From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 7 19:58:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA16878; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 19:58:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 19:58:41 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602080058.TAA16878@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #51 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 96 19:58:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 51 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Executive Comments (Mike King) U. Mass Pulls Plug on Web Site (Boston Globe via Tad Cook) Pacific Bell Offers Rate Calculator on Web Site (Robert Deward) Re: California Finally Gets CID (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Beyond Area Code 888: What Next? (David Jensen) Re: Call Waiting Light With Ameritech Voice Mail (Gerry Wheeler) Re: Still More Nokia Cell Phone Programming Help Wanted (Henoch Duboff) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (John R. Levine) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (Jack Hamilton) Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma (Craig Nordin) Re: Ameritech Cellular Brownouts (Randolph J. Herber) Re: Hearing Radio on Phone Line (Lionel Ancelet) Re: Hearing Radio on Phone Line (Tony Pelliccio) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: BellSouth Executive Comments Date: 07 Feb 1996 12:00:00 GMT Forwarded to the Digest FYI: From: BellSouth Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com State Executive Says BellSouth Has Cut $140 Million in Rates; Pledges to Keep Service Affordable, Reliable For additional information: Clifton Metcalf 704-565-3329 (pager) February 5, 1996 RALEIGH-BellSouth's top North Carolina executive today called for continued affordable, reliable telephone service for all the citizens of North Carolina. J. Billie Ray, Jr., President of BellSouth's North Carolina operations, testified before the N.C. Utilities Commission regarding the company's price regulation plan. The plan would change the way BellSouth is regulated, shifting the emphasis to the company's prices rather than its earnings. Ray said that under the old regulatory system, now rendered obsolete by changes in technology and legislation, rates have fallen faster in North Carolina over the past 11 years for residential and single-line business customers than for any other Southeastern state. "Contrary to what I read in the newspaper, and to what at least one company has said in advertising, we have reduced rates," Ray testified. "Rates have been reduced 36 times since they were set in the last rates case. In terms of annual rate reductions, not cumulative, the total is nearly $140." The proposed price regulation plan calls for an additional $60 million reduction. Ray said that a large part of the reduction over the past decade was in lower access rates-charges paid by long distance companies for completing calls over BellSouth's network. Ray's exhibits show that BellSouth's rates in North Carolina are the third lowest in the southeast for residential customers and the second lowest for single-line businesses. Average residential rates dropped from $14.77 per month Th. $12.51, a decrease of 15.30 percent. Average single-line business rates dropped from $39.09 to $33.89, a decrease of 13.30 percent. "The only telephone companies I know of who have raised their rates are AT&T and the long distance companies," Ray said in a statement. "I could not begin to guess why some of these companies have been making blatantly false statements in the press regarding our rate reductions. Surely they must know that the commission is aware of all our rate reductions and that all our rates are on file as part of the public record." The change to a competitive local telephone industry will challenge the commitment to affordable local telephone service for all citizens because BellSouth's competitors will target customers of services which are currently priced above their cost. This pricing formula allows for basic residential service to be priced below cost, thus assuring affordability, he added. "I don't know of any of these fine companies which are going to be willing to serve all customers," Ray testified, referring to future competitors. "BellSouth has done it for decades and we are willing to continue doing it. But with the changes which have occurred and are occurring in our industry, we can't continue doing it under the old way of regulation. "In this new world, the monopoly franchise is gone," he said. "The risk and rewards of investment, whether good or bad, will rest with our owners, not with our customers." -------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: U. Mass Pulls Plug on Web Site Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:42:35 PST UMass pulls plug on Holocaust-didn't-happen Web site BY HIAWATHA BRAY Boston Globe The University of Massachusetts at Amherst has pulled the plug on the offerings of an Internet site that claim the Nazi Holocaust never happened. Computer science department chairman David Stemple on Thursday night ordered graduate student Lewis McCarthy to remove the material from the school's computer system. But McCarthy isn't a neo-Nazi. In fact, he's a believer in absolute freedom of speech. McCarthy is part of a nationwide movement to protest recent attempts in Germany to censor the Internet. Last week, at the behest of German government officials, the German telephone service Deutsche Telekom barred its Internet customers from downloading web pages stored at Web Communications of Santa Cruz. One of Web Communications' customers is Ernst Zundel, a German-born resident of Canada who claims that the Nazis never carried out a program of mass extermination of Jews. Many Internet users are already furious at German officials for their efforts to block sexually explicit newsgroups on the CompuServe on-line service. For some, the effort to silence Zundel was the last straw. Two free-speech advocates, Rich Graves at Stanford University and Declan McCullagh at Carnegie-Mellon University, obtained the material on Zundel's web site and posted it on their web sites. They also began distributing the material to others on the Internet, urging them to post it in locations not blocked by Deutsche Telekom. The idea was to put the Zundel material on so many web sites that Germany would have to completely disconnect from the Internet to censor it. Links to the Zundel site have also appeared at MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and Community ConneXion, a private Internet access provider in Berkeley, Calif. Like others who posted the material, McCarthy declared his utter loathing for Nazism. But he said the threat of Internet censorship is more menacing than Nazi propaganda. "Deutsche Telekom is trying to suppress unpopular speech, and I believe that's wrong and dangerous." Zundel, speaking from his home in Toronto, admitted most of the people defending his web site abhor his opinions. Still, he's delighted that so many Internet users have come to his aid. "It's the dream of every dissident come true. The good Lord is rewarding me for my good deeds." ------------------------------ From: bobd@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Deward) Subject: Pacific Bell Offers Rate Calculator on Web Site Date: 7 Feb 1996 22:49:03 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA The Pacific Bell Home Page has just added a calculator feature that lets business customers determine the price of phone calls within Pacific BellUs service areas. Customers answer brief questions about their businessUs calling patterns, and the program suggests one of several discount plans that could provide additional savings. These savings can often reach 65 percent with the right discount option, according to Steve Haggerty, Pacific BellUs director of outbound usage. The new service, called the Business Call Pricing Information Tool, is available on the Pacific Bell Home Page at . Bob Deward, Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F. voice: 415-394-3646 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 13:26:00 PST From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: California Finally Gets CID Greetings. Bruce Roberts' recent message, quoting the headline and item "Court OKs Caller ID Without PUC Restrictions" needs some clarification. The decision essentially meant that the California PUC can't require per-line blocking by *default* for customers with non-published numbers. Free intra and interstate per-call and per-line CNID blocking/unblocking will still be available for all California telephone subscribers. CNID is slated to become available around June 1 after a public education period to inform subscribers about CNID and their ID blocking options. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: David Jensen Subject: Re: Beyond Area Code 888: What Next? Date: 7 Feb 1996 15:04:20 GMT Organization: Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. > It was petitioner's thought that the first two digits of all NPA > codes that begin 88 be reserved exclusively for use as Toll Free NPAs. > In other words, "Area Code" 880 through 889 be reserved for use as > the Toll Free block for use in assignment of numbers for that purpose. We might want to do this with major metropolitan areas,too. The NPA for Chicagoland could be 63. Map those with 312 to 632 and 708 to 638. Assign the others as needed instead of the current splits. This gives 8 digit dialing in Chicagoland and 8 traditional NPA's (63-0 and 63-1 would conflict with other assignments in 8 digit dialing). Dave Jensen ------------------------------ From: gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) Subject: Re: Call Waiting Light With Ameritech Voice Mail Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 15:33:52 GMT Organization: SpectraFAX Corp. Reply-To: gwheeler@gate.net C. Wheeler wrote: > gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) wrote: >> When the phone is onhook, the usual loop voltage (about 48 v) appears >> across the phone, because it is a open circuit and there is no current >> flowing. The call waiting indicator is a neon bulb (or an electronic >> equivalent) which won't light at that voltage. But, by putting a >> higher voltage (about 100 volts?) on that loop, the voltage *will* be >> enough to light a neon bulb. So, the message waiting feature just >> determines what voltage is applied to the phone's loop. > Of course it must be AC. And it has to be a relativly high freqency. > 100 VAC at a low freq would make the ringer sound on a POT set. > Signals for neon message waiting indicators are usually above 1 KHz. No, it's 100V DC as far as I know. The capacitor in series with the ringer prevents the DC from flowing there. The phone draws a little current with the light on (where it normally wouldn't), but not enough to make the CO think the phone is offhook. (This is similar to the phones which have line-powered LEDs to light up the dial.) Some test equipment uses a higher-than-normal voltage, and the neon will turn on during testing and the equipment will indicate a high impedance short. On the other hand, if you want to have a visual ringing indicator, you can connect a neon bulb in series with a capacitor across the line. The normal loop DC voltage will not flow through it, but the high AC ringing voltage will light the neon. But that's getting off topic. Gerry Wheeler 941-643-8739 voice SpectraFAX Corp. 941-643-5070 fax Naples, FL gwheeler@gate.net ------------------------------ From: hd@chai.com (Henoch Duboff) Subject: Re: Still More Nokia Cell Phone Programming Help Wanted Date: 7 Feb 1996 21:37:07 GMT Organization: CHAI.COM > Next quiz for the Cell phone gurus out there: > The dealer that programmed my phone, obviously a devout Florida State > fan, apparently felt like taking revenge on me for rubbing in that my > Alma Mater, The University of Florida, had a somewhat better season > than FSU. He proceeded to program a message into my phone that says > "NOLES RULE!" whenever the phone is powered on. > This is obviously unacceptable. Does anyone out there in netland know > how this message is programmed (or more to the point, changed) to > something more correct with the universe (like perhaps "GATORS RULE!")? I'm looking at the manual for the Nokia 232. Seems that memory position 99 is reserved for your phone number (cannot be changed) but the ALPHA message for position #99 is the "wake up" message, which is able to be changed. Just check on memory position #99, assuming you are using a 232 -- not sure which model is yours. Hope that helps. Regards, Henoch Duboff hd@chai.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 10:51 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > While filling in details for modification of my domain (dxm.org) I > realised that I haven't seen much written on domain hijacking. The InterNIC is supposed to send confirmation to the existing contact people for a domain whenever they make a change. I sent in a change for a domain on my machine and they wrote back to say they needed to hear from the registered administrator, who happens to be my sister. This should at least alert domain administrators to inadvertent or deliberate domain hijacking. Given how fast the InterNIC has had to grow, I can believe that they may sometimes not always catch this. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 06:55:45 GMT Organization: kd6ttl In message , Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > How many sysadmins out there do what victim.com could have done? I.e. > run nslookup on victim.com regularly to check that the nameservers > listed are as they should be, and if they're not, to immediately > send a new update to InterNIC? Not many, I believe. On the other > hand I know no case of domain hijacking actually taking place. I don't know of any, but there have been cases where a domain name was maliciously removed from the name servers, probably through the mechanism you described. The victim was a service in the Northwest, eskimo.com I think. Someone on Internet Relay Chat had gotten angry at them for some reason, and proceeded to take revenge. It took several days to get things back to normal. The lack of security on the net is becoming more and more of a problem. "domain hijacking" certainly *will* happen if if hasn't already, just as forged moderation to moderated groups has happened (to comp.dcom.telecom, among others). I really don't want the government to get involved, but it's inevitable if sysops don't start enforcing responsible behavior among their users. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: cnordin@vni.net (Craig Nordin) Subject: Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma Date: 7 Feb 1996 21:09:01 GMT Organization: Virtual Networks hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) writes: > I can't predict the future -- maybe 25 years down the road personal > email transmissions will be everywhere. But at present, we still have > a very long road to climb. The Internet is already up on par with Disco as a pervasive social revolution. What is it that you want to happen before you call it "significant"? The Internet's self-annealing nature means that it is impervious to kings and states. It has already stabilized the soviet union during a coup and destabilized mexico's economy during a native uprising. The perfect Samizdat, self-propelled, anonymous, autonomous. The numbers have not bent down yet, though they should have. People are connecting at an amazing rate. The "churn" you talk about is not in a static non-growth pattern. Meanwhile, the greatest body of stored information is now the World Wide Web and even if the audience goes down (ha!) the amount of data stored will be 100 times the current size within two years. Whats not to love? The sleaze? The bomb information finding its way to idiots? The greatest conspiracy theories so far? I think the Internet has already caused powerful politicians to become more honest. I think it has done more for free trade than NAFTA. I think it prevents wars. I think the major growth this year will still be in the US, but 97 and 98 will cause China to open up and push forward a new prosperity level for almost all third-world countries. I think it will cause N. Korea to give up it's isolation and cause the rest of the world to fear Iraq and Iran less. Sign Me "Dr. No" http://www.vni.net/ cnordin@vni.net Fly VNI: Send E-Mail to info@vni.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 15:06:51 -0600 From: Super-User Subject: Re: Ameritech Cellular Brownouts Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory In article Mike Peacock writes: > Over the past 45 days, I've noticed that my Ameritech cellular service > is roaming in fewer and fewer places. Places where I used to be able > to roam but can no longer include: Phoenix, Northern New Jersey, > Philadelphia and Orange County California. Since I spend about 60% of > my time among these cities, the value of my Ameritech service has > decreased significantly. > Fed up, I finally called Ameritech Cellular customer service this > evening. After navigating my way through their IVR front-end, I spoke > to one of the nicest customer service reps I've ever encountered. She > told me about a policy of roaming brownouts that Ameritech has > instituted because of cellular fraud. She gave me the following list > of brownout markets: > Hartford, CT Phoenix, AZ Minneapolis, MN > Philadelphia, PA St. Louis, MO Balitimore, MD > Miami, FL Washington, DC Memphis, TN > Boston, MA Atlanta, GA Los Angeles, CA > New York, NY South Bend, IN > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Which Ameritech market are you in? > Could you explain what is meant by 'brownout'? Does that mean all > roaming has been discontinued in those places? What good would > changing your number do? When I talked to Ameritech in Chicago the > other day specifically about roaming, not a word was mentioned on > this. Please advise further details. PAT Quoting from my NovaCellular (a third party reseller of Ameritech and Cellular One service; my service being resold Ameritech) bill: *************************IMPORTANT NOTICE************************* The increase in cellular fraud has necessitated certain high risk cities to terminate roaming privileges for visiting cellular users. The following is a list of participating cities. Atlanta Grand Rapids Memphis New York City St Louis Baltimore Hartford Miami Phoenix South Bend IN Boston Los Angeles Minneapolis Rochester NY Washington DC Our Customer Service Center can be reached at (800) 254-8991 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" My question is "what makes roamers more of a source of fraud than local customers?" I thought that almost all fraud is either `lost' phone fraud or capture of either ESN -- telephone-number pair or ESN -- telephone-number -- PIN triple fraud. Either of these sources of fraud does not seem to be any worse a source of fraud for a roamer than a local customer and may be less of a source of fraud. During my exposure to AMPS at AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill, admittedly light on the fine details, I gathered the impression that as part of the setting up of roaming the host system obtained verification of the validity of the ESN -- telephone-number pair from the native system. If this verification is not being done at the time that roaming is being set up and rather is handled during the billing process, then I can see why roamers might be a significant source of fraud. Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 708 840 2966, CD/HQ CDF-PK-149O (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product, trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.) N 41 50 26.3 W 88 14 54.4 approximately. ------------------------------ From: la@well.com (Lionel Ancelet) Subject: Re: Hearing Radio on Phone Line Reply-To: la@well.com Organization: The Well Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:59:49 GMT sandler%asabet.dnet.dec.com@mrnews.mro.dec.com (David Sandler) wrote: > I have a two line phone at home with one line plugged into a wall jack > a few feet away and the other line plugged into a wall jack across the > room using a 25 foot cord. On the line with the 25 foot cord I always > hear radio signals in the background. On the same line in another > room and from a much smaller cord in the same jack there are no radio > sounds. The other line on that phone does not have radio sounds > either. I tried replacing the cord because my old cord had a cut in it > and was taped up but the new one still has the radio sounds. > I would like any suggestions besides using a much shorter cord because > I need to be able to reach at least 12 feet. Sounds like there is a loose contact somewhere acting as a diode, hence demodulating a strong signal from a nearby AM radio transmitter. Lionel URL: http://www.well.com/~la/ ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Hearing Radio on Phone Line Date: 7 Feb 1996 11:05:11 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , David Sandler wrote: > I have a two line phone at home with one line plugged into a wall jack > a few feet away and the other line plugged into a wall jack across the > room using a 25 foot cord. On the line with the 25 foot cord I always > hear radio signals in the background. On the same line in another > room and from a much smaller cord in the same jack there are no radio > sounds. The other line on that phone does not have radio sounds > either. I tried replacing the cord because my old cord had a cut in it > and was taped up but the new one still has the radio sounds. > I would like any suggestions besides using a much shorter cord because > I need to be able to reach at least 12 feet. The reason you're hearing a radio signal on that line is because the 25ft. cord is acting as a nicely tuned antenna for that particular frequency -- usually at the low end of the AM broadcast band. Talk to some folks at the A.R.R.L., specifically Ed Hare (ehare@arrl.org) about the best ways to cure this type of interference. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #51 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 7 21:13:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24219; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:13:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:13:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602080213.VAA24219@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #52 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Feb 96 21:13:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 52 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CATV Frequency Plan (Greg Monti) Test Numbers for New NPA's (was 888 Test Numbers Yet?) (Mark J Cuccia) Not Taught at Harvard: Multilevel Marketing (WSJ via Tad Cook) Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma (Dan O'Conor) Re: ISDN vs Cable Modems (Rupert Baines) Caller ID Blocker - How? (Richard Dervan) Generations of Engineers (Jane Fraser) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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, 7 Feb 96 03:22:29 PST From: Greg Monti Subject: CATV Frequency Plan Perhaps the following analysis will clear up most of Pat's mysterious cable TV frequency plan questions and why they appear at different frequencies on the cable converter supplied by the cable operator and the one purchased at Radio Shack. In the world of cable TV, there is a standard plan of 6 MHz wide video-audio channels, listed in the table below in the Electronic Industries Association column. I adapted this table from a chart published in _Communications Technology_ magazine, which is a cable TV engineering trade mag, dated July, 1990. The frequencies at the left side of the table are the upper and lower limits of the 6 MHz channels. However, the cable TV industry existed long before the EIA had a standard channel plan published. Some system operators used frequencies which do not have EIA channel numbers. These astute operators noted that there are exactly eight 6-MHz-wide chunks of spectrum between the top edge of channel 4 (at 72 MHz) and the bottom edge of cable channel 14 (at 120 MHz). These operators fugured, correctly, that by not offering any FM radio service (88-108 MHz) and by moving channels 5 and 6 two MHz off their real, over-the-air frequencies, they could get eight channels of video into that 72 to 120 MHz bandwidth. The EIA channel plan takes most of this variation into account. The 1990 publication I got this from only had EIA channels up to 86. They probably go higher now. You can fill them in yourself. Don't forget to skip over channels 95 to 99, which are already used. Now, here's the twist: One of the major manufacturers of cable TV converters is (and has been) Jerrold, which now goes under the brand name of its parent company, General Instrument. Jerrold-General Instrument boxes DO NOT follow the EIA standard channel numebring plan for all designations between 72 and 120 MHz. Other manufacturers, like Zenith, Scientific-Atlanta, and Panasonic *do* largely follow the EIA plan. Jerrold boxes are not handicapped in any way. They can still receive all the channels. They just label them (and sort them for channel-surfing purposes) with different channel numbers than the rest of the world. Virtually all VCR and TV set manufacturers follow the EIA plan for their "cable-ready" tuners. If you are a cable operator that hands out exclusively Jerrold boxes, or if you are a subscriber who uses only Jerrold boxes, you may perceive the Jerrold box's frequency plan, which is widely publicized in the cable operator's literature, as being "standard" while you perceive your VCR or cable-ready TV set to be "non-standard". It's actually the Jerrold box that's non-standard. If you plug a cable box using the Jerrold channel plan into a system whose printed publicity announces the EIA channel plan, you will see many of the channels "eight channels out of whack". With that said, Pat's questions: > Above channel 63 we get a > couple of odd things: Something which the VCR refers to as 'channel > 77' presents just a lot of snow on the screen and static. This is leakage of the over-the-air channel 26 in Chicago leaking into the input wiring of the VCR. Channel 26 (UHF over-the-air) is at almost (not quite) the same frequency as EIA cable-ready channel 77. Enough signal is getting in that the VCR can figure out that there is a real, non-scrambled video transmission there and un-mutes, letting you see the static. > This is likewise the case on 'channel 98' This is over-the-air UHF channel 38, which overlaps cable-ready channels 97 and 98, leaking into the VCR's tuner. > and 'channel 125'. This is over-the-air UHF channel 66 leaking in. > When I load the channel presets from 'TV' rather than from 'CATV' I > get the usual over-the air channels but then in addition I get the > non-existent 'channel 17' which turns out to be the TCI Cable 'TV > Guide to Todays Programs' which if selected via CATV is on cable > channel 21. This one required some sleuthing. Cable channel 21 is at 162 to 168 MHz. Over-the-air UHF channel 17 is at 488 to 494 MHz. The video carrier of cable 21 is at 163.25 MHz. Its third harmonic is at 489.75 MHz, which places it in over-the-air channel 17's frequency band. Since there is no over-the-air channel 17 in Chicago, your TV's UHF tuner section can pick up this harmonic. If you have the cable connected directly to the UHF antenna input terminal of the TV set, there might even be enough signal to produce a decent picture. Cable systems suffer what is called "odd-order distortion", which occurs when a signal is passed through an amplifier that partially "clips" or "rounds off" the waveform as it approaches its peak voltage value. It is not possible to make a completely distortionless amplifier that can handle 100 or 150 independent RF carriers (two for each TV channel - video and audio) from 54 to 500 MHz. Technology has gotten better over the years. Cable amplifiers that go up to 1,000 MHz are now commercially available. Many of the above overlaps of cable and UHF over-the-air frequencies were never anticipated in the early days of cable when the two services were hundreds of MHz apart. > Channels 54 through 61 on this box either do nothing > at all *or* they repeat some earlier channels. For instance, 55 and > 56 repeat channels 5 and 6. Note that channels 55 and 56 are the 2-MHz-shifted versions of channels 5 and 6, close enough to receive a reasonable picture on most sets. They are not "repeats" of channels 5 and 6. They are the actual channels 5 and 6 being received at differently-labeled channel numbers. > Starting at channel 62 on the box I > get everything from there up exactly 8 channels below. For example > 62 on the box is 54 on the cable; 70 on the box is 62 on the cable; > 71 on the box is 63 on the cable, etc. Yup. This is the Jerrold (and Radio Shack) non-standard frequency plan at work. > Also, channel 58 on the box is the mysterious channel 1 on the > cable; the one that TCI insists can only be received with an > addressable converter which you get from them. This one can't be explained by the chart. Perhaps, as was speculated by many writers before me, this channel is mapped onto channel 1 by a programmable converter. Usually, programmability and descrambling ability are built into the same higher model boxes. Cable TV frequencies in North America: Lower Upper Electronic Jerrold nearest Limits Limit Limit Industries Historical General over-air of this (MHz) (MHz) Association channel Instrument UHF over-air (EIA) designator channel channel UHF channel number number channel number (MHz) 54 60 2 2 2 60 66 3 3 3 66 72 4 4 4 72 78 1 A-8 54 76 82 5 5 5 78 84 A-7 55 82 88 6 6 6 84 90 A-6 56 90 96 95 A-5 57 96 102 96 A-4 58 102 108 97 A-3 59 108 114 98 A-2 60 114 120 99 A-1 61 120 126 14 A 14 126 132 15 B 15 132 138 16 C 16 138 144 17 D 17 144 150 18 E 18 150 156 19 F 19 156 162 20 G 20 162 168 21 H 21 168 174 22 I 22 174 180 7 7 7 180 186 8 8 8 186 192 9 9 9 192 198 10 10 10 198 204 11 11 11 204 210 12 12 12 210 216 13 13 13 216 222 23 J 23 222 228 24 K 24 228 234 25 L 25 234 240 26 M 26 240 246 27 N 27 246 252 28 O 28 252 258 29 P 29 258 264 30 Q 30 264 270 31 R 31 270 276 32 S 32 276 282 33 T 33 282 288 34 U 34 288 294 35 V 35 294 300 36 W 36 300 306 37 AA 37 306 312 38 BB 38 312 318 39 CC 39 318 324 40 DD 40 324 330 41 EE 41 330 336 42 FF 42 336 342 43 GG 43 342 348 44 HH 44 348 354 45 II 45 354 360 46 JJ 46 360 366 47 KK 47 366 372 48 LL 48 372 378 49 MM 49 378 384 50 NN 50 384 390 51 OO 51 390 396 52 PP 52 396 402 53 QQ 53 402 408 54 RR 62 408 414 55 SS 63 414 420 56 TT 64 420 426 57 UU 65 426 432 58 VV 66 432 438 59 WW 67 438 444 60 XX 68 444 450 61 YY 69 450 456 62 ZZ 70 456 462 63 71 462 468 64 72 468 474 65 73 14 470 476 474 480 66 74 15 476 482 480 486 67 75 16 482 488 486 492 68 76 17 488 494 492 498 69 77 18 494 500 498 504 70 78 19 500 506 504 510 71 79 20 506 512 510 516 72 80 21 512 518 516 522 73 81 22 518 524 522 528 74 82 23 524 530 528 534 75 83 24 530 536 534 540 76 84 25 536 542 540 546 77 85 26 542 548 546 552 78 86 27 548 554 552 558 79 87 28 554 560 558 564 80 88 29 560 566 564 570 81 89 30 566 572 570 576 82 90 31 572 578 576 582 83 91 32 578 584 582 588 84 92 33 584 590 588 594 85 93 34 590 596 594 600 86 94 35 596 602 600 606 95 36 602 608 606 612 96 37 608 614 612 618 97 38 614 620 618 624 98 39 620 626 624 630 99 40 626 632 630 636 100 41 632 638 636 642 101 42 638 644 642 648 102 43 644 650 648 654 103 44 650 656 654 660 104 45 656 662 660 666 105 46 662 668 666 672 106 47 668 674 672 678 107 48 674 680 678 684 108 49 680 686 684 690 109 50 686 692 690 696 110 51 692 698 696 702 111 52 698 704 702 708 112 53 704 710 708 714 113 54 710 716 714 720 114 55 716 722 720 726 115 56 722 728 726 732 116 57 728 734 732 738 117 58 734 740 738 744 118 59 740 746 744 750 119 60 746 752 750 756 120 61 752 758 756 762 121 62 758 764 762 768 122 63 764 770 768 774 123 64 770 776 774 780 124 65 776 782 780 786 125 66 782 788 786 792 126 67 788 794 792 798 127 68 794 800 798 804 128 69 800 806 > This is a Radio Shack 70 channel cable converter #15-1287. Does > anyone know why channels 54-61 are not where they belong and why > they resume at 62 (as 54) and work upward from that point exactly > 8 channels out of alignment? It appears that Radio Shack uses the Jerrold plan and the cable company does not. > All Radio Shack tech support would tell me is 'you cannot get > channels 5-6, and channels 55-56 on the same box'. Correct. Since channel 5 overlaps channel 55 by 4 MHz out of 6 MHz, they can never both operate on the same cable system. Same for 6 and 56. Greg Monti Arlington, Virginia, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:52:00 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Test Numbers For New NPA's (was 888 Test Numbers Yet?) In TELECOM Digest v.16 #42, dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) wrote: > In order to test some CPE for 888 readiness, we would like to be > able to place calls to 888 numbers now. Ideally, these calls would > act as much as possible like normal subscriber numbers -- i.e. they > should produce audible ring, then return answer supervision, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > perhaps play a voice recording before disconnecting. Can anybody > out there help us? I know we'll be able to get our very own shiny > new toll-free 888 number next month, but I'd like to be sure now > that we're ready to process calls to 888 numbers. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the test numbers for the new NPA's are supposed to return answer-supervision. They do answer and play a recording indicating that one has successfully reached the new NPA, but if they returned supervision, a charge for the call would be generated. Of course in the case of 888, since it is a toll-free code, even if answer supervision is returned, then there shouldn't be a charge to the caller. Bellcore has recently updated their webpage on the NANP with additional pages. There is a now a complete alpha and num list of NPA's as well as detail on some of the even more recently announced new/future NPA's. Test code numbers are given where available. However, `n/a' appears as the test code for 888. Not all of the recently announced NPA's (and compiled by Steve Grandi, grandi@noao.edu) scheduled to go into effect in 1997 or 1998 are indicated on this webpage, but three *new* Caribbean NPA's ARE: 268 Antigua & Barbuda, 758 St.Lucia, 869 St.Kitts & Nevis, altho' the effective dates for these are to be announced. This makes *seven* NPA's for Carribean locations _in_addition_to_ 809 for the remainder. We have already seen announcements and effective cuts for 441 Bermuda, 242 Bahamas, 246 Barbados and 787 Puerto Rico. The webpages for Bellcore NANPA/TRA is http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/. As for answer-supervision & NPA test numbers, even tho' I don't think that the test numbers are supposed to return answer supervision, some of them might have. I heard somewhere that the test number for 441 Bermuda was returning supervision, and that would ring-up a rather nasty *international* charge when calling from anywhere outside of Bermuda. And even if answer-supervision is *not* returned, *some* carriers might chalk-up a charge for the call since they detect `voice' as an answer after ringing (and no SIT tones), and even if the carrier doesn't charge, some originating CPE (such as COCOTS) might charge for the call by taking all of the deposited coins! :-( I have tried to dial 1-888 numbers from home (504-24X, the `Seabrook' switch in New Orleans), and get cut off with "it is not necessary to dial a `1' or the area code when calling this number..." There is a 504-888 code in the New Orleans local dialing area, and I get cut-off at 1-888-NXX-XX and at 1-888-NXX-X-#. (That's the *octothorpe*, *pound*, *hash*, *square*, *number-sign*, *tic-tac-toe* button to indicate *end-of-dialing* and *not* an abbreviation for `number'). And when I place local calls to 888-XXXX numbers, there is a now a LONG post-dialing delay! :-(. I *can* cut thru *directly* by dialing 888-XXXX+# (if I am at a touchtone phone or using a tone-generating device). It seems that BellSouth has made provisions in its class-5 end-office switches here for the new 888 toll-free area code, but hasn't completely yet cut it over to route an inquiry to their copy of the 800 and 888 database. The PBX here at work doesn't yet have 888 programmed in as the new toll-free area code. I get cut off with a reorder at 9-1-88. But I do agree that there *should* be a test number for 888! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: 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: Tad Cook Subject: Not Taught at Harvard: Multilevel Marketing Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:41:02 PST By STEPHANIE N. MEHTA The Wall Street Journal 12/19/95 When it comes to endorsements, there are few more sterling names to invoke than Harvard, as in Harvard University and Harvard Business School. But when the endorsement has no basis in fact, Harvard gets its hackles up. Of particular concern these days is the increasing number of claims that the business school endorses multilevel marketing, in which distributors earn commissions on products that they or their recruits sell. "If the registrar's office had a dollar for every call we've had over the years over whether Harvard Business School teaches multilevel marketing or has studies on it, we could throw a very nice Christmas party," reads one internal business-school memo. "This claim is harder to kill than a dandelion." What was once a nuisance now looks like grounds for potential defamation or libel lawsuits, says Frank J. Connors, a Harvard lawyer. Some handouts, for example, now claim -- falsely -- that Harvard has conducted "extensive research in the network marketing industry," and that the business school calls multilevel marketing "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity." These claims come at a time when multilevel marketing appears to be on the rise in the U.S. About 6.3 million people are engaged in direct sales, with the vast majority affiliated with multilevel companies, says the Direct Selling Association, an industry trade group in Washington. That's up from about 4.7 million salespeople in 1990. Although many reputable companies such as Amway Corp. and Mary Kay Corp. are based on multilevel marketing, many other multilevel operations have turned out to be scams. And while multilevel executives insist that the 50-year-old industry is becoming more ethical, the currency given the Harvard claims indicates that big problems remain. A look at how these claims began and proliferated tells much about the industry and shows how a bit of erroneous information came to be widely cited -- and readily accepted -- as absolute truth. Many of the current myths about Harvard and multilevel marketing stem from a 1984 article widely used to recruit distributors, multilevel experts say. The article, by multilevel consultant Beverly Nadler, states without attribution that Harvard teaches multilevel marketing. (It also states that The Wall Street Journal once said that "between 50 percent and 65 percent of all goods and services will be sold through multilevel methods by the 1990s." The Journal never reported this statement.) Ms. Nadler couldn't be reached for comment. But in her 1992 book, "Congratulations, You Lost Your Job," she admits that she didn't verify some information in her original article. Harvard Business School marketing Prof. Robert J. Dolan worries that people may join multilevel marketing companies because they mistakenly believe Harvard condones the practice. "You hate to see your name used in a way that you haven't approved," he says. "Then you think of all the people who are being led down a path to some financial distress." One who was attracted to multilevel marketing by the purported Harvard connection is Neita Cecil, a newspaper reporter in The Dells, Ore. Interested in becoming a distributor for a long-distance telephone company that sells its service through multilevel marketing, Ms. Cecil says she initially hesitated -- until an acquaintance told her "that Harvard calls this a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," and she also heard that Harvard Business School taught and promoted multilevel marketing. "That's what hooked me." Last summer, Ms. Cecil became a part-time distributor for the long-distance company, which she declines to identify. In September, she decided to use the Harvard connection as a recruiting device. But when she called the business school, she discovered that she had been misled about its position on multilevel marketing. "I was let down," Ms. Cecil says. Nevertheless, she intends to keep her distributorship. "I guess I still think it's a good opportunity," she continues. Some multilevel executives say the decentralized nature of the industry, whose sales depend entirely on independent contractors, makes it hard to control overzealous distributors. But critics contend that multilevel businesses could easily deter salespeople from telling tall tales. The same sophisticated systems that the industry uses to communicate new-product information and selling tips also could squash rumors about Harvard's links to multilevel marketing, for example. "Some (multilevel) companies don't mind people making false claims," says Towru Ikeda, president of World Telecom Group Inc., a Mountain View, Calif., multilevel concern that sells calling cards. In October, one World Telecom distributor anonymously put out a widely distributed voice mail message about alleged "Harvard" research on multilevel marketing. World Telecom says it pulled the message immediately because it violated company policy about false statements. Mr. Ikeda says he thinks that some multilevel companies may feed their distributors false information. Excel Telecommunications Inc., a Dallas long-distance provider with multilevel marketing, says that it suspends or dismisses distributors who make false claims. The company says it also must approve any "custom" marketing materials created by distributors. Not all sales representatives adhere to Excel's policy, though. Harvard officials say they received brochures last month from an Excel distributor that touted nonexistent Harvard research on multilevel marketing. Indeed, as printed material has replaced mere hearsay, "the nature of the misstatements has changed," says Mr. Connors, the Harvard lawyer. "They are even more egregiously inaccurate." Still, some multilevel proponents can't see what all the fuss is about. "I'm sorry that Harvard feels besmirched by being associated with multilevel marketing," says John Milton Fogg, editor of an industry newsletter in Charlottesville, Va. After all, he says distributors eagerly accept -- and perpetuate -- the Harvard rumor because of the luster of the Harvard name. ------------------------------ From: doconor@winternet.com (Dan O'Conor) Subject: Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 01:07:05 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote: > For users, especially lay users, typing in the complex character > sequence for a http address scares them off and creates errors. > Further, reliability of systems leaves much to be desired. Sending > graphics over phone lines, even 14.4, is still slow. The software is rapidly becoming easier to use and the performance of modems and phone lines is increasing geometrically. Two years I was using a 2400bps modem, today I am operating at 28800bps and I am planning for the installation of an ISDN line in March. > Despite high sales of PCs for residential uses, the percentage of PCs > in homes remains rather low. Only a fraction of those have modems > that are used, and many modem users do only specific things, such as > logging into work. My kids use their PC to correspond with me (they live with their mother about 10 miles away), they correspond actively with other e-mail users, including their aunts and uncles and my ten year old son is learning how to use the Internet for report research and other schoolwork. > When the small BBS's got popular, a lot of people predicted they'd be > the new way people communicated. In practice it was a fad. A lot of > people passed through, but didn't stay. The big online services find > the same situation -- they get many new signups, but they don't stay. > I can't predict the future -- maybe 25 years down the road personal > email transmissions will be everywhere. But at present, we still have > a very long road to climb. The future is what these companies have to plan for. Their time horizon is precisely that 25 years. As for personal electronic communication, I can look to my own experience for some insight. Two years ago I had never heard of any of the national on-line service providers or the Internet. Within six months I was using two different e-mail systems for both business and personal correspondence (domestic and international) and today I use national information service providers and a local Internet Service Provider for both business and recreation. In the next six months I will be operating a printing services company that specializes in electronic pre-press and delivery. I amy be in the minority, but all indications are that this is a minority that is growing quickly. Remember that the greatest returns are made when growth rates are still high, not when the market has matured and growth rates begin to level off. That is why my new venture in what appears to be a stagnant industry (printing) will focus on the electronic pre-press and delivery niche. Regards, Dan O'Conor doconor@winternet.com ------------------------------ From: Rupert Baines Subject: Re: ISDN vs Cable Modems Date: 7 Feb 1996 17:51:46 GMT In article george gilder, gg@gilder.com writes: >> Russ Welti wrote: >> Saw a real cool web page for TCI cable, about a service called @Home... >> Can anyone state that this is not just "posturing"? Will it really >> happen that soon and at that speed and at that cost? > Although it is fashionable to disparage the capabilities of cable > companies to deliver two-way bandwidth, @home is an entirely different > proposition, run by Milo Medin, formerly NASA's Internet chief, and > devoted to providing broadband 10 megabit per second downstream and > 256Kbps upstream channels ubiquitously. Not really true. I know @HOME have got some great PR going -- including that nauseating piece of hagiography in January WIRED -- but lets not be too gullible ... Just for starters: Only 3-4% of homes have two-way capable cable plant (according to GI). All others (ie 96-97%) will use a 14.4Kbps modem for the upstream (No, I don't know why they don't support 28.8, but that is what WIRED said!). To me, that sounds worthy of disparagement !!! 14.4 is enough for digital couch potatos to click the mouse on the BUY icon on the Internet shopping channel, but not much more ... In fact -- it is *MUCH* worse. Standard IP will "choke" at an asymetry of more than 10:1, because of the need to send an ACK frame. In other words @HOME would only deliver about 140Kbps downstream !! (To be fair, that is with 'standard' IP, and you can get around it either by redefining the protocol, or by spoofing; I suspect this is why @HOME is building its own network - that they are deviating from standard IP ??) Secondly, even when the two way plant is installed (when will that be? It took decades to install the plant - it will take more than a few months to completely upgrade it!), that 256K and 10Mbps is *SHARED*. Cable is a bus or tree topology - not point-to-point. You use the same 10/256 as all your neighbours. Even aside from security (which with current legal situation should not be ignored !!), think of the congestion. With a 500 home node (not atypical) and 15% penetration, you average 140Kbps and 3Kbps per person. Or think of an Ethernet segment with 75 users = s-l-o-w. Sure, you can build *another* new network, and partition all the nodes, but it stops ;ooking so good ... > Medin is also engineering a new 622 Mbps Internet backbone Wonderful. Presumably (by definition) an Internet backbone is usable by all the networks that connect to it -- whether cable, ISDN, V34 or ADSL. So why is this relevant? The backbone needs this upgrade irrespective of the local access. > I predict that this effort will blow away all the residential ISDN > plans of the RBOCs. I'm not so sure. ISDN has a lot of great things going for it. Including telcos with heaps of cash, proven technology, international standards, and an existing infrastructure. Sure, the telcos have been ludicrously slow so far, but that will change. And then comes ADSL - which could crucify cable modems ;) (Yes, I am biassed !!) Rupert Baines ADSL Product Marketing Analog Devices ------------------------------ From: rdervan@mindspring.com (Richard Dervan) Subject: Caller ID Blocker - How? Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 11:43:21 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises I recently received a catalog of high-tech goodies and inside was a unit you plug between your telephone and the jack to 'prevent your number from being displayed on caller ID units'. Is this really possible? I thought the caller ID stuff was handled at the CO and by SS7. Also, I can't see why anyone would buy one of these anyway, since most if not all RBOCs offer caller ID block. Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is handled at the central office, but it requires the subscriber to prepend *67 at the start of each call on which the ID is to be blocked, which is what the device you are referring to does. Radio Shack has the same thing on sale now in their stores. This device is added in series to the phone line right behind the phone instrument. When the receiver is lifted off hook, the device rapidly dials out *67 to effect number blocking. It happens so quickly it usually has occurred before the caller even gets the reciever up to his ear. The subscriber then dials the telephone number desired. In other words, the device you read about and the one on sale at Radio Shack do nothing more than automatically add *67 on the front of each call so you do not have to remember to do so. I beta-tested one of these about three or four years ago for a fellow who was developing them. If you want to override the number blocking on any particular call -- that is, actually pass your caller-ID for whatever reason -- you can do so by flashing the hook on the phone after you originally went off hook but before you start dialing the number. This brings a fresh dial tone and because the interval between 'off-hooks' is so small (just a second or less for the hookflash) the device does not add *67 on the fresh dial tone. It is a nice gimmick, but there is nothing magic about it and it has *nothing* to do with any programming in the central office switch. The called party still sees 'private' on his display box and has the right to refuse the call or whatever. You can accomplish the same thing by simply adding *67 at the start of your dialing string yourself each time instead of purchasing a gimmick to do it for you. By the way, in case you wish to use 'cancel call waiting' and 'block caller id' on the same call, you can. But it is wise to do it in this order *67*70 rather than the other way around, i.e. *70*67 since in some generics of the software, *67 only sticks if it is the **first thing dialed**. ... unlike *70, where you can enter it at any point in the call (if you have three way calling or some other valid reason to recall the dialtone in mid-call), *67 likes to go first, and quite obviously is useless once the first ring has reached the called party anyway. If you can test it at your end you might want to do so and see if the two are interchangeable in how they can be entered; but to be safe, use *67 first. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fraser@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 19:13:28 EST Subject: Generations of Engineers As all remnants of the old Bell Labs continue to disappear, I worry about what we have lost. My father (who will be 80 in April) worked for Bell Labs for 35 years. He was the telephone engineer on the Long Lines when it laid the first transatlantic telephone cable in the mid50s. During the time he worked there, Bell Labs engineers were encouraged to take equipment home. They could take any kind of equipment. The Bell Labs kids were recognizable in school by their four-hole notebooks and matching paper. As a consequence, I grew up in a household where there was engineering stuff just lying around for me to play with, especially phones, batteries, connectors, various kinds of meters, etc., etc. Ok, this is probably not the only reason I ended up as a professor of engineering (being good at math was another reason) but I have to believe that the Bell Labs policy of "take the stuff home" made a difference to me. And I can't be the only kid who was affected by that policy. It won't happen in the future to other kids. Jane Fraser Ohio State University fraser.1@osu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How very true this is, Jane. Bell Labs was an American heritage. The Labs, as we knew it for a half-century through the Depression, a World War, the Cold War and until recent years will never be duplicated. Might we call this just one more aspect of divestiture and deregulation in the telecom industry? I have no doubt whatsoever that you were greatly influenced by your father's work through all those years. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #52 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 8 12:53:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA22654; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:53:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:53:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602081753.MAA22654@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #53 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Feb 96 12:48:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Clinton Signs It: New Telecom Era Has Begun (TELECOM Digest Editor) Internet Users Painting the Net Black on Thursday 2/6/96 (Shabbir Safdar) Re: House Prohibits Free Speech on Abortion (Bill Sohl) More Thoughts on the Legislation (A. Padgett Peterson) Call Screening/Blocking ANI or CID? (Kevin R. Ray) Inacom Corp./Westinghouse Communications Sign Agreement (Jackie Fox) Re: Pager Service Question (C. Wheeler) Re: NameFinder Plus Hiccups (was Re: 708/847/630 Split) (Keith D. Thomas) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (purple@austin.ibm.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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, 8 Feb 1996 11:52:04 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Clinton Signs It: New Telecom Era Has Begun At 11:47 am, February 8, 1996, in a televised ceremony from the Library of Congress, President Clinton signed the long-expected Telecommunica- tions Reform Bill. The signing took about three minutes as Clinton used several pens in order that the many government leaders present could each have a pen as a souvenier. In addition, Clinton signed a copy of the legislation electronically for distribution on the net. In his remarks, President Clinton quoted Lily Tomlin's remark that 'the Internet can be fun'. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Clinton noted that 'democracy stems from the free flow of information'. The ceremony included a televised portion with Lily Tomlin trading some jokes with Vice Presidnet Gore. Gore noted in his remarks that 'this legislation tears down the Berlin Wall in telecommunications.' Now it is the law, and all the things speculated on can happen. Whether it will all happen, and how soon it will happen are open to debate. While some are very pleased to see this new legislation, a few in the internet community are very upset with what they perceive as a loss of their freedom of speech rights. Some have proposed making their web sites black in protest, as the main message in this issue of the Digest will discuss next. Following the signing of the legislation, Cable News Network immediatly followed with a lurid report on 'Sex in Cyberspace' and a man who caught his wife engaged in c-sex with a man in another city. Because of the length of Clinton's remarks and the timing involved, the show had to be cut short; it will be repeated in its entirity on Friday at 11:30 AM on CNN should you wish to watch. Well, let's get on with our lives ... PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:45:32 EST From: Shabbir J. Safdar Subject: Internet Users Painting the Net Black on Thursday 2/6/96 Reply-To: vtw-announce@VTW.ORG FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Contact: Steven Cherry (201) 596-2851 stc@vtw.org Shabbir Safdar (718) 596-2851 shabbir@vtw.org New York, NY INTERNET DAYS OF PROTEST TO BEGIN WHEN PRESIDENT SIGNS TELECOMM BILL INTO LAW When there's a funeral in New Orleans, they don't just stand around looking at a casket, there's a marching band, and when they mourn on the Internet there's lots of noise as well. Virtual noise that is. Inside the casket lies the First Amendment, and the noise is people turning their World Wide Web sites black. The last gasp for the First Amendment will be heard later this week when President Clinton signs the long-awaited Telecommunications Reform Bill. Buried just below its surface, like a bomb waiting to explode, lies the descendant of the Communications Decency Act, legislative language that will ban "indecency" in cyberspace. George Carlin-style indecency, broadcast-media style indecency. An FCC-enforced ban on indecency, as if the government could monitor the millions of Web pages, Usenet postings, email listservers, and chat messages generated across the Internet each day. As if American law could restrict what's available on a global Internet, where pinup photos, cancer support-group advice, and currency exchanges can move at the same speed and in packets that are essentially indistinguishable, and servers can move around the globe in a way that physical goods manufacturers can only look at, black with envy. Black, as in the traditional color of mourning. The Grim Reaper wears black. Judges wear black -- black robes symbolize a lack of favor to one side or the other. The black of the "Day Without Art." The black that people wear at funerals, to underline the loss of something important to them. On the Internet, a network, a networked community, based entirely on speech, nothing is more important the freedom from censorship enjoyed up to the moment when President Clinton's pen puts an asterisk next to the First Amendment, an asterisk that says, "except on-line speech," an asterisk it will probably take the Supreme Court months, if not years to erase. That black can be seen at http://www.surfwatch.com/, a popular site on the Internet, and an especially ironic one to see it in. Surfwatch is devoted to perfecting just the kind of parental controls that work far more effectively than any government regulation could, and which facilitate free speech instead of criminalizing it. That black can be seen at sites large and small, commercial and noncommercial. Christopher L. Barnard, who maintains Illinois Virtual Tourist, says that his black pages are all ready to be loaded as soon as he hears the bill is signed. Turning the pages black, involves changing the backgrounds so that light text appears on a dark background. It may not be aesthetically desirable, as some, who are changing their pages anyway, have pointed out. It can involve proprietary extensions to the formatting language of the Web, complain others. It's been characterized the "Paint it Black" campaign by some, and the "Thousand Points of Darkness" by others. All in all, just the sort of free-wheeling, outspoken, opinionated activity that has characterized the Internet since its inception over twenty years ago. "What can we do?" asks Shabbir Safdar, co-founder of Voter's Telecommunications Watch, one of the many on-line activist organizations organizing the campaign. "It also can't be seen by text-only Web browsers, or by people with net-access that doesn't include the Web. But we couldn't let the day go by unmarked." The campaign asks Web-based information providers to turn their pages to black for forty-eight hours after the President signs the telecomm bill into law. Sometimes it is easy to comply. Josh Quittner of Time-Warner's Pathfinder, says, "Heck, our pages are black half the time anyway. But for those two days they'll be black because of the telecomm bill." Pathfinder is one of the largest and most-used sites on the Internet. Sheryl Stover, marketing director at Internet On-Ramp, Inc., of Austin, Texas, said her personal page is already black. But all non-client pages are being altered from Monday February 5th through the two day period after Clinton's pen adds a black-ink graffiti scrawl across the Bill of Rights. SurfWatch can be contacted at http://www.surfwatch.com/ or 800-458-6600. Christopher L. Barnard and the Illinois Virtual Tourist can be reached at 312-702-8850, ilinfo-www@cs.uchicago.edu, and http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/html/external/illinois/index.html. Pathfinder's Netly News can be found at http://pathfinder.com/Netly/nnhome.html Sheryl Stover and the Internet On-Ramp, Inc. are at 509-624-RAMP and http://www.ior.com/ Voters Telecommunications Watch is a volunteer organization, concentrating on legislation as it relates to telecommunications and civil liberties. VTW publishes a weekly BillWatch that tracks relevant legislation as it progresses through Congress. It publishes periodic Alerts to inform the about immediate action it can take to protect its on-line civil liberties and privacy. More information about VTW can be found on-line at gopher -p 1/vtw gopher.panix.com www: http://www.vtw.org or by writing to vtw@vtw.org. The press can call (718) 596-2851 or contact: Shabbir Safdar Steven Cherry shabbir@vtw.org stc@vtw.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it should be obvious, Mr. Safdar, that quite a few of us disagree entirely with your opinions on this. I won't get into that today; most people here already are quite familiar with my own beliefs. Thank you for writing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: House Prohibits Free Speech on Abortion Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 23:45:35 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Monty Solomon wrote: > Forwarded to the Digest FYI: > CENSORSHIP UPDATE > ON A VOTE OF 414-16, THE HOUSE HAS PASSED THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS > ACT OF 1996 WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT PROHIBITS DISCUSSION OF > ABORTION ON THE INTERNET. THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE UP THE > BILL SHORTLY. A HIGHLY INDECENT ARTICLE DEVOTED TO THE TOPIC > WILL BE PUBLISHED HERE UPON THE SIGNATURE OF THE PRESIDENT. > John Haynes 73s de KC5PWL 147.180 MHz John@CompuTek.Net > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The validity of this report on a ban > regards discussion of abortion is not confirmed as of my sending out > of this issue of the Digest Friday morning. Here are some additional > thoughts by long time, *responsible* netter Lauren Weinstein, followed > by another report which attempts to confirm the abortion discussion ban > where the internet is concerned. PAT] UPDATE - Listening to the New York AM WABC station today, it was reported that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have filed a joint court action to prohibit implementing the ban on abortion discussion from the Internet. SO...it appears the report above is true and that the amendment did actually end up in the telco bill. The news report also mentioned that the signing of the telco bill is to be tomorrow (Thursday 2/8). Frankly, I am surprised that such language ever found its way into the final version of the bill, especially since the issue of abortion seems to have a generally wide acceptance, even in congress (in spite of the Republican majority in both houses). One has to wonder where the democrats were sleeping when the votes were counted...or if they (the pro-abortion legislators) even knew the language was in the bill. Just for grins, I did a Yahoo search for abortion and came up with 46 abortion related WEB sites. LYCOS turned up over 4000 document references. It should be a fun thing o watch. Consider too the opposing agendas of the NOW folks (anti-pornography and probably in favor of the internet porn ban, yet pro-abortion and thus they'll oppose the abortion talk ban.) US politics is always full of interesting stuff. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, I have received several messages including one from John Covert saying this was not the intention of Henry Hyde and that in fact abortion discussion is not to be banned. Right now I am opting for that opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 96 11:09:13 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: More Thoughts on the Legislation Pat: have you considered that this bill is just what the porn-kings would like most -- elimination of all the ->free<- competition. Is not difficult to make a "good faith" effort to protect the innocents, just use a commerce server to create a secure channel and require a credit card as "proof" of age with a proper disclaimer. Of course since commerce servers are not free, the bulk of the storage systems today just will not allow the "filthy" stuff (and most of the antique radios I buy on the net require extensive cleaning -- are they prohibited ?). Just in time for the explosion in Electronic Commerce, eh ? Warmly, Padgett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This whole thing certainly bears some resemblance to the War on Drugs does it not, where the only ones who benefit are the people directly involved ... you raise a good point about the 'porn kings' and their business. I am also reminded of a kalideoscope, where each twist of the viewing tube brings a new and different view than the previous one. Where will all this lead? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kevin@mcs.com (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: Call Screen/Blocking ANI or CID? Date: 7 Feb 1996 20:27:14 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services Talked to wonderful Ameritech (here in Illinois) and didn't get the answer I wanted. Was wondering if anyone out there knows the answer to this. My parents have been getting hang up phone calls and we know who they are coming from and the number, BUT has not been enough to get the authorities involved ... (yet) (now the question ;-) Does Ameritech's "Call Screening" work based on CID or ANI information? The calls are originating locally (or so we think) but the caller ID box always shows "OUT-OF-AREA". *69 does not work (call back), but *57 (trace) does. Would call screening (up to ten numbers allowed :-) work as expected here? So if the calls are originating from a cell phone or being routed through one of the long distance carriers (but still "local") would they still be "blocked"? And then would it block "ANONYMOUS" (*67) calls as well? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If call-back and caller-id do not produce the desired results, then call-screening won't work either. If the calling number is 'not available' for your review, then it is not available for you to screen either. Unlike those other features, *57 (call trace) does not reveal its results to you, therefore no 'violation of privacy' -- however ludicrous that may seem in the present context -- has occurred. Generally, telcos will only release the results of *57 traces to police authorities. And generally the police will only release whatever results are given to them by telco once you have signed off agreeing to prosecute regardless of who the offender is. 'Private call' or anonymous specifically means telco has the number immediatly available but will not release it. 'Outside call' or 'not available' means telco does not have the number readily available but can usually obtain it on demand. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jackie Fox Date: Thu, 8 Feb 96 08:55:29 -0600 Subject: Inacom Corp./Westinghouse Communications Sign Agreement INACOM CORP., WESTINGHOUSE COMMUNICATIONS SIGN STRATEGIC DATA NETWORKING PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT Joint data network offerings include frame relay, ISDN and managed network services (OMAHA, NEB. -- February 8, 1996) -- Inacom Corp. (NASDAQ:INAC), a leading global provider of technology management services, and Westinghouse Communications, a leading network provider, have signed a strategic agreement that will provide a total communications solution to Inacom and Westinghouse Communications clients. Under the terms of the agreement, Inacom and Westinghouse will jointly provide communications services including frame relay, ISDN, LAN Dial and private line services. "Inacom is very pleased to enter into this agreement with Westinghouse Communications," said George De Sola, group president of Inacom Communications, the telecommunications subsidiary of Inacom Corp. "The two companies have outstanding complimentary capabilities in the areas of distributed technology life cycle management and wide-area data network services. Westinghouse's skill in wide-area managed network services is a wonderful addition to Inacom's existing technology management services. It's something our customers definitely need." The agreement with Westinghouse Communications was the result of exhaustive analysis, according to Robert Puissant, vice president of business development and marketing for Inacom Communications. "We looked at a wide array of partners and Westinghouse Communications was far and away the best, not only because of their skill in technology innovation but because of their global reach." Puissant added that the alliance will enable Inacom to offer fully managed network services including full-time remote monitoring of customer premise equipment and local- and wide-area networks. In addition to frame relay, Inacom will offer integrated T-1 and ISDN over the Westinghouse network, as well as an innovative solution called LAN Dial. "This is a great opportunity for Inacom and Westinghouse," said Richard Hadala, president of Westinghouse Communications and Information Systems. "We are on the path to growth and this agreement allows us to take advantage of each other's attributes -- Westinghouse's technology and innovation and Inacom's extensive customer knowledge and professional services. We are excited about this relationship and are confident this will be an important step in meeting our growth aspirations." Inacom Corp. is a technology management services company providing corporate clients a single-source solution to their information technology needs. Inacom's procurement, integration and support service capabilities are offered on a global basis to assist clients from the initial purchase of information and communications systems through the total life cycle of their technology assets. Company revenue for 1995 is anticipated to be in excess of $2 billion. Visit Inacom on the World Wide Web at http://www.inacom.com. Westinghouse Communications designs, builds and manages one of the most advanced communications networks in the world. As a single-source supplier of leading-edge technology, Westinghouse provides a full array of multi-vendor products and services including local area networks, wide area data networks, long distance telephone services, messaging services and video conferencing. Westinghouse Communications is a division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a diversified media, industrial, and technology corporation with $10 billion in global revenue. Visit Westinghouse Communications on the World Wide Web at http://www.wcsd. westinghouse.com. Contact: Geri Michelic, Inacom (402) 392-3923, gmichelic@inacom.com Jackie A. Fox, Bozell Worldwide (402) 978-4259, jfox@omaha.bozell.com Dawn Bizub Androsky, Westinghouse (412) 244-6674, bizub.dawn@wec.com ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Pager Service Question Date: 8 Feb 1996 06:55:05 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications Peter Mott wrote: > Are two way pages usable? [snip] > I am now on a trial with Skytel Two-Way. Two way paging provides the > software production environment the knowlege that I haven't responded > to a page. > For the most part the service has been reliable. They admit to having > kinks to work out of their system, and my environment picks up on a > lot of those kinks. > During my trial I am issuing pages on an hourly basis. Are you using the two way pager while traveling? I am curious as to whether you have had any trouble with the "reply" path. I demo'ed several two way units with some coworkers and we were not satified. We found that the replies worked less than 50% of the time. I took my demo unit on a trip and had some trouble. The two way handshaking means the network tries very hard to get messages to you. If your replies don't get back to the network, it will send pages several times. This can be anoying. The problem also meant that if you tried to send a response, it usually failed. My best luck with replies was at airports (San Francisco, Atlanta, Asheville, Salt Lake). I hate to bad mouth Skytel on this but we just weren't satisfied. I have to give them credit for investing in and starting to deploy the technology. When it works, it's very cool. However from our point of view, they still have a lot of building out to do. But I will say that the technology makes pretty sure you get every page (It's just that I got a lot of them several times). I never missed a page in the three weeks that I actually carried the unit with me. I was wondering about the software that you are using for notifcation. Is it an off the shelf product that was already capable of working with "Two-Way"? We have a lot of notifiction systems, but right now none of them work with Skytel Two-Way (a half truth - we have our mainframe notification sending one way messages to two way pagers, but it's not capable of getting, or even checking for replies). ------------------------------ From: mail09794@pop.net (Keith D. Thomas) Subject: Re: NameFinder Plus Hiccups (was Re: 708/847/630 Split) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 15:16:00 GMT I tried the NameFinder service just now and it did not find me under 708 either. It did work for 847 though. I tried it on an 815 number and got the backwards result. Leave it to Ameritech. Nothing they do it consistent. Many people do not realize the change of area codes or what impact it is having. I had to get all over HP because their techs could not call me back on support calls. Our contract person began to put 847 on all the contracts recently so we could get call backs after April 20. It is pretty hard for HP to meet their four hour window if they cannot call me. The sad thing is that I had to make four or five calls to different people at HP before someone understood what I meant. Keith ------------------------------ From: purple@austin.ibm.com Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes Date: 8 Feb 1996 15:50:08 GMT Organization: IBM, Austin, Tx. Jack Hamilton wrote: > The lack of security on the net is becoming more and more of a > problem. "domain hijacking" certainly *will* happen if if hasn't > already, just as forged moderation to moderated groups has happened > (to comp.dcom.telecom, among others). I really don't want the > government to get involved, but it's inevitable if sysops don't start > enforcing responsible behavior among their users. The real problem is that system administrators still commonly accept plain ASCII documents as "authorization", without requiring any form of digital signature. You will *always* have jokers trying to forge authorization for things they aren't entitled to do. Even if 99.9% of the people using the net were responsible netizens, that leaves 20,000+ creeps trying to break your system. The correct way to stop them from forging moderated news articles, or domain-name changes, is to start using digital signatures. L. Purple (purple@austin.ibm.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several months ago after one of Jeff Slaton's periodic forays into the Usenet newsgroups and a spate of messages from other interlopers I made the decision to encrypt the headers on telecom messages to prevent any further unapproved stuff at least where this newsgroup is concerned. Cancelbots operate at selected sites which watch the telecom newsgroup stuff and immediatly cancel unapproved postings. Still, a few get through but rarely do they stay online more than an hour or so before the cancelbots catch up with them. I have not seen any forged messages in this newsgroup getting all over the entire net for severasl months now; not since encryption started. I think moderated newsgroups using digital signatures or strong encryption techniques are the only way the news- groups will be able to survive -- that is, unless you like reading a constant barrage of Slayton-style spam, magazine subscription notices from Kevin Lipsitz, or more recently those notices which begin 'I am a lonely girl in Asia who wants to talk to you on the phone ...' I get three or four of those daily; some caught by the cancelbots and some which simply get sent 'unapproved' for general posting. Well, welcome to the *new* Internet; Bill Clinton style. Surely, some interesting days ahead of us. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #53 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 8 15:01:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA04804; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:01:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:01:28 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602082001.PAA04804@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #54 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Feb 96 15:01:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 54 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wireless Word Newsletter - 1/29/96 (Tara Pierson Dunning) Re: ISDN vs Cable Modems (ngmarino@aol.com) Re: Excel Telecommunications and Multi-Level Marketing (Jeff Bein) Re: Southern New England Telephone (Ed Ellers) Re: Southern New England Telephone (ngmarino@aol.com) Re: Trunk Capacity Tables? (Richard Parkinson) Re: AT&T Closing All Phone Center Stores (Tom Allebrandi) Re: AT&T Closing All Phone Center Stores (Ed Ellers) Update on Ameritech Cellular Brownouts (Mark Peacock) Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma (Peter Morgan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: Taratai@aol.com Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:46:50 GMT Subject: Wireless Word Newsletter - 1/29/96 Submitted by: Tara Pierson Dunning Note to TELECOM Digest Readers: Here's another, more expansive issue of the second and latest Wireless Word newsletter. For more information, please contact ART at artcorp@tcsnet.net, or visit their web site at http://artcorporation.com ******* Prologue We are launching a new free service by ART -- the Wireless Word. The initial task of the Wireless Word will be to keep you abreast of major regulatory developments at the federal level that affect the newest segment of the wireless industry -- local voice and data telephone services by radio instead of wire. This installment will cover the pending telecommunications legislation. In the future, we will expand our coverage to include selected developments at the state regulatory level and industry developments. Please remember that, despite our name, the Wireless Word will not cover developments affecting mobile services such as cellular, Specialized Mobile Radio, Personal Communications or paging services. The Wireless Word is limited to fixed local distribution services. We encourage you to contact us with your comments, constructive criticisms as well as requests for further information. If there is something we have failed to address or have characterized in a way with which you disagree, we want to know. Telecommunications Legislation: Background Thirteen years have elapsed since settlement of the Justice Department's antitrust case against AT&T (the so-called Modified Final Judgement or MFJ) divided the Bell System into separate companies for long distance and local telephone communications. Thereafter, Bell System local exchange services were to be provided by Bell Operating Companies organized into seven regional Bell holding companies (the "RBOCs"). While competition had existed in the long distance market for more than a decade prior to entry of the MFJ, the breakup of the Bell System fueled a substantial expansion in the number and economic viability of the new long distance competitors. Two major reasons were: (1) the MFJ's prohibition against provision of long distance services between LATAs by the RBOCs and (2) the requirement that the RBOCs not favor AT&T's long distance services in the RBOCs provision of local distribution services. The MFJ divided the country into 163 Local Access and Transport Areas or LATAs. Although LATAs were originally conceived to be surrogates for local exchange areas, in fact, due to intense lobbying by the RBOCs, the LATAs ended up as much larger, often the size of an entire state. The RBOCs were forbidden to carry communications traffic between LATAs. The result was that the RBOCs could not carry interstate messages, and in many states (those that consisted of more than one LATA) they were forbidden to carry a significant portion of intrastate long distance traffic. The injection of significant competition in long distance due to the MFJ had the same consumer benefits that the breaking of the established telephone companies stranglehold on consumer telephone equipment had -- remember the days of the plain black telephone that you had to lease and could not buy. Prices in long distance service plummeted over 40% in the first decade following the entry of the MFJ; and businesses and residential subscribers had hundreds of long distance providers from which to choose. Several years after the breakup, competition also broke out of its shell at the local level. The emergence of fiber optic cable, with many times the capacity of conventional copper wires and even coaxial cable, enabled the creation of the first viable competitors to the last telecommunication monopolists, the Local Exchange Carriers ("LECs"). These fiber optic providers styled themselves as Competitive Access Providers or CAPs. They started laying fiber optic rings in major urban areas, such as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago and competing against the LECs for large business clients. The CAPs principal initial customers were the long distance carriers, who wanted an alternative to bring pressure on the LECs to lower their "access" charges for local origination and termination of long distance calls. After a half-dozen or so years of operations, the CAPs -- or Competitive LECs ("CLECs") as they are more accurately called now that they have broadened their offerings to include switched local exchange services -- collectively produce revenue in excess of $1 billion annually. This is still barely more than 1% of the total annual revenue produced by the traditional LECs. However, in order to increase their share on the market and bring the benefits of a truly competitive market to businesses and residential consumers, the CLECs must have a level playing field. The CLECs still suffer similar artificial handicaps in competing against the LECs that the new entrants in the long distance market suffered at the hands of the integrated Bell System before the MFJ. The LECs' facilities and services are critical for the CLECs to reach the public network and bring much needed competition to the local services market. Yet, the LECs often take special pains to deny the CLECs access to their facilities and services upon reasonable terms and at reasonable prices. Despite several years of arduous efforts by the CLECs and their trade association, the Association for Local Telecommunications Services ("ALTS"), most states still either prohibit outright or severely handicap local competitors. Furthermore, although the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has taken some significant steps to open up competition in the local exchanges, it has not enforced its decisions to the extent necessary nor adopted the "carrot and stick" approach necessary to achieve an effectively competitive local telecommunications market. It is impossible from a resource standpoint for regulatory authorities to police the LECs actions that thwart their competitors. Accordingly, the only administratively sound approach is the carrot and stick -- allow the LECs greater pricing flexibility (that is, reduced regulation) only if they first grant their competitors access to the LECs' monopoly of services on reasonable terms. Unfortunately, this eminently sound public policy has not been adopted by the FCC nor by very many states. Consequently, the CLECs and ALTS have turned their attention to the legislative arena. Because the RBOCs chaffed for years under the weight of the MFJ prohibition against interLATA services, the LECs and the CLECs have had a common cause. The LECs need to gain access to all of the long distance market, which the CLECs are willing to assist them in achieving if the CLECs in turn are able to attain a level playing field. A third set of players, however, is intimately effected-- the current long distance carriers. The RBOCs former campmate -- AT&T -- is united with the rest of the long distance industry in opposition to entry of the RBOCs into the long distance business. They fear that the RBOCs will recreate the integrated service offerings of the Bell System and in the process enforce artificial barriers to both their long distance and local competitors. Summary of Telephony Portions of Proposed Legislation These players have been the set pieces in a lengthy drama played out in the halls of Congress over the last two sessions. The current version of the legislation is entitled the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995. Different versions passed both houses of Congress in early fall. The two bills are now being reconciled in a joint Conference Committee that has been meeting throughout the last several months The principal achievement of the two bills is to effectively abolish the MFJ. The RBOCs will be able to offer long-distance services once certain competitive benchmarks in local services have been achieved, and eventually manufacture telecommunications equipment (from which they are now barred by the MFJ). The present long-distance carriers will be able to provide local services on a more equal basis. Prior to furnishing interLATA services, under the current draft of the Conference Committee, the RBOCs must meet the following criteria in each area where they wish to provide interLATA: 1. There must be at least one "in region" competing provider, which is able to provide intra-LATA (local exchange services) predominantly over its own network. 2. The RBOC must meet the following interconnection requirements ("checklist"): Interconnection to competitors accessing its networks on equal terms to the interconnection that it provides itself; Nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way to competitors; Local loop transmission from the central office to the customer's premises that is unbundled from its services; Local switching unbundled from transport, local loop transmission or other services; Local transport from the trunk side of a LEC switch that is unbundled from switching or other services; Resale services at wholesale rates (retail less marketing, billing, collection, and other costs avoided by the incumbent); Public notice of changes in the information required for the processing of services using the RBOC's infrastructure, as well as any other changes that would affect the interoperability of facilities and networks. Non-discriminatory access to emergency (911), directory assistance, operator services and databases necessary for call routing and call completion. White pages directories listing the customers of competing exchange carriers; Interim "number portability" (so customers can switch carriers and retain the same number at their same location) through remote call forwarding, direct inward dial trunks and similar techniques until FCC determines that permanent number portability arrangements are technically feasible; Access to services and information necessary for competing carrier to offer "dialing parity" (so customers can dial the same number of digits to reach a CLEC as are necessary to reach an established LEC); Reciprocal compensation (including "bill and keep") between RBOCs and CLECs for their respective roles in originating and terminating calls for each others' customers; 3. The FCC is to make the determination as to whether the applying RBOC has satisfied the requirements including the checklist. The FCC is to consult with the Department of Justice, whose evaluation is to be given substantial but not conclusive weight. 4. RBOCS must establish separate affiliates for their local exchange services. Current Situation There are a number of issues that have been stalling the deliberations and threatening to prevent final passage of the legislation. As we reported recently, in the context of the legislation Senator Dole has raised the issue of why the broadcast industry should continue to be exempt from the auctioning of licenses when practically every other radio licensee now must obtain its license in a competitive bidding scenario, with the proceeds going to reduce the federal debt. This is an especially hot topic in light of the nearly $10 billion raised to date by these auctions, which are enthusiastically endorsed by the Chairman of the FCC and by the leadership of both sides of the Congressional aisle. The Dole initiative has lead to an old-fashioned donnybrook, lead by the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), one of the better funded lobbying organizations in town. As is not unusual for the NAB, it has launched a doomsday campaign prophesying that auctions would be the death knell of "free television." Many political figures seeking to establish themselves as deficit/debt hawks are lining up against the NAB. As we go to press, a compromise is brewing that would provide for auctions of future broadcast spectrum but would allow the broadcasters to obtain spectrum to complement their traditional analog transmissions with digital without auctions. Other issues that are rearing their heads in the bill's last days include "Cyberporn." Few predicted the explosive growth of the Internet in the past year. However much fun we may have downloading recipes and jumping between websites, some unsavory characters misuse the Internet. The telecom bill's Conference Committee included measures that will punish anyone who uses an interactive computer service to send to someone under 18 years old "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs." There are other sections of the telecom legislation that deal with telecommunications content regulations. One area focuses on stalking, and the creation or solicitation of communications that annoy, abuse, threaten or harass. Other provisions require circuitry in televisions that enable programming to limit shows not desired by viewers (V-chip), the scrambling or blocking of sexually explicit cable tv programs so non-members do not receive images and sounds, and the establishment of guidelines for the identification and rating of video programming. We shall keep you posted on the progress of the legislation. In the meantime, we invite you to check out the other parts of ART's Web site and remember http:// www.artcorporation.com for your next ART visit. ------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course as everyone should know by now, the legislation was passed and signed into law by President Clinton on Thursday. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) Subject: Re: ISDN vs Cable Modems Date: 8 Feb 1996 13:22:23 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) What companies make cable modems? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:45:14 -0700 From: info@goodnet.com (Jeff Bein) Subject: Re: Excel Telecommunications and Multi-Level Marketing > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I still say, as a general rule of > thumb, MLM schemes are not good deals. There has to come a time when > things get so saturated there is no one left to be signed up. The > only people who make money in MLM schemes are the ones who think them > up and get involved early. If you want to be in the long distance > resale business, it is far better to do so directly as an agent for > a carrier, not via 'downlines' and 'uplines'. PAT] Dear Pat, I agree with you that all scams are bad. MLM does have a bad reputa- tion as do lawyers and many other professions. With respect to our company, one who wishes to market our LDDS Worldcom 17.5 cent, no surcharge calling card, they must go through American Travel Network (800-705-4000). So in some instances, it is NOT better to work directly with a carrier. Their own calling card is now 30 cents per minute. Also, many carrier will not work with small agents. Our 2000 dealers by themselves could not work with a carrier. Together, we generate $2 million per month in revenues and our company supports them and their customers with customer service we feel is superior to the carriers themselves. With regard to our network marketing program: We instituted it at the request of our dealers. It has worked our very well. Jeff Bein President American Travel Network American Travel Network The Best Calling Card in the Country as seen in Money Magazine (July 1995) 800-477-9692 Service info| 17.5 cents per minute with no surcharges 800-700-4387 Fax machines| Free to get and no monthly minimums or fees 800-705-4000 Main offices| 1+ rate 9.9 cents and 800 numbers too! E-MAIL: info@callatn.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In addition to the above, Mr. Bein sent me a lengthy file on the services provided by American Travel Network and the costs, etc. I am sure he will be pleased to send you a copy also if you write to the above address. I will say in summary they seem to have a very good program; not outrageous at all like some of the resellers. Write him for more details and mention the Digest when you do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Southern New England Telephone Date: 8 Feb 1996 05:07:01 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , mcuccia@mailhost. tcs.tulane.edu says ... > Since the 1984 divestiture of AT&T, Cincinnati Bell and SNET are > `considered' to be `independent' operating telephone companies. But if all > of the other *Bell* telcos have been separated from AT&T, aren't they *all* > more-or-less *independent* telcos? And who knows... we might have *all* of > these once sister/cousin telcos invading each other's territory with local > exchange competition! I guess it depends on one's definition -- last time I heard an "independent" telco was anything other than a Bell company. I don't think a GTE operating company, for example, is any more "independent" than an RBOC -- the only real difference is that one is a baby Bell and the other isn't. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The term 'independent' when used in reference to telcos has historic roots going back to the beginning of this century. It originally meant any telco not part of the Bell System. Many of the independents of course got together in the GTE consortium; others remained truely independent. In the very early days, the AT&T Bell System fought tooth and nail with the independents trying to drive them out of business the same way AT&T in recent years fought with MCI; tampering with their interconnections, etc. The advertising campaigns they wage against each other now are relatively mild. You should have seen AT&T and MCI fighting each other in the 1970's. And that is how AT&T and the Bell System was with all the other telcos eighty years ago, including the GTE group by whatever name they were known back then. The independents back then formed an association specifically to help them ward off attacks by AT&T. It was called USITA; the United States Independent Telephone Association. Its membership until a few years ago was the 1400+ telcos in this country other than the Bells who were specifically not allowed to participate. But whatever happened over the years, USITA and the Bell became great friends finally. A few years ago, John DeButts of AT&T was the featured speaker at a USITA annual convention. Most people do not remember what any of the old arguments were even about. So who rightfully can be called an 'independent telco' now? I suppose it would be any of the few remaining who are not owned and controlled by AT&T/GTE/Centel/United/Cable & Wireless or the other industry giants ... and that still leaves quite a few: over a thousand 'independent' telcos in the USA by that definition, owned by small companies or private persons, etc. Purists would claim I guess that the term should be applied to any telco which was not *historically* part of the old Bell System. And now that AT&T no longer has the right to the name 'Bell System', once they start offering local service if they were to buy up a small telco in the process, would that telco still be an 'independent' since it never had been part of Historic Bell? Things are getting so complicated around here! PAT] ------------------------------ From: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) Subject: Re: Southern New England Telephone Date: 8 Feb 1996 13:33:56 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) Hasn't SNET been in both the long distance and local telephone business since the AT&T breakup? Was it exempted from the restrictions placed on other Bells? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SNET like Cincinnati Bell, was never owned or controlled by AT&T therefore the rules of divestiture never did apply to those companies. Cincinnati Bell was the only telco with Bell in its name that was never part of the Bell System officially. Of course like all the other independents in the past half century or so, they were great friends with AT&T and had many AT&T contracts including the one several years ago which involved old-style AT&T calling cards billed to miscellaneous (no direct telco phone number involved) accounts. They may still be doing that for AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rparkins@infotel-systems.com (Richard Parkinson) Subject: Re: Trunk Capacity Tables? Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 20:43:21 -0800 Organization: Infotel Systems Corp. Peter A. Smith wrote: > I'm looking for a soft copy (file or equations) for the NEAL-WILKINSON > B.01L Trunk Capacity Table. I have a paper copy that has undergone > many faxing and photocopying. I was hoping to get back to an > original, but I have no idea where the source of this table is. One source is the E.500 Fascicle from the ITU-T. It can be purchased in the U.S. from Omnicom in Vienna VA @1-703-281-1135. Another option is to buy the Infomagic ITU-T standards on CD-ROM for $30.00. They can be found at www.infomagic.com. Regards, Richard ------------------------------ From: Tom@Tass.Com (Tom Allebrandi) Subject: Re: AT&T Closing All Phone Center Stores Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 23:38:29 GMT Organization: TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment PAT said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But watch over the next few weeks as > those stores liquidate and close down for some remarkable bargains. > Now is the time to stock up on some of the older AT&T phones if you > think you will have a use for them over the next few years. PAT] If anybody runs into some really good buys on a couple of AT&T 843's, I could use a couple of them :-) The 843 is a three line phone with hold and intercom. The hold and intercom features apparently only work if you have all 843's -- they don't work if you have plain old telephones for your other instruments. I have one in my office and like the phone. I'd like to replace the other two phones in my house with these. It appears that the 843 has been discontinued, the last price I saw for them was still over $150.00 :-( Tom Allebrandi Frontline Test Equipment | TA Software Systems | Valparaiso, IN USA tallebrandi@fte.com | tom@tass.com | +1-219-465-0108 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those are nifty phones and very hard to find. They had six buttons on the bottom front like any of the old key-set style phones. But instead of five lines with a hold button in common and a remote unit to operate the hold and lights, the phone you are referring to has three lines and three hold buttons. The line which is ringing causes a neon bulb under that button to flash. I'd love to have one of those now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: AT&T Closing All Phone Center Stores Date: 8 Feb 1996 19:31:42 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , acg@frame.com says: > I note with some regret a full-page ad from AT&T in today's {Chicago > Sun-Times} announcing that they are closing their Phone Centers > nationwide, but that we "will be able to buy AT&T telephone products > at thousands of retail outlets." > Right. > Leaving aside for the moment the point that their prices seemed > stratospheric compared to the competition (I gave up waiting for their > Model 824 (?) Caller ID desk/wall phone to come down to a competitive > price and bought a nice GE model instead) ... There lies the problem. Since AT&T sold many of these phones through both its own stores and other outlets, as a practical matter it couldn't sell at less than full list price because the other retailers would object to the competition. The thing to remember about the PhoneCenter chain is that it was started in the days of the old Bell System, as a way to market extra-cost equipment -- usually leased -- to telephone customers and to save money by reducing the need to send installers out to change phones. The only reason it still exists today as part of AT&T is that, *before* divestiture, the FCC took newly manufactured CPE out of the Bell companies and handed it to a separate subsidiary of AT&T; that division, then called American Bell, kept the stores on January 1, 1983, as an in-place sales network for its products. (The BOCs often turned around and started new stores to handle the reconditioned CPE they still leased to their customers. Of course that evaporated when embedded CPE was taken out of the BOCs at divestiture.) It's just taken this long for the PhoneCenter stores to outlive their usefulness. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And that certainly attests to the great strength and beauty of the old Bell System doesn't it ... that years and years after divestiture -- how many of our younger readers even remember it in any detail? -- they are still in the process of divest- ing; here and there old remnants of the way 'things used to be done'. I wonder if someday we will read that like the old days when manual service was being phased out i.e. 'the last of the old manual switchboards finally was taken out of service at Bryant Pond' the final vestiges of the old Bell System are at last gone. Now its the phone center stores; what still remains to be dismantled? Anyone know? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 20:55:04 CST From: Mark Peacock Subject: Update on Ameritech Cellular Brownouts Pat - Here are some of the additional details you requested: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Which Ameritech market are you in? Southeast Michigan -- Metro Detroit > Could you explain what is meant by 'brownout'? Does that mean all > roaming has been discontinued in those places? "Brownout" is Ameritech's term. My usual experience is that the call attempt is intercepted by the local carrier with a recording asking for a credit card or calling card number. The recording usually gives the cost -- typically $1.95/minute. Quite a bit more expensive than the normal roaming rate. The only exception has been in northern NJ. I have been able to roam while driving away from Newark airport on I-78 at about 9:00am, but not while driving back in the afternoon. Perhaps Ameritech research shows that cellular fraud is usually committed by late-rising criminals. > What good would changing your number do? The very nice customer service rep (CSR) didn't call back the next day, so I called them. I spoke to yet another very nice CSR (Note: no sarcasm here -- Ameritech Cellular seems to have found a bunch of nice people with which to staff their Metro Detroit customer service center) who assigned me a new cell phone number and walked me through the programming steps on my Motorola Contour. When finished, I asked him why a new phone number was needed. He told me that Ameritech found that they were being cloned by "system ID number". They shut down roaming for all but one exchange in the 313 area code and one exchange in the 810 area code. Thus the need to change my cell phone number. I'll be in LA and Phoenix early this week. I'll report back on the results. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That $1.95 per minute business also has a surcharge of $1.95 per call and is handled by a bunch of bandits known as Cellular Express. Around here you get them on Cellular One as well as Ameritech if you are not set up for roaming. But an Ameri- tech rep specifically told me 'stay away from those bandits!'. The nice thing about Ameritech is that you can roam anywhere in their five state region in markets they serve for just fifty cents per minute. At least that is what they claim and what my bill from Frontier (Ameritech wholesaler) reflected this month. I only went as far as Milwaukee and for most of that I just used my Milwaukee NAM to get it for 35/18, but I did test roaming to see how it would work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nagrom@enterprise.net (Peter Morgan) Subject: Re: Businesses Will Spark Internet Revolution, Dave Dorma Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 12:30:55 GMT Organization: SpaceAcademy hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote: > set up web sites, got some inquiries, but no sales. NetGuide ($45/year here :-( had a piece recently that suggested web sites should be compared to mailshots in terms of response. > Further, reliability of systems leaves much to be desired. Sending > graphics over phone lines, even 14.4, is still slow. Trying to get access to sites (in North America) from Europe, is also fraught anytime after 1200 GMT. Not sure how much of a load Usenet news (!) puts on the Atlantic links. I'm not sure whether "RealAudio" style links are a good idea -- as well as FM and AM, the radio services via satellite seem a more efficient way to get a "broadcast" to people - and the cost of satellite rx is lower than a suitable Mac/PC too. (Don't get me wrong -- I am enthusiastic about new products but this is just a bandwidth grabbing overhead, from what I've read.) {modems used only for} > logging into work. But the recent snowed-in conditions showed how many people were willing to use modems and if businesses consider teleworking in a serious way, modem use will continue to increase. Surveys and contacts I've made suggest most modem users are under forty years old. Another ten years will see that up to 50 years old and as more of the senior managers are themselves using modems, they'll maybe be more enthusiastic to change work patterns. > the same situation -- they get many new signups, but they don't stay. There's quite a difference between BBS/big online services and use of the Internet. Many BBS still provide large selections of shareware in a fast to download access mode. Few (here) have subscription fees, but those that do, usually give e-mail/usenet groups as the "perk". While there are some big archives around, I'd be reluctant to try to download over the Internet ... find a BBS with a CD-ROM, or do as I did, buy a collection of CICA Windows shareware on CD. I think the sheer size of CompuServe's resources is a reason for turnover in membership. AOL is just starting up here, too, and MSN is another "big" name. We have a C$ account at the office, and it only gets used for file/mail transfer, because every phone call is chargeable in the UK, and to get any speed above 2400 we have to dial London (12c/minute) Other features on C$ are given a wide berth. Internet access is cheaper and faster via an ISP, where we are charged for local calls (6c/min day, 3.4c/min evenings, 2c/min weekend) but there are no time limits online. > I can't predict the future -- maybe 25 years down the road personal I cannot either, but would hope that in 10-15 years every library in the world provides open access for people. I don't want the 'net to be a "status symbol", but equally, there will be some societies that have lived for centuries without the things we "take for granted". If we can "enjoy" technological change without forcing them to change how they live, then we'll have achieved something in a better way than we have to date (natural resources damaged and pollution increased, problems knowing what to /do/ with trash, and an ever faster materialistic society {in the West} :-( Peter WRN - World Radio Network - on cable and satellite see http://www.ultranet.com/~pgm/radio.htm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #54 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Feb 9 12:40:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA01953; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:40:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:40:22 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602091740.MAA01953@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #55 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Feb 96 12:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Non-900 Dial-A-Porn on the Rise (Knight-Ridder via Tad Cook) Book Review: "The Internet for Busy People" by Crumlish (Rob Slade) Phone Fires Discussion (Guy Fielding) ITU Standardization Activities on Modems (Robert Shaw) New Name for AT&T Network Systems (Bryan Douglas) Remaining Vestiges of Old Bell System (Lisa Hancock) Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Robert McMillin) Telecom Reform Fairy Donates $1.5 Million (Mercury News via Van Heffner) IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: Tad Cook Subject: Non-900 Dial-A-Porn on the Rise Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:17:44 PST Southwestern Bell, MCI Report Rise in Non-900/976 Dial-A-Porn Scams By Jerri Stroud, St. Louis Post-Dispatch Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 8 -- When a Ballwin parent got a call from the MCI fraud office in December, she was shocked to learn that someone had rung up a charge of $107.86 on her long-distance bill. She was even more shocked that the charge was for a 32-minute call to an adult sex chat line in Sao Tome, an island straddling the Equator off the west coast of Africa. Purveyors of telephone sex have gone offshore in an effort to bypass U.S. restrictions on 900 and 976 services, also known as pay-per-call information services. In some cases, advertising for the services doesn't clearly state that calls to the numbers are going overseas or that the calls will result in a significant charge to a customer's telephone bill. Most international calls begin with 011, then a two-digit country code and then a six or seven-digit number. But Canada and some Caribbean nations have area codes and numbers that resemble U.S. long-distance numbers, and some advertisements disguise the overseas codes by directing callers to dial an access code first. Some services even use 800 numbers as gateways to overseas calls. Callers may be directed to dial an access code that connects them directly to the service. Other services may tell callers to hang up and dial a number that turns out to be an overseas call. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have issued rules designed to thwart deceptive marketing of telephone information services. But long-distance companies say the services seem to find ways around the rules -- and around parents' efforts to protect their children and their pocketbooks. The Ballwin mother says she had already asked Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. to block calls to 900 services. It hadn't occurred to her to block international calls, a move MCI suggested after notifying her of the charge. "I do have a 15-year-old in the household, but he denies making the call," said the mother, who asked that her name not be used. "I just want to know where he got the number." MCI agreed to remove the charges from the Ballwin parent's bill. The company says international dial-a-porn is a persistent problem for parents and others who want to protect themselves or family members from excessive telephone charges. Some smaller nations see the sex lines as a way to mine money from their telephone networks, said Annette Duff, a senior specialist with the long-distance company's consumer affairs department. The nations often share profits with the sex lines. "There's a demand for these services, and a profit motive as well," Duff said. Telephone companies say nations with a disproportionate number of dial-a-porn scams include the Dominican Republic, Guyana, Portugal, Moldova and Sao Tome. AT&T receives periodic complaints about international dial-a-porn calls, said Richard Gundlach, a spokesman. AT&T reviews each complaint and often removes charges for first-time calls to the services. The company will block international calls upon request, but callers can get around the block by dialing another carrier's access code. "I think parents need to make sure that their children realize what an international call is and that it can be costly," Gundlach said. "It's the parents' responsibility to see that that phone isn't used to make these kinds of calls." MCI fraud investigators monitor the network for unusual charges to customers' telephone numbers, Duff said. Investigators pay particular attention to calls to Sao Tome and certain Caribbean nations, especially if customers rarely make international calls. The telecommunications law passed by Congress last week includes some restrictions on pornography delivered over phone lines or the internet, said Gwen Reichbach, associate director of the National Institute for Consumer Education. But civil liberties groups have vowed to fight the restrictions as a violation of the First Amendment. "At this point, there really aren't very many safeguards for parents other than talking with their children," Reichbach said. She suggests that parents discuss long-distance calls and sex lines with their children, telling them how to recognize overseas numbers. Parents also can try making children responsible for any unauthorized charges. "But then there's the problem of getting blood out of a turnip," Reichbach quipped. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 18:30:46 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet for Busy People" by Crumlish BKINTBSP.RVW 960123 "The Internet for Busy People", Crumlish, 1996, 0-07-882108-8, U$22.95 %A Christian Crumlish xian@netcom.com %C 2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 %D 1996 %G 0-07-882108-8 %I McGraw-Hill Osborne %O U$22.95 510-548-2805 800-227-0900 pmon@osborne.mhs.compuserve.com %P 304 %T "The Internet for Busy People" The Internet *is* for busy people. Learning the Internet is not. The are concepts, functions, cultures, facts, FAQs, lists and sites to learn before it starts to become useful. Therefore, a book teaching the Internet to busy people is a problematic proposition. Crumlish makes a reasonable stab at it. The "for Busy People" format is well designed. The material is not too bad, and presents the bare minimum basics well enough to get people started. The trouble is, "bare minimum" on the Internet is just enough to get you into trouble. (I suppose we can be thankful that those reading this book are unlikely to be able to set up much of a Web page.) The fundamental functions of Internet applications still don't tell you where to go to get the information you want. Crumlish points to some fun sites, but few that are likely to be of use to "busy people". There is also a hefty Windows 95 bias to the book. The Microsoft tools get lots of space while the question of connecting Win95 to anything but MSN goes unexamined. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTBSP.RVW 960123. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: 09 Feb 96 07:48:00 EST From: Guy Fielding <100044.275@compuserve.com> Subject: Phone Fires Discussion I have just received James Bellaire's file of material about the 1965 Richmond phone fire. Readers (Digesters?) might be interested to know that there was an academic study of the impact of such fires published in the 'Centenary of the Telephone' volume 'The Social Impact of the Telephone'. The reference is: Wurtzel, A.H. and Turner, C. (1977). What missing the telephone means. Journal of Communication, 27 (2), 48-57. (Also in: I. de S. Pool (Ed.), (1977). The Social Impact of the Telephone. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press.) Wurtzel and Turner (1977) studied an area of New York which had been affected by a fire in its telephone exchange, putting the local telephone system out of action for 23 days. The study looked at a number of the social and psychological effects of the fire on the lives of people living in the area. Does anybody know of any further systematic studies which have looked at the social-psychological impact of such incidents? Guy Fielding Dept Communication & Information Studies Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh, Scotland UK EH12 8TS 100044.275@Compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 14:30:44 CET From: SHAW +41 22 730 5338 Subject: ITU Standardization Activities on Modems Hi Patrick, I thought that your readers might be interested in a quick update on current ITU standardization activities related to modem technology. 1. A revision of Recommendation V.34 will provide for an increase of the maximum data rate from 28.8 kbps to 33.6 kbps. This is entering a final standardization phase. 2. V34Q is a working draft specification for a planned optional feature of V.34 supporting simultaneous voice and data (SVD) based on framed Quadrature Audio/Data Modulation. In QADM, the audio signal is modulated together with the data signal instead of being encoded and multiplexed. 3. Related is the approaching standardization of V.61, also known as V.asvd (analogue simultaneous voice and data), based on V.32bis modulation (with data rates of 4.8 kbps during speech and 14.4 kbps during silence). Digital simultaneous voice and data (DSVD) standards based on V.42 LAPM multiplexing techniques are also exiting the "standards pipe" (e.g., V.70, V.75, V.76). For readers who want a quick overview on SVD modems, visit: http://www.almac.co.uk/business_park/hayes/uk/ukartdsv.htm Cheers and keep up the good work. Robert Shaw International Telecommunication Union, Geneva http://www.itu.ch [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The ITU has been a sponsor of this Digest for about two years. Their regular financial contribution helps offset the expenses involved in production. I greatly appreciate their assistance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 07:34:54 CST Subject: New Name for AT&T Network Systems According to the {Wall Street Journal}, the company formerly known as AT&T Network Systems is now called Lucent Technologies. Apparently this is the telephony hardware electronics divisions (Western Electric?). It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. Bryan Douglas Alcatel Telecom Richardson, TX ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Remaining Vestiges of Old Bell System Date: 8 Feb 1996 23:52:06 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net Per Pat's question (closing AT&T phone center stores), my contacts with the "old Bell System" are when I deal with an experienced veteran telco employee (local or long distance) who understands communications principles and can serve me, the customer, intelligently. More and more, when I deal with a phone company, the person on the other end is a poorly trained clerk and can only answer questions that can be shown on a computer screen. They work in boiler rooms, under pressure to sell new services, and service as many customers as possible (I intentionally use the word "service".) These people don't know the tarrifs, various telephone calling situations, or even current and past services offered by their employer. MCI employees are notoriously bad. Occasionally, you get a veteran employee who quickly answers questions and solves any problems. Such employees know how to work around trouble, and clearly understand company policies. They're able to give me CORRECT rates for various services (both new and classic), and advise which package would serve my needs best. In contrast, new employees simply push a new package/service without regard if it meets the customer's needs. I had some oddball dialing problems. I had to call 611 repeatedly, each clerk assured me it was being worked on. Then a clerk said the problem was resolved when in fact it wasn't. After some persistence, I got a supervisor. It turned out the original clerks didn't have a clue as to my problem and coded it utterly wrong in the computer. The supervisor did understand and properly got it resolved. The supervisor was a veteran. I miss the days when traffic operators and commercial service representatives were reasonably close to the regions they served, to understand regional calling issues. Today they are centralized far away and that trend is continuing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had one like that the other day. We had chatted only a couple of minutes and it was obvious to me she knew her way around. Curious, I asked her how long she had been around. *Thirty-one years* was her answer. She was there a long time before divestiture, a long time before competition. It was so refreshing talking to her and placing an order with her. The order by the way was for 'call-screening', and you know something? She had it turned on on my line *three minutes* after we finished talking. That was service! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 20:41:48 -0800 From: Robert McMillin Subject: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Not very surprisingly, both the {Orange County Register} (which is usually rather libertarian on its op-ed pages) and the {Los Angeles Times} (the miniature poodle of Westside Democrats) mentioned only eliptically the telecom bill's prior restraint on Internet free speech. Does freedom of the press only interest newspapers when dead trees are involved? I refuse to believe it. But imagine the yelping we'd hear from the nation's media orifaces if Senator Exon tried to arrest interstate traffic in girlie pictures as published, say, in {Playboy}! The man's digitally uglified mug would deface {Time}'s cover the next week. No, there's a different reason why the press ignores the censorship written into in the telecom bill. It is that most journalists, like the craven and ignorant Congress that passed this mess, haven't a clue as to how the Internet works. Not understanding it, they either ignore it or connect it to well-known sales catalysts: sex, for instance. Better, protecting the kiddies from sex. Since we can't keep our toddlers from accidentally crawling onto the infobahn, goes the sophistry, we'd best set the speed limit at 3 MPH. Congress succeeded in squelching Internet users for two reasons. First, the defense of lofty principles requires cash to buy legislators and to survive court challenges. With Net commerce still at an infantile stage, no senator-owning plutocrat, his wealth deriving from the First Amendment, exists to quash unwanted laws. Thus does diffusion become a liability. Second, this is America, where liberty is just a big statue in New York. H. L. Mencken, the great newspaperman of the first half of this century, observed that Americans are terrified of ideas, of foreigners, and that somebody, somewhere, is having fun. No wonder the Internet is under attack. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com W3: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know if you meant 'reform' or 'deform' in your title, so am opting for the latter as if nothing else, it makes a humorous typographical error. :) First of all, Internet users have not been 'squelched'. I am really getting tired of reading the nonsense being distributed on this, and the painting black thing is a crock also. Here are the facts pure and simple: If something was NOT against the law to put on the Internet yesterday, then it is NOT against the law to put it on the Internet today. The new law makes one simple request where net users are concerned: Do not KNOWING distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? I wonder if the ACLU and the small handful of others who are making such vicious protests to this realize how incredibly foolish they appear to the vast majority of netters? Do not say that 'television stations do not know how the net operates' because this is not true either. Cable News Network talked about this on Thursday. If something was not against the law to disseminate via the net before, it is not against the law to disseminate now. Just be more careful about how you send it out. I got a note from someone who said 'a lot of sites will vanish from the net probably as early as next week' ... and my response to that is GOOD. Let them vanish. I wonder who will miss them? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 08:41:54 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Telecom Reform Fairy Donates $1.5 million Phone firms gave $1.5 million amid telecom debate By Rory J. O'Connor Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Ten major phone companies gave more than $1.5 million in political contributions during crucial junctures of debate on a sweeping communications bill President Clinton signed into law Thursday, prompting charges that the donations were designed to shape how the bill was written. The influence-buying charges were leveled by the Washington-based advocacy group, Common Cause, further adding to the controversy that erupted almost immediately after Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. The legislation, which rewrites basic rules for telephones, cable and broadcast TV, and computer networks, was praised as a spur to economic growth by Clinton, business leaders and members of both political parties. Common Cause said the $1.5 million in donations to the national committees of both major parties -- so-called soft money -- constitutes a "transparent effort to buy influence and affect legislative outcomes," said Don Simon, executive vice president. The amount of the phone companies' contributions from July to December 1995 was two to four times as large as the contributions the companies made in the same six-month period in 1994, Common Cause said. The consumer group said that based on records filed with the Federal Election Commission, the three major long-distance companies -- AT&T, MCI and Sprint -- gave a total of more than $900,000 in the last six months of 1995. The seven Baby Bells -- NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, Ameritech, BellSouth, Pacific Telesis, SBC Communications and US West -- gave a total of more than $500,000 in the same period. More importantly, large contributions from the long-distance companies came within days of key compromises reached in the bill, the group said. One contribution it cited was a $190,000 donation by AT&T to the Democratic National Committee one day after the conference committee approved the final bill with changes favored by the administration. Link to bill denied A spokesman for AT&T denied the contributions were linked to the telecommunications bill. He said the money already had been pledged to help the political parties with their 1996 conventions, and that AT&T had given the same amount, $200,000, to both the Republican and Democratic parties. A spokeswoman for Vice President Al Gore, pointing to the "nearly unanimous bipartisan support" for the bill in Congress, said the charges "don't hold water." Those interested in the telecommunications bill also appeared to be an important source of funds for individual members of Congress last year. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversaw the rewrite of the telecommunications law, received at least $83,000 in contributions from an array of interested givers, according to documents filed with the Federal Elections Commission. Among those contributing to the $1.7 million in campaign funds accumulated by Pressler in 1995 were interest-group donors: SBC Communications, $5,000; McCaw Cellular, $3,000; NYNEX, $4,500; Viacom, $2,000; Fox, $1,000; Turner Broadcasting, $6,000; BellSouth, $5,000; Bell Atlantic, $7,500; and Walt Disney, $4,500. Other legislators who served on the conference committee that crafted the final bill received generous donations in 1995 from groups with some stake in the bill, according to filings at the Federal Election Commission. Pressler's Democratic counterpart, South Carolina Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, netted at least $37,000 in donations from companies including AT&T, Pacific Telesis, Viacom, Fox, TCI, BellSouth and the Home Shopping Network. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., got nearly $39,000, including contributions from Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, Fox and the National Association of Broadcasters. A similar sum was donated to Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., chairman of the House Commerce Committee, by interests including AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Fox, GTE, LDDS Communications and MCA Corp. $3.7 million netted Overall, major telecommunications political action committees distributed $3.7 million on Capitol Hill in 1995, largely to leaders and lawmakers on key committees. By far the largest giver was AT&T, which handed out $824,162. The regional Bell telephone companies also were generous, led by Ameritech with $410,366. The donations underscore the importance the communications industry placed on the landmark legislation, which rewrote laws dating more than 60 years. Clinton signed the bill in a ceremony at the Library of Congress, first with a 1956 fountain pen that sealed a law creating the interstate highway system and then with the 1996 electronic stylus that made the signing the first to be visible on the Internet's World Wide Web. "Today, with the stroke of a pen, our laws will catch up with our future," he said. The legislation sets the stage for mergers of giant media conglomerates, will allow cable TV and phone prices to rise, and place restrictions on sending "indecent" material over computer networks. And it places a huge burden on an underfunded Federal Communications Commission, which has just six months to write a huge new stack of regulations. Also contained in its 300 pages are provisions that permit increased competition in providing local and long-distance phone service, cable TV and on-line information delivery. Companies that formerly could offer only one or two services may now compete in any number of markets, potentially offering consumers a choice of several companies to provide all of their telecommunications services. `Most significant' law Much of the nation's telecom industry applauded the result, praising it as a huge boost to businesses that, with sales of $700 billion, account for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy. "A few years from now, or even sooner, people will look back on this legislation as the most significant for the U.S. economy in the 1990s," said Phil Quigley, chairman of Pacific Telesis. But the complex law, described by one House member as the most lobbied piece of legislation he had ever seen, also has an array of detractors worried about concentration of media power, censorship and the potential for negative economic impacts for consumers. Even one of its principal authors, Rep. Jack Fields, R-Texas, acknowledged on the House floor that nobody today knows what the full consequences of the law will be. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ (The one with the black background!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You won't see any black background around here, and in fact I encourage sites who are pleased with this new legislation to demonstrate it by possibly using cheerful and bright colors at their site. Do this to let the world know that you fully support the new legislation. The ACLU has promised a long and drawn out court battle over this. I am hopeful that other organizations will be able to raise the needed funds and personnel to go up against them in court when it gets to that point and squash them. If you feel as I do that the ACLU does not speak for or represent you in any way, then let that be known in your efforts. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:44:48 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! I just now got off the phone after getting a sales pitch from a lady at IDT named 'Jeanie'. Talk about rude! Talk about dumb! Phone rings and I answer it. Woman says hello is this 'Telecom Daily'? ... she pauses a second and says 'I guess it is Telecom Digest ...' Alerted now that something was going on I responded yes, this is their office :) how many I help you? She tells me she needs to speak to a 'consultant'. I tell her my name and that I will attempt to consult with her. That won't do at all; she needs to speak with my supervisor ... (by now I am about to ROFL as they say in chat ... rolling on the floor laughing is the way we express our reaction to something funny) She wants to describe the many benefits of 'call back services' and of course a peon like myself would know nothing about that. She will need to be 'cut-through' to someone with authority in the company; someone who can make decisions, etc ... I told her I made all the decisions around here and I had already made some rather firm decisions where dealing with IDT was concerned based on their misrepresentation of their Internet Service. I told her about the problems I had when I tried to sign up with them a few months ago. She told me that was an entirely different part of the company and there was nothing she could do. Again she insists on talking to someone higher up than me ... and by now I am trying hard not to go into convulsions or have another heart attack like I did in November, 1994. Finally I told her look, don't call and bother me any more. Her final comment: 'You are incredibly rude' ... I told her I may be incredibly rude, but lady, you are just plain incredible! Whatever you do, stay away from International Discount Telecom (IDT). You have been warned. They charged my credit card for doing nothing except setting up a totally incorrect account that I was never able to use, not even once. If it had been more than ten or twenty dollars I would have worked on getting it back ... but not for that little. But they needn't think I am going to listen to any more of their baloney offers. For quite a while now, IDT has been running ads in the papers here offering total internet access. Uncensored news groups! We don't censor what you can read and see! And of course all the know-nothing new users go running to sign up so they can go 'net surfing'. I hate that term, 'net surfing', as if the work that I and countless other moderators/publishers do here along with researchers and scholars over the years have done is just out there to provide some sort of spectacle for whoever comes along. The other evening on Compuserve CB someone said in a chat with me that 'I am just on here tonight to do a little net-surfing'. My response? F**K you! and I disconnected on my end. And all I can say is the same to you and your cohorts at IDT, Miss Jeanie. Have a great weekend folks; let's meet again in a couple days. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #55 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 12 02:32:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA02299; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:32:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:32:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602120732.CAA02299@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #56 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Feb 96 02:32:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 56 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Robert McMillin) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (John R. Levine) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Michael P. Deignan) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Robert Levandowski) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Steve Cogorno) CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) (Eric Smith) Re: House Prohibits Free Speech on Abortion (Rick Williamson) Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! (Andy Yee) Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! (Al Niven) Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! (Peter Judge) Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! (Robert Casey) Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems (Joe Plescia) Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 16:03:10 GMT On 08 Feb 1996 21:41:48 PDT, PAT said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know if you meant 'reform' or > 'deform' in your title, so am opting for the latter as if nothing > else, it makes a humorous typographical error. :) Believe me, it was intentional. > If something was NOT against the law to put on the Internet yesterday, > then it is NOT against the law to put it on the Internet today. The > new law makes one simple request where net users are concerned: Do > not KNOWING distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* > so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone > you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? No, it isn't, for two reasons. First, this is a power grab. Let's start with the exact wording (thanks to VTW for this) and see why: > "(a) Whoever -- > > "(1) in interstate or foreign communications- > "(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly- > > "(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and > "(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, > suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, > lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, > threaten, or harass an other person; > > "(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly- > > "(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and > "(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, > suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene > or indecent knowing that the recipient of the communication is under > 18 years of age regard less of whether the maker of such > communication placed the call or initiated the communication; "Indecent" has been held to include George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. That is to say, I can no longer call Senator Exon a m*****f***** in the Digest without being thrown in the slammer, since I did it with the intention of annoying not just Exon but the whole chicken crowd in Congress who voted for this bill. What's more, the "makes, creates, or solicits" clause of paragraphs (i) and (ii) will be interpreted to mean *anything* on the Net -- and not just sites in this country, but throughout the world as well. Usenet, mailing lists, IRC channels, FTP sites, Web pages -- all come under the wildly variable definition of "indecency". This means the courts in Bluestocking, South Carolina get to say what is indecent for citizens of Los Angeles, California, or for that matter, Stockholm, Sweden. Think I'm kidding? Then why else in paragraph (1) does it mention "foreign communications"? > I wonder if the ACLU and the small handful of others who are making > such vicious protests to this realize how incredibly foolish they > appear to the vast majority of netters? Not really, Pat. If anything, it is *you* who are being incredibly foolish. Normally I agree with you on most political things appearing in the Digest, but the notion that free speech ought to be curtailed because some people have delicate sensibilities is ludicrous. If they don't like what's on the web, let the delicate read {Goodbye, Mr. Chips} or {Pollyanna}. The Net attracts more than its share of blowhards, but so what? This is most assuredly not about harrassment, but very much about censorship -- by your own definition, to boot. > Do not say that 'television stations do not know how the net operates' > because this is not true either. Cable News Network talked about this > on Thursday. Yes, and {Time} has yet to my knowledge publish a retraction of its impossibly wrong story on pornography on the Net. If there are happy exceptions, I am pleased, but still -- in the main -- I stand by my original statement. There's still another TV show on this week I heard about that can be summarized with the equation Johnny + Internet + sex = trouble. Sheesh. > I got a note from someone who said 'a lot of sites will vanish from > the net probably as early as next week' ... and my response to that > is GOOD. Let them vanish. I wonder who will miss them? PAT] I won't, it's true, but that's not the point. I surely don't want the Feds taking away someone else's freedom because the barbarian Christian fundies don't like it. I used to think Ralph Reed was actually a moderate painted the zealot by a liberal media; I know better now. He and his sorry followers are just another lot of grim Puritans. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 12:02 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > If something was NOT against the law to put on the Internet yesterday, > then it is NOT against the law to put it on the Internet today. Pat, that's just not true. Two days ago, the Net ran under the same free speech rules as the rest of the country. Today there's a much stricter "indecency" standard for material that might fall into the hands of minors. In particular, two days ago I could freely send around material that was not obscene, for example a scanned image of a Renaissance nude, or a discussion of contraceptive techniques. Now, I am at risk for sending around anything that might be considered indecent somewhere. > The new law makes one simple request where net users are concerned: Do > not KNOWING distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* > so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone > you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? If only it were that simple. How can one tell the ages of people who fetch my web pages or send requests to my mail servers? Does a button that says "click here only of you're over 21" suffice? If a kid lies about her age, is that my problem or hers? The only thing we can say for sure is that some lawyers are going to get richer. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If someone fraudulently misrepresents themself (i.e. are you at least 18 years of age? are you a law enforcement officer for any local, state or federal government?) then it is their problem and not yours. It has long been the case for example that a police officer cannot lie and say he is not an officer. If he does lie, and then proceeds to arrest you based on the transaction which occurred, it is entrapment, which is illegal. Entrapment is defined as the goverment committing a crime in order to induce you to likewise commit the same or a similar crime. Enticement (that is, the goverment merely makes it more convenient for you to violate the law without act- ually doing so itself) is *not* illegal. Please read this carefully: a police officer who commits a crime with a minor (i.e. logs in the minor on a computer for the purpose of helping the minor obtain contraband material) who then aids or encourages the minor to falsify his age and lies to you about his own role as a police officer in the transaction has entrapped you. Those cases get tossed out of court all the time. You may wish to qualify your traffic with criteria such as this to avoid having undesirable users see it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: 11 Feb 1996 12:32:12 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company > If something was NOT against the law to put on the Internet yesterday, > then it is NOT against the law to put it on the Internet today. The > new law makes one simple request where net users are concerned: Do > not KNOWING distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* > so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone > you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? Call me paranoid, but I feel your summary is incorrect. Why? Let's look at what has happened in the dial-up BBS world over the past ten years. How many times have we read or heard about some BBS operator being the target of a "sting" operation for providing pornographic information to minors? Some accounts even have the police providing "Johnny" with the computer, and watch as he logs in, provides false information to get access to the "adult" file areas, or happens to download an image from the "new uploads" file area that the System Operator hasn't seen or moved to the "adult" conference. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not paranoid about cops (well, okay, maybe about the BATF, but only because I can't understand why the BATF needs Apache attack helicopters in their arsenal) -- after all, I work in law enforcement. Often, though, district attornies and/or attorney generals, who hold the flashy press conferences announcing how another child pornographer/molester has been eradicated from society, are often not career law-enforcement personnel, but instead elected politicians. And we know how glamourous it is to hold a press conference and tell the world you've captured another porn-king. Often, it's not about "the law", nor is to "protect society". Instead, it has to do with an approval rating and getting re-elected. Unfortunately, what I see happening with this new "law" is nothing more than further abuse by prosecutors to up their chances of re-election. Sure, the law says that you cannot KNOWINGLY distribute materials -- but how long is it before some prosecutor decides to legally show that, since the Internet has underage children on it, the mere act of you placing "indecent" material on the net is therefore "knowingly" giving underage children access to said material? I daresay it will not be very long at all. MD [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll grant you that many prosecutors are politicians first and seekers of truth and justice only as an afterthought. We have one like that here at the present time. The Cook County State's Attorney Jack O'Malley is highly political. Nor would I deny that what you say could happen. But the point is it was happening long before this latest federal law got passed. There are a variety of state and local ordinances which have been and are used to prosecute people for whatever reason where 'indecency' is concerned. Why do you think there will be a sudden increase in these cases? Why for example, does John Levine feel that his theoretical Renaissance nude suddenly became more offensive and dangerous to transmit this week than it was last week with a myriad of state laws pertaining to 'indecency' in effect then (and still now)? Why is his Renaissance nude going to be illegal to view here when it is not illegal to view in the Art Institute of Chicago or the Guggenheim Museum? The point is, it won't be. I hear people saying the Internet is suddenly being held to a different standard where 'free speech' is concerned than other forms of mass media. Yes it is, and no it isn't. Internet users have been told that from now on they will be held to the same standards as everyone else. So many of you prima donnas went for years and years thinking you were something special and something different. Now you are being told that to the contrary, you are just like everyone else. I know it must distress you a lot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 03:55:04 GMT > Do not say that 'television stations do not know how the net operates' > because this is not true either. Cable News Network talked about this > on Thursday. If something was not against the law to disseminate via > the net before, it is not against the law to disseminate now. Just > be more careful about how you send it out. I got a note from someone > who said 'a lot of sites will vanish from the net probably as early > as next week' ... and my response to that is GOOD. Let them vanish. > I wonder who will miss them? PAT] Pat, you are provably wrong when you say that the CDA has not made it illegal to publish anything on the Internet. The CDA was amended, before passage, to include changes to the Comstock Act. This is a 120+ year old law which makes it illegal to discuss abortion via the US Postal Service. The CDA's changes alter the Comstock Act to apply to the Internet as well. Despite claims to the contrary by the amendment's sponsor, the actual text of the law does in fact make it a crime to say things such as "You can cause an abortion by taking a certain dose of normal birth control pills the day after conception." Even though that statement would be perfectly legal to make in public, on television, on the radio, or in print, and even though abortion is currently legal in the United States ... the quoted statement is against the law as written in this country at the current moment, because it was made on the Internet or sent through the mail. Granted, the Comstock Act hasn't been enforced lately, because it is patently unconstitutional. Even the Attorney General admits it. However, it is still on the books, and could still be used to arrest someone. A person's life could be ruined by the time the law was declared to be against the Constitution. Check it out. If you have Web access, the U.S. Code is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18 -- the Criminal law. Look under Postal Service. Pat, it's not that people are so hungry for pornography. It's that this particular law, as worded, applies to a hell of a lot more than what's reasonable. Technically, it makes it illegal to send a health textbook to a minor on the Internet -- look up the legal definition of "indecent," which the bill bans, as opposed to "obscene." This law is ready to be misused by people with an axe to grind and a lawyer to turn the grindstone. Rob Levandowski University of Rochester -- Rochester, New York rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And these lawyers and others with axes to grind did not have anything at their disposal do to do prior to this latest legislation? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 11:56:59 PST Patrick Townsend commented: > If something was NOT against the law to put on the Internet yesterday, > then it is NOT against the law to put it on the Internet today. The > new law makes one simple request where net users are concerned: Do > not KNOWING distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* > so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone > you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? No, this isn't a terrible thing, but I thnk it sets a dangerous trend. My concern is how to determine that a user is a minor. Is simply asking "Are you 18?" enough? Or does one need to obtain a signed statement? The reason I ask is because California Penal Code section 308 (Tobacco Sales to Minors) uses the wording "knowingly selling tobacco to minors." HOWEVER, simply asking if the customer is under 18 is not enough. Clerks must obtain valid ID before selling tobacco products. There is no good faith defense for PC 308. Somehow, I doubt that the Decency Act will allow good faith either. Any lawyers want to comment? Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 17:33 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) PAT wrote: > Do not KNOWINGLY distribute indecent matrerials to minors. Is that *really* > so much to ask? Do not originate an indecent transmission with someone > you KNOW to be a minor. Is that so hard? Yes, it is extremely difficult, since there is not a precise legal definition of "indecent". Some of the proposed alternate language would have substitued the word "obscene", which does have a precise definition. It has already been determined in courts that banning obscene material does not violate First Amendment rights whereas banning indecent material does. Why should the net be different than printed media? And why are you so certain that they will not nail people for putting things on web pages and Usenet newsgroups? Knowingly has often been interpreted to mean "known or should have known", and it is quite apparent that anyone who has used the net a non-trivial amount should know that it is readily accessible to minors. Between the lack of definition of indecent and the uncertaintly of knowingly, this looks suspiciously like a selective enforcement law to be used to punish those that the administration finds annoying. I am disappointed that you are taking the view that this is a trivial issue. In reality it is a very slippery slope. Today it is "indecency", tomorrow it will be political speech. In fact, there's no way to tell that political speech isn't "indecent" already! > I wonder if the ACLU and the small handful of others who are making > such vicious protests to this realize how incredibly foolish they > appear to the vast majority of netters? If they appear foolish to the majority of netters, the net is doomed. Even if I disagreed with the ACLU's position on this issue, I'd hardly call it foolish for them to take a stand on what they believe to be an important issue. > I got a note from someone > who said 'a lot of sites will vanish from the net probably as early > as next week' ... and my response to that is GOOD. Let them vanish. > I wonder who will miss them? PAT] I'll miss them. If the same "standard" (and I use the term loosely) were to be applied to printed media, a lot of books, magazines, and newspapers would disappear. While I don't read all of them, and probably would find at least some of them to be personally repugnant, just the same I would miss *all* of them. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I shouldn't adamantly defend the right to it. Freedom of speech implicitly provides freedom to choose which speech I want to hear, and I don't take kindly to loosing that. And the scariest thing about the CDA is that if it is upheld by the courts, there is *absolutely* no reason why Congress won't be able to extend it to other media in the future. I don't really believe that Congress views this as a way to get a foot in the door of censorship, but I am certain that the Christian Coallition and other right wing groups supported it for *exactly* that reason. Would you want to live in a world where you had to give positive ID (proof of age) in order to access any material not suitable for six year olds? There's already been a case where a BBS operator from California was extradited to Tennessee and prosecuted based on the local community standards (of Tennessee). Would you want to have to determine that material you put on the net is not considered "indecent" *anywhere* in the USA? Wouldn't you rather have a better-defined standard such that you could reasonably hope to satisfy it? And we haven't yet even discussed the provisions of the CDA which make ISPs and information services potentially liable for content that they merely retransmit. The Telecom Reform Bill may be an excellent piece of legislation in other ways, but if they have to throw away Bill of Rights to do it, I'd just as soon leave things the way they were. Eric [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well since there is 'no precise standard for [indecent]', then how do the cable operators all manage to stay out of jail? If I have an old television set here with a cable box and I set it to the Spice Channel and then get in the back of the television and warp the horizontal synch around to where the picture is mostly viewable and then some minor sits here with me and watches the show, is that the fault of the cable operator? If parents do not supervise their children's use of Internet, is that the service provider's fault or the fault of the author of the message the child read? All your melodrama about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment is bogus. I expect that sort of response from an ACLU'er, since they think they can use those precious documents as a blanket for everything. Actually, the ACLU makes mock of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, but that's a topic I could discuss for days without end. I have reviewed lots and lots of their cases going back into the 1920's and have yet to see a single one where I could agree with their reasoning. About ten years ago I was going to start a newsletter entitled 'ACLU Watch' and invite attornies and others to dissect their opinions closely. I didn't have the resources to do it at that time, and still don't. I may need to make some sacrifices now and do it however. The net really needs to know about those people in complete detail, and what bad news they really are where *true* freedom and liberty is concerned in America. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rgwillia@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Rick Williamson) Subject: Re: House Prohibits Free Speech on Abortion Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 21:57:42 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems In article , monty@roscom.COM wrote: > JUST before House voting, an amendment was tacked on to the new > Telecommunications Reform Act which prohibits the mere DISCUSSION of > abortion on the Internet. To my understanding the bill does not prohibit dicussion of the abortion topic. I believe it prohibits the distribution of information on how or where to get an abortion. Rick rgwillia@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com ------------------------------ From: nde@winternet.com (Andy Yee) Subject: Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 17:48:54 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications In article , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > Whatever you do, stay away from International Discount Telecom (IDT). > You have been warned. They charged my credit card for doing nothing > except setting up a totally incorrect account that I was never able > to use, not even once. If it had been more than ten or twenty > dollars I would have worked on getting it back ... but not for that > little. But they needn't think I am going to listen to any more of > their baloney offers. > For quite a while now, IDT has been running ads in the papers here > offering total internet access. Uncensored news groups! We don't > censor what you can read and see! And of course all the know-nothing > new users go running to sign up so they can go 'net surfing'. Check out the homepage of Scott "Shayd" Roberts, a former IDT employee who tells all: http://www.cybernex.com/shayd/IDTmain.html or check out my home page which has a link there! Andy Yee President New Directions Engineering Inc. http://www.winternet.com/~nde "Democrats...They think that all government is good; it can make you healthier, taller, improve your golf game... Republicans, on the other hand, think that all government is bad. Then they get elected to office and PROVE IT." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: alniven@pipeline.com (Al Niven) Subject: Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! Date: 11 Feb 1996 18:08:28 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline My experience with IDT was exactly the same. I went there in person and met with the president Howard Jonas. Bills all over his desk saying six months past due from ad agencies. He sat there the whole time picking his nose and looking at the ceiling. Paper flying around the entire enterprise. Everybody arrogant. Did not do business with them. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:02:38 +0000 From: Peter Judge Subject: Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! Dear PAT, Hey, sorry you feel that angry about 'surfing' as a term. But people who use it are not necessarily intending to trivialise the work in the Net. Be aware that it may get used differently in different cultures. Here in the UK we are a year or more behind the US in Internet provision, and in acceptance of on-line culture. We are behind in the jargon, too. For many people, Internet use is a tricky thing that they have to get their heads round for their job, and they often have to do it in their 'spare' time. The 'surf' metaphor (which is a dumb metaphor for something sedentary and textual) is still in wide circulation here. I think it is often a means for these people, and the ones selling them the access, to promote the idea of the Internet as something 'cool' and 'fun'. The sane way car adverts sell the idea that driving to and from work will become a big adventure (and you will be 'free'), if you only did it in XYZ Auto's new model. Over here, we don't have real surf (or very little), so we don't understand the metaphor. Over here we all pay the telco per minute (no flat fees) as well as on-line time charges (for CompuServe et al), so if you meet someone on-line, they are either doing serious work (whatever they say), or they are really genuinely appreciating and valuing what they are getting (whatever they may say) ... (or they are in the grip of a wasteful addiction, in which case they deserve sympathy). Peter Judge ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: IDT: What a Bunch of Idiots! Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 04:57:11 GMT I've been using IDT internet service for some months, and they're not that great, but usable. I also have an account at Netcom, which I like much better (less obvious censoring (if any), though it seems some posts get lost as they make their way thru the Internet). I kept IDT for the one reason that they are a local call from my mom's house in northern NJ and the nearest Netcom dialup was still a toll call. I would just login on IDT and then telnet to Netcom and login my account there. Saved more than the extra $15 a month in toll calls easily. I hated the newsreader on IDT, anyway. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I basically wanted to do was use them as a gateway to telnet to my regular accounts. I was not interested in their Uncensored News Groups and it did not interest me in the least that they would not censor what I wanted to read. From the beginning I was sort of annoyed by their advertisments in the paper here knowing that they were trying to appeal to a bunch of local yokels (I used to love that term when it was first coined on CB Radio about twenty years ago) who slobber at the mouth as they go net-surfing looking for philes and warez and people having dirty conversations and places to post their 'make money fast' notices. In my case, they could not even get that much done correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Plescia Subject: Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems Date: 11 Feb 1996 20:49:23 GMT Organization: Plescia.Com bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com writes: > According to the {Wall Street Journal}, the company formerly known as > AT&T Network Systems is now called Lucent Technologies. Apparently > this is the telephony hardware electronics divisions (Western Electric?). > It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. They probably had a group of a hundred or so marketing heads come up with that! It probably has some deep meaning and we are supposed to react to it ... I just hear people saying "what?" ... joe ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:20:39 PST bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Bryan Douglas) writes: > According to the {Wall Street Journal}, the company formerly known as > AT&T Network Systems is now called Lucent Technologies. Apparently > this is the telephony hardware electronics divisions (Western Electric?). > It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. I understand the name is supposed to have a reference to "clear" and "light giving". My customers at AT&T have been calling all week identifying themselves as from Lucent, then explaining what that is. None of them like the new corporate identity. tad@ssc.com | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | KT7H | "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke, 1729-1797 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #56 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 12 11:20:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA26829; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:20:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:20:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602121620.LAA26829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #57 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Feb 96 11:20:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 57 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Good Overall Read on 800/888/Replication etc. Status (Judith Oppenheimer) Pacific Bell to Increase Minority Phone Service Access (Mike King) CID Name from British Columbia Canada (Mark J. Cuccia) Texas PUC Overrides SWB on NPA Plan (Chris Boone) No Overlay in Houston, TX (Jeff Brielmaier) Imponderables About Telephones (David Feldman) Indian Telecom Bids Stuck in Court (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Agreement Reached on Indian Broadcast Rights (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Employment Opportunity: Jobs in Palestine (Sam Bahour) Call and Apology From IDT (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Good Overall Read on 800/888/Replication etc. Status Date: 12 Feb 1996 04:18:53 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) FCC ISSUES 888 DEPLOYMENT POLICY BUT DEFERS DECISION ON REPLICATION The Federal Communications Commission's Common Carrier Bureau has issued a set of rules for the pre-reservation of 888 numbers in preparation for the scheduled launch of 888 service on March 1. The new rules include guidelines for the pre-reservation of numbers, including a rationing plan intended to maintain control of the process and avoid overloading the number administration database. The bureau also added an additional period for the Responsible Organizations (RespOrgs), which reserve numbers from the database for 800 and 888 customers, to poll their users about which 800 vanity numbers they wish to "protect" from the initial allocation process. There is still no guarantee, however, that these vanity numbers will actually be granted to the holders of the equivalent 800 number. The FCC plans to issue a separate decision about the replication issue at a later date. ...Rationing Added to Initial Deployment The FCC delegated authority to the Common Carrier Bureau to resolve issues raised in the toll free numbering docket (CC 95-155) on Jan. 24. The bureau issued its rules on Jan. 25. They allow RespOrgs to begin reserving numbers for subscribers at 12:01 a.m on Saturday, Feb. 10. Citing the rush that occurred when the 800-555 pool of numbers was opened in 1994, the bureau decided it would be best to limit allocation in order to prevent overloading the Service Management System (SMS). A total of 120,000 numbers will be available per week, partitioned among RespOrgs using the same formula currently used for allocating 800 number reservations. A RespOrg can calculate its share of 888 numbers by multiplying its 800 number allocation under the August 1995 plan by 4.0. Six thousand numbers will be reserved for Canadian RespOrgs, and each RespOrg will receive at least 200 numbers per week. At the same time, the rationing controls on 800 numbers are being slightly loosened since SMS administrator Database Service Management Inc. (DSMI) now projects that 800 numbers will last until June because of previous conservation efforts. Beginning Jan. 28 the total allocation limit was raised from 29,000 numbers per week to 73,000 numbers. Again individual RespOrgs' shares of this total are calculated with the same formula, simply multiplying the August allocation by 2.5. The limit will go back down to 29,000 on Feb. 18, to ensure that 800 numbers will remain available in case 888 service is not immediately supported in some local calling areas. "We intend to end the 800 number conservation plan once we are convinced that 888 calls can be placed nationwide," the bureau wrote. ...One More Set Aside Pass, But You Already Missed It Although the replication issue remains unsettled, the bureau did approve the plan of the SMS/800 Number Administration Committee (SNAC) to allow RespOrgs to submit lists of numbers that are to be coded as "unavailable" pending a final decision. Although there was no indication that holders of residential 800 numbers had expressed an interest in replication, the bureau narrowed the SNAC plan to specifically exclude these numbers. In response to complaints that the RespOrgs had failed to publicize the initial setaside and that many smaller customers were unaware of it until the deadline had passed (see last issue) the bureau modified the SNAC plan, adding another pass for customers to submit numbers they wanted protected. The bureau declined to enforce any formal notification process, but said, "We encourage RespOrgs to contact those commercial 800 subscribers they have not already polled. We encourage RespOrgs to honor all replication requests submitted to them by their commercial 800 subscribers." The bureau also said that it is in the RespOrgs' best interest to do so, both to generate new business, and to protect them from liability to 800 subscribers who they did not contact. Once again, however, very little time was allowed for this third pass. The RespOrgs had to submit their new list of numbers to DSMI by Feb. 1. As with the previous two passes, there will be a second submission to correct errors. DSMI is to complete the process of entering the numbers into the database before midnight on Feb. 8. The entire 888-555 number pool will also be set aside pending a decision on how 888 directory assistance services are to be handled. ...Proceeding Incrementally, Without a Replication Decision "At this time, we do not decide whether these numbers ultimately should be afforded any special protection or right," the bureau wrote. The bureau took this action to avoid delaying the implementation of 888, which was moved up from an earlier April 1 target date. "In light of our decision to have all 888 numbers corresponding to vanity numbers classified as unavailable, a decision about permanent protection is not essential to the opening of the 888 code," the bureau continued. The bureau even suggested that postponing a decision about replication until after the 888 code is in use might offer benefits of its own. "Postponing the decision will minimize consumer confusion during the initial transition to the 888 service access code," the bureau wrote. "That is, by affording special rights at this time, consumers may wrongly assume that all 800 and 888 numbers are interchangeable. Such a result may seriously undermine the public awareness and education efforts now underway to inform consumers of the new 888 toll-free code." As for when the replication issue would be settled, the bureau said only "We anticipate that the commission will resolve the vanity number issue and will identify what set of numbers, if any, is to receive permanent protection, as well as the scope of that protection, within the year." (Brad Wimmer, Common Carrier Bureau, 202/418-2351) Reprinted with permission from Advanced Intelligent Network News A publication of Phillips Business Information, Inc. contact: John Sullivan, 301/340-7788 ext. 2003 jsullivan@phillips.com copyright 1996, Phillips Business Information ------------------------ Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell to Increase Minority Phone Service Access Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:57:42 PST Forwarded to the Digest FYI: ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 18:46:52 -0800 From: Tom Tinnes Pacific Bell and Greenlining Coalition Announce New Plan to Increase Phone Service Access New Factors Found For Lower Phone Penetration Among California Minority And Low Income Groups >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<< For More Information Contact: Beverly Butler 415-542-9468 San Francisco, February 8, 1996 -- Information released by a Pacific Bell/Greenlining Coalition partnership challenges the myth that the cost of basic service is the biggest reason for lower phone penetration among minority and low income consumers. In fact, service retention could be the primary issue. The partnership, established July 1994 as the result of an historic agreement, is committed to "good faith efforts" to increase phone penetration rates in California. Since most non customers were found to have had phone service recently but had difficulty retaining the service, the partnership has focused on the following factors: *Non customers are very mobile. Many low income individuals and families move frequently and have difficulty paying multiple installation charges. *Inability to control long distance phone calls. In minority and low income households, there are a number of individuals or multiple families all using the same phone. New analysis found it is difficult for telephone subscribers in this situation to control phone use and they are often left to pay large long distance bills for unauthorized calls. *Payment priority issues. When faced with the choice between other livelihood needs or paying the phone bill, the competing need often comes first for non customers. Phone service, compared to other urgent needs, is often a lower priority. >>Today's Announcement Continues the Era of Cooperation In a breakthrough announced jointly today, the Pacific Bell/Greenlining Coalition partnership has agreed on strategies to address the problem. Services and options have been identified to deal directly with service retention. These include reduced installation rates, payment arrangements, and toll restrictions. Trials of these services in the target communities have been successful. "We've found that a large percentage of people who do not have phone service, want service. It is not the cost of Lifeline installation or basic service rates that prevents them from having it. Rather, service retention is a primary factor. Agreement on what the factors really are is a big step toward coming up with solutions," according to John Gamboa, Executive Director of the Greenlining Institute. "Through analysis and outreach trials in Oakland, the partnership has identified new ways to approach the issues." A toll restriction service approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in December, makes it possible to block most unwanted incoming collect calls and outgoing long distance and toll calls from a customer's phone. In the first month, over 10,000 customers subscribed to the new service to better manage phone usage and to help retain service. To deal with payment issues, Pacific Bell has proposed a plan to improve customer service processes, making it easier for customers to establish good credit history. In addition, an early bill could serve as notification to any customer, preventing charges from growing abnormally high. >>New Outreach Strategies and Options Signal Dynamic Approach to Problem This year, Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) and service retention information education using community outreach will be increased by at least 50% for Asian-American and Hispanic communities and 100% for African American communities. "In 1995, we saw an 8% increase in ULTS customers in the state, and we believe that is, in part, due to our efforts championed by the Greenlining Coalition," said Paul Turner, Pacific Bell ULTS Product Manager. Pacific Bell's voice-mail products, Quick Dial Tone and Prepaid Phone Cards were also identified as additional solutions to phone retention issues. >>Recent Announcements by Pacific Bell also Applauded A trial Pacific Bell Calling Center was recently set up in Huntington Park to meet the needs of coin phone users. The Center allows people access to a clean, well-lit place from which they can make phone calls on coin operated telephones. If successful, information from this site will be used to improve phone service in other communities. Pacific Bell is also making it easier to pay Pacific Bell bills. In addition to electronic bill payment and paying by mail, Pacific Bell is working to increase the number of Authorized Payment Locations across the state, such as, local merchants and community organizations. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. -------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:24:09 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: CID Name from British Columbia Canada In earlier submissions to TELECOM Digest, I mentioned how the province name (spelled out) is showing as the name part of caller-ID on calls from Canada to the US (at least here in BellSouth territory). I've mentioned that only the province name shows up on calls from Canada, while calls within BellSouth territory show the name of the party associated with that calling number, and calls from other Regional BOC locations show the name of the city (or ratecenter) and two-letter state code. Of course, there are still situations where I am receiving "Out of Area". By showing only the province in the name part of the CID box on calls from Canada, there can be some misleading situations, such as the call from Whitehorse YUKON, which is in the 403 area code. It shows up as ALBERTA, since the primary province/territory in 403 *is* ALBERTA. I haven't (yet) received a call from any numbers on Prince Edward Island, but I would assume that NOVA SCOTIA would show up in the name part of the caller-ID box, since the primary province in 902 *IS* NS. The name part of the Caller-ID box has a maximum of 15 characters/spaces. In the earlier post, I wondered if it would show up as: "BRITISH COLUMBI" The other day, I received a call from 604-856-xxxx (Aldergrove BC), and it displayed as: "BRIT. COLUMBIA " When I first looked at the ID box as the phone rang, my eyes fooled me, and I thought I saw a 504 number coming from someone named `Columbia Brit', but then noticed it *was* from 604, British Columbia. Even tho' it might be some years before the various LEC `LIDBs' are interconnected for basic Caller-ID with name, I would hope that BellSouth could begin to give me the actual ratecenter city name and a two-letter code for the actual province/territory on calls from Canada where the calling party's number transmits. BellSouth *could* load Bellcore *rating* database info (which DOES give detail down to the NPA-*NXX* level for Canada), into their own databases for Caller-ID with Name display. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: 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: Chris Boone <72732.2610@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Texas PUC Overrides SWB on NPA Plan Date: 12 Feb 1996 00:26:01 GMT Organization: ENTERGY/Gulf States Utilities The Texas Public Utility Commission voted Friday, February 9 to adopt SPLIT NPA plans for Houston and Dallas, thereby overriding SWB's original plans for an overlay NPA addition. The central core of Houston will remain 713 ... the ring around it consisting of the area outside Loop 610 will become the new area code 281. How soon this will become mandatory was not known by this writer at the time of this article. (Sure will screw up MY 5 ROLM CBXs and their programming ... I hate permissive dialing ... and I straddle 713 and 409 NPAs now with 4 of the CBXs using SATOPs and HAVE to route calls!!! ... I don't have the room for 713/281 to coexist in the same area ... after the permissive period ends, it will be no problem to program the routes ... but for now? oh brother!) Senior Telecommunications Technician 72732.2610@CompuServe.com ENTERGY/Gulf States Utilities 1:106/4267 FIDOnet WB5ITT - Advanced Class BBS- 409-447-4267 (WBBS) PG-9-5322 FCC Commercial 409-525-2001 PhoneMail 24hr ------------------------------ Subject: No Overlay in Houston, TX From: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 05:35:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) Well folks, Houston TX will NOT have an overlay plan after all. SWBell announced the 281 overlay over a year ago without much fanfare. SWBell even published the new telephone books describing how the overlay plan would work. But today (09-Feb-1996), the Texas Public Service Commission has voted (by a 2 to 1 vote) that there will be a geographic split of the 713 area code rather than adding 281 as an overlay. It appears that the main two arguements for a geographical split were (in on particular order): People complained that they didn't want to have to dial ten digits for all local calls. The hopeful alternate local service providers indicated that their customers would have to change their telephone number to the 281 AC if they elected to switch local service providers. For those who know know the Houston area, the AC boundary will be the "Beltway" (A circle around downtown Houston w/ Beltway-8 and west side forming part of AC dividing line. There's no indication right now where the actual dividing lines will be drawn but I expect the next billing cycle will show which exchanges will be moving to 281. { I'm most likely in one of them though :( } The 6PM newscast indicate that there will be seven-digit dialing within each AC and ten-digit dialing for 713<->281 dialing. They also indicate that because of geographic split, it is possible a third AC may have to be added shortly (they will have more hearings on this), and in four to seven years there will be another geographic split due to lack for phone numbers. One local TV news report is indicating that it will take three to six months to formalize the AC boundary and another three to six months for the transition period. More later ... * KingQWK 1.05 # [PK] * I used to watch TV, then I bought a modem ... Ye Olde Bailey BBS Zyxel 713-520-1569(V.32bis) USR 713-520-9566(V.34/FC) Houston,Texas yob.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ From: feldman@imponderables.com (David Feldman) Subject: Imponderables About Telephones Date: 12 Feb 1996 00:48:26 -0500 Organization: Imponderables I write a series of books (e.g., Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise?) in which I answer mysteries of life sent to me by readers. Several years ago, several posters to comp.dcom.telecom were kind enough to help me with some of my questions. I have some more: 1. When an American makes a phone call to a foreign country, how is the receiving country's phone call compensated? 2. When you can hear a third-party conversation, can they hear you? What are the mechanics of this? 3. Why are there no windows in many telephone company buildings? (Are these all central offices? Are there telco buildins with many employees that are also windowless?) If there are any telephone company employees who would be willing to speak to me on or off the record about these questions, please contact me via e-mail. Any help is greatly appreciated.. Dave Feldman Year of the Year: 1996 Song of the Week: "Let It Flow" (Toni Braxton) Web Page of the Season: "http://www.imponderables.com" Word (but not vegetable) of the Week: Rhubarb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 13:55:35 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Indian Telecom Bids Stuck in Court The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, February 11, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Contents: Telecom bids still stuck in court: February 5 Agreement reached on sport broadcasts: February 7 Hewlett-Packard to market products of India's HCL: February 9 Telecom bids still stuck in court February 5: Five months after the opening of bids for basic telephony and cellular services across India, they remain unimplemented; the private bidders (and the government) now awaits a decision from the Supreme Court. The Court was faced with two problems. One, a series of public interest suits filed by sundry left-wing, consumer and labour organisations, challenged the very privatisation of telecom itself, with the usual accusations that private firms would fleece consumers and ignore rural areas. The Court curtly said that privatisation was a policy decision not subject to its jurisdiction - and in any case the bids did give importance to rural coverage (a weightage of 15%, as against 72% for the bid amount). The other problem, on which the Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks, is the government's arbitrary announcement of "caps" - limits - on the total number of licences to be awarded to any single bidder. Set at three for both cellular and basic services in the wealthier A and B categories of "circles" - regions - this ended up being remarkably favourable to one bidder, HFCL. This outcome was first hinted at in a Techonomist bulletin on August 31, the day of the bids. The caps in basic services allowed HFCL to get out of paying a phenomenal $27 billion for the nine lucrative circles where it had the highest bids. HFCL, supported with its foreign partners Bezeq (Israel) and the Shinawatra Group (Thailand), was never expected to find that sort of money, and by last October was indicating it would renege on some bids. The caps saved HFCL losing its earnest money. By coincidence, the caps in cellular services gained HFCL a lucrative circle it wouldn't have got otherwise. HFCL comes from Himachal Pradesh, the home state of Indian Communications Minister Sukh Ram. In an election year, Parliament enjoyed itself flinging charges of corruption at every opportunity. The government was stern, to begin with, and promised to go ahead an award licences according to the bids (with caps). After all, the tenders had clearly reserved the government's right to reject bidders for any reason whatsoever. When other bidders, such as AT&T-Birla and Essar-Bell Atlantic declined to match the bids of HFCL in its "capped" circles, the government issued another round of tenders, in early January, for these vacated regions. This was predicted by the Techonomist in September. Compared to the first round, with 80 bids, the retender was miserable with only five. As it was barely a week to the Supreme Court's hearing date in the public-interest case, this was not unexpected. The government gave in, and said the Court would decide what to do. The Court has few options. It could uphold the government's right to change bidding criteria, as it did in a tender on paging services two years ago. In that case it insisted that the changes apply equally to all bidders; here, the precise value of the cap determines who benefits (three suits HFCL fine). It could direct the government to issue fresh tenders with publicly announced criteria that don't change once the bids are opened. With elections expected in June, this would lead to much delay and confusion, so perhaps it will be thought too extreme a step to take. The simplest option for the Court would be to uphold the originally announced tenders, and the bids opened in August, but without caps. This would be suitable to almost everyone; even HFCL stands to lose only some $50 million in earnest money, not much for a chance to pick its favourite parts of India from its nine highest bids. AT&T, which often came second to HFCL and could take what the latter couldn't afford, will not be unhappy either. The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 13:57:25 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Agreement Reached on Indian Broadcast Rights The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, February 11, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Contents: Telecom bids still stuck in court: February 5 Agreement reached on sport broadcasts: February 7 Hewlett-Packard to market products of India's HCL: February 9 Agreement reached on sport broadcasts February 7: Doordarshan, India's state broadcaster, reached an agreement with WorldTel, the private owner of rights to the Wills World Cup Cricket tournament, to terrestrially telecast all matches in India. After its slightly delayed third installment for the purchase of rights last year, the WorldTel-Doordarshan dispute reached the Supreme Court in a replay of a case in 1993, for another World Cup. That case led to a landmark Supreme Court judgement exactly one year ago declaring the government broadcasting monopoly unconstitutional, and protecting the immunity of free speech from monopolies even when it is commercial in nature. This time, with legislation freeing Indian broadcasting waiting in the wings, the cricket controversy threatened to lead to an ordinance protecting Doordarshan's terrestrial broadcasting rights to major sport events (similar to laws under consideration in Britain). Luckily it did not come to that, and it probably never will: as part of the agreement, Doordarshan gave up its demand for rights in perpetuity to the World Cup tournament. Among the other terms: Doordarshan will pay the last installment; STAR TV will retain the satellite rights it bought when WorldTel cancelled the contract with Doordarshan; WorldTel will provide Doordarshan with live feeds of all 37 matches including those held outside India, for terrestrial broadcast. The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: ah510@yfn.ysu.edu (Sam Bahour) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Jobs in Palestine Date: 11 Feb 1996 23:31:24 GMT Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net PALESTINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD. Palestine Telecommunications Company is a private company that was recently established by a large number of private investors in agreement with the Palestine National Authority to be the first public telecommunications operator in Palestine. This recruitment effort is aimed to employ a core team of senior-level officers, which will help set-up the operations as a modern, market- oriented, customer-driven company. The team will operate from the Company's national headquarters in the city of Nablus. The Company's priority is to modernize and expand the existing limited network into a state of art independent telecommunications network that supports the emerging economic and social development of Palestine. Therefore, highly qualified and experienced senior officers are invited to submit their applications for immediate consideration. 1- Legal and Regulatory Affairs (Ref. LRA / IN1 /96) The incumbent will be the in-house legal counsel who will work in conjunction with a team of international and local attorney's to deal with all legal and regulatory issues including licensing issues, negotiating commercial agreements and dealing with other corporate legal issues. The incumbent should be a young, dynamic attorney who will grow with the company. He/She is expected to posses a degree in law from a well-respected university and should have 3-5 years of commercial law experience, preferably in a commercial telecommunications organization. 2- Corporate Planning (Ref. CP / IN2 / 96) The incumbent must be a very well-rounded telecommunications professional who is able to lead the effort in developing the corporate business plan, operational plans and monitoring systems in conjunction with other departments. He/She should posses strong organizational management skills and should have corporate policy and strategic planning experience. He/She should be knowledgeable and have work experience in the fields of economics, engineering or finance. He/She should also be able to perform market and financial analysis. The ideal candidate is a telecommunications engineer with an MBA degree. He/She will also have 10 years experience of which 5 were with a commercial telecommunications organization. 3- Customer Care (Ref. CC / IN3 / 96) The incumbent will be responsible for the Company's customer care functions. He/She will develop a new customer care system that will enable the company to efficiently respond to the ever-changing customer needs. Responsibilities will include specifying, designing and implementing the planned customer care system which will encompass billing and collections, directory assistance, service order system, as well as a fault management system. Experience in management information systems is mandatory. The successful incumbent will have a BA degree, with preferably a Master's in MIS or Business Administration with 10 years experience, of which 5 years were in a commercial telecommunications environment. 4- Network Operations and Maintenance (Ref. NOM / IN4 / 96) The incumbent will be responsible for the management of the overall existing network and maintenance systems and to develop and implement future network operations and maintenance strategies. He/She will be familiar with all aspects of switching, transmission, outside plant, power and air conditioning systems. He/She will manage the network operations and maintenance functions through regional offices. The successful incumbent will have a BSc degree in telecommunications engineering with preferably an advanced degree. The incumbent will have 10 years experience of which 5 years were in a commercial telecommunications operator. 5- Network Planning and Development (Ref. NPD / IN5 / 96) The incumbent will be responsible for the function of network planning and development. He/She will have strong working knowledge in designing, specifying, procuring and supervising the implementation of all network components. He/She will have full awareness of the latest developments in telecommunication technologies. He/She must have practical experience in identifying the least cost technical solutions and defining the needed investment. The successful incumbent will have 10 years in telecommunications project planning, procurement and implementation. 6- Corporate Services (Ref. COS / IN6 / 96) The incumbent will be responsible to develop, supervise and manage issues that will support the corporate functions. He/She will deal with human resources and staff management, training, information technology issues which support the internal corporate needs, purchasing, logistics and office services. The successful incumbent will be highly organized and have a BA in Business Administration with preferably an advanced degree. He/She will have 10 years experience in administration and human resource development in a large commercial organization. 