automated attendant with voice mail capabilities within a budget of under $1k w/o much luck. Any ideas if such a thing exists and what sites I could head to to find out more? Please reply to this group and email. Tia, Daniel Aharonoff ------------------------------ From: Daniel Aharonoff Subject: For Sale: AT&T Spirit Switch w/6 Digital Sets Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:45:26 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I have two AT&T Spririt systems with around a dozen digital telephone sets across both switches. I'd like to sell the entire package for $1,000 -- any interested buyers please email. Thanks, Daniel Aharonoff ------------------------------ From: Grold@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:07:00 EDT Subject: Please Help Me Find Yellow Page Map I am trying to track down a map of the coverage areas of the various Yellow Page companies. Do you have any suggestions as to where to start looking? Best, Kevin Grold, Ph.D., President, 1-800-THERAPIST NETWORK "Just ANY therapist won't do!" (sm) fax: 858-481-5143 phone: 858-481-1515 email: referral@1-800-therapist.com ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: October 1999 Scientific American Report on High Speed Internet Date: 13 Oct 1999 02:28:20 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Satch wrote: > Alledgedly jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) said on 02 Oct 1999 in > the following: >> Er -- I think that the BSTJ article written by the father of T1 (Dixon >> Penick of Bell Labs at the time) will show that T1 was initially >> developed for multiplexing voice channels between central offices. > And your point was? > The original purpose of T1 was to replace analog FDM systems with a > digital TDM system for multiplexing calls on a trunk line to reduce > the cost of carriage of long-distance service. The main advantage of > T1 over FDM was that the line is easily and cheaply repeatered with > far less degradation of the signal over distance The original purpose of T1 was to economically operate over SHORT distances where FDM wasn't economical. That is, the metropolitan environment between COs, up to about 50 miles. Replacement of FDM was considered only decades later, when fiber-optics made it practical. In the 1960s, T1 needed a power feed about every 17 miles, and remote testing could only reach out to 12 repeaters. So a 50 mile span implied at least one remote point that acted as a power source and as a test/alarm point. Not the kind of outside-plant costs that would make Long Lines happy. :) The standard "toll-quality" 8-bit PCM encoding for T1 (in the D2 and D1D channel banks) wasn't introduced until 1972, after about 1,000,000 circuit miles of T1 had been deployed. Until then, where possible, long distance calls were routed over non-T1 facilities to a Toll switch, since the multiple encodings/decodings of T1 (at each end of the Toll network and perhaps on each side of a Class 4 tandem) resulted in lower quality calls. T1/Outstate (the first Toll use of T1) didn't happen until 1975. This was, even with tight engineering, limited to 200 repeaters (225 miles). The FDM equivalent, N3 carrier, was more expensive at the end-points, but regenerators were spaced every 5 miles. Building manholes every 6000 feet for T1 repeaters is expensive, even if the repeater itself is pretty cheap. Even T2 (at 500 miles) and T4M over coax (about 500 miles) were not the 4000-mile system that Long Lines would call "long-haul". That's why, even in the 1970s, AT&T (and MCI) were focused on micro-wave -- it was really the only viable long-haul system at the time (other than satellite). Of course, AT&T continued to run underground facilities as well; if nothing else, the DOD demanded something more robust than micro-wave towers. Another point: Digital transmission is a bandwidth hog. The L5E FDM carrier system and T4M digital carrier (DS4 rate) both operated over a pair of 75-ohm .375-inch hollow copper tubes. T4M got 4032 voice channels over a pair, L5E got 13200 channels. Radio and micro-wave equipment had similar ratios for analog vs. digital. Under FCC regulation, AT&T would never have justified the cost of installing 3 times the long-haul capacity just to run "digital". It took the HUGE bandwidth of fiber to allow digital transmission to be cost effective over long distances and the advertising of a small IXC to force everyone else to use it. I don't think I would call T1 over copper -- even today -- a "long-distance" system. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: Al Cooley Subject: Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:40:43 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. You could also check out the Convergence seminars being run by Sun, Harris and Jeffries and Hughes -- if your application takes you in that direction. A number of different cities in the U.S. - call 925 284- 0448 or email krtmktg@aol.com for details. Cover MGCP, SS7, MPLS, etc. Or try protocols.com. They usually have tutorials on most topics; although I haven't checked this topic. In article , Bryan Joseph wrote: > Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an > overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please > reply to bryan@picus.com ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Re: Direct Access Test Unit Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:06:28 PDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Rory, if it is a word to the wise > you are seeking, let me toss in a few words. You are a very smart > guy. Don't get too smart. Ouch. Makes you wonder where their gonna find employees while their busy throwing everyone in jail. I do have to say though, part of my reasoning in sending my e-mail was to learn more about it without having to actually mess with it too much. You've definately got a great list here, full of talented people I'm sure could tell me a whole lot about these things. -Rory Matthews (heh aka 'phreakling', I kinda like that ;-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, Rory, flattery will get you everywhere around here. I imagine some of the guys reading this will write you on the side to discuss your mutual interests. As to where they will find employees, don't worry, they will. They like having people come to work for them who know nothing at all about telephony, then they teach them from scratch. If someone shows up who knows even a little about the topic like yourself, they get very nervous. Its one occupation where training for the job ahead of time is very much frowned upon by the industry. Mother hens look after their baby chicks to make sure they do not drown in a pool of water, fall over the edge of a cliff or get run over by the farmer's hay cutting machine. Around here, we look after the baby phreaklings to make sure they do not find themselves placed in the custody of the United States Attorney General or his his authorized representative ... but that won't happen in your case, I am sure, because you are too smart for those guys. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin) Subject: Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Mial Mechanism Date: 12 Oct 1999 22:29:10 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > I would like to get a schematic detailing how to rewire my 1940 > Western electric 302 to use a modern four wire dialing mechanism. I use WE 302s in service without any changes. A book with wiring diagrams of older phones that might be helpful is: "Desk Telephones of the Bell System" by Lawrence A. Wolff, DDS, c1993, Burbank CA 91505 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:56:45 +0000 (GMT) From: satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) said on 12 Oct 1999 in the following: > True -- depending on how something is wired you could induce a current > in it with RF energy. But are blasting caps so sensitive that a .25W > signal 1/2 mile away would trigger it? Blasting caps that have been connected to control circuits and "unsafed" (shorting wire removed) could indeed be nailed by a 1/4-watt transmitter 1/2 mile away, if the length of the control wiring is EXACTLY a multiple (or multiple fraction) of the wavelength of the data. This assumes that there is no RF snubbers on the control wiring. Your usual blasting accident involving RF usually involves much higher power (5-30W) but at about that 1/2-mile distance -- but there the blasting cap is much less fussy about its antenna, because there would be enough energy to trigger the cap. Remember that it takes quite a bit of power to trigger a blasting cap reliabily at the exact split-second you want it to go off. We aren't talking press-to-WHAMMO here. We are talking "unpredictable". > I'd like to see empirical evidence, none of this heresay, that cell > phones could actually ignite gasoline vapor. Frankly, so would I. _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" www.fluent-access.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #479 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 14 03:29:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA00367; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 03:29:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910140729.DAA00367@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #480 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 03:29:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 480 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Should the IETF support Wiretapping? (Richard Shockey) Re: New Proposal by IETF (Daniel J. McDonald) IPv6 Identifier Privacy Issues: The Reality (Lauren Weinstein) What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) (Ed Ellers) Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI (Jack Decker) Re: Cell Phone Safety in the Air (John S. Maddaus) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Michael Maxfield) Re: A Curious Conversation (Adam H. Kerman) Local Calls Along Overlay Border (Carl Moore) Information Wanted on Local Service Providers (Mike Makuch) 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: Richard Shockey Subject: Should the IETF Support Wiretapping? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:00:46 -0500 Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC This statement was posted to the main IETF Announce List. The use of the Internet for services that replace or supplement traditional telephony is, predictably, causing discussions in many countries about the point at which special rules about telephony services begin to apply to Internet service providers. In many countries, these rules could impose new legal obligations on ISPs, particularly requirements to comply with requests from law enforcement agencies or regulators to intercept, or gather and report other information about, communications. For example many traditional telephony devices, especially central-office switches, sold in those countries are required to have built-in wiretapping capabilities to allow telephone carriers to fulfill these obligations. A number of IETF working groups are currently working on protocols to support telephony over IP networks. The wiretap question has come up in one of these working groups, but the IESG has concluded that the general questions should be discussed, and conclusions reached, by the entire IETF, not just one WG. The key questions are: "should the IETF develop new protocols or modify existing protocols to support mechanisms whose primary purpose is to support wiretapping or other law enforcement activities" and "what should the IETF's position be on informational documents that explain how to perform message or data-stream interception without protocol modifications". We would like to encourage discussion of these questions on the new raven@ietf.org mailing list. Subscription requests should be mailed to raven-request@ietf.org OR subscribe via the web at http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven Time will be allocated at the Plenary session at the November IETF to discuss this orally and try to draw a consensus together. (PLEASE DISCUSS THIS ON THE NEW MAILING LIST AND NOT ON THE GENERAL IETF LIST) In addition to the general questions identified above, we believe it would be helpful for mailing list comments to address the following more specific questions: Adding wiretap capability is by definition adding a security hole. Considering the IETF's commitment to secure protocols, is it a reasonable thing to open such a hole to meet these requirements? Should the IETF as an international standards organization shape its protocols to support country-specific legal requirements? If the companies who employ the IETF participants and deploy the IETF's technology feel that having wiretap capability is a business necessity due to the regulatory requirements in the countries where they want to sell their products, would that make a difference to the IETF position on this subject? What is the appropriateness or feasibility of standardizing mechanisms to conform to requirements that may change several times over the life cycle of equipment built to conform to those standards? When IPv6 was under development, the IETF decided to mandate an encryption capability for all devices that claim to adhere to those standards. This was done in spite of the fact that, at the time the decision was made, devices meeting the IPv6 standard could not then be exported from the U.S. nor could they be used in some countries. Is that a precedent for what to do in this case? Could the IETF just avoid specifying the part of the technology that supports wiretapping, presumably assuming that some industry consortium or other standards organization would do so? Would letting that responsibility fall to others weaken the IETF's control over its own standards and traditional areas? If these functions must be done, is it better for the IETF to do them so that we can ensure they are done in the most secure way and, where permitted by the regulations, to ensure a reliable audit capability? What would the image of the IETF be if we were to refuse to standardize any technology that supported wiretapping? In the Internet community? In the business community? To the national regulatory authorities? The goal of the mailing list and then plenary session is to address the broad policy and direction issue and not specific technical issues such as where exactly in an architecture it would be best to implement wiretapping if one needed to do so. Nor are they to address what specific functions might be needed to implement wiretapping under which countries' laws. The intent is basically to discuss the question of what stance the IETF should take on the general issue. ------------------------------ From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Subject: Re: New Proposal by IETF Date: 13 Oct 1999 17:27:19 GMT Organization: Illuminati Online In article , John Eichler wrote: > This morning I opened my newspaper and saw a front page article on the > IETF new proposal. This is a good one. They are considering making > one of the components in the new IPv6 address a number unique to your > machine. The MAC address -- a serial number that is usually globally unique on Ethernet, Token Ring, and FDDI cards. I say usually, because there are always manufacturing glitches, and it is quite easy to set your own MAC address using the "locally administered" ranges. You could, if you were so inclined, change your MAC address at every boot. > When will people ever learn. It never ceases to amaze me. When will people learn to stop whining about "privacy" just because they don't understand networks? There is no telling. In the article it mentioned that people today avoid the use of a unique IP(V4) address by means of corporate firewalls and dialup servers. What the article failed to mention is that in the future, the way people will avoid the use of unique IP addresses will be: corporate firewalls and dialup servers. A firewall (usually) works by terminating one IP connection and establishing a new one to the end host. As such, the address that would be seen by the outside world is the firewall address, not the user address. Result? The person gathering stats can find out that users from the Joe's Screen Door Sales and Software Consulting Company are hitting his website. This is exactly the same as today. Computers with just a modem don't have a MAC address. They will be assigned an address based on the MAC address of the dial-up server. Result? The person gathering stats can find out that users from Steve's Plumbing Supply and Internet Service Provider are hitting his website. This is exactly the same as today. The benefit of the scheme to the end-users? No manual setting of addresses. No messy address resolution protocols to consume processing time and get inconsistent. No broadcasts required at all -- just unicasts, multicasts, and anycasts (a unicast that can be answered by any one of a set of devices) allowing layer two networks to scale to sizes inconceivable in our broadcast bound paradigm. Subnetting becomes trivial - it is simple summarization, rather than worrying about the size of networks as well as the summarization structure. And with all addresses being dynamic you can fix a summarization problem easily, instead of having to go manually renumber 70,000 hosts because you guessed wrong ... So, please, don't raise a fuss about this IETF proposal. And tell the people who are whacked out about their potential privacy concerns to go write a COBOL program to change their MAC address every morning. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Digicon Technologies, Inc dmcdonald@digicontech.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 21:04 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: IPv6 Identifier Privacy Issues: The Reality Greetings. Many of you will by now be aware of all the publicity surrounding reported privacy problems associated with IPv6 (a new version of the Internet IP communications protocol) currently being developed under the auspices of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Executive Summary: "Don't Panic!" Some Background: The concerns revolve around the use of hardware identifiers (e.g. Network Interface Card IDs) as part of IPv6 packet addressing. It has been asserted that this would enable tracking of individuals' activities on the net much more easily than is the case today, and bring forth a new range of privacy problems. It's of course necessary to have some form of addressing in computer networks, or you wouldn't be able to read this message right now. The packets have to know where they're headed. In practice, the existing Internet protocol (IPv4) provides much the same kind of information in many cases, particularly when "static" (unchanging) addresses are in use. Static addresses are the norm for conventional permanent circuit connections to the net, and increasingly common for DSL and cable modems. The IPv6 idea of a unique identifier derived from hardware was intended to help make sure that address duplication would not occur between different machines -- a continuing headache for present-day network administrators. It is also considered important to the authentication and security improvements of IPv6. The risk of such data potentially being misused would appear to be highest in "mobile" applications, significantly less in dialup Internet access environments (since many such computers wouldn't even possess the hardware ID), and least important in permanently linked dedicated circuit situations, where a static address already provides an essentially unchanging identity, even in today's environment. The Good News: To the extent that the permanent IDs are considered to be a privacy problem, it's obvious that existing technologies such as proxy servers could be used to wall off identifiers. This could well prove to be unnecessary, however. It appears that many of the folks raising the red flag on this issue may be unfamiliar with the fact that the IETF has been aware of these privacy concerns regarding the permanent identifier, and that they have been addressed in the IETF June 1999 Draft: "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-00.txt The above referenced document gives an excellent overview of the issues involved and a proposed solution to address the privacy concerns. It would seem prudent to encourage the adoption of this proposal into the IPv6 specification, and to urge its implementation by IPv6 developers and vendors, ideally as the default mode under user control. --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: Ed Ellers Subject: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:55:00 -0400 This business of electronic serial numbers unique to each machine brings up a point about those of us who assemble our own computers -- namely, at what point does the system become "different" for purposes of identification? In my example, I have not gotten a completely new system since -- gasp! -- early 1994, and even then it wasn't completely new; I built a 40 MHz 386DX machine using the 40 Mb drive, video card and internal modem from my 286 machine. Since then I have, approximately in this order: - Upgraded to a 340 Mb drive; - Installed a Cyrix 486DX2 at 80 MHz on a VL-bus motherboard, in the same case; - Upgraded to a 1 Gb drive; - Moved almost all the parts to a new, larger case (so I could put the 386 board in the old case); - Replaced the 1 Gb drive, under warranty, when it died; - Installed a 75 MHz Pentium processor on a PCI motherboard; - Replaced the second 1 Gb drive, out of warranty, with a 3 Gb UDMA drive; - Replaced the motherboard with one with more L2 cache and UDMA support, with the same 75 MHz processor; - Upgraded to a Cyrix 6x86MX PR200 (166 MHz) processor. This list does not include all the changes in video cards, sound cards, modems, CD-ROM drives, internal tape drives and so on that have taken place. Now, I have nothing in this case (except the floppy drive and power supply) that were in it when I stuck the 486 board in the case. But I have not, in one fell swoop, bought a new computer. So the question is, at what point(s) on that list did my system change enough to justify identifying it as if it were a different system? Not an easy question, huh? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:22:40 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Bad Witch ICANN Simply Clones NSI On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:02:23 -0400, Jim Youll wrote: > Make a list of all the TLD's that are in use (.com .org .net, edut, > gov, mil etc) plus all the international ones. Make a root server that > dishes ANYthing that's not one of those. All ISP's point their > nameservers to NSI's monopoly AND to the alternate root. Make > registration free - everything else on the net is free. This fee must > fall next. And our moderator replied: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not completely eliminate all > the fees simply because the people who would work at this project > need to be compensated somehow. [...remainder snipped...] Here is a thought for you. Have a modest fee, but waive it for the first ten domains registered by any one individual or non-profit organization, so that a person such as yourself could set up telecom-digest.whatever and maybe phonehistory.whatever and a few others and not have to pay. But, charge a fee if the domain is registered in the name of a company or corporation rather than an individual, and also charge the fee if the domain is sold to someone else for any non-zero amount. Also put in the contract that you have the right to recover any previously-waived fees if a domain for which the fee has been waived is offered for sale (an actual sale would not be necessary, the mere act of offering the domain for sale would make it subject to the fee), and also include a clause that if an individual is found to be offering domains for sale, no further fee waivers will be granted. Note that a simple occasional sale of a domain would not automatically indicate that the person was "offering domains for sale", it may well be that someone else approached the person and made them an offer for a domain they hold. Put in the contract that any domain registered under a fictitious name is subject to immediate cancellation. Require that the registrar be provided with accurate contact information (postal and e-mail addresses, but NOT a phone number - some individuals have unlisted phone numbers, or in some cases no voice phone at all - see note below). And give the individual registering the ability to specify that the postal address be suppressed on casual "whois" lookups, etc. to protect privacy (particularly important in countries that do not have "freedom of speech" laws). Or maybe don't require a postal address at all, after all, if you don't need to send a bill via snail mail, why do you need to be able to communicate any way other than e-mail? Just as a thought, you can't be subpoenaed to give out information you do not possess, so why collect any more information than you actually need to make the system work? In that case, if you need to bill for some reason you send an e-mail bill and a postal address isn't available, you send it via e-mail. If they don't pay, they lose the domain with no recourse. The advantages of this system would be that first of all, individuals that want to put up their own pages about certain subjects would have the ability to put up a few such pages without paying. Second, it encourages individual responsibility, most of the "make m*ney fast" crowd will try to take advantage of the free registration and you will then have their names and e-mail addresses on file (and if either of those turn out to be fictitious, you cancel the account). I just happen to think that the 'net lost something when individuals could no longer register domains for small, individual projects without paying for them. Granted that there were a lot of folks who could afford $50 per year out of pocket just to share what they had or what they knew with others, but there are probably a lot more who might have done so if they could have got their own domain for free, and/or had their privacy protected. The latter point may not seem like such a big deal to those of us in the western world, but to people in certain countries it could mean the difference between life and death (or perhaps keeping their information to themselves and death). And in this country, some degree of anonymity it would make it a bit harder for groups like the Scientologists to harass people who put up web pages disagreeing with their views. (Note: In regard to my comments about folks who have no voice phone, I have always wondered about web sites that require that you enter a phone number, along with other personal information, before you can do something - say downloading software, or some other type of data. Doesn't that discriminate against those who, for whatever reason, have no voice phone? I would think that the deaf community at least would find this discriminatory, but then again, maybe they don't mind giving their TDD numbers and letting the telemarketers hear a bunch of modem tones. I wish I knew of a "permanently busy" test number here in GTE land (in Michigan) that could be given in such situations. What do others do when they encounter this type of web form, and don't want to give their own phone number, or don't even have a voice phone of their own?) Jack (make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you are making the payment schedule too complicated. I'd rather see the rate low enough that it was a trivial matter for almost anyone; let's say in the $20-$30 range, which would still leave lots of money left over. I would make a provision for people who could not afford that, or let us say for guys who only needed a site for some special project of one or two months, etc. I would forbid the resale of domain names and require that the holder cancel it with the registrar and the new person then sign up with the registrar. Domain names that were can- celled by their owner and requested by some new applicant in less than one year's time would be subject to a surcharge of ten thousand dollars. That would prevent someone registering a name and then immediatly selling it to a company, etc. The registrar would not change things merely based on someone saying 'I sold this domain name to X, please change it so it points to him'. Instead, you would return it to the registrar for cancellation and it would have to sit dormant for one year, then be placed in the pool of avail- able names. Any less time than that pass, and registrar would assume that buyer and/or seller were engaged in speculation, name hoarding, etc. If someone along the way has to pay the registrar ten thousand dollars in the process of taking over a domain name from someone else where less than a year has transpired since registration, that is going to make your name a lot less attractive to the buyer. Alternatly, the sale could be handled through the registrar, who would receive ten percent of the sale price up to the ten thousand dollar mark. Or I might give personal addresses away for free but make commercial sites pay fifty dollars, with the same ten thousand dollar surcharge where domain name speculating and reselling was going on less than a year following the initial registration. I would not ask for any names, physical addresses or telephone numbers. Registrar does not need that. All the registrar needs is an email address for technical/policy questions contact. It would go like this: 1. You email registrar asking for a certain name. 2. Registrar replies in email name is available (or) name is not available, pick another. You of course could look at whois and similar kinds of indexes to 'shop' before you ever write to the registrar. 3. Registrar replies in email name has been reserved, please mail money order or cash to registrar at PO Box whatever and include this reference number and your domain name. 4. Registrar enters name in database but points it to an 'intercept': 404 - The site you are calling has not yet been connected. Try again later please. 5. Registrar receives payment and changes database entry to point as requested by registrant. Registrar uses the self- addressed, stamped envelope provided by applicant to send back a receipt with 'paid through' date listed. 6. Beginning one or two months before registration expires, the registrar emails a reminder to make the next payment, 'and be sure to include your domain name and this control number on your money order or with your cash. Send a SASE so that you can get back your receipt. 7. The day the registration expires, the registrar sends a final email reminder to pay the bill, and allows a ten day grace period. 8. After ten days the registrar changes the database to point to an intercept: 404 - Service is temporarily suspended to this address. Please try later. 9. After thirty days the entry is pulled and placed in a category of 'do not reassign for one year, except to original owner'. 10. In the event of a court order requiring the site to be terminated (and assuming registrar and board of governors or arbitrators or whatever they are called elect to stipulate on same) change database to point to intercept: 404 - Registrar served with cease and desist; site owner(s) or other interested parties should consult counsel of their choice to resolve the matter. 11. In the event some party seeks assistance from registrar or arbitrators to resolve dispute, then during the course of the dispute **only if offending site ignores requests to be in contact with arbitrators,** change database to point to intercept: 404 - Site temporarily disconnected, please try again later. This would only be a last resort in the event site owner had been contacted by arbitrators and refused to respond in any way. As long as site owner at least responded and sought resolution the site would remain open. Site owner would have the right to demand that site be reopened without any cooperation by himself, but he would at least have to acknowledge he was out there somewhere and not be able to hide in silence. If site owner made that demand, then arbitrators would recommend that offended party go legal, and depending on the dispute perhaps choose to join plaintiff, but the site would be reopened perhaps going through a redirect first which said 'dispute pending with arbitrators, ask webmaster for details if you believe you may be involved.' If the owner of the site needed to put it 'on hold' for awhile because of other pressing business, etc but did not want to lose the name and did not have anywhere to put an index.html of his own choice, then registrar would point the database entry to an intercept: 404 - At the site owner's request, registrar is holding this domain name in trust. No connection to site available until (date) At all times registrar makes available for public review the database. Inquiring parties would grep through the database using names, phrases, etc, just the way grep works now. As a public service, the registrar might offer links in each case so that a person seeking a particular site would grep the database, find what he wanted, and be offered a connection by clicking on the link. Site owners could choose to be non-published in the public database if they wished. Their site name would have to be known by anyone who wanted to visit it. Since the registrar has nothing but a database and a bunch of receipts with control numbers showing who paid how much for how long, all he could do is respond by cutting the site if he got served and ordered to do so. All requests or correspondence from site owners would have to include the password issued at the time site was installed. Keep it all as simple as possible. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Safety in the Air Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:14:02 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net John Shaver wrote: > I suspect that those instances where aircraft systems have been > interfered with by phones that the problem was that the aircraft wiring > harness had problems and thus a small signal from almost any device > would leak in. > I base that on my early years when I worked on bombers for a aircraft > manufacturer. We had terrible problems with the wiring harnesses. When > plugs were disconnected and reconnected, not all of the connections > worked again. Shielded wires became unshielded and begain to act like > receiving antennas for the related systems Actually, the problem is that no one really knows. The advent of the glass cockpit and fly-by-wire began to increase the awareness for any electronic device being operated during flight. In conversations with the chief pilot for an IXC some years ago, the issue was flying over the middle of the Atlantic and having a spurious error message pop up on the screen in the cockpit. Didn't know whether it was legitimate or not (and I inferred that in most cases it was not). Pilot would request all passengers to shut down any laptops, etc. and attempt to clear the message. Usually did, and allowed everyone to power up again. If it came back again, start over. Most flights I'm on now many just stuff the old cellphone into their brief and don't bother turning it off. Even several years ago, we would watch our IS-41 messages come in to the MTSO and see our roaming customers return home by air as the REGNOTs continued to come in according to the flightpath. This was fairly common, NY-CA being a frequent route of travel. John S. Maddaus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:28:06 -0700 Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) > Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47 USC 302(b), prohibits the > manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, or use of devices that > fail to comply with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this > section. Similar prohibitions are contained in the Commission's > rules, e.g., 47 CFR Sections 2.803, 2.1203, and 22.377. In addition, > in accordance with Section 301 of the Communications Act, 47 USC 301, > persons operating or using radio transmitters must be licensed or > authorized under the Commission's rules. This is fairly straight-forward and understandable, and even seems to cover someone asking "What if I use a low power license free device" since that is still intentionally causing interference with a device. Part 15 devices must accept interference, but must not cause such. HOWEVER: > Further, Section 333 of the > Communications Act, 47 USC 333, prohibits any person from willfully or > maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station > licensed or authorized under the Communications Act or operated by the > U.S. Government. Reading the letter of the law^H^H^H FCC Edict, it seems to indicate that if one built their theatre or restaurant using 1mm opening grounded grid chickenwire with liberal applications of RF absorbing fabric and no reflective angles out of the place with the specific intention of preventing cellular devices and pagers to accomplish a wireless link to the outside world, that too would be "illegal" since it is willfully interfering (before the actual incident) with the operation of a FCC licensed device within that space. Actually, *I* (as a Multi-media/audio-visual tech) would love it if such venues broke the wireless link to the outside world. It would mean no more problems dealing with interference to wireless mics and the like ... and to prevent embarassment to the wireless mic users, keep the restrooms outside the cone-of-silence. (Yes, it really has happened.) ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: A Curious Conversation Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:15:35 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Gail M. Hall wrote: > Now Ameritech has "merged" with SBC, and Ameritech people in Chicago > are probably shivering in their boots wondering if they will get the > same treatment Ameritech gave the employees in Ohio. > I just hope the customers don't suffer too much. We aren't treated any better in Chicago by Ameritech now. Operators can be in Illinois, Wisconsin, or Indiana. Who knows where the Directory Assistance bureau is nowadays. Residential customer service call centers are down to two in the metropolitan area, but the call can be answered downstate. (So far, I've not had a call answered out-of-state.) If I want to pay by credit card, I am transferred to Ohio, where I am informed that they can only tell me the direct number that rings at their call center if I were an Ohio customer! Business customer service call centers are no longer in Illinois, unless you have a lot of lines. Generally, my calls are answered in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, which isn't even served by an Ameritech switch. Ameritech Publishing used to be in the Chicago Loop but is now in Michigan, but data entry for White Pages and directory assistance listings is performed in Terra Haute, Indiana. Yellow pages for Illinois phone books are still handled by DonTech (now jointly owned by Reuben H. Donnelley, son of R.R., and Ameritech Publishing) in Chicago, but their data entry is done by a contractor in North Carolina, as I found out when I tried to get them to correct a listing. What's left in Chicago? Not much. The two remaining buildings from the Chicago Telephone Company (212 and 220 W. Washington), which later became Illinois Bell headquarters, have been sold and are now resi- dences! This was mentioned recently in another thread. The newer addition to the headquarters complex at 225 W. Randolph, from the late '50's, remains. I'm told that the President of Illinois Bell still has his office there. (All of the connecting hallways between that building, from nearly every floor, and the older buildings were demolished.) Ameritech HQ moved from downtown to Hoffman Estates, a suburb. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:05:07 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Local Calls Along Overlay Border I was just in Martinsburg and vicinity in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. Phone book has these cases of local calls into Maryland: from Berkeley Springs to Hancock from Falling Waters to Williamsport and Hagerstown It said to dial seven digits on local calls within and outside area code, and, for Hagerstown, it lists eleven prefixes in area code 301 and prefixes 206 and 216 in area code 240. I *guess* a prefix in an overlay area code might be placed away from the same prefix in the original area code (i.e. prefixes 206 and 216 in area 301 would be placed away from Hagerstown, if they exist at all), and in this case this is *mandated* by certain calling instructions. This is the first time I have seen instructions for local calls from outside of geographic area to an overlay area code. ------------------------------ From: mike@makuch.org (Mike Makuch) Subject: Information Wanted on Local Service Providers Date: 13 Oct 1999 19:03:32 GMT Organization: Jump.Net I am looking for suggestions and information on local residential service providers in Austin, Tx area. I'm lo2oking for a broader feature set than provided by SWBELL & Callnotes. For instance I'd like my home phone to forward to my cell phone only when I don't answer my home phone. These types of things are offered by the digital cell phone service - bad thing is you get dinged 1 minute of air time on the cell service. I've been using SWBELL Callnotes for about three months and it has been down overnight as many times and periodically gets "hung". Is there a site lising local providers somewhere? Thanks, mike@makuch.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #480 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 14 15:01:41 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA24989; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910141901.PAA24989@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #481 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 15:01:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 481 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Hoping to Get Help (lem) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Derek Balling) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Barry Margolin) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (nospam) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (ronan@iol.ie) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (J.F. Mezei) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Brad Ackerman) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Julian Thomas) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Eric Levy-Myers) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (John R. Covert) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Steven J. Sobol) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Richard H. Miller) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (John David Galt) Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (Les Weston) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (73115.1041@compu) Strange Caller ID Number (George Beuselinck) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (John B. Hines) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Justa Lurker) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Roy Smith) Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) (Argyriou) Re: Questions About ISDN (Julian Thomas) NEC NEAX2000 Phone System For Sale (Paul Adams) Last Laugh! This Makes Me MAD (Bruce Hyman) 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, 14 Oct 1999 11:56:3 +0800 From: lem <86571014@NETEASE.COM> Reply-To: 86571014@NETEASE.COM Subject: Hoping to Get Help [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got what follows in the mail yesterday, just as it appears. Might there be a reader or two amongst you who could chat with the fellow and see what help he needs? Thanks very much. PAT] ------------------------------ Can i mail to you ? Excuse me. I hoping your help . Thanks. CHINA GUANG ZHOU ZHI WEI. LIN 8620-8657101 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:40:07 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something > equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. > There ought to be a way to prepend some phrase or symbol to the > address of a site you are visiting which says 'do not release any > information about who I am or where I came from, etc.' Then the > site you wish to visit could either accept you or reject you, just > as is done with Caller-ID on the telephone now. PAT] Pat, This type of thing has been going on since the day the net started. It's nothing new. Your idea, as cool as it sounds, is -- of course -- technically impossible. Even if it were possible, you would instantly see that no web site operator would accept connections from a "blocked" IP address. The reason its impossible is because, unlike telco-land, the Internet is packet-switched. Each individual packet needs to have the destination stamped on it so that every point in between can determine how to get it there. The reason no operator would accept blocked connections is for security reasons. If you are hacked, and frequently the web server is the point of entry, you want to have a log to go back to in order to try and ascertain who did it. If you allow these theoretical blocked connections, that method of determining your attacker would vanish. D ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:07:31 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Tad Cook : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something > equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. Try www.anonymizer.com. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Certainly you could use that, although I would promote my own http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer for the same thing, only IMO better. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: 14 Oct 1999 09:59:10 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something > equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. There is- prepend http://www.anonymizer.com/ to the URL. And just like Caller-ID blocking, the remote host will see that you are connecting anonymously, and is free to ignore you if they choose. > There ought to be a way to prepend some phrase or symbol to the > address of a site you are visiting which says 'do not release any > information about who I am or where I came from, etc.' Then the > site you wish to visit could either accept you or reject you, just > as is done with Caller-ID on the telephone now. PAT] The 'digits' the article talks about are your originating IP address, or the IP address of the firewall or other proxy (AOL, Anonymizer, etc) that relayed your request. The remote web server _must_ have these digits to address the response packets to your machine, that's how the data gets back to you. For true anonymous access you would need to buy access from a company such as Zero Knowledge, their 'Freedom' system is still in beta test, but looks very promising, if they don't get sued into oblivion first. ------------------------------ From: ronan@iol.ie Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:50:58 GMT Organization: Ireland On-Line Customer > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something > equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. > There ought to be a way to prepend some phrase or symbol to the > address of a site you are visiting which says 'do not release any > information about who I am or where I came from, etc.' Then the > site you wish to visit could either accept you or reject you, just > as is done with Caller-ID on the telephone now. PAT] Sending your web requests through a web proxy / caching server will have the same effect. That's why the article mentioned that AOL users were 'unidentifiable'. The trick is using one that doesn't share your IP address range. In many cases a user's upstream ISP will have a proxy / cache for customer use. A single proxy could have hundreds or thousands of customers hidden behind it. It's impossible for the destination site to tell who the original user is. -Ronan ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:01:45 -0400 Ed Ellers wrote: > Analog phones aren't locked, but digital phones (at least the GSM > ones) can be. Powertel, a GSM-1900 carrier in the Southeastern U.S., > locks its phones to use only its SIM cards but, according to the > service agreement, will unlock them on request (presumably for a fee) > if you move out of their service area. Fido (Microcell) in Canada locks its phones. When I purchased mine, I specifically asked and was told that I could insert visitor's SIM cards in my phone and that I could subscribe to other GSM companies in the USA by just simply switching SIM cards. When I found out that FIDO actually did lock its phones, I had arguments with staff in their downtown store who denied this was being done (same with telephone support). A year later, FIDO finally admitted that all its phones were locked but continues to hide this from purchasers. Its unlocking policy varies from week to week. The only "stable" policy is if you move to the USA and stop subscription to FIDO. If you buy a phone from a FIDO subscriber and move to the USA, FIDO will not unlock the phone but rather transfer the lock to the new network. It will NOT transfer the lock if the original owner of the phone still has outstanding debts to FIDO. May unknowing FIDO customers sold their phones to americans not knowing that such phones are useless in the USA. Deceptive advertising is a very "friendly" way to describe this. Since FIDO brags about not having any contracts, there are NO time limits after which a customer can have his phone unlocked. Other telcos with one or two year contracts can unlock the phone after the period since the customer will have repaid the subsidy of the phone over that period. The irony is that FIDO will not unlock, under any circumcstance, your phone if you are still a customer. Therefore, you cannot lend your phone to a visitor, nor can you purchase "prepaid" SIMs when you travel to the USA to save on expensive roaming costs (roughly CAD$1.00 per minute). I am VERY MAD at FIDO. John R. Covert wrote: > Even with GSM, I know of no market where there is more than one GSM > provider, so this is the reason the carriers are generally pretty > liberal about unlocking phones for you. Microcell Connexions operates an "open" GSM network in Canada. Microcell Solutions sells services under FIDO brand name. Microcell Connexions also serves a few other companies in Canada which sell GSM services. FIDO will NOT unlock phones unless you move to the United States, even if you've been a subscriber for years. ------------------------------ From: bsa3@cornell.edu (Brad Ackerman) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: 14 Oct 1999 11:13:10 -0400 Organization: NERV GeoFront, Tokyo III John R. Covert writes: > Omnipoint will sell you unlocked Bosch worldphones (1900-900) for > about $450, I think. The first 1900-1800-900 phone will probably > cost closer to $700 unlocked when it actually starts being sold. $200 for a Bosch, $300 for an Ericsson. The L7089 (triband) is available from for $450 unlocked. [#include ] Brad Ackerman N1MNB "44% [of Americans] believe in strict Biblical bsa3@cornell.edu creationism. Four million also believe that PGP: 0x62D6B223 they have been abducted by aliens." http://skaro.pair.com/ -- _The Economist_, 4 Sep 1999 ------------------------------ From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:06:23 GMT In , on 10/14/99 at 02:38 AM, blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) said: > This is absolutely correct. I'd not investigated PCS far enough to learn > of the "locking" and it seems I might not have learned of it anyway. > This has been _most_ informative (and given me yet another reason to have > Zero interest in switching from analog to PCS at this time). On this question, are there coverage maps available for the digital systems? I suspect that here in very rural upstate NY (12 miles from John L) it's analog or nothing. Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! -- -- Windows: 50 million flies can't be wrong! ------------------------------ From: Eric_Levy-Myers@amsinc.com Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:31:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Bruce Wilson wrote: > AFAIK, there's no such "locking" imposed on US cellular phones. I have heard that you can "unlock" some phones by putting them in the freezer for 12 hours or so. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:36:08 -0400 From: John R. Covert Spam Sink Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" I had written: > I know of no market [in the U.S.] where there is more than one GSM > provider Eric Blondin replied: > I know there are one or two areas where BellSouth and Omnipoint overlap > and directly compete, on the east coast around Atlanta or Columbia if > I'm not mistaken. You are mistaken. The closest place to Atlanta or Columbia where you will find Omnipoint service is in South Florida. And Omnipoint service does not overlap any other carrier, anywhere. However, you are correct that there is some overlap with Bell South DCS and Powertel. It occurs on the boundaries of each system, in Augusta and Savannah. But Atlanta is all Powertel, and Powertel only, and Columbia is all Bell South DCS, and Bell South DCS only. BTW, the person asking the original question about unlocked phones wanted to buy one because he was concerned about high rental rates. Omnipoint (see their website at www.omnipoint.com) will rent unlocked phones for $29/week or $40/month, which is quite reasonable, considering that the typical price from rental shops in the U.K. is $99 per week or worse. Be sure you reserve a phone in advance, because you can't expect to walk into any one of Omnipoint's shops and find a phone available; you may have to wait two or three days if you don't plan ahead. /john ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 14 Oct 1999 12:32:44 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 12 Oct 1999 18:55:49 GMT, grumpy@bigbird.en.com allegedly said: > What do you mean, 'rules'? I tried to get some enforcement on that one > day and found out there were no laws (in Ohio) prohibiting smoking in > gas stations!!! I was under the impression that the no smoking/stop engine rules were actually federal laws. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ From: rick@bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: 14 Oct 1999 15:57:40 GMT Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) spake thusly and wrote: > (This is crazy. The alleged incidents turned out to be rumors, nobody > can find a case of this ever happening, and cellphones emit a tiny > signal compared to two-way radios in police cars and taxicabs. Pagers > are banned? They don't emit radio waves. tad@ssc.com) > CLEVELAND (AP) -- BP Amoco plans to ban the use of cellular telephones > at its U.S. gasoline pumps by the end of the year, a newspaper reported > today. I think another company (here in Texas) also banned their use. IIRC it is based on rumours and unfounded speculation that a cell phone *might* cause a spark coupled with the atmosphere in the country of any event which affects someone in an unexpected manner must have deep pocket to blame. I suspect it is more along the lines of making sure a warning placard and publicity is out there so that if someone causes a fire and then comes back saying that it was 'caused' by the 'well known' fact that someone used their cell phone around the pump then the company can claim that they did all they could to prevent such a hazard from occurring which may mitigate the law suit. (In a jurisdiction where the consistency and temperature of the mayonaise for chicken salad was an integral part of an appeal this will help.) rick ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Association for Computing Machinery Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:47:56 GMT Adam Sampson wrote: > It would be simple to extend the "you may not make a telephone call > without the intent to communicate" law to cover email. Is there such a law? I would like to see it enforced against telemarketers who use "predictive dialers" to make lots of hangup calls. John David Galt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:38:39 +0100 From: Les Weston Organization: Hewlett-Packard Ltd. (contractor) Subject: Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 I've found the Web ProForums to be pretty good introductory overviews to new technical subjects. Check out http://www.webproforum.com/, in particular http://www.webproforum.com/ss7/index.html . Bryan Joseph wrote: > Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an > overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please > reply to bryan@picus.com . Remove nospam from email address to reply. ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:32:18 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Seymour Dupa wrote: > What do you mean, 'rules'? I tried to get some enforcement on that one > day and found out there were no laws (in Ohio) prohibiting smoking in > gas stations!!! It most likely wouldn't be a law. But I'll bet that if you checked with your state Fire Marshall, you'd find that there is an administrative rule issued by that office that prohibits smoking. Rules issued by offices like the Fire Marshall have the force of law. Then again, trying to codify common sense by issuing a law on every possible topic is an exercise in futility. ------------------------------ From: gb944@mindspring.com (George Beuselinck) Subject: Strange Caller ID Number Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:04:48 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: Hmmm, just got a phone call from someone, didn't identify himself, with the following number displayed on the caller id: 902163463654 Any idea of what this might really be? Foreign country? Just an error in the database? George Beuselinck ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:08:36 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) wrote: > Gail Hall asked: >>> Is there such an international standard symbol already? Or will >>> people have to just figure that out for themselves. > Juha Veijalainen replied: >> Probably not a standard sign, but ... Red circle, a picture of a >> [mobile] phone inside the circle and a red line over the phone. > Sure, but what do you put in the picture to identify the phone as > cellular? Why identify the phone as cellular at all? It's not like people are dragging wired phones around the world! You would run into a raft of problems of the sort of "But this isn't cellular, it is PCS!", by people standing at the gas pump. People don't understand the technology behind their toys, so you just have to tell them not to use them all. The classic phone handset silhouette, with the international no symbol of red circle with slash gets the point of "no phones" in lots of cultures. And people have a tendency to link phones with newer forms of communications like pagers. So it would make sense on the entrance of a concert hall as well as a on a gas pump. ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:20:21 GMT It was Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:28:06 -0700, and tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >> Further, Section 333 of the >> Communications Act, 47 USC 333, prohibits any person from willfully or >> maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station >> licensed or authorized under the Communications Act or operated by the >> U.S. Government. > Reading the letter of the law^H^H^H FCC Edict, it seems to indicate > that if one built their theatre or restaurant using 1mm opening > grounded grid chickenwire with liberal applications of RF absorbing > fabric and no reflective angles out of the place with the specific > intention of preventing cellular devices and pagers to accomplish a > wireless link to the outside world, that too would be "illegal" since > it is willfully interfering (before the actual incident) with the > operation of a FCC licensed device within that space. Full text of 47 USC 333 is: "No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government." Until someone writes an exception Faraday cages could be viewed as interference, although I suspect that enforcement has a lot to do with private property. Building a theatre inside the 'cone of silence' could be considered legal because it does not affect communications outside of the private property. Transmitters DO spread outside of the private property. The pager or cellphone user walking past the theatre would have their devices interfered with without the implied consent that entering the building supplies. JL ------------------------------ From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:02:28 -0400 gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) wrote: > I got my first modem around 1986. A lot of people who got modems > before that got the kind that just had a place to place the handset. > They were 300 baud, and it must have been a pain to use them because I > don't see how the rubber stuff would have kept all the outside noise > out. The first modem I ever saw was hooked up to a ASR-33 teletype (on a shelf behind the machine). It had the rubber cups for an acoustic coupler, but wasn't used in this setup; there was a phone line running directly to the modem. A little while later, we got this really cool video terminal. It had a keyboard, a built-in accoustic coupler, and a video-out jack to hook up to a TV (ch 3 or 4) for display. IIRC, you got something like 16 lines by 40 characters, upper case only. The only way to get a good connection using the accoustic coupler was to place a couple of towels over the top of the thing to help keep room noise out. I~f y^~ou dixn&&'t do thi....s@ you ten~~de@@ to __@~g~et a lo~t~ of g%~~@#arb~age on th sc~reen. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine ------------------------------ From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:38:18 -0700 Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Ed Ellers wrote: > This business of electronic serial numbers unique to each machine > brings up a point about those of us who assemble our own computers -- > namely, at what point does the system become "different" for purposes > of identification? > In my example, I have not gotten a completely new system since -- > gasp! -- early 1994, and even then it wasn't completely new; I built a > 40 MHz 386DX machine using the 40 Mb drive, video card and internal > modem from my 286 machine. Since then I have, approximately in this > order: [snip] > Now, I have nothing in this case (except the floppy drive and power > supply) that were in it when I stuck the 486 board in the case. But I > have not, in one fell swoop, bought a new computer. > So the question is, at what point(s) on that list did my system change > enough to justify identifying it as if it were a different system? > Not an easy question, huh? In one sense, it's still the same system. In another sense, each CPU upgrade would make it a new and different system. In yet another, only changing OS (or wiping the hard drive and reinstalling cleanly) would count. I wouldn't consider any hardware change other than CPU or motherboard to qualify as a "different" system, nor any software change other than completely wiping the system, or changing OS (from Win 3 to 95/98 or to NT, or to Linux, etc. Upgrading from Linux 1.x to 2.x might qualify, too.) Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Questions About ISDN Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:25:20 GMT In , on 10/12/99 at 12:02 PM, ken@postperfect.com (ken) said: > Explanation of what ISDN's baudrate and bandwith acually is?? Maybe > someone can refer a site on the web that has detailed info. http://www.ontariotel.com/isdn_digital.html Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! All power corrupts, but we need the electricity. ------------------------------ From: Paul Adams Subject: NEC NEAX2000 Phone System For Sale Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:34:41 -0400 Organization: Verio Details on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181052163 Please send all replies or questions to dwillis@unicarecorp.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Hyman Subject: Last Laugh! This Makes Me MAD Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:34:33 -0400 I remember MAD as essentially Fortran 4 with different names for the same operations. we used it at CCNY in the early 60s, where the compile times were MUCH less than with IBM's F2 compiler. The AE Neuman picture was triggered by ANY compilation error; so the comp center staff quickly disabled the "feature" when they found that we entered erroneous program simply to get the pic. b ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #481 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 14 20:59:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA08712; Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:59:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910150059.UAA08712@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #482 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Oct 99 20:59:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 482 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Taking Your Kids Online" (Rob Slade Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Mike Fox) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Stanley Cline) Unlocking GSM Phones (Kim Brennan) LNP With Call Forwarding on BAM (Mat Mathews) Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (L. Winson) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Paul R. Joslin) NPA/NXX to LATA Database? (Jeremy Bond Shepherd) Conversion Problems (Peter Zubritzky) 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:36:27 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Taking Your Kids Online", Lefebvre/Hillis Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKTYKONL.RVW 990829 "Taking Your Kids Online", Arlette Lefebvre/Brian Hillis, 1999, 0-07-560932-0, C$21.99 %A Arlette Lefebvre arlette.lefebvre@sickkids.on.ca %A Brian Hillis bhillis@home.com bhillis@pro-mail.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1999 %G 0-07-560932-0 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O C$21.99 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 905-430-5134 %P 199 p. %T "Taking Your Kids Online" Implicit in both the preface and introduction, though never very clearly stated, is the assumption that the best way for children to get familiar with the Internet is to have parents who use and know the net themselves. Extended from other areas of study, this is an educational no-brainer: children whose parents read tend to read; children whose parents have wide ranging interests tend to develop broad pursuits. The book also states that no single approach to the Internet is suitable for all children, and, again, this is obvious to anyone familiar with the technology. The net is not a single tool, like a telephone or television, but is an enormous educational toolbox, much more akin to a library. This being the case, writing a guide to children's use of the net is a rather daunting task, one that many before the current authors have failed to fulfill adequately. Part one is entitled "Parent Preparation," which could suggest either preparation *of* parents, themselves, or preparation that parents do before taking their kids online. Chapter one, despite the protest in the preface, is a promotional piece on Internet use, leaning to the hard sell "you're gonna be left behind" position. The advice in chapter two, to get some familiarity with the net yourself before surfing with the kids, is good, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough in teaching the parent about the various net applications. Ultimately, the advice in the whole section boils down to "Jump in. Now." (The air of unreality about this whole work is heightened by the fact that the first sentence in the next section congratulates the reader on "mastering" the art of Web searching and evaluation.) Part two starts to lay out age related materials, and also reveals another limitation of the book: this is about the Web, not the whole Internet. Chapter three starts with pre-schoolers, noting that they need practice in eye-hand coordination and have short attention spans. Despite the fact that interactive CD-ROMs are much more suitable at this level, the book does not hesitate to recommend activity sites on the net. The recommendations to surf with your primary age child are very good, but the latter half of chapter four again fails to note that the readiness and suggested activities can be accomplished as easily offline as on, and much faster, to boot. The lack of background material in the book overall will probably be felt most keenly while reading chapter five, where parents are told to start modelling confidence and perseverance in net usage. Chapter six starts to get into ages where students could be using the net as a school research resource, but searching functions are still not being explained. In addition, the book, at this point, suggests that children be told about anonymity and identification, but the technical side of this issue is extremely weak. The net hardly figures at all in the generic discussion of tolerance and increasing independence in chapters seven and eight. Chapter nine is a reprise of the major topics in this section. Part three contains miscellaneous subjects. Chapter ten presents a good overview of the failings of filtering and rating systems, but that basically restricts safety on the net to "surf with your kids." Some resource sites for special needs children are listed in chapter eleven. The tips on evaluating information quality, in chapter twelve, are fine in theory, but fundamentally boil down to the reader having to know more about the topic than the site being evaluated. Part four contains some putative resources. Chapter thirteen is a very brief glossary. Some institutional and commercial Websites are listed in chapter fourteen. The conclusion, in chapter fifteen, comes firmly down on both sides of the fence. While the basic ideas behind this book are sound, in terms of implementation there is simply not enough information provided to make this a truly useful work. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKTYKONL.RVW 990829 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com _________________________ | | |\^/| | | swiped | | _|\| |/|_ | | from | | > < | | Alan | | >_./|\._< | | Tai |____|_______^_______|____| http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:36:45 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" John R. Covert wrote: > AMPS (whether that be analog AMPS or Digital AMPS) phones are > generally not locked. Back in the days where there were only analog > systems, you were on a contract for monthly service as an incentive > to keep you with the same carrier, so there was no requirement that > the manufacturers build a locking system into the phone. Now, there > are six incompatible systems, so when someone switches carriers, they > usually can't use their old phone, and will just buy a new phone when > they switch, so again, there is no requirement that the manufacturers > build a locking system into the phone. This is still incorrect. Subsidy locking is common with all digital technologies in the U.S. It has a different name with each technology but it's there. For example, CDMA 1900 phones (Sprint PCS and PrimeCo and Intelos and others) have an "MSL" (I believe that stands for "master subsidy lock") code that locks them to the carrier, additionally at least Sprint PCS will flat-out refuse to activate a phone they didn't sell. Even the tri-mode Nokia 6185 phones that SPCS sells are locked so that the CDMA 800 or AMPS parts can't be activated on another carrier! PCS phones sold by AT&T (TDMA) are also locked, I forget the name of the lock for TDMA phones, but shortly after digital one-rate first came out I saw a flood of posts on alt.celluar from AT&T customers who were finding out that their phones were so restricted when they tried to change carriers. And with GSM the lock is called SIM-lock, SP-lock (SP = Service Provider) or subsidy lock and has already been discussed on this thread. > Even with GSM, I know of no market where there is more than one GSM > provider, Eastern Georgia has both BellSouth DCS and Powertel. That's the only GSM overlap I know of. But overlapping systems is not the reason US GSM carriers lock, it's because they subsidize different phones at different levels, so Pac Bell for example doesn't want people getting cheap Ericsson CF768s (at one point I believe this phone was subisidized down to $25 with a McDonald's promotion) then selling them to customers of BellSouth (which charges $130 for this phone), thereby transferring their subsidy to another carrier. I think Voicestream got burned by this, for a while they were the only US GSM carrier not locking and they were also one of the first in the U.S. to get the Nokia 6190, and a lot of their subsidized 6190s left their system without ever being activated. Now they lock, imagine that. > so this is the reason the carriers are generally pretty > liberal about unlocking phones for you. Some carriers are and some aren't. Omnipoint appears to be the most liberal about it. BellSouth appears to be the most hard-assed. BellSouth's policy is that you can only get an unlock if you close your account, pay off any outstanding balances, and move out of the service area (a copy of a driver's license from your new home will be required!). > Omnipoint will sell you unlocked Bosch worldphones (1900-900) for > about $450, I think. They also sell the Ericsson I888 unlocked (but the first batch was locked and they've been unlocking those on request). Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:55:15 -0400 Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:28:50 -0400, Eric Blondin wrote: > I know there is one or two areas where BellSouth and Omnipoint overlap > and directly compete, on the east coast around Atlanta or Columbia if > I'm not mistaken. Actually, it is BellSouth DCS and Powertel that compete -- in the Augusta and Savannah, GA areas, including Aiken and Hilton Head, SC. Knoxville, TN may have coverage from both BellSouth DCS and Powertel in the future (Powertel and a startup company that Powertel helped fund, Eliska Wireless, together have 25 MHz [IIRC] of spectrum in the Knoxville area.) Similar applies to southeastern Kentucky, where Wireless 2000 [aka WTTCKy], who has no roaming with anyone, may find itself competing against -- yes, Powertel. There were a large number of cities where both Omnipoint and VoiceStream owned licenses, but one or neither were operating -- of course Omnipoint and VoiceStream (and Aerial) are becoming one. > Partners only as far as technology goes, if one can steal customers > from one another, they'll gladly do it. The more they are, the more North American GSM carriers can't do this (except in Augusta and Savannah, of course -- but out there, coverage needs, not price, tend to dictate which carrier one goes with; those who need coverage west of Augusta or Savannah go with Powertel, while those who need coverage to the north and east go with BellSouth), since they do not compete with one another. It's also not an issue with iDEN carriers, except for Atlanta and some other Southeastern cities where both Nextel and Southern Linc provide iDEN service. CDMA (e.g., Sprint PCS, Clearnet) and IS-136 (e.g., AT&T, SunCom) are another story altogether -- in most larger markets and even many small ones, there are multiple CDMA and/or IS-136 carriers. (This even goes for 'oddball' New Orleans, which has no GSM licensee :( and one still-analog-only carrier!) The real reason (AFAICT) why North American GSM carriers lock phones: to avoid losses from customers who can't get the phone they want from their carrier and go to another carrier to get it. For instance, why should Powertel lose money on PacBell customers who want a phone that PacBell doesn't sell -- but may never roam into Powertel's coverage, much less subscribe to Powertel service? (In other words: why should one carrier subsidize another's customer, even though the two _don't_ compete?) However, I believe that all N.A. GSM carriers should offer unlocked phones, and unlock existing customers used-for-a-year-or-more phones upon request, irrespective of the customer moving to another GSM carrier's service area -- something most carriers, except for Omnipoint, seem to require. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 14 Oct 1999 22:08:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Unlocking GSM Phones Hmm, all this talk of SIM locked GSM phones, makes me wonder, how is it done. And how are they unlocked? Surely this information is available (even if users don't necessarily have the resources to do it themselves.) Kim Brennan 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/duoindex.html ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: Mat Mathews Subject: LNP With Call Forwarding on BAM Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:28:18 -0400 Organization: Convergent Networks Okay, here's a question for everyone. I just switched my local phone service from Bell Atlantic to MediaOne. MediaOne now offers Local Number Portability (LNP), so I get to keep my BA number. However, when I transfer my Bell Atlantic Mobile telephone to my home phone now, it doesn't seem to go through the LNP lookup, so calls to my cell phone get a voice intercept from Bell Atlantic. Calling *from* my cell phone to my home number directly works like it should -- LNP dip occurs. Is this a bug with Call Forwarding on the BAM side (ie. they are not doing LNP dips for forwarded calls??). Mostly trying to hone in on where the problem might be before I get MediaOne, Bell Atlantic, and BAM all pointing the finger at each other. Thanks, Mat Mathews, Sr. Product Line Manager, Tel: 978-640-1970 x370 Convergent Networks - http://www.ConvergentNet.com ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Date: 14 Oct 1999 23:04:36 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach them.) I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? For example, Philmont/Hudson NY had this until Nynex upgraded the town's switch from step-by-step to ESS a few years. (The phone company dropped the five digit capability from the phone book's instructions some years ago, but it still worked until ESS.) Another short cut feature was that people in live near an area code border (even a state border) needed to dial only seven digits to call the adjacent exchange in a different area code. We had that but it was discontinued some years ago. (Calls to the adjacent exchange remain local calls.) I would guess that with the increasing shortage of exchanges, even small rural towns might be squeezed so this capability would be the first to go. ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Organization: self Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:54:58 -0500 Actually, the problem with wanting a no-wireless-phones symbol at gas stations is a case of the legal system not recognizing the charact- eristics of the technology. The gasoline company lawyers are following the lead of the lawyer labels on wireless phones. The wireless phone lawyers are protecting against something much less likely than problems due to static electricity from to synthetic clothing material. >> Sure, but what do you put in the picture to identify the phone as >> cellular? > Why identify the phone as cellular at all? It's not like people are > dragging wired phones around the world! Indeed. People with a wired phone in their car aren't likely to cause much problem except if they try to make a call take place while driving. Something like a cellphone (squarish handset with speaker/microphone grille) with extended antenna should be recognizable, perhaps with the concentric-circles "radio wave" imagery around the antenna. > The classic phone handset silhouette, with the international no symbol > of red circle with slash gets the point of "no phones" in lots of > cultures. But in a hospital you might prohibit wireless phones but don't want to tell people to not use the wired phones. Can't use a no-phones symbol. (Don't argue the logic of having the phones there. The sign can be interpreted as telling visitors not to use phones, or in a crisis the sign may be obeyed more than logic would suggest.) ------------------------------ From: paul.joslin@weirdness.com (Paul R. Joslin) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: 14 Oct 1999 14:11:13 -0400 Organization: Structural Dynamics Research Corp. tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) writes: > Actually, *I* (as a Multi-media/audio-visual tech) would love it if > such venues broke the wireless link to the outside world. It would > mean no more problems dealing with interference to wireless mics and > the like ... and to prevent embarassment to the wireless mic users, > keep the restrooms outside the cone-of-silence. (Yes, it really has > happened.) Not to mention providing blessed relief from cell phones and pagers for the audience! Paul R. Joslin The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns paul.joslin@sdrc.com something that will always be useful and which never +1 513 576 2012 will grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Bond Shepherd Subject: NPA/NXX to LATA Database? Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:01:10 -0700 Organization: Project Rubicon Reply-To: jbond@netcom.com Hello, I am looking for a database of NPA/NXX to LATA. I only need this data for California. I have found the Terminating Point Master file from the Traffic Routing Administration (TRA), which contains the data I need plus a whole lot more, and costs $285 on CD-ROM. I would really like to find a publicly available (free or cheap) source for only NPA/NXX to LATA data. Any leads? Thanks, Jeremy Bond Shepherd jbond@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:23:20 -0400 From: Peter Zubritzky Organization: CCBC Subject: Conversion Problems Where can I get information on rewiring old four-prong phones using the modular lines and jacks? Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #482 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 15 01:31:28 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA19014; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:31:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910150531.BAA19014@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #483 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Oct 99 01:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 483 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson All About George Gilder (Tad Cook) FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report (Monty Solomon) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Mick Dora) Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail (Steve Winter) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Walter Dnes) Probably Spam (was Hoping to Get 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: All About George Gilder Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:16:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Over the years that George Gilder's essays have appeared in this Digest, I've always received positive responses from readers after seeing them. A dozen or so are housed in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org/archives So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see this 'alternative point of view' about Gilder when it arrived in my mail today. Read it and see what you think. Replies will be quite welcome. PAT] ===================================== (I found this in this week's SEATTLE WEEKLY) Techno-tyrants BY EMILY WHITE In case you haven't heard, Seattle is home to a tremendously important "think tank." This think tank is called the Discovery Institute, and it's a place where a bunch of white guys sit around and think very hard, at very shiny conference tables. What these guys are thinking about is The Future. One of their mottoes is "The Discovery Institute: making a positive vision of the future practical." Every few weeks, the Institute sponsors luncheons at the Washington Athletic Club with guest speakers: Newt Gingrich, Jennifer Dunn, a congressman with a disheveled comb-over who knows everything there is to know about Y2K. During the speeches the guys listen attentively and take notes. The food is terrible -- dried-out fish that was caught a long, long time ago, cheesecake with a distinct moldy undercurrent. But the guys don't complain. They are warriors, not whiners. A shitty lunch is one of the burdens they must bear in their noble journey toward the Positive Future. To become a member of this future, you can write a check. If you pay enough, your name will go on the donor list alongside many other important names. Members receive Discovery mailings: notices of luncheons, lectures, and a discount on books written by Discovery Institute Fellows. The Discovery Views newsletter follows the progress of their latest crusades: the Cascadia Project, which hopes to "connect the gateways and trade corridors" from Oregon to BC; the Science and Culture project, which is working to refute Darwinian "materialism" in favor of "intelligent design theory" (an argument that was recently used in Kansas to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools); the Technology and Public Policy project, which involves an "examination of new technologies to determine their implications for the economy, politics and culture." Many of the Discovery Institute fellows went to Yale or Harvard; consequently, they believe they might be geniuses. Many of them have lots of money; consequently, they dream of themselves as conquerors, or kings. The Discovery Institute is essentially a boys' club. But it's not an old-style New England boys' club, where guys seem stranded in the past, their brains fogged by Early Times, reminiscing about the days before women were allowed inside. At the Discovery Institute, the guys put on a progressive front -- there are token women and blacks on the board, they talk about the technological "revolution," they lead healthy lives of 5am jogs and few hangovers. These guys aren't doddering, out-of-touch right wingers -- in fact, if you were to ask them, they would probably shy away from any political affiliation at all. They're simply good, God-fearing men who want to help us all "by promoting ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty." One of the crown princes of the Discovery Institute is a guy named George Gilder. Gilder is a Senior Fellow and Founder, and he is a revered technological brainiac. He has been on the cover of Wired Magazine; Bill Gates acknowledges him as one of the guys who really makes him think. Among the cyberworld elite, Gilder is spoken of in respectful, hushed tones. He was one of a select group Wired asked to talk about "The State of the Planet" in 1998. The Discovery Institute's literature features him prominently; on its Web site you can click into the Gilder archives -- all George, all the time. George is regularly asked to explain the mysteries of cyberspace to the members of the Institute. Because he seems to understand the intricacies of the technological "revolution," the guys worship him like a prophet. In the dizzying flood of change, George is a trusted guide, called on for explanations, predictions, reassurances. Businessmen pay $300 a head to hear him speak at conferences. Right now he's organizing something called the Telecosm conference, which will take place in Tahoe at a resort called the Inn at Squaw Peak. About 400 tech business types are slated to come, and when George talks about it, he gets positively giddy. In a phone interview from his home in Tyrningham, Massachusetts, Gilder explains the ideas behind this conference: "Telecosm is about the future of technology. In the era of microcosm it was transistors, bits, that were plummeting in price, and next year transistors will cost a millionth of a cent. And the next era will be determined by the plummeting price of bandwidth." Presumably, if you pay to go to the conference, this will make sense to you. Because according to people who claim to know what he is talking about, George knows what he is talking about. The Seattle Times regularly cites him as "futurist Gilder," as if the future is his job, his specialty. But George Gilder has not always been a futurist. In fact, he worked for a long time to keep the world from moving forward at all. In the '70s he published a series of books attacking the feminist and civil rights movements. In a book called Sexual Suicide, Gilder argued that women's liberation would lead to the end of the human race. If women achieved economic equality, a "social breakdown" would result. "Women control not the economy of the marketplace but the economy of Eros," Gilder wrote. "A marginal bias in favor of men in the labor force will best promote economic and social order." Even more extreme was a 1978 title called Visible Man (the opposite of Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man). Here Gilder argued that racism does not exist; we live in a "post-racist" society where the black man's only obstacle is himself, his broken family, his undisciplined "ghetto reflexes." Gilder was an early enemy of welfare and argued in Visible Man that federal money only perpetuated a society in which black people were "all rocking away their lives as they await the green tide of government checks." To top it off, Gilder's main focus is a black man accused of raping a white lesbian, so George gets in some good hate speech on all fronts. At the lesbian bars the brave journalist Gilder looks at the monster women, "breasts untouchable, braless, an insult or incitement to all the neighborhood blacks." Later in the book Gilder talks about a guy called "Sambo," who "sells watermelons from the back of a truck." Why is a guy whose thinking is to the right of most militia wackos weighing in on the State of the Planet in Wired Magazine? How did someone with such a wildly backward world view become one of our revered "forward thinkers"? The answer is, he adapted. He did not evolve or change his views -- he changed his persona to fit the times. If you press him on it, George supports his '70s work. Asked about Visible Man, he told me, "Really, blacks earn just as much as whites do. And American culture is very enthusiastic about black achievement when it can find it. Like Oprah, or Michael Jordan." His views on women haven't changed, either. "You know there is actual difference between male and female brains," he told me from his study, his wife downstairs clattering dishes. Asked why there are so few women in the tech world, George said, "Well, there are women. They are just mostly in personnel and marketing. They do better there." George seemed surprised that I had tracked down a copy of Sexual Suicide: "Wow, you really went into the catacombs, didn't you?" It's not often that he is asked to account for these early writings. Susan Faludi devoted a section to him in Backlash, but other than that he has moved effortlessly across the technological frontier, one of the guys in a world that is essentially free of women and blacks. Book publicists and Discovery Institute media liaisons avoid mentioning Sexual Suicide or Visible Man -- they're like dirty secrets, subjects you don't bring up in front of company. After the '70s passed and books like Sexual Suicide went out of fashion, George reinvented himself as an economist. He wrote a book called Wealth and Poverty, which went to the top of the bestseller list, and he worked behind the scenes in the Reagan administration. If he talked about blacks and women at all, it was "race" and "gender" -- words which seem more detached, more open to interpretation. These days, he doesn't refer much to people at all -- instead it's telecosms, limitless bandwidth, the essentially infinite electro- magnetic spectrum. By turning from journalist to economist to techno-futurist, George retained his cultural viability. He's like a chameleon, changing selves depending on context, hiding behind a wall of words, safe within the self-perpetuated myth of his own genius. Now in his 60s, George is arguably more powerful than he has ever been, precisely because so few people understand what he is talking about. The fact that he is passing himself off as a futurist says a lot about the widening gap between the technological world and the real world; between the virtual frontier and a world that has run out of actual frontiers. Gilder's transformation also says a lot about the transformations of language since the civil-rights era, the way certain kinds of speech about women and blacks had to go underground, become camouflaged. As affirmative action is rolled back and a handful of white men amass more economic power than America has ever seen, it is not an exaggeration to say that the world feminists and civil rights activists worked for is about as real as the Telecosm. It shimmers in the distance, but it never comes to pass. Nevertheless, we are told this is a world and a city where great strides are being made. The Internet carries the mystique of freedom, the promise that everything is about change for the better. An insatiable enthusiasm greets each new breed of software. Mainstream, straightforward writing about the tech world is all boosterism, credulousness, and product endorsement. Particularly in Seattle, hype about the fabulous, exciting technological revolution is so pervasive it drowns out any doubts about whether this is actually progress, whether this is actually a step forward at all. The fact that something was deeply wrong with this new world is something I started to realize about a year and a half ago. I had watched Seattle become the city of techno millionaires; in restaurants and bars I had overheard countless conversations among white male twentysomethings who had more money than they knew what to do with. Their girlfriends sat next to them, quiet, in really great clothes, ordering multiple chardonnays. I waited for the trickle-down, but it didn't come. I heard about a realtor who sold a house to a couple of 25-year-olds for over a million dollars -- the thing was, it was the place where two 85-year-olds had lived for 40 years. The kids were like, "Could they please move out, like, this week? Do they understand this is a cash offer?" The realtor said, "They are 85 years old, they have lived there for 40 years." "But do they understand this is a cash offer?" Those young cash buyers had money, but they had no history. Because the world that had made them rich was essentially a nonexistent world, they could not fathom some old couple and all their stuff. When I heard this story I chalked it up as one more piece of evidence that people were being left behind, the past was getting lost. The idea of writing itself was being corrupted; Microsoft was searching for "content providers" but they could not find any content, because the guys who were searching for it didn't know what it was. Cyberspace had made the world so limitless that it started to seem like a series of empty hallways, empty rooms. Wherever you clicked, asking for entrance, you could never quite get past secret words, the mishmash of jargon, the bright-eyed men with their private language. George Gilder in many ways embodies this cultural contradiction. Look closely at his life and work and you will come to see the cracks in the future promised by the technological revolution. Because this future looks an awful lot like America's deep past. In the name of progress, we are unwittingly rebuilding and fortifying the power structures of pre-civil rights America. The boys' club is alive and well. As my friend Riz Rollins says of women and nonwhites, "It still don't belong to us, honey. You gotta remember that. Nothing is yours. It can all be snatched." Maybe Rollins is the real futurist in this story. At a Discovery Institute lunch in the Crystal Ballroom of the Washington Athletic Club, I arrive early and sit in the corner, trying not to be noticed. An elegant old waiter is going around filling water glasses. He asks me, "What is the Discovery Institute?" I say, it's a think tank. "A think tank?" he says, bemused. "What the heck is a think tank, anyway?" Well, I tell him, it must be a place where a lot of thinking goes on. We both laugh too hard, like kids cracking up in church. As a glum, rotting salad is being served, I find myself sitting next to a hardcore Gilder fanatic. If most of Gilder's followers try to ignore the extremism of his past work, this guy embraces it. "I am working to get all his old titles in print," he tells me, leaning in close, his eyes shining with mission, fervor, maybe a slight chemical imbalance. The guy explains to me that George isn't at this luncheon; he's busy planning the big Telecosm conference. The subject today is "Y2K, Are We Ready? The State of the States," and the talk is to be given by Representative Steve Horn, R-California. The room is about two-thirds full: a guy in an ROTC polo shirt, a token black guy whom everyone swats particularly hard on the back, most everyone in suits and ties. Jennifer Dunn is here to do the introductions, her harsh smile that of a bitter hostess determined to put on a good front. Jack Kemp's son Jeff, who heads up something called the Washington Family Council, tells us to bow our heads for grace -- the prayer is something about how we are thankful to God for everything we have, material and spiritual. Amen. Sitting next to me is an old couple, WAC club members, who are here to find out what they should be doing about Y2K: whether they should be storing food and water, whether at the turn of the millennium they will be forced to open those ancient canned goods in the back of the cupboard. They don't know what the Discovery Institute is, but they've heard that a lot of good men are on the board, men who are also WAC members. The woman says, "But I did hear they were doing something like trying to get Darwin out of the schools. That doesn't seem right, now does it?" Her husband nods vaguely, and adjusts his hearing aid. It soon becomes clear that the lunch lecture is far too technical for Y2K novices like this old couple. Horn has been infected by tech speak, and it is virtually impossible to understand what the hell he is talking about. If the audience was hoping for a clear picture of the millennium, what they get is more gibberish, the language of geeks or insiders. Within 10 minutes, both the man and his wife have fallen deeply asleep. I watch the woman nervously, wondering if she is going to fall out of her chair. Occasionally she snaps awake and looks around the room, momentarily disoriented, wondering where am I, wait a minute, what is going on here, who is this man speaking who I can't understand? Then she falls asleep again, this time even deeper than before. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:37:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/1999/nrcb9017.html FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 13, 1999 NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Michelle Russo 202/418-2358 FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report on the State of the Broadband Industry Provides Evidence of Emerging Competition and Importance of National Policy Washington, DC - FCC Chairman William E. Kennard today released a report by the staff of the Cable Services Bureau on the state of the broadband industry. The report concluded the broadband industry is in its infancy and regulatory restraint continues to be warranted at this time. Chairman Kennard said, "This report provides an objective and detailed snapshot of the broadband industry and a thorough overview of the technical and public policy issues related to this dynamic and promising market. I'm sure the report will prove to be a valuable resource to those seeking to understand the many competing issues and interests that must be balanced to insure that American consumers soon will be able to receive advanced services at competitive prices." Chairman Kennard asked the Cable Services Bureau to convene monitoring sessions with key stakeholders and this preliminary report summarizes the findings from the meetings held thus far. The Cable Bureau, working with the Common Carrier Bureau, the Office of Plans and Policy and the Office of Engineering and Technology, will continue to engage in ongoing dialogue with various stakeholders and fulfill the Chairman's pledge to monitor the industry. The monitoring sessions invited key industry stakeholders to weigh in with their opinions and observations. These included representatives from Internet service providers, online service providers, local exchange carriers, long distance telephone companies, cable operators, community organizations, financial analysts, academics and local franchising authorities (LFAs). The Cable Bureau asked the participants to engage in a candid, not-for-attribution, discussion of the major issues and challenges facing consumers, the industry, regulators and policy makers with respect to the deployment of broadband services. The report outlined some preliminary findings about the broadband industry to date: * The broadband industry is in its infancy. * Cable modem deployment has spurred alternative broadband technologies, like digital subscriber lines (DSL). * Regulation or threat of regulation ultimately slows deployment of broadband. * Market forces will compel cable companies to negotiate access agreements with unaffiliated ISPs, preventing cable companies from keeping systems closed and proprietary. * If market forces fail and cable becomes the dominant means of Internet access, regulation might then be necessary to promote competition. * Rapid nationwide broadband deployment depends on a national policy. The report acknowledged the risks associated with a regulatory policy of forbearance. Risks exist, such as the threat of a cable monopoly of broadband, the creation of an irreversibly closed system and the threat of inconsistent local regulation. Notwithstanding these risks, the Cable Services Bureau concluded that the better course of action is regulatory restraint. The Cable Bureau staff recommended that if the threat of a monopoly emerges, the Commission should move swiftly and consider regulatory options. The report noted that the Commission's national broadband policy is facilitating vigorous deployment and competition. The Cable Bureau staff also said that this policy upholds the spirit of the 1996 Act's objective to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and better services for Americans. A full copy of the report can be found at the FCC website (www.fcc.gov) on the Broadband Internet Access page. -FCC- Report No. CS 99-14 Cable Services Bureau Contacts: Deborah A. Lathen, Adonis Hoffman, To-Quyen Truong, Clint Odom at (202) 418-7200. ------------------------------ From: mDora@bigfoot.com (Mick Dora) Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:29:15 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Overall, my phone bill has increased for about the same amount of calling. It is very difficult to compare offers these days, but you can bet that any simple solution like 'dime a minute' will end up costing you more. My local phone company still gives me the best rates for the LATA calls, and still observes three different rates depending on the time the call is placed. This is a big saving over long distance 'simple solution' plans. I've also found a great way to keep the phone bill down by making internet phone calls, even videoconference calls. They don' cost since the ISP is a local call. I videoconferenced with someone in NY this morning from Los Angeles for 15 minutes at 0 cost. The connection was made using the services of a directory at visitalk.com, which also costs nothing. Visitalk constantly upgrades the servers, and the short time I've been doing this, it has become more efficient in many ways. Mick D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll suggest that within the next two or three years, most ISPs will in fact be telcos. Do readers agree? PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:41:43 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Daniel Aharonoff spake thusly and wrote: > I've spend a few hours looking for a stand-alone automated attendant > with voice mail capabilities within a budget of under $1k w/o much > luck. Any ideas if such a thing exists and what sites I could head to > to find out more? Find yourself one of the old Natural Microsystems cards and put it in a PC. Ours is running software dated (c)1984 on an old 486 running some old OS called "DOS" for "Disk Operating System" (I hear the kid that invented it has done real well for himself). Sorry I don't know where to tell you to start looking. I traded a modem for ours years and years ago. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:20:09 -0400 On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:16:16 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom Arthur Ross wrote: > The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) > and Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) have received > several inquiries concerning the use of transmitters > designed to prevent or jam the operation of cellular > telephones in hospitals, theaters and other locations. Question ... if people are worried about cellphones/pagers etc, interfering with sensitive electronics in hospitals, *WHY* would they consider using more powerful transmitters that overpower cellphone signals by an order of magnitude? I can understand theaters/ restaurants/etc, where the problem is the noise of the cellphone and conversation, rather than electronic interference. Is it legal to shield a room/theater/restaurant (i.e. a Faraday Cage) or has some idiot court already awarded damages to a cellphone user who couldn't be reached for an important call? How expensive is it to shield a large room? Worst case is a layer of metal foil on four walls, ceiling, and floor. Will wire mesh be sufficient? What about a bunch of "re-inforcing metal rods" in the walls which "just happen" to be a half-wave or full-wave long at cellular frequencies? And they "just happen" to be spaced such that they form a vertically stacked dipole array that has a null lobe pointing at the nearest cell tower? Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ Subject: Probably Spam (was Hoping to Get Help) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:35:11 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got what follows in the mail > yesterday, just as it appears. Might there be a reader or two > amongst you who could chat with the fellow and see what help > he needs? Thanks very much. PAT] > > ------------------------------ > Can i mail to you ? Excuse me. I hoping your help . Thanks. > CHINA > GUANG ZHOU > ZHI WEI. LIN > 8620-8657101 I think this guy is spamming everyone who posts to the list. I got the same message from him yesterday. When I replied asking how I could help, he wrote back saying he was an expert in economics and had amazing results tracking some Asian currencies against other currencies, and he wanted a job. I have no idea what kind of job he wants. Risk arbitrage? Currency speculation? Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Fancy that ... and yesterday when I got that note I was about to toss it in the bit bucket ... then I thought, that's not right, he is a fellow from another country with a poor command of English and very possibly involved in a telecom matter and it would not be right to just ignore him. I actually thought he was writing to *me*, asking *me* to help; many netters have done that over the years, so feeling sort of guilt- tripped and not having the time to respond personally, I tossed it in here figuring some of our Asian readers would see it and be able to converse with him, even god-forbid, in his own language, and then report to the group or find a solution or whatever. Chalk up one more experience for me I guess, but why is it I feel even more bummed out now than I did before printing that Gilder piece? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #483 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 15 18:21:16 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA21517; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:21:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910152221.SAA21517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #484 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Oct 99 18:21:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 484 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unlocking GSM Phones (Robert Berntsen) Re: Unlocking GSM Phones (Mike Fox) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Cortland Richmond) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (John B. Hines) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (David Charles) Calling (Credit) Card Circa '63 (bishop3204@my-deja.com) Director of Systems Engineering in a Bay Area Start-up! (Todd M. Caplan) Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) (W Wheeler) DAA and Leased Line Resources (Ling SM) eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed (Jack Decker) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (Free Spirit) Inter-Tel/Premier Comments Wanted (Bruce Wilson) Re: Last Laugh! This Makes Me MAD (Dana Paxson) 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: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: Unlocking GSM Phones Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:05:47 +0200 Kim Brennan wrote in message ... > Hmm, all this talk of SIM locked GSM phones, makes me wonder, how is > it done. And how are they unlocked? Surely this information is > available (even if users don't necessarily have the resources to do it > themselves.) When you insert the SIM card, the phone reads the SIM id-number. If you want so, you can program the phone to refuse any other SIM card unless you key in a terminal security code. The security code is chosen by yourself. This of course make the terminal less atractive if stolen. In addition some telcos sell terminals together with SIM card at a reduced price, but with the terminal preprogrammed with security code that the customer does not get. Thus in an attempt to lock the customer from using another telco's SIM card and network. This of course makes the GSM phones less useful than they should be. The manufacture's repare workshops do have access codes for service purposes and can change the security code. Regards, R. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:01:47 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: Unlocking GSM Phones Kim Brennan wrote: > Hmm, all this talk of SIM locked GSM phones, makes me wonder, how is > it done. And how are they unlocked? Surely this information is > available (even if users don't necessarily have the resources to do it > themselves.) Generally the way to do this is to obtain the unlock code from the service provider who holds the lock. But of course many service providers won't give you this code, which usually results in one to five posts a day to alt.cellular.gsm that ask plainatively "Can anyone tell me how to unlock my Alcatel One Touch Easy" and no one ever responds because, well, no one can do it. There is no universal code for any carrier or model of phone, it's a unique code for every individual phone and cannot be computed from the IMEI (GSM version of the ESN). Occasionally people pop up who claim they can do it, but when questioned more closely they disappear and never back up their claims. There are web sites out there by people who claim they can do it for money, but I've never heard anyone credible confirm that these services work, but I have heard people complain of getting ripped off by these sites. The only thing that even looked plausible to me was a UK website that claimed it could do it for one or two phone models, by using a data cable and re-flashing the ROM to overwrite with zeroes the memory location that contains the code. But that was also pretty expensive, actually it was more expensive than just buying a new (locked, subsidized) phone, not to mention risky (am I willing to let some fly-by-night operator re-flash my phone, I don't think so). So in summary, for all practical purposes the answer is that you cannot undo a subsidy lock on a GSM phone unless the operator holding the lock gives you the specific code and instructions for your phone. GSM security is excellent, and that includes the security features that protect the operators' subsidies! Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:08:40 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Preventing reception is not a violation of FCC regulations. Jamming it is. Interference has, of course, several meanings. For example, I require an "interference fit" between metal parts of shielding enclosure. This does not mean I am interfering! Likewise, the FCC does not consider shielding someone from receiving a signal to be interference; it DOES consider jamming a signal be interference. That's in accordance with its charter. Cortland ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:06:03 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Walter Dnes wrote: > Is it legal to shield a room/theater/restaurant (i.e. a Faraday Cage) > or has some idiot court already awarded damages to a cellphone user > who couldn't be reached for an important call? A stamped tin ceiling, which was once common, does a pretty fair job of shutting down cell phones. It used to force people outside of the old bar that had one, to use their phones. The key property is "seamless", the commercial shielding is sheet metal, similar to heating ducts, in large sheets, that interlock at the edges. ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:54:02 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Something that I have not seen mentioned in this thread is that the prohibition of the use of mobile phones on aircraft may predate their existence. The details below relate to the UK but it would seem plausable that similar situations would exist elsewhere. According to some articles I have read (which were about the prohibition of Aeronautical Mobile amateur radio operation in the UK) there are regulations prohibiting the use of any transmiter that has not been type approved for aeronautical use on an aircraft that requires a Certificate of Airworthiness (i.e. all except the smallest light aircraft) when in the air. These regulations have been in force for several decades. At the time they were introduced it would have been unlikely that the possibility of passengers on commercial flights wanting to use any form of transmitter in the air would have been considered. It is unlikely that such regulations would be changed to exempt mobile phones, or provision made to type approve them for aeronautical use, unless there were significant reasons to do so. As mobile phones do not work properly in the air due to the problems with too many cells in the footprint etc. it is unlikely that any such changes would be considered. Thus even if there was no question of a safety risk the use of mobile phones on aircraft would probably still be prohibited. Even if anouncements warning of the safety risk are exagerated, they are probably more effective than an anouncement refering to regulations or giving no explanation of the prohibition. David Charles ------------------------------ From: bishop3204@my-deja.com Subject: Calling (Credit) Card Circa '63 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 06:18:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I am attempting to learn whatever I can about the introduction of the calling card system and the protocols that might have been in place circa 1963. Specifically, I have been researching a crime committed that year. A Southern Bell TT operator reported to FBI that a man making credit card calls from a motel in suburban Atlanta made several attempts to phone the two principal suspects in the crime prior to its occurance. The SBTT operator was likely an FBI 'Confidential Informant,' though that part of the pertinent FBI document remains redacted. The operator remembered that the final sequence in the credit card used by the 'motel caller' was "S32." A subsequent FBI doc revealed that "S32" connoted the card was issued in the Washington, DC area, and that there were 126,000 such active cards issued in the Washington area. Because FBI protocols are arbitrary to the point of caprice in this case, it is hard to know whether or not there was a followup [though there surely should have been], or if a followup was undertaken but the resulting reports have been lost or suppressed. As someone who knows virtually NOTHING about the calling card protocol in place circa '63, I am trying to locate somebody employed by the DC-area phone company at that time who may recall ANYTHING about same. It is my 'needle-in-a-haystack' hope that "S32" designated more than just a Washington-area origin of issuance. I also believe [though it's based purely on personal conjecture] that FBI could have plumbed the issue further and reduced the universe of possible suspects to something less than 126,000 had it chosen to do so. Can anyone suggest ANYONE, or ANY research or reference resource that might assist me in this regard? If so, I would greatly appreciate you 'steering' me toward virtually any morsel you can toss my way, no matter how obscure or superficially unimportant it may seem to you. Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All 'Bell System' calling cards in those days (which would have included Southern Bell) were issued by AT&T and took a format which looked like this: 312-493-3714-S-032 This would be area code and number to which card was assigned, the 'key letter' (or security code) for the current year, and the final three digits were the RAO, or regional accounting office to which charges from other telcos would be forwarded for processing, etc. The RAOs were numbered beginning with 001 in New England then the three digit number got larger as one went south and west across the USA. For example by the time one got to cards issued by the old Mountain States company the RAOs would be in the 1xx-2xx region. The 'key letter' changed each year for security reasons and was based on the fourth, fifth or sixth digit of the telephone number. Let us say in that year it was based on the fifth digit of the number example above, which is '7'. Persons whose fifth digit was 1 got key letter A. 2=D 3=J, ... 7=S ... etc. Next year, a different assortment of letters would be used, and maybe the third digit of the number was the basis. In November of each year, as telco was getting ready to issue the new calling cards for the next year (the cards were always valid January 1 through 13 months later, January 31 the next year) they would also send out a confidential memo to all Bell companies, independent telcos, and telecom administrations around the world explaining the formula for the next year, ie what digit of the phone number would be used and the key letters associated with each. A few three digit 'area codes' at the start of the number looked like 089, 126, etc and these were 'special billing' codes for things like 'non-subscriber calling cards' (no attached phone number, separate billing sent each month for military personnell, whatever). Just as in those days AT&T contracted with Southwestern Bell to handle all toll-free 800 directory assistance for anywhere in the nation, they contracted with Illinois Bell to handle calling card issuance for about half the USA, and I believe Mountain States for the rest of it, except that 'non-subscriber calling cards' were always handled for the entire country and billed each month via Cincinnati Bell. So if it was known only that a calling card ended with 'S-032' let us say, that would be RAO number 32 (Washington, DC is likely being east coast) and that one-tenth of the subscriber base (assuming an equal distribution of numbers) billed via that RAO would be the suspects in the sought-after person. If that RAO billed for a couple of area codes with a total subscriber base of 1.26 million customers, then 126,000 of them were eligible in the search. I suppose the FBI could have weeded it out further by eliminating all the congress- critters, little old ladies, and others who did not have calling cards issued against their phone numbers, but to be added in again would be all the 'non-subscriber cards', the miscellaneous billing accounts, and the phreaks, plus the fact that the operator might have misunder- stood and gotten the S32 part wrong to start with. Oh, did I mention phreaks? The problem with the over-simplistic key letter which was used for security was that Bell relied on the fact that no one would tell anyone else about their 'private number' for credit card calls. But the phreaks of the 1950-60's era might handle it this way: January 1, several would meet for a New Year's brunch and after solemnly swearing not to ever abuse each other's cards, everyone would lay their new calling card out on the table, and then proceed to examine them closely, using logic and a process of elimination. If you had three lines under your control, you would probably have three different calling cards. Maybe I had two cards, someone else also had two. My fifth digit is the same as your fifth digit but the key letters are different. That eliminates the fifth digit this year. My sixth digit is different than yours, and we have different key letters. This third person has the same sixth digit as yourself, and his key letter is the same as yours. The results would be correlated and testing was done on the spot. By the middle 1970's fraud with telephone calling cards had gotten so bad that AT&T dumped the whole system and built it from scratch with the current system of four digit PINs. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:15:43 -0700 From: Todd M. Caplan Subject: Director of Systems Engineering in a Bay Area Start-up! Organization: HiTech Communications Inc. Director of Systems Engineering Responsibilities: -Manage Systems Engineering team in the delivery of advanced system solutions to major telecom customers; from initial market requirements to tested product. Uses experience and initiative to: -Organize the team. -To be very effective in integrating silicon, algorithms and application software into successful products. -Obtain or develop applications technology for fastest time to market. -Establish predictable and repeatable development processes. -Develop and set up product verification environment. -Be a core member of the management team, including a key contributor in deciding the scope of products and services. -Establish a support group for pre- and post-sale customer assistance. Experience : -Datacom system development experience, preferably both hardware and software, with understanding of whole system requirements, including operational, management and diagnostic aspects of systems. -Experience with IP routing, switching, VOIP, VPN and QOS implementation. -Excellent project managerial skills including planning and tracking of projects based on best practices. -Good at interacting with customers, understanding their needs and managing co-development and custom projects. -Team player, whom fits in with culture and is an excellent leader and motivator of engineers and support staff. -Additional experience with ATM and frame relay an asset. Todd M. Caplan HiTech Communications Inc. Wk: 916-939-7317 Fax: 916-933-1995 E-mail: todd_c@pacbell.net ------------------------------ From: William Wheeler Subject: Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:45:53 -0700 Organization: Acta Sanctorum Corpus Ordo Vox Hermeius et Templum Reply-To: wuffa@novaroma.org Ed Ellers wrote: > This business of electronic serial numbers unique to each machine > brings up a point about those of us who assemble our own computers -- > namely, at what point does the system become "different" for purposes > of identification? > In my example, I have not gotten a completely new system since -- > gasp! -- early 1994, and even then it wasn't completely new; I built a > 40 MHz 386DX machine using the 40 Mb drive, video card and internal > modem from my 286 machine. Since then I have, approximately in this > order: > - Upgraded to a 340 Mb drive; > - Installed a Cyrix 486DX2 at 80 MHz on a VL-bus motherboard, in the same > case; ... > Now, I have nothing in this case (except the floppy drive and power > supply) that were in it when I stuck the 486 board in the case. But I > have not, in one fell swoop, bought a new computer. > So the question is, at what point(s) on that list did my system change > enough to justify identifying it as if it were a different system? > Not an easy question, huh? What the news is talking about are ID# one line in the CPU/ISP>IP# ------------------------------ From: Ling SM Subject: DAA and Leased Line Resources Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:34:07 +0800 Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd What is the best value DAA on the market? Any war-stories to share? Any good one to recommend that suppose to work both in 2 or 4 wire, dial-line or leased line. I have been searching the web for 2 days, there do not seem to have much information on leased line circuit, and what consideration should be given when interface a device to it. Can someone also points me to some resources on analog leased circuit? I need to interface a dtmf generator to a leased circuit on one end, and a detector on the other end. It is dry leased line - There is no power or dial tone when I measured the line. I need to know how much power should I configure the transmitter? Thanks. Ling SM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:42:58 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed [Begin excerpt] Arrogance at Internet Speed By Jim Louderback October 11, 1999 EBay is really starting to annoy me. It's ripping off its customers and threatening the evolution of the Internet. Did you hear about eBay's latest? Seems the auction company is about to go to court to prohibit auction-management software from "deep linking". With deep linking, one site or software links to the nether regions of another website. These links bypass the homepage and other ad-soaked impediments to consummating commerce on that other site. [End excerpt] Full story at: http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/freshgear/mindthegap/story/0%2C3679%2C2351373%2C00 .html -------------------------- Personal note: I also dislike eBay, for the simple reason that not too long after they first started out, and I had used them to both buy and sell a few items, I got an e-mail stating they had cancelled my account. They gave me no good explanation as to why, and they would not respond to my e-mail after that. Only a few days afterward, they did the exact same thing to a relative. To the best of my knowledge, neither one of us had did anything wrong or violated any of their rules. I could have easily re-registered using a different e-mail address, but why? I don't even look at eBay anymore, if I want to use an online auction I go to Yahoo or CityAuction or one of the many other auction sites on the Web. Who needs eBay? Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They can go to court with whatever they please. That won't have any effect on internet procedures involving deep linking which will remain as they have been. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Burn@D.man (Free Spirit) Subject: Re: Report: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 04:48:08 GMT Organization: Black Rock City You probably get a bigger spark turning off your car's headlights. Or opening your car door and turning on the dome light. The BP thing is utter nonsense. On 11 Oct 1999 17:24:06 -0700, mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote: > In article , Mike Pollock > wrote: >> The Reuters report at http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/991007/3t.html quotes >> Howard Miller, a spokesman for London-based BP Amoco, as saying, >> "What we're saying is turn off everything -- phones, pagers, laptops, >> diskettes -- that uses a battery." This goes right along with the > What about the alarm fob that people have on their keychains? That > uses a battery! ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 15 Oct 1999 05:00:12 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Inter-Tel/Premier Comments Wanted Our Macrotel MT-16 phone system has been barely sufficient to meet our needs since we relocated in June, even after I expanded it from 12 to its max of 16 stations. We've been offered an Inter-Tel IMX 2460 system in unused condition for $2,000. (No, I don't have a complete inventory of how many of what's included yet.) I've already learned, via the net, that the Inter-Tel IMX and Premier ESP are one and the same. What can anyone tell me, good or bad, about the Inter-Tel IMX 2460 / Premier ESP? Any experience with anyone doing repair/refurb? How reliable are the components? Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:56:58 -0400 From: Dana Paxson Reply-To: dwpaxson@acm.org Organization: Dana Paxson Studio Subject: Re: Last Laugh! This Makes Me MAD Bruce Hyman's note: > I remember MAD as essentially Fortran 4 with different names for the > same operations ... the AE Neuman picture was triggered by ANY > compilation error; so the comp center staff quickly disabled the > "feature" when they found that we entered erroneous program simply to > get the pic." This reminded me of my days at the University of Michigan in the early 1960s with friends who were taking computer programming courses. At U of M they said that 'MAD' stood for "Michigan Algorithmic Decoder". One of my friends, named Mike Bell, an avid pianist and mathematician, showed me the A. E. Neumann "What, Me Worry?" printout, which was created by overprinting multiple characters into a frieze of grayscale. Costly, and slow. And they had to disable the feature there too, for the same reason. Dana W. Paxson dwpaxson@acm.org 716 224-9356 Reality boggles everything. That's why we've got denial. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #484 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 15 20:20:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA25700; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:20:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:20:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910160020.UAA25700@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #485 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Oct 99 20:20:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 485 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) -- EXTRA (Angus TeleManagement) Toronto's New Area Code (Kevina toronto1@my-deja.com) Re: All About George Gilder (Phydeaux) Re: All About George Gilder (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: All About George Gilder (James Bellaire) Re: All About George Gilder (John Saxe) Re: All About George Gilder (Larry) Re: All About George Gilder (Andrew Green) Re: All About George Gilder (Pat Noziska) Re: All About George Gilder (World's Largest Leprechaun) Internet Information Can Now Be Stored In Digital Mobile Phone (M Solomon) Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail (Bruce Wilson) Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail (David Clayton) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Greg Skinner) 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, 15 Oct 1999 11:06:06 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) -- EXTRA TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin http://www.angustel.ca Number 203b: October 15, 1999 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: AT&T Canada ...................... http://www.attcanada.com/ Bell Canada ............................ http://www.bell.ca/ Lucent Technologies .................. http://www.lucent.ca/ Sprint Canada .................. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ Teleglobe Business Services........ http://www.teleglobe.ca/ Telus Communications.................. http://www.telus.com/ TigerTel Services ................. http://www.tigertel.com/ ************************************************************ Telecom Update Extra: THE BATTLE FOR CALL-NET: CRESCENDO WINS IN THE BACK ROOMS Crescendo Partners has won the battle for Call-Net. That wasn't obvious at yesterday's shareholders' meeting, which convened six and a half hours late and lasted only four minutes. The real decisions were made in Bay Street's back rooms, and announced later. The shareholders' meeting will reconvene on Tuesday, to rubber-stamp a four-point plan: ** Call-Net will elect a new Board of Directors, with three representatives from Crescendo, two of the current independent directors, two new independent directors, and the three current representatives of Sprint Corporation. ** All of the Board members, excluding the Sprint representatives, will form a committee "to actively pursue the sale of the Company, in whole or in part, and other strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value." ** Crescendo will withdraw its motion to replace the Board and terminate its attempt to get bondholders' approval for a Board change. ** Kevin Bennis, the COO who was hired less than two weeks ago, is Call-Net's new CEO and President, replacing Juri Koor. Crescendo will nominate a new Chief Financial Officer to replace Vince Salvati. Obviously, Angus TeleManagement Group wasn't in the back rooms, but here's what we think happened, based on very limited public information. The planned merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint Corporation placed a big question mark over Call-Net's future, and seriously eroded shareholder confidence in current management. Despite brave words, Call-Net could not get the new expanded agreement with Sprint it had promised to present at the meeting. Yesterday morning, Call-Net's Board made a last-ditch attempt to win support from major shareholders by firing Juri Koor and Vince Salvati. That attempt failed: Crescendo had a majority of the votes. But Crescendo didn't have the approval of the bondholders, to whom Call-Net owes over $2 Billion. Without that approval, Call-Net could be forced into bankruptcy 40 days after a change in control. That meant that Crescendo could not take over the company, although it could use its votes to adjourn the meeting until the bondholders did agree. Crescendo signaled its intent to do that at 11 am by extending its offer to the bondholders to October 21, after Call-Net's next quarterly results are published. Convinced that eventual defeat was inevitable, Call-Net's Board agreed to a compromise which allowed it to save face, but not much else. The compromise deal gives Crescendo only three votes on an 10-member Board, but that is just the formal structure, designed to avoid triggering the "change in control" provisions of Call-Net's debt. In reality, Crescendo got what it wanted. Call-Net's current management is out, and its "Canadian focused business plan" is history. The new Board will try to sell the company, either as a whole or in pieces. Now the search for a buyer begins. Crescendo has said that 10 organizations have expressed interest, but only BCT.Telus has said so publicly. Stay tuned ... this industry never slows down. ** Watch for a full analysis of the Call-Net battle in the November-December issue of Telemanagement, available by subscription on the Telemanagement Home Page at www.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 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: kevina_toronto1@my-deja.com Subject: Toronto's New Area Code Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:16:39 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. As you maybe aware Toronto's new area code will be 647. Bell Canada has said that this area code will be an overlay however many people here do not like this plan and want an area code split. Several proposals have been made to split the city of Toronto's area code they include: 1. The district(s) of East York, York, and Toronto retaining the 416 area code, and the district(s) of Etobiocke, North York, and Scarborough moving to the new area code. 2. A split straight down Yonge Street. The West end of the city getting one code, and the east end another. 3. A wireless overlay, that is cells, pcs, pagers moving to the new area code. This will free up many numbers for land phone usage. Bell has said that the new area code will be in effect in 2001. I have noticed that I can dial numbers within 416 as 10-digit numbers, as I do to reach 905 numbers. Another thing I have noticed is that as soon as I enter 647 (three digits only!!!) I get a fast busy signal. Is this usual?? (b.t.w. I use Sprint for local, not Bell.) ------------------------------ From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:04:42 EDT Pat, I found it quite enlightening to read that account of George Gilder. For quite some time I've been wondering how this George Gilder could *possibly* be the same George Gilder whose book, "Visible Man" I read in college. What is this guy doing writing about technology the way he does? Given the subject and tone of the book I read and of "Sexual Suicide" which my professor quoted from and read from during the discussions, I had a lot of unanswered questions. This has always clouded my impressions of his writings that have appeared your Digest. Now I see that I am not alone in wondering about how this can be the same person. reb reb@taco.com ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:54:55 -0500 > (I found this in this week's SEATTLE WEEKLY) > Techno-tyrants > BY EMILY WHITE I considered a lengthy critique, but decided it was more efficient to summarize thus: I need to get a subscription to "Seattle Weekly," because Emily White is every bit as entertaining as Dave Barry. Plus her articles are longer. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:14:27 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: All About George Gilder > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Over the years that George Gilder's > essays have appeared in this Digest, I've always received positive > responses from readers after seeing them. A dozen or so are housed > in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org/archives > So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see this 'alternative point > of view' about Gilder when it arrived in my mail today. Read it > and see what you think. Replies will be quite welcome. PAT] > Techno-tyrants > BY EMILY WHITE OK, I read it. From what I can tell Ms. White had a lousy lunch. That cannot be blamed on Mr. Gilder. Nor can her outsider's OPINION that the black and women members of the institute are tokens. Should she ask these members if they are tokens she would be set straight. As far as Mr. Gilder's views in the 70's, I'd like to see how much Ms. Whites views and writing topics has changed over nearly 30 years. (Assuming that she was even alive then.) We have a president that is accepted because he didn't inhale and was impeached and taken to trial. America seems to have forgiven him, why can't Ms. White forgive Mr. Gilder? Sorry ... but Ms. White is not going to convince me that Gilder is bad. I've also read Gilder's articles as published by TELECOM Digest. And I take them at face value understanding the issues in those writings. Ms. White's opinions have not changed my opinion of Mr. Gilder's writing either. James Bellaire ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:45:45 -0400 From: John Saxe Subject: Re: All About George Gilder A quick Hotbot search led to www.seattleweekly.com, revealing that it is a member of the Stern group of publications, whose flagship is the Village Void ^H^H^H^H Voice, a rag that has long since passed it's glory days (c. 1959?), and is now distributed free for tourists who carry it around in hopes of looking like "hip New Yorkers". *You're* bummed, Pat? I spent over $40k for three years of grad school to listen to this kind of drivel on a daily basis. In short -- consider the source ... or perhaps write the Weekly: Letters to the Editor: letters@seattleweekly.com Email one of the freelance writers (please note who): freelance@seattleweekly.com Don't let a "Professional victim" wreck your day! ------------------------------ From: Larry Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:12:12 -0400 Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated This bit of writing, while very well done, is deceptive at best, and downright evil at worst. Blending together fact and opinion without apparent distinction, Emily White (about whom I can find no information), writing in an "alternative" newspaper, uses her space to denigrate Mr. Gilder to the absolute best of her ability. Because it is so unclear what is fact and what is White's opinion I discount the entire article. In addition, it is clear that Ms. White has her own agenda forefront in her mind when writing -- and don't let facts get in the way. This writer does not have a problem with just George Gilder, White, apparently, has a problem with all white people, all men, our society in general, and, especially, those who don't agree with her. George Gilder may or may not be a closet bigot -- but nothing this person writes amounts to a hill of beans in my opinion and I certainly won't be swayed by polemics of this kind. This sort of writing, again, in my opinion, is downright dishonest in that it attributes the writer's negative view of society as a whole to a specific individual. The last eight or ten paragraphs of this diatribe deal with an event at which Gilder was not even present. White even stoops so far as to imply that the one individual she spoke to there who supported Gilder may have been on drugs. Bottom line: I wouldn't believe anything this person wrote as the column in questions shows clearly that she cannot be trusted with presenting undistorted facts. Does anyone else know anything about this Emily White person? I am assuming she is a woman, but that's just an assumption on my part. Larry ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:25:00 -0500 Our moderator notes: > So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see this 'alternative > point of view' about Gilder when it arrived in my mail today. > Read it and see what you think. I read the piece twice, since I finished the first pass in a state of disbelief about how extremely angry Ms. White seems to be about, well, just about everything, from the quality of a congressman's hairstyle to the taste of her salad. Buried within this testy nitpicking of all and sundry is the germ of an idea that she does not like what others are discussing about our future; she cannot quite grasp or describe what it is they're talking about, but by golly it's probably evil. It's hard to take a position for or against Ms. White's view of the topic when she doesn't particularly have one of her own. No one quote could quite sum up this rambling stream-of-consciousness tirade since so many topics go flying by, pausing only for a quick insult or two to be applied, but I had to smile at one in particular which illustrates the lack of thinking being expressed in general: > The Discovery Institute's literature features him prominently; > on its Web site you can click into the Gilder archives -- all > George, all the time. Amazing: the George Gilder archive contains ... George Gilder. Perhaps there will eventually be an Emily White archive, too, but it doesn't sound like she would want to let anybody in. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 ------------------------------ From: Pat Noziska Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:02:31 -0700 Organization: Aracnet Internet The best thing I can say about Ms. White's piece is, "Consider the source." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that SEATTLE WEEKLY is one of those far-left-leaning "alternative" newspapers that usually employ reporters and columnists that are too leftist in their world view even for the liberally-biased mainstream print media. And of cource, the use of the word "sh**ty" shows she is indeed a lady of class. :-) But what can you expect from a lady who carries an attitude of total unhappiness unless she has something to complain about. I know her type well. To her, *anyone* who dares contend that people just might be personally responsible for their own lot in life, or that there may be genetic behavioral differences between the sexes, or that dependency begets dependency, or that government shouldn't be micromanaging every aspect of our lives, is a right-wing troglodyte. Gilder may be a throwback in some respects, but in this age where popular culture lends you credence only if your orthodoxy is politically correct (read left), I must admire his courage to express what he sees (and on many points I see) as axomiatic. What Ms. White considers a "backward world view," I believe most people privately regard as common sense, although they dare not admit it publicly for fear of being wrongly painted with an extremist brush by their friends or associates, or not getting invited to the right cocktail parties anymore. I applaud George Gilder in the same manner I applaud Jesse Ventura -- he unapologetically calls'em like he sees 'em. ------------------------------ From: sicherman@lucent.com (World's Largest Leprechaun) Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: 15 Oct 1999 20:49:58 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Over the years that George Gilder's > essays have appeared in this Digest, I've always received positive > responses from readers after seeing them. A dozen or so are housed > in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org/archives > So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see this 'alternative point > of view' about Gilder when it arrived in my mail today. Read it > and see what you think. Replies will be quite welcome. PAT] Thanks for forwarding this, Tad! I agree with many of Gilder's technological points, but I also agree with Ms. White that his vision is clouded by his ignorant social prejudices and his loyalty to Mammon. For balance, I'd like to have Ms. White interview the Moderator, who is distinguished by informed social prejudices and chronic hostility from the god of Money. Col. G. L. Sicherman work: sicherman@lucent.com home: colonel@mail.monmouth.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had forgotten about it, but Gilder's two early books 'Visible Man' and 'Sexual Suicide' both were reviewed in the {Christian Science Monitor} I think about 1975. A rather lengthy review, it took most of a page in that day's paper to discuss them both, and a discussion group I was involved with at the time used that review plus comments by members of the group who had read one or both of the books for three consecutive meetings. I was one of the discussion leaders occassionally for the group, which was called 'Brown Bag Seminar' which met once weekly during the noon hour at the Chicago Temple building downtown for bring-your-own-lunch and a 45-minute discussion period, frequently with a guest speaker. I am sorry, I do not remember what consensus was reached, if any, nor the points raised by the Monitor writer who reviewed the books. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:30:16 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Information Can Now Be Stored In Digital Mobile Phones Paragon Software's Fonesync Technology Leading Internet Companies, Excite@Home and Lycos Choose Paragon's Synchronization Technology San Jose, Calif. (October 13, 1999) - Paragon Software, the leading developer of synchronization software for use with digital mobile phones, today announced an alliance with Internet leaders Excite@Home (Nasdaq: ATHM) and Lycos (NASDAQ: LCOS), that will enable Internet content such as yellow and white pages directories from Lycos and online address books from Excite@Home to be easily downloaded and stored in digital mobile phones for instant access any time, any place. Paragon is the sole provider of synchronization technology that enables Internet and PC content to be stored in digital mobile phones. http://www.lycos.com/press/fonesync.html ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 15 Oct 1999 13:06:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail > Find yourself one of the old Natural Microsystems cards and put it in > a PC. Ours is running software dated (c)1984 on an old 486 running > some old OS called "DOS" for "Disk Operating System" (I hear the > kid that invented it has done real well for himself). > Sorry I don't know where to tell you to start looking. I traded a > modem for ours years and years ago. If anyone wants one, I've got one in a box, with documentation (if I can find it). Might even have more than one board. (It's been a long time since I had reason to look at the thing.) Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Wanted: Stand-Alone Auto Attendant + Voice Mail Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:01:42 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Daniel Aharonoff contributed the following: > I've spend a few hours looking for a stand-alone automated attendant > with voice mail capabilities within a budget of under $1k w/o much > luck. Any ideas if such a thing exists and what sites I could head to > to find out more? Vodavi make a little voice mail/Auto Attendant box called "Expresso" (which works with in-band SMDI) which may do what you want, but I doubt if it's under $1K. It is a DOS based system with from 2 to 8 analogue ports from a Dialogic card. I think www.vodavi.com/ will get you more info. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Date: 15 Oct 1999 19:59:57 GMT In article , Pat Townson wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is too bad there is not something > equivilent to *67 Caller-ID blocking where the internet is concerned. > There ought to be a way to prepend some phrase or symbol to the > address of a site you are visiting which says 'do not release any > information about who I am or where I came from, etc.' Then the > site you wish to visit could either accept you or reject you, just > as is done with Caller-ID on the telephone now. PAT] Hmmm ... By the time the packet has arrived at the destination site, the destination already "knows" where the packet has come from (because the source IP is in the header). So at the very least, the site could log the source IP addresses of sites that it has rejected for non-compliance of its access policy. In fact, logging of IP addresses is necessary in some cases, e.g. as a defense against cracking, spamming, etc. gds at best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since you say logging of IP addresses is necessary as a defense against cracking and spamming, then I will suggest it would also be extremly helpful if caller-ID on the phone was displayed everytime without fail also. That would be most helpful to a lot of people. I was talking mainly about going to various web sites. Of course they have to know who you are in order to return the page to you, but I would like to see the *easy* ability given to users to have the log entry at that end read 'none of your business' or similar. Anyone who tests my http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html in connection with a site where they can the view the logs and know what the answer should be will see the log gives totally bogus information. Yes it can be done now if you are experienced in changing the code in your browser, but it is difficult for the average user. I'd like the ability to prepend some little character or another to the URL which told my browser 'go get it, return with it of course, but leave some junk in his log instead of the real details.' Sites that did not like that would always have the ability to reject anonymous callers, the same as you can do on the phone now if you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #485 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 15 23:13:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA01772; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:13:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910160313.XAA01772@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #486 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Oct 99 23:13:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 486 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Calling (Credit) Card Circa '63 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: All About George Gilder (Cortland Richmond) Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed (Cortland Richmond) Re: Strange Caller ID Number (Larry) Re: Strange Caller ID Number (Bob Goudreau) Wiretapping the Net: Oh, Brother (Monty Solomon) Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (Monty Solomon) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Larry) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Justa Lurker) Yes, There is a Sign (Michael Muderick) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (Joseph Singer) NEC NEAX2000 Phone System For Sale (Dennis Willis) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Bruce Wilson) "AOL Everywhere" Gets a Boost From Motorola (Monty Solomon) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (rgreene9277@my-deja.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: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:40:08 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Calling (Credit) Card Circa '63 > A Southern Bell TT operator reported to FBI that a man making credit > card calls from a motel in suburban Atlanta made several attempts to > phone the two principal suspects in the crime prior to its occurance. > The SBTT operator was likely an FBI 'Confidential Informant,' though > that part of the pertinent FBI document remains redacted. The operator > remembered that the final sequence in the credit card used by the 'motel > caller' was "S32." > A subsequent FBI doc revealed that "S32" connoted the card was issued > in the Washington, DC area, and that there were 126,000 such active > cards issued in the Washington area. ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All 'Bell System' calling cards in those > days (which would have included Southern Bell) were issued by AT&T and > took a format which looked like this: > 312-493-3714-S-032 > This would be area code and number to which card was assigned, the > 'key letter' (or security code) for the current year, and the final > three digits were the RAO, or regional accounting office to which > charges from other telcos would be forwarded for processing, etc. ... > So if it was known only that a calling card ended with 'S-032' let > us say, that would be RAO number 32 (Washington, DC is likely being > east coast) and that one-tenth of the subscriber base (assuming an > equal distribution of numbers) billed via that RAO would be the > suspects in the sought-after person. FYI, I just took a look at the RAO Directory, available from Telcordia (formerly Bellcore), and RAO (REVENUE Accounting Office) #032 _IS_ to this day assigned to the DC Area for accounts with Bell Atlantic, formerly known as C&P (Chesapeake & Potomoc) Telephone. RAO Code assignments rarely change much. There are many MORE RAOs today than there were back in the 1970's, 60's, 50's, etc. So, a telephone credit-card which ended '-S-032' in 1963 would have been one issued by the Bell System's "Chesapeake and Potomoc Telephone Company" to a customer or account _IN_ Washington DC. (Customers/accounts in the Maryland suburbs have been handled by the C&P/BA RAO for MD; likewise, Virginia suburbs customers/accounts have been handled by the C&P/BA RAO for VA). MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:52:29 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: All About George Gilder It ain't necessarily Telecom (grin) but... Even a blind worm catches a robin once in a while, and even a wacko can make sense on some things. We don't throw out the sensible stuff because he's off on others. OTOH: Once in a while I read a Futurist magazine or essays by this ilk. I look at the gleaming, telecom-linked new cities depicted, and wonder, "Where are the garbage collectors? For all those fields in the greenbelt, where are the crop pickers? For all the information economy, who delivers pizza, and how does the milk get out of a cow and into the refrigerator?" I don't see much in the way of answers. In a world of Universal Access, some folks never look below the 10th floor. Except when something breaks that people actually have to FIX. Ahem. Rant off, now. Sorry about that! Cortland On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, John Saxe (JXS@guggenheim.org) wrote, > *You're* bummed, Pat? I spent over $40k for three years of grad > school to listen to this kind of drivel on a daily basis. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:34:08 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed I tried the "full story at" URL (see below) and got the following message: "Sorry We were unable to find the page you requested." Could it be ZDNet doesn't allow deep linking? Ironic, what? Cortland On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Jack Decker (jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net) wrote: > http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/freshgear/mindthegap/story/0%2C3679%2C2351373%2C00 .html ------------------------------ From: Larry Subject: Re: Strange Caller ID Number Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:18:12 -0400 Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated George Beuselinck wrote in message news: telecom19.481.16@telecom-digest.org: > Hmmm, just got a phone call from someone, didn't identify himself, with > the following number displayed on the caller id: > 902163463654 > Any idea of what this might really be? Foreign country? Just an error > in the database? Could be someone trying to "spoof" the Caller ID box by sending tones after ringing begins. Or is could just be some strange PBX kinda thing. LL ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:03:42 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Strange Caller ID Number gb944@mindspring.com (George Beuselinck) wrote: > Hmmm, just got a phone call from someone, didn't identify himself, with > the following number displayed on the caller id: > 902163463654 > Any idea of what this might really be? Foreign country? Just an error > in the database? The World Telephone Numbering Guide (http://phonebooth.interocitor.net/wtng/) lists +90 216 as an area code for the Asian side of Istanbul, and notes that Turkish local phone numbers have seven digits. So, I think you got a call from the number +90 216 346-3654 in Istanbul. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:30:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wiretapping the Net: Oh, Brother by Declan McCullagh 7:00 p.m. 12.Oct.99.PDT Since its humble beginning as a 15-person committee in 1986, the Internet Engineering Task Force has had one guiding principle: To solve the problems of moving digital information around the world. As attendance at meetings swelled and the Internet became a vital portion of national economies, the standards-setting body has become increasingly important, but the engineers and programmers who are members remained focused on that common goal. No longer. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,31853,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:57:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Is that all there is? After months of controversy and 1960s-style protests on whether cable lines should be pried open to everyone for high-speed Net access, the FCC issued a report that effectively said, "Let's wait." But government bureaucracy makes for dull news, so media outlets made quick work of the report before tuning in to the decision's angry opponents, who made better copy. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6977,00.html ------------------------------ From: Larry Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:22:35 -0400 Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote in message news: telecom19.482.7@telecom-digest.org: > Actually, the problem with wanting a no-wireless-phones symbol at gas > stations is a case of the legal system not recognizing the charact- > eristics of the technology. The gasoline company lawyers are > following the lead of the lawyer labels on wireless phones. The > wireless phone lawyers are protecting against something much less > likely than problems due to static electricity from to synthetic > clothing material. So what's the international sign for "no clothing"? LL ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:29:12 GMT It was Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:20:09 -0400, and Walter Dnes wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > Is it legal to shield a room/theater/restaurant (i.e. a Faraday Cage) > or has some idiot court already awarded damages to a cellphone user > who couldn't be reached for an important call? I don't believe the courts have had the opportunity to speak. Has anyone actually set up a Faraday theatre (and properly posted the fact that cellphones and pagers will be inoperative)? Properly posted, it would be the 'idiot' at fault for not recieving their important call, not the theatre. > How expensive is it to shield a large room? Worst case is a layer of > metal foil on four walls, ceiling, and floor. Will wire mesh be > sufficient? What about a bunch of "re-inforcing metal rods" in the > walls which "just happen" to be a half-wave or full-wave long at > cellular frequencies? And they "just happen" to be spaced such that > they form a vertically stacked dipole array that has a null lobe > pointing at the nearest cell tower? The theater in my town (the stage version, not motion pictures) just happens to have a cell array on the roof. The Faraday cage idea would probably be the best, as "the nearest cell tower" tends to be a moving target. (Ten mile spacing has gone to two or three miles over the last five years.) JL ------------------------------ From: Michael Muderick Subject: Yes, There is a Sign Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:06:15 EDT Seton Identification products has a sign on page 184 of its catalog, www.seton.com, "THE USE OF CELLULAR PHONES IS PROHIBITED. 18 GUAGE STEEL, 20 X 14" 800-345-7819 It has international symbol for prohibited and a cellphone. ------------------------------ Reply-To: dov@oz.net Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:15:23 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- > scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal > seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach > them.) > I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? My guess is that this does not exist though I cannot say this with any authority. Most usually the towns that had five digit (and sometimes four and three for very small towns) also had switching equipment such as step-by-step or CX equipment that could absorb extra digits. Also many small towns only had dialing within that town and did not have any "expanded" service to other towns so basically they were "unto themselves." Even in larger cities five-digit dialing was permitted. When CO codes were originally assigned many towns/cities had CO code that was similar throughout a city so that in fact you could have five-digit calling within the city. In Portland, Maine for example you had the exchanges SPruce 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 (really South Portland, but included as Portland) where you could dial local calls with just the last five numericals. Telco arranged switching so that you could dial five digits within the exchange itself, but had to dial full seven digits to dial another different office. In 1963 Portland changed to ANC (all number calling) and also introduced one of the first #5 crossbar exchanges. #5XB exchanges would only let you dial seven digits (probably I'd guess because of the "storing" technology in common control type switching.) Rather than have people use "mixed" dialing telco indicated in dialing instructions that you were to dial all five digits even though in many exchanges you still could complete a local call with just the last five digits. With the advent of common control switching such as #5XB and ESS this abbreviated dialing ceased. I believe that these common control switching systems were expecting you to input either seven or ten digits and the only way you could have five digit dialing is if there was a "time out" on calls. My guess is that the only way you could have abbreviated dialing today is if the exchange that you are in is so local that they only can dial within the exchange and have no connectivity to anything outside. I'd also guess that telco included instructions to dial all seven to put some uniformity in the dialing procedure. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: Dennis Willis Reply-To: dwillis@unicarecorp.com Organization: Unicare Corporation Subject: NEC NEAX2000 Phone System For Sale Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:52:12 -0400 Details on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181052163 Please send all replies or questions to dwillis@unicarecorp.com ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 15 Oct 1999 13:17:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More I don't know if this is what's being sought or not, but I've never had a problem just dialing "0" and asking the operator for the exchange name that goes with an area code and prefix. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 02:27:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Everywhere Gets a Boost From Motorola Stir together two hot technology trends - instant messaging and portable telecomms - and what do you get? Ink. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6978,00.html ------------------------------ From: rgreene9277@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:51:56 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Yeah, I've been getting similar results with Visitalk. I've been using it for a few days now and the service has been nothing but great. It doesn't cost a dime (other than the necessary equipment and your Internet connection) but the results far outweigh the investment. Visitalk makes it so easy to reach people with the PCN number system and if they're not online, the voicemail feature allows you to talk to them to get them online. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #486 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 16 18:50:28 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA03434; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:50:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:50:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910162250.SAA03434@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #487 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Oct 99 18:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 487 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report (Satch) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Leonard Erickson) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Adam Sampson) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Adam Sampson) Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed (Lou Coles) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (John R. Covert) Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? (Seymour Dupa) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Greg Skinner) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Bruce Wilson) Re: Inter-Tel/Premier Comments Wanted (Tom Thiel) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (John David Galt) Confusion Over Leased Lines (at506@my-deja.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: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:58:36 GMT From: satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) Subject: Re: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly monty@roscom.com (Monty Solomon) said on 14 Oct 1999 in the following: > The monitoring sessions invited key industry stakeholders to weigh in > with their opinions and observations. These included representatives > from Internet service providers, online service providers, local > exchange carriers, long distance telephone companies, cable operators, > community organizations, financial analysts, academics and local > franchising authorities (LFAs). Notice who is missing: the customers. (Perhaps I should say "consumers"?) The people who are actually using the product appears to be shut out completely. I'm not sure why, but I've noticed that this seems to be the trend in "modern" business to avoid talking to the people who plunk down the dollars. Missing are the gamers who are in search of low ping times, and are willing to spend the money to get it. Missing are the people who are working on the next killer app for the Internet, an app whose transmission model may not exactly fit the cable transmission model. (Notice that "academics" have been allowed -- I wonder what the qualifications have to be to get on the committee.) And why are the financial analysts invited? _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" www.fluent-access.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They never invite customers to take part in those things, you should know that. You are just the person they have to deal with in order to get the money. The financial analysts on the internet are the only ones who know anything, that is why they are present. It would be better if you could just take all your money, have it delivered to them without any return address on the envelope, and vanish. But since that is unlikely, well they have to grit their teeth and have someone deal with you, as much as they dislike it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:46:38 PST Organization: Shadownet catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) writes: > In article , The Old Bear > wrote: >> Of course, if you want a telephone line that just lets you talk >> digitally to the central office switch with no need for things like AC >> ring signal voltages, pulse- or tone- conversions, dial-tone >> generation, analog audio signals to report call progress ("ringing"/ >> "busy"), etc., you can order an ISDN BRI. But that will cost you a >> lot more. > Bizarrely, my BRI line (Ohio, Ameritech) supports analog pulse > dialing. I doubt it. More likely the ISDN "adapter" that you've plugged the non-ISDN gear that is doing the pulse dialing into is what supports pulse dialing. Remember, dialing goes as digital data on the *D* channel. The *line* only supports pure digital data in some fairly limited formats. The box it terminates in at your end is what is doing all the supporting. It's late and I don't recall the proper term for said "box". Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:14:58 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Reply-To: azz@gnu.org Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll suggest that within the next > two or three years, most ISPs will in fact be telcos. Do readers > agree? PAT] In Britain, telecommunications companies (rather than telephone companies, of which we don't have that many) are buying out or creating ISPs. So, in a sense, many of the larger ISPs here (Demon, BTnet, Screaming.net) are already telcos. Adam Sampson [Sussex, England] azz@gnu.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:03:56 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Reply-To: azz@gnu.org Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? >> It would be simple to extend the "you may not make a telephone call >> without the intent to communicate" law to cover email. > Is there such a law? I would like to see it enforced against > telemarketers who use "predictive dialers" to make lots of hangup > calls. As far as I recall, there is a law saying more-or-less this in the UK. We don't have much trouble with telemarketers hanging up on us (although we still get the occasional "Hello, would you like to take part in a survey?" "No. " call). Adam Sampson [Sussex, England] azz@gnu.org ------------------------------ From: Lou Coles Subject: Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:21:18 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises just add the .html Cortland Richmond wrote in message news:telecom19.486.3@telecom-digest.org: > I tried the "full story at" URL (see below) and got the following > message: > "Sorry > > We were unable to find the page you requested." > Could it be ZDNet doesn't allow deep linking? > Ironic, what? > On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Jack Decker > (jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net) wrote: >> http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/freshgear/mindthegap/story/0%2C3679%2C2351373%2C00 .html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:11:32 -0400 From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Bruce Wilson wrote: > I've never had a problem just dialing "0" and asking the operator > for the exchange name that goes with an area code and prefix. Well, Bruce, that's why the original poster wrote, "Any More". First of all, "0" gets you your local operator, not a long-distance operator. So for example, I will now pick up my phone, dial "0", and ask, "Can you please tell me where 310 376 is located". The answer, from Bell Atlantic, is "I'm sorry, I don't have exchanges, but you can get that by dialing 411." The local operator used to provide exchanges within your LATA, but Bell Atlantic won't do that anymore either. Now, of course, I knew that 411 wouldn't have the required info either, for a number outside the area. But I did what the operator told me (using up one of my four allowed D.A. calls this month). The answer was, "In 617, 310 is ..., in 508, 310 is ..." I interrupted the operator and said, "No, I want to know the town for area code 310, exchange 376." The answer: "That's California, but I can't tell you what city." Nothing really new here, other than having to go to directory assistance; the same dialogue would have previously ensued with the "0" operator (ever since the breakup of the Bell System). You have to go to a long-distance company for anything outside your area. So we call "00" on a line PIC'd to AT&T and ask the question. "Would you like me to place a call for you?" "No, I'd like to know where that is located." And a _recording_ comes on, saying, "That information is now provided by AT&T Double-Oh Info. Please hold while I connect you." I hung up, not wanting to spend money. On another line, PIC'd to MCI, the information was gladly provided. But not for long, I suspect. /john ------------------------------ From: Seymour Dupa Subject: Re: Is There a Standard "Do Not Use Cell Phone" Sign? Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Date: 16 Oct 1999 17:35:28 GMT Larry wrote: > So what's the international sign for "no clothing"? A "smiley" face. If You Always Do the Things You've Done, You'll Always Have the Things You Got. ------------------------------ From: gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Organization: a user of Best Internet Communications, Inc. www.best.com Date: 16 Oct 1999 18:44:48 GMT In article , Pat Townson wrote: > I was talking mainly about going to various web sites. Of course > they have to know who you are in order to return the page to you, > but I would like to see the *easy* ability given to users to have > the log entry at that end read 'none of your business' or similar. That would be difficult to do because the part of the log that you are most concerned with (IP address of sender) is not something that a user can disguise, unless they are able to forge IP addresses somehow. They can, however, hide behind proxies, as you noted. But they then lose the benefit of end-to-end connectivity. gds at best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I guess what I had better do soon is print one of my occassional tutorials. This one would be on the topic of how to make your browser send out complete lies to the other end, and otherwise confuse things as much as possible. Heck, spammers and others do it all the time, so why shouldn't the rest of us. Maybe what I will do also is encourage people to simply begin using my http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html as their 'start page' for each browsing session or how to incorporate the pertinent parts of it directly in their browser software. PAT] ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 16 Oct 1999 19:02:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More FWIW, I just dialed "0" for a US West operator, asked for the exchange name that went with 281-648, and was told it's Friendswood, Texas. (There was a bit of confusion at first, when she thought I was asking for 281 within my own 515 area code, which is, as I already knew, in Des Moines, rather than for a number within the 281 area code.) Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: tthiel@slonet.org (Tom Thiel) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel/Premier Comments Wanted Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:10:08 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com I've installed and maintained the ESP 2460 for about ten years. I don't believe that it is still being produced, but I could be wrong. Refurb phones and cards are easily available. Several companies can refurb your exsisting phones when they fail. Be aware that it requires three-pair wiring, instead of the more "normal" two-pairs used by your Macrotel. This is to provide Off Hook Voice Announce (the ability to receive a voice intercom call while you're already on the handset on an outside call). Programming is done through a PC connected to the serial port. No special software (other than terminal software) is required. Be sure to get the Installation and Programming manual, so you can program the thing. All in all, like any other system, once you become familiar with it, it is a nice system. However, now that we sell only Lucent as new systems, I much prefer the Partner and Legend systems. On 15 Oct 1999 05:00:12 GMT, blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) wrote: > Our Macrotel MT-16 phone system has been barely sufficient to meet our > needs since we relocated in June, even after I expanded it from 12 to > its max of 16 stations. We've been offered an Inter-Tel IMX 2460 > system in unused condition for $2,000. (No, I don't have a complete > inventory of how many of what's included yet.) I've already learned, > via the net, that the Inter-Tel IMX and Premier ESP are one and the > same. > What can anyone tell me, good or bad, about the Inter-Tel IMX 2460 / > Premier ESP? Any experience with anyone doing repair/refurb? How > reliable are the components? Tom Thiel tthiel@slonet.org "Remember, it don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi" - Peter Schickele (PDQ Bach) ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Association for Computing Machinery Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:40:20 GMT The last time I was in a BP station, a pickup truck pulled in next to me and proceeded to fill up WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING THE ENTIRE TIME. I told the clerk about it and she shrugged. Somehow I doubt this rule will ever be enforced. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: at506@my-deja.com Subject: Confusion Over Leased Lines Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 03:26:32 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I think I understand the concept of a leased line, but am struggling with the physical implementation. For instance, suppose my company is headquartered in Chicago, and we're opening a branch office in Dallas and we want a leased-line connection back to headquarters. I call the phone company in Dallas, and that's where it starts to get fuzzy for me. I'm guessing that the phone company will then physically string a new cable from my building to their central office in Dallas, and coordinate with the Chicago phone company to physically string a new cable from their Chicago central office to our headquarters building. Is that right? If so, how do we know the data is secure on the trip from Dallas to Chicago, and that the bandwidth will always be available? Thanks in advance, and sorry if it's a naive question. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They will not 'physically string a new cable' for it. They will use an existing pair from their central office to your branch location. Then in the CO they will permanently tie that pair up to something coming north to Chicago. Along the way, the same thing will happen enroute as needed. Once it reaches Chicago, the telco will use an existing pair to reach your location. If it is a 'ring-down' type arrangement, then when the phone on either end goes off-hook, the phone on the other end will begin ringing (or the equipment installed will begin answering, etc). The common name which applied to that kind of service for many years was a 'tie-line'. If either end needs to be able to reach various locations at the other end, then instead of terminating the ends on phone instruments, you terminate them on a switchboard so that either end seizing the circuit is responded to with dialtone from the switchboard on the other end, and can then dial the desired extension, or '9' for a local line in the distant community. There are numerous variations on what can be done at either end, including having the switchboard on either end be in total control and the opposite end serving as an OPX, or Off-Premises-Extension. The only thing is, most 'tie-line' or 'foreign-exchange' service can get to be rather expensive each month, and with the cost of long distance calls becoming less and less expensive, you would really need to have that circuit loaded almost around the clock before you got to the point that the rate per minute of use became less than a properly controlled direct dial long-distance call to the same place. Typically, FX/tie-line service is the domain of extremely large, multi-location corporations with thousands of employees, one or more of whom is going to be on the phone to the distant location at almost any minute of the day. And then, with an attentive telecom administrator observing the traffic to keep blocking at -- in his opinion -- an acceptable level during the busy hours, etc ... doing it that way, years ago, it could pay off for the company. With long distance rates for bulk pur- chase now being just pennies per minute with one or six-second billing, I'd be reluctant to recommend FX/tie-lines except in a few exceptional cases. Do you care to discuss your particular application in more detail? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #487 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 17 18:39:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA11205; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:39:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910172239.SAA11205@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #488 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Oct 99 18:39:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 488 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Operators ('00') and Area Code 'Lookups' (Mark J. Cuccia) Conference on Next Generation Enterprises at SUNY Buffalo (A. Subramania) Channelization of a T3 or a DS3 (Michael E. Winsett) Re: All About George Gilder (Fred Goldstein) Re: FCC Setting Technology Standard to Locate 911 Calls (Alan Boritz) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Rates From Canada to Germany (Peter Borowski) Re: Confusion Over Leased Lines (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Confusion Over Leased Lines (Steve Winter) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Ed Ellers) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Derek Balling) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (David Clayton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 16 Oct 1999 19:47:33 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T Operators ('00') and Area Code 'Lookups' There have been recent postings regarding the recent (since mid-May of this year) practice of AT&T's '00' OSPS Operators transferring customers who request Area Code, Country Code, "Nameplace", Dialing instructions, etc. information or lookups, over to the $1.00 a pop "AT&T Double-Oh Information". I'd even made a post about this back in May (or June) to TELECOM Digest, shortly after AT&T started charging. MOST Local telco 'single-0' operators might be able to give such numbering and dialing information (with geographic assignments) on requests for places within one's area code, LATA, and/or the state(s) served by that LEC. But I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some LEC TOPS (or OSPS) operators have discontinued that practice as well, even for things in the LATA or service area! OR, telling everyone to call (CHARGEABLE) 411 - or even transferring the caller to 411, with its own charge AND the added operator-connect charge! BUT US-West LEC Operators still _DO_ give numbering/dialing information for all North American Numbering Plan NPAs/NPA-NXXs, at NO charge to the calling party! This includes NPAs in Canada, the Caribbean, or Pacific areas covered by the NANP. This is the "real" US-West I'm referring to, _NOT_ the sub-contracted out service that US-West has with Frontier, on 1-800-4-US-WEST. As for AT&T's explanation of their new "policy", I've gotten the following responses from operators, supervisors, and customer service, some of which I seriously doubt is true, the rest I KNOW is a lie! - "Your local telco operator can provide you with all dialing information for free". Well that isn't always true as mentioned by others, and as mentioned in the above paragraphs. - "The FCC approved this" (I doubt it) - "The FCC 'ordered' us to do this" (I think that is a BLATANT LIE!) - "All of the other long distance companies charge for this, so management decided that we were the last one not charging". The last line is ALSO A BLATANT LIE! You don't need to be "pic'd" to a carrier other than AT&T to use the operator services of that carrier. All it takes is to dial a "CAC" (Carrier Access Code) first, and then the '0' (and time-out), or '00' or '0#' to get that other company's operator: 101-0222+0(#/0) for MCI side of Worldcom 101-0333+0(#/0) for Sprint side of Worldcom 101-0432+0(#/0) for LCI-Qwest 101-0444+0(#/0) for Frontier 101-0488+0(#/0) for LDDS/Worldcom side of Worldcom 101-0555+0(#/0) for WilTel side of Worldcom etc. All of these above Operators still give out Area Code and "nameplace" info at no charge, although they too will try the "hard-sell" of asking you how you want to place and bill a call (at operator rates). Just simply tell them that all you want is the area code for such and such a place, or you need the location of a particular NPA-NXX, and that you'll dial-it-yourself and SAVE. Also, the above Long Distance companies' operators can be reached on their 800- dialups, such as 800-2SPRINT, 800-950-1022 for MCI, etc. You may need to 'time-out' through tones or menus, or hit a '0' (or 0-pound) to 'cut-thru' to a live human girl -- but AT&T seems to be the ONLY company charging for dialing information from their operators - the "other common carriers" are still giving a SERVICE to the public! One Bell System -- it _USED_ to work! 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: Algappan Subramania Subject: Conference on Next Generation Enterprises at SUNY Buffalo Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:05:45 -0400 Organization: University at Buffalo Reply-To: as23@acsu.buffalo.edu Dear Colleague: Greetings. We wish to bring to your attention a timely and exciting conference on "Next Generation Enterprises: Virtual Organizations and Pervasive / Mobile Technologies" that SUNY Buffalo and IEEE Computer Society will be jointly presenting at Buffalo, NY during April 28-29, 2000. We attach our call for papers below. You and your colleagues are invited to submit papers to the conference. BELL ATLANTIC CORPORATION is sponsoring BEST PAPER and BEST STUDENT PAPER awards in the business, technical, and integrative themes of the conference. Please do get in touch with us if you have any questions. Please visit the conference web-site for tracks and other information at: http://www.som.buffalo.edu/isinterface/AIWORC/ Papers can be submitted online directly at this website. Best Regards. R. Ramesh & H.R. Rao (SUNY, Buffalo) & Gabriel Silberman (IBM, Toronto) General Co-Chairs: AIWoRC'00 ------------------------- 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 IN COOPERATION WITH: ACM (SIGMOBILE), INFORMS, Association for Information Systems (AIS), itec, and Information Systems Frontiers: A Journal of Research and Innovation (published by Kluwer) CORPORATE SPONSORS: Bell Atlantic, Sun Microsystems, Empire State Development, Delaware North 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 CIO FORUM: Panelists: JOHN CHIAZZA, CIO, Kodak; MOLLY FINE, CIO, Delaware North; WILL PAPE, ex-CIO, Verifone; CIAN ROBINSON, Buffalo Niagara Partnership; and others. Moderators: PROF. EPHRAIM MCLEAN, Professor of Information Systems and George E.Smith Eminent Scholar's Chair, Georgia State University and PROF. RAJIV KISHORE, SUNY at Buffalo IMPORTANT DATES: November 1, 1999: Submission of a brief abstract: This is a TARGET DATE December 1, 1999: Paper and tutorial submissions: This is a DEADLINE January 15, 2000: Author Notification February 15, 2000: Camera-ready copy INQUIRIES 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 http://www.som.buffalo.edu/isinterface/AIWORC/ ------------------------------ From: Michael E. Winsett Subject: Channelization of a T3 or a DS3 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:49:56 -0700 I have a little problem; does anyone know how I could fix this? I need to find out how and if possible, I can do my own Channelization of some new DS3's that are being installed. First of all does the channel termination need to be at the CLEC and if it doesn't how can I do it in my office and just order the DS3 without being channeled. I will need to break each DS3 into 28 PRI w/Trunks. Please help me if you know how. We are also looking for positions in the future that could run the CLEC that we will be starting next year. You e-mail me a solution that works and it might be worth some money to you if the solution works in the future. And if you have a lot of experience in the CLEC and could be the VP of that department e-mail me your resume. We are a new company that is soon to be one of the biggest communication companies around the northwest. We also need an electrical engineer that would be able to help build some equipment that we are developing. E-Mail me at winsett@gorge.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:54:10 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Not to flog a tired thread too much, but IMHO the Emily White article was superb! I'm not surprised to see the usual right-wing defense of one of their luminaries, but all of the ad-hominem attacks on Ms. White and her paper do not change the fundamental truth of her story. I am not familiar with Gilder's 1970's works, but I remember him well from the early Reagan years. He and Jude Wanniski were leading spokescritters for the "supply side" theory. They touted the "Laffer curve" as demonstrating how reduced taxes for rich people would lead to reduced federal deficits. Of course that was a total failure and the national debt rapidly tripled, but by then George had moved on to other things. The first of his TELECOM Digest articles that I remember (perhaps there were others but this one was more a subject I knew about) was his piece about Steinbrecher Corp. and its suitcase-sized spread- spectrum base station. It was very well written, very pursuasive, and very wrong. Gilder's thesis, which has become part of his telecosmic fantasy, was that spread spectrum communications makes infinite radio bandwidth available. Since multiple stations can occupy the same band at the same time, there's no need to worry about interference any more. And he made Steinbrecher sound like the next big thing. Well, Steinbrecher was soon thereafter purchased by Tellabs, which tried for a while to turn its suitcase into a type of cellular base station that it wasn't really suited for. Eventually the whole project was abandoned; Gilder's magic suitcase never went into production. Musta been a great idea, or maybe the same folks who suppressed the 100 MPG car engine are suppressing this one too. Gotta look around Roswell for the clues. Spread-spectrum communications is a great technology, but it has very serious limits on spectrum capacity. Random uncorrelated users create, in effect, background noise, which adds up. Yes, it's a quantum leap beyond narrowband modes, but orders of magnitude less than Gilder's pipe dream. I now hear similar claims about "UWB" (ultra-wideband spread spectrum). That too is very powerful as a concept, but tends to be oversold by those who don't pay attention to the laws of physics. It's not the UWB equipment designers who make the outlandish claims, either; it's politicians and pundits who don't subject their own misunderstandings to engineering rigor. It doesn't surprise me one bit to see Gilder hanging out with a group of creationists. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology and life sciences today. Virtually no respectable scientist believs in creationism; instead, fundamentalist theologians spout scientific-sounding drivel at each other to convince themselves that they are "creation scientists" or whatever. Religion is a very powerful force for creating belief in the unbelievable, or disbelief in the undeniable. Gilder's economics did much the same. And now his technobabble does it again. As with the Laffer laugher, he has his true believers; the child millionaires of Seattle (and elsewhere) need somebody to believe in, and he makes them feel worthy. Three cheers to the Seattle Weekly for such a good expose! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Fred, you know what I think the main problem with 'supply side' in the Reagan era was? The *theory* was good, but they naively expected all the 'rich people' and the 'large companies' to pass the loot on down the line. I think it might have worked if Reagan had called a meeting of all the 'rich people' and the CEOs of large corporations in his office and put it to them like this: "We think you can probably do a lot of what the government is doing more effeciently and for less cost. We would like to test that idea and find out. So on a temporary basis, your taxes will be reduced by X (dollars, percent, whatever) and we expect (some large percentage of X) to find its way downstream. Don't worry, you will get your cut from it, and we will leave it up to your own creativeness as to how the rest of it gets downstream; whether that is by the availability of more jobs, lots more community services, outright grants, etc. *But it has to get to the bottom one way or another*. If we find that some one or more of you has plugged up the stream somehow, out of personal greed or agenda with the end result being the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then gentlemen, what I intend to do is go back to the old system, but tax the hell out of you worse than ever before. Yes, you are all free to dip in the pot a little as it floats along, but there had better be a lot left when it reaches the end of the stream. You see gentlemen, I need to have a better-looking bottom line here also. So how do you want to handle it?" I think Reagan and his staff failed to make it completely crystal- clear how they would make it work, and left it all rather vague. My thinking is that poor people despise any plans that will 'just make rich people get richer' while on the flip side rich people have had enough taken from them over the years that any chance they see to recover some of what they lost they are going to use it. I think 'supply side' might have worked had Reagan carefully stressed to the 'rich people' what would happen them -- the punishment he had in mind -- if it didn't work. Take a small piece of the pie for yourself, of course, in exchange for your help in making it all work. But don't eat the whole pie! Does that make sense? And Fred, thanks very much for your alternative point of view to the 'official' alternative point of view on Gilder. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Boritz Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:07:38 EDT Reply-To: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: FCC Setting Technology Standard to Locate 911 Calls In some email received from a reader of my article, this was written: > In comp.dcom.telecom was written: >> I've got to give you credit for that one. Most people would be too >> embarassed to admit they called a 911 operator and told them something >> so foolish. >> And did you really think that a 911 facility in the boonies would have >> a super map software program at every operator's answering position? > A topo map costs about a dollar. Is it too much to expect a million > dollar 911 center to have one? Yes, it is. Along with the map one needs the skill set and scales (much more than a "dollar") to read and interpret them precisely. Also, many large areas are covered by more than one map, and many don't show local roads. In the 911 dispatch business the dispatcher must concentrate on the most efficient way to get the information he needs to get help on the way as quickly as possible. Right now, consumer GPS's and map libraries don't cut it. Perhaps they will some time in the future, but not yet. Alan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:09:52 GMT >> Not only couldn't I >> get the information for free, but I couldn't get it all. (I had to >> get it off the 'Net.) >> I hate competition. I liked service. > That's just ordinary greed, not competition. If there were competition, > your local provider would offer this and other services as part of the > "local service package" you pay for. Greed is what drives prices/services in a competition-based marketplace. -Joel ------------------------------ From: Peter Borowski Subject: Rates From Canada to Germany Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 10:48:11 -0700 Organization: University of Western Ontario Does anybody know the cheapest possibility to make oversea calls from Canada to Germany? Thanks, Peter ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 17 Oct 1999 15:53:33 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion Over Leased Lines Actually, for 'leased' or 'private' interstate lines, you typically work through an inter-exchange company such as AT&T and Sprint. They handled the coordination of the local circuits ... they do get pricey. BIL ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Confusion Over Leased Lines Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 14:01:10 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com at506@my-deja.com spake thusly and wrote: > I'm guessing that the phone company will then physically string a new > cable from my building to their central office in Dallas, and > coordinate with the Chicago phone company to physically string a new > cable from their Chicago central office to our headquarters building. > Is that right? If so, how do we know the data is secure on the trip > from Dallas to Chicago, and that the bandwidth will always be available? They will find you a free pair usually. Also due to price differences you may find yourself using a Frame Relay cloud. How do you know your phone calls are secure? How do you know your phone will always work? You might want to call your phone co. and ask what they offer. There might also be an ISP offering a better rate. What are you wanting, T1? There are also new options like different flavors of DSL. Your questions make sense, but things are changing so fast it is hard to keep up with even for the people doing it. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:34:52 -0400 Leonard Erickson wrote: > I doubt it. More likely the ISDN "adapter" that you've plugged the > non-ISDN gear that is doing the pulse dialing into is what supports > pulse dialing. I once plugged a 302 dial* telephone into a port on an AT&T Partner key system -- which is designed to support POTS phones as well as its special sets -- and it really did dial out just fine. * Not all 302 sets had dials, since a lot of areas still had manual service in that era, though the ones I've come across since the late 1960s all did. For that matter, some 500 sets did not have dials, either because they were used in areas with manual service, in manual PBX installations, or in special installations where outgoing calls were disallowed at the customer's request. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 08:51:53 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I guess what I had better do soon > is print one of my occassional tutorials. This one would be on the > topic of how to make your browser send out complete lies to the other > end, and otherwise confuse things as much as possible. Heck, spammers > and others do it all the time, so why shouldn't the rest of us. Maybe > what I will do also is encourage people to simply begin using my > http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html as their 'start page' > for each browsing session or how to incorporate the pertinent parts > of it directly in their browser software. PAT] Pat, Before you go off the deep end promoting these things, let me reiterate a couple of security points: When using one of these things ... ANYTHING you see can be logged. We're not just talking about the web URL that you go to but the entire thing. Did you go shopping for porn stuff? They saw that you like the three-headed hard rubber toy. Did you look at your stock portfolio on Excite or Yahoo! ? They saw how much you were worth, and who you had in your portfolio. Did you read your e-mail online through Hotmail or a similar web-based e-mail address? They saw that too, everything you saw, they saw. Did you enter your password online so that you could login to your mail? They saw that. Is that password the same as the password to your account at work, as it is for 90% of all computer users? Yeah? You just compromised your work account. Did your e-mail contain anything which had to adhere to a Non-Disclosure Agreement or something similar? You just violated it by allowing the anonymiser access to it. This happens because the way the anonymisers work is to fetch the page themselves and then go through it changing all the links to be "thru-the-anonymiser" links. They then finally send the "cooked" version to the user at his browser. They could also quite easily parse that page data looking for other strings (stock quotes, e-mail, shopping items, etc.) and simply storing it all somewhere. An objective question to anyone who would use any anonymiser: Do you know personally the person who runs it? Would you be perfectly willing to hand over your personal information to them? Would you trust them to know not just your URL visiting habits, not just your shopping habits within a site, but your shopping habits on EVERY site? If the answer is "no", then an anonymiser is not for you. D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same argument could be and has been made regarding anonymous remailers. 'Do you want them to know everything you write about, who you write to, etc' and the same thing could be said about any ISP could it not? They are, after all, your starting point; they see your password, they see the places you surf to, etc. Do you personally know the person(s) who operates the ISP you use? If the answer to that is 'no', then maybe the internet is not for you either; after all, the ISPs could misuse the information they obtain, if they in fact bother to correlate it and put it together in usable form. At some point or another, each user has to decide for him/herself that 'I choose to trust this arrangement' or 'I do not trust this arrangement'. IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for the first ten or fifteen years. When found to be in fact violators of the trust placed in them, then they should be very widely exposed, before too many people wind up getting hurt or betrayed. But it seems to me the people who argue the line, 'you cannot trust the anonymizers with your secrets' are the people who usually have the most to gain by accurate demographics from the net, or the most to lose with totally fictional demographics created by users trying to hide from them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:48:57 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au gds@nospam.best.com (Greg Skinner) contributed the following: > Hmmm ... > By the time the packet has arrived at the destination site, the > destination already "knows" where the packet has come from (because the > source IP is in the header). So at the very least, the site could > log the source IP addresses of sites that it has rejected for > non-compliance of its access policy. In fact, logging of IP addresses > is necessary in some cases, e.g. as a defense against cracking, > spamming, etc. To my understanding the destination web server may know the IP of the requesting device, but the requesting device could well be a Proxy Server which could be used by thousands of people, hardly a reliable means of identification. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #488 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 17 23:27:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA21646; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:27:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910180327.XAA21646@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #489 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Oct 99 23:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 489 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Louis Raphael) Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed (Hudson Leighton) I Have a Question (Aravind Muthiraparambath) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (Dale Miller) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (David Willingham Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Mial Mechanism (David Willingham) Western Electric 320 Unit (Julian Thomas) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Terry Knab) Re: AT&T Operators ('00') and Area Code 'Lookups' (Jonathan Loo) Question About Wireless Carriers (Eric Alan Johnson) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Steve Winter) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (J.F. Mezei) Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) (Steven) FCC Informal Complaint (Wally Roberts) Happy 80th Birthday! (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: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:05:24 GMT Darryl Smith wrote: > I voted with my feet and forwarded all the email to > piracy@microsoft.com :-) I've tried that approach ... while I don't mind pirates and am not too fond of Microsoft, I really hate spammers ... so when one of the local newsgroups got spammed with adverts for warez cds, I figured, why not let the two slug at each other? I forwarded the whole ugly mess to every industry anti-piracy coalition I could find. The result? I don't know if they tried to do anything, but I doubt it, as the spam kept on coming. My gut feeling is that the software companies only make token efforts against piracy by individuals, to show that they're defending their copyrights, but they know it's a losing battle, and don't really care, especially as software pirated at home is often requested [to be bought] at work. Piracy by organizations is what they're really after, I think. Louis ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:29:37 -0500 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. In article , Lou Coles wrote: > just add the .html > Cortland Richmond wrote in message > news:telecom19.486.3@telecom-digest.org: >> I tried the "full story at" URL (see below) and got the following >> message: >> "Sorry >> >> We were unable to find the page you requested." >> Could it be ZDNet doesn't allow deep linking? >> Ironic, what? >> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Jack Decker >> (jack@novagate.REMOVE-THIS.com.content.net) wrote: http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/freshgear/mindthegap/story/0%2C3679%2C2351373%2C00 .html ^^^^ It worked for me, make sure you get all of the URL, BTW: is ZDNET always that slow? What do they think, thats is still a 14,400 world out there? http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Aravind Muthiraparambath Subject: I Have a Question Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:00:56 GMT Hi, My name is Ashish. Last week I and my collegue, Alfred had a discussion of how the telecommunications improved over the years. And the topic came to optical fiber Technology. My friend says that the Voice is carried by radio signals in case of wireless and by light waves. which we all agree. The discussion went towards International telecommunications. as to how it is carried out as on today. I told himm that it was using Satilite links. But he refuses to accept and says that its thru optical fiber cables layed underground and into the ocean to other countries. I couldn't convince him but I am confused. I would like to know the answer for which I would be glad. Thanks, Ashish ------------------------------ From: domiller@ualr.edu (Dale Miller) Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Date: 16 Oct 99 20:20:39 CST Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) writes: > Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- > scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal > seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach > them.) > I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? When last I was there (about four years ago), Paris, Arkansas still had 5-digit local dialing. It is a town of about 3,000 and all adjacent towns are a toll call. It would not surprise me to find this in several rural Arkansas towns. Dale ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:47:43 GMT In article , dov@oz.net says: > In Portland, Maine for example you had the exchanges SPruce 2, 3, 4, 5 > and 9 (really South Portland, but included as Portland) where you > could dial local calls with just the last five numericals. Telco > arranged switching so that you could dial five digits within the > exchange itself, but had to dial full seven digits to dial another > different office. In 1963 Portland changed to ANC (all number > calling) and also introduced one of the first #5 crossbar exchanges. > #5XB exchanges would only let you dial seven digits (probably I'd > guess because of the "storing" technology in common control type > switching.) Rather than have people use "mixed" dialing telco > indicated in dialing instructions that you were to dial all five > digits even though in many exchanges you still could complete a local > call with just the last five digits. Rhode Island is divided along those same patterns. All of Pawtucket, until recently was 72x, Warwick 73x, Woonsocket 76x, East Providence 43x, Cranston 94x, North Providence 23x and 35x (Providence dialing). In the city of Providence that may have been possible along 52x, 62x, 27x etc but with the number of exchanges and shared borders it was impossible. > With the advent of common control switching such as #5XB and ESS this > abbreviated dialing ceased. I believe that these common control > switching systems were expecting you to input either seven or ten > digits and the only way you could have five digit dialing is if there > was a "time out" on calls. Indeed -- during the mid 80's they switched the North Kingstown, RI are from an old SxS to a #10RSS slaved off of East Greenwich's #5ESS. Before that they had 5 digit dialing in 294 and 295. In addition it was also very easy to fake the SxS switches out when dialing a toll call. Those were the good old days. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: we202c3f@aol.com (WE202C3F) Date: 17 Oct 1999 02:41:38 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Lee, Seven-digit dialing across area codes, using "protected" prefixes, is still permissible in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area. Don't know about five-digit dialing. There are no more electromechanical offices left in Georgia, at least not in the Bell territory. We do have four- and five-digit dialing in Centrex though, so it seems that technology could be used as well for other central offices, particularly in small towns. David WE202C3F@aol.com (David Willingham) ------------------------------ From: we202c3f@aol.com (WE202C3F) Date: 17 Oct 1999 02:58:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Mial Mechanism Anthony, Only two leads are necessary out of the four in a modern cord. Usually these will be red and green, but in any case will be the center two wires of a modern flat cord. These would connect to the L1 and L2 terminals inside the phone. If there is a ringer wire on the GND terminal, it should be moved to L1. David Willingham In article , Anthony McGowan writes: > I would like to get a schematic detailing how to rewire my 1940 > Western electric 302 to use a modern four wire dialing mechanism. I > assume some of the old wires are not used such as the yellow ground on > the modular cord and maybe some of the hook leads, etc. Thanks for > any help you can supply on this project. WE202C3F@aol.com (David Willingham) ------------------------------ From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Western Electric 320 Unit Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:01:17 GMT I saw one of these today in an antique shop - for $200 you can own one of these. It's an explosion-proof version of the 300 set - with a 300 handset and dial. It was in service recently enough to have a number plate with an area code and all numeric number. Big round casing, and a brass tag attached with warnings to disconnect the line before opening the case, and to close the case before reconnecting the line. Green Gables antique barn, north of Salamanca NY but just S of Great Valley. Usual disclaimer. Julian Thomas: jt . epix @ net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Organization: The Home Office Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:28:47 GMT Mike Fox wrote: > Except analog phones either require service activation with a long-term > contract, or credit-card roaming which is very expensive. The original Actually, Analog phones are getting the point where Cellular carriers (I know Cell One here in KC is practically *giving* them away with Prepaid service now) don't even bother anymore. I once had a cell phone activated with Cell One, KC, Cell One Kansas (two seperate entities), and Southwestern Bell Mobile at the same time. > rents one. GSM phones in the U.S. are almost always subsidy-locked to a > specific provider! The only known exception is the Ericsson I888 from > Omnipoint, which isn't a cheap phone. This locking is kind of a "dirty > little secret" of GSM here, and most users aren't aware of it, including > the people who are selling phones on ebay. However, Since several of the GSM providers are merging (Aerial, Omnipoint, VoiceStream), One can safely assume that *any* of those carriers will be able to activate the other's phones once everything is settled down. > Do not buy a used GSM PCS phone on ebay unless you know it's unlocked. > If the seller doesn't mention it in his ad, unprompted, that means it's > locked. Not that the sellers are trying to con you, but they often > don't even know their phones are subsidy-locked. Or if you're going to use it on that system. Aerial does tell its customers that they're SOL if they move out of an Aerial market. (And I note some Ebay auctions do clearly state which provider the phone was used on) Still though, Going to PCS with a used phone isn't practical. Terry E. Knab News/Interm System Administrator Nyx Public Access Unix ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:17:52 EDT From: Jonathan Loo Subject: Re: AT&T Operators ('00') and Area Code 'Lookups' Mark Cuccia wrote: > But I wouldn't be surprised to discover that some LEC TOPS (or OSPS) > operators have discontinued that practice as well, even for things in > the LATA or service area! OR, telling everyone to call (CHARGEABLE) > 411 - or even transferring the caller to 411, with its own charge AND > the added operator-connect charge! In Bell Atlantic territory, sometimes the 0 operator says to dial 411. But if you call 411 from a Bell Atlantic pay phone it is free. > You may need to 'time-out' through tones or menus, or hit a '0' (or > 0-pound) to 'cut-thru' to a live human girl -- but AT&T seems to be > the ONLY company charging for dialing information from their operators > - the "other common carriers" are still giving a SERVICE to the > public! It is not always a girl. Sometimes it is a boy, other times it is an old person. ------------------------------ From: Eric Alan Johnson Subject: Question About Wireless Carriers Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 17:50:20 -0600 Patrick- Great Site ! I wonder if you could answer a question for me, I seem to remember an article about calculating churn in these archives (?) about calculating churn at wireless carriers. (It was an old article circa 1994). Ring a bell (?) Thanks, Eric Alan Johnson eric@athenesoft.com 303-786-7500 x102 303-786-9476 Fax ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:39:41 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Pat spake thusly and wrote: > IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on > the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- > ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve > or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for > the first ten or fifteen years. No offense, Pat, but I think they should be legally liable for any and everything that they hide the source of that is published via their system. They aid and abet fraud, harassment by wire and a plethora of electronic vandalism, regardless of any noble intentions. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most of them, myself included, have no idea what passes through their system. I have absolutely no interest at all or information about who uses http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice or http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html nor do I wish to know. In both cases, I warn visitors against using either service for illegal purposes. The last time I read anything about 'aiding and abetting', the rule was that to be found guilty of same, one had to specifically, in a positive way, participate by hiding some evidence or acting out some part of the crime, etc. The fact that something happens to be available in a passive way which facilitates someone else in committing a crime does not make the person who placed it there guilty of anything, *as long as there were otherwise legitimate and legal reasons for it to be present*. Both 'postoffice' and the 'secret-surfer' functions at this web site have legitimate purposes. I have no permanent logs or records of activities for either function. I provide 'postoffice' for users who are sick and tired of being spammed and who wish a place to receive mail from COMmercial sites which insist on registering users and collecting demographics. I provide 'secret-surfer' for users who wish to visit sites with sensitive or controversial topics without fear that their visit will be traced back to them by an employer or government agency, etc. If you cannot put your web site together well enough to prevent fraud and malicious hacking, is that supposed to be my fault? So if I have no records, you cannot very well claim I am withholding the information, can you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:16:22 -0400 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same argument could be and > has been made regarding anonymous remailers. 'Do you want them to > know everything you write about, who you write to, etc' and the > same thing could be said about any ISP could it not? In my opinion, my only use of an anonymous remailer would be to divulge information without divulging my identity. As long as the anonymous remailer does not divulge my indentity, I don't care that they look at the contents because the goal of using such a service would be to broadcast as widely as possible a piece of information. My concern rests much more on the anonymous remailer protecting my identity. To that effect, I would probably go through a few anonymous remailers and post from a web based system using one of those anonymizer web services. And the trail would have to be long enough that the large corporations who would try to subpoena each anonymous remailer to divulge the information on the source of the messages (with the eventual goal to get to you) would give up because the trail is too hard to find. Perhaps it is time to coin the phrase "information laundering" since this is essentially the same thing done by criminals who launder money to remove any trace of the money's origins and identity. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I welcome anyone to 'loop through' the secret-surfer on their way elsewhere. Many of the anonymizer operators have a list of the other anonymizers. I must ask that people who use it for the purpose of breaking the law go somewhere else. I do not want that traffic, but there is nothing I can do to stop it. Some users loop through three or four of them on the way to their final destination and then identify themselves with a web-based email address they got on the spur of the moment before starting out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: What Constitutes A "System?" (was Re: New Proposal by IETF) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:03:39 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer Its quite often the MAC address. Now we have CPUs with IDs. Microsoft has their SIDs. It all depends on what they are using to determine the serial number. All of these can be altered easily enough to something new, or to impersonate someone else. Steven ed_ellers@email.msn.com says... > This business of electronic serial numbers unique to each machine > brings up a point about those of us who assemble our own computers -- > namely, at what point does the system become "different" for purposes > of identification? > In my example, I have not gotten a completely new system since -- > gasp! -- early 1994, and even then it wasn't completely new; I built a > 40 MHz 386DX machine using the 40 Mb drive, video card and internal > modem from my 286 machine. Since then I have, approximately in this > order: > - Upgraded to a 340 Mb drive; > - Installed a Cyrix 486DX2 at 80 MHz on a VL-bus motherboard, in the same > case; > - Upgraded to a 1 Gb drive; (lots of other stuff) > This list does not include all the changes in video cards, sound > cards, modems, CD-ROM drives, internal tape drives and so on that have > taken place. > Now, I have nothing in this case (except the floppy drive and power > supply) that were in it when I stuck the 486 board in the case. But I > have not, in one fell swoop, bought a new computer. > So the question is, at what point(s) on that list did my system change > enough to justify identifying it as if it were a different system? > Not an easy question, huh? ------------------------------ From: Wally Roberts Subject: FCC Informal Complaint Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:06:05 GMT Organization: @Home Network I had a really bad experience with lack of responsiveness by the FCC when filing an informal complaint with them a few years ago. This past summer I received a mailing from the FCC explaining that they were improving their informal complaint process and really wanted to be more responsive. Yeah, right! On my Caller ID web site I have posted the series of the horrors of my recent FCC informal complaint against Air Touch Communications. Air Touch is sending Calling Party Number Identification (CPNI) when I place calls as a roamer in their Seattle and Denver service areas, but they simply elect complete blocking for me, because their remote systems do not know my home-system blocking elections. I maintain that the FCC Caller ID rules require them to default to selective blocking when I roam. But, the FCC couldn't even read both my and Air Touch's submissions to determine that, yes, Air Touch is sending CPNI. The FCC concluded that Air Touch is exempt because they are not transmitting caller ID information at all. I have written the five FCC commissioners, with the ever optimistic hope that perhaps one of them actually cares about the consumer. The big boys file formal complaints, so they don't run up against the FCC stonewall unlike an informal complainant. See the stuff on my Caller ID web site at: http://www.wally.com ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Happy 80th Birthday! Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:00:00 Sunday, October 17 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Radio Corporation of America, commonly known as RCA, which began on this date in 1919. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #489 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 18 01:00:31 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA25348; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:00:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:00:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910180500.BAA25348@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #490 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Oct 99 01:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 490 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal ("1") Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Fred Daniel) Deep Blocking (Monty Solomon) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Javier Henderson) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (L. Winson) NPA-NXX (Wrong Number) RE: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report (Neal McLain) Re: FCC Setting Technology Standard to Locate 911 Calls (Alan Boritz) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Leonard Erickson) Security Against Wiretapping as a Value Added Service (snapmicrolink Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (S. falke) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (John R. Levine) Re: I Have a Question (Coredump) Re: I Have a Question (John R. Levine) Re: Anonymous Service (Derek Balling) 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: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:54:56 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > Is that all there is? After months of controversy and 1960s-style > protests on whether cable lines should be pried open to everyone for > high-speed Net access, the FCC issued a report that effectively said, > "Let's wait." But government bureaucracy makes for dull news, so media > outlets made quick work of the report before tuning in to the > decision's angry opponents, who made better copy. > http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6977,00.html I almost hate to say this but ... Let them build their OWN broadband systems. The cable companies did it, companies like Brooks Fiber and many others did it too. We've got a rather sleazily run ISP that went public and it's market cap was astounding. Make you sick sometimes. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: "1" Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:20:47 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Bruce Wilson wrote in message news:telecom19. 466.3@telecom-digest.org: >> The "official" line given to employees is that "construction will >> continue as planned ..." > This refers to ...? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It refers to the Sprint World Head- > quarters campus in the Kansas City area on which there still > remains about one year of work and a few more buildings before it > is complete. PAT] We like to call it ... OZ ------------------------------ From: Fred Daniel Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 04:00:05 GMT Look at CO-FINDER at www.stuffsoftware.com for Exchange Name, CLLI, LATA, VH, distance, etc. It took me years to find this great value. Fred Bruce Wilson wrote: > I don't know if this is what's being sought or not, but I've never had > a problem just dialing "0" and asking the operator for the exchange > name that goes with an area code and prefix. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:55:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Deep Blocking AS THE leading online auction site, eBay should be a true believer in free markets. But in recent weeks, the Silicon Valley company, which has almost 70% of the consumer Internet-auction market, has sounded like an indignant monopolist protecting its turf. It is trying to stop websites that allow users to search for products across a variety of online auction services from gaining access to its auction database. http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/16-10-99/index_wb6340.html ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 17 Oct 1999 00:27:21 -0700 Organization: Somewhat Disorganized shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: > The *line* only supports pure digital data in some fairly limited > formats. The box it terminates in at your end is what is doing all the > supporting. > It's late and I don't recall the proper term for said "box". It's a very sophisticated term: Terminal Adaptor. -jav ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Date: 18 Oct 1999 02:45:51 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > * Not all 302 sets had dials, since a lot of areas still had manual > service in that era, though the ones I've come across since the late > 1960s all did. For that matter, some 500 sets did not have dials, > either because they were used in areas with manual service, in manual > PBX installations, or in special installations where outgoing calls > were disallowed at the customer's request. In 1971 we stayed at a Pocono (Penna) resort and most of the pay phones at the resort were MANUAL. That is, they had no dial -- you picked up the phone and got an operator to place the call for you. I presume the reason was that this area didn't have TSP/TSPS (the 0+ dialing system to automate operator assisted long distance calls). Most resort guests would be calling long distance to home and would have to dial an operator anyway. Now with everything so highly automated, it's hard to believe a great many long distance calls still required an operator to make them even after basic Direct Distance Dialing was universal throughout the US. All calls from pay phones, and credit card, collect, person-to-person, time&charges, etc., all required an operator's assistance. In the 1960s the Bell System developed the "Traffic Service Position", a cordless switchboard to assist operators in handling such calls. When any customer dialed 0+areacode+number or made any toll call from a payphone, the call would be routed to a TSP operator. From 1+ coin calls, the system would display (using Nixie tubes) the money to collect, so the operator would merely ask for the deposit and listen for it. For 0+ calls, the operator would ask what the caller wanted and proceed accordingly. The biggest advantages were (1) the customer dialed his own number and (2) the system handled all billing automatically. When billing was to start, the operator pressed a key and the system did the rest. No more manual tickets or watching the clock carefully. (Tickets were still available for special situations.) If the customer flashed for assistance or a payphone second collection was required, the system pulled up the next available operator, not necessarily the one who handled the call originally. The operator could pull up called number, calling number, various rates, easily at the touch of a button. She (or he) could ring forward or backward at the touch of a button. The productivity gains were substantial, and it was faster for the customer. TSP was replaced by TSPS which was an electronic based system. To the operators, it looked virtually the same. The roomy consoles were a lot more pleasant than the crowded big black switchboards. (Though some operators missed handling cords and making connections themselves, this system turned them into basically keypunch clerks.) In most cases the system did all the work. But if a customer had trouble, the operator could still route the call the old fashioned way by relaying it through toll centers. ------------------------------ From: Wrong@home.net (Bill Adams) Subject: NPA-NXX Listings Date: 18 Oct 1999 02:46:16 GMT Reply-To: badams@infi.net Help ... Anyone know where I can get a list of NPA-NNX which list the city? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bill badams@infi.