7- Accounting and Finance (Ref. AF / IN7 / 96) The incumbent will be responsible for establishing an enterprise-wide accounting and finance system. Responsibilities will include developing and implementing accounting policies, procedures, systems and controls. He/She will be responsible for developing financial statements and reports as well as complying with auditors and regulators. The successful incumbent will posses a BA in accounting or finance with preferably a CPA with 7 years of experience in a large commercial organization. COMPENSATION The Palestine Telecommunications Company offers competitive salaries and benefits that are commiserate with incumbents qualifications, experience and training. Interested and qualified candidates who have an excellent command of the English language and solid computer skills may apply by submitting a cover letter and detailed C.V. (with phone number and salary requirements). Mention in your cover letter the reference number of the field you are applying for. Do not send copies of certificates or diplomas. PALESTINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. c/o P. O. Box 316 Nablus - Palestine Fax Number: 972-9-384-355 Deadline for applications is Feb. 29, 1996 The Company would like to request that any recently graduated telecommunication engineers who have a distinguished academic record and/or have earned an advanced degree from a well-respected institution are welcome to submit their C.V. for future consideration. These type of applications should use the following reference number: (Ref. FU / INX / 96). ** ONLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES SHOULD APPLY ** Any email response should be sent to 73317.3605@compuserve.com Applied Information Management ** >>>>>>>YOUR OFFSHORE<<<<<<<< ** Sam Bahour 2986 Roosevelt Drive ** SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PARTNER ** P.O.Box 3651 Youngstown, OH 44504-1204 USA El-Bireh, West Bank, via Israel ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Call and Apology From IDT Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:41:00 EST I just wanted to let everyone know that a few minutes ago, as I was editing this issue of the Digest I received a telephone call from someone at IDT who said they wished sincerely to apologize for the call from their salesperson last week. I accepted his apology; there was no reason not to or to continue to hold a grudge. The more I think about it, I believe a major problem at IDT may be their rapid growth. All of us who are seeing *so many* new users coming on line are experiencing the same kind of confusion and the same need to standardize our dealings, often times regretably at the lowest common denominator. For example, I had five new subscribers on the mailing list just this morning. Anyone remember when years ago, I used to announce new subscribers (if they did not object) and tell everyone who they were? Now maintainence alone on the list takes an hour or more each day. So I can't be too cranky where IDT is concerned. The gentleman I spoke with from IDT this morning did say there was a certain reluctance on the part of the organization to issue shell accounts to new users (as opposed to their graphics interface with net browsing software, etc) for the obvious reason that there are more opportunities for 'problems' ... and that makes sense. I suspect a lot of ISPs these days would agree with the late comedian W.C. Fields (probably none of you even remember him!). Although Fields was talking about his girl friends, the ISPs might say the same thing about their customer base: "The dumber they are, the better I like them!" Anyway IDT, apologies accepted. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #57 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 12 13:57:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA12954; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:57:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:57:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602121857.NAA12954@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #58 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Feb 96 13:57:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Regulating the Internet (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Frontiers of Electronic Commerce" (Rob Slade) Class Action Claim Against MCI (Tad Cook) Maven of the Month (Jerzy Grzeda) Massachusetts Area Code Overlays (John Grossi) ISDN Help Needed (Joe Plescia) FBI Voicemail Sting (Van Heffner) MLM vs. Outside Sales Agents (John R. Levine) Trademarks and Copyrights (Bill Blackwell) It's What the Law SAYS (John Higdon) Voice Annunciation Needed (Robert McMillin) Voice Processing Job Opportunity in Toronto (Alan Langford) Employment Opportunity: Telephone Over ATM Systems Architect (R Walsworth) Top Ten Anagrams -- 'Communications Decency Act' (Mike Morton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: Tad Cook Subject: Regulating the Internet Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:50:21 PST Telecom bill was a shot heard round the Internet By Jonathan Weber Moments after President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 into law Thursday, a passel of civil liberties lawyers were in court seeking to strike down a provision banning the transmission of "indecent" material on the Internet. And they will probably succeed: Most constitutional lawyers believe the provision is too broad to pass legal muster. But if you think such a decision will mean even a temporary end to efforts to regulate cyberspace, think again. For one thing, many governments around the world, from China to Germany, are forging ahead with cyberspace restrictions of various kinds, and the very nature of the Internet means such crackdowns will have a global impact. At the same time, this country is witnessing the rapid development of a kind of privatized regulatory regime, in which individual companies and interest groups, through a variety of mechanisms, are policing the on-line world and imposing restrictions on what takes place there. From parents hoping to thwart on-line pornographers to Scientologists hoping to silence their critics, to Nazi-hunters battling Holocaust denial, to Guardian Angels on the lookout for all manner of nefarious deeds, people are taking it upon themselves to stop things the law continues to allow. In many respects, free-lance regulation is better than the traditional kind, because laws aimed at governing on-line communications create more problems than they solve. The absence of rules has its dangers, too, though, and the Internet access providers and on-line publishers who are increasingly finding themselves caught in a cross-fire might soon be wishing they had the government telling them what they can and should do. Unquestionably illegal Some aspects of the emerging system of ad hoc rules are actually simpler than they seem. Much of the most alarmist talk about the perils of the Internet revolves around activities that are illegal, and such things are illegal no matter where they take place. Child pornography, for example, or soliciting children for sex, or plotting to blow up government buildings can all be prosecuted under existing laws. What's complicated is coping with speech and activities that are objectionable to many people, but legal. Pornography isn't illegal, nor is advocating Nazism, nor is distributing instructions on how to build a bomb -- but a lot of people want to see such things banned from cyberspace. The telecommunications bill takes a head-on approach, making it illegal to transmit "indecent" material to children over computer networks. Since much of the Internet is by nature a public system in which it's impossible to screen out underage individuals, the provision would in many respects amount to a ban, though some individual World Wide Web sites and bulletin board services could probably circumvent it with password systems. In the absence of a new law, the most important private sector response to the indecency involves rating Internet sites and discussion groups, and using software to selectively block access. A group of Internet and computer software companies is working on technical specifications that will enable sites to accommodate blocking software and ratings systems. Multiple ratings In contrast to the single ratings system for movies, there will be a plethora of private Internet ratings systems, some of which are already under development. Parents, or anyone else, will be able to select a ratings system that corresponds to their values, and then install the software to implement it on their own computer. But another, much more problematic kind of private-sector rating system is emerging as well -- one imposed by on-line service operators and Internet service providers. These companies are free to refuse service to individuals or groups that say or do things they don't like. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles argues that just as a newspaper will sometimes refuse to carry an offensive advertisement, so Internet providers should tell neo-Nazis and other hatemongers to take their business elsewhere. "We're saying, `Come up with your own approach, but just don't say that anything is free speech,' " says Cooper. He notes there have always been ad hoc "rules of engagement" on how mainstream society deals with fringe elements -- books denying the Holocaust are legal to publish, for example, but they don't make the Book of the Month club -- and similar rules need to be developed for the on-line world. Not an easy task Putting the burden of censorship on the Internet access provider, however, is a very tricky business. Unlike services such as America Online or Prodigy, which in some respects act as publishers of information, many access providers offer little more than communications and computer services, like telephone companies. And phone companies not only do not make judgments about how their phone lines are used, they are prohibited by law from doing so. Under the doctrine known as "common carriage," they must provide service under equal terms to anyone who asks. Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union, says he would advise Internet access companies to act as much like common carriers as possible. Otherwise, they'll be in the hopeless position of having to monitor all the World Wide Web pages of all their customers, for example, and deciding which ones are OK and which ones aren't. And then they would have to decide what links between sites are OK and what newsgroups are OK and so on and on. The telecommunications bill provides some relief in this regard, establishing that Internet providers cannot be held liable for illicit information flowing on their networks if they do not know about it. Thus in key respects, ignorance is bliss. But as powerful interest groups make their voices heard about what should and should not be permissible on the Internet -- and as self-appointed monitoring groups see to it that activities they don't like are reported -- the access providers are going to find it increasingly difficult to do nothing. And the next round in the war over Internet restrictions will be joined. Jonathan Weber is the technology editor for the Los Angeles Times business section. He can be reached at: Jonathan.Weber@latimes.com . -------------------- tad@ssc.com | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | KT7H | "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke, 1729-1797 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:12:23 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Frontiers of Electronic Commerce" BKFRELCO.RVW 960125 "Frontiers of Electronic Commerce", Kalakota/Whinston, 1996, 0-201-84520-2, U$49.50 %A Ravi Kalakota kalakota@uhura.cc.rochester.edu %A Andrew Whinston abw@uts.cc.utexas.edu %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1996 %G 0-201-84520-2 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$49.50 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 848 %T "Frontiers of Electronic Commerce" The title of this book could refer to new technologies for trading and transactions. It could refer to the new forms of marketing needed in the online community, or the marketing of information, or the new demands of intellectual property, or electronic shopping. In fact, the authors have attempted to address all of these areas, plus public policy regarding information infrastructures, telco/cable/ISP competition, security and firewalls, corporate data warehousing, software agents, TCP/IP internals, multimedia, broadband, wireless communications, and SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). They have tried to do it all, and, inevitably, have failed. The result is no more than the usual "Infomercial Supercliche" book, with a business bent. There may be some who say that this assessment is too harsh. The book is intended for a business audience, rather than technical professionals. A lack of technical rigour is allowable. The book does not, however, do any great service to the business community either. While thoroughly strewn with technical jargon, and extremely terse business examples, it does not provide the non-technical reader with the underlying concepts and understanding necessary to make reasonable decisions in a highly technical environment. It is verbose, bloated with academic style, and lacking in insight. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKFRELCO.RVW 960125. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca rslade@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca Ah! When I were lad, we used to 'ave t'wait 40 milliseconds on noisy channel for a network link to come oop--and login both ends! - per Linda Richards Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Class Action Claim Against MCI Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:08:48 PST In the {San Jose Mercury News}, their Action Line column (a consumer complaint and information feature) had a question about filing a claim with MCI to get a refund on 900 number charges. Here is the response that the columnist gave: "We're having a claim form sent to you. There was a class-action settlement in federal court in Augusta, Ga., setting up a $43 million fund. This money is for free long distance certificates to compensate consumers who called 900 number programs involving sweepstakes, games of chance, unclaimed funds, offers of credit and offers of credit cards from companies that used MCI 900 long distance services between 1989 and 1994. A representative for the settlement administration says there were numerous consumers who had to pay the charges for the 900 numbers but never received the items promised. The claim forms are available by calling (800) 871-5409 and are to be sent to the 900 Number Claims Administration Office, Box 33308, Washington, D.C. 20033. They must be postmarked by March 31. If the settlement plan is accepted by the courts, those who filed claims will receive certificates for $40 if they paid for 900 calls to games of chance, unclaimed funds and sweepstakes. The proposed settlement is $50 in certificates for programs offering credit or credit cards." -- Send e-mail to MercAction on Mercury Center or MercAction@aol.com on Internet. Please include full name, address and phone number. Do not send original documents. Action Line regrets that because of the volume of requests, we cannot respond to all queries. Andy Bruno is the Action Line writer. 2/12 Published 2/12/96 in the {San Jose Mercury News}. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The notice of settlement was sent to me by the court several months ago and ran in its entirety here as a special mailing. Persons who want to see a copy can get it from the Telecom Archives at ftp.lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jerzy Grzeda Subject: Maven of the Month Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:50:18 +0000 Organization: KMi, The Open University Reply-To: J.T.Grzeda@open.ac.uk Hello, On 14th February, 1996 at 5pm GMT, Luc Steels (Free U. Brussels & Sony Japan), creator of '2nd Generation Expert Systems', flying robots and intelligent agents, will be participating in a live and interactive broadcast over the internet. The broadcast is part of a sequence of events hosted by the Knowledge Media Institute, of The Open University, which have so far featured Henry Lieberman (MIT Media Lab), Borre Ludvigsen (HIO Norway), Richard Cogger (Cornell University) and Peter Cochrane (BT Labs). Luc's interests have spanned the whole of AI: natural language processing, knowledge representation, perception and action, problem solving, learning. He is also interested in science in general, particularly chaos theory and its application in different areas of science and technology ranging from physics and chemistry to biology and economics. Anyone is welcome to participate in the event, anywhere in the world. The minimum hardware requirements are a internet connection, sound and a web browser. It even works via a 14.4 baud modem. The Stadium utilizes Real Audio and CU-SeeMe software, which can be downloaded from the Stadium WWW Page. So drop by, listen, look and ask Luc a question! To see replays of previous events and/or participate on the 14th visit KMi Stadium, free of charge at: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/stadium/welcome.html If you would like more information about this event or KMi, please contact me. Jerzy Grzeda Tel: +44 1908 655761 Business Manager Fax: +44 1908 653169 Knowledge Media Institute J.T.Grzeda@open.ac.uk The Open University http://kmi.open.ac.uk/ Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: jgrossi@bbn.com (John Grossi) Subject: Massachusetts Area Code Overlays Date: 12 Feb 1996 13:08:10 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) Well today's {Boston Globe} has a nice article on how NYNEX is going to propose before the Public Utilites Commission, in about two months, splitting 617 (Boston and the inner 'burbs) and 508 (the rest of the 'burbs, Worcester, Lowell, and New Bedford). The plan calls for overlay codes ... but with a new twist. They are going to be seven digit dialing unless you want the other area code. Considering the stinks made on the south shore last time the area codes were split. I have a feeling we are going to see another geographic split. Numbers should be announced later today as to what the new area codes will be. NYNEX needs to do the split as 617 is down to 143 remaining exchange codes and 508 is down to 187. They also mention that the rest of New England with the Connecticut split is years away from another split (then again 508/617 was supposed to be good till 2003 and it only lasted till 1998. John Grossi Associate Engineer Bolt, Beranek, & Newman Inc. (617) 873-4152 10 Moulton St. Cambridge Ma. 02138 jgrossi@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Joe Plescia Subject: ISDN Help Needed Date: 12 Feb 1996 15:51:11 GMT Organization: Plescia.Com Reply-To: jplescia@plescia.com HELP! I am having a problem with Bell Atlantic, NJ. I ordered a ISDN line back in October and it still is not set up correctly. They can not seem to figure it out. They are trying very hard, but now I need outside help. If any one has any ideas please let me know. Here is the setup: I have two spids, we will call them #1 and #2; There are 3 DN's ... A, B and C; Both are EKTS with CACH; It is a national ISDN setup on an AT&T, (or should I say Lucent) 5E version 9; SPID #1 is an AT&T 7506 and SPID #2 is an IBM 7845; Spid # 1 has this: 6 CA (call appearance) of DN "A"; 2 CA of DN "B"; 1 CA of DN "C"; hold; transfer; drop; conference; redial; 7 speed calls; Spid # 2 has this: 7 CA of DN "B"; 1 CA of DN "C"; 1 CA of DN "A"; hold; conference; drop; Here is the problem: When a call comes in on any of the call appearances and is answered on spid # 1, spid # 2 keeps on ringing ... forever and ever and ever ... the lights and display on spid #1 correctly show status of call. BUT ... When I answer a call on spid #2, everything works correctly and the ringing stops on spid #1. The line lights and display, on spid # 1, also correctly show the status of call. Please help if you can! Thanks in advance, joe p jplescia@plescia.com Visit our WWW SITE http://www.plescia.com Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo email jplescia@plescia.com 201.868.0065 201.868.0475fax Photofinishing, Studio, Imaging Paging, Beepers, Cellular Phones ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:11:59 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: FBI Voicemail Sting Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Business Briefs Column Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News A fake phone message left in an FBI sting helped lead to a Boca Raton salesman's arrest on charges of illegally tapping into a competitor's voice mail to steal clients. Kenneth T. Kaltman, 50, was charged Thursday in Connecticut Superior Court with 29 counts of computer crime, one count of third-degree larceny and two counts of harassment. He was ordered held on $510,000 bond. Kaltman illegally accessed his former employer's computer mail, listening to business calls, deleting messages and intercepting clients, state police contend. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 18:59 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: MLM vs. Outside Sales Agents Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > If you want to be in the long distance resale business, it is far > better to do so directly as an agent for a carrier, not via > 'downlines' and 'uplines'. PAT] I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that you want to sign up with a company who wants you to sell long distance, not sign up more suckers. I get my long distance service through an outside sales agent who represents two resellers, each of which in turn gets service from a wireline carrier. I'm actually billed by the resellers and call them directly when I have a billing question. My agent would certainly like to sell me more phone service, but he has no interest in signing me up as a distributor -- that's not part of his business. Despite this three-level structure, the rates I get this way are quite low, and the service is good. I presume this is because I'm not paying for Candice Bergen's TV ads. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: bear@hic.net (Bill Blackwell) Subject: Trademarks and Copyrights Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:11:13 -0600 Given the potential problems for InterNIC registrations lapsing and being re-assigned, it might be time for the government to take the maintenance of the net back. (easy now, for limited functions ...) There currently exists problems in registering domain names that conflict with trademarks, service marks and copyrights owned by other entities. The law assumes that consumers will be confused by the expropriation of intellectual property. Why not have the Bureau of Patents and Trademarks take over for InterNIC? Sice they have the records at their disposal, one could avoid what could possibly turn into a horrendous amount of litigation by letting the people who know how to do it, do the up-front work. Then, just like TM's and SM's, one would pay a periodic fee to "re-up" the domain name. Taken from here, someone usurping "moderation" (aberration) of a newsgroup could then be held liable for the copyright violation under existing law. (Not to mention theft ...) Would this be a feasible arrangement? Regards, Bill Blackwell bear@hic.net Houston, Texas, USA ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:32:46 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: It's What the Law SAYS At 12:53 PM on 2/8/96, Patrick A. Townson wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, I have received several > messages including one from John Covert saying this [prohibition of the > >discussion of abortion] was not the intention of Henry Hyde and > that in fact abortion discussion is not to be banned. Right now > I am opting for that opinion. PAT] Unfortunately, when it comes to legislation, what you, I, John Covert, or even Henry Hyde think about it is irrelevant. It is the language contained in the law that counts, and how that language is interpreted by the courts regarding a case against a defendant. No court in the land that I am aware of ever goes back to the author of the law to get HIS opinion concerning his own intent. Unenforced (and generally unenforcable) laws amount to time bombs. They lie dormant until that day when a particular prosecutor wants to nail a particular defendant and discovers a nice little mechanism in the form of one of these laws. The term "selective enforcement" comes to mind. If there is wording on the books that can even so much as be construed to prohibit open and free discussions of any topic whatsoever, it needs to be tested and resolved at the earliest possible moment. I would certainly hate to be the one, after mentioning the word "abortion" on the net, hauled off kicking and screaming, "but Henry Hyde didn't mean ...". John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you certainly make a valid point. As I noted, several have written me saying exactly what they believe was and was not intended, but your thing about how prosecutors can find the damndedest things to grip on to is something none of us should forget. We have a prosecutor here in Cook County like that now. And it is not just at the prosecutorial level you will see that. Some individual police officers also spend time combing law books looking for something -- anything -- to use against people they don't like. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Voice Annunciation Needed Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:35:16 GMT We have a contract to provide a voice annunciation system that must call a phone number and deliver a synthesized voice message. Can anyone out there recommend a product? Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:13:10 EST From: Alan Langford Subject: Voice Processing Job Opportunity in Toronto This may be of some interest to TELECOM Digest readers in the metro Toronto area. I am posting it as a service to the company and anyone interested in the position. Direct responses to the fax number listed in this message. Mail to my address will be _ignored and deleted_. Interlogic Systems Inc., a Toronto-based systems integrator specializing in voice response and fax applications, has an immediate opening for a full-time staff position. The position requires proficiency in UNIX, and C programming. Experience with voice processing applications and IBM's Direct Talk/6000 product is highly desireable. Job functions include consulting, application development, project management and customer support. Excellent interpersonal and client relations skills are essential. The successful candidate will be based in Mississauga, just west of Toronto. The job may involve travel within North America. A vehicle is required. The company does not offer any relocation benefits. If you are interested, fax your resume to: Vikas Gupta President Interlogic Systems Inc. Fax: (905)803-1113 Mail: 2 Robert Speck Parkway Suite 750 Missisauga, Ontario Canada L4Z 1H8 e-mail is not available at the moment. Please do not respond to my address. Alan Langford Ambit Perspectives: jal@io.org Voice Response Systems Consulting Bus: (416)236-3454 Computer Integrated Telephony Toronto, Ontario, Canada Publishers of Ambit Voice Views Web: http://www.io.org/~jal/ambit.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:48:01 -0800 From: Rick Walsworth Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telephone Over ATM Systems Architect Com21, pioneers in ATM over CATV networks has an immediate need for the following qualified candidate: Sr. Systems Architect, Telephony Com21 has an immediate opening for a Senior Systems Architect for development of telephony systems based on ATM over CATV. The selected candidate will lead the development of the system architecture and provide technical direction to design engineers. The ideal candidate will have 10 or more years experience with telephone switching systems, call processing and signalling systems such as TR008 and TR303, ATM, Digital Loop Carrier products, and system performance engineering. An advanced CS or EE degree is desired. Qualified Candidates should contact: Roya Mofazali 415 254-5874 roya@com21.com Resumes can be faxed to 415 254-5883 ------------------------------ From: Mike Morton Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 20:25:35 -1000 Subject: Top Ten Anagrams -- 'Communications Decency Act' Copyright (c) 1996 by the author, Mike Morton . All rights reserved. You may reproduce this, in whole or in part, in any form provided you retain this paragraph unchanged. Top Ten Anagrams for "Communications Decency Act" 10. Caution cynic: Scan modem, etc. 9. Communist, candy, cocaine, etc. 8. Academic custom: Cynic on 'Net 7. Connect CIA, communist decay 6. I disconnect my Acme account 5. [This anagram too offensive to post] 4. Condoms, etc., can cue intimacy 3. Decency? Commit a sin, account! 2. Cut my academic connections And the number one anagram for "Communications Decency Act": 1. Comic scene: Nudity act on Mac Runners-up: A succinct edict: man, economy CIA? Disconnect me, my account? Connect Mosaic; induce my act Cute, cosmetic cynic: Madonna I accuse; condemn my tactic, no? I accused: Connect into my Mac I can't commend saucy conceit Media custom: Connect a cynic Mice may disconnect account Scan me: CIA concocted mutiny [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bravo! Readers who wish to work on these and have a bit of fun are invited to do so. Perhaps you can add a few of your own. Have a nice day! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #58 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 13 17:40:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA22646; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:40:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:40:43 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602132240.RAA22646@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #59 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Feb 96 17:41:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 59 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Whatever Happened to Judge Greene? (Wall Street Journal via Van Heffner) New NPA Information Available via FAX-on-Demand (Mark J. Cuccia) Book Review: "Digital Money" by Lynch/Lundquist (Rob Slade) New MCI Mail Policies Announced (Tad Cook) A Day With Open Transport 1.1 (Kelly Breit) The Right to an Address? (C. du Fijn) Seeking Lead Telecom Switch Tech/Mgr (Doug Gurich) Seeking Mgr Customer Sales/Service for Int'l Telecom Company (Doug Gurich) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Whatever Happened To Judge Greene? Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:00:00 EST Pat, Thought that this was an excellent article, and that I'd pass it along ... Telecom Czar Frets Over New Industry Rules Via AP By LESLIE CAULEY The Wall Street Journal On the day President Clinton signed the historic telecommunications bill last week, the ceremony at the Library of Congress was packed with politicians and everyone who was anyone in the telecom industry. U.S. District Court Judge Harold H. Greene wasn't invited. He didn't even watch the live proceedings on CNN. Yet for the past 12 years, no other individual has held more sway over the nation's telecommunications industry than this 73-year-old federal jurist. Technically, Judge Greene oversaw the 1984 consent decree governing the breakup of the old American Telephone & Telegraph Co. In practice, he became this country's telecom czar, profoundly affecting the shape and direction of an entire industry. The seven newly created Baby Bells had to go before Judge Greene, hats in hand, for his permission on many matters. And in more than 160 major rulings and hundreds of minor decisions, he dictated what they could -- and couldn't -- do. The new act nullifies the consent decree, prompting some industry wags to call it the Judge Greene Retirement Act. Judge Greene says in an interview that he worries about whether the new law is tough enough to stop phone giants from essentially re-erecting the monopoly that he spent a career helping to tear apart. "I'm a little concerned (whether) there are sufficient safeguards against the kinds of mergers and acquisitions that might give some small group of companies or individuals a stranglehold" over U.S. telecom markets, he says. Noting that he took up the antitrust case against AT&T in 1978, he adds: "I'd hate to see the AT&T monopoly be reconstituted in some form. It would be like I'd wasted the past 18 years." When Judge Greene took up the case, just one phone company ruled long-distance service; the personal computer and the Internet barely existed and three broadcast networks dominated television. The new law will govern a landscape that has vastly changed but for one key fact: the Bells still wield absolute control over the "local bottleneck" -- the phone lines that reach into every home and business in their markets. The judge, who has consistently blocked the Bells from resuming what he considered the same anticompetitive behavior that led to the 1984 spinoff, wonders whether the Federal Communications Commission will be vigilant enough. "The FCC at one time was pretty ineffectual ... that's why the lawsuit (against AT&T) had to be brought" in the first place, he says. On the same day the telecom bill was signed into law, Judge Greene issued one of the last opinions he will write in case No. 82-0192. Invoking "the evils of monopoly", he questioned whether the new law can "prevent domination" by a few giants over "what is rapidly becoming the central factor of American life." Harold H. Greene was born Heinz Grunhaus into a Jewish family in 1923 in Frankfurt. He fled the Nazis at age 20 to emigrate to the U.S., where he changed his name. He served in the U.S. Army until 1947 and settled in Washington, D.C., attending law school at night and working days as a translator and watchmaker. He later joined the Justice Department and worked on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He drew an appointment to the local court in 1965. President Carter appointed him to the federal bench in Washington, and on his first day on the job -- May 19, 1978 -- he was handed the case of a lifetime: the antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. The original judge for the case was dying of cancer; the case was four years old and languishing. "Judge Greene revived it," says Jeffrey Blumenfeld, a former Justice Department prosecutor on the case. "He saw from the beginning that if the case got out of hand, it was going to take forever to get tried." Judge Greene kept things moving in his courtroom by cutting to the chase. One example: Early on, AT&T had 72 insiders ready to testify that it didn't illegally freeze out rival equipment makers. Judge Greene heard just three of them and cut off the parade, saying he'd assume the rest would say the same thing. AT&T said fine, so long as the prosecution agreed that all 72 witnesses would have told the truth. Prosecutors fired back: they'd concede only that the witnesses would have been all "equally believable." "I think that will have to do," Judge Greene said at the time, thereby cutting a month of testimony. When the case moved into settlement negotiations, Judge Greene got tougher. AT&T wanted to keep the Yellow Pages business and the valuable Bell name -- it had even started advertising "American Bell." But he handed those rich assets to the Baby Bells. The resulting consent decree spun off the seven Bells and banned them from equipment and long-distance service. In later years, the Bells tried repeatedly to evade the bans. Judge Greene usually turned them down. Only last year did he let them resell long-distance as part of cellular service, but set so many restrictions that few have done it. Judge Greene says he wouldn't have had to issue so many denials if the Bells hadn't kept "making the same arguments over and over" for things they knew were prohibited. "No matter how many petitions they filed, so long as the underlying (market) conditions didn't change, I kept denying those requests," he says. "That didn't mean I had it out for them." Yet when an appeals court overturned him on several key issues, the Bells say he was slow to follow orders and give them what they had won. In his most celebrated defeat, Judge Greene in 1987 refused to let the Bells get into on-line services, arguing they might trample the fragile new market. In 1990, an appeals court overturned him. He later issued an order lamenting the risks and granting the Bells entry -- but immediately suspended it until all appeals had been exhausted. The Bells filed an emergency appeal, and the appeals court granted them immediate relief, noting that Judge Greene's decision to stay his own order was "an abuse" of his judicial discretion. Asked about the episode, Judge Greene smiles and says simply, "I'm not allowed to say I disagree." Bell lawyers chafed at such tactics and argued privately that Judge Greene had it in for them. He denies it. But he says he was beginning to tire of it all; the issues were getting more technical and less interesting. The case had once occupied 90 percent of his time but required less and less attention. Judge Greene plans to stay on the bench but ease back, handling about 80 percent of his normal workload. Despite his role in the historic breakup of AT&T, he hopes to be remembered for other achievements, such as his work on the Civil Rights Act. "I've done a lot of other things in my life," he says. "I would hate my obituary to say `Judge Harold H. Greene broke up AT&T, and that's all he ever did, and then he rested." In the early days after the breakup, it wasn't clear the Bells could survive on their own. Judge Greene recalls getting a lot of complaints from angry AT&T shareholders -- including his own friends -- who accused him of "denying them their nest egg." Now the Bells are rich and ready for the telecom wars, but "not one person" has acknowledged his contribution, he says. Asked whether this bothers him, he shrugs. Part of the job. He has a copy of the 111-page Telecommunications Act of 1996 but has yet to review it. "I will read it when I have trouble falling asleep," he quips. "I'm glad Congress is taking it over," Judge Greene adds. "I've had this case 18 years. I think that's long enough." Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Bells were not the only ones who thought Judge Greene was very prejudiced. From the very start of his participation in the case, it was obvious AT&T was not going to get a fair deal. Far from being selected randomly to handle the case as usually happens in federal court, Greene was selected after pressure was applied by the Justice Department which wanted a judge they knew they could count on to turn the screws on AT&T. He did not let them down. Not only did he refuse on various occassions to allow AT&T to present witnesses and evidence favorable to the company (the article presented above mentions one such instance), he also refused them their right to a trial by jury. As the article above notes, he used various administrative and other stalling tactics to avoid obeying his superiors. It is often pointed out that AT&T 'voluntarily' agreed to the terms of divestiture; if I point a gun at your head I suspect you would agree with whatever I wanted also. The truth of the matter is AT&T finally gave up in an effort to mitigate the huge expense in- volved and effort they were expending when it became apparent that Greene was interested in nothing except bashing them any way he could. So now with the 'Harold Greene Retirement Act' as the law of the land, he feels the last eighteen years of his life have been wasted, eh? I love it. Enjoy the frustration, judge. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:30:01 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: New NPA Information Available via FAX-on-Demand In a recent Bellcore NANPA IL mailing, one of the IL's regarded some changes to Minnesota's 612/320 split, regarding certain NXX (Central Office Codes) remaining in 612 or splitting to the new 320, and those moving from 612 to 507. This particular IL gave some contact information for US West, the Regional Bell Company serving (most) Exchanges & Central Offices in Minnesota. One of the contact numbers included an 800 number for a Fax service provided by US West. 800-450-6267 (toll-free too!) reaches a voice menu of options for selecting a list of (most) new NPA's and details as to effective dates, or individual documents of Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota or Arizona, the states where US West has recently added or sonn will add a `new format' NPA. You will need to use the telephone handset or speaker in the Fax machine to hear the voice menu prompts as well as the touchtone keypad to enter your choice/options. One option allows you to dial from a different number than the Fax machine you wish to receive the documents on. This could be *any* telephone you wish to call from, and you can enter the 10-digit number of the Fax machine to receive. The documents were readable and each state's document was two to three pages long. There was *no* cover sheet transmitted but rather a `final' sheet indicating end of transmission. The `compilation' document is five pages long, excluding the `final' sheet. I used the fax machine's telephone handset and touchtone pad itself rather than calling in from a different telephone. I wanted to receive all of US West's fax documents in this service (a total of six documents) but had to dial up their number for each document. At least it was an 800 call! :-) And when calling up from the fax machine to receive on, you are requested to remove any papers on the feeder, and then press START. This is yet another way to get recent NPA information, particularly for those who don't receive Bellcore's free IL's in the mail, and those who don't (yet) have WWW access to view/print Bellcore NANPA/TRA's webpages. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:07:47 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Digital Money" by Lynch/Lundquist BKDGLMNY.RVW 960126 "Digital Money", Lynch/Lundquist, 1996, 0-471-14178-X, U$24.95/C$29.50 %A Daniel C. Lynch %A Leslie Lundquist %C 22 Worchester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 9Z9 %D 1996 %G 0-471-14178-X %I Wiley %O U$24.95/C$29.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 800-263-1590 800-567-4797 %P 285 %T "Digital Money" This book does cover, briefly but well, the concepts involved in preparing digital money which is safe (for both customer and vendor) and private. Some additional time and space could have been given to the strengths and weaknesses of encryption, even given the non-technical target audience. There are a number of other topics which are related, but not really essential. Much space is given to new forms of marketing, and even to a discussion (those who know the history of this review series will note the irony) of copyright. While these fields are interesting, they do detract from the central issue of commercial information security in an open environment. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKDGLMNY.RVW 960126. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | You realize, of Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | course, that these Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ | new facts do not User .fidonet.org | coincide with my Security Canada V7K 2G6 | preconceived ideas ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: New MCI Mail Policies Announced Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:03:03 PST Awhile back there were some rumors in TELECOM Digest claiming that MCI Mail was about to start charging for incoming email from the internet. I was worried about this, because I receive some listservers via MCI Mail. I tried to ask MCI Mail about it, and they said that this was being considered, but that they couldn't say anything until new policies were announced. The news item below looks like the announcement we have been waiting for, and it doesn't say anything about incoming email. I suspect that MCI Mail was having a lot of trouble with folks like me who were paying $35 a year and getting tons of incoming traffic from listservers. Perhaps this was the source of some of the slow traffic periods they have had. I think that probably they figured they could dump a lot of the "deadbeats" who weren't generating any revenue-producing outgoing traffic by charging $120 a year. By the way, I noticed that in a couple of recent postings that PAT reproduced my full sig file, shown below. Readers may be interested to know that Edmund Burke never said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", but Burke scholars have found the following similar quote from him. I got this from a book of "fake quotes" called THEY NEVER SAID IT, which claims that even Bartlett's Familiar Quotations was fooled. tad@ssc.com | Tad Cook | Seattle, WA | KT7H | "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke, 1729-1797 --------------------------- MCI ADJUSTS PRICING OF MCI MAIL; Sets $10 monthly minimum per customer number. ATLANTA -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Feb. 13, 1996 -- MCI announced today that effective March 1, 1996, there will be a $10 monthly minimum for MCI Mail customers. The minimum applies to the customer number, which may include a series of individual MCI Mail users within a company. In addition, the company announced it was changing the Preferred Pricing Option for MCI Mail. This option enables customers to send up to 50 e-mail messages or faxes (to U.S. locations) per month for $15. The former pricing was $10 per month for 40 messages. An e-mail message unit is 5,000 characters or one fax page. Other MCI Mail pricing remains unchanged. `Even though we are changing our pricing structure, the vast majority of our customers will see little or no impact on their monthly bill,` said Martha Hanlon, director of messaging solutions from networkMCI. `This pricing adjustment is necessary to curtail service abuse, thereby improving service for customers who need and use MCI Mail.` MCI Mail offers customers messaging services via MCI's global electronic mail network. MCI Mail subscribers can exchange electronic mail messages with millions of public electronic mail subscribers via its gateway to the Internet and through interconnections to more than 70 public electronic mail services. Electronic mail users can access MCI Mail from a wide range of systems and hardware/software environments. MCI has forged strong alliances with leading hardware and software suppliers that allow companies with private office automation and electronic mail systems to exchange messages with MCI Mail subscribers. MCI, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is one of the world's largest and fastest growing diversified communications companies. With annual revenue of more than $15 billion, MCI offers consumers and businesses a broad portfolio of services including long distance, wireless, local access, paging, Internet software and access, information services, outsourcing, business software, advanced global telecommunications services, and music distribution and merchandising. CONTACT: MCI Telecommunications, Chicago John R. Houser, 312/938-4820 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:19:40 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: A Day With Open Transport 1.1 By Brian Fort Though it's not the recommended method, when I had a chance to take a peek at the s10 release of System Update 2.0, I simply copied my 150 MB+ System 6older to a spare hard drive and ran the installer straight over the top. It's something of a tribute to the quality of the code that my 5200CD rebooted with the new OS running and presented no real problems. Neither Aladdin Desktop Makeover nor Aladdin Desktop SpeedBoost would load, but the error messages they generated (Aladdin Desktop Makeover [and SpeedBoost] did not load because the system version you are using is NOT supported) suggest a version flag check rather than a real incompatibility. More interesting was discovering that a beta copy of Open Transport 1.1 (OT), complete with AppleTalk and TCP/IP control panels, had been installed. In one of the accompanying ReadMe files it noted: "[System Update 2.0] will install [Open Transport 1.1] only if your System Folder already has an older version of Open Transport or if you use Custom Install." Given this was beta code, up to and including the Installer, I wasn't overly surprised. Since all had gone well so far, I decided to give the new network architecture the quick once over. I couldn't push it all that hard since my current network consists of a Performa 5200CD and a borrowed LaserWriter NTR connected via PhoneNET cables. Undaunted, I sent half a dozen print jobs-from PageMaker 5.0, Symantec C++ 8.0, Word 6.0.1 and ClarisWorks 4.0-down the little phone cable and encountered no problems. It was time to give this newfangled software a real test: connecting to my dial-up PPP account. FreePPP 1.0.4 includes copious notes regarding configuring the TCP/IP control panel (it is an application, actually, and it is worth noting that its menus have some very useful commands hidden therein) and also notes several limitations which will remain extant until Open Transport 1.1 makes its appearance. Since I had a beta copy of Open Transport 1.1 installed I wasn't expecting the configuration instructions accompanying FreePPP 1.0.4 (which are designed for Open Transport 1.0.8) to be overly useful. As it turned out I couldn't set the "Configure" pop-up to "Manually," as per the instructions, since this required I enter an IP address. TCP/IP wouldn't let me leave it blank, although that was also required by FreePPP according to its instructions (see "TCP/IP before connecting"). Throwing caution to the wind, I left TCP/IP configured as it was, opened the ConfigPPP control panel and hit the "Open" button. Ten seconds later I was connected. I fired up Eudora Lite (which has had real problems with the PPP/OT combination) and retrieved a couple of pieces of mail. I fired up Anarchie and downloaded the latest version of MacPipes (2.1). I fired up Netscape and had another read of Alex's Macworld Expo reports and listened to him interviewing Guy Kawasaki. Fetch worked. Gopher worked. WAIS worked. I was able to Telnet to an out-of-state Unix box and run a few Unix admin programs with no difficulties. Finally, I had a play with Microsoft's Internet Explorer for the Mac OS beta. It too worked. It seemed all was well. There was another limitation to check, however. To quote the "FreePPP 1.0.4-Read Me First" file: "Until Open Transport 1.1 is released, you will need to reboot between PPP sessions if you have a dynamically assigned IP address. Dynamically means if you get a different address assigned to your Mac when you dial up which is how most Internet Service Providers (ISP) have their systems configured. If you have a statically assigned, i.e. permanently assigned, IP address you should be able to connect and disconnect without rebooting. If this is important to you now ask your ISP about a static address-they're usually available for an additional fee." My PPP account uses a dynamically assigned IP address so I disconnected and immediately redialed. No crash, no burn. I was able to sail around with the Internet Explorer, grab more mail and ftp a script update to my Unix box across the border. I connected and disconnected my Mac another four times with no incident. None of this means Open Transport 1.1 is the solution to all the problems users have been having with the new network architecture. I've no Ethernet network so cannot check if the printing and file transfer problems associated with Open Transport and Ethernet are resolved. Nor do I have a 680x0 Mac so I've no idea how well this version of Open Transport will work on older machines. For the moment, therefore, it's back to Mac OS 7.5.1 and MacTCP 2.0.6. They work well and don't cause problems. My quick trip into the Open Transport world does, however, make me more comfortable about including the new architecture in my setup when the release version makes its appearance. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:08:14 GMT From: C. du Fijn <081278cf@student.EUR.NL> Subject: The Right to an Address? Organization: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Hello, Being a lawstudent I intend to write a paper on number portability. This involves problems such as: What happens with my e-mail address when my provider goes bankrupt or changes its name? This is not an uncommon problem in the telephone world, but becomes more drastic if e.g. your e-mail adress or webpage is changed (since your address is only an alpha-numeric translation of a number). Does anyone have suggestions on where to find more about both legal and technical solutions to this problem? Regards, Cor. ------------------------------ From: dgurich@glc.net (Doug Gurich) Subject: Seeking Lead Telecom Switch Tech/Mgr Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:19:47 GMT Organization: GlobalCom International GlobalCom International is seeking to fill the following full time, on-site position: - Lead Telecom Switch Technician/Manager Candidates should be highly experienced in all aspects of switching systems, with specific experience in Excel switches (or similar) for call back, VPN and debit card services. Experience with data, video and Internet services is a plus. GlobalCom is a rapidly growing international telecommunications company with clients in over 40 countries. We are headquartered in beautiful San Antonio, Texas. For more information, email to Doug Gurich at dgurich@glc.net. ------------------------------ From: dgurich@glc.net (Doug Gurich) Subject: Seeking Mgr Customer Sales/Service for Int'l Telecom Company Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:20:52 GMT Organization: GlobalCom International GlobalCom International is seeking to fill the following full time, on-site position: - Manager, Customer Sales & Service The successful candidate will respond to requests by overseas clients, help manage existing agent network, process new orders, market promotion of specialty services. Sales responsibilty for over 50 agents in 40+ countries. Requirements: BA/BS and/or MBA in business, communications, international studies or related field. 3 to 5 years professional experience in marketing/sales/customer service. Strong candidates will have multi-lingual proficiency, overseas work experience and good computer skills. GlobalCom International is a rapidly growing telecommunications firm. We are headquartered in beautiful San Antonio, Texas. For more information, contact Doug Gurich at dgurich@glc.net. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #59 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 13 19:40:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA04622; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:40:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:40:38 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602140040.TAA04622@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #60 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Feb 96 19:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 60 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Freedom of Creeps; No Place in Bill of Rights (TELECOM Digest Editor) Courses SONET/ATM, Wireless, Video Compression (Harvey Stern) Brand New Meridian Sets Disposal; University Overstock (Guy Lessard) Ethernet and Cable-TV (Lars Erlandsen) Report on Tapi Systems (Roger K. Burnett) SMART-1 Dialer Repair in Bull Head City, Nevada (Kelly Daniels) Re: Kids and Rotary Phones (Seymour Dupa) Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 (Charles Cremer) Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems (Mark Musante) Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems (Scott R. Matson) Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems (John R. Levine) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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, 13 Feb 1996 18:28:11 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Freedom of Creeps; No Place in On-Line Bill of Rights This is the title of Mike Royko's column today in the {Chicago Tribune}. Please be sure to read it in your paper today or tomorrow, whenever it runs in your community. I was going to print the whole thing here, but in a conversation with Suzie, his assistant, I was told that he specifically did not wish to have it reprinted on the Internet. I can't blame him in a way. Knowing how vicious internet people can be with email bombs, etc, I suppose the people at the {Chicago Tribune} and Tribune Media Services don't want to have to deal with their executives and computer system administrators getting buried in tons of email calling for the silencing and censoring of Royko. His column in the {Tribune} for Tuesday, February 13 begins: "Once again, the defenders of free speech are in an uproar because of a new threat to the rights of pornographers, child molestors and other lowlife forms ..." Later in the column he notes in reference to the 'slippery slope argument' (i.e. if you restrict one thing then that leads to another, etc) ... "That, of course, is the traditional defense of pornographers and other creeps: if they are censored, it will just be a matter of time until the rest of us will be censored." ... "On the Internet, you are free to say just about anything you want about anyone in the whole world. And you can do it without identifying yourself or your motives ... That's the Internet's idea of free speech -- anonymity for creeps and cowardly curs." ... "What's really funny about these free-speech protests is that many of the protestors actually hate free speech. They want the rights of child molestors and child pornographers protected, but if you say one critical word about them they will be demanding that you be muzzled, fired, censored and banned to the wilderness." Royko discusses the glaring hypocrisy evident in organizations active on the net like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He calls them the 'politically correct crowd' and says they 'howl for the heads of anyone who offends their agenda' ... He concludes by noting that the protests will be so loud and noisy that they will succeed and efforts to protect children on the internet will be overturned by the courts. Furthermore he said, "my employers will be asked to fire or muzzle me because I said that many of the protestors are hypocritical jerks." There is more ... a lot more of the same in his column today and I recommend reading it. I surely can sympathize with his final comment that 'his employers will be asked to fire or muzzle him' because I see that a lot myself where my funding from Microsoft and ITU are concerned. People have written to both organizations saying they should quit providing me with the wherewithal to meet my obligations to the phone company and the landlord. That, they feel, would silence me. But, it really works like this: if I have to, I go out and get another full time job; after all I have worked for some employer or another for about forty out of my fifty-three years. I move into a tiny room at the YMCA where the rent is $200 per month and the cockroaches are provided for free. I eat at the McDonalds or the 7/Eleven microwave machine **and you'll keep right on hearing from me** until the next time I have a heart attack and leave this life for good. I have a couple hundred items in my inbox now from people writing to tell me how awful it is and how 'chilled' free speech will be now that the Internet has to play by the same rules as everyone else. As soon as someone from the ACLU sends me a message telling how Jeff Slaton has an unfettered right to service from any ISP of his choice and how Kevin Lipsitz, female impersonator and magazine salesman to the net has a right to take dumps all over the Usenet at his leisure, then I'll be glad to take them seriously on their claim that efforts to keep adult sexual material out of the hands of minors is such a bad thing to do on the net. Anyway, read Royko today. He says it far better than I can. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Courses SONET/ATM, Wireless, Video Compression -- UC Berkeley Date: 13 Feb 1996 22:21:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 5 Short Courses on Broadband Communications, Wireless Networks -MODERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS -NETWORKS FOR DIGITAL WIRELESS ACCESS -ATM DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS -SONET/ATM-BASED BROADBAND NETWORKS -VIDEO COMPRESSION AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION ***************************************************************** SONET/ATM-BASED BROADBAND NETWORKS: Systems, Architectures and Designs (February 28-March 1, 1996) It is widely accepted that future broadband networks will be based on the SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) standards and the ATM (Asynchronous transfer Mode) technique. This course is an in-depth examination of the fundamental concepts and the implementation issues for development of future high-speed networks. Topics include: Broadband ISDN Transfer Protocol, high speed computer/network interface (HiPPI), ATM switch architectures, ATM network congestion/flow control, VLSI designs in SONET/ATM networks. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: H. Jonathan Chao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Brooklyn Polytechnic University. Dr. Chao holds more than a dozen patents and has authored over 40 technical publications in the areas of ATM switches, high-speed computer communications, and congestion/flow control in ATM networks. MODERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Wide Area Networks, Personal Communication Systems, Network Management and Control, and Multimedia Applications (February 29-March 1, 1996) This course is designed as a gentle but comprehensive overview of telecommunications including current status and future directions. This course traces the evolution of telecommunications, starting from its voice roots and progressing through local, metropolitan, and wide area networks, narrowband ISDN, asynchronous transfer mode, broadband ISDN, satellite systems, optical communications, cellular radio, personal communication systems, all-optical networks, and multimedia services. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. NETWORKS FOR DIGITAL WIRELESS ACCESS: Cellular, Voice, Data, Packet, and Personal Communication Systems (March 6-8, 1996) This comprehensive course is focused on the principles, technologies, system architectures, standards, and market forces driving wireless access. At the core of this course are the cellular/microcellular/ frequency reuse concepts needed to enable adequate wireless access capacity for Personal Communication Services (PCS). Presented are both the physical-level issues associated with wireless access and the network-level issues arising from the inherent mobility of the subscriber. Standards are fully treated including GSM (TDMA), IS-54 (North American TDMA), IS-95 (CDMA), CT2, DCT 900/CT3, IEEE 802.11, DCS 1800, and Iridium. Emerging concepts for wireless ATM are also developed. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. ATM DATA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS: Internetworking, Signaling and Network Management (April 18-19, 1996) This short course examines the key issues involved in designing and implementing high-performance local and wide area networks. Topics include: technology drivers, data protocols, signaling, network management, internetworking and applications. Lecturer: William E. Stephens, Ph.D., is the Head of the Wireless and ATM Networking Group at the David Sarnoff Research Center. Prior to this he was Director, High-Speed Switching and Storage Technology Group, Applied Research, Bellcore. Dr. Stephens has over 40 publications and one patent in the field of optical communications. He has served on several technical program committees, including IEEE GLOBECOM and the IEEE Electronic Components Technology Conference, and has served as Guest Editor for the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. VIDEO COMPRESSION AND VISUAL COMMUNICATION (June 3-4, 1996) Video Compression and Visual Communication is a rapidly evolving multidisciplinary field focussing on the development of technologies and standards for efficient storage and transmission of video signals. It covers areas of video compression algorithms, VLSI technology, standards, and high-speed digital networks. It is a critical enabling technology for the emerging information superhighway for offering various video services. In this course, we will fully treat video compression algorithms and standards, and discuss the issues related to the transport of video over various networks. Lecturers: Ming-Ting Sun, Ph.D, is director of Video Signal Processing Research, Bellcore. Dr. Sun has published numerous technical papers, holds four patents, developed IEEE Std 1180- 1990, was awarded the Best Paper Award for IEEE Transactions Video Technology in 1993 (with Tzou), and an award for excellence in standards development from the IEEE Standards Board in 1991. He is currently the express letter editor, IEEE Transaction on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (CSVT), and associate editor, IEEE Transactions of CSVT. He was chairman and now serves as secretary of the IEEE CAS Technical committee on Visual Signal Processing and Communications. Kou-Hu Tzou, Ph.D., is manager of the Image Processing Department, COMSAT Laboratories. Dr Tzou won the Best Paper Award for IEEE Transactions Video Technology in 1993 (with Sun). He holds 6 patents, has served as an associate editor for IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, is currently associate editor for IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, and served as a guest editor for Optical Engineering Journal special issues on Visual Communications and Image Processing in 1989, 91, and 93. He is the committee chair of the Visual Signal Processing and Communication Technical committee, IEEE Circuits and Systems Society. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Loretta Lindley U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 220 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 email: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Guy Lessard Subject: Brand New Meridian Sets Disposal - University Overstock Date: 13 Feb 1996 14:59:17 GMT Organization: University d'/of Ottawa The University of Ottawa, Ottawa Canada has a surplus of brand new telephone sets that we are hoping someone can take advantage of. The items in stock include: Model M5312 Serial Number NT4X37BB 93 Colour Grey Qty 2 Model M 536 Serial Number NT4X34BA 93 Qty 2 Model M 518 Serial Number NT4X38BA 93 Qty 4 Model M 518 Serial Number NT4X38GA 03 Qty 2 Model M5312 Serial Number NT4X37GB 03 Colour Black Qty 75 Model M5209 Serial Number NT4X36AB 35 Colour Beige Qty 66 Model M5209 Serial Number NT4X36GB 03 Colour Black Qty 64 In April of 1995 the University of Ottawa purchased 5 MITEL SX2000 PBXs to service the University community. The sets being offered are brand new (unwrapped) sets which are not compatible with our current system. Anyone interested in purchasing these units can submit an offer in writing to GLESSARD@COMMUNICATIONS.UOTTAWA.CA or by FAX to (613) 562-5998. Make an offer. I can assure you that these sets will go at a discount of at least 50% of the original value. Shipping charges and brokerage fees if applicable will be paid for by the purchaser. ------------------------------ From: Lars Erlandsen Subject: Ethernet and Cable-TV Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:54:51 +0100 Organization: UMI A.S I'm looking for a "box/switch" which allow the Cable-TV Company to distribute Ethernet over existing cables in your Cable-TV infrastructure. The idea is to offer the subscriber various services as LAN-connection, Internet etc. directly in the wall-jack with speeds up to 10 Mbit/s. Lars Erlandsen UMI A.S ------------------------------ From: rburnett@oknet.com (Roger K. Burnett) Subject: Report on Tapi Systems Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:24:22 GMT Organization: Ping Software, Inc. In mid-1992, Intel completed the first draft of what would become TAPI, the Windows Telephony API. TAPI is a first step in the integration of advanced telephony with the powerful capabilities of PCs. Without TAPI, every telephone application is inextricably bound to the hardware device, fragmenting a potentially huge business market into small incompatible pockets. Not only can features vary between different vendors' PBXs, the features of the same PBX can vary across international boundaries. Applications written for TAPI are, in theory, portable to any computer connected to any communication network. The TAPI specification provides two layers, being compliant with the WOSA standards. The first layer is the application layer (TAPI itself), which the applications are written to. The second and lower layer is the service provider layer (TSPI). This is the layer which takes all the application requests and translates them to the hardware level requests necessary for the device. In the SPI specification, there are over 80 API calls which can be called to perform various tasks. To even provide basic functionality (i.e.: make a call), the SPI must provide about 15 functions for TAPI to recognize the device. Another complication with TSPI is that requests can be made synchronously, or asynchronously. The sample Microsoft provides with the TAPI tool kit shows bare minimum requirements of a service provider, and has several thousand lines of code! We here at Ping have been involved with TAPI for several years, and have participated in Microsoft testing and API bake-off conferences. Over the course of building several service providers for large manufacturers, we have built a C++ library for use with Visual C++ 1.5, which substantially cut down our development time for service providers. This library provides a set of base classes which perform basic TAPI duties, relieving us from always rewriting status functions, and request queue management. We found that each device we wrote a driver for was different in subtle, but critical ways, so the library was built to be extensible and unable to be overridden. Through virtual functions and run-time object replacement, we think we have accomplished that goal. Using this class library, the developer can build any type of service provider. It is not limited in terms of call appearances, lines, phones, or even devices. A single service provider can support multiple devices (even of differing types). We support all the major functions of the 1.4 TSPI specification except conferencing, which we are working on right now (available 1Q96) . The library has four main classes which work together to form a complete service provider. First, the CServiceProvider class provides methods for all the calls which TAPI makes to the service provider. This object manages a set of CTSPIDevice objects. Each of the device objects are mapped to a physical telephony device, and own a set of CTSPIConnection objects. Each connection object represents a line or a phone connection. If the connection is a line device, then it will have a series of CTSPICallAppearance objects which represent the individual calls on the device. Requests to the device are automatically parsed and evaluated, and non-device specific error checking is done on the requests before any processing is done. Requests are managed in device lists which allow for each device to have a separate set of outstanding requests. All objects can be overridden in case a service provider requires slightly different functionality. Two fully functional service providers are provided with the library as examples, one which is styled after the Microsoft sample (ATSP) and another which is designed to simulate a digital switch (along with a emulator program). These samples are free to use, and most service providers will probably fit one or both of the samples. Phone technical support and consultation services are available for a minimal charge, or product technical support through E-mail is free. The cost for this SDK, is $495.00 (no source for library), or $995.00 (full source code). For more information, or to order, please call Ping Software, Inc. at (214) 394-9833 or send e-mail to staff@pingsoftware.com. ------------------------------ From: telco@teleport.com (Kelly Daniels) Subject: SMART-1 Dialer Repair in Bull Head City, Nevada Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:35:23 Organization: Telco Planning, Inc. A friend needs someone to go on-site in Bullhead City to repair a SMART-1 Dialer. The dialer is down and normally able to be remotely programmed. Eaither reply to me at telco@teleport.com or dial 503-526-1952 and ask for Linn Burrel. Thank-you. ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Kids and Rotary Phones Date: 13 Feb 1996 20:07:17 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Mike Wengler (wengler@ee.rochester.edu) wrote: > I wonder if there are words *we* use for which we've forgotten the > real meaning. What does 'clockwise' mean to someone who's seen only digital clocks? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 96 21:25:22 EST From: Charles Cremer <71231.2206@compuserve.com> Subject: Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 As already reported by Chris Boone, the Texas Public Utility Commission has decided that the 972 and 281 areas will be implemented as geographic splits. One additional fact is worth mentioning: The commission requested that two additional new areas -- one for Dallas and one for Houston -- should be applied for immediately. These would be implemented as overlays for wireless service only. [The commissioners don't want to face another decision like this one in their lifetime. ;-)] Charles Cremer <71231.2206@compuserve.com> ------------------------------ From: miles@roundlake.baxter.com (Mad Milesman Musante) Subject: Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems Reply-To: olorin@world.std.com Organization: Zippo Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:47:45 GMT bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com wrote: > According to the {Wall Street Journal}, the company formerly known as > AT&T Network Systems is now called Lucent Technologies. Apparently > this is the telephony hardware electronics divisions (Western Electric?). > It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. A recent report in the {Chicago Tribune} says that AT&T held a competition among its employees to choose the name. Mark Musante olorin@world.std.com http://world.std.com/~olorin/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 08:27:19 -0600 From: Scott R. Matson Organization: JCPenney Company, Inc. Subject: Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems bkdougla@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com wrote: > According to the {Wall Street Journal}, the company formerly known as > AT&T Network Systems is now called Lucent Technologies. Apparently > this is the telephony hardware electronics divisions (Western Electric?). > It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. Lucent Technologies is the the AT&T division formerly known as GBCS. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 17:49 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: New Name for AT&T Network Systems Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, speak of the Devil, if it isn't John Levine here to close this issue of the Digest with one of his devilishly delightful commentaries. PAT] ----------------------- > ... the company formerly known as AT&T Network Systems is now called > Lucent Technologies. > It's not clear (:>) to me where they got this name. Isn't it obvious? It means they're followers of Lucifer. Actually, it sounds to me more like a word that describes something that you'd find on the bottom of your shoe. They got two out of three names right, too bad they didn't remember Western Electric. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof [TELECOM Digest Editor's Heresy: There is even a television show on every night talking about their most loyal employees. It is called 'I Love Lucifer' and right after that they have the Lucifer Show. I hope people don't get all mixed up on this and start sending hate mail to AT&T the way they do to Proctor and Gamble about those stars and the man in the moon they put on all their packages. If I get as far as issue 666 in this volume of the Digest sometime late in the fall or early winter, would it be okay to ask you to be the guest editor for that issue? Who is better qualified? :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #60 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Feb 13 23:38:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA26352; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 23:38:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 23:38:44 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602140438.XAA26352@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #61 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Feb 96 23:38:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 61 Inside This Issue: Happy Valentine's Day, Sweethearts! Re: It's What the Law SAYS (Randal L. Schwartz) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Chad Irby) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Carl Moore) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (David Jensen) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Steve Cogorno) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Robert Levandowski) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Tom Betz) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (John Canning) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (Ed Ellers) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (Sharif Torpis) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: It's What the Law SAYS Date: 13 Feb 1996 07:48:48 -0800 Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA Reply-To: merlyn@stonehenge.com John Higdon writes: > Unenforced (and generally unenforcable) laws amount to time bombs. > They lie dormant until that day when a particular prosecutor wants to > nail a particular defendant and discovers a nice little mechanism in > the form of one of these laws. The term "selective enforcement" comes > to mind. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you certainly make a valid point. > As I noted, several have written me saying exactly what they believe > was and was not intended, but your thing about how prosecutors can > find the damndedest things to grip on to is something none of us > should forget. We have a prosecutor here in Cook County like that now. > And it is not just at the prosecutorial level you will see that. Some > individual police officers also spend time combing law books looking > for something -- anything -- to use against people they don't like. PAT] I know this exact principle all too well. A mostly-unused state law that was intended to help the local phone companies to nail phone-phreaks was used to make me a felon, based on honest actions that I believed would be beneficial for my client. Not to mention the cost to me of $170K in legal bills and $70K in court-ordered restitution. For details about my case, visit http://www.lightlink.com/fors/, or if you are web-impaired, get the brief summary by sending email to my reply-bot at fund@stonehenge.com (content will be mostly ignored). Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying Email: Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com) Web: My Home Page! Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me ------------------------------ From: cirby@gate.net (Chad Irby) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: 12 Feb 1996 13:03:48 -0500 Organization: CyberGate, Inc. Not true, I'm afraid. If it *were* true, the entire concept of "undercover officer" wouldn't work. All the criminals would have to do would be to ask everyone they know if they're a cop. > If he does lie, and then proceeds to arrest you based on the > transaction which occurred, it is entrapment, which is illegal. Nope. If a cop comes up to you and talks you into buying drugs from him, that would (probably) be entrapment (in some cases, it might not be). However, if a cop comes up to you and you sell *him* the drugs after asking him if he's a cop, then you're just plain busted. > Entrapment is defined as the goverment committing a crime in order > to induce you to likewise commit the same or a similar crime. > Enticement (that is, the goverment merely makes it more convenient for > you to violate the law without actually doing so itself) is *not* > illegal. Possibly. But considering that there are so many people with axes to grind in this country (and others), it would be, er, "child's play" to find some seventeen year old with a bad attitude and Daddy's PC to log in and find something that's indecent. And with the way the CDA is worded, you wouldn't even need that- just give a cop an AOL account and a half hour, and he'd find all *sorts* of indecent stuff. > Please read this carefully: a police officer who commits a crime with > a minor (i.e. logs in the minor on a computer for the purpose of helping > the minor obtain contraband material) who then aids or encourages the > minor to falsify his age and lies to you about his own role as a police > officer in the transaction has entrapped you. Remember that Oklahoma case a couple of years back? They got an underage kid to log in ("just hit that key right there, kid") to a BBS, and then busted the BBS. In a case like that, even if you eventually "win," you lose. Legal fights aren't cheap. Ask Steve Jackson ... In a perfect world, it might not be so, but in the current United States of America, this sort of thing happens all of the time. > Those cases get tossed out of court all the time. But more often, they don't. And even when they do, it's going to *cost*. > You may wish to qualify your traffic with criteria such as this to > avoid having undesirable users see it. PAT] I guess we need a law that forces an "aw, shucks!" filter. Just set things up so that you get euphemisms instead of the real words. Not much harder than a ROT-13. Unless you consider euphemisms to be indecent... Chad Irby cirby@gate.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 13:10:54 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Well, I have seen some places with signs saying they will ask for ID if a potential purchaser of alcoholic beverages appears to be under, say, age 30. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The thinking on this seems to be that a person could be under 21 and manage to look old enough to pass for 21 with a fake identification card. On the other hand, it is much harder for someone 'appears to be' under 30 to still be under 21 as well and have a fake id card. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 12:36:06 -0800 From: David Jensen Organization: Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Pat, I think you are right that nothing more is illegal after CDA than before, but only because Congress traditionally steps well beyond the bounds of the constitutional and has to be drawn back. The CDA will keep many lawyers well employed for the next few years. If you give "Spice" to minors, some yahoo prosecutor will blame TCI or Warner or whoever for making it available. Eventually the prosecutor will lose and TCI will use this as an excuse to raise rates. The Telecommunications Act is not perfect, but I agree that it is a major improvement. The CDA primarily protects the little pink buildings alongside interstates. Does it protect kids? Who knows? What from? The ACLU can be a bunch of idiots, but they are our, or at least my, bunch of idiots. They do have a sort of mindless commitment to civil liberties (as long as it doesn't have anything to do with property rights, state's rights or gun ownership rights). I don't plan to join them, but their kneejerk support of some of the Bill of Rights is better than no support at all. It is the responsibility of Congress not to pass laws that violate the Constitution. It is the responsibility of Congress to err on the side of protecting civil liberties. Congress refuses to live up to that responsibility. We have had 200 years of Congress violating Constitu- tional restrictions on its behavior. I have little hope that it will reform. ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:20:57 PST Carl Moore said: > Well, I have seen some places with signs saying they will ask for ID > if a potential purchaser of alcoholic beverages appears to be under, > say, age 30. Sure, but how can this be done over the Net? My point is that there is no real way to "check ID." Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There have been various proposals for this which have merit. None would be foolproof, all would require the cooperation of ISPs and sysadmins. The most common calls for the creation of a category of user called 'k-12'. This could be part of the user name as in 'little-johnnyk-12@site.domain' or it could be of the form 'little-johnny@k-12.site.domain'. In the latter case, admins create a fictitious machine called 'k-12' to which underage subscribers are assigned. The system .newsrc (or active) file for k-12 will not include alt.sex.various newsgroups. Users on k-12 are not permitted to change their name or in any way alias-out the k-12 reference in their name. In chat 'rooms' they would be denied access to any which covered 'adult' topics. The k-12 reference in their name or site would be quite apparent to anyone with whom they corresponded in realtime or in email. This would eliminate any 'misunderstanding' by an older person who chose to chat with them or send them email. It would not be against any law or system regu- lation for a k-12 user to exchange communications with a non-k-12 user, but in the event of later problems the adult user would be unable to claim ignorance that his correspondent was a minor. In telnet, some sites might choose to refuse connection to users on k-12.anywhere.domain if their content was intended for an adult subscriber base. Likewise, sites allowing connections via ftp, or the World Wide Web might refuse connections to k-12 sites if their content was intended for adult users. Foolproof? By no means, but neither are laws pertaining to the purchase of tobacco and alcohol or laws about sexual acts with minors. Kids might not be able to buy beer, but they can always get into their parents liquor supply or get someone to buy them beer. They might find a way to alter a driver's license, etc. A question arises about administering a k-12 arrangement. What sort of extra work will this cause for the ISP or sysadmin? In all probability, existing users would need to be 'grandfathered' where they are at. If an admin was able to easily identify who was who, he might choose to move minors into the k-12 category. As existing subscribers renewed their membership they would be required to attest to their age of majority or minority. As instances of minors in the wrong category came to the attention of the admin, they would be moved into k-12. *New* users signing up for the first time would be required to provide a photocopy of an identification card of some sort in order to be admitted to the *adult* or general users group. Lacking such adult ID, the new user would be assigned to k-12 or at the very least denied access to 'adult' features on the site. Perhaps a period of six to eight months could be allowed for a transition to k-12 to insure that admins are able to have an orderly re-assignment of existing minors on their system and develop a plan for detirmining the age of new users. Some sites may feel they have nothing to offer k-12 users and choose to not allow minors online at all. More important than how individual admins choose to convert existing young subscribers into k-12 or what method they use to identify new subscribers would be all sites honoring the k-12 designations of other sites. In the same way that unix sites over the years have reached agreement on certain standards for handling mail and news, they would need to agree to honor each other's k-12 designations. In other words, if the admin at your home site has you in k-12, then you are prohibit- ed from 'adult' services at my site as well. Likewise, many Web brousing and/or net 'surfing' tools currently available have parental lockout controls; these would be adapted to work with k-12 or vice-versa. Combined with this should come a standardized user-name convention to be phased in over a period of several months to a year, again with existing users probably being grandfathered in place and 're-named' as occassion arose, machines were retired or put in service, etc. It should be possible within a year or less to have a very reasonable handle on net users. Hardly foolproof, but it would show a good faith effort that I believe would carry a lot of weight in any problem resolution. You would still have netters making paranoid claims about Renaissance nudes copied from art textbooks to the net and you'd still have teenagers forging some ID or hacking an 'adult' account, just as now you find teens with beer and cigarettes in their possession. This would be a chance though for the Internet community to truly show itself socially responsible and able to resolve its own social problems. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 14:57:55 GMT In Pat writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If someone fraudulently misrepresents > themself (i.e. are you at least 18 years of age? are you a law enforcement > officer for any local, state or federal government?) then it is their > problem and not yours. This is not true. Under case law and the CDA, misrepresentation is not a defense if you did not verify the user's identity with some form of concrete proof, like a credit card account or a driver's license. Because it is so easy for a minor to lie when filling in an age blank, content providers "know" that it is likely that this information is a lie, and therefore it's not a defense in itself. If a ten-year-old walks into a bar and presents an ID that claims he's 21, despite his obviously youthful appearance and behavior, and the bartender serves him on the basis of the ID, the bartender is in trouble. The bartender had reason to suspect that the ID was fraudulent. The same principle is being applied to the CDA. In Pat writes: > Why for example, does John Levine feel that his theoretical Renaissance > nude suddenly became more offensive and dangerous to transmit this > week than it was last week with a myriad of state laws pertaining > to 'indecency' in effect then (and still now)? Why is his Renaissance > nude going to be illegal to view here when it is not illegal to view > in the Art Institute of Chicago or the Guggenheim Museum? The point > is, it won't be. The point is, Pat, that "indecent" speech is Constitutionally protected. It has been held so by the Supreme Court. "Obscene" speech is not necessarily so protected. That is why, if you check, existing state laws prohibit obscenity, not indecency. There is a real and legal distinction between the two terms. A naked body is indecent. A naked body engaged in graphic sexual conduct with another is probably obscene. It is not illegal to hang an indecent painting in a museum, because it is unconstitutional to make it so. If the CDA is enforced, it will make it illegal to provide an indecent painting on-line, despite the Constitution. > I hear people saying the Internet is suddenly being held to a different > standard where 'free speech' is concerned than other forms of mass > media. Yes it is, and no it isn't. Internet users have been told > that from now on they will be held to the same standards as everyone > else. So many of you prima donnas went for years and years thinking > you were something special and something different. Now you are being > told that to the contrary, you are just like everyone else. I know > it must distress you a lot. PAT] Pat, what do you have against Internet users? If anything, you are the one who comes off as the prima donna; you consistently rail against Internet users, as if the entire group of tens of millions of people who use the Internet are all elitist porn-fiends who have a personal grudge against you. I hope that's not the way you mean to sound! If you can seriously assert that the "same standards" are being applied, I can only assume that you have not read the text of the CDA, or that you do not understand the surrounding case law and constitutional issues. The restrictions in the CDA do not, will not, and cannot apply to speech on a soapbox in a public park, or to speech over a telephone, or to speech in a newspaper or magazine, or to speech in private letters sent through the post office. The only reason restrictions apply to TV and radio is that they literally invade the home, and it is absolutely trivial for one to decode them. There are no passwords or accounts for TV or radio. If the CDA is allowed to stand, it is very possible that the same "indecency" standard will be legislated against public speech in real life, which we have a duty to prevent. Pat, I suggest you look up some of Thomas Jefferson's writings, or the writings of his compatriots. These men founded our government, and their writings make it clear that they would not support the CDA. Rob Levandowski University of Rochester -- Rochester, New York rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I refuse to get into the game known as 'what the founder fathers intended' ... like the Bible, you can find some- thing to support whatever it is you wish to practice or believe. As you point out, a ten year old going into a tavern and being served on the basis of his forged id showing he was 21 does not relieve the bartender of criminal liability as the forgery should have been obvious. But if the user is 19 or 20 and has a forged id showing he is 21, while the law has been broken the circumstances -- and thus any punishment afforded by the court are different. The context is all important. And so is the context all important on the Internet, although the ACLU would like you to believe it is an all-or-nothing proposition. If a user decides to run a message with some nasty words in it in a news- group where traditionally this is not done we are not going to see massive raids and arrests of users, admins, etc. The context and purpose of the newsgroup is all important. How a given site is maintained by its proprietor is all important. It is going to take some time to build a good working relationship between the users of the net and the government regarding things which go on here, but that relationship can develop to the benefit of all concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:45:34 -0500 Organization: Some Robert Levandowski wrote: > Pat, it's not that people are so hungry for pornography. It's that > this particular law, as worded, applies to a hell of a lot more than > what's reasonable. Technically, it makes it illegal to send a health > textbook to a minor on the Internet -- look up the legal definition of > "indecent," which the bill bans, as opposed to "obscene." This law is > ready to be misused by people with an axe to grind and a lawyer to > turn the grindstone. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And these lawyers and others with axes > to grind did not have anything at their disposal do to do prior to > this latest legislation? PAT] Unfortunately, like so much of the so-called "Republican Revolution", this Comstockery amendment was slipped in at the last minute, without any public hearings on it. It was not even available for public inspection until >after< the entire Telecom Bill was passed. Hence the need for a coalition of concerned parties to fight it in the courts. ---- Tom Betz --------- ------ (914) 375-1510 -- tbetz@pobox.com | We have tried ignorance for a very long | tbetz@panix.com ------------------+ time, and it's time we tried education. +----------------- -- Computers help us to solve problems we never had before they came along. -- ------------------------------ From: john@pcc.com (John Canning) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 03:44:36 EST Greetings - In comp.dcom.telecom you write: > I hear people saying the Internet is suddenly being held to a different > standard where 'free speech' is concerned than other forms of mass > media. Yes it is, and no it isn't. Internet users have been told > that from now on they will be held to the same standards as everyone > else. So many of you prima donnas went for years and years thinking > you were something special and something different. Now you are being > told that to the contrary, you are just like everyone else. I know > it must distress you a lot. PAT] I disagree with your last paragraph here. I do not mean to harass or upset you with this response, but I would like to express my opinion. The intent of the Exon Amendment may have been to do what you have described. However, our Senator Leahy (I'm from Vermont) was polite to point out that the amendment was very poorly worded. For example, in it's original version it accidentally took away the governments right to write tap. The law that was just signed places the Internet under much more stringent restrictions. If I sent you this reply in hopes of upsetting you, or if you and your attorneys decide that I did it to upset you, then my goose is cooked. I have broken the law and the penalties are pretty severe, just for attempting to have a discussion. If you have a little free time, I suggest you check out Senator Leahy's web pages (http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/why.html or protect.html). He does a much better job of explaining the problem with the bill that was just signed into law. Thank you for your time, and I hope that I have done a small bit to convince you that the Communications Decency Act is a bad solution to a real problem. Sincerly, John Canning Essex Junction, Vermont [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not convinced it is the best solution by any means, but left to their own devices, many Internet users and admins would still be wringing their hands and saying there was nothing they could do ... well fine, now the government has done it for us. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:56:52 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If someone fraudulently misrepresents > themself (i.e. are you at least 18 years of age? Pat, am not a lawyer but need to ask the question "can a minor legally commit a fraudulent act ?" Reading the UCC would seem to indicate that they cannot since fraud involves misrepresentation and a minor is not entitled to represent themselves in the first place. Worse, the placing of such a button might be construed as an "attractive nuisance" and demonstrates that you knew the material was offensive. I think the law is vauge and has all of the first amendment problems attributed to it (in fact it is so draconian that I wonder if this was an attempt by lawmakers irritated at this "rider" on a important bill that it was tightened so much as to ensure its overturn). At the same time, I suspect that the unrestricted availability needs to change "to protect the innocent". Supermarkets put Playboy etc. behind covers, video store have "back rooms". Both provide some form of physical restraint. Physical restraint is impossible on the I'net though "proof of age" is not -- just currently must be conducted "out of channel". I do expect the era of free access to "erotic art" be over and admission may require a credit card and a commerce server in the future. Will certainly enhance the profitability of such ventures by eliminating the "amateurs". Not going to say whether good or bad, but will not be surprised. Warmly, Padgett PS: The ability to enforce a law has never been a requirement for passage in the past. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is perfectly fair that if admins and ISPs are expected to attempt to screen new users 'out of channel' for proof of age that they get some compensation for it. I think we can expect to see an increase in rates or at least an increase in initial account setup fees. I'd hope the adult service provicers were not the only ones to 'benefit' from this as you suggest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes Date: 13 Feb 1996 05:56:04 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , jfh@acm.org says... > The lack of security on the net is becoming more and more of a problem. > "domain hijacking" certainly *will* happen if if hasn't already, just as > forged moderation to moderated groups has happened (to comp.dcom.telecom, > among others). I really don't want the government to get involved, but it's > inevitable if sysops don't start enforcing responsible behavior among their > users. Would you count as "domain hijacking" the practice of registering a domain name that refers to someone else's operation? Somebody has a WWW site at http://www.forbes96.org that is a parody of the Steve Forbes campaign (the real campaign site is at http://www.forbes96.com), and there was a story a few months ago of a TV station in Sacramento that registered as domain names the call signs of several competing stations. ------------------------------ From: storpis@crl.com (Sharif Torpis) Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes Date: 13 Feb 1996 10:19:52 -0800 Organization: Black Lodge Engineering In article , Jack Hamilton wrote: > I don't know of any, but there have been cases where a domain name was > maliciously removed from the name servers, probably through the > mechanism you described. Tsutomu Shimomura's book-related site www.takedown.com got renamed to www.takendown.com by a bogus request to the InterNIC. No computers involved. Just a social-engineered voice call to Network Solutions. Read about it in Friday's papers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #61 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 14 10:36:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA28057; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:36:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:36:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602141536.KAA28057@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #62 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Feb 96 10:36:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Happy Valentine's Day, Sweethearts! Re: The Right to an Address? (Eric Smith) Re: The Right to an Address? (James E. Bellaire) Re: The Right to an Address? (p01495@psilink.com) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Matthew B Landry) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Steve Cogorno) Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers (Jon M. Taylor) Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) (Eric Smith) Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) (John Diamant) Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) (Heflin Hogan) Pat is Just Stubborn (Dan Pock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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, 14 Feb 96 01:17 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: The Right to an Address? On 13 Feb 1996, C. du Fijn <081278cf@student.EUR.NL> said: > What happens with my e-mail address when my provider goes bankrupt > or changes its name? ... > Does anyone have suggestions on where to find more about both legal > and technical solutions to this problem? In the case of internet email, there is AFAIK only one technical solution at this time, which is to register your own domain. This does not require that you have a direct internet connection, but you do have to find at least two name servers on the internet to host you domain and provide MX records for your email. Most service providers will do this for a small fee. The InterNIC is the registration authority for the top-level COM, NET, and ORG domains*, for which there is now a $50/year registration fee with a two year minimum. In other top-level domains (such as .nl), the local registration authority may or may not impose fees. The current InterNIC policy is that once you register a domain with them, you can keep it as long as you continue to pay the annual registration fee and another party doesn't present a US trademark for the name. This latter requirement would seem to make a mockery of the fact that the COM, NET, and ORG domains are supposed to be international. IMHO having international top-level domains was a mistake anyhow, because of exactly these sorts of problems. There should be a separate COM domain for each country, and there are for many contries (eg., co.uk and co.jp). There should have been co.us or com.us. Anyhow, once you have your own domain, it is portable (unlike CIDR IP addresses). If your ISP fails, or you just decide to switch to another, you just arrange for your DNS entries to be put in new servers, and notify the registration authority of the change. This doesn't even require the cooperation of the old ISP. Many people have protested the $50/year fee using one of three principal arguments: 1) it used to be free; 2) it is too expensive; 3) the InterNIC doesn't deserve that much. It actually was never free (nothing ever is); it was paid by US taxpayers. IMHO it is actually advantageous to have it NOT paid by taxpayers, as it then becomes less subject to arbitrary restriction or change at the whim of legislators. $50/year seems cheap to me given that almost any reasonable internet service costs at least that much per month; the $50/year is trivial by comparison. I'm not going to get involved in arguing the third point. Cheers, Eric * as well as EDU, GOV, and the root domain, but good luck registering there! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 05:57:55 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Re: The Right to an Address? C. du Fijn <081278cf@student.EUR.NL> wrote: > Being a lawstudent I intend to write a paper on number portability. > This involves problems such as: > What happens with my e-mail address when my provider goes bankrupt > or changes its name? Quick answer: You lose your address. Unless you or your company has its own address space your name is dependent on the provider. If you get mail at and broke.com goes out of service then you can no longer use the @broke.com address. You must use an address in your new provider's space, like . If you have your own address space with your mail being handled by a provider with a different name then you can keep your name IF you find another provider willing to handle the same kind of account. So if you get mail at and broke.com just holds the mail for you, then all you have to do is have your mail rerouted to your new internet provider, solvent.com, and few on the net will know you moved. > This is not an uncommon problem in the telephone world, but becomes > more drastic if e.g. your e-mail adress or webpage is changed (since > your address is only an alpha-numeric translation of a number). > Does anyone have suggestions on where to find more about both legal > and technical solutions to this problem? Technically, if you are just a user @broke.com it would take a system who was willing to accept all of @broke.com's mail and forward it to the individual systems that the former customers now use. Unless one company took over all of the broke.com customers, and even then it is up to the new company to decide if they want to support the old email addresses at broke.com. If you have your own domain, like myown.com, the you have to get the appropriate records changed at various nameservers so that your mail will ne routed to your new provider. Not difficult. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) Twin Kings Communications bellaire@tk.com WebPage at http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/ bellaire@holli.com ------------------------------ From: p01495@psilink.com Subject: Re: The Right to an Address? Date: 14 Feb 1996 02:27:54 GMT Organization: Societe Anonyme des Poissons Reply-To: p01495@psilink.com C. du Fijn <081278cf@student.EUR.NL> writes: > What happens with my e-mail address when my provider goes bankrupt > or changes its name? ... > Does anyone have suggestions on where to find more about both legal > and technical solutions to this problem? There is a readily-available technical solution. Pobox has a free service: they will forward mail. If you make your Email address xxxx@pobox.org.sg, incoming mail gets forwarded to your real account. Of course, if you've already established an identity, this is less useful. Even so, you could change your address and have both work in the interim. Given enough time, everyone would get used to using your pobox account. FWIW, their Web page is www.pobox.org.sg Ron ------------------------------ From: mbl@conch.aa.msen.com (Matthew B Landry) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: 14 Feb 1996 03:03:26 GMT Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI. PAT wrote: > Why do you think there will be a sudden increase in these cases? Extradition, mostly. When it was a matter of state and local ordinances all that was necessary to make sure you got an extra chance to have the charges against you thrown out was to obey the laws of the state and locality in which you lived. If some right-wing lunatic prosecutor wanted to make a splash with the stupids in his contingency out in some southern hick-district, he'd have to get a Michigan court to order Michigan police to arrest me first. Now the charge can be filed in a federal court, which by definition has jurisdiction everywhere in the US, and there's no question of extradition. It's just a matter of going through the legal formalities to get me convicted. And considering the fact that if a hundred people looked at my old web site, that conviction would carry a penalty of $100,000,000 and 800 years in a federal penitentiary (for four potentially "indecent" images) ... well, I think this constitutes a problem (especially considering that that's the penalty for less than a day's traffic; if I kept it up a week my sentance would survive the collapse of western civilization). Another problem with the bill is its clear bias against individual freedom (as opposed to the freedom of businesses). The only absolutely secure defense a content provider has is that they charge for their services by credit card. So that hard-core pornography merchants get absolute ironclad protection, while activists trying to make a point about free speech expose themselves to criminal liability that we don't even THINK about handing to muderers. Funny how this strikes me as the exact opposite of what the government of the US should be encouraging, given the values we all pretend to believe in. I don't know any other environment where it can be legal to sell something that's illegal to give away for free. Do you? Matthew Landry ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 23:31:16 PST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If someone fraudulently misrepresents > themself (i.e. are you at least 18 years of age? are you a law enforcement > officer for any local, state or federal government?) then it is their > problem and not yours. It has long been the case for example that a This is NOT true. Should a minor lie about his/her age while purchasing tobacco, alcohol or pornography, and the clerk still sells without positive identification, the clerk has violated the law (in California), even though the statue clearly states "knowingly sells to minors." The Alcohol Beverages Commission held an administrative law hearing against a merchant who sold alcohol without proper identification. The administrative law judge ruled that there is no "good faith" defense, and that merchants must make every effort to establish positive identification. This was appealed to the California Supreme Court in State of California ABC vs. Kirby. The court agreed with ABC, and said that near-strict liability must be used for defense. This has been supported by case law and precedent in other states as well. Although this judgment was not directly involving pornography statutes, it is widely believed that Kirby applies. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: taylorj@ecs.ecs.csus.edu (Jon M. Taylor) Subject: Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:11:50 GMT Organization: California State University, Sacramento > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If someone fraudulently misrepresents > themself (i.e. are you at least 18 years of age? are you a law enforcement > officer for any local, state or federal government?) then it is their > problem and not yours. It has long been the case for example that a > police officer cannot lie and say he is not an officer. If he does > lie, and then proceeds to arrest you based on the transaction which > occurred, it is entrapment, which is illegal. Ahhhh, memories ... this is now basically null and void. It has been ruled in a court of law that, if the police officer feels that their personal safety might be compromised by revealing that they are a police officer, they DO NOT have to do so (i.e., they CAN lie about it), and this is *NOT* entrapment. What this means, of course, is that undercover cops can and will lie about being cops whenever they want to and just tell the judge that they felt that their personal safety would have been in danger if they had told the truth. > Entrapment is defined as the goverment committing a crime in order > to induce you to likewise commit the same or a similar crime. Precisely. Now that lying about not being a cop if they feel that their personal safety is at risk is *NOT* a crime, there is no entrapment taking place. Neat, eh? We now have a REAL secret police! > Enticement (that is, the goverment merely makes it more convenient > for you to violate the law without actually doing so itself) is > *not* illegal. > Please read this carefully: a police officer who commits a crime with > a minor (i.e. logs in the minor on a computer for the purpose of helping > the minor obtain contraband material) who then aids or encourages the > minor to falsify his age and lies to you about his own role as a police > officer in the transaction has entrapped you. Those cases get tossed > out of court all the time. You may wish to qualify your traffic with > criteria such as this to avoid having undesirable users see it. PAT] This is because it is the *minor* who is lying, not the cop. I suspect that the "personal safety" loophole will be extended to police informants (if it hasn't been already) as soon as not doing so becomes too inconvenient. The loophole for police officers, for example, came about because recreational drug users were routinely asking everyone that they came in contact with in any sort of drug-related situation if they were a cop, which was making the business of entrapping them too difficult. They can now do drugs around other drug users as well, and for the same "personal safety" reasons. There is no reason why this "logic" cannot be extended to electronic communications as well (in fact, I would not be surprised if POTS conversations already are included). After all, if all that is required is the *possibility* of harm coming to the cop, there is ALWAYS a possibility of some sort, right? How about "harm" being extended to harassment? Trust me, if the cops want to entrap someone badly enough they WILL find a way to do so. Jon Taylor = | Show your opposition to the Communications Decency Act! VOTE LIBERTARIAN! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The police are great when it comes to not giving any sort of direct answer. Their response would be something like 'do I look like a cop?' (with a sneer on their face) or 'what do you think?' or (injured look on face) 'are you saying you do not trust me?'. They would go out of their way to actually avoid having to answer honestly. Since drug pushers are usually not very bright people -- quite a few are just plain dumb -- that sort of answer usually worked. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 11:45 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) PAT said: > If parents do not supervise their children's use of Internet, is that the > service provider's fault or the fault of the author of the message the child > read? It isn't clear to me what your own answer to this question is. My answer is neither; it is the parent's fault. One problem with the CDA is that it declares that BOTH the service provider AND the author are at fault. Is it really a worthwhile objective for the government to isolate minors in a fantasy world where they are prevented from ever seeing anything unpleasant until they are 18 years old, then suddenly thrust them into the real world? This is where legislation like the CDA is headed. Of course, the CDA can't fully acchieve this objective without locking us all in the fantasy world, so I suppose if they are successful we won't have to worry about what happens to kids when they become adults. > All your melodrama about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment > is bogus. Oh, darn, you saw right through my smokescreen. I was hoping that you would make the common mistake of believing the Bill of Rights to be important. Eric [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I *do* believe it to be important. So important in fact, that I don't like seeing it invoked abusively in all sorts of instances like this where it really -- IMO -- does not apply. (In the above, note no /H/ in IMO. That's because I don't give humble opinions. Yuk, yuk!) PAT] ------------------------------ From: diamant@sde.hp.com (John Diamant) Subject: Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) Date: 14 Feb 1996 07:36:39 GMT Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO Reply-To: diamant@sde.hp.com Eric Smith (eric@goonsquad.spies.com) wrote: > And why are you so certain that they will not nail people for putting > things on web pages and Usenet newsgroups? Knowingly has often been > interpreted to mean "known or should have known", and it is quite > apparent that anyone who has used the net a non-trivial amount should > know that it is readily accessible to minors. As has already been pointed out by another article, Pat's claim that asking viewers ages is sufficient defense is unsupportable based on current precedent and statute. Statutes requiring alcohol and tobacco not being sold to minors definitely impose the burden of verification on the provider, and do *not* accept the defense that the minor claimed to be an adult. > I am disappointed that you are taking the view that this is a trivial > issue. In reality it is a very slippery slope. Today it is > "indecency", tomorrow it will be political speech. In fact, there's > no way to tell that political speech isn't "indecent" already! "Indecency" is defined by local standards, and the very idea that it can be applied to a global network is ludicrous. >> I wonder if the ACLU and the small handful of others who are making >> such vicious protests to this realize how incredibly foolish they >> appear to the vast majority of netters? Again, Pat, it is you who appear foolishly naive here. The slippery slope is very real, the violation of the First Amendment in the CDA is also very real. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is not something to be set aside whenever it interferes with one's goals. Those who passed the Telecommunications Reform Bill containing the CDA have violated their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. This is a very serious problem, and not one to be taken lightly. > If they appear foolish to the majority of netters, the net is doomed. And so is freedom in the USA if the citizens don't start taking attacks on the US Constitution more seriously. >> I got a note from someone who said 'a lot of sites will vanish from >> the net probably as early as next week' ... and my response to that is >> GOOD. Let them vanish. I wonder who will miss them? PAT] This reminds me of the saying (the quote isn't exactly correct, but the idea comes across): "They came to take away the Jews, but I wasn't Jewish so I didn't protest. They came to take away the weak and infirm, but I wasn't weak or infirm so I didn't protest. They came to take away the elderly, but I wasn't old, so I didn't protest. When they came to take me away, there was no one left to protest!" > The Telecom Reform Bill may be an excellent piece of legislation in > other ways, but if they have to throw away Bill of Rights to do it, > I'd just as soon leave things the way they were. That's my perspective as well. Ideally, the censorship portions would be thrown out as Unconstitutional and the deregulation would be left intact. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well since there is 'no precise standard > for [indecent]', then how do the cable operators all manage to stay > out of jail? Because indecency isn't illegal on cable. > If I have an old television set here with a cable box and > I set it to the Spice Channel and then get in the back of the television > and warp the horizontal sync around to where the picture is mostly > viewable and then some minor sits here with me and watches the show, > is that the fault of the cable operator? Of course it's your fault in that case. But we aren't talking about logical responsibility here -- we're talking about what the statue says and how it could be interpreted in courts. > If parents do not supervise their children's use of Internet, is > that the service provider's fault or the fault of the author of the > message the child read? It's neither. It's the parent's fault for letting their child get run over on the information superhighway. Blaming either the ISP or the author of the message would argue to set the speed limit on highways to 5 miles an hour in case toddlers happen to crawl out onto the highway. The CDA places responsibility on both the ISP and the author, rather than on the parent, where it truly belongs. > All your melodrama about the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment > is bogus. It is not bogus. The First Amendment protects objectionable speech. You don't need protections for things everybody agrees with. It's exactly what people find objectionable (for whatever reason) that needs protections. The courts have ruled that "obscenity" is not protected under the First Amendment, nor is fraud or harassment, but most other forms of communication are protected. The CDA portion of the Telecom Reform Bill restricts Constitutionally protected speech using means that are not the least restrictive for a claimed compelling government purpose (protecting children). The "least restrictive means" test is precedent which is currently in effect, so this First Amendment violation is far from bogus. In fact, the US Justice department is the one who acknowledged the "least restrictive means" test and it's violation in the CDA several months ago when they were asked to review the proposed amendment (they were against it). They have also recently acknowledged the Unconstitutionality of the "abortion speech" portion of the statute. The "slippery slope" is very real. It is how democracies turn into dictatorships. The country which imposed the first censorship on the Internet was that paragon of freedom: Communist China. Your general opinions on the ACLU are non-sequitur. If you have specific disagreement with the argument in question here -- state them. But please read the ACLU's legal brief before doing so. You can find it under their "Cyber Liberties" link at http://www.aclu.org. Whether you agree with the ACLU on other issues is not relevant to the merits of this discussion. I don't agree with some things the ACLU has supported either, but I definitely agree with this one -- and so do about 20 other organizations that have joined the ACLU in their court challenge (including Clarinet, the providers of the most popular newsgroup on Usenet -- rec.humor.funny -- you can also read about the suit at http://www.clari.net/suitpage.html). > About ten years ago I was going to start a newsletter entitled 'ACLU > Watch' and invite attornies and others to dissect their opinions > closely. I didn't have the resources to do it at that time, and still > don't. I may need to make some sacrifices now and do it however. Until you do and lawyers provide specific legal arguments relevant to this case, the above is nothing but flame bait. It imparts no information relevant to this discussion. A judge has already considered the ACLU suit sufficiently meritorious that it has ordered the Justice department to not enforce the CDA statute for 7 days to allow sufficient time to determine whether a longer term restraining order should be in effect (until the Constitutionality can be ruled upon). John Diamant Software Engineering Systems Division Hewlett Packard Co. Internet: diamant@sde.hp.com Fort Collins, CO [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for letting us know you feel Jews and child pornographers are similarly situated, as per your gross distortion of Martin Neimoller's quote. What clarinet chooses to do could concern me less. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mhh001c@pdnis.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) Subject: Re: CDA (was Re: Telecom Deform and the Newspapers) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 16:41:59 EST Pat: I realize that no amount of arguing on this will change the minds of those with opposing views, but I would still like to point out a few things. While I agree that some (even a majority) of the cases that the ACLU has pursued over the years appear looney at best, I still feel better that there are people out there who take any perceived infringement of basic liberties *very* seriously. After all, who knows when middle-aged moderators of technical newsgroups may attract government scrutiny? :) As for the CDA, if it is as you say and nothing is now illegal that wasn't before, then what was the point? My own concern with the legislation is that it appears to apply broadcast standards to a non-broadcast medium, and my own inference from that is that the Federal government would like to be able to exert more control over an increasingly popular method of communication. I personally object *very* strongly to government intrusion into my own decision making process, however flawed it might be. Protect me from foreign enemies, protect me from street thugs, but please don't try to protect me from myself. And for those wanting to protect children, I have two words: parental responsibility. We already have volumes of laws to protect children from irresponsible, neglectful, or abusive parents. We have laws protecting them from other human trash as well. My own idea of raising children is instilling them with a sense of right and wrong, and monitoring where they go and how they spend their time. And adding a final prayer that I've done well enough that they do the right thing when I fail. One final note: it is perfectly legal and routine for a law enforcement officer to lie about his or her occupation during the course of an investigation. Otherwise, every undercover operation from street prostitution stings to major organized crime investigations would be thrown out of court. Entrapment is a defense that is rarely successfully used. Please excuse the rant, it's Monday and I'm feeling grouchy! M. Heflin Hogan III [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's okay; due to time zone differences it is Wednesday here in Realworld, and I am feeling meaner than ever myself this morning, having woke up and found my coffee pot did not start automatically on its timer for some reason. And then to log in and get another box full of mail like yesterday ... :( PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:10:05 -0800 From: nadaniel@earthlink.net (Dan Pock) Subject: Pat is Just Stubborn Pat, What is so messed up about the Internet that you should welcome Uncle Sam with such open arms? The Internet was evolving and growing beautifully as a private, unregulated entity before this recent regulation. If it is children that you are worried about then support legislation that holds parents accountable for what their children are doing. (We do that with loaded handguns. Why not with the Internet?) If it is your own sensibilities that you are worried about then don't access the porn pages. If the Internet is in such bad shape that we need the government to fix it then please enlighten me because I don't see it. There are already laws against distributing pornography to minors. Do we really need additional laws that specifically single out computers as a special no-no when breaking that law? That is the same as hate crimes. It is already illegal to beat someone to a pulp. What differnce does it make why you did it? -- Does the term, "Thought Control" come to mind? I have no love for bigotry or bigoted ideas. But battery is battery is battery. Likewise, child porn is child porn is child porn, whether it is on the Net or in a magazine. Either way it is illegal. That you never agree with the ACLU is interesting. I agree that they are often full of sh*t to say the least, but they are sometimes right on the money. (In my never-to-be-humble opinion.) One thing that I agree with the ACLU on is that the government should no have the right to regulate speech. The fact that they came out of the starting gate with an attempt to do exactly that, (regarding abortion), ought to be enough to snap you out of this stubborn position you are taking. Dan Pock [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To close this issue of the Digest I would like to wish Happy Valentines Day to all you sweethearts. It is a good thing this topic did not come up around the second Sunday in May ... when we honor motherhood. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #62 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 14 12:08:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA05650; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:08:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602141708.MAA05650@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #63 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Feb 96 12:08:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 63 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nynex Ignorant of Caller-Pays Cellular (Wm. Randolph Franklin) Artisoft Acquires Stylus Innovation (Bruce Pennypacker) Press/Citizens Telecom Selects Digital For Internet Products (M. Solomon) Product Announcement: TYIN2000 Voice Utilities (S. Amnon) Automated Phone Attendant / Voice Mail Recommendations (Robert L. Browne) New NPAs for Eastern Massachusetts (Scott D. Fybush) Beta Testers Wanted for Mac Voice/Fax Units (magnum@primenet.com) Re: Did the NetCensors Blow it? (David A Willmore) Actual Abortion language in CDA (Fred R. Goldstein) Indecency Prohibition in the Telecom Reform Act (Mike 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 public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Nynex Ignorant of Caller-Pays Cellular Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:21:49 GMT Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180 USA Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Having read in this group about the latest telecom land mine, caller-pays cellular, I called Nynex to see how to tell whether a number I was calling was one of those. The first person I called didn't understand what I was getting at. I called again, and got a really helpful person, who checked with her training supervisor and called me back. Unfortunately that person had never heard of this, and suggested to try a cellular company. I did, and got nowhere. This is a repeat of what happened when I tried to ask Nynex about 540 numbers a few years ago. If I, who am well informed by this group, can't get details, the average citizen hasn't a chance. How to stop these land mines: Make it easy for consumers to set them also. E.g., let me publish a legal notice in an Albany newspaper warning that anyone who calls me from anywhere in the world must pay me $10, plus me legal fees in collecting. This is no more ridiculous than a tariff in some distant place affecting me. Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:31:54 -0500 From: Bruce Pennypacker Organization: Stylus Innovation, Inc. Subject: Artisoft Acquires Stylus Innovation Contact: Curtis J. Scheel Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Voice: (520) 670-7163 Fax: (520) 670-7360 Internet: cscheel@artisoft.com ARTISOFT, INC. ACQUIRES STYLUS INNOVATION, INC. (TUCSON, AZ - February 13, 1996) - Artisoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASFT) today announced that it has acquired substantially all of the assets of Stylus Innovation, Inc., a leading developer of computer telephony software applications and tools based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Stylus is the developer of Visual Voice (R), Visual Fax (TM), and Otto (TM), a LAN-based auto-attendant, call control and voice messaging system. The assets were acquired in a cash transaction valued at approximately $12.8 million. William C. Keiper, Artisoft Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said, "The convergence of computer and telephone communications technologies creates a new paradigm for business communications and offers exciting new opportunities for providers of integrated solutions. The acquisition of Stylus Innovation immediately positions Artisoft as a leader in the growing computer telephony market. Coupled with our current and future product offerings in the networking and remote communications markets, we have a unique opportunity to deliver integrated workgroup solutions." Mr. Keiper further stated, "Artisoft has accomplished a comprehensive transformation of its business and strategic focus over the past year. The acquisition of computer telephony technologies and products is another step in our strategy of broadening our technology portfolio, expanding our product offerings and leveraging our distribution channels." Michael Cassidy, President of Stylus Innovation, added, "Stylus is one of the pioneers of component-based telephony application development tools. Visual Voice was the first Windows(R)-based software component for computer telephony solutions. Accessing Artisoft's wholesale distribution and VAR channels, as well as retail shelf space, provides opportunities for expanding Stylus Innovation's product reach into new markets." The Stylus Innovation transaction will be accounted for as a purchase. A substantial portion of the $12.8 million purchase price (principally attributable to in-process technology and acquisition-related costs), will be charged to operations in the current fiscal quarter. Artisoft leads the industry in providing easy-to-use, affordable networking, remote communications and computer telephony solutions for businesses. Chosen by over 4 million users worldwide to connect and share computer resources, Artisoft solutions include the award- winning LANtastic family of networking products, Modem Assist Plus(R) modem and phone line sharing products, and CoSession(TM) remote access software. The company maintains nine offices outside the United States, and distributes its products in more than 100 countries. ### "Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This release may contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive products and pricing, product demand and market acceptance risks, the presence of competitors with greater financial resources, product development and commercialization risks, capacity and supply constraints or difficulties, the results of financing efforts and other risks detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Stylus Innovation, Inc. Backgrounder Stylus Innovation, Inc., headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was founded in 1990, and is dedicated to the development of easy-to- use applications and toolkits for computer telephony. Stylus markets software and outsourced hardware products used in a variety of telephony applications including Interactive Voice Response (IVR), fax-on-demand, and voice mail. Stylus pioneered the concept of component-based software in the telephony industry. Stylus introduced Windows(R)-based development, an industry standard language (Visual Basic(TM)), and a no-runtime fee policy to the telephony world. Stylus Innovation's award-winning products provide host, database, and network connectivity to telephony application developers by leveraging the strengths of Visual Basic and the Visual Basic third-party developer community. Late in 1993, Stylus launched Visual Voice(R) which rapidly became the leading Windows telephony development tool in the industry. Visual Voice is a software toolkit that allows developers to easily build sophisticated PC-based telephony applications such as interactive voice response, voice mail, fax-on-demand, and automated outbound dialing. Visual Voice has won numerous industry awards including Computer Telephony Product of the Year, Byte Magazine Award of Excellence, Windows Magazine Win 100, and Visual Basic Programmer's Journal Readers' Choice. Dataquest ranked Stylus at #2 in market share (9.6%) of IVR systems shipped in North America in 1994, just behind AT&T (11.3%). In 1995, Stylus released Otto(TM), a sophisticated network-based voice mail, auto-attendant, and call control product. Otto provides many powerful features including call screening, unified messaging, and graphical system administration. Stylus products enable advanced telephony solutions for workgroups in businesses of all sizes. Stylus' customers include Fortune 500 companies such as Boeing, Cigna, DEC, Merck, NBC, Sony, US Air, Xerox and more than 25% of the Fortune 1000. Artisoft, Inc. All rights reserved. Modem Assist Plus is a registered trademark, and Co-Session is a trademark of Artisoft, Inc. Visual Voice is a registered trademark, and Visual Fax and Otto are trademarks of Stylus Innovation, Inc. Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 02:26:56 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Press/Citizens Telecom Selects Digital For Internet Products Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: |||||| Digital Press and Analysts News |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: Howard Sholkin Digital Equipment Corporation (508) 496-9474 howard.sholkin@ogo.mts.dec.com Brigid M. Smith Citizens Utilities (203) 329-5042 bsmith@czn.com CITIZENS TELECOM SELECTS DIGITAL FOR INTERNET PRODUCTS AND SERVICES MAYNARD, Mass. and STAMFORD, Conn., February 13, 1996 -- Digital Equipment Corporation of Maynard, Mass. today announced it has been selected to begin deployment of Internet-related hardware and software for Citizens Telecom, a telecommunications company with operations in 11 states. Citizens Telecom is a subsidiary of Citizens Utilities Company headquartered in Stamford, Conn. Phase One of the project, scheduled to be completed next month, covers Gloversville, NY; Elk Grove, CA; and Cookeville, TN. All Citizens Telecom customers in these areas will be offered dial-up and dedicated leased line Internet access for a fee. Digital's Network Services group is providing consulting and integration services for the three locations. Upon the successful completion of Phase One, Citizens Telecom plans to deploy Internet services in its other markets. "Many of our customers are telling us that they want an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that offers toll-free access to Internet-based services," stated Ronald E. Spears, vice president of Telecommunica- tions for Citizens Utilities. "Digital's Internet expertise allows us to meet that demand quickly and effectively through a state-of-the-art network." Digital is planning, designing and installing the required network that will enable Citizens Telecom to offer services such as Internet access, electronic mail, and news and web hosting for businesses. Digital will also provide interim help desk support for customers. The networked computing environment includes Digital's AlphaServers, Bay Networks routers, and Motorola's integrated access servers. "This is a significant agreement for Digital because it demonstrates our ability to provide a total Internet solution; from Digital servers to third-party products, with the integration services to make it all work and keep it running," said Peter Hussey, Americas vice president, Digital Network Services. "Digital's experience dates to the 1970's when the Internet's predecessor, the ARPAnet, was developed with a PDP computer. Both our Internet and networking heritage provide the foundation for the full range of capabilities that we are using to support Citizens Telecom as it becomes an industry leader for Internet services." Mr. Spears remarked, "Citizens intends to offer customers Internet services and support of a quality unmatched by any local ISP today. We bring to this endeavor more than 60 years of experience in telephony, the strongest commitment to customer satisfaction, and the belief that our Internet services will add value to Citizens Telecom's portfolio of products and services." Citizens Utilities (NYSE: CZNA, CZNB) is a diversified service company providing telecommunications services, natural gas distribution, electric distribution, and water and wastewater treatment services to 1.6 million customers in 19 states. Citizens has a significant investment in Centennial Cellular Corp., a cellular telephone company, and owns and operates Electric Lightwave, Inc., a competitive telecommunications services provider operating in five major cities in the western United States. Through Citizens Telecom, Citizens provides local exchange, long distance, cellular, messaging, network access, Centrex and related service in 11 states. Digital Equipment Corporation is the world's leader in open client/server solutions from personal computing to integrated worldwide information systems. Digital's scalable Alpha platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together with industry- focused solutions from business partners, help organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. #### Note: Digital and the Digital logo are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. Bay Networks is a trademark of Bay Networks. Motorola is a trademark of Motorola Corporation. The Digital home page is http://www.digital.com. The Citizens home page is http://www.czn.net. ------------------------------ From: amnons@actcom.co.il (Amnon S.) Subject: Product Announcement: TYIN2000 Voice Utilities Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:33:26 GMT We are pleased to announce the release of advanced utilities for the NATSEMI TYIN2000 DSP FAX/DATA/VOICE modem. Although a few years old and not marketed agressively anymore, the TYIN DSP FAX/DATA/VOICE modem is still considered one of the best (sound quality and reliability, although the bundled S/W lacks some _flashy_ features popular today) modems available at a reasonable price, both by users and developers. If you need a low cost, good sounding and reliable PC based voicemail system, the TYIN is a real gem. Due to it's on board DSP, CPU requirements are low and even a 386-SX/25 is sufficient (good use for all those 386-SX's lying around ... in fact that's what we're using). Most popular modems today require at least a 486 CPU due to heavy PC PC bandwidth required. The initial release includes a utility enabling using any WAV editor program (and some are quite powerful) for creating your custom OGM (Out-Going Message) and importing it into any TYIN2000 mailbox OGM. This utility enables creating a professional OGM with advanced features such as: 1. High quality music. 2. Absolute silence (impossible to do with the bundled product). 3. Special effects. 4. No Analaog noise addition during editing process. 5. Editing (cutting and pasting) available voice sequences as needed for specific mailboxes. Some further notes: 1. A demo is available. We would be pleased to send interested parties a FREE demo for evaluation (TRY before you BUY concept ...) via email until our web site is up and running. 2. S/W will be low cost. Certainly a cheaper and more RELIABLE solution for anyone searching for a simple and reliable voicemail system (let alone someone already owning a TYIN2000 modem). 3. Future products will include export and import of TYIN2000 PCM (outgoing messages) and PC4 (incoming messages) formats to WAV or other popular formats (useful for editing or archiving an available OGM or ICM to your needs). 4. We have even developed a VOICE broadcast application, although currently it is not suitable for marketting (it runs under DOS). for further info or a FREE demo. please email us directly at: Innovative_Technologies@actcom.co.il ------------------------------ From: Robert L. Browne Subject: Automated Phone Attendant / Voice Mail References Wanted Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:32:54 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA I am looking for an affordable, reliable automated phone attendant / voice mail system for my law office, compatible with Panasonic phones. Any suggestions or recommendations out there? Any evaluations or comparisons out there? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: New NPAs for Eastern Massachusetts Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 22:26:27 EST It's official: NYNEX has reserved 781 for 617 (greater Boston, expected to exhaust in 1998) and 978 for 508 (surrounding area, expected to exhaust in 1999). NYNEX wants overlays for both. An overlay would make sense in the dense 617 area, roughly a 10-mile radius around downtown Boston. IMHO, a geographic split would make more sense in the large 508 area, which stretches more than a hundred miles in a "C" shape from the NH line around to Cape Cod. Using the Mass Pike as a divider would yield a new, smaller 508 encompassing the Worcester, Fitchburg, Concord, Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill and Salem areas; and a new 978 encompassing Framingham, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, Plymouth, and the Cape and Islands. BTW, a check of www.bellcore.com shows a "757" NPA listed for Virginia. Anyone know anything about this one? Also, I note that the new 268 code for Antigua spells out "ANT," and the new 758 code for St. Lucia spells "SLU." Clever... Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The new area code for the north suburbs of Chicago is 847 which spells out VIP, or Very Important Person (People). Ameritech has been pushing the 'VIP' thing in their advertising. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Magnum@Primenet.com (Skot) Subject: Beta Testers Wanted for Mac Voice/Fax Units Date: 14 Feb 1996 07:09:01 -0700 Organization: magnum We are about to release TFLX Special Editions -- a turnkey telephony system which is very easy to use, has excellent voice, and superior features. In addition to voice mail, info centers, and fax in/out -- it also has robotic Fax on Demand and Caller ID capabilities. It is compatible with the voice/fax Zoom modem for the Mac and other modems which utilize the Rockwell voice chip set. To be considered for Beta Tester requires you have ... Any Mac from the Plus on up. Any Mac system from 6.0.4 to latest system/finder versions. HD with 4 megs free. Memory. 