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:31:03 -0400 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report In TD 19:487, satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) wrote, in connection with the ongoing thread about cable modem access: > Missing are the gamers who are in search of low ping > times, and are willing to spend the money to get it. > Missing are the people who are working on the next > killer app for the Internet, an app whose transmission > model may not exactly fit the cable transmission model. Two points: l. This whole issue isn't about access to the internet; it's about control of the opening screen. Once a user is past the opening screen, he can access the internet by clicking to it. Or, if he prefers, he can click to AOL, CompuServe, or whatever. AOL obviously understands the value of the opening screen, so they're understandably upset at the thought that a competitor would control it. But I don't see how any of this applies to experienced users such as "gamers who are in search of low ping times" or "people who are working on the next killer app for the Internet." An experienced user is certainly capable of clicking his way to the internet no matter whose opening screen he starts with -- AOL, @Home, RoadRunner, or ISP X. 2. If a user is "working on the next killer app ... whose transmission model may not exactly fit the cable transmission model," why would he be developing it with a cable modem anyway? Neal McLain nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Alan Boritz Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 17:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: FCC Setting Technology Standard to Locate 911 Calls In some email correspondence from someone regards my posting I got this: > Alan Boritz sez: >>> A topo map costs about a dollar. Is it too much to expect a million >>> dollar 911 center to have one? >> Yes, it is. Along with the map one needs the skill set and scales >> (much more than a "dollar") to read and interpret them precisely. >> Also, many large areas are covered by more than one map, and many >> don't show local roads. > I would regard any facility without a complete set of printed maps > as braindead. Well, then most of the 911 dispatch centers in the US are braindead. As I said before, few have personnel with the skills sets required to read US Geological Survey maps, and even if they did, local road detail is often missing. > WTF do you do when your Win NT mapserver BSOD's just when you need > it? "Call back later, our map is down.." perhaps? Local detail maps are not sectional maps. These are two very different kinds of maps intended for very different uses. > The "scales" are a ruler and the lines on the map. No, the "scales" are the special rulers we use to identify points on the map. I have one manufactured by Motorola called a "Jiffy Stick." Some of my colleagues have had similar scales distributed by Antenna Specialists. There are other scales without radio manufacturer's logos. The scales are required because most coordinates are interpolated from legend in the margin on the sectional maps. Without the scales it is usually impossible to pinpoint ANY location that doesn't fall on whatever latitude or longitude has a mark in the margin. > People have been reading maps since before Columbus. Perhaps, but no one can pinpoint coordinates precisely on a sectional map without a scale. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:31:29 PST Organization: Shadownet Cortland Richmond writes: > Preventing reception is not a violation of FCC regulations. Jamming > it is. Interference has, of course, several meanings. For example, I > require an "interference fit" between metal parts of shielding > enclosure. This does not mean I am interfering! Likewise, the FCC > does not consider shielding someone from receiving a signal to be > interference; it DOES consider jamming a signal be interference. > That's in accordance with its charter. Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service available" during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local cell site(s) so it could ensure that people inside were logged as "not available" by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of incoming calls to voicemail and the like. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: snapmicrolink@my-deja.com Subject: Security Against Wiretapping as a Value Added Service Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:19:32 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hi, We are working on the concept of creating a value added service based on phone security against wiretapping. We'd be glad to hear what you think about it, if as a user or as an operator you would be interested in such a product. Sincerely, Microlink http://www.microlink.co.il ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 17:45:49 -0700 From: S. Falke Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Organization: SBC Internet Services Joseph Singer wrote: > lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: >> Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- >> scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal >> seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach >> them.) >> I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? > My guess is that this does not exist though I cannot say this with any > authority. Most usually the towns that had five digit (and sometimes > four and three for very small towns) also had switching equipment such > as step-by-step or CX equipment that could absorb extra digits. . . . I know of one "small town in the U.S." that still has five-digit dialing: 2-nnnn, 3-nnnn and 4-nnnn with 8+ for outside calls AND a 5E switch -- called Lawrence Livermore Lab. (Is that cheating?) An outbuilding there has two WE 554 sets with "A/C 415 Hilltop 7-1100" on the dials. S. Falke ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1999 23:29:39 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > When last I was there (about four years ago), Paris, Arkansas still > had 5-digit local dialing. It is a town of about 3,000 and all > adjacent towns are a toll call. It would not surprise me to find this > in several rural Arkansas towns. I'd be pretty surprised if there was any less-than-seven dialing left. Even in small towns in Vermont where the local calling area is just the local exchange, they still use seven digits for uniformity. Given the prevalence of tone dialing and the fact that every $12 phone comes with a bunch of speed dial memory, short numbers are a lot less important than they used to be. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: coredump@NOxSPAM.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: I Have a Question Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:25:47 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:00:56 GMT, Aravind Muthiraparambath wrote: > My name is Ashish. Last week I and my collegue, Alfred had a > discussion of how the telecommunications improved over the years. And > the topic came to optical fiber Technology. My friend says that the > Voice is carried by radio signals in case of wireless and by light > waves. which we all agree. > The discussion went towards International telecommunications. as to > how it is carried out as on today. I told himm that it was using > Satilite links. But he refuses to accept and says that its thru > optical fiber cables layed underground and into the ocean to other > countries. I couldn't convince him but I am confused. I would like to > know the answer for which I would be glad. It is both plus there is a significant ammount of non-fiber undersea cable also, that carries both voice and data, internationally. John coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump I took a wrong turn on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 1999 23:27:07 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: I Have a Question Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The discussion went towards International telecommunications. as to > how it is carried out as on today. I told himm that it was using > Satilite links. But he refuses to accept and says that its thru > optical fiber cables layed underground and into the ocean to other > countries. I couldn't convince him but I am confused. I would like to > know the answer for which I would be glad. Both satellites and cables are in use, but vastly more traffic flows across oceans via fiber optic cables than via satellite. Cables are much cheaper (per unit of capacity), they can be fixed if they break, and they don't introduce a 1/4 second delay. Satellites remain useful for links to remote areas and for information broadcast to many places. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:20:43 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Anonymous Service At 06:39 PM 10/17/99 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same argument could be and > has been made regarding anonymous remailers. And the only anonymous remailer that everyone trusted was that one in Finland who finally caved in to the government, and as soon as he did it, closed up shop because he didn't want to face the masses after- wards. Lots of people put trust in the anonymity of an anonymous re- mailer, but do you know for a fact that the person running it won't cave to a warrant? > 'Do you want them to > know everything you write about, who you write to, etc' and the > same thing could be said about any ISP could it not? They are, > after all, your starting point; they see your password, they see > the places you surf to, etc. Do you personally know the person(s) > who operates the ISP you use? If you mean by ISP "the people who provide me with my e-mail service" the answer is yes, because it is me. :) > If the answer to that is 'no', then > maybe the internet is not for you either; after all, the ISPs could > misuse the information they obtain, if they in fact bother to > correlate it and put it together in usable form. Correct. Some ISP's do this openly (many of the "Free" ISP's acknow- ledge they are going to monitor your surfing patterns and customize the ad banners you see displayed on your screen based on that info). Some do it less than openly, I am sure. > At some point or > another, each user has to decide for him/herself that 'I choose to > trust this arrangement' or 'I do not trust this arrangement'. Correct. Web anonymizers are POTENTIALLY very great tools, however, they are also potentially very lucrative points to gather data that people will THINK is secure. Not disparaging any individual site, just that savvy net-user should be very wary and cautious when treading on that ground. > IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on > the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- > ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve > or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for > the first ten or fifteen years. When found to be in fact violators of > the trust placed in them, then they should be very widely exposed, > before too many people wind up getting hurt or betrayed. But how do you PROVE they leaked the data? Therein lies the challenge. > But it seems > to me the people who argue the line, 'you cannot trust the anonymizers > with your secrets' are the people who usually have the most to gain > by accurate demographics from the net, or the most to lose with > totally fictional demographics created by users trying to hide from > them. PAT] I fall into neither category, Pat. (Now, my EMPLOYER may certainly fall into that category, but they gather that data from voluntary submissions of data, not from "observation style" gathering). Having set up an anonymous remailer for a dating service web site, I know how it can be abused (as I watched one of the owners of the web firm printing out "especially interesting" e-mails back and forth between users) ... any time you trust someone you don't know to keep your secrets confidential, you are playing a very dangerous game. As I keep reading _Cryptonomicon_ by Neal Stephenson (a great read BTW, for those who are interested) the idea of a true "data haven" becomes more and more appealing. Admittedly, I've not finished the book yet, but as it stands NOW from what I've read, with the aid of a friendly Sultan, a data haven is established -- a place where data can come and go freely without threat of capture by law enforcement. Anonymisers could, theoretically, exist in such a place with the secrecy being enforced by law. THAT would be closer to something I would trust. The point is that people get all scared about the random chance of someone "putting all the pieces together in the puzzle" to figure out their surfing patterns, etc., but they are more than willing to hand over the completed puzzle to someone they don't know, trusting that they are "one of the good guys". That type of trust is, historically, a very bad idea. D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The best way to run any anonymous ser- vice is to keep as few records as possible for the least amount of time technically necessary. The older-style remailers such as the one in Finland had to retain the original email address at least for a while to facilitate any return correspondence. That was very unfort- unate in his case. I am not in a position to tell any person who is trying to make the net a better place, as he was, at what point he should or should not jeopardize his own freedom when people come along who want to destroy the net, or at the very least take it over for themselves as they wish to see it operated, using the law as their 'big stick' as Teddy Roosevelt described it. Now with the large number of web sites offering email, and the few who bother to validate any information at all about the person who opens an address, the traditional anonymous remailer is not needed as much. I like to say with zzn.com for example, which supplies the telecom- digest.org site with web-based email, that you can be whoever you want to be. And when you grow tired of the address, or it grows tired of you, whichever happens, just walk away from it. I am sure you did not fill out that flimsy little 'application form' they gave you with any accuracy anyway. And one of these days I will drop zzn.com and put another service there in its place. If someone is that worried, they can use an anonymizer to reach http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice where they obtain an anonymous mailbox from Postmaster Pat then loop through http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html on their way to wherever, and ask Operator Pat to connect their call. How can you trust any such service, even mine? Very simple. For starters, ALWAYS 'salt the mail', which is an old term used by paper-mail/snailmail remailers from years ago. It means, send a few 'controlled' pieces of mail now and then that only you would know about. Include data that is purely ficticious. See where it gets to. If you will read the introduction to secret-surfer that I have placed on that page for example, I encourage everyone upon using it for the first time to use it in a controlled way where they can check the logs at a site they maintain. I tell users to never do any 'serious surfing' with Operator Pat until they are completely at ease and know just what to expect, etc. And for that matter, I invite a complete audit and controlled testing of the telecom-digest.zzn.com email service by anyone. Any remailer/web-based emailer/anonymizer operator should be perfectly willing to accept that as a condition of continued operation and trust from the commmunity. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #490 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 18 14:30:27 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA21319; Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910181830.OAA21319@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #491 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Oct 99 14:30:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 491 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #204, October 18, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (Rob Levandowski) Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 (ctiguy@my-deja.com) Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Dial Mechanism (Steve Winter) Re: Happy 80th Birthday! (William H. Bowen) Re: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report (Satch) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (doc_dave@bga.com) Re: NPA-NXX Listings (Jeremy Greene) Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (Adam Frix) Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (Peter Dubuque) Re: I Have a Question (Robert Berntsen) Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? (Keelan Lightfoot) Re: First Merger Cutbacks ... Not Exactly (Terry Knab) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Joseph Singer) And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (Andrew Emmerson) 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, 18 Oct 1999 13:30:09 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #204, October 18, 1999 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin http://www.angustel.ca Number 204: October 18, 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 Business Services........ http://www.teleglobe.ca/ Telus Communications.................. http://www.telus.com/ TigerTel Services ................. http://www.tigertel.com/ ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Telus Wins Major Project in Toronto ** Crescendo Wins Battle For Call-Net ** Cogeco Appeals Internet Resale Decision ** Spectrum Auction Begins Today ** MCS License Applications Submitted ** Telecom Statistics Released ** Canada Payphone Signs Esso ** Nortel to Close Winnipeg Wireless Plant ** Group Telecom Announces Rollout Plans ** C1 Communications to Deploy Cisco DSL ** Globalstar Begins User Trials ** Clearnet, Microcell Add 50,000 Subscribers Each ** Bell Mobility Expands Data Content ** No-Info 411 Charges Approved for Manitoba ** Telcos' Mobile Wireless Services Deregulated ** MTS to End Prime Line Service ** MTS Buys Manitoba ISP ** RIM Offers New Equity ** Excel Drops International Rates ** New President at Innofone ** Telecom Tips, Tricks & Traps ============================================================ TELUS WINS MAJOR PROJECT IN TORONTO: Even before formally opening its doors in Ontario, Telus has won a $30-Million contract to provide information infrastructure for the new 6,000-unit CityPlace condo- minium development in downtown Toronto. The "digital neighborhood" will include a high-speed community intranet providing voice, data, and video technologies to all residents. ** Effective today, BC Tel has retired its old name and begun using the name Telus in British Columbia. CRESCENDO WINS BATTLE FOR CALL-NET: A last minute compromise gave Crescendo Partners everything it wanted in the battle for control of Call-Net last week. See details in the special edition of Telecom Update published last Friday, and watch for our analysis in the next issue of Telemanagement. ** Late Friday afternoon, Call-Net withdrew from the broadband wireless spectrum auction, due to begin today. COGECO APPEALS INTERNET RESALE DECISION: Cogeco Cable has asked the Federal Court for leave to appeal the CRTC's decision mandating resale of high-speed Internet service. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers calls this "the latest in a series of stalling tactics" by cablecos. (See Telecom Update #200) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-11.htm SPECTRUM AUCTION BEGINS TODAY: Industry Canada launches Canada's first spectrum auction today. Thirteen qualified bidders are contending for 354 broadband wireless licenses. Information on the auction progress is available at Industry Canada's Web site. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01797e.html ** Four previously qualified bidders withdrew before the auction began: BCE Nexxia, TD Capital Group, Videotron Lte, and Call-Net Enterprises. ** Industry Canada has issued "Guidelines on the Licensing Process and Spectrum Release Plan," announcing other frequencies which may be opened for competitive licensing (auction or comparative licensing) in the future. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01853e.html MCS LICENSE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED: Nine companies have applied to operate Multipoint Communication Systems in the 2500 MHz band. Applications had to include a plan to support lifelong learning. Industry Canada invites comments on the proposed Learning Plans by November 19. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/sf01708e.html TELECOM STATISTICS RELEASED: Statistics Canada has issued its first report based on a new quarterly survey on Canada's telecom industry. In the first three months of 1999, the industry had $6.8 Billion in revenues and employed 86,000 people. The report can be downloaded from Stats Canada's Web site, for a fee. http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/IPS/Data/56-002-XIB.htm CANADA PAYPHONE SIGNS ESSO: Canada Payphone has won a contract to supply payphones to all of Imperial Oil's more than 2,500 service stations across Canada. NORTEL TO CLOSE WINNIPEG WIRELESS PLANT: Nortel Networks will close a Winnipeg fixed-wireless equipment factory with 172 employees. The facility was acquired two years ago when Nortel purchased Broadband Networks Inc. (See Telecom Update #116) GROUP TELECOM ANNOUNCES ROLLOUT PLANS: GT Group Telecom says it will offer local access and other telecom services in 12 major Canadian centers by October 2000. Now available in Vancouver, service will extend to Calgary and Toronto this fall, and to Victoria, Edmonton, and Montreal by March. C1 COMMUNICATIONS TO DEPLOY CISCO DSL: C1 Communications says it will provide voice and high-speed Internet service using DSL technology from Cisco Systems, beginning in Atlantic Canada this fall and in Toronto early next year. (See Telecom Update #188) GLOBALSTAR BEGINS USER TRIALS: Globalstar Canada, which plans to provide Low Earth Orbit satellite phone service, began "Friendly User Trials" in Canada last week. CLEARNET, MICROCELL ADD 50,000 SUBSCRIBERS EACH: In the third quarter: ** Clearnet Communications added 56,205 subscribers, to bring its total to 464,708. Net additions to Clearnet's Mike service rose 72% over last year. Overall monthly subscriber turnover also rose, to 1.81%. ** Microcell Solutions added 54,815 customers, to reach a total of 459,392. Prepaid service accounted for 59% of new subscribers. Microcell's network now has international roaming agreements with 100 networks in 53 countries. BELL MOBILITY EXPANDS DATA CONTENT: Users of Bell Mobility's Mobile Browser service can now access information from Southam's Canada.com and financial data from I/money. ** Bell Mobility has also restructured its North American calling plans: the least expensive offers 200 minutes (local or long distance) for $69. NO-INFO 411 CHARGES APPROVED FOR MANITOBA: CRTC Order 99-985 approves a request by MTS to charge 75 cents for Directory Assistance calls where no listing is provided. (See Telecom Update #193, 198) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0985.htm TELCOS' MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICES DEREGULATED: CRTC Order 99- 991 deregulates the former Stentor members' current and future mobile wireless services, including cellular/PCS and paging services. The telcos must still maintain customer confidentiality and may not unjustly discriminate against other service providers or customers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0991.htm MTS TO END PRIME LINE SERVICE: CRTC Order 99-995 approves Manitoba Tel's request to withdraw Prime Line one-number routing service, effective October 31. (See Telecom Update #193) http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0995.htm MTS BUYS MANITOBA ISP: Escape Communications, a unit of MTS, is buying MBNet networking, established in 1990 as Manitoba's first Internet service provider. RIM OFFERS NEW EQUITY: Research In Motion selling five million shares with expected net proceeds of $216 Million. EXCEL DROPS INTERNATIONAL RATES: Excel Canada, a unit of Teleglobe, says it has lowered its international rates by an average of 20%. Calls to Germany are now 17 cents/minute; to the Philippines, 47 cents. NEW PRESIDENT AT INNOFONE: Innofone Canada, a long distance and voice-over-Internet supplier, has appointed as its President Charles Blaquiere, formerly of Sprint Canada. TELECOM TIPS, TRICKS & TRAPS: Until November 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement receive "Tips, Tricks and Traps," a collection of 22 practical reports and resources by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans. Included in the collection: ** "How the Internet Is Shaking Up Telecom" ** "How to Sell Your Telecom Projects to Senior Management" ** "Seven Steps to Successful Phone Bill Audits" To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit the Telemanagement Home Page at http://www.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 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: robl@macwhiz.com (Rob Levandowski) Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? Organization: MacWhiz Technologies Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:53:11 -0400 In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- > scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal > seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach > them.) > I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? I remember being in a small town where *four* digits would do it. In Stoddard, New Hampshire, in the early 1980s. The CO, located in Marlow, was still on Strowger switches then. How do I know? Well, my parents had a cottage in Stoddard. Our number was 446-7564. (It's disconnected now, so I won't bother censoring it.) Every time we were up there, we'd get calls early Saturday morning looking for a barbershop or a general store. Always the same ones. Finally, we determined that all these wrong numbers being dialed were in the form 756-4xxx. A few towns over, an ILEC had the 756 exchange, and a few popular businesses were in the 4xxx range. As far as NYNEX was concerned, a call from the Marlow exchange to this ILEC was a toll call. For part-time residents who live in well-connected areas, the idea of two towns over being a toll call never occurred ... so they'd dial without the leading 1. The old switch therefore didn't know to send it long-distance, and it didn't recognize 756 as a local exch- ange, so once it got 7564, it completed it as a local call within the exchange. And our first day of weekend sleeping-in got off to an early start. :) We eventually confirmed this with a friendly lineman. By 1985, this CO had been replaced with one of the first 5ESS switches in the region, as PC Connection/MacConnection moved their headquarters into an old inn in Marlow, and they needed redundant lines and new technology for their order center. It was a pretty impressive leap of technology! Both Stoddard and Marlow are pretty much backwater towns; they have a general store/gas station, and that's about it -- Stoddard's post office is the Postmaster's breezeway. If it weren't for PC Connection, I wonder if the Marlow CO would still have that old switch. Until about three years ago, Cheshire County of New Hampshire was still without a 911 system. You'd have to call "Mutual Aid" at +1 603 352-1100, or dial the operator. In most exchanges, the switches either could not, or were not configured to, route 911 to that number. That was another fun thing for a community with 500 residents and 5,000 property owners (i.e., weekend residents, or in local parlance, "flatlanders"). A family from downstate Connecticut would dial 911 in an emergency out of reflex, and be confused by the reorder tone. Rob Levandowski robl@macwhiz.com ------------------------------ From: ctiguy@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Tutorial Wanted About SS7 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:03:41 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Try this one .... http://www.microlegend.com/aboutss7.htm Thanks, JL In article : > Bryan Joseph wrote: >> Can anyone direct me to a good tutorial or FAQ on SS7? Also an >> overview of international point codes would be helpful ... please >> reply to bryan@picus.com . ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: WE 302 Rewiring For Modern Mial Mechanism Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:27:24 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com we202c3f@aol.com (WE202C3F) spake thusly and wrote: > Only two leads are necessary out of the four in a modern cord. Usually > these will be red and green, but in any case will be the center two > wires of a modern flat cord. > These would connect to the L1 and L2 terminals inside the phone. If > there is a ringer wire on the GND terminal, it should be moved to L1. Often the outer one or two pair are for additional lines red/green one line, yellow/black line two, blue/white line three. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: Happy 80th Birthday! Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:24:55 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Sunday, October 17 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of > the Radio Corporation of America, commonly known as RCA, which > began on this date in 1919. Pat, Yep, it is the day to say a prayer for the late, great RCA! Sarnoff, Sr. built it into a great operation, Sarnoff, Jr. ran it into the ground. Jack Welch bought it and carved it up like a Christmas turkey. If there is an especially hot place in Hell I sure hope that Jack Welch ends up there ... Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com Daly City, CA RCA employee (and proud of it) from 1977 to 1983) He who fails to learn the lessons of history is condemned to repeat it's mistakes! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:22:17 GMT From: satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) Subject: Re: FCC Chairman Kennard Releases Cable Staff Report Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly nmclain@compuserve.com (Neal McLain) said on 17 Oct 1999 in the following: > If a user is "working on the next killer app ... > whose transmission model may not exactly fit the cable > transmission model," why would he be developing it > with a cable modem anyway? Why not? After all, most of the real internet work is done on shoestring budgets and cubbyhole offices/labs/garages/bedrooms. Two guys with a good idea get together and don't have the $7000 to put up two lines of T1 for development purposes. They first string Ethernet and get the protocols working there. Then they might use two V.90 modems over their home voice lines to see how it works at the other end of the performance scale. Then it's time to see how it plays on the big bad network. Cable modems offer an attractive platform for experimentation because of the small investment and, frankly, the rather uncertain connectivity. When it works, it's fast. When it fails, it fails right and left. Can't think of a better lab environment for TCP/IP based development. All the packet loss and varying delay you could possibly want, and you don't have to spend $12K on a satellite simulator to get it. _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" www.fluent-access.com ------------------------------ From: doc_dave@bga.com Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:45:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Mike Fox said: > This is still incorrect. Subsidy locking is common with all digital > technologies in the U.S. It has a different name with each technology > but it's there. For example, CDMA 1900 phones (Sprint PCS and PrimeCo > and Intelos and others) have an "MSL" (I believe that stands for "master > subsidy lock") code that locks them to the carrier, additionally at > least Sprint PCS will flat-out refuse to activate a phone they didn't > sell. Even the tri-mode Nokia 6185 phones that SPCS sells are locked > so that the CDMA 800 or AMPS parts can't be activated on another > carrier! Actually, I managed to get my subsidy lock code from Sprint, and now I have programmed the second NAM with my 800Mhz CDMA account with GTE, and NAM 1 is still Sprint ... I love the flexibility. It should be noted that in addition to the subsidy lock preventing customers from using their handset with another carrier, it also serves as a guarantee that the subsidy (hence the name subsidy lock) that the carrier pays to lower the cost of the handset is not lost. Each carrier, even the "non contract" PCS carriers pay a subsidy to lower the cost of the handset. Sprint PCS phones start at 99.99 ... but they still cost more than that. Just like older cellular carriers, PCS carriers still pay to lower the handset costs; they just don't lower the cost as much as cellular carriers. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: NPA-NXX Listings Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:51:27 -0400 Bill Adams wrote in message news:telecom19.490.7@ telecom-digest.org: > Anyone know where I can get a list of NPA-NNX which list the city? > Any help would be greatly appreciated. Telcordia (formerly Bellcore) offers a free product on their website that is quite detailed. It is a summary, month-by-month, of all NXX changes. It appears that you need a PC to unzip the files. http://www.trainfo.com/tra/nnagonly.htm I'm not sure where to go for comprehensive info on existing NXX's. You may have to pay Telcordia to get that. ------------------------------ From: adamf.nospam@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:53:24 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , nospam.tonypo1@ nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > In article , monty@roscom.com says: >> Is that all there is? After months of controversy and 1960s-style >> protests on whether cable lines should be pried open to everyone for >> high-speed Net access, the FCC issued a report that effectively said, >> "Let's wait." But government bureaucracy makes for dull news, so media >> outlets made quick work of the report before tuning in to the >> decision's angry opponents, who made better copy. >> http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6977,00.html > I almost hate to say this but ... > Let them build their OWN broadband systems. The cable companies did it, > companies like Brooks Fiber and many others did it too. Hear hear. Whenever I hear AOL whine about how it's their "right" to ride along on the bandwidth that someone else created for a private business purpose, I just want to scream. ------------------------------ From: Peter Dubuque Subject: Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Date: 18 Oct 1999 17:43:49 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Tony Pelliccio wrote: > I almost hate to say this but ... > Let them build their OWN broadband systems. The cable companies did it, > companies like Brooks Fiber and many others did it too. Yes, just what we all need, dozens or hundreds of providers running their own cables to every house. But why stop there? Now that there's local phone service and electric competition, let's have every phone and power company run all their own lines to whoever wants their service. And if we open up water and sewer service to competition, we can each have half a dozen hookups going into all of our houses. That's gotta be good for consumers, right? Peter F. Dubuque - dubuque@tiac.net - Enemy of Reason(TM) O- ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen Subject: Re: I Have a Question Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:08:40 +0200 Aravind Muthiraparambath wrote: > The discussion went towards International telecommunications. as to > how it is carried out as on today. I told himm that it was using > Satilite links. But he refuses to accept and says that its thru > optical fiber cables layed underground and into the ocean to other > countries. I couldn't convince him but I am confused. I would like to > know the answer for which I would be glad. The answer is fiber. Geostationary satellites gives you 480 ms roundtrip delay pr. hop, which is too much. Fiber gives you a latency of approx. 5 ms pr. 1000 km. The speed in fiber is speed of light in vacuum devided by the refraction index of the glassfiber. Old copper is rarely used, and copper gives you more delay than fiber. Satellites are back-up. Satellites are of course ok for one-way transmissions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:34:44 -0600 Subject: Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? From: Keelan Lightfoot How did Nortel's line of electronic swithches evolve? They history says that their first all electronic PBX, the SG-1, was their "first electronic switch on the market", then the history goes on to describe the SL-1. Was the SL-1 the next in line from the SG-1? Was there anything in-between? - Keelan Lightfoot PS: I am looking to add a first generation SL-1 to my collection -- what would I ask for? ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: First Merger Cutbacks ... Not Exactly Organization: The Home Office Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:36:55 GMT Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote: > Followup to my earlier note. > The next day I went back to Ameritech's web site and tried once again > to get information for Illinois. This time, when asked my zip code, > instead of a little clickable map I was given a message to check for > information at ; couldn't go there, as > it prompted me for a password. Checked 'whois' on the domain, and that > was quite informative: GTE now owns Ameritech Cellular. In the interim, Ameritech Cellular will operate as such until GTE-Bell Atlantic merger, a new brand name will be selected. Remember, Ameritech had to sell the cellular divison off because in Chicago and St. Louis, Southwestern Bell owns the other service (Cell One Chicago is Southwestern Bell, and SWB Mobil operates in St. Louis) > Called the new customer service number before closing time. Waited > about five minutes on hold until a guy with a strong accent spoke > loudly into his headset to me, to inform me that Ameritech would > continue to provide my cellular service, and that I'd be notified if > any changes were afoot. "We wouldn't surprise you with that." So, changes *are* afoot. GTE is now providing your cellular, until BA is merged into it. Terry E. Knab News/Interm System Administrator Nyx Public Access Unix ------------------------------ Reply-To: dov@oz.net Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:18:23 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) recently wrote: >> * Not all 302 sets had dials, since a lot of areas still had manual >> service in that era, though the ones I've come across since the late >> 1960s all did. For that matter, some 500 sets did not have dials, >> either because they were used in areas with manual service, in manual >> PBX installations, or in special installations where outgoing calls >> were disallowed at the customer's request. > In 1971 we stayed at a Pocono (Penna) resort and most of the pay > phones at the resort were MANUAL. That is, they had no dial -- you > picked up the phone and got an operator to place the call for you. > I presume the reason was that this area didn't have TSP/TSPS (the 0+ > dialing system to automate operator assisted long distance calls). > Most resort guests would be calling long distance to home and would > have to dial an operator anyway. I'm pretty sure that the area didn't have TSPS. TSPS was pretty much introduced first into big metropolitan areas and later was expanded to include other areas as well. As you say in your message this was back in 1971. At any rate to get back to the pay phones these "dummy" phones with just the ringdown type of connection to the operator were not that uncommon especially in small towns. I went to summer music camp in Farmington, Maine at the state (at the time teacher's) college and they had ringdown type pay phones (the old three slotters) where you'd lift the receiver and wait for the operator to answer. The operator (in the second floor of the SXS CO which you could hear on a summer night if you walked by) woul *dial* the call on her switchboard. They did not have key pulse at that office. Interestingly enough Farmington was one of the first towns in Maine to have 911 service. Later all operator services were centralized in Portland when TSPS was introduced a few years later. I guess they kept this ringdown arrangement for many years as I remember passing through Bowdoinham, Maine several years later to find one of the big boxy "fortress" style phones without a dial, but still had the ringdown arrangement. Most of the time these ringdown type payphone arrangements were in towns where the switch was the CDO type i.e. usually a #355 step-by-step machine. Also, in most of the smaller towns they had "post pay" type pay stations where you'd lift the receiver, receive dial tone and dial the number. When the party answered you'd get bursts of dial tone to indicate that you needed to insert money to talk. Larger communities had the traditional pre-pay coin phones. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:35 BST Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk UK Phone Phreaker Racks Up $170,000 Bill 10/15/99 LONDON, ENGLAND, 1999 OCT 15 (NB) -- By Steve Gold, Newsbytes. A teenage computer expert narrowly escaped jail this week, after a judge took note of the fact he was going on to study at university. This was despite British Telecom (BT) providing evidence in court that the teenager, 20-year-old Paul Spilby, who was 18 at the time of his arrest, had "virtually lived on the phone" over a period of six months. During that time, BT said that Spilby repeatedly dialed a toll-free number in Nicaragua from the UK and used his PC to generate "clear forward" tones on the line to fool the switch equipment in the distant country that the call had terminated. Unfortunately for BT, the "clear backward" tone was not also generated, leaving Spilby with an open line - on a toll-free circuit - from where he could dial almost anywhere in the world. BT says that it identified lost call revenue amounting to 106,000 pounds ($170,000) during its detailed investigation into his activities. Spilby admitted 14 specimen charges under the Theft Act, which is the only current legislation that can brought against so-called "phone phreakers," Newsbytes notes. Under the Act, Spilby was charged with the theft of a few pence (cents) worth of electricity. Because of the value of his theft, George Bathurst-Norman, the judge presiding over the case at Southwark magistrates court, said he was sentencing the youth to 100 hours of community service, rather than a custodial sentence. Judge Bathurst-Norman said that Spilby of Leicester, had narrowly escaped prison, but was being sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years' probation. During the case, Tudor Owen, a lawyer for BT, told the court that some of Spilby's phone calls lasted for six hours and, during the six months his activities went undetected, amounted to a total of 64 days spent on the phone. Spilby, prosecutors said, possessed an extremely detailed knowledge of computers, as well as a detailed understanding of telecommunications networks. Newsbytes notes that Spilby was able to apply similar techniques to those used by phone phreakers of the 1970s, such as John Draper, a.k.a. Captain Crunch, by the simple expedient of routing his calls to a country with relatively old telecommunications switching equipment. Most modern networks are able to automatically detect the "out of band" signaling system that Spilby employed and take appropriate action. This usually involves the call being terminated. However, in the case of the Nicaraguan toll-free service, the calls were simply routed on to their destination, at the expense of the toll-free service's owner. Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com . [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They seem to contradict themselves in this article, but that is not unusual when know-nothings write on the topic of phone phreaking. At the end of the article, it says the calls were 'at the expense of the toll-free service's owner' which I presume refers to the subscriber of the toll-free number, but elsewhere in the article it says BT lost $170,000 in the scam. So who lost the money? They didn't both lose it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #491 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 19 05:50:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id FAA22242; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:50:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910190950.FAA22242@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #492 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Oct 99 05:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 492 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Lucent Cordless 5635 (Ferdie Giroir) Re: Anonymous Service (Anonymous) Re: Happy 80th Birthday! (Alan Boritz) Re: All About George Gilder (Adam H. Kerman) Re: All About George Gilder (Ki Suk Hahn) Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed (Cortland Richmond) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Cortland Richmond) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (John Nagle) Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (Bill Ranck) Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (Barry Margolin) Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (John McHarry) 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: fjg@teche.net (Giroir, Ferdie) Subject: AT&T Lucent Cordless 5635 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:51:24 -0500 I have an AT&T Lucent Cordless phone, model #5635. Several weeks ago we had a lightning storm. Lightning went throughout the house. Now I can't get a dial tone on the phone. I can operate the base unit with the cordless handset, to work the answering machine. But the handset gives NO dial tone. I get tones on the key pad, and the intercom function works. I opened the base unit. I place a jumper across two points on the relay (that is right at the input of the line circuit). I immediately get a dial tone in the handset. I then can place a call. When I finish my call (completed) call, I must break the jumper connection, otherwise the phone stays off hook. Could the relay be bad, or one of the IC's? Probably had an arc from the phone line to the relay coil. Is it possible the relay driver and/or the diode across the coil are probably bad. What would be the best method to test? Any help is appreciated. BTW: You have a great/interesting site. C-YA Toney fjg2@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:20:04 CEST From: Anonymous Subject: Re: Anonymous Service Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same argument could be and >> has been made regarding anonymous remailers. > And the only anonymous remailer that everyone trusted was that one in > Finland who finally caved in to the government, and as soon as he did > it, closed up shop because he didn't want to face the masses after- > wards. Lots of people put trust in the anonymity of an anonymous re- > mailer, but do you know for a fact that the person running it won't > cave to a warrant? Only a fool would trust any single remailer -- anonymity and safety lie in using *chains* of remailers. At least three, preferably five. And penet.fi wasn't purely a remailer but rather a psuedonym server. By definition a psuedonym server must have a list matching up real names to psuedonyms -- a remailer has no such list, no such knowledge of its users therefore much less info for a government agency to grab. >> 'Do you want them to >> know everything you write about, who you write to, etc' and the >> same thing could be said about any ISP could it not? They are, >> after all, your starting point; they see your password, they see >> the places you surf to, etc. Do you personally know the person(s) >> who operates the ISP you use? > If you mean by ISP "the people who provide me with my e-mail service" > the answer is yes, because it is me. :) >> If the answer to that is 'no', then >> maybe the internet is not for you either; after all, the ISPs could >> misuse the information they obtain, if they in fact bother to >> correlate it and put it together in usable form. > Correct. Some ISP's do this openly (many of the "Free" ISP's acknow- > ledge they are going to monitor your surfing patterns and customize > the ad banners you see displayed on your screen based on that info). > Some do it less than openly, I am sure. >> At some point or >> another, each user has to decide for him/herself that 'I choose to >> trust this arrangement' or 'I do not trust this arrangement'. > Correct. Web anonymizers are POTENTIALLY very great tools, however, > they are also potentially very lucrative points to gather data that > people will THINK is secure. There is a product in beta-test called Freedom, from an outfit named Zero-Knowledge Systems http://www.zeroknowledge.com that promises great strides in this regard. Too bad their product is currently only available for Windoze platforms (itself totally insecure). > Not disparaging any individual site, just that savvy net-user should > be very wary and cautious when treading on that ground. >> IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on >> the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- >> ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve >> or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for >> the first ten or fifteen years. When found to be in fact violators of >> the trust placed in them, then they should be very widely exposed, >> before too many people wind up getting hurt or betrayed. A little paranoia is a good thing, keeps you on your toes. > But how do you PROVE they leaked the data? Therein lies the challenge. >> But it seems >> to me the people who argue the line, 'you cannot trust the anonymizers >> with your secrets' are the people who usually have the most to gain >> by accurate demographics from the net, or the most to lose with >> totally fictional demographics created by users trying to hide from >> them. PAT] > I fall into neither category, Pat. (Now, my EMPLOYER may certainly > fall into that category, but they gather that data from voluntary > submissions of data, not from "observation style" gathering). > Having set up an anonymous remailer for a dating service web site, I > know how it can be abused (as I watched one of the owners of the web > firm printing out "especially interesting" e-mails back and forth > between users) ... any time you trust someone you don't know to keep > your secrets confidential, you are playing a very dangerous game. Take a lesson from the Cigarette-Smoking-Man = "Trust No One". Use chains of remailers. Encrypt your messages before sending. Send sensitive stuff from disposable "free email" accounts created with false personal info. Change addresses often. When communicating directly with another person (as opposed to using the remailers) always send from a specific disposable address ie. use only address A to send/receive to buddy X, use address B only to send/receive to buddy Y, etc. Don't cross-pollinate. > As I keep reading _Cryptonomicon_ by Neal Stephenson (a great read > BTW, for those who are interested) the idea of a true "data haven" > becomes more and more appealing. Admittedly, I've not finished the > book yet, but as it stands NOW from what I've read, with the aid of a > friendly Sultan, a data haven is established -- a place where data can > come and go freely without threat of capture by law enforcement. > Anonymisers could, theoretically, exist in such a place with the > secrecy being enforced by law. > THAT would be closer to something I would trust. Just as ants are drawn toward honey law-enforcement will be drawn to such data-havens and use their wherewithall to break in -- legally, illegally, whatever. Best defense is in dispersion -- "Be as a fish in the sea" said Chairman Mao who knew played BOTH sides of the intelli- gence game quite well. More to the point: if only a few people encrypt LEOs can focus on those people. But if everyone encrypts the LEOs will be chasing their tails. Knowing this the govt is constantly arguing for key-escrow, Clipper, GAK, CALEA and now the black-bag PC infection law. Anything that gives the government more control over the citizenry is considered good, anything that the citizenry might use to take control of the government is considered bad and must be expunged. Guns, encryption, communication must be tightly controlled or, failing that, banned. Steve ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Happy 80th Birthday! Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:50:41 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: >> Sunday, October 17 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of >> the Radio Corporation of America, commonly known as RCA, which >> began on this date in 1919. > Yep, it is the day to say a prayer for the late, great RCA! Sarnoff, > Sr. built it into a great operation, Sarnoff, Jr. ran it into the > ground. There was nothing "great" about Sarnoff, Sr., except perhaps his business sense, IMHO. He was a nasty, spiteful, and vicious man. If I had any idea what Sarnoff did to Major Armstrong when Sarnoff tried to steal his patent for FM, I would have never bought another RCA product. > Jack Welch bought it and carved it up like a Christmas turkey. > If there is an especially hot place in Hell I sure hope that Jack > Welch ends up there ... And I would surely hope the General ends up right next to him ... ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: 19 Oct 1999 00:43:12 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Fred Goldstein wrote: > I am not familiar with Gilder's 1970's works, but I remember him well > from the early Reagan years. He and Jude Wanniski were leading > spokescritters for the "supply side" theory. They touted the "Laffer > curve" as demonstrating how reduced taxes for rich people would lead > to reduced federal deficits. Of course that was a total failure and > the national debt rapidly tripled, but by then George had moved on to > other things. Oh, let's not blame poor ol' Arthur Laffer for the deficit. The Reagan administration wanted to kill off all those cost-effective weapons programs they inherited from the Carter administration to spend a great deal more money on stuff that didn't work all that well. Then he instructed the CIA to trump up some ridiculous numbers based on how much the Rooskies would spend on their weapons if they bought them from American defense contractors. Then he used those numbers to scare Congress into appropriating ungodly amounts of money for defense, considering it was peacetime. Later it was revealed that the Rooskies didn't have anywhere near the kind of weapons program Reagan claimed it had, even if they bought it from American contractors. ------------------------------ From: Hahn, Ki Suk Subject: Re: All About George Gilder Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:32:23 -0500 Dear Moderator, About George Gilder, I first heard about him though the book 'Sexual Suicide/Men and Marriage' which I read maybe seven years ago and generally agreed with its thesis. (Disclosure: I've been accused of being a right-wing extremist by my former roommate.) Many years later I read Gilder's articles in Forbes ASAP and was surprised that (as I saw it) he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the internet and telecommunications. As for the article, it was offensive to read that any minority and women in the 'club' are automatically token minorities and women. Ki Suk Hahn kshahn@datalogics.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When we had our three-session panel discussion (with questions from the audience) of Gilder's books (or really, a discussion of the review of his books) the reaction was sort of mixed, about fifty/fifty agreeing with his positions or disagreeing. I guess I mentioned a couple days ago I was involved with a noon-time discussion group in downtown Chicago called Brown- bag Seminars. People would bring their lunch and listen or join in at these 45 minute programs every week at the Chicago Temple Building. This was back in the middle 1970's. I remember later the Trustees telling me it was 'one of the more controversial programs' that had been given in the Brownbag Seminar series. I knew nothing about Gilder at all at the time, but I went to hear Rabbi Louis Binstock give a review of Sexual Suicide one Sunday morning (he gave about 20-25 reviews each year) and at the coffee hour afterward, Lou agreed to chair the panel discussion I was putting together for Brownbag ... he had seen the same review in the Monitor that I was using as the basis for the series I was planning. (Isn't it curious how you can have totally forgotten something from a quarter-century ago and then some little thing is said or done and it triggers a long-forgotten memory?) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:28:25 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: eBay: Arrogance at Internet Speed On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 Hudson Leighton (hudsonl@skypoint.com) wrote: > just add the .html Ohboy! Yup. I got the URL, now where are my glasses?! Thanks, Cortland [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That URL was so long part of it slid over ontoa second line, despite my best efforts at editing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:25:10 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Nope, no jammers and no repeaters. Produce a signal and you fall under the rules for a transmitter. REDUCE a signal, no problem. I have an intersting design for a communications link with less than zero power. You ground and unground a resonant antenna so anyone listening to the source tranasmitter's signal also gets your modulation. Ought to be license free, eh? (GRIN) Cortland On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 Leonard Erickson (shadow@krypton.rain.com) wrote: > Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a > special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service available" > during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local cell site(s) > so it could ensure that people inside were logged as "not available" > by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of incoming calls to > voicemail and the like. ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: 18 Oct 1999 19:43:55 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: > Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a > special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service available" > during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local cell site(s) > so it could ensure that people inside were logged as "not available" > by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of incoming calls to > voicemail and the like. There may be a need for a microcell base station that the cellular switch treats as having a special class of service. 911 calls must always be allowed, outgoing calls should probably be allowed, and incoming calls could be answered with a message "The mobile phone you are calling is in a quiet area that does not permit incoming calls except in emergencies. If this is an emergency, press 1 to connect your call. There is a charge of five dollars for this service". John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Bill Ranck Subject: Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Date: 18 Oct 1999 19:04:02 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Andrew Emmerson wrote: > UK Phone Phreaker Racks Up $170,000 Bill 10/15/99 > LONDON, ENGLAND, 1999 OCT 15 (NB) -- By Steve Gold, Newsbytes. A > During that time, BT said that Spilby repeatedly dialed a toll-free > number in Nicaragua from the UK and used his PC to generate "clear One wonders who, and for what purpose, would set up a toll-free number in the UK for a number in Nicaragua. > BT says that it identified lost call revenue amounting to 106,000 > pounds ($170,000) during its detailed investigation into his > activities. Notice the carful wording here. BT "identified" lost revenue, but apparently could not claim to have lost the revenue themselves. Because ... > Under the Act, Spilby was charged with the theft of a few pence > (cents) worth of electricity. Because of the value of his theft, So, it looks like somebody in Nicaragua paid BT. I just hope it was some drug dealer or other sleazeball and not some legitimate business that will be in financial trouble because of it. > This usually involves the call being terminated. However, in the case > of the Nicaraguan toll-free service, the calls were simply routed on > to their destination, at the expense of the toll-free service's owner. So let me get this straight, this guy was getting dialtone in Nicaragua on a toll-free number in the UK? Is that what they mean? I don't see any mention of who he was calling. Was the kid just calling his girlfriend in East Anglia, or was he selling call time on the street to homesick Nicaraguans? Was he hosting a porn-web site? What was he doing with this phone time? ***************************************************************************** * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:55:35 GMT In article , Andrew Emmerson wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They seem to contradict themselves > in this article, but that is not unusual when know-nothings write > on the topic of phone phreaking. At the end of the article, it > says the calls were 'at the expense of the toll-free service's owner' > which I presume refers to the subscriber of the toll-free number, but > elsewhere in the article it says BT lost $170,000 in the scam. So > who lost the money? They didn't both lose it. PAT] I think there are two sets of calls involved: the toll-free calls from the UK to Nicaragua (billed to the toll-free service owner), and then the calls that were placed after hacking this connection. These are calls that BT would have billed him for if he had dialed directly, and hence they lost this revenue. Another possibility is that when it was discovered that the calls were made fraudulently, BT removed the charges from the toll-free service's bill, so that BT ended up eating the charges that had originally been billed (just like phone company and credit card companies often do when there's a disputed bill). In this case, it's likely that it was technically their insurance company that lost the money, not BT itself. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:12:24 GMT On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:35 BST, midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) wrote: > UK Phone Phreaker Racks Up $170,000 Bill 10/15/99 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They seem to contradict themselves > in this article, but that is not unusual when know-nothings write > on the topic of phone phreaking. At the end of the article, it > says the calls were 'at the expense of the toll-free service's owner' > which I presume refers to the subscriber of the toll-free number, but > elsewhere in the article it says BT lost $170,000 in the scam. So > who lost the money? They didn't both lose it. PAT] These things are always curious. I would suppose the $170k was the retail price of the minutes consumed. Unless there is blockage on a circuit, the actual _cost_ is de minimus if the call is within one carrier, since the minutes don't displace revenue generating traffic. Since this case involves international settlements, that may not hold. It sounds like the UK lacks a theft of service law for cases like these. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #492 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 19 16:41:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA13509; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:41:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910192041.QAA13509@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #493 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Oct 99 16:41:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 493 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (pmacey@my-deja.com) Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... (Kenneth A. Becker) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Justa Lurker) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Brad Ackerman) Handset Prices Was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Happy 80th Birthday! (L. Winson) AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A Side? (Spam Trap) Here's One Example (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: pmacey@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:13:24 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , adamf.BOZO@columbus. rr.com (Adam Frix) wrote: > In article , nospam.tonypo1@ > nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: >> In article , monty@roscom.com >> says: >>> Is that all there is? After months of controversy and 1960s-style >>> protests on whether cable lines should be pried open to everyone for >>> high-speed Net access, the FCC issued a report that effectively said, >>> "Let's wait." But government bureaucracy makes for dull news, so >>> media outlets made quick work of the report before tuning in to the >>> decision's angry opponents, who made better copy. >>> http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,6977,00.html >> I almost hate to say this but ... >> Let them build their OWN broadband systems. The cable companies did it, >> companies like Brooks Fiber and many others did it too. > Hear hear. Whenever I hear AOL whine about how it's their "right" to > ride along on the bandwidth that someone else created for a private > business purpose, I just want to scream. Just some more BS from frix (aka BOZO), just like the vendetta BOZO is running against the cruise industry on rec.travel.cruises (did only 1 cruise 9 years ago and is still bitching about it and is trying to come off as a cruise expert), the scamming he is doing in a Breast Feeding NG, posing as a woman and asking for mothers to send BOZO pictures of themselves Breast Feeding, etc. Show us some proof where AOL is demanding to ride someone else's BW for backbone connectivity. And they got it covered for ingress with one of the largest networks in the world. AOL doesn't need to ride no one's Network, since their 1998 dealings with WCOM, now MCI WCOM and possibly Sprint thrown in, to boot. Tried of picking on the cruise industry right, now a percieved problem with AOL, BOZO being a non AOL user to boot. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Feds Snooze on Cable Access - Will Consumers Lose? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:30:31 GMT In article , dubuque@shell1.tiac.net says: > Yes, just what we all need, dozens or hundreds of providers running > their own cables to every house. But why stop there? Now that > there's local phone service and electric competition, let's have every > phone and power company run all their own lines to whoever wants their > service. And if we open up water and sewer service to competition, we > can each have half a dozen hookups going into all of our houses. > That's gotta be good for consumers, right? Here in Rhode Island they separated the electric distribution network from the generating network. That way the incumbent, Narragansett Electric can still charge to carry the power, but you buy it from whoever you feel like. For things like electricity this is possible. In the case of broadband cable, think about what's being carried on there already. In our are they run digital television, @Home and phone service over that same cable. I'm sure there's alot of capacity on the fiber backbones but on coax you'll only get so much. In addition, there are floors of empty space in the Bell Atlantic building in downtown Providence. It's been like that since they took out the SxS and #5XBar equipment and replaced it with a #1ESS and later a Nortel DMS-100. They'll sell unbundled loop to anyone who wants it, and they offer collocation should the carrier wish, but at a price. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Kenneth A. Becker Subject: Re: Cell-Phone Use Aloft ... Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:24:01 -0400 Organization: Wavestar Well, as much as I hate to put a damper on a good (venting) conversation, I'd thought I'd weigh in here with, pehaps, a more technical view of the problem of running random electronics in an airplane. Yep, I'm an electrical engineer. I've also done a fair amount of work on EMI/EMC issues, although that's been mainly on the kind of telecom hardware that ends up in central offices. I'm also a radio amateur with an abiding interest in receiver front ends and that sort of thing; and, whilst back when I was in the Navy I repaired avionics for a living. All this, and, what, $0.75, will get you a cup of coffee. YMMV, etc. Now, let's take a look at the problem. What we have here is a bunch of VHF/UHF/god knows what receivers hanging out in your random commercial airliner. The antennas are, literally, all over the aircraft. Sensitivites of these receivers are as good as the manufacturer can make them, which is plenty more sensitive than your random FM (commericial) radio. They are also fairly resistant to overload, as one might expect. However, >>all<< radio receivers have limits. Your navigational radios are, as one might expect, on all the time. Next, said airplane also has transmitters. It has transponders which send back some pretty hot RF back to the FAA radars to indicate position of the airplane; it has our fun fellows up in the cockpit talking to controllers, and so forth. Naturally these transmitter frequencies are not on top of the receiver frequencies. Usually. OK: Trick #1: Intermodulation. Basic math shows that when one takes two sine waves of different frequencies and run them through some kind of nonlinearity, one discovers that one has the original two signals plus two more - the sum of the two frequencies and the difference of the two frequencies. However, this ain't all: the two additional frequencies, in the presence of that nonlinearity or some other nonlinearity in some other piece of gear, also intermodulate with each other and the original two frequencies, resulting in even more frequencies. This keeps on going until, in theory, one has an infinite number of harmonics of the original frequcies and the differences between the original frequencies, amen. Of course the thing which saves us from drowning in RF soup is that the intermodulation products are usually down in amplitude, severerly so, as one intermodulates more and more away from the original frequencies. However, the problem here is the word, "usually". Let's have a little fun. The first stage of most modern receivers these days consists of a medium gain, extremely low noise, RF amplifier. It typically has an >>extremely<< broad passive LC (or resonant tank of some kind) in front of it, x MHz wide. Into this receiver comes every signal within the passband. Note: all amplifiers (including the first one) are, to some extent, nonlinear, especially in the presence of a "large" signal. A local oscillator then follows up the first stage of amplification to down-convert the desired signal to the IF frequency of the radio. The IF is where all the nifty signal processing and selection of the desired signal occurs. Hmm ... OK: the incoming signals are coming in from the antenna; the manufacturers of said avionics equipment know the range of amplitudes that might be coming in, and size that first amplifier not to become too nonlinear given the range of possible signals that might be coming in. Remember, too, that the received signals might range in the tenths of a microvolt (yep, 10e-6 volt!) to maybe a 1000 microvolts or so. Now: here's Joe/Jane Blow with their computer on. Computers are digital devices; they develop harmonic outputs from DC to daylight (well, multiple GHz, anyway), and what frequencies get generated when vary depending upon which computer they have, the applications they're running, the length of the mouse cord, and the phase of the moon. Yep, said computer >>may<< have passed FCC Class B (consumer) radiation tests - but those tests are intended to prevent the computer we're discussing from interfering with commercial (Broadcast) TV. Commercial, Broadcast TV has relatively >>huge<< signals, so the output of this computer is fairly hot - especially if it's competing with a radio navigation source that may be in the tenths of a microvolt. So, forget about the direct radiation. Let's have some more fun. Remember those airplane transmitters, cranking along at 10 - 200 watts or so? If signals can get out of that computer, signals can get in, too. And there are gazillions of rectifying junctions in that computer - trust me on this. Even if the computer doesn't malfunction, it's going to re-radiate intermodulation products like one wouldn't believe. Oops. More frequencies to mess with the navigational systems of the airliner. Given all these fun and games, one must wonder why the digital cockpits used in present airliners (heck, why not the old ones, too!) don't cause the airplanes to fall out of the sky on a regular basis. Well, there's a good reason that they don't - the manufacturers of said airplane put the airplane in an RF-tight box, turned on all the avionics, and then started flipping switches. They aimed RF sources at the airplane. They went nuts shielding all the electronics (you haven't seen screws and gasketing material until you've had to take apart an avionics radar!), at great expense, until they were satisfied that everything worked right. Great: all the equipment in that plane is certifed to work with each other until the airframe dies a natural death. Want to replace the avionics package? Then, you go back through the testing procedure until the FAA/FCC is happy. Except ... now we have Joe/Jane Blow with their computers. And all their friends have computers that radiate into their own computers and Joe & Jane Blow's. And Walkmans. And Gameboys. And other random pieces of electonic garbage that weren't even invented when the avionics package on that aircraft was laid down. Well, the avionics was designed by engineers who were definitely trying to keep that airplane from falling out of the sky. It's resistant - we hope. However, we have (the EE community) been hearing reports, usually non-repeatable reports, from airplane pilots that avionics equipment sometimes acts strangely. Sometimes the strangeness goes away goes away when people turn off the electronic equipment carried onto the airplane. It doesn't happen all the time - from my reading of the literature (and I don't really keep up with this) the proper phrase is "rare". I dunno. Rare is rare, but rarely augering an airliner into the ground on a dark and stormy night, or bright and sunshiny day, doesn't touch my fancy. Cell phones? Heck, those things >>have<< receivers in them. Let's see: powered transmitters, cell transmitters, computer stuff, intermod, and market-driven forces resulting in the cheapest electronics (hey, that filter cap is a tenth of a cent - time to remove it and save $100K!) that money can buy ... if I was an engineer tasked with worrying about this on an airliner I'd have more white hair than I do already. OK: go ahead and use those cell phones whilst the captain is taxiing. If the nav says he's 200 feet up going mach 2, he's not going to believe it - the wheels make the plane bounce too much But, please, turn the cell phone off in the air. Do you want >>your<< life hanging on the glitch that wasn't tested? Ken Becker Lucent ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:27:27 GMT It was 18 Oct 1999 19:43:55 GMT, and nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a >> special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service available" >> during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local cell site(s) >> so it could ensure that people inside were logged as "not available" >> by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of incoming calls to >> voicemail and the like. > There may be a need for a microcell base station that the > cellular switch treats as having a special class of service. 911 > calls must always be allowed, outgoing calls should probably be > allowed, and incoming calls could be answered with a message "The > mobile phone you are calling is in a quiet area that does not permit > incoming calls except in emergencies. If this is an emergency, press > 1 to connect your call. There is a charge of five dollars for this > service". Or call forward it to the box office, so the customer can be descreetly contacted. But there are too many providers to put a micro cell in for each one, and you still reach people NEAR the protected area. I'm also curious what a phone would do if it locked to a cell reporting 'no service'. Wouldn't it just look for another cell? It would have to be a HOME service cell that reported service available and was stronger within the protected area than any real cells, without blocking service outside the protected area. The stage theatre in my town would have real problems. There is a non-wireline cell array on the roof serving the downtown area. JL ------------------------------ From: bsa3@cornell.edu (Brad Ackerman) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: 19 Oct 1999 00:14:06 -0400 Organization: NERV GeoFront, Tokyo III shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: > Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a > special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service > available" during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local > cell site(s) so it could ensure that people inside were logged as > "not available" by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of > incoming calls to voicemail and the like. No need. If the phones don't get a signal, there's no service. There is no need to specifically tell the cell site that phones inside the Faraday cage are not available, because if they were available, they would be communicating with the cell. A resolution proof using first-order logic is left as an exercise to the reader. Brad Ackerman N1MNB "Conjecture has become fact, bsa3@cornell.edu and rumour has become history." PGP: 0x62D6B223 -- _Serial Experiments Lain_ http://skaro.pair.com/ Layer 09: "Protocol" ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Handset Prices Was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:18:48 GMT In article , doc_dave@bga.com says: > It should be noted that in addition to the subsidy lock preventing > customers from using their handset with another carrier, it also > serves as a guarantee that the subsidy (hence the name subsidy lock) > that the carrier pays to lower the cost of the handset is not lost. > Each carrier, even the "non contract" PCS carriers pay a subsidy to > lower the cost of the handset. Sprint PCS phones start at 99.99 > ... but they still cost more than that. Just like older cellular > carriers, PCS carriers still pay to lower the handset costs; they just > don't lower the cost as much as cellular carriers. So how does OmniPoint sell things like the g520 etc. at $49.00???? I think you will see PCS subsidization change, as soon as analog gets phased out and it WILL get phased out. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Happy 80th Birthday! Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:28:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Sunday, October 17 marks the 80th anniversary of the founding of > the Radio Corporation of America, commonly known as RCA, which > began on this date in 1919. There's a history that was published by GE after they took over: "'His Master's Voice' in America' Ninety Years of Communications Pioneering and Progress" by Frederick O. Barnum III, c 1991. A big part of the book deals with the Victor Talking Machine Company of Camden NJ, who made record players and records and was a large outfit (thus the name "RCA Victor" and the dog mascot "Nipper" which continues to be used to this day on audio compact discs.) Victor had a huge manufacturing complex in Camden NJ, just across the river from Philadelphia. It continued under RCA and then GE, but now there is very little left, much has been torn down or abandoned. [Camden as a town suffered terribly from the loss of its industry and is today one of the country's poorest cities. Campbell Soups still have their headquarters there, but I don't think they make soups there any more. They used to buy up much of south Jersey's tomato crop to make soup, no more today.] After WW II RCA found itself making a lot of government electronics for defense purposes, and this work gradually became the main focus of the company over the years. Consumer electronics, such as home phonographs and television sets gradually faded. I'm not sure when commercial electronics, such as TV transmitters, public address systems, motion picture sound systems, and TV cameras faded from importance. After WW II RCA expanded from Camden. Some plants were built close by in Cherry Hill NJ and Moorestown NJ and remain in use by successors. GE sold much of the defense electronics business to Martin Marietta who then merged with Lockheed. (Martin Marietta was originally the Glenn Martin airplane compmany.) Long time RCA employees found themselves in a succession of employers. The audio business was sold by GE to BMI of Germany. Interestingly, modern audio CD's bear the older cirle RCA logo and Nipper. The consumer electronics business was sold by GE to Thomson Electronics of France. They market TVs and VCRS under the newer modern stylized RCA logo. In the late 1950s RCA got into the computer business. IBM's head, Tom Watson Jr, was a bit concerned since RCA had at the time far more electronics background than they did and was a much bigger company. However, RCA underestimated the sales and support needed to market computers (always IBM's strong point). RCA came up with a Spectra series and eventually sold their computer business to Univac. In the early 1950s a fellow named Pat Weaver came on and took over NBC television. (He wrote a book about it which is pretty interesting.) He didn't get along well with Sarnoff and eventually was forced out. Weaver pushed the trend away from sponsors owning a whole show, as was common in radio, to the network owning the show and selling only ad time on it. Knowing a number of former real RCA employees (including father-daughter multi generations), it is sad for me that this once proud company no longer exists. But in American industry, especially today, nothing is permanent. The business landscape is littered with many one-time giants, companies so strong and powerful people thought they'd last forever. In 1960, if someone said the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad would in ten years be dead broke, no one would listen seriously, yet that's what happened. At one time A&P supermarkets were the market leader, now they're struggling. ------------------------------ From: Spam Trap Subject: AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A side? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:20:56 -0600 Organization: Mindspring Reply-To: Joseph S. Sperrazza I've just moved from Atlanta to Denver, so need to switch off of BellSouth (a B-side, Analog/TDMA-digital network). I'm thinking about getting AT&T's family plan for myself and my wife. However, I travel quite a bit, sometimes to areas with marginal coverage. Right now, my nationwide coverage is pretty good, using a B-side provider. Also, I am able, when needed, to swicth over to the A side when B-side coverage is poor. I recall reading that with AT&T'd Digital One-Rate plan, you can't switch to the B-side, which caused a big problem with an outage in NY. What about AT&T's family plan? Any idea if those phones also cannot switch to the B-side? Any suggestions for a wireless provider in Denver? Thanks! Reply by posting preferred Spammers tracked down and LARTed ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Here's One Example Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:45:14 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Some slime published this article in a for sale group advertising RAM at an outrageously low price to generate unwanted calls to our 800 number and harassment to cheappc.com. I was also email bombed from this same anonymizer site at infonex. The trash running the anonymizer enabled the perp to do this act of electronic vandalism and are just as guilty as the perp. This is not theory, Pat, this is real. No need to publish this to the newsgroup, this is just for you to see where I am coming from. Post it if you wish, though. ----------------------------- Path: rQdQ!rQ66!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!cyclone. bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news-master.service.talkway.com!c01 read02-admin.service.talkway.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Cheap PC" Subject: FS: 128mb, 100MHz SDRAM $87.99 Newsgroups: tor.forsale.computers X-Client-NNTP-Posting-Host: ascella.anonymizer.com/209.75.196.104 Followup-To: tor.forsale.computers X-TWRN-Tag: 939256428982 Lines: 9 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:33:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.200.3.203 X-Trace: c01read02-admin.service.talkway.com 939256406 216.200.3.203 (Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:33:26 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 17:33:26 PDT Organization: Talkway, Inc. Xref: rQdQ tor.forsale.computers:100818 128mb 100MHz SDRAM, only $87.99 each plus S&H and sales tax, if applicable. Call (800) ********* to place your order today. -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm). -------------------------------- My 800 number "***" out Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's quite alright, Steve. I am more than happy to print your report. Please don't think for a minute that I don't read what passes through and try from time to time to adjust my own theories to fit the reality of the modern internet. I am sorry you are getting this hassle at the present time. But what is the answer, or is there an answer which will be satisfactory to all sides? Whether it is caller-ID on the telephone, techniques to iden- tify the users of computers on the net or various other situations, everyone wants their own affairs to be their private business until their own oxe gets gored somehow, and then they expect the perpetra- tors to be placed in the spotlight. If that means everyone else's affairs have to be illuminated as well, as a convenient way to expose what is going on, so be it. Do you remember ten years ago when people first stated hearing in massive detail about the internet and the wonderful stories we were told about how the computer would bring so many improvements to our lives? Unless you consider the massive information flood which has occurred in the past decade as an 'improvement', I have to wonder if far from being richer, our lives are actually much poorer than they were in those days. Our technology people have been working overtime it seems, while our theologians and ethicists have been slumbering. When monks in the thirteenth century invented the mechanical clock, they did so in an effort to bring precise regularity to the seven times each day in which they required to conduct their meditations and devotional exercises. When Guttenberg discovered a way to change a wine-making device so that it would serve as a printing press instead, what was the first thing he did? He gave the glory to God and announced that his new invention would advance the cause of the Holy See. What really happened was, the printing press destroyed the monopoly held by the church. Clocks have taught us we have no time left in the day for meditation or devotional exercises. And now computers hold out all sorts of wonderful promises for our future. We will have all the freedom and knowledge we could ever want, and then some. Technology giveth, and regretably, technology taketh away. Maybe we will someday reach a plateau in our lives when the misuse or improper processing of information will be regarded as a very serious crime; as serious, let's say, as physical assault, or robbery or murder. Until that point comes, if ever, I think we just have more trouble waiting in our future. Thanks for reading! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #493 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 19 17:54:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA16924; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:54:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910192154.RAA16924@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #494 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Oct 99 17:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 494 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tiny PBX Suggestions? (James Gifford) Re: Rates From Canada to Germany (Jason) Re: Pay Phone Paying (John R. Levine) Input on Best Career Sites (TelephonySales) Ticketmaster: Think Before You Link (Monty Solomon) Re: Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? (Al Varney) Channeled Lines From CO (Michael E. Winsett) ANI "Phone Number" (M. D. Parker) Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More (Tad Cook) Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Western Electric 320 Unit (L. Winson) SBC Will Dig Up Copper to Deliver DSL (Monty Solomon) Truth is Stranger Than Urban Legend (Mike Pollock) Re: TELECOM Digest V19 #487 (Adam Sampson) Switching Computer Security (Rory Matthews) New Alliance Challenges NTT (Monty Solomon) Free Development Offer (freedev@bigfoot.com) Re: AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A Side? (Larry Finch) 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: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Tiny PBX Suggestions? Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:09:52 -0700 I need a very small, very lightweight PBX/switch for a small office. I need the following capabilities: - 3 analog trunk ports - 5 or more station ports - Programmable operation including busy/no-answer rollover - CNG detection/autoroute - Simple autoattendant features Pretty simple, I know. I have the Centrepoint Concero and the SoloPoint A-200, but neither does what I want. (The Concero is hard to program and has flaws such as only allowing one extension at a time to have dial tone. The A-200 is great except that it doesn't allow station-to-station call transfer. Both are only 2x4, as well.) Basically, I have three incoming lines and want two extensions, two ports for voicemail and one port for fax. I'd like callers to be able to press 1 for voicemail access and 0 (or wait) for the front desk, with auto-detect of fax calls routed to the fax port. Cheap (<$300 ) is good. Any suggestions appreciated. | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:41:32 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: Rates From Canada to Germany Organization: Apollo Concepts Telecom and Data Consulting Peter Borowski queried: > Does anybody know the cheapest possibility to make oversea calls from > Canada to Germany? Peter, I can recommend two excellent solutions for you: (1) 23 cents/min w/ 6 sec incremental billing, access from an 800 #, prepaid, from Destia... (email or call me for signup details- it's a special program) -OR- (2) 17 cents/min w/ 6 sec incremental billing (after 1st min) via a callback system that requires a free call to initiate -- sign up and be provisioned in 15 seconds, billed monthly ... from CallNow.com -- for details see: http://www.callnow.com/agent.asp?cognigen-apollo Both plans require payment by a credit card, and rates quoted are in US dollars, with no monthly minimums, fees, surcharges, or other gimmicks. Feel free to ask me any questions about the services or other options. Regards, Jason (610) 406-0444 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1999 20:26:38 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Pay Phone Paying Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Also, in most of the smaller towns they had "post pay" type pay > stations where you'd lift the receiver, receive dial tone and dial > the number. When the party answered you'd get bursts of dial tone > to indicate that you needed to insert money to talk. We still have post-pay here, even though the switch is a spiffy GTD-5. You dial the number, wait for the answer, then quick put in your dime. How many other places still have postpay? It's nice. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: telephonysales@aol.com (TelephonySales) Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:32:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Input on Best Career Sites Hello, I'm a CTI Sales Account Executive. Anyone have any input on the best job sites for Telephony? Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:46:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ticketmaster: Think Before You Link By Laura Rich LOS ANGELES - In the hopes of sparking industrywide debate on the topic, Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch is set to post a statement on its Web site that argues against certain types of linking. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,7007,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An 'industrywide debate' on what? Whether or not World Wide Web software should be used in the manner it was written and intended? PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? Date: 19 Oct 1999 20:39:14 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Keelan Lightfoot wrote: > How did Nortel's line of electronic switches evolve? Their history > says that their first all electronic PBX, the SG-1, was their "first > electronic switch on the market", then the history goes on to describe > the SL-1. Was the SL-1 the next in line from the SG-1? Was there > anything in-between? The SG-1 (late 1960s) was a PAM/TDM (analog time-division-multiplex) PBX, similar to the Bell System's No. 101 ESS of that same era. The SL-1 PBX (1975) was based on a new (PCM-ized voice) TSI-TSI fabric. Before the SG-1 were only non-software-based PBXs. And I don't believe Nortel has ever published anything about an in-between PBX product. In the CO switch world, Bell Canada had Northern Electric build, install and maintain a No. 1 ESS switch in 1967 for the Montreal World Expo (they later purchased 7 other ESS switches). But Northern Electric Labs (pre-BNR research group) didn't like the No. 2 ESS for smaller COs, and started their own SP-1 project (a 10K line CO switch). The SP-1 was Northern's first software-controlled CO switch, which saw CO service in 1971 and a 4-wire tandem version in 1975 -- the tandem also supported TOPS consoles. In 1981, a 20K line version (SP-1E) was introduced. In 1977, Northern introduced the DMS-10, a PCM-based CO switch. This was built from the SL-1 by adding dual processors and analog line circuits based on the DMS-1 line multiplexer. > PS: I am looking to add a first generation SL-1 to my collection -- what > would I ask for? An SL-1, but with a really old processor. Go back any further and you'll fall off "Digital World". :) Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: Michael E. Winsett Subject: Channeled Lines From CO Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 10:48:28 -0700 US-West is saying that in order to get a T3 or a DS3 to my site and be able to split the line into standard lines where 672 users can call in they will need to do the channeling from the CO. That means I will need to split it up to 28 PRI or T1 then break it up to standard 56k connections. Unless there is one piece of equipment that will channel it and break it up to data lines and then work on a ATM which then will bring the 672 individual dial in-uses into my system. I don't believe them, I think they just want to make the extra money per month and I have heard of others not needing it channeled. I don't care how much it cost me up front I just don't want to pay the "Big Monthly Charge" The equipment is what I would need and a solution on how I would do this. And what exactly would I tell US-West to supply me with? This way it will bring that line down from 30k a month to 3k a month, that to me justifies any price on the equipment that will do this for me. For what US-West is charging for a channeled DS3 I could get a unchanneled OC18 for that price. I am desperate, and only have a week to be able to figure this out. If anyone knows please help. winsett@gorge.net ------------------------------ From: mdpc@netcom.com (M. D. Parker) Subject: ANI "Phone Number" Date: 19 Oct 1999 17:48:44 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Are there any phone numbers available that will return the ANI (not CID) information via voice about the caller? I used to have a phone number a long time ago but it no longer works. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Offer Area-Code Help Any More Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:15:17 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) John R. Covert wrote: > Now, of course, I knew that 411 wouldn't have the required info > either, for a number outside the area. But I did what the operator > told me (using up one of my four allowed D.A. calls this month). Since the operator doesn't always respond to a Name-Place request anymore, I am using NPA for Windows, a shareware program, more and more. A new version comes out quarterly, and another one is due by the end of the month. You can get it at www.pcconsultant.com, specifically http://www.pcconsultant.com/npawin.htm Tad Cook Seattle, WA tad@ssc.com ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Pulse Dialing in the US: For How Long? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:35:13 GMT In article , ed_ellers@email. msn.com says: > Leonard Erickson wrote: >> I doubt it. More likely the ISDN "adapter" that you've plugged the >> non-ISDN gear that is doing the pulse dialing into is what supports >> pulse dialing. > I once plugged a 302 dial* telephone into a port on an AT&T Partner > key system -- which is designed to support POTS phones as well as its > special sets -- and it really did dial out just fine. Ed, That's because the Partner systems are hybrids, not pure digital. Not to mention they're built like brick outhouses. I like the flexibility they offer for one of my larger branch stores. It's got all the "neato" features of a real key system, but you can still swap in standard '500' type sets and configure them to use all the system features. As I've said before, my Samsung DCS that's in the HQ takes the pulsed number and pushes out DTMF. I suppose we'll see these features disappear in the future but for now I like the fact that it works. > * Not all 302 sets had dials, since a lot of areas still had manual > service in that era, though the ones I've come across since the late > 1960s all did. For that matter, some 500 sets did not have dials, > either because they were used in areas with manual service, in manual > PBX installations, or in special installations where outgoing calls > were disallowed at the customer's request. Until people figured out how to hookflash a number. :) That's what got us COR and COS restrictions on PBX's. In article , lwinson@bbs. cpcn.com says: > In most cases the system did all the work. But if a customer had > trouble, the operator could still route the call the old fashioned > way by relaying it through toll centers. Back in the early 80's I knew someone who worked for what was then New England Telephone. By this point AT&T knew what was going to happen and moved all the toll switching to the top floor of the Providence CO. He explained how at the time they'd just go in, jack into an LD circuit and dial away. As of 1984 he told me they locked EVERYTHING up from that point on. :) Ah, the good old days. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 18 Oct 1999 22:59:08 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: MCI Buys Sprint in Record $115 Billion Deal > We like to call it ... OZ Very appropriate ... and remember, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!" You'll hear nothing but the normal BS for the next year or so ... ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Western Electric 320 Unit Date: 18 Oct 1999 23:30:41 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > I saw one of these today in an antique shop - for $200 you can own one > of these. It's an explosion-proof version of the 300 set - with a 300 > handset and dial. It was in service recently enough to have a number > plate with an area code and all numeric number. Big round casing, and I've seen pictures of them with the rotary dial replaced by a touch-tone pad. I think the idea was if a spark exploded WITHIN the telephone, the heavy case would contain it. My guess is such sets are still in use in explosive situations. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:51:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC Will Dig Up Copper to Deliver DSL SBC, the nation's biggest local phone company, plans to spend several billion dollars on a broadband network for its local telephone customers. But just how many billion depends on who you're reading. An AP report carried by CBS MarketWatch said $2.5 billion, while the San Jose Mercury News and New York Times pegged the number at $6 billion. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,7047,00.html ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Truth is Stranger Than Urban Legend Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:28:26 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! FCC to re-examine 'modem tax' Exemption on access fees applied to Internet connections is safe, for now By Brock N. Meeks MSNBC SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 18 - The Federal Communications Commission this year will re-examine the issue of whether Internet service providers should pay a per-minute fee for connecting to the local telephone network, said a commission official speaking here at the annual convention of the United States Telecom Association. Complete story at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/324870.asp [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone please tell me this one isn't coming around again ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:29:26 +0100 From: Adam Sampson Reply-To: azz@gnu.org Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are > [...] the part of the log that you are most concerned with (IP > address of sender) is not something that a user can disguise, unless > they are able to forge IP addresses somehow. They can, however, hide > behind proxies, as you noted. But they then lose the benefit of > end-to-end connectivity. The only benefit of "end-to-end connectivity" is negligably higher latency on the connection, and then only if the page isn't in the proxy's cache already. Use of a good caching proxy will save you a *lot* of browsing time, and also have the benefit of hiding your IP address. In fact, once we start to include places sufficiently "far away" in the Internet, caching proxies will be a necessity; the latency on a non-cached page will be so high that you wouldn't want to wait for it. (Some sci-fi author proposed effectively this as a method for interstellar communication many years ago; your repeater stations cache everything that passes through, so that they can regurgitate it rather than requesting it again if required. Also note that many TCP implementations currently have a hardcoded connection timeout of 15 minutes; there's a famous comment in the Linux source code about FTP to the University of Mars.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then I guess what I had better do soon is > print one of my occassional tutorials. This one would be on the topic of > how to make your browser send out complete lies to the other end, and > otherwise confuse things as much as possible. [...] PAT] I do keep saying this, but give Internet Junkbuster (http://www.junkbusters.com, or if you're using Linux there's probably a package for it in your distribution) a try; it's a simple non- caching filtering proxy server that you can run on a non-privileged port under Unix or Windows. You can set it to block or fake Refer[r]er:, Proxied-For: (or whatever it's called), cookies, User-Agent:, etc. etc. Come to think of it, one way to defeat deep-link defeaters would be to simply send the page you're requesting as the Referer: -- that way the webserver thinks you're just reloading the page. I have been simply blocking Referer: for a long time now; the only thing that breaks are the hitcounters that depend on it to see which page should be counted. Perhaps I should make my web pages only accessible if you *don't* provide a valid Referer: header. :-) Adam Sampson [Sussex, England, not working for Junkbusters, I just like IJB] azz@gnu.org http://cider.bnet-ibb.de/~azz/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is a really good suggestion. Readers may wish to pick up a copy of the software and see how well it works out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Switching Computer Security Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:26:33 PDT Hello all, I was wondering, does anyone have any papers on how switching computers (5 ESS preferably) are secured? Do they keep any kind of logs? I was told they usually have a kind of schedule of who should be logged on and when. Is that true? If so what happens if someone who shouldn't be logged on does? I mean, whats to stop people like the 'phone masters' from firing up minicom and connecting to some switch on their home PC? I think a guy also told me that they have a special 'key modem' of sorts, but then how did the phone masters get around this? -Rory Matthews ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:02:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Alliance Challenges NTT By Michiyo Yamada Japan's Web surfers, approaching 17 million this year, may finally be saved from the notoriously expensive phone fees charged by NTT, if a new alliance has its way. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,6995,00.html ------------------------------ Subject: Free Development Offer From: freedev@bigfoot.com (freedev@bigfoot.com) Reply-To: freedev@bigfoot.com Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:10:39 GMT Startup company offers to undertake development, "free of charge", a study of a mixed hardware/software system in: - Telecommunications - Embedded electronics - Signal processing - Data acquisition For you, the bonus is the cost! For us, it's a way to make sure the project fulfils a market requirement. In return, we retain the intellectual rights to the product. Sounds good to you? Submit your project to us, and we will examine it closely, in complete confidence. We will take on the project that has the most technical interest and the best commercial potential. In view of our available resources, this project should not require more than one man-year. If our ambitions and yours coincide, please feel free to contact us: freedev@bigfoot.com To find out more, please check out our career profiles and summaries of past projects: http://www.multimania.com/freedev ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A Side? Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:29:25 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net In general PCS can't switch. A multi-mode phone like the One Rate phones CAN switch, and will if there is no A band service. You may have to pay for the calls (with a credit card) if there is A band service that isn't working, however. I've had this happen a couple of times. Larry Spam Trap wrote: > I've just moved from Atlanta to Denver, so need to switch off of > BellSouth (a B-side, Analog/TDMA-digital network). > I'm thinking about getting AT&T's family plan for myself and my wife. > However, I travel quite a bit, sometimes to areas with marginal > coverage. Right now, my nationwide coverage is pretty good, using a > B-side provider. Also, I am able, when needed, to swicth over to the A > side when B-side coverage is poor. > I recall reading that with AT&T'd Digital One-Rate plan, you can't > switch to the B-side, which caused a big problem with an outage in NY. > What about AT&T's family plan? Any idea if those phones also cannot > switch to the B-side? > Any suggestions for a wireless provider in Denver? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #494 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 21 15:23:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA06645; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:23:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910211923.PAA06645@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #495 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Oct 99 15:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 495 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New 'Menu' on BellSouth New Orleans LATA TOPS (Mark J. Cuccia) Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) (Lisa Hancock) www.uReach.com is a Free "One Person, One Number" (humphrybbear) SG-1 Timeline Help Needed (Keelan Lightfoot) Ever Wonder Where That "Universal Service Tax" Goes? (Danny Burstein) T1 Headaches (Ray Scites) Ringer Equivalency Number (Clyde Calcote) Congressional Spam Bill Due Today (Monty Solomon) Lucent Manuals Wanted (Joseph McKinney) Ray Walston - Going Strong at 85 (Lisa Hancock) 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, 20 Oct 1999 11:33:58 CDT From: Mark .J Cuccia Subject: New 'Menu' on BellSouth New Orleans LATA TOPS The BellSouth New Orleans LATA DMS-200-TOPS (Nortel) added a new automation platform recently ... (NWORLAMA20T is the CLLI for this TOPS machine). Tuesday afternoon, my cellphone rang while I was at work. I answered it- the caller asked for someone I don't know. When I asked them what number they were calling, she quoted either my resi 'main' number or my resi 'ringmaster' number (I don't remember which - both forward on busy and no-answer to my BellSouth Mobility cellular and its voicemail), but whichever one she quoted, she was one-digit-wrong. I told her that she had dialed the wrong number. She apologized with "excuse the ring"... Now, that phrase, "excuse the ring" is a traditional Bell System telephone operator phrase when they reached the wrong party! I should have told her "no problem, operator", or "no problem, inward - make sure to mark-sense your ticket and set your calculograph that it was a wrong number", but I simply hung-up. When I got home, at the time this call came in, I had a 504-471-xxxx number on my caller ID box, along with the name "AT&T Voice". I don't recognize the 471 CO code offhand in the 504 NPA, but since I have LATA-wide unlimited calling on a BellSouth optional plan (Area Plus) and since there are only three 504-NXX codes that are not in my LATA, I dialed the 471-xxxx number (as seven-digits). It simply rang-and-rang. I GUESS that maybe it was a call from an AT&T operator who does Telecom Relay for the Deaf? Anyhow, I thought I'd call the single-0 BellSouth Operator for a nameplace on 504-471. Since it is in my area code and most likely in my LATA, they won't try to send me to chargeable 411 or tell me to call 1-411, or give me a run-around. When I dialed '0', and then '#', I got the "BELL-South" branding, but instead of ringing to a live human "Operator", I got... "To place a call, press-1; For Residential Repair or Business Office, press-2; For Business Customers Repair or Business Office, press-3; For additional assistance, press-0 or stay on the line." I've never gotten a menu like this before on '0' for BellSouth's LATA Operator, but Stan Cline told me of a similar menu used at BellSouth's Chattanooga TN LATA TOPS on single-0-minus. He also told me that one of the LATA TOPS in a BellSouth LATA in South Carolina has a similar menu platform: "To place a call press-1; for an automated callback press-2 and hang-up; Press-0 or stay on the line for Operator Assistance." Anyhow, I pressed-0 and she came on "Operator". I asked her where the 471 prefix was in the 504 Area Code. She told me "Kenner-Briarwood". Kenner is a ratecenter that is a suburb of New Orleans -- and it is "bare-bones local" to New Orleans (i.e., you don't have to be on any special plans from BellSouth for Kenner to be unlimited calling). But she also told me "Briarwood". THAT is the name of the central office BUILDING in the Kenner ratecenter that traditionally has served most 504-46x prefixes and now some 504-47x prefixes - KNNRLABRDS0, a DMS-100 (Nortel) end-office. (It used to be a WECO/Lucent #1AESS from the late 1970's until Dec.1993, KNNRLABRCG0). I've never had an Operator tell me the c.o. BUILDING or SWITCH before! And with portability coming in, you'd think that all she'd need to quote is the Ratecenter (Exchange area name) rather than even a "locality" name! Anyhow, I asked her if this was a BellSouth prefix (which being the 'Briarwood' building, it would be), and she said "yes". I thanked her and then hung up. Incidently, EVEN with portability, an NPA-NXX code is still "default" assigned to a LEC and switch. It could be what it was 'historically' assigned to, but according to the LERG and the TPM, it still has a default carrier (LEC), and c.o.switch. Anyhow, I thought I'd test the new automated platform that BellSouth has added to the New Orleans NWORLAMA20T DMS-200-TOPS machine... I dialed '0' again and then pressed-1 "to place a call". I then got the prompt to enter the number I wanted to call, or for assistance to press-0 or stay on the line for an operator. On the first try, I entered a ten-digit NANP-based number, 631-357-8378, which is the test number for the forthcoming (1-Nov-1999) new NPA for Suffolk County (Long Island) NY (splitting from existing NPA 516). This NPA isn't yet in effect, but when it is, it will be OUT-of-LATA. I got a response that the number dialed was invalid, to press-0 or stay on the line for Operator Assistance. OR to enter ANOTHER number I wanted to call. So, I entered a ten-digit NANP-based number with a "valid" existing NPA, but also another one that was NOT in my LATA. I then got a response that my call "couldn't be processed", and again, to press-0 or stay on the line for Operator Assistance. Or to enter another number I wanted to call. So, I entered 601-772-0000. That is in the ratecenter of Crossroads MS, which _IS_IN_ my LATA - the only "out-of-state" prefix and ratecenter within my LATA (#490 New Orleans). 601-772 is served from the Bogalusa LA #5ESS-Remote BellSouth end-office remote (BGLSLAMARS1, hosted by SLIDLAMADS0 #5ESS host in Slidel LA). I then heard a 'bong' followed by a further menu: - If a calling-card call, enter the card/PIN number; - If a Collect call, enter '11'; - If a Third Party billed call, enter '12'; - for further assistance, enter '0' or stay on the line. I tried to enter '15' followed by two/three digits. A '15' to a TOPS/OSPS on the '0+' or ('01+') access method indicates "Call Manager" or "Call Organizer" type of 'sub-account' billing from NON-restricted lines (i.e., NOT from payphones, cellulars, PBX, etc - ONLY from regular resi- or business lines). However, this 0-minus access method menu to TOPS didn't like the '15'+XX(X)('#'). It claimed that the card-or-PIN number was "invalid", and to enter a valid card number, or press-0/hold for assistance. I entered my BellSouth (fourteen-digit line-number-based) card and trailed it with a '#'. It said 'Thank You', and started to process the call. (The number 601-772-0000 is a vacant-line, so I would get such a recording which wouldn't bill me). I then tried to hit '#' for a 'sequence' call, which is also permitted under this platform. But the "Sequence Call" part of this platform brings one back to the original complete menu one gets on 0('#') (or 101-5124-0('#') if necessary, such as from COCOTs whose internal chips take 0('#') and instead dial-out a 101-XXXX-0('#'/0) of some AOSlime, or an 800/888/877 or even 950-xxxx number to access some AOSlime). I got the 'press-1' to place a call, 'press-2' for Residential Repair/Business- Office, 'press-3' for Business Repair/Business-Office, 'press-0'/hold for Operator. An additional note on this menu ... the 'single digit entry' of 1, 2, 3, or 0 ... it seemed to WAIT a few seconds before going to the next menu or live operator. On some "tests", I tried entering 1+'#', to place a call. THAT seemed to WORK - i.e., 'cut-thru' to the next menu. AT&T's '00' and 800-CALL-ATT, as well as (Stentor) Canada's 800-555-1111 automated menus works in a similar way. There are some things which request a one-or-two-digit code, but it "waits" a few seconds before the next "menu layer". But if you hit a '#' after the one/two digit code, you 'cut-thru' to the next menu-layer (or live operator) right away. Last night I asked someone in the BellSouth Atlanta GA LATA, but served by Alltel independent LEC to try dialing 0('#') to see if they got a similar menu from the BellSouth LATA TOPS. Even though he is served by Alltel, they use BellSouth for the inTRA-LATA TOPS operator. He got the complete BellSouth 'branding' (which is unusual since he was calling from an independent LEC's territory), and the same 'type' of menu, EXCEPT for the options of 2(#) for Residential Repair/Business-Office and 3(#) for Business Repair/Business-Office. When I make a (101-5124)-0+ ten-digits inTRA-LATA call via the BellSouth TOPS, I have been getting the following menu since the early 1990's: "BELLSouth" (branding) - then the 'bong'. "For collect calls press '11' now; to charge this call to a calling-card or another telephone number, enter a complete billing number and then press the 'pound' sign. For Person-to-Person and all other calls, press-0 or hold for the Operator. If you do not have touchtone and would like to bill this call collect, say 'yes' at the tone". Then a 'PLING' dual-frequency tone comes on. (This same 'PLING' tone is the prompt to 'record your name' if it is a collect/3d-pty billed call via the automated aspects of TOPS). IF you enter simply ten-digits (and then the '#') at the initial bong/menu, the TOPS assumes that you want to place a 3rd-party billed call. You could also enter JUST the four-digit 'PIN' (NXXX) if the card-number to bill to is also the dialed telephone number, rather than entering the entire fourteen-digit card number. If you enter a (valid/accepted) fourteen-digit card number (and an optional '#'), you then get the 'thank-you'. If you _DO_ enter the (not quoted) '12' for third-party-billing on BellSouth's 0+ ten-digits inTRA-LATA TOPS access 'bong' or menu, it then comes back asking to enter the ten-digits (and pound) of the third-number that you would like to bill the call to. The 0+ access method to BellSouth (and most NANP LEC) TOPS (or OSPS) systems _DO_ allow (toll, inTRA-LATA) calling to be billed to the 'sub-account' with '15' plus a two or more digit sub-account code of your own choosing. As mentioned, "non" restricted lines automatically have this capability in a LEC TOPS/OSPS system. With AT&T's OSPS, for 0+ access to '15' Call-Manager, you need to request it for a "non" restricted type of line. Billing is at the 1+ CUSTOMER-DIALED rates for whatever discount plan you may have for toll calling. This applies on AT&T for Overseas calling - i.e., the customer-dialed 011+ rate that you are subscribed to, accessed to/thru OSPS if an 'initial' overseas call as 01+, but the '15' Call-Manager system allows one to make customer-dialed 1+/011+ (discount) rated SEQUENCE calls (with the '#', as when making sequence card-calls), so your initial call could have been either 0+ (NANP) or 01+ (IDDD), but the sequence calls could be ANYWHERE, NANP or IDDD via AT&T's OSPS. And, once at an AT&T OSPS, NANP calling could be 'straight' ten-digits, 1+ten-digits, or 0+ten-digits; IDDD calling could be entered as either 011+ or as 01+. Incidently, many access methods to AT&T's (Lucent-made #5ESS) OSPS have "voice/vocabulary recognition", where you can SPEAK your selection or digits! Anyhow, here is a "summary" of the various '1X' codes to enter at a 'bong' on 0+ (and some other access methods to TOPS/OSPS) that seem to be "standardized" wherever a NANP-based LEC (or AT&T, or a Stentor- Canada LEC) chooses to use one or more of these functions in an automated way. NOT all codes are used in all places, though ... 11 - Collect 12 - Third Party Billing 13 - Person-to-Person 14 - ??? 15 - "Call Manager/Organizer" sub-account-billing 16 - change menu from English to Spanish (used by Pac*Bell LATA TOPS in California on 0+ calls) 17 - change menu to, or request announcements in - English (used by Bell Canada's TOPS in Quebec on 0+ calls) 18 - ??? 19 - change menu to, or request announcements in - French (used by Bell Canada's TOPS in Quebec on 0+ calls) 10 - ??? I've never discovered if '14', '18', or '10' are used anywhere, or even if Telcordia/Lucent/Nortel/etc. have any standardized generic recommendation for these codes at the 'bong' on a 0+ TOPS/OSPS call. I wonder if one of them is intended for automated "Time & Charges", automated "Person-Collect", automated "Person-bill-to-card", or some other specialized traditional tariffed billing methods ... 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: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Date: 20 Oct 1999 22:55:36 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS ABC News tonight (10/20/99) broadcast a report questioning if using cell phones is safe. One researcher said using cell phones might cause genetic damage which could lead to cancer. Another said this is the first time powerful radio waves were emitted from a source so close to the body. (ABC's 20/20 will have more on this.) My impression on this report was mixed. It seemed that the evidence of danger was very limited and was more of questioning the validity and adequacy of past studies rather than an outright warning. However, I understand that when the industry converted from "bag" phones to "handset" phones, the output wattage was reduced due to health concerns (which troubled me since what happens if you need help in an isolated area where towers are far apart.) Further, my own cell phone instruction manual warns of staying away from the antenna. I wonder if the solution isn't as simple as mounting a higher antenna, that is, the actual transmitting section would be extended far above the phone rather than so close as is done now (especially on the newest phones where the antenna is but a little stub). The other concern about cell phones is their safety or effect on other systems. Do they represent a hazard? When I was visiting in a hospital, I the nurse if I could use my cellphone. The nurse looked shocked and said "absolutely not, it would affect the monitors". However, there were no warning signs posted anywhere. Recently, we had a discussion about cellphones being banned at gas stations. I've read that several oil chains have banned them. I personally question whether it is fear of a "spark" hazard, after all, when you start your car, the starter motor and relays spark and are handling a lot more current. Further, turning on/off a car's headlights is high current. Someone suggested cellphone usage may interfere with the newer computerized pumps. Could that be the fear? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I just wanted to say thanks to the two callers I had on Wednesday who left messages advising me about the 20/20 program on cell phones. Sorry I missed your calls in per- son. The program does warrant a little further discussion if anyone would like to add their own responses. PAT] ------------------------------ From: humphrybbear@my-deja.com Subject: www.uReach.com is a Free "One Person, One Number" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:13:52 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hi, Just found this interesting article and thought you might like to read it. www.uReach.com is a free "one person, one number" all-in-one national communications service that integrates all personal communications tools in one place, enabling consumers to send, receive and manage all their calls, voicemail, email, faxes and pages. Consumers can access the "one person, one number" service over the Internet or via their own free personal 800 number, called a "uNumber." Register online at www.uReach.com to get a free uNumber, a personal 800 number which serves as a single voicemail, fax, pager and ICQ number. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After first receiving your message I did go check out the service; it is interesting, and I suppose worth a review if you are a relatively low-volume 800 user. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:29:20 -0600 Subject: SG-1 Timeline Help Needed From: Keelan Lightfoot I have constructed the following timeline on Nortel's SG-1. Could anyone please tell me how accurate I am? I have based all the dates on those in my manuals, from Nortel's website and on trademark registration dates. I hope to one day construct a full history of the evolution of the SG-1, or perhaps the evolution of all of Nortel's electronic switches but I need verification on the basic dates & facts so that I may start my research in the right places. 1971 Northern Telecom and Bell Canada combine forces to create Bell Northern Research (BNR). BNR starts work on the E-Thing, their first fully electronic switch. This project evolves into the SG-1 -- the Pulse 80. 1972 The SG-1 is sold by Northern Telecom, and sells for $7000 for a minimal system all the way up to $20000 for a fully loaded system. 1974 The SG-1 receives an upgrade, becomes the SG-1A -- the Pulse 120. This system provides 120 line circuits. 1975 6000 SG-1s have been sold. 1979 The Pulse receives a new, smaller cabinet (54" as opposed to 67"), and a more compact power supply. 1980(? Not sure on this one.) Northern Telecom retires the Pulse, as the fully digital SL-1 introduced in 1975 makes it an obsolete system. Thanks, Keelan Lightfoot ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:06:23 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: Ever Wonder Where That "Universal Service Tax" Goes? From an AP story describing the latest plan by the FCC to increase it yet again: FCC expected to boost fund that keeps phone service affordable By KALPANA SRINIVASAN The Associated Press 10/21/99 4:06 AM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal subsidies that help make phone service affordable for people in rural and expensive-to-serve areas are expected to grow under action by federal regulators. [snip] Big phone companies now get $207 million in federal subsidies to help make local phone service affordable in high-cost areas in 19 states. Of that, $130 million goes to the main phone company in Puerto Rico. Alabama and California are two big recipients among the states. Yep. That's right. More than sixty percent of this tax is a transfer payment to a single, and quite small, entity located off the US mainland. I'm kind of curious who decided this group "needed" all that additional money. I'm not aware of any particulars in Puerto Rico that should make phone installation any more expensive there than in the rest of the country. (Or, for that matter, Canada). No wonder they wanted to privatize the company. ------------------------------ From: rscites@decorativesurfaces.com (Ray Scites) Subject: T1 Headaches Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:48:31 GMT Organization: DSI Reply-To: rscites@decorativesurfaces.com Hey guys, I've got big problems ... I have two 2500 series routers that both have T1/FT1 cards installed in them, they are both running IOS 11.2 The phone company tells me that my T1 line is functioning perfectly, but I can't get the routers to talk. I've double/triple checked my cable, linecode, and framing, and those all match with what the phone company is telling me to use. Router A is giving me a "Receiver has AIS alarm" and router B show "Receiver has loss of frame". I've installed a physical loopback plug on the line side of both CSUs and they come right up, no errors. Now there is a piece of equipment in the phone room next to router B (loss of frame) that has a red alarm indicator light. This is Telco equipment. It has two network interfaces and a seperate card that kinda looks like a pc card all mounted in a black cabinet. This is HighGain equipment, the pc card is the thing with the red alarm light on it. It is an HRU-402. At this point, the Telco keeps telling me it my equipment, but from my perspective, I think it's the Telco's problem. I need a second opinion before I start screaming at the Telco. Also, I'm not real sure about the timing, I always thought the line provided the clock, but the Telco is telling me that the CSU provides the clock. So I may have my clock settings off, but I wouldn't think that would cause an AIS alarm, right? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:12:33 -0500 From: Clyde Calcote Reply-To: crcal@airmail.net Subject: Ringer Equivalency Number Dear Sir: I am certainly glad I found your site, it is very useful. Perhaps you could you lead me in the direction of a circuit that could simulate from 1 to 6 RENs on a telephone line? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Clyde Calcote crcal@airmail.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:27:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com October 19, 1999, 6:50 a.m. PT The U.S. House of Representatives today will begin consideration of a bill that would create a nationwide list of people who do not want to receive junk email, known in Internet parlance as "spam." The Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 1999, written and cosponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), would have the Federal Communications Commission create and maintain the list and would penalize those who send unsolicited messages to email account holders who have added their names to it. http://news.cnet.com/category/0-1005-200-919171.html ------------------------------ From: Joseph McKinney Subject: Lucent Manuals Wanted Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:26:46 -0700 Organization: Network Computing Associates, Inc. Reply-To: Joseph McKinney Hi, I am looking for 2 manuals: Lucent Partner Plus R3.1 and Lucent Partner II R 3.1 Anyone have these out these out there? Reply to joseph_mckinney@yahoo.com Thanks, Joe ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Ray Walston - Going Strong at 85 Date: 21 Oct 1999 01:11:43 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS I just watched the A&E Biography of Ray Walston, who has starred in a great many film, stage, and TV productions and is still going strong at 85. The telecom connection: He played the devil in "Damn Yankees". He had to make a long long distance call, feeding in a bunch of quarters in the pay phone. At the end of the call, he pointed his finger at it, and all the money came back. Basically, I admire someone who worked hard all his life, and still married to the same person after 50+ years. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I have to admire someone who can point his finger at a payphone -- especially if it is a COCOT -- and get back all the money he put in it. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #495 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 21 16:14:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA08979; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:14:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910212014.QAA08979@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #496 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Oct 99 16:14:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 496 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Happy 80th Birthday! (Tony Pelliccio) Re: SBC Will Dig Up Copper to Deliver DSL (Bruce Larrabee) Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (John McHarry) Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Pay Phone Paying (John McHarry) Re: Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? (John McHarry) Re: ANI "Phone Number" (Rory Matthews) Re: ANI "Phone Number" (Eli Mantel) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Louis Raphael) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (Steven) Re: AT&T Lucent Cordless 5635 (Steve Winter) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Steven) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Leonard Erickson) Re: Rates From Canada to Germany (Robert Von Bergman) Re: AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A Side? (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Cell Phone Hazards (Health and Machines) (John R. Levine) Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations (David Wolff) 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: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Happy 80th Birthday! Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:14:13 GMT In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com says: > The consumer electronics business was sold by GE to Thomson Electronics > of France. They market TVs and VCRS under the newer modern stylized > RCA logo. I've got a GE television that's got Thomson stamped all over it's internals. We also had a phone in the office that said GE but internals read Thomson. > Knowing a number of former real RCA employees (including father-daughter > multi generations), it is sad for me that this once proud company no > longer exists. But in American industry, especially today, nothing > is permanent. The business landscape is littered with many one-time > giants, companies so strong and powerful people thought they'd last > forever. In 1960, if someone said the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad > would in ten years be dead broke, no one would listen seriously, yet > that's what happened. At one time A&P supermarkets were the market > leader, now they're struggling. It all comes down to market choices and complancency. In the case of both Penn and A&P they were guilty of both. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 20 Oct 1999 22:56:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: SBC Will Dig Up Copper to Deliver DSL > But just how many billion depends on who you're reading. An > AP report carried by CBS MarketWatch said $2.5 billion, while the San > Jose Mercury News and New York Times pegged the number at $6 billion. I believe that the 2.5B was an original figure quoted 'pre-merger' ... post-merger, it has been expanded to 6B ... ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:39:59 GMT On 18 Oct 1999 19:04:02 GMT, Bill Ranck wrote: > Andrew Emmerson wrote: >> UK Phone Phreaker Racks Up $170,000 Bill 10/15/99 >> LONDON, ENGLAND, 1999 OCT 15 (NB) -- By Steve Gold, Newsbytes. A >> During that time, BT said that Spilby repeatedly dialed a toll-free >> number in Nicaragua from the UK and used his PC to generate "clear > One wonders who, and for what purpose, would set up a toll-free > number in the UK for a number in Nicaragua. A very common purpose is "home direct" numbers. Telcos themselves get "toll free" numbers in other countries routed to their calling card systems for their nationals travelling abroad. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:41 BST From: Richard@office.mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: And We Thought This Was no Longer Possible! Reply-To: Richard@office.mandarin.com Organization: Mandarin Technology TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > They seem to contradict themselves in this article, but that is not > unusual when know-nothings write on the topic of phone phreaking. How very true ... > At the end of the article, it says the calls were 'at the expense > of the toll-free service's owner' which I presume refers to the > subscriber of the toll-free number, but elsewhere in the article > it says BT lost $170,000 in the scam. So who lost the money? The number called in Nicaragua was that of the phone company; it was the service also known as "Home-Country-Direct", which allows someone to dial an 800-type number while abroad, to reach either an inbound operator position, or a calling-card service in their home country. The inter-operator billing arrangements for this are quite complicated, not what you might expect. The receiving operator pays the originating operator a per-minute rate calculated on the effective call time - on the basis of what is recorded by the receiving network operator (being an operator, I guess they are expected to be trustworthy on this point ;-)) However in *these* circumstances the calls would have been rerouted away from the equipment in Nicaragua that would have registered the usage, and so the recorded usage for the calls would have been zero. That part of the loss would have been borne by BT because they would not have received revenue from the Nicaraguan operator. Any calls then dialed onward from the routing point would have been at the cost of the Nicaraguan operator, who would not process CDRs for these calls as they would normally have been accounted for at the calling-card platform. > They didn't both lose it. PAT] In fact they did: on /this/ point the article was entirely correct. Richard D G Cox PO Box 111, PENARTH, UK; Telephone +44 29 2031 1131; Fax +44 29 2031 1131 To send genuine e-mail, please omit "office" from my e-mail address. ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Pay Phone Paying Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:54:57 GMT On 18 Oct 1999 20:26:38 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> Also, in most of the smaller towns they had "post pay" type pay >> stations where you'd lift the receiver, receive dial tone and dial >> the number. When the party answered you'd get bursts of dial tone >> to indicate that you needed to insert money to talk. > We still have post-pay here, even though the switch is a spiffy GTD-5. > You dial the number, wait for the answer, then quick put in your dime. > How many other places still have postpay? It's nice. I think you can still put one in about anywhere, but you better have unmetered local service and toll blocking. This is the beloved "nickel grabber." It works by cutting off the transmitter until it senses the coin, usually mechanically. It will work on an ordinary line. I think there was some scheme for 0 calls to switch on both ways. My first experience with one of these was ages ago in Chillicothe, Ohio. I had walked downtown from where we were staying with some friends of my mother, and I got too tired to walk home. I knew about prepay, but not postpay. They actually had a maid who answered the phone (long time ago). She ended up getting rather angry at a series of dead air calls until I either ran out of nickels or figured it out. I don't remember which. She was a neat person who had just missed trying to come over on the Titanic. ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Evolution of Nortel's PBXen? Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:54:56 GMT On 19 Oct 1999 20:39:14 GMT, varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) wrote: > The SP-1 was Northern's first software-controlled CO switch, which > saw CO service in 1971 and a 4-wire tandem version in 1975 -- the > tandem also supported TOPS consoles. In 1981, a 20K line version > (SP-1E) was introduced. And it lead to the DMS-100, which initially used the same processor and replaced the mini crossbar matrix with a digital matrix. The SP-1 was kind of analogous to the 1ESS, which was also a computer controlled analog switch. > In 1977, Northern introduced the DMS-10, a PCM-based CO switch. > This was built from the SL-1 by adding dual processors and analog line > circuits based on the DMS-1 line multiplexer. I wasn't aware the initial DMS-10 line cards were DMS-1 based. By the time I got involved, they were much different. I would have thought their pedigree would have been more SL-1 line cards, especially since the DMS-1 came from a different division of BNR, transmission (muddy feet people). An interesting side note is that BNR sent the whole DMS-10 project to North Carolina in about 1980 in an attempt to kill it. 'Possum power prevailed. As far as I know, it survived BNR itself. ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Re: ANI "Phone Number" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:34:40 PDT I know this isn't an ANI, but it might be what you need. I found an ANAC (Automatic Number Announcement Circuit) in the 780 prefix, which is a toll free prefix that will work for all you guys in BS territory. Im pretty sure you can also call it up from certain pay-phones for free. The number is 780-2511. No NPA necessary. -Rory Matthews ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: ANI "Phone Number" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:00:54 PDT A couple of toll-free numbers that currently return ANI are: 888-324-8686 800-404-3733 Some web pages that contain lists of ANI numbers: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/5129/codes1.htm http://www.etext.org/zines/ASCII/PhoneLosers/PLA97FAL.TXT ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:46:44 GMT Tad Cook wrote: > Some companies are using this technique to elbow out competitors. > Others are displaying customized ads that only some viewers can see. Do note that such features in web servers (and they don't seem all that hard to set up, at least judging by the Apache docs) *do* have legitimate uses, such as customising the default language of a web page by the domain name of the visitor, for example. I think that this is quite common, and isn't that big a novelty -- it's just this kind of abuse that is. Louis ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:13:23 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer steve@sellcom.com says: Some unscrupulous people may use it for that. If they do then the person who runs the anonymizer could be required to help track down the bad guy, and possibly jailed if he refused. But you can't just go around throwing people in jail because someone used their service for evil. This has been well established in other forms of information exchange, and no doubt you can see the correlation. Its like saying the phone company should be punished for allowing people to block caller ID on harassing calls. I'm sure "fraud, harassment by wire and a plethora of electronic vandalism" do go on through these services, but to what degree? Steven > Pat spake thusly and wrote: >> IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on >> the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- >> ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve >> or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for >> the first ten or fifteen years. > No offense, Pat, but I think they should be legally liable for any and > everything that they hide the source of that is published via their > system. They aid and abet fraud, harassment by wire and a plethora of > electronic vandalism, regardless of any noble intentions. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most of them, myself included, have no > idea what passes through their system. I have absolutely no interest > at all or information about who uses http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice > or http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html nor do I wish to know. ... > be traced back to them by an employer or government agency, etc. If > you cannot put your web site together well enough to prevent fraud > and malicious hacking, is that supposed to be my fault? So if I > have no records, you cannot very well claim I am withholding the > information, can you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: AT&T Lucent Cordless 5635 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:58:35 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com fjg@teche.net (Giroir, Ferdie) spake thusly and wrote: > Probably had an arc from the phone line to the relay coil. Is it > possible the relay driver and/or the diode across the coil are > probably bad. What would be the best method to test? Any help is > appreciated. If lightning hit your house, call your insurance company. Get a fresh phone. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420+ Gigaset ------------------------------ From: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:08:47 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer One call can handle all the providers in the world, thats well, kinds how roaming works, doesnt it? I think its an ideal solution. You provide outbound service to the emergency number only. Inbound calls would receive a message saying "The inconsiderate bastard you are trying to call is currently in a cinema. To avoid the annoyance and inconvenience pricks such as this cause to viewers we are not allowing incoming calls. Please try calling this cretinous pig later." Steven > But there are too many providers to put a micro cell in for each one, > and you still reach people NEAR the protected area. I'm also curious > what a phone would do if it locked to a cell reporting 'no service'. > Wouldn't it just look for another cell? > It would have to be a HOME service cell that reported service > available and was stronger within the protected area than any real > cells, without blocking service outside the protected area. > The stage theatre in my town would have real problems. There is a > non-wireline cell array on the roof serving the downtown area. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:06:57 PST Organization: Shadownet nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> Hmmm. I wonder if the FCC would allow these places to install a >> special type of "repeater". One that would give "No service available" >> during events, and perhaps even be connected to the local cell site(s) >> so it could ensure that people inside were logged as "not available" >> by the cell system, which would ensure diversion of incoming calls to >> voicemail and the like. > There may be a need for a microcell base station that the > cellular switch treats as having a special class of service. 911 > calls must always be allowed, outgoing calls should probably be > allowed, and incoming calls could be answered with a message "The > mobile phone you are calling is in a quiet area that does not permit > incoming calls except in emergencies. If this is an emergency, press > 1 to connect your call. There is a charge of five dollars for this > service". That sounds about right. And I'd suspect that there'd be quite a market. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: von_bergman@my-deja.com (Robert Von Bergman) Subject: Re: Rates From Canada to Germany Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:36:19 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Canada to Germany US$0.14/min (increments 30secs initial/6 secs additional) with Boomerang (see http://globaltelecom.org/glocalbk.htm ) Regards, Robert Peter Borowski queried: > Does anybody know the cheapest possibility to make oversea calls from > Canada to Germany? ------------------------------ From: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:55:24 -0500 Subject: Re: AT&T Family Plan - Locked on A Side? AT&T One Rate mobile phones contain a database of preferred System IDs for roaming. Some are A side, some are B side. AT&T uses ones offering them the best roaming rates, whether A or B. You pay US$ 0.67 per minute for roaming. One Rate customers pay flat rates. AT&T pays less to local carriers in some areas, more in other areas. They pay nothing in areas where they provide wireless service. It all evens out in the end. AT&T programs their phones to deny manual A/B system selection. (On a Nokia phone, that would be Menu 4-4-7.) Obviously for cost control. This roaming database is a neat idea for introducing competition into the traditionally high-margin roaming agreements. Are any traditional cellular carriers offering roaming price breaks (or roaming inclusive packages) on the condition that you use one of a short list of mobile phones? Mark ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1999 15:46:10 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA As far as I can tell, this is the worst kind of junk science, with no credible evidence but too many lawyers looking for a spurious class action suit. > However, I understand that when the industry converted from "bag" > phones to "handset" phones, the output wattage was reduced due to > health concerns The output wattage was reduced, but the issue is battery life. Bag, "brick", and permanently mounted phones have a maximum power of 3 watts, while the newer handhelds have a max power of .75 watts. Note that's the maximum power -- the base station can and usually does command the phone to decrease power below that to the minimum needed for a clear connection. That's not for your health, either, that's to maximize battery life and minimize inter-cell interference. > Recently, we had a discussion about cellphones being banned at gas > stations. I've read that several oil chains have banned them. NPR's All Things Considered had a piece on that a day or two ago, in which they tried to track down the source of the "cell phone spark danger" theory. They got as far as an in-house newsletter at Shell Oil (which is not the chain that's banned the phones) which had a report of an unconfirmed possible cell phone spark. You can listen to it in Realaudio at http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/19991020.atc.08.ram As many other people have noted, the sparks that your engine produces are a heck of a lot larger than anything a flip phone could possibly do. > Someone suggested cellphone usage may interfere with the newer > computerized pumps. Could that be the fear? I've heard it claimed that if you put your cell phone right next to some place on a computerized pump, the computer in the pump will crash and they'll lose the record of the gas you've pumped, but so far that's strictly an unconfirmed urban legend. It's pretty hard for me to believe. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: world!dwolff@uunet.uu.net (David Wolff) Subject: Re: BP Amoco to Prohibit Cell Phones at Gas Stations Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:38:44 GMT Organization: The World, Public Access Internet, Brookline, MA NPR did a story on this 10/20/1999. They assigned a brand-new intern to track the "cell phone fire" story. After going through several layers of newspaper stories (via ?Indonesia? and China), technical reports, etc. they had still not found any specific fire caused by a cell phone, just a trail of anecdotes. David Wolff Disclaimer: Hey! It's my opinion! Yesclaimer: Esperanto: four times easier to learn. Call (800) ESPERANTO or email info@esperanto-usa.org for free info and free lesson. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #496 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 22 03:40:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA00487; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 03:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 03:40:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910220740.DAA00487@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #497 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Oct 99 03:40:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 497 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A New World Order (Judith Oppenheimer) New Phone Plan Reduces Fees (Mike Pollock) Re: Channeled Lines From CO (someone236@yahoo.com) Accurate Timestamp From Intraoffice GPS (David Dailey) Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are (J.F. Mezei) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Jeff Brahm) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Robert Berntsen) Re: Long Distance Then and Now (Kevin DeMartino) Re: Lucent Manuals Wanted (Larry Conzett) Re: Input on Best Career Sites (Genin Jones) Dial Key Pads vrs. Calculator Key Pads (Bonzjivar@aol.com) Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones Locked) (doc_dave@bga) Manuals for Lucent Partner Plus and Partner II (Joe McKinney) For Sale: 2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 (gern@wvi.com) Area Code 716 Split (David Esan) Voice Over DSL: The Killer App? (Nicolas Weinberg) Hospitals & Gas Stations & Cellphones (Andy Berry) Re: Switching Computer Security (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: Switching Computer Security (John Dearing) 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, 21 Oct 1999 20:20:26 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: A New World Order Until recently, the owner of an Internet domain name (such as "acme.com") had ongoing rights to that domain name for their e-mail address and their web site (registered on a first come, first served basis) unless the name violated a registered trademark (such as "ibm.com"), in which case the trademark owner could sue in court to acquire the name from the original registrant. Under new guidelines recently imposed, the user (no longer "owner") of a domain name may find the name has been reassigned to another company without their knowledge or permission, (even if there is no trademark infringement claimed), and without any rights of adjudication. CyberHQ: THE NEW IMPERIALISM describes a new world order in which an organization's identity can belong to someone other than the organization itself. The Full Story: http://icbtollfree.com/headsup.html Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: New Phone Plan Reduces Fees Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:56:35 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! Proposal would remove uncertainty for consumers, lowers long distance rates - and kill possibility of a 'modem tax'. By Brock N. Meeks MSNBC SAN FRANCISO, Oct 19 - A little publicized proposal now being considered by the Federal Communications Commission could be the stake the heart of the infamous "modem tax." If adopted, the issue of having Internet access charged on a per minute fee basis "would be rendered moot," according the plan's architect, a former FCC official. Complete story at http://www.msnbc.com/news/325303.asp ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Channeled Lines From CO Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:15:05 -0500 Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Have you considered MUXing it down yourself? By doing this, it would basically channels it and you wouldn't have to pay the monthly expenses ... I know you can do it with PRI, my company does it and it works fine. ------------------------------ From: David Dailey Subject: Accurate Timestamp From Intraoffice GPS Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:26:47 -0400 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Is there a standard way inside a CO to get an accurate "time of day" timestamp to a piece of equipment (say using GPS time)? I know there are stratum 1 clocks available, but I was wondering if there was any standard way to send a timestamp out to some equipment and then have the equipment sync upon that time (say by telling it what the time will be on the next 1 sec time pulse). I've seen some non-telco oriented equipment that will send a stamp over rs-232 and then give a pulse, but I don't know what the standard would be inside a CO for the stamp. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Web Sites Redirect Based on Who You Are Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:23:55 -0400 Louis Raphael wrote: > legitimate uses, such as customising the default language of a web > page by the domain name of the visitor, for example. Or more importantly, customising the type of advertising one gets. As one with a .videotron.ca IP address, I get "local" advertising in french when I access some "global" web pages such as yahoo etc etc. So the ad companies (such as doubleclick.com and adserver.com I think) definitely get to look at your IP address to determine what type of advertising you are supposed to get. ------------------------------ From: jbrahm@my-deja.com (Jeff Brahm) Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:59:09 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hi, Saw your posting and decided to respond. I manage a company here in the USA that rents cell phones for use in the USA. We often get calls from people visiting from abroad with multiband phones such as the ones you mentioned. Since GSM is not available in many areas here in the USA, visitors are often upset their phone doesn't work and decide to rent a phone from us. They often forward their phones from their country to the number we give them here in the US. WE are out of Atlanta, GA and have discussed options with POWERTEL here. I was wondering if you have had good connection results here if you visited the US. CDMA, TDMA and analog are the primary standards that cover the majority of the US. GSM is primarily in NY (and some surrounding areas), Some states in the SE, and some coverage on the west coast. We have looked into offering visitors GSM phones for rent, but feel the coverage issues plus roaming issues and cost make renting a CDMA/TDMA phone a better option for visitors who need coverage across the US. Any info you can provide is appreciated! Jeff Brahm Managing Partner - RentCell If you are looking for economical rental of cell phones for your trip or short-term rental need, please check out our website at www.rentcell.com. We can provide phones for a low $3 a day ($21 a week). In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Fido (Microcell) in Canada locks its phones. When I purchased mine, I > specifically asked and was told that I could insert visitor's SIM > cards in my phone and that I could subscribe to other GSM companies in > the USA by just simply switching SIM cards. > When I found out that FIDO actually did lock its phones, I had > arguments with staff in their downtown store who denied this was being > done (same with telephone support). A year later, FIDO finally > admitted that all its phones were locked but continues to hide this > from purchasers. ------------------------------ From: Robert Berntsen" Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:29:24 +0200 Dave Harvey at Medical Connections wrote in message ... > I am an occasional traveller to the US, and have a UK based GSM/PCS > account. I could hire a PCS phone when travelling to the US, but as > the prices are very high, I am looking at buying one second-hand > instead. However, in the UK (and most of Europe) handsets are > "locked" by the phone companies, so that they may only be used with > their own SIMs, unless you pay to have them "unlocked" once your > mimimum contract has expired. > Having looked through various eBay ads etc., no-one bothers to > mentions whether US PCS phones are locked are not, so I wonder whether > this system exists in the US. Do I need to watch out for "locked" > phones, or is this practice not used in the US (banned by FCC etc.?) Locking phones is common practice in USA, on all types of phones. On GSM they do it by using the security lock on the terminal. However a few phones do not have this feature, among them the Bosch World-718. This terminal can be baught in US for about $200. I baught one from Omnipoint in Boston in September. In runs on GSM 900 and 1900 MHz. The Bosch phone is simple but with very good audio quality and ok battery time. You can of course buy for instance a Nokia 6190 in Europe for $380 and be in business. I do not know about second-hand phones, but inserting your SIM card and turning on the terminal, you will in seconds see if the SIM card is accepted and hence not locked out. There are about 25 GSM operators in the US, approx 17 up and running. Coverage is approx 55% of the US population. Look at http://www.gsmworld.com/gsminfo/gsminfo.htm Regards, R. ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: Long Distance Then and Now Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:18:21 -0400 In response to an earlier posting in this thread, Pat offered the following opinion: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll suggest that within the next > two or three years, most ISPs will in fact be telcos. Do readers > agree? PAT] I believe the converse will definitely be true: most telcos will be ISPs. It is easier for a telco to become an ISP than for an ISP to become a telco. A telco already has the access lines for connecting to subscribers and the trunks for connecting to Internet packet switches/routers. As broadband Internet access takes hold, it will become more expensive to establish and operate an ISP, and there will be fewer but bigger ISPs. I believe the ISP business will be dominated by the telcos and the cable companies, who are becoming telcos. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ From: Larry Conzett Subject: Re: Lucent Manuals Wanted Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 19:42:35 GMT Organization: @Home Network Joseph McKinney wrote: > I am looking for 2 manuals: Lucent Partner Plus R3.1 and Lucent http://www.lucentdocs.com/cgi-bin/CIC_store.cgi?page=cic_detail.html&detail_type=doc&key=23489&cart_id=8439331.22025 > Partner II R 3.1 http://www.lucentdocs.com/cgi-bin/CIC_store.cgi?page=cic_detail.html&detail_type=doc&key=23507&cart_id=8439331.22025 ------------------------------ From: Genin Jones Subject: Re: Input on Best Career Sites Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:58:14 -0500 Yes -- www.telecomcareers.net -- the only full service job/resume board devoted exclusively to the telecommunications industry. Keyword searches, job/resume search agents, job/resume in-boxes and hundreds of useful links for the telecom job seeker. Quinn Jones TelecomCareers.Net #1 Telecom Job Site on the Web telecomcareers@compsurf.com TelephonySales wrote in message news: telecom19.494.4@telecom-digest.org: > I'm a CTI Sales Account Executive. Anyone have any input on the best > job sites for Telephony? ------------------------------ From: Bonzjivar@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:44:58 EDT Subject: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for this? ------------------------------ From: doc_dave@bga.com Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 22:32:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked") In article , nospam.tonypo1@ nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) says: > So how does OmniPoint sell things like the g520 etc. at $49.00???? > I think you will see PCS subsidization change, as soon as analog gets > phased out and it WILL get phased out. It may be that those phones that are sold for $49.00 are refurbished. This way, the carrier can sell a super cheap phone without having to subsidize it. Many companies do this for their pre-pay customers. Since prepay customers do not contribute much income to the carrier, there is no benefit to subsidize a prepay customers handset. Most carriers will charge more for a handset when it is activated as a prepay, so providing used or refurbished handsets at a savings will help customers to afford a handset on prepay. ------------------------------ From: jmckinney@ncanet.com (Joe McKinney) Subject: Manuals for Lucent Partner Plus and Partner II Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:00:21 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Hello all, I am looking for manuals for the Lucent Partner Plus and the Partner II These are oldies but I am sure that someone out there has them collecting dust on their shelf so why not sell them to me! Please reply via email. Thanks, Joe ------------------------------ From: Subject: For Sale:2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:05:24 -0700 Organization: NWR Reply-To: gern@wvi.com 2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 I have 2 Newbridge 3624 Channel Banks. Configure as follows: 3624 Chassis 90-0336-01 1x Control card 90-0166-01 w/ CSU module 90-0161-01 1x Universal Card 90-0156002 12 LGS modules 90-0156-02 1x Power supply Powers up fine NO broken plastic or hinges w/ Key Price is $1500 3624 Chassis 90-03360-01 1x Control card 90-0166-01 w/ CSU module 90-0161-01 1x Universal Card 90-0154-01 10 LGS modules 90-0157-03 2 LGS modules 90-0157-01 1x Power supply (power supply is dented) Powers up fine NO broken plastic or hinges w/ Key Price is $1400 Units power on and are in great shape. WE have no way to test these so they are sold as-is. ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Area Code 716 Split Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:35:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. There is an article in Thursday's Rochester, NY newspaper about the split of NPA 716. You can find it at: www.rochesternews.com/1021areacode.html David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ From: Nicolas Weinberg Subject: Voice Over DSL : The Killer App? Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:04:19 +0100 Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom Reply-To: localloop@wanadoo.fr Is voDSL the 'killer application' for DSL? The answers will be decided in March, 2000 in Paris. http://www.upperside.fr/bavodsl.html Take a look on the VoDSL 2000 European Conference CFP. ------------------------------ From: Andy Berry Subject: Hospitals & Gas Stations & Cellphones Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:21:41 -0500 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Lisa Hancock wrote in message news: telecom19.495.2@telecom-digest.org: > When I was visiting in a hospital, I the nurse if I could use my > cellphone. The nurse looked shocked and said "absolutely not, it > would affect the monitors". However, there were no warning signs > posted anywhere. I think the restrictions on cell phones in hospitals is hogwash (mildly). I have two reasons for this: (1) Look at the amount of cellular and trunking radio equipment around a hospital sometime. One of my local hospitals has a short 800 MHz site about 100 yards away -- just enough so that the horizontal aim of the antennas hits the windows perfect. Even if five watts gets in the room, that's 10X as much as my handheld phone emits. (2) I was standing in the transplant recovery ward of Baylor Medical Center in Dallas just chatting away in plain view of nurses and doctors, no sign posted anywhere in the hospital, with assurances from the nurses that my phone wouldn't hurt any of the monitors or telemetry equipment. > Recently, we had a discussion about cellphones being banned at gas > stations. I've read that several oil chains have banned them. I > personally question whether it is fear of a "spark" hazard, after all, > when you start your car, the starter motor and relays spark and are > handling a lot more current. Further, turning on/off a car's > headlights is high current. > Someone suggested cellphone usage may interfere with the newer > computerized pumps. Could that be the fear? Exxon added "No Cell Phones" to their No Smoking stickers around a year ago, presumably to CYA. I have seen no hard data in any industry journals to support the claims that phones cause harm. I will add that the subject came up while one of our contractors and I were standing in the middle of a group of pumps, both talking on our phones and he said he hadn't seen any information from manufacturers stating it was a problem. I would be more worried about the non-sealed electrical connections I have seen way too much of inside the pumps, or cars starting, hot catalytic convertors, people smoking, etc., etc., etc. You get my point. BTW, it has been announced that some dispensers will come with Windows (CE, IIRC) installed for interactive video and the like. A BSOD about $5 into a fill-up would just make your day, wouldn't it?? HTH Andy B. ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Switching Computer Security Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:29:44 -0400 There may very well be a 'login profile' which prohibits logging in off-hours or from wherever, but the real beauty is in the logs which show what is going on with the systems and are actually checked once in a while! I can't speak for the 5E, but for the business class systems (Definity), there is a 'lock and key' mechanism which provides physical security on the modem connection. Don't have the box on your end, don't connect. Has a unique key and some kinda encryption -- read all about it at lucent.com. I would expect the security to be much tighter on the multi-million dollar 5E's. #JOE ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: Switching Computer Security Date: 22 Oct 1999 01:26:23 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Rory Matthews (rorymath@hotmail.com) wrote: > I was wondering, does anyone have any papers on how switching > computers (5 ESS preferably) are secured? Do they keep any kind of > logs? I was told they usually have a kind of schedule of who should > be logged on and when. Is that true? If so what happens if someone > who shouldn't be logged on does? I mean, whats to stop people like > the 'phone masters' from firing up minicom and connecting to some > switch on their home PC? I think a guy also told me that they have a > special 'key modem' of sorts, but then how did the phone masters get > around this? I know for a fact that Bell Atlantic has removed direct dialup access to any of its networks. Either the internal corporate intranet as well as the "secure" network that things like the switches, daxen and testing systems are connected to. Anyone that wants or needs dialup access to either the corporate Intranet or the "other" network needs a device called a Secur-ID card that presents the user with a constantly changing (every 60 seconds) six digit authentication token that is tied to your individual user-id. Additionally, there is a four digit PIN that periodically needs to be changed that increases the number of digits to ten. While I'm sure there might be some way to "break" this system, it provides a very heavy first line of defense. Even getting possession of one of the cards wouldn't help since you'd still need to know the corresponding PIN. Then of course, you still have user ID's and passwords on the different systems that you'd access after getting past the Secur-ID system. I'm pretty confident that the other LEC's are doing much the same thing as well. John Dearing : Philadelphia Area Computer Society IBM SIG President Email : jdearing "at" netaxs "dot" com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #497 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 23 15:38:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA27748; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:38:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910231938.PAA27748@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #498 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Oct 99 15:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 498 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: All About George Gilder (James E. Donnelley) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Mark Brader) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Paul Wills) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (julian@tele.com) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (David Lapin) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Andrew Emmerson) Re: T1 Headaches (Daniel J. McDonald) Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices (Justa Lurker) 'No PIC Fee' Doubled Last Month? (Dave Alden) Re: Hospitals & Gas Stations & Cellphones (Andrew Green) Cellphones & Gas Stations (David Esan) Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) (Joseph Wineburgh) What's in an Address? Maybe a Lawsuit (Gene Saunders) Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today (Anthony Argyriou) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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, 22 Oct 1999 22:54:25 -0700 From: James E. Donnelley Subject: Re: All About George Gilder > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Over the years that George Gilder's > essays have appeared in this Digest, I've always received positive > responses from readers after seeing them. A dozen or so are housed > in the Telecom Archives http://telecom-digest.org/archives > So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see this 'alternative point > of view' about Gilder when it arrived in my mail today. Read it > and see what you think. Replies will be quite welcome. PAT] > ===================================== > (I found this in this week's SEATTLE WEEKLY) > Techno-tyrants > BY EMILY WHITE > In case you haven't heard, Seattle is home to a tremendously important > "think tank." This think tank is called the Discovery Institute... > Many of the > Discovery Institute fellows went to Yale or Harvard; consequently, > they believe they might be geniuses. Many of them have lots of money; > consequently, they dream of themselves as conquerors, or kings... I can just hear the jackboots marching. > a token black guy whom everyone swats particularly hard on the back... There is venom in the attack. A kind of hatred and disrespect for differing views that I consider as seriously broken as flat racism. I am very sad about this sort of thinking and divisiveness. It stands to keep the schism of racism going for another 10-20 years anyway. People hating people. Sigh. I don't know about his earlier writing, but Gilder's "Telecosm" writing has a very simple premise. Namely that because of advances in fiber optic technology, communication will become so inexpensive that it will change the way "things" are done. It will ultimately (according to Gilder) overwhelm Moore's law in the sense that it will no longer make cents to use cheap gates to compress even cheaper communication. He colors it greatly. He is most fun mentioning names and events along the road he sees ahead. Regardless, it is a pretty simple idea, written about with playfulness. I see nothing in his Telecosm writing that I fear as much as writing with the hatred about those who "dream of themselves as conquerors" and plan to get that way riding on the backs of suppressed minorities while touting their openness to "token blacks" and others. Such attacks remind me of those of the McCarthy era. They admit no response. They contain no refutable facts. They are simply bile spread on paper to breed hatred. Of course the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and its "Design Theory" touted as a new science for a new century: http://www.discovery.org/crsc/index.html is just so much nonsense -- in my opinion. People can do strange things when driven by religion. Naturally I will be happy to change my thinking if they begin to make predictions that can be verified or refuted. Until then it is religion, not science. People certainly are complex creatures. I just wish they were complex in a way that allowed them to live together in peace. I am from the "live and let live", "don't tread on me", no victimless crimes, etc. camp. Namely, as long as nobody is forcing me into anything, then I have no problem. Authors like Ms. White (any information on her? Not this Emily White? at http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/white.htm) in my experience are typically leading up to taking things from people by force in the name of "equitable" wealth (or power or ...) distribution. I don't believe such forced distributions are wise policy, especially when the basis is something like race. Tough issue. Tough issue certainly, but I expect I am quite far from Ms. White's position - and from George Gilder's for that matter. Still doesn't take away from the fun I had reading Gilder's old Telecosm articles. Jed http://www.webstart.com/cc/jed-signature.html ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: 22 Oct 1999 06:43:04 -0400 Organization: - > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. No, it isn't. Both have 0 at the bottom. > I was wondering if you might know the reason for this? The most easily reached keys on a desktop instrument are the bottom ones. On an adding machine, the lower digits 0, 1, 2, etc. are most frequently used, because any numbers whose logarithms are uniformly distributed will tend to begin with low digits and because round numbers ending in several zeroes are often encountered. So it makes some sense for those keys to be at the bottom. The telephone keypad was designed in the US, where dial phones had the 0 adjacent to 9 rather than to 1, and the digits from 2 to 9 were associated with letters in alphabetical order. Placing the digits in numerical order may well have been considered a no-brainer; a test was conducted of various layouts, but all of these had the digits in order (and with 0 near the 9, copying dial phone practice). Even if someone had felt that it was worthwhile to copy the adding machine layout for the 1-9 keys, they would have ruled it out as soon as they noticed that the letters were now in the order PRSTUVWXYGHIJKLMNOABCDEF. Anyway, it wasn't as if adding machines were widely used, so who cared about compatibility? Mark Brader, Toronto "He seems unable to win without the added msbrader@interlog.com thrill of changing sides." -- Chess My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Paul Wills Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:54:01 -0400 Funny you should bring that up. A month ago or so, I randomly picked up an issue of an AT&T Long Lines employees newsletter from around 1963 that gave the best reason I've heard yet: In the days before All Number Calling there was still an interest in maintaining the letters on a telephone dial. A calculator layout would have messed up the order they were presented in. PRS TUV WXY GHI JKL MNO ABC DEF Sounds good to me! (If anyone wants, I can come up with the date and issue. [If I can find the magazine]) PDW ------------------------------ From: julian@tele.com Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:26:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Organization: The Plastic Jesus Factory In article Bonzjivar@aol.com wrote: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators as they are now known. Accountants used comptometors and the "10 key" adding machine was just coming into being and was expensive. So, the adding machine was not on the horizon as a model. Many people who now use adding machines in their daily lives can't understand why the telephone people "Got it wrong". Well, they didn't, Bell Labs got it right. The choice of layout of Touch Tone pad was tested on members of the public. The intent of the tests was to find the layout was easiest to dial considering speed and fewest mistakes. They laid out keys in several forms and the winner was actually a 2 X 6 in the 1,2 3,4 left to right format. This layout doesn't fit very well on the front of a modified 500 set (Rotary dial desk phone of the era). So they chose the second layout that tested well on members of the public that remember had probably never seen an adding machine, let alone used one. That layout is the standard 3 X 4 layout of today with the numbers laid out as you would write them low to high down a page - 1,2,3 4,5,6 etc. Note: Yes, the first Touch Tone Pads did not have * & # so would have been 2 X 5 and 3 X 3.3. But I am explaining the layout considering today's Touch Tone pad. ------------------------------ From: David Lapin Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:32:41 -0400 Bonzjivar@aol.com asks: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? The story I heard many years ago is that when Touch-Tone was first introduced, the DTMF decoders were not fast enough to keep up with the average accountant used to a 10-key adding machine and the key pad was purposely altered to slow this class of user down. This correlates with the QWERTY keyboard being designed to force the average typist to slow down enough to not jam the keys (that is, those bars in an old typewriter that hit the ribbon and imprinted the ink on the paper). Dave Lapin ------------------------------ From: Andrew Emmerson Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:05:58 +0100 Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange wrote in message news:telecom19.497.11@ telecom-digest.org ... > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? Old question, same old answer. They were designed for different purposes. Calculator keypads were designed for use by skilled people whose finger movements had to be kept to a minimum because they were using keypads all day long. They were derived from the number layout on comptometer machines. Telephone keypads, on the other hand, were designed after lengthy human factors research into how real people (non technical folk) reacted to different layouts. The overwhelming feel was for the system we have now (except that * and # were not in use at the time the research was carried out). Whether it's as ergonomically efficient is not so important because people are not dialling telephone calls all day (well, most people aren't). Andy Emmerson. ------------------------------ From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Subject: Re: T1 Headaches Date: 22 Oct 1999 12:56:58 GMT Organization: Illuminati Online In article , Ray Scites wrote: > Hey guys, I've got big problems ... Like, for example, your domain name is not propagating to this part of the net. I think Sprint has your SOA record wrong. > I have two 2500 series routers that both have T1/FT1 cards installed > in them, they are both running IOS 11.2 The phone company tells me > that my T1 line is functioning perfectly, but I can't get the routers > to talk. I've double/triple checked my cable. Check the cable one more time. > linecode, and framing, > and those all match with what the phone company is telling me to use. > Router A is giving me a "Receiver has AIS alarm" and router B show > "Receiver has loss of frame". I've installed a physical loopback plug > on the line side of both CSUs and they come right up, no errors. Now put a loopback on the end of your cables, just to make certain. > Now there is a piece of equipment in the phone room next to > router B (loss of frame) that has a red alarm indicator light. This > is Telco equipment. It has two network interfaces and a seperate card > that kinda looks like a pc card all mounted in a black cabinet. This > is HighGain equipment, the pc card is the thing with the red alarm > light on it. It is an HRU-402. This is called a smart-jack. Stick your loopback plug in it and see if the lights turn green. If so, then the problem is your gear. If not, then tell them that you can't put up a hard loop on the customer side of the smartjack and they need to dispatch someone to fix it and they need to refund you for the time it has been down. > Also, I'm not real sure about the timing, I always thought the > line provided the clock, but the Telco is telling me that the CSU > provides the clock. So I may have my clock settings off, but I > wouldn't think that would cause an AIS alarm, right? Clocking problems will not cause AIS. I've installed gear on a number of SouthWesternBell circuits that did not have clock. I'd not seen that elsewhere, but the phone company tells me that is their general practice unless you request clocking. Just clock one side. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Digicon Technologies, Inc dmcdonald@digicontech.com ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: FCC Warns Against Cellular Interference Devices Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:52:23 GMT It was Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:08:47 +0800, and steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) elequantly wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > One call can handle all the providers in the world, thats well, kinds > how roaming works, doesnt it? I think its an ideal solution. You > provide outbound service to the emergency number only. Inbound calls > would receive a message saying " [SNIP] " That isn't how roaming works. My phone will attempt to find a home cell before a roaming cell. It will attempt to find a home type of service before foreign type. Unless the theatre cell is provided by my provider and broadcasting my home SID, my phone will look elsewhere for a more appropriate signal. If you put the theatre where there was no cell service and installed such a roaming but blocked cell it MAY work. But why? If there is no service there is nothing to block! And even *if* you could get it to work you would be sued by the first person who had an important business call to make whilst standing outside the theatre. The person who isn't a patron who gave permission to block their phone by entering the establishment, but a passer by who had their service interfered with. The FCC is right in this case. Cellular Interference Devices should not be used. That covers noise generators as well as sophisticated mini-cell devices. Anything that INTERFERES with the licensed communication service is illegal. JL ------------------------------ From: alden@math.ohio-state.edu (Dave Alden) Subject: 'No PIC Fee' Doubled Last Month? Date: 22 Oct 1999 13:53:05 GMT Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University Hi, Nine months ago I got tired of all the fees my LD company was charging, so I had my local phone company (Ameritech) switch my line to no LD company. I've been paying my $0.54/month for the privilege of being able to send and receive LD calls through other means. Last month this fee was increased to $1.04/month without any warning. I was wondering if this was across the board to everyone, and if so, why? ... dave alden ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Hospitals & Gas Stations & Cellphones Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:21:27 -0500 Andy Berry writes: > I think the restrictions on cell phones in hospitals is hogwash > (mildly). [...] Look at the amount of cellular and trunking radio > equipment around a hospital sometime. One of my local > hospitals has a short 800 MHz site about 100 yards away -- > just enough so that the horizontal aim of the antennas hits the > windows perfect. Even if five watts gets in the room, that's 10X > as much as my handheld phone emits. I don't know why the irony of this didn't occur to me before: In 1992-1993 while I was a participant in Ameritech's then-experimental PCS trials, they set up a limited number of service areas in northwest suburban and downtown Chicago, and issued everybody maps so we knew where to go to make PCS calls. One particular site was Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights. Not _near_ the hospital, but _at_ the hospital; the transceivers were mounted right on the building, and if you strayed too far from the building you'd be out of range. Needless to say, nowadays like every other hospital, that building is plastered with No-Cellphone warnings. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: Cellphones & Gas Stations Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:53:21 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NPR had a delightful bit on trying to track down the reason for the cell phone ban at gas stations. The reporter tracked and tracked and eventually found that (as reported in this newsgroup) the ban is based on a story, later found to be untrue, about a car bursting into flame in Indonesia. There was no scientific data, no tests to back up the claim that this could happen. You can download the piece at http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=10/20/1999&PrgID=2 David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:28:52 -0400 This report was the most ridiculous piece of garbage I have seen in a long time. I have watched it twice so far, and there are a number of glaring errors. The first and most important to me relates to when they spoke of testing the Nokia 6160 -- they stated that they tested it -- and I quote -- "In analog mode only, on all three frequency bands"! What the hell are they talking about? Analog is one freq -- 800! How do we know weather they tested it for just this one band, or if they really measured Digital 800 & 1900 as well? The comments floating around on alt.cellular are mostly to the effect of it was a biased piece of sensationalism, ratings motivated, and not to be believed. One thing I'd like some clarification on is the following, posted by Stanley Cline in alt.cellular; > [Analog handhelds: 0.6 watts, xmitting continuously > IS-136: 0.6 watts, transmitting 1/3 of the time, so effectively 0.2 > watts > CDMA: 0.2 watts, xmitting more or less continuously > GSM: 1.0 watts, transmitting 1/5 of the time, so effectively 0.2 > watts Only "bag" and "car" analog phones xmit 3 watts, and those use external antennas that are nowhere the user's head. And remember: These are MAXIMUM xmit limits. In most situations the phones actually xmit even less than these values.] Even though ABC did not measure digital phones (Nok 6190, Mot 6670 & 6690), according to Stanley's figures, your exposure is much lower power wise. One thing that did stand out was the proximity of the antenna to your ear. The Nokia has a stubby antenna, very close to one's ear, and got really high numbers in the SAR tests they did. The Motorola StarTac's antenna was extended and angled away from the head, and it got low numbers. Another thing they didn't get into was the previous health studies which I recall only attributed RF energy danger when the level was to the point of the tissue actually heating up (not from the phone's Tx) from much higher power levels - mostly from base stations. One further point - People have been using walike-talkies and ham radios for years with much much higher power levels, so this is not a new discussion... I think the one think I get out of this whole fiasco is that more testing needs to be done ... #JOE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:32:09 -0500 From: Gene Saunders Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc Subject: What's in an Address? Maybe a Lawsuit Patrick: Online registration is required, but it concerns the ICANN issue you've been on for awhile now: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/biztech/articles/22web.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for passing it along. Generally, references to NYT items are discouraged here, because of their policy of collecting privacy-invading data from users of their site, and their unwillingness to share freely with the net. But anyone who is interested may wish to review the item you have passed along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:46:52 -0700 Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Monty Solomon wrote: > The Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 1999, written and cosponsored > by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), would have the Federal > Communications Commission create and maintain the list and would > penalize those who send unsolicited messages to email account holders > who have added their names to it. So why is it that when Congress finally gets around to doing something, they main thing it seems to do is collect even more information about law-abiding citizens? Anthony Argyriou [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting point. I wonder what *they* intend to do with all the email addresses they collect as a result? One thing of course, to make their plan work, is they will have to supply the database to spammers in order that spammers can comply with the law about not sending email where it is not wanted. Do you think spammers will honor that database for its intended purpose, as a place to check *before* sending email, or will it in fact turn out to be an extremely valuable list with millions of *known to be good* email addresses for them to spam on the sly ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #498 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 23 16:48:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA01113; Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:48:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910232048.QAA01113@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #499 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Oct 99 16:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 499 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Joseph Singer) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Louis Raphael) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Ed Ellers) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Bart Z. Lederman) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (myculltee@pacbell.net) Re: For Sale:2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 (telpro@crc.net) Re: A New World Order (J.A. McLennan) Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked") (T. Pelliccio) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (tinikins@my-deja.com) Re: Accurate Timestamp From Intraoffice GPS (Steve Winter) Re: I Have a Question (Wayne G.) Employment Opportunity: Need Telecom VP of Sales (Al Niven) Re: Tiny PBX Suggestions? (nito@ink.net) Re: Cell Phone Health Hazards? (Eric Florack) Problem With SS7 Using Frame-Relay! (Hyunsu Jung) SS7 Tutorials (Joe A. Machado) New Version of the Siemens 2420 Gigaset is Really Great (Steve Winter) Local Cable Competition (Michael A. Chance) St. Louis City Central Offices (Michael A. Chance) 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: dov@oz.net Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:33:58 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Bonzjivar@aol.com recently wrote: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? Actually, the DTMF keypads in Denmark originally had the setup: 789 456 123 0*# Many of the Danish public telephones that use coins have the keypads set up this way. The newer card phones have the usual pattern of 123 456 789 *0# The reason I heard that the Danes changed the configuration of the keypads was that the ITU asked them to! As for why the original layout of DTMF keys on American "Touch Tone" I've heard that Bellcore did studies on which arrangement was the best and they came upon the arrangement as it was similar to the way a rotary telephone dial was. Also I've heard though I can't vouch how true this is it was put in the non-calculator mode because originally DTMF if toned too fast would confuse the equipment. However I know from my own tweaking of the S register on my modem (normal is S11=55 I believe) if I changed the S register to S11=40 the tones would just wiz by and I didn't have any connection problems. It may also have to do with the quality of the lines. At any rate there's some thought that if you toned the line too fast you'd "misdial" a call. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:14:39 GMT In article , Bonzjivar@aol.com says: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? I believe the folks at Bell studied the issue and found dialing was enhanced by running the numbers with 1 at the top left. To this day I suck with a standard numeric keypad, but put a DTMF pad in the standard configuration in front of me and I can key numbers out like lightning. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 03:49:43 GMT Bonzjivar@aol.com wrote: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? Originally, I think that it had something to do with slowing people down. It's much slower to punch numbers on a phone than on a calculator, in case you've ever noticed. What I heard is that at the beginning, people were punching them too fast, hence the unusual configuration. Like QWERTY, I guess. Louis ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:21:44 -0400 Ron Kritzman wrote: > When Touch-Tone (R) was introduced in the early '60s it was rare to > find a 10-key adding machine outside of the accounting department of a > business. For the everyday user who was transitioning from a rotary > dial telephone, the 123-on-top arrangement made more sense. There was a big article in the Bell System Technical Journal -- I don't have the date handy, but IIRC it was some time in 1959 or 1960 -- about the human-factors testing that Bell Labs did on the Touch-Tone project, not only in terms of the key arrangement but the size and shape of the keys, the color scheme (white lettering on gray keys was no accident), how far the key would travel and how much finger pressure would be required. To make a long story short, they did test the calculator-style layout at that time, and it scored lower than the layout known today. (FWIW, when Zenith introduced its first synthesized TV tuner in 1979 -- several years after some other makers had introduced them -- the keypad on the remote control was arranged in the calculator layout. They changed to the telephone layout when they added a speakerphone with outgoing call capability to their TVs a couple of years later, though many Zenith remotes to this day have the 0 key under the 7 rather than the 8 to make room for a wide ENTER key.) ------------------------------ From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: 22 Oct 1999 19:02:05 GMT Organization: Personal Opinions Only Reply-To: lederman@eisner.decus.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.org In article , Bonzjivar@aol.com writes: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? According to articles issued by the telephone company (there was, for all practical purposes, only one at the time) when touch-tone was first shown to the public, a lot of human-factors research and practical testing was done to determine the best way to lay out the numerical pad on their telephones. The order which you see on most telephones was the result. Knowing how much work was being put into human factors at the time by said telephone company, I don't have any trouble believing that this was true. I remember seeing once an article that said why calculators didn't have the same layout. I don't remember the exact reason, but I think it boils down to the people making the calculators just being too stupid to take advantage of a good idea: though they may have inhereted the layout from the much older mechanical adding machines. B. Z. Lederman Personal Opinions Only Posting to a News group does NOT give anyone permission to send me advertising by E-mail or put me on a mailing list of any kind. Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have a legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:50:44 GMT From: myculltee@pac*nospam_bell.net Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Organization: SBC Internet Services Bonzjivar@aol.com wrote: > The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a > calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for > this? Several years ago, I read that AT&T conducted user tests, and found that the "upside down" arrangement produced the fewest wrong numbers, even among people who were proficient with the "10 key" adding machine (this was, of course, years before pocket calculators). Sorry, I can't recall where I read this. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: For Sale:2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 Date: 22 Oct 1999 14:13:38 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services You should check the inventory, some of your part numbers do not match the descriptions. And good luck on selling them, the part numbers are very old. On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:05:24 -0700, wrote: > 2x Newbridge 3624 $1400/$1500 I have 2 Newbridge 3624 Channel Banks. > Configure as follows: > 3624 Chassis 90-0336-01 > 1x Control card 90-0166-01 w/ CSU module 90-0161-01 > 1x Universal Card 90-0156002 > 12 LGS modules 90-0156-02 > 1x Power supply > Powers up fine NO broken plastic or hinges w/ Key > Price is $1500 > 3624 Chassis 90-03360-01 > 1x Control card 90-0166-01 w/ CSU module 90-0161-01 > 1x Universal Card 90-0154-01 > 10 LGS modules 90-0157-03 > 2 LGS modules 90-0157-01 > 1x Power supply (power supply is dented) > Powers up fine NO broken plastic or hinges w/ Key > Price is $1400 ------------------------------ From: J.A. McLennan Subject: Re: A New World Order Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:42:40 -0400 Organization: Lehigh University Reply-To: ljm3@lehigh.edu Judith Oppenheimer wrote: ... deleted.... > The Full Story: http://icbtollfree.com/headsup.html This site contains a number of links to http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/..something or other... I tried several of these links and they were all dead. Does somebody not want us to read those comments? ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked") Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:18:11 GMT In article , doc_dave@bga.com says ... > In article , nospam.tonypo1@ > nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) says: >> So how does OmniPoint sell things like the g520 etc. at $49.00???? >> I think you will see PCS subsidization change, as soon as analog gets >> phased out and it WILL get phased out. > It may be that those phones that are sold for $49.00 are refurbished. > This way, the carrier can sell a super cheap phone without having to > subsidize it. Many companies do this for their pre-pay customers. > Since prepay customers do not contribute much income to the carrier, > there is no benefit to subsidize a prepay customers handset. Most > carriers will charge more for a handset when it is activated as a > prepay, so providing used or refurbished handsets at a savings will > help customers to afford a handset on prepay. They seem to be brand new. If they're refurb'd I'd expect they'd take the damned SIMLOCK off since they've already recovered their subsidi- zation. With Omnipoint you pay $49 whether you are on a prepay or normal account. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: tinikins@my-deja.com Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:07:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the payroll at the site in Maryland. You are not the only cardholder who has had their account double-debited. Call back and DEMAND that you are able to take a cash advance on your credit card for the money, it is possible and they WILL waive all the fees. Also try and do a balance transfer to another company because FUSA is going under. There is an article in the Kiplinger Financial Magazine this month. The FUSA company is going under so PLEASE take my advice and get out before it is too late. To date there are five class action lawsuits against FUSA. The president of the company Dick Vague has disappeared from site, and retired ... Good luck, I hope it all works out for you. You can also file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, they have a site on the net and a complaint form on line. In telecom19.458.3@telecom- digest.org>, Matt Bartlett wrote: > Last month I made an online payment with FirstUSA credit card. It was > in the amount of $157.40. They deducted it automatically from my > checking account. I specified it was an one-time only payment. > Today, I call up my bank to reconcile my check book, and it is telling > me that I had two $25 widthdrawals today. A CSR told me that FirstUSA > tried to withdraw the $157.40 twice today. It was already paid last > month. > When I called FirstUSA today, all the woman would tell me, reading > from a script, is "First USA is aware of the problem and is making > corrections". She refused to answer if FirstUSA would handle the $50 > bounced check fee from my bank. And conviently her supervisor is out > at lunch. > Anyone else have any problems with online payments with First USA? > Matt Bartlett > mbartlett@cyberdude.com ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: Accurate Timestamp From Intraoffice GPS Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 21:22:37 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com David Dailey spake thusly and wrote: > Is there a standard way inside a CO to get an accurate "time of day" > timestamp to a piece of equipment (say using GPS time)? I know there > are stratum 1 clocks available, but I was wondering if there was any > standard way to send a timestamp out to some equipment and then have > the equipment sync upon that time (say by telling it what the time > will be on the next 1 sec time pulse). I don't know if this would work for you, but the Siemens Gigaset 2420 (the new one) sets its time from Caller ID. I dunno, I suppose I just trust the phone co to know the time of day, but I never really thought about where they get it. The head operator sets it from her pocket watch each morning, maybe?? Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ From: theotherwayne@netscape.net (Wayne G.) Subject: Re: I Have a Question Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:28:52 GMT Organization: Global Online Electronic Services On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:00:56 GMT, Aravind Muthiraparambath wrote: > The discussion went towards International telecommunications. as to > how it is carried out as on today. I told himm that it was using > Satilite links. But he refuses to accept and says that its thru > optical fiber cables layed underground and into the ocean to other > countries. I couldn't convince him but I am confused. I would like to > know the answer for which I would be glad. Ashish: It's quite clear that perhaps ten years ago most traffic internationally went via Intelsat (and Intersputnik) setellites. Since the advent of fiber optic submarine, optical repeaters, and wavelength division multiplexing the amount of available capacity internationally has exploded the last 2-4 years. As well, the cost has been reduced for international services (both telephone and leased lines) accordingly, which has primarily been driven by data services. That being said, most countries with single PTT's in a monopoly mode (e.g. India) continue to route much of their traffic via satellite because, well, they want to maximise their return on the investment for the embedded earth station and there's no need to upgrade the network due to the lack of competition. You gets what you gets. Kinda reminds me of the U.S. local exchanges that can't (won't) give increased bandwidth at a reasonable cost until competition arrives. Cheers, Wayne ------------------------------ From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Need Telecom VP of Sales Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:31:55 GMT Please see http://www.GlobalNetTelecom.com for details. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Tiny PBX Suggestions? Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 06:14:41 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I would suggest a Panasonic KXTD308 digital phone system with the TVS50 voice processing system. ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Reply-To: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Cell Phone Health Hazzards? Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:13:32 -0400 Organization: Free File Farm BBS > ABC News tonight (10/20/99) broadcast a report questioning if using > cell phones is safe. One researcher said using cell phones might > cause genetic damage which could lead to cancer. Another said this is > the first time powerful radio waves were emitted from a source so > close to the body. (ABC's 20/20 will have more on this.) Hmm. Let's see here. This is, as I recall the same genre of programming that coughed up the exploding pickup truck... on cue. The programming that all three major nets toss at us in their type of 'news'... is of at least questionable credibility. I particularly find the comment about it being the first time powerful radio waves are emitted from a source so close to the body ... being a veteran radio person, I have perhaps been exposed to more RF energy than most, but I would hardly consider my experiences /rare/. (I've worked at stations of 1,000 5,000 10,000 and 50,000 watts, over the years.) Now, if there's such a thing as a 50,000 watt cell phone, I might be interested. > My impression on this report was mixed. It seemed that the evidence > of danger was very limited and was more of questioning the validity > and adequacy of past studies rather than an outright warning. Meaning, the story was meant to attract viewers with ads making you think there was actually substance in the report... and when you watch, you understand they really don't have anything. So, we wonder, what drives this nonsense? Did Ericson suddenly pull their ABC ads? > However, I understand that when the industry converted from "bag" > phones to "handset" phones, the output wattage was reduced due to > health concerns (which troubled me since what happens if you need help > in an isolated area where towers are far apart.) Further, my own cell > phone instruction manual warns of staying away from the antenna. It's called lawsuit time. Just like the little slip of paper in your toaster oven warning you not to use your shiney new toaster oven as headgear was driven by lawsuit time. > I wonder if the solution isn't as simple as mounting a higher antenna, > that is, the actual transmitting section would be extended far above > the phone rather than so close as is done now (especially on the > newest phones where the antenna is but a little stub). > The other concern about cell phones is their safety or effect on > other systems. Do they represent a hazard? No. Simply put, the power isn't high enough. I'm not in the least concerned about health effects. Regards, Eric Florack eflorack@servtech.com bignasty@billsfan.com http://www.servtech.com/~eflorack/ ------------------------------ From: Hyunsu Jung Subject: Problem With SS7 Using Frame-Relay! Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:12:57 +0900 Organization: Inet Internet Services Thanks in advance! I'm serving voice using SS7 with frame relay network in betweens. The configuration is as follows. exchange<==T1/E1==>F200<==v.35==>cascade<==T3==>cascade<==v.35==>F200<==T1 via carrier==>exchange (384kbps) (384kbps) where,F200:frame relay equipment Cascade:frame relay switching equipment. The problem is that when the cascade has the abrupt traffic increase with around 80~90 percent being held, the signalling channel is down and the voice service is stopped. Is there anybody to help me with this problem? I guess it is possible for this problem to be solved if I could change the parameters concerning MTPs. Is that correct or not? I need advice on this problems from everyone. Best Regards, Hyunsu Jung hsjung@nuri.net ------------------------------ From: Joe A. Machado Subject: SS7 Tutorials Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 12:25:28 -0500 There have been several requests for SS7 tutorials, I found a site that has a couple: Web ProForum - http://www.webproforum.com/wpf_all.html Another source of SS7 info is the ITU - recommendation Q.724(1988) at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/rec/q/q500-999/q724/index.html Hope it helps, Joe Machado Machado's Page http://www.webzone.net/machadospage/ ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: New Version of the Siemens 2420 Gigaset is really Great Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:19:29 -0400 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com It looks like Siemens listened to all of the whining about the Gigaset 2420 problems and fixed just about all of them in the new revision of the 2420. (I will "*" the things I personally whined about.) In a nutshell here are the "enhancements" in the new 2420 as provided to me in a FAX from Siemens tech support with my comments added. Simplified Menu Improved Call Handling Improved Call Transfer * Time and Date sets from Caller ID Answering Machine Configured per Line Cordless handset pick-up after answering machine starts * Barge in from any handset to existing call (configurable on or off) Message waiting indicator on cordless handsets (VMWI) (for both telco voice mail or Gigaset answering machine messages) Quick Access to Desk Station Directory (jump to entry using first letter of entry) Intercom Directory (pick list by Phone Name) Line Access Control by Line for each phone Directory Transfer between Desk Station and handsets Two line Caller ID Display We have been using the new 2420 units here and it is really great. They really did fix every problem that I was aware of and more. We have the new versions in stock at SELLCOM and are only selling the new version. There is no name change with the newer 2420 phones or handsets. Siemens brand is the ONLY brand of 2.4Ghz phones that we sell at SELLCOM. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection Now shipping the new enhanced Siemens 2420 Gigaset ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:25:27 -0500 From: Michael A. Chance Subject: Local Cable Competition Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services Well, the cable "open access" fight has landed here in the City of St. Louis. AT&T (nee' TCI) Cable's exclusive franchise is up for renewal, and SBC is spearheading an intense lobbying efort to put an "open access" provision in the new franchise license. AT&T is threatening to withhold a promised $100 million infrastructure upgrade if forced to accept an open access provision. Let the games begin. Personally, I'm a little tired of TCI/AT&T being the only game in town for cable TV, and would love to see a little free-market competition for my business. I know that nearly all of the current cable TV franchises are exclusive to one provider, but I thought that there were a few markets that have broken from that model and permitted multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience with that type of competition has been? Michael Chance mchance@swbell.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:34:40 -0500 From: Michael A. Chance Subject: St. Louis City Central Offices Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services SBC has been rolling out DSL service in the St. Louis metro area, but currently the only central office in the City of St. Louis proper to get the upgrades is the Chestnut office, located in the old Southwest- ern Bell headquarter building at 1010 Pine St., and serving the downtown area. No time frame has been given for when the rest of the city might get DSL capability. (A good portion of the suburban area already has DSL access.) There's a lot of folks that would be interested in DSL if it were available, but they're mostly located in a few areas of the City. So, knowing which central offices area serving those areas would help in focusing the lobbying efforts to get DSL access. I know that the Prospect office is on S. Grand near Tower Grove Park, and serves the near southside area (I live about five blocks from it). There's the Flanders central office somewhere in in the South City area, but I don't know the location of that one. I'm guessing that there's two to four more central offices located in the City proper, but I have no idea which ones or where they're located. Any Southwestern Bell central office or outside plant folks out there that could fill in the missing locations? Thanks, Michael Chance mchance@swbell.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #499 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 17:37:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA13483; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:37:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910242137.RAA13483@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #500 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 99 17:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 500 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Watergate and Telecom (L. Winson) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Max Buten) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Art Kamlet) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (L. Winson) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Arthur Ross) Re: Local Cable Competition (Dennis Metcalfe) Re: Local Calls Along Overlay Border (Linc Madison) Re: Local Cable Competition (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Local Cable Competition (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Local Cable Competition (Adam Frix) Re: Cell Phone Health Hazards? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Watergate and Telecom Date: 24 Oct 1999 20:50:50 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In watching a documentary on the Nixon presidency, I noticed many changes in telecom technology from the Watergate era (1973-1974) to today. These include: 1) Phones: Most phones were black rotary dial, hard wired (non modular). There were a few Touch Tone (again hard wired), in white or other vivid colors. Today's office phones vary tremendously be manufacturer. 2) Typewriters: Reporters used plain manual portable typewriters. Not all could type. (One could see pictures of the press pool reporters banging away with two fingers). Secretaries mostly had IBM electrics, either Selectric (with the typeball element) or carriage models. An office today would be word processors and reporters probably would have laptops. 3) Film: Most still images appear to be taken with 35mm Tri-X film which could use existing light but tended to be a little fuzzy. Some film images were done in 16mm which were fuzzy by today's standards, many other film images were still in B&W. High quality video tape images, the standard today, were very rare back then. (In one sense, photography took a step backward in those days since Tri-X 35mm wasn't as sharp as the slower films shot through the large format (eg Speed Graphic) camera. However, the 35mm cameras allowed a lot more natural shots as opposed to posed shots with flash done with the Speed Graphic) 4) The infamous tapes: The recording quality was generally poor, sometimes it was difficult to discern the words or who was saying what. (John Ehrlichmann (sp?) complained in his memoirs that the courts and Congress misunderstand critical dialogues making them look worse than reality.) [I remember how outraged the public was when it learned Nixon had recorded his office conversations; everyone ignored the fact that other presidents had done the same thing.] 5) Computers: There were no computers to be seen anywhere. One word processor available back then was the IBM Mag Card and Mag Tape units, though I didn't notice any pictured. Teletypewriters in newsrooms were the green Baudot machines. There was no "searching the web"; reporters who wanted to do research had to do it by trudging through individual documents page by page. [On Usenet one frequently sees requests for web-based sources of historical data that is generally not computer based, but available only on traditional hard copy in libraries.] 6) Cable TV: There wasn't any as we know it now, all TV news came from the traditional big three networks. There were of course computers and other advanced technology back then, but most of that stuff was just coming out and much rarer in everday use. I thought about going back another 25 years and what we'd find in telecom: 1) TV: Very rare, and no remote capability like today without considerable pre-arrangement. No video tape capability. Extremely bright lights required. 2) Phones: Far fewer around. Many would be manual (no dial). Many would still be "candle stick" models. 3) Virtually all film images would be B&W. 4) Visual news images would come from newsreels. 5) Print magazines would be more important, such as LIFE and LOOK. ------------------------------ From: maxbuten@home.com (Max Buten) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Organization: Ampers and Sons Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:54:39 GMT In article , julian@tele.com says: > Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch > Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators > as they are now known. > Accountants used comptometors and the "10 key" adding machine > was just coming into being and was expensive. Just in case anybody believes the above, I know from personal experience that the ten key adding machine dates back to the thirties -- not the "late fifties." Probably earlier. And the spelling of the old machine was Comptometer. Max Buten Contract Programer in Powerhouse maxbuten@home.com 610 664 2301 fax 603 388 4591 http://members.home.net/maxbuten/ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com Organization: Voyager.Net From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Date: 24 Oct 1999 00:47:19 GMT In article , Andrew Emmerson wrote: > Telephone keypads, on the other hand, were designed after lengthy > human factors research into how real people (non technical folk) > reacted to different layouts. The overwhelming feel was for the system > we have now (except that * and # were not in use at the time the > research was carried out). Whether it's as ergonomically efficient is > not so important because people are not dialling telephone calls all > day (well, most people aren't). John Karlin at BTL did a series of human factors experiments in the late 50s/early 60s experimenting with calculator, and a few other keypads, and found the telephone keypads were the most efficient for dialing phone numbers. In article , wrote: > In article Bonzjivar@aol.com > wrote: >> The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a >> calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for >> this? > Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch > Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators > as they are now known. > Accountants used comptometors and the "10 key" adding machine > was just coming into being and was expensive. > So, the adding machine was not on the horizon as a model. The adding machine keypad arrangement was definitely around on many "adding machines." Karlin & company did use it as one of the types they tested. In article , David Lapin wrote: > Bonzjivar@aol.com asks: >> The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a >> calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for >> this? > The story I heard many years ago is that when Touch-Tone was first > introduced, the DTMF decoders were not fast enough to keep up with the > average accountant used to a 10-key adding machine and the key pad was > purposely altered to slow this class of user down. I have heard this urban legend also, but it is simply not true. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: 24 Oct 1999 02:08:30 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Several people mentioned how Bell Labs did extensive human factors testing on the Touch Tone dials. I too remember them saying how they tested even the button travel and pressure. Indeed, everything the Bell System issued to customers was extensively tested in the lab and then tested in the field before being generally released. I wonder how (or even if) today's telephone equipment and services gets the same kind of testing before release. One thing I noticed is that AT&T's later basic Touch Tone (the one with an electronic ringer) had keys with just a tiny amount of travel as compared to the older sets. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:26:55 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad In TELECOM Digest Issue 498 julian@tele.com wrote: > Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch > Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators > as they are now known. > Accountants used comptometors and the "10 key" adding machine > was just coming into being and was expensive. [snip] > Well, they didn't, Bell Labs got it right. The choice of > layout of Touch Tone pad was tested on members of the public. The > intent of the tests was to find the layout was easiest to dial > considering speed and fewest mistakes. They laid out keys in > several forms and the winner was ... Gee ... I think you're maybe a decade or two off here ... or maybe it depends on what part of the country you were in. I was a summer student at Bell Labs about the time that the DTMF keypad was being selected (early 60's) and I recall some banter with one of my office-mates about it. She had been tapped as a guinea pig for dialing speed tests on various candidate keypads, and I distinctly remember some discussion to the effect that she was an atypical subject because she was so good at the calculator keypad, using it daily in her work. My frat house had an old Victor Comptometer at the time too, and I remember that it was sort of an antique, even then. As I recall, they had ten buttons for every digit position, and a hand crank to execute the addition -- a colorful relic! As to the notion that there was an intent to deliberately slow people down, I don't believe that was ever the case. The DTMF digit receivers were solid-state circuits right from day one. The rules for what constitutes a legitimate digit, gaps between digits, and all that, were based on measurements of human button-pushing behavior, not on some mechanical limitation like the old QWERTY typewriter keyboard. There's probably an article somewhere in the BSTJ about it around that time (mid 60's), if someone wants to do a little library research. In TELECOM Digest Issue 498 julian@tele.com wrote: > Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch > Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators > as they are now known. > Accountants used comptometors and the "10 key" adding machine > was just coming into being and was expensive. [snip] > Well, they didn't, Bell Labs got it right. The choice of > layout of Touch Tone pad was tested on members of the public. The > intent of the tests was to find the layout was easiest to dial > considering speed and fewest mistakes. They laid out keys in > several forms and the winner was ... Gee ... I think you're maybe a decade or two off here ... or maybe it depends on what part of the country you were in. I was a summer student at Bell Labs about the time that the DTMF keypad was being selected (early 60's) and I recall some banter with one of my office-mates about it. She had been tapped as a guinea pig for dialing speed tests on various candidate keypads, and I distinctly remember some discussion to the effect that she was an atypical subject because she was so good at the calculator keypad, using it daily in her work. My frat house had an old Victor Comptometer at the time too, and I remember that it was sort of an antique, even then. As I recall, they had ten buttons for every digit position, and a hand crank to execute the addition -- a colorful relic! As to the notion that there was an intent to deliberately slow people down, I don't believe that was ever the case. The DTMF digit receivers were solid-state circuits right from day one. The rules for what constitutes a legitimate digit, gaps between digits, and all that, were based on measurements of human button-pushing behavior, not on some mechanical limitation like the old QWERTY typewriter keyboard. There's probably an article somewhere in the BSTJ about it around that time (mid 60's), if someone wants to do a little library research. -- Best -- Arthur (from Bucharest, Romania) ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:41:26 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:25:27 -0500, Michael A. Chance wrote: > Personally, I'm a little tired of TCI/AT&T being the only game in town > for cable TV, and would love to see a little free-market competition > for my business. I know that nearly all of the current cable TV > franchises are exclusive to one provider, but I thought that there > were a few markets that have broken from that model and permitted > multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? Although I do not live in Chicagoland right now I do know that Ameritech put in a competing cable system in Naperville, IL and several other suburban communities in the area. Prior to Ameritech, the only choice was Jones Cable. Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:49:54 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Local Calls Along Overlay Border If the information in the phone book is still accurate, it won't be for long. Even with only a couple of small towns across the border, with only a handful of prefixes, there will eventually be pressure to remove the protected status. In particular, you can't leave those 13 Hagerstown prefixes protected in 304, and I consider it far less confusing to customers to require 10-digit dialing to Maryland, than to have something like 216-xxxx is a local call to (240) 216-xxxx, but to call (304) 216-xxxx (toll call in the same area code) you have to dial 1+10D. Incidentally, according to the 1990 census, West Virginia is the most populous state that still has only one area code. (Three less-populous states -- CT, NE, NV -- already have two codes, and two others -- NH and ME -- are already in relief planning.) In the two overlay regions in Texas, all local calls from adjacent area codes must be dialed as 10D (and only as 10D, not as 1+10D ... insert standard rant against blocking 1+10D on local calls). Then again, there are few, if any, places left in Texas where you can still make a 7D FNPA local call. Texarkana maybe, since it is a bit of a special case, but I wouldn't guarantee even that one. In Georgia and neighboring states, local calls into the Atlanta overlay area require 10D. In Florida, local calls into overlay areas require or will require 10D. In article , Carl Moore wrote: > I was just in Martinsburg and vicinity in the eastern panhandle of > West Virginia. Phone book has these cases of local calls into > Maryland: > from Berkeley Springs to Hancock The Berkeley Springs WV, exchange, includes Hancock WV, which is just across the river from Hancock MD, right at the northernmost point on the Potomac River, and thus the narrowest part of Maryland. From Hancock WV, through Hancock, MD into Pennsylvania, is less than five miles. > from Falling Waters to Williamsport and Hagerstown > It said to dial seven digits on local calls within and outside area > code, and, for Hagerstown, it lists eleven prefixes in area code 301 > and prefixes 206 and 216 in area code 240. I *guess* a prefix in an > overlay area code might be placed away from the same prefix in the > original area code (i.e. prefixes 206 and 216 in area 301 would be > placed away from Hagerstown, if they exist at all), and in this case > this is *mandated* by certain calling instructions. This is the first > time I have seen instructions for local calls from outside of > geographic area to an overlay area code. CT NE NV NH ME ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: 23 Oct 1999 21:13:03 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET > Personally, I'm a little tired of TCI/AT&T being the only game in town > for cable TV, and would love to see a little free-market competition > for my business. I know that nearly all of the current cable TV > franchises are exclusive to one provider, but I thought that there > were a few markets that have broken from that model and permitted > multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? A couple suburbs of Cleveland have Ameritech's AMERICAST competing with the incumbent carrier. I don't know how Ameritech is doing, as I don't live in any of those suburbs. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 23 Oct 1999 22:31:35 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition > Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? There are many such towns/suburbs in the Chicago area like that. I live in Elgin and have Americast. Jones Cable is also in the area. I had Jones before & switched to Americast. Competition benefitted a little bit. Not so much in rates, but with channel selection. Just before Americast came in, Jones added some additional channels -- obviously only because of competition. I said sorry, too little too late, and switched. There are quite a few 'burbs in the Chicago area served by both Americast and whoever the other company is -- many are serviced by TCI/AT&T. BIL ------------------------------ From: adamf.nospam@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 19:34:59 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , Michael A. Chance wrote: > Well, the cable "open access" fight has landed here in the City of St. > Louis. AT&T (nee' TCI) Cable's exclusive franchise is up for renewal, > and SBC is spearheading an intense lobbying efort to put an "open > access" provision in the new franchise license. AT&T is threatening > to withhold a promised $100 million infrastructure upgrade if forced > to accept an open access provision. Let the games begin. Let them come to Columbus, where the dam broke about three years ago when Americast rushed in and covered the whole town in no time (with an advanced hybrid fiber/coax system). And it was good. Prices went down everywhere, and simultaneously Time Warner embarked on a HUGE infrastructure upgrade (HFC) that has resulted in cable modem service (I've had it for over two years now) and digital cable. Ain't competition wonderful. Don't listen to AT&T/TCI. They're bluffing. They won't forgo their $100 million upgrade; if anything, they'll accelerate the program in the interests of remaining competitive should there be a competing provider behind every house. Let me know if you have any questions. ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Cell Phone Health Hazards? Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:02:40 -0500 >> ABC News tonight (10/20/99) broadcast a report questioning if using >> cell phones is safe. One researcher said using cell phones might >> cause genetic damage which could lead to cancer. Another said this is >> the first time powerful radio waves were emitted from a source so >> close to the body. (ABC's 20/20 will have more on this.) Please ignore the decades of service by armed forces radio men. The ones with the whip antenna sticking out of the backpack, and using as much power as the job requires. Please ignore the security men and police around the ABC buildings. The ones using 400 Mhz radios for decades, at 500 to 5,000 milliwatts of power ... how many milliwatts were those handheld cellphones again? Please ignore the people running the ABC television transmitters, sitting in a concrete building under a 50,000 watt transmitter for four decades. Please ignore the people in the high rise office towers in New York City near the ABC TV towers atop the World Trade Center and the Empire State Building, running 64.6 kw and 182 kw. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #500 ******************************