2.5 megs free. A voice/fax modem as described above. The system is solid, tested and ready to go. However, we just tweaked a couple things and they while work fine, our policy is to have as wide a base of folks Beta testing all such revisions. So we are looking for a few users who might care to help. If you are interested please email us and we shall get back with all the details. Thank you for your time. Magnum S/W Corp. magnum@primenet.com CUS:74156,1433 Phone: (818)701-5051 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:11:46 -0600 From: David A Willmore Subject: Re: Did the NetCensors Blow it? ROGOR@delphi.com writes: [... preamble deleted ...] > I will address the specific sections of the CDA in question below: > Section 502 (1) (omitting the paragraphs dealing with telephone > harassment) provides for fines or imprisonment for anyone who: > "(1) in interstate or foreign communications- > "(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly- > "(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and > "(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, > suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, > lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, > threaten, or harass an other person;" [... deleted ...] I find interesting the use of the verb 'initiates'. The sender of an FTP or HTTP transmission is not the 'initiater' of the transmission. The FTP or HTTP client is the requester and, hence, initiates the transmission. This, also, may be a loop-hole. Cheers, David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 02:23:12 -0500 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Actual Abortion Language in CDA I wondered about this alleged abortion speech rider inserted by Mister Hyde, and scanned the text of S652 and didn't see it. But thanks to a recent issue of the Digest, I checked Cornell's LII and did some more searching. Here's what there is: >SEC. 507. CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT LAWS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OF > OBSCENE MATERIALS THROUGH THE USE OF COMPUTERS. > (a) IMPORTATION OR TRANSPORTATION- Section 1462 of title 18, >United States Code, is amended-- > (1) in the first undesignated paragraph, by inserting `or > interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) > of the Communications Act of 1934)' after `carrier'; and > (2) in the second undesignated paragraph-- > (A) by inserting `or receives,' after `takes'; > (B) by inserting `or interactive computer service (as > defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of > 1934)' after `common carrier'; and > (C) by inserting `or importation' after `carriage'. Real clear, right? The reference is to S1462 of Title 18, which is apparently where the Comstock Act is codified: 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters > Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the >jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common >carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce - ... > (c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended >for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written >or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice >of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of >whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things >may be obtained or made; or Whoever knowingly takes from such express >company or other common carrier any matter or thing the carriage of which >is herein made unlawful - Pretty broad stuff, no? Indeed, I am technically violating the CDA by saying that press reports have recently shown that Methotrexate, a commonly used anti-cancer chemotherapy agent, can be used to safely induce early-term abortion, in conjunction with other readily-available hormones and treatments, essentially like RU486 but already approved for general use in the USA. Never mind that this is just my recollection of a WCVB-TV report, and it might even have been on their web site. Yes, Bill Clinton has said that his administration considers that whole clause to be nugatory and they will not enforce it. But this is an election year. Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ Subject: Indecency Prohibition in the Telecom Reform Act Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:19:36 CST From: Mike Chance Pat, As a moderate conservative (politically speaking), I, too, am appalled by much of what the porn industry pumps out in the various media. However, I don't believe that the Exon amendment provisions in the TRA are either necessary nor wise. There are currently on the books several enforcable laws which have already passed Constitutional muster with regard to the distribution of obscene material to minors, child pornography, and other related topics. While the issues of which "community standards" of obscenity apply to the Internet, and how, are still part of an ongoing debate, the necessary legal tools are already in place. My concern with the Exon amendment is that it prohibits "indecent" speech when "knowingly" directed at minors. This sets a much lower threshold than previous law, and treads dangerously close, if not steps over, the First Amendment protections. Under current law, I can use "indecent" speech when conversing face-to-face with a minor and break no laws. I can give that minor a Rubens or Michelangelo painting, a Shakespeare comedy, "Huckleberry Finn" or "Catcher in the Rye", all of which could be considered "indecent". Yet now, under the provision of the TRA, I can no longer send those same pictures or text to that same minor via e-mail, make them available on a public FTP or Web site, or post them to an unmoderated newsgroup or discussion list, without being possibly subjected to jail time and fines of thousands of dollars. Personally, I fail to see the difference in the situations based solely on the means of transmission. How is one method acceptable, and the other, not? I agree that those who deliberately shove obscene and pornographic material to minors should be prosecuted fully. But other laws already exist to handle these cases, without the restrictions on legally protected speech imposed by the Exon amendment. Michael A. Chance [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you can't really use indecent speech lawfully when communicating face-to-face with a minor. Are you trying to say that if you were to go up to a child and engage in a conversation which began, "Will you come to my home and have sex with me?" -- whether or not you later engaged in such an act -- that your conversation would be lawful and protected by freedom of speech? I'll suggest you might quite legally get arrested for having made an indecent solicitation to a minor. What about if you merely ask a minor, "would you like to join me privately and have some beer to drink" ? Do you think you will get out of jail free on that one also? After all, it was merely speech. How about if I am sitting in the park one Sunday afternoon (as Gene Spafford once described Usenet) and show some indecent photographs or literature to youngsters who are there also? All I did was exercise my free speech rights ... I'm innocent of any crime, right? Why then should posing such comments or visual images to a minor on the Internet be different? In fact it is not different. People are saying that somehow because the Internet is so different and so special; that because it is so difficult to effectively govern its lawful use, therefore no attempts should be made at all. It is my hope that as the Court listens to arguments on this in the weeks and months to come that the Court will permit a wide variety of arguments pro and con the legislation. The Justices are like the general population: they are not exactly what I would term 'computer- literate' and I am really afraid the ACLU and EFF are going to give them a snow job and send them off the deep end on this. They are going to overwhelm the Court with a lot of jargon and excuses about the technical side of networking and lead the Court to falsely believe there is no solution short of the draconian (and I agree some people might legitimatly see it that way) CDA. The Court will have enough appreciation and respect for the Bill of Rights (as I think we all do) and respond based on the false and misleading representations of the ACLU and others. I sincerely hope before the Court makes its final judgment on this it will call on the expert testimony and witness of a wide spectrum of netters, and not just rely on what one organization which its own agenda has to say. I hope someone will step forward to the Court and present unbiased *facts* about the net. I'd like to see there eventually develop the role of 'omsbudsman' between the Internet and the government. A sort of 'ambasssador' perhaps as exists between nations. Hopefully over the next couple decades as people everywhere become computer-literate, such a role would no longer be necessary, but in the meantime it would serve to balance the rights of everyone. I guess that's probably too much to ask. As Royko pointed out in his column yesterday, a relatively few netters will make such a god-awful noisy stink the CDA will be ruled unconstitutional, and once again everyone loses but the bad guys, a trend which is becoming distressingly common in the United States of the late twentieth century. The ACLU/EFF has gotten in the first round of shots on this. Let's not allow them to take over the net. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #63 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 14 15:21:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA24630; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:21:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:21:29 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602142021.PAA24630@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #64 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Feb 96 13:55:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 64 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Market Study: New Internet Service (Francois Legault) Excel Rates (John R. Levine) Re: Kids and Rotary Phones (John Agosta) Re: Kids and Rotary Phones (Bill Garfield) Re: MLM vs Outside Sales Agents (Tom Zinn) Re: Massachusetts Area Code Overlays (Bob Goudreau) Re: Trademarks and Copyrights (Tony Harminc) Re: Trademarks and Copyrights (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Generations of Engineers (Donald MacDonald) Re: Ameritech Cellular Brownouts (C. Wheeler) Re: California Finally Gets CID (Gordon Wilson) Re: Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 (Linc Madison) Re: No Overlay in Houston, TX (Dave Levenson) Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes (Eric Smith) Re: Imponderables About Telephones (Daniel Maverick Falkoff) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: flegault@laurentides.mtl.net (Francois Legault) Subject: Market Study: New Internet Service Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:13:05 -0500 Organization: Canadian E-Mail Postal Service To non-North American e-Mail Users: I prepared a bilingual questionnaire about a new service I want to offer on the internet. If you want to help me I will greatly appreciate. I would need as much responses as possible as soon as possible. This questionnaire can be fowarded to non-North American e-mail users; send it to overseas friends or friends that knows overseas users. Thank you for your collaboration. :-) =======SURVEY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW INTERNET SERVICE========= The "Canadian E-Mail Postal Service" firm is installing a new service on the internet network. As it's name suggests, the service in question is a postal service exclusively linked to electronic-mail. It enables all e-mail users to send messages and files (including photos and graphics) for a minimum cost to any person or firm having a civic address in Canada. The network will soon spread worldwide with the establishment of service centers in several countries. The firm actually prints the mail and fowards it directly to the person it is addressed to via Canada Post. The advantages are: the speed of reception (from two to three days for mail no matter where it is sent from), all persons with a civic address become accessible by way of e-mail, the cost to use this service is minimal compared to overseas long distance telephone services, the user does not have to go out to send his or her message. If you would please like to take the time to answer these questions, this survey will be of great use to adjust the service to the needs of e-mail users. In return you will be noticed when the service will be active and be able to try it once for free. Please return this questionnaire by February 22. QUESTIONS: 1- Would you use the electronic postal mail service describe above ? > 2- how much would you be willing to pay to send some mail (the equivalent of a letter of up to 3 pages) ? > 3- At "Canadian E-Mail Postal Service" the confidentiality of the mail is guaranteed. Nevertheless, would you be willing to let us print and send your personal mail ? > 4- What country do you live in ? > 5- In which countries would you use this service to send mail to ? > Thank you very much for your collaboration. Please foward this questionnaire to your e-mail friends, thank you. Please return the completed questionnaire to the e-mail address below. flegault@laurentides.mtl.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:07:55 EST From: John R Levine Subject: Excel Rates FYI, here are Excel's actual rates quoted to me by an Excel distributor. The E-to-E rate applies when one Excel customer is calling another. Regular E-to-E Day: 21.6 15.5 Evenings: 11.8 8.5 Nights/Weekends: 10.4 7.5 Assuming a 50/50 split of day and night traffic, and disregarding the E-to-E rate since under 2% of the people one might want to call are Excel customers, this comes out to about 16 cents/minute. I can see that this is a great deal for an Excel salesman, but it's not clear to me why I would want to buy long distance service at these prices. (Indeed, aren't Candice's Sprint Sense rates a little lower than this?) By comparison, non-MLM companies have been quoting me rates of 12.5 cents/min and below. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well John, the reason for the rates are that in an MLM scheme, there are so many people who have to get cut in for a piece of the action. Everyone in the upline and downline gets a penny or two of that. You don't think the prime source (the telco actually handling the traffic) is going to pay it do you? That is the reason prepaid calling cards are so expensive per minute of use. The originating telco gets a few cents per minute of traffic as always. Then the wholesaler of the prepaid card adds on a little for himself. Each of his distributors get something. The local 7/Eleven store where you buy the card needs to make a profit also. The sucker who eventually winds up using it pays about fifty cents per minute or more. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) Subject: Re: Kids and Rotary Phones Date: 14 Feb 1996 01:50:11 GMT Organization: Agosta and Associates In article , grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) says: >> What does 'clockwise' mean to someone who's seen only digital clocks? And "tie your shoes" to someone who has only seen velcro ? ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: Re: Kids and Rotary Phones Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:08:27 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net On 13 Feb 1996 20:07:17 GMT, Seymour Dupa wrote: > Mike Wengler (wengler@ee.rochester.edu) wrote: >> I wonder if there are words *we* use for which we've forgotten the >> real meaning. > What does 'clockwise' mean to someone who's seen only digital clocks? What does 'dial off-normal contact' mean to someone who's seen only tone dial pads? :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You could take this even further to include phrases like 'dialtone' or 'dial seven digits'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 09:19:14 EST From: Tom Zinn Subject: Re: MLM vs Outside Sales Agents Pat: > If you want to be in the long distance resale business it is far > better to do so directly as an agent for a carrer not via downlines > or uplines. I think "far better" is overstated, Pat. Let's say the 'Joe' off the street is looking for an opportunity to spend a couple hundred bucks to 'tap in' to the fastest growing industry in America. He finds a company who will provide for him solid, dependable and highly competitive long distance service that will allow him to build an organization of other 'customer gatherers' interested in the same thing, which in turn brings in thousands of customers and give him/her (and each of the individuals) the opportunity to be paid a percentage of thousands of customer's monthly LDU while those customers save say, 30 to 50 percent on each and every LD call that they make...without the person having to do much more than share the opportunity (both for the business or the service) with friends and business associates ... all this accomplished in his/her spare time. Can this be far worse than making the kind of commitment necessary to actually become a full-time agent for a long distance reseller? Especially when the company is growing at 400% annually, has a zero dollar advertising budget, is going public with its stock and has an extremely loyal customer base? Sounds like a pretty good deal. zinnt@ncr.disa.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:50:06 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Massachusetts Area Code Overlays jgrossi@bbn.com (John Grossi) writes: > Well today's {Boston Globe} has a nice article on how NYNEX is going > to propose before the Public Utilites Commission, in about two months, > splitting 617 (Boston and the inner 'burbs) and 508 (the rest of the > 'burbs, Worcester, Lowell, and New Bedford). ... not to mention all of Cape Code and the islands. > The plan calls for > overlay codes ... but with a new twist. They are going to be seven > digit dialing unless you want the other area code. What's the new twist here? Isn't this how the only active overlay NPA (917 in New York City) already works? AFAIK, nobody in the NANP has mandatory 10-digit dialing yet; the proposal to introduce it in Houston in conjunction with an overlay NPA was recently scrapped in favor of a traditional geographic split. > Considering the stinks made on the south shore last time the area > codes were split. I have a feeling we are going to see another > geographic split. I agree. State PUCs and the general public don't seem too wild about the overlay concept. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 10:59:42 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Trademarks and Copyrights bear@hic.net (Bill Blackwell) wrote: > Why not have the Bureau of Patents and Trademarks take over for > InterNIC? Sice they have the records at their disposal, one could > avoid what could possibly turn into a horrendous amount of litigation > by letting the people who know how to do it, do the up-front work. > Then, just like TM's and SM's, one would pay a periodic fee to "re-up" > the domain name. Taken from here, someone usurping "moderation" > (aberration) of a newsgroup could then be held liable for the > copyright violation under existing law. (Not to mention theft ...) > Would this be a feasible arrangement? Well, it might be if the Internet existed only in the USA. But many of us are in other countries, where US patent and trademark law does not apply. If the "authorities" are going to get involved in network names, then clearly it must be done at a level higher than any national government. For all the bad press it gets, I can't think of any body more suitable then the UN. Tony H. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or possibly the ITU would be a good choice as administrator. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Trademarks and Copyrights Date: 14 Feb 1996 07:57:52 -0600 In article , wrote: > There currently exists problems in registering domain names that > conflict with trademarks, service marks and copyrights owned by other > entities. When you register "Paul's PanAm Posters" with your state government, they don't have to check if any of those three words is a trademark. It is up to you to get the proper permission for any trademarks you're going to use. The registration agency should not have to do research or check your spelling. You might state that you have permission to use any protected marks, and the agency may have ways to deal with conflicts, but they can't know if you really do have permission. For that matter, even if you have permission, you might later lose that permission. The InterNIC only needs to deal with registrations, and have procedures to deal with conflicts. Note that a "conflict" might involve an abandoned domain, or it might involve a court battle where the InterNIC just has to deal with a court order. > Why not have the Bureau of Patents and Trademarks take over for InterNIC? Does every Shugart Disk Shop pay the Bureau? No, the owners of Shugart have their protected mark and the Shugart Disk Shops pay whatever fees their contract with Shugart require. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Donald MacDonald <100731.3464@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Generations of Engineers Date: 14 Feb 1996 09:39:55 GMT Organization: Communications Workers Union (UK) I was very taken with the pride that Jane Fraser's dad had in his job. This is, I believe, pretty typical of the commitment to service of generations of telephone engineers and technicians. Do the phone companies ever stop to think about who made them great? Who made the big bucks for them? Donald MacDonald CWU (UK) http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dmacdonald ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Ameritech Cellular Brownouts Date: 14 Feb 1996 17:06:23 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA Super-User wrote: > My question is "what makes roamers more of a source of fraud than > local customers?" I thought that almost all fraud is either `lost' > phone fraud or capture of either ESN -- telephone-number pair or ESN -- > telephone-number -- PIN triple fraud. Either of these sources of fraud > does not seem to be any worse a source of fraud for a roamer than a > local customer and may be less of a source of fraud. > During my exposure to AMPS at AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill, admittedly > light on the fine details, I gathered the impression that as part of > the setting up of roaming the host system obtained verification of the > validity of the ESN -- telephone-number pair from the native system. > If this verification is not being done at the time that roaming is > being set up and rather is handled during the billing process, then I > can see why roamers might be a significant source of fraud. On many systems, appearing as a roamer is an easy way to make a fraudulent call or two. ESN/phone numbers are not always verified right away and if you look like your are from a cooperating system, you can sometimes get a few calls through before you get blocked. I would hope that Ameritech has a some alternate method of allowing roaming in these areas. Perhaps automatic roaming has to be restricted but you should be able to call *something and activate roaming. If not, Ameritech would lose my business as well. Curtis [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So far as I know, and based on what the rep told me, Ameritech customers can automatically roam (or be located automatically) in any Ameritech market. You need not do anything at all to activate roaming however you can de-activate it if desired with *19. However if you choose to de-activate it then you have two ways of reactivating it: You can use *18 for the old 'Fast Track' system (which automatically cancels each night) or you can turn the phone off and after a short time turn it back on again in which case the nearest tower sees you and starts the automatic roaming process all over again. This only applies to Ameritech customers traveling in the five state region of Ameritech cellular service. I don't know how they handle roamers outside their territory who enter or their own customers who go elsewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gw@cdc.hp.com (Gordon Wilson) Subject: Re: California Finally Gets CID Date: 14 Feb 1996 11:21:38 GMT Organization: HP Integrated Circuit Business Division, Palo Alto, CA Bruce Roberts (bruce.roberts@panasia.com) wrote: > From the "Briefly" column, Business section, {Los Angeles Times}, 1 Feb- > ruary 1996. Finally!!!!!!! Is there an address where I can vent my frustrations? I suppose it is the Public Utilities Commission. Oh, I am in California. Thanks, gordon ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 Reply-To: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:39:15 GMT Charles Cremer (71231.2206@compuserve.com) wrote: > As already reported by Chris Boone, the Texas Public Utility > Commission has decided that the 972 and 281 areas will be implemented > as geographic splits. I guess this will probably put to rest any thoughts of the long-rumored overlay of 817. No date was ever set for that monstrosity, but it would be absurd to overlay 817 without doing a split first. > One additional fact is worth mentioning: > The commission requested that two additional new areas -- one for > Dallas and one for Houston -- should be applied for immediately. > These would be implemented as overlays for wireless service only. Something *sensible* from a state PUC! I wonder what their answer is to the charges of "discrimination on class of service" that the wireless providers used to block similar plans in places like Chicago. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: No Overlay in Houston, TX Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:53:16 GMT Jeff Brielmaier (jeff.brielmaier@yob.com) writes: > Well folks, Houston TX will NOT have an overlay plan after all. ... > The 6PM newscast indicate that there will be seven-digit dialing within > each AC and ten-digit dialing for 713<->281 dialing. They also > indicate that because of geographic split, it is possible a third AC may > have to be added shortly (they will have more hearings on this), and > in four to seven years there will be another geographic split due to > lack for phone numbers. If they'd implement 1 + ten digits, rather than ten digits between area codes, it would probably delay the future splits by adding approximately 180 possible prefixes per area code. Why are they not doing this? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:45:00 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: Domain Hijacking, InterNIC Loopholes On 13 Feb 1996, storpis@crl.com (Sharif Torpis) said: > Tsutomu Shimomura's book-related site www.takedown.com got renamed to > www.takendown.com by a bogus request to the InterNIC. No computers > involved. Just a social-engineered voice call to Network Solutions. Yes, and the Network Solutions Inc. spokesman had the gall to brag that it was OK because no hackers were involved and their computer security had not been breached. In reality this is the worst and most insidious type of breach of computer security. At least they have proposed a means to prevent future occurences of this problem by using digital signatures to authenticate the identity of requesters: ftp://rs.internic.net/policy/internic/internic-gen-1.txt Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ From: dmf@c-c.com (Daniel Maverick Falkoff) Subject: Re: Imponderables About Telephones Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:44:16 GMT Organization: Claflin & Clayton > 3. Why are there no windows in many telephone company buildings? (Are > these all central offices? Are there telco buildins with many employees > that are also windowless?) I've been thinbking about a comical horror movie using that fact. (some secret evil activity inside, such as canibalism). Don't forget the evil Phone Company plot in 'The President's Analyst'. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #64 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Feb 14 17:31:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA08069; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:31:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:31:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602142231.RAA08069@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #65 TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Feb 96 17:31:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 65 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course on Wired and Wireless Networking (Bill Goodin) My Clock Needs Cleaning (TELECOM Digest Editor) Cheyenne Bitware (Erik Wust) Livingston Portmaster and ISDN (Alex M.) Seiko Pager and Watch Combined! Too Cool! (Michael Wengler) Re: Nynex Ignorant of Caller-Pays Cellular (Robert Virzi) Re: Dialogic Drivers/Header Files Needed (Les Reeves) Re: Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 (Edmund C. Hack) Re: The Right to an Address? (Joel M. Snyder) Re: Massachusetts Area Code Overlays (Bill Ranck) LAN Interface Specifications (Doug Day) Nokia RC58/DC58 References Needed (Antonio Sousa) Re: Juvenile Bomb Plot Plans Came from Internet (Rick Williamson) Re: V&H Coordinate to Lat Long Tool? (Michael S. Berlant) Re: Southern New England Telephone (Ed Ellers) Re: Not Taught at Harvard: Multilevel Marketing (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: BGoodin@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (Goodin, Bill) Organization: UCLA Extension Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:07:19 -0800 Subject: UCLA Short Course on Wired and Wireless Networking On May 20-24, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Wireless and Wired Telecommunications Networking", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Izhak Rubin, PhD, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Michael A. Erlinger, PhD, Professor, Department of Computer Science, Harvey Mudd College. This course presents the integration of communication, switching, networking, traffic, service, computer engineering, and management principles, and highlights continuing trends in telecommunications network technologies, architectures, planning, management, evaluation and design. Elements essential to the implementation and control of cost-effective, reliable, and responsive telecommunication networks are thoroughly discussed. Key networking implementations and experimentations are presented and evaluated. Test cases involving multimedia networking over FDDI, Ethernet, Token-Ring, TDMA, ALOHA, Wireless, internetworked packet-switched networks, and B-ISDN ATM networks are demonstrated using the IRI Planyst program. Specific topics include: network fundamentals; narrow-band and broadband ISDN services; communication and network protocols; multi-access algorithms, schemes and protocols; local area networks; internetworking; high-speed fiber-optic local area networks; high-speed metropolitan area networks; networking methods for cellular wireless networks; network management; ATM network protocols and architectures; ATM switch architectures; traffic, flow and congestion control by ATM wide area networks; and ultra high-speed communications networks. The course is designed for communications, computer, telecommunications, and system engineers; managers; system analysts; project leaders and scientists. The course fee is $1495, which includes all course materials. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:12:18 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: My Clock Needs Cleaning One of my old Western Union clocks -- a rather large one -- has gotten very cranky in recent days. It began running *very* slow which I first attributed to a change in the weather and the pendulum needing some adjustment. I regulated it a little, completely re-wound it manually and restarted it. Now it runs for irregular periods of time and then stops completely. That is, it may run for 30-45 minutes then the escapement drags a little, the fingers on the top of the pendulum cannot clear their position and it stops. I'll restart it and it may only go for two or three minutes and stop again. On the next occassion, it may run an hour or so. It looks to me like perhaps it needs some cleaning and I wonder what is best to use? This particular clock works has been traced back to about 1900 based on the serial number, so I suppose I cannot complain too much if it is time to give it a decent burial but it would be a shame if all it needs is a good oiling and cleaning. (Like your Moderator from time to time when he gets cranky and stubborn.) I have (or had) the pendulum so finely adjusted on this and the leveling done so well that the clock literally stays within about a minute per month even without a setting circuit. This clock has been in my possession and running for almost thirty years in various locations. Prior to me giving it a good home, it was on the wall in the lobby of the Chicago Temple Building downtown for probably forty years. Where it was before that I do not know. This one is in a brown metal case, and my other WU clock in a wooden case was on the wall in the lunchroom of the old Board of Education Building downtown for about thirty years before I obtained it also about thirty years ago. The one in the wooden case works fine except it is rather noisy when it rewinds itself; if necessary I will sacrifice it and swap the works with the cabinet, face and hands of the other which I like better. I sure hope I don't have to though. As a worst case scenario, I will buy a new modern set of works somewhere and try to retrofit the inside with it. Ideas and suggestions welcome. Anyone have any spare works for WU clocks they don't need (that is, extra works but no cases, etc)? PAT ------------------------------ From: erik.wust@easy.nl (Erik Wust) Subject: Cheyenne Bitware Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:25:33 +0100 Organization: EasyBoard Venray - +31-478-512484 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone will kindly translate this for me and other readers. PAT] Onlangs zag ik een demonstratie van Cheyenne Bitware, een mooi telecom programma voor computer assisted telefoon beantwoorden. Het programma was vrij meegeleverd bij een gekocht modem .... ik kan de bron verder niet achterhalen... kan iemand mij helpen aan een adres waar ik deze software kan downloaden / kopen ? Bij voorbaat dank voor reactie, vr. gr. Erik Wust e-mail: erik.wust@easy.nl fax: 0497-518349 Internet: erik.wust@easy.nl (Erik Wust) EasyBoard Venray V.34: +31 478 512484 Patersstraat 19c ISDN 64kbit data: +31 478 550003 5801 AT Venray Office fax: +31 478 511868 The Netherlands Office voice: +31 478 588454 ------------------------------ From: alexm@taz.fn.net (Alex M.) Subject: Livingston Portmaster and ISDN Date: 14 Feb 1996 18:35:14 GMT Organization: Feist Connections I am having problems getting ISDN to work with our unix servers through Livingston Portmaster terminal servers. At 64kbps everything works fine, but that is as high as it goes. When attempting to go 112kbps bonded, it doesn't work, all I get is garbage. Going directly from pc to pc over ISDN, we've been able to do the full 112kbps (128 won't work becuase of the hardware and software limitations of the PC) with no problems. But when we hook it up to the portmaster, which is supposed to be able to handle up to 115200bps, it will not work with the port speed set to 115200, it will only work when the port speed is dropped down to 57600 which is obviously much slower than 112kbps. Has anybody who has used the Livingston Portmaster with isdn come across this problem and a possible solution? Mail reply would be preferred. Alex M. alexm@feist.com Systems Administration http://www.feist.com/~alexm Feist Systems, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:18:14 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael Wengler) Subject: Seiko Pager and Watch Combined! Too Cool! Organization: QualComm Inc. The *only* downside is they are only available in a few west coast locations, the web page has maps. My sweetie just bought me one for Valentine's Day. Not only is it a digital watch, but it gets its time updated every half hour by the national standard, so it is ALWAYS right! Pages are received on the watch face, brief text OR phone message to call back. It is REALLY COOL! You can check 'em out on the web: http://www.messagewatch.com/ Michael J. Wengler 10555 Sorrento Valley Road A-290K7 San Diego, CA 92121-1617 mwengler@qualcomm.com (619) 658-5476 Beep me: (619) 605-3580 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, that really sounds hot! I would love to get one when they become available here. Care to tell us about the price, the life of the battery, the paging service that goes with it, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: Nynex Ignorant of Caller-Pays Cellular Date: 14 Feb 1996 18:22:43 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA In article , Wm. Randolph U Franklin wrote: > Having read in this group about the latest telecom land mine, > caller-pays cellular, I called Nynex to see how to tell whether a > number I was calling was one of those. The first person I called > didn't understand what I was getting at. I called again, and got a > really helpful person, who checked with her training supervisor and > called me back. Unfortunately that person had never heard of this, > and suggested to try a cellular company. I did, and got nowhere. Most of the calling party pays cellular plans I have heard of work by playing an announcement to the calling party. The announcement informs the caller of the charge per minute and invites the caller to hang up if the terms are not acceptable. There are many variants on this general theme, including provision for codes to reverse the charges back to the called party for those in the know. Bob Virzi rvirzi@gte.com +1(617)466-2881 ------------------------------ From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) Subject: Re: Dialogic Drivers/Header Files Needed Date: 14 Feb 1996 10:20:59 -0800 Organization: CR Labs Sam Ismail (dastar@crl.com) wrote: > Does anyone have the very latest Dialogic driver and C interface > header files for the four-port voice processing boards? If you do, > could you please send me a copy? Or, if you have the number to their > BBS, that would be cool too. Please e-mail me the goods if you > got'em. The latest drivers, dated 1-15-96, are on their BBS. They may be on their ftp site, although sometimes it does not mirror the BBS. They are in six self-extracting files, SR42DSK1.EXE-SR42DSK6.EXE. Try the ftp at: ftp.dialogic.com If that fails, the BBS is: 201 993 0864 Les Reeves -- lreeves@crl.com lreeves@america.net -- P.O. Box 7807, Atlanta, GA 30357 Home - 404.881.8279 -- ------------------------------ From: echack@crl.com (Edmund C. Hack) Subject: Re: Texas PUC Decision on Areas 972 and 281 Date: 14 Feb 1996 11:19:50 -0800 Organization: CRL Network Services (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] In article , Linc Madison wrote: > Charles Cremer (71231.2206@compuserve.com) wrote: >> One additional fact is worth mentioning: >> The commission requested that two additional new areas -- one for >> Dallas and one for Houston -- should be applied for immediately. >> These would be implemented as overlays for wireless service only. > Something *sensible* from a state PUC! I wonder what their > answer is to the charges of "discrimination on class of service" that > the wireless providers used to block similar plans in places like > Chicago. They apparently think that the FCC ban on such overlays is subject to exception. This is despite the fact that a "wireless only" overlay would have delayed another split or hardwire move to the overlay by two years at most according to SW Bell. The PUC also directed their staff, in somewhat uninformed fashion, to work with SW Bell on two additional items: - moving 214 and 713, or even the whole state of Texas, to 8 digit phone numbers. (This, and a wireless only overlay came up a lot at the public hearings.) - allowing sharing of 3 digit prefixes on multiple switches in different Central Offices. (It came to light at the hearings that several hundred thousand numbers are unavailable for use because they are assigned to switches in rural areas with few active lines. One switch with a 10K block of numbers has under 500 active. Please excuse any inaccuracy in terminology above - I not a telecom jargon guru.) Edmund Hack \ "But maybe he's only a little crazy - echack@crl.com \ like painters - or composers - or some of those Houston, TX \ men in Washington." - _Miracle on 34th St._, 1947 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:00:31 MST From: Joel M-for-muy-overworked Snyder Subject: Re: The Right to an Address? Organization: Opus One - +1 520 324 0494 In article , C. du Fijn <081278cf@student.EUR.NL> writes: > Being a lawstudent I intend to write a paper on number portability. Of course, you're in the Netherlands, which makes most of this moot. The issues are closely identical to those should your place of business burn down due to another's negligence. You can (in the US) file a civil suit for damages based on their error, but you'd have to prove them. This makes the challenge quite difficult. In any case, there are technical solutions to this (similar to "the post office forwarding your mail") but they rely on a higher granularity transaction than is normally done in such an instance. Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms@Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu Subject: Re: Massachusetts Area Code Overlays Date: 14 Feb 1996 20:02:07 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Bob Goudreau (goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote: > (917 in New York City) already works? AFAIK, nobody in the NANP has > mandatory 10-digit dialing yet; the proposal to introduce it in Uh, I'm not sure what you mean by mandatory 10-digit dialing, but this is darn close to what we have here in 540 (nee 703) for a couple of years now. Any non-local call must include area code. Even calls to the same area-code must include it. Since out split I don't know if 703 still requires it, but 540 still does. It's a darn nuisance. Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ Reply-To: day_d@sanjose.vlsi.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 10:12:35 PST From: day_d@sanjose.vlsi.com (Doug Day) Subject: LAN Interface Specifications I am trying to get information on LAN interface specifications. Jitter specifications for clock recovery devices ATM/SONET WANs are well defined in ITU, Bellcore and ANSI, however, the speifications for ATM LANs seem to be a bit more difficult to come by. Does anyone have any information that may help a guy trying to get up to speed quickly? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Antonio Sousa Subject: Nokia RC58/DC58 References Wanted Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:56:41 -0500 Organization: telepac Hi, Has anybody manage to use Nokia's RC58 with DC58 modem-adapter? Thanks, Antonio Sousa t00013@telepac.pt ------------------------------ From: rgwillia@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Rick Williamson) Subject: Re: Juvenile Bomb Plot Plans Came from Internet Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 18:02:41 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems In article , Tad Cook wrote: > Boys nabbed, accused of plotting bomb > BY ELLEN WULFHORST > Reuters > NEW YORK -- Three 13-year-old boys have been accused of plotting to > blow up their school after learning how to build a bomb over the > Internet, police said Friday. Perhaps everybody would feel "safer" if they had learned how to do it off the street? Rick rgwillia@rockdal.aud.alcatel.coml ------------------------------ From: lnsg1.miberl01@eds.com (Michael S. Berlant) Subject: Re: V&H Coordinate to Lat Long Tool? Date: 14 Feb 1996 00:38:03 GMT Organization: EDS Singapore In article , jorr@czn.com says... > I am trying to make an accurate map of telco POPs vs our fiber routes. > The easiest way to do this is to use the V&H Coordinates from the > LERG, convert them to Latitude and Longitude ... You might be able to short circuit your conversions by grabbing the lat-longs from NPAW. It correlates NPA-NXX pairs with lat-longs, so if you know an NXX in the POP you've got the lat-long. I don't remember where it's located; maybe the Moderator does. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, I don't. Anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Southern New England Telephone Date: 14 Feb 1996 03:08:53 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: SNET like Cincinnati Bell, was never owned or > controlled by AT&T therefore the rules of divestiture never did apply to > those companies. Cincinnati Bell was the only telco with Bell in its name > that was never part of the Bell System officially. Of course like all the > other independents in the past half century or so, they were great friends > with AT&T and had many AT&T contracts including the one several years ago > which involved old-style AT&T calling cards billed to miscellaneous (no > direct telco phone number involved) accounts. They may still be doing that > for AT&T. PAT] Actually both SNET and Cincinnati Bell were *partly* owned, but not controlled, by AT&T before divestiture; this is because they were not controlled by AT&T at the time of the acquisition freeze early in the century under which AT&T agreed not to compete against independent telcos but was allowed to buy them out in areas where they competed against Bell companies. This part ownership was why these two companies were allowed to use the Bell name and trademarks, and -- between the 1956 consent decree and "Computer Inquiry II" in 1983 -- were still legally able to buy equipment from Western Electric when AT&T was not allowed to sell equipment within the U.S. except to BOCs or the Federal Government. (Western Electric was also allowed to sell parts to companies making equipment for sale to the Bell companies or under Federal contract; for example when Ford Industries started selling its Code-A-Phone answering machines to BOCs they were able to buy Western Electric handsets for them.) ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Not Taught at Harvard: Multilevel Marketing Date: 14 Feb 1996 03:16:10 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , tad@ssc.com says... > By STEPHANIE N. MEHTA > The Wall Street Journal 12/19/95 > When it comes to endorsements, there are few more sterling names to invoke > than Harvard, as in Harvard University and Harvard Business School. > But when the endorsement has no basis in fact, Harvard gets its hackles up. > Of particular concern these days is the increasing number of claims that the > business school endorses multilevel marketing, in which distributors earn > commissions on products that they or their recruits sell. "If the > registrar's office had a dollar for every call we've had over the years over > whether Harvard Business School teaches multilevel marketing or has studies > on it, we could throw a very nice Christmas party," reads one internal > business-school memo. "This claim is harder to kill than a dandelion." This UL ought to be classed with the one about FCC restrictions on religious broadcasting. A number of years ago, someone filed a petition asking the FCC to bar religious groups from obtaining licenses for non-commercial educational FM stations in the 88-92 MHz band. (At the time some feared that well-funded religious groups would gobble up all the open "NCE" channels before other educational organizations could scrape up the money to build stations.) The FCC quickly rejected it, but someone else started a rumor that the Commission was still considering banning all religious programming -- purportedly because it somehow violated "separation of church and state" since broadcast licensees are public trustees -- and the FCC has had to waste quite a bit of time and money in the last decade or so denying this rumor. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #65 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Feb 15 23:17:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14000; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:17:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:17:54 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602160417.XAA14000@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #66 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Feb 96 23:18:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 66 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NTT Break-up in Japan (Kevin Scherrer) Some Interesting News About 710 (TELECOM Digest Editor) Local Number Mapping For 800 Number (phils@relay.relay.com) CFP: Engineering Complex Computer Systems (Alberto Broggi) FTC On-line Telemarketing Sales Rule (Sherri Greenhaus) Re: Seiko Pager and Watch Combined! Too Cool! (Daniel Rosenbaum) Re: No Overlay in Houston, TX (David W. Tamkin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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, 15 Feb 1996 15:03:07 +0900 From: kevins@iac.co.jp (Kevin Scherrer) Subject: NTT Break-up in Japan Following is an article I wrote not long ago for our homepage here at the Japan Press Network. You can view this and other stories about Japan's high technology industries at http://www.iac.co.jp/~jpn ------------------ Japan's Postal Ministry Prepares to Breakup Telecom Giant NTT By Kevin Scherrer Japan Press Network The long talked about break up of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp is drawing nearer as the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications prepares to announce plans as soon as next month that will lead to splitting up Japan's telecommunications monolith, but major political roadblocks, including opposition from the Prime Minister, still exist. Five years ago the Telecommunications Council, the body charged with making recommendations to the MPT on major policy decisions, put off judgment on how the telecom giant should be reorganized until the end of fiscal 1995. With that date fast approaching, very few observers, NTT included, hold any hope that a break-up can be avoided. The most rational argument against a break-up asserts that it would seriously hamper NTT's ability to implement plans for a next generation telecommunications network, which centers on connecting each home in Japan to fiber optic cables. NTT recently announced that it would begin procuring cable in order to at least get started on this endeavor that has been in the planning stages for several years. It plans to buy 7,200 km of fiber optics to connect existing underground cables to those strung on telephone poles in the first year of procurement. NTT plans to complete the project in 2010. However, NTT's habit of stalling interconnection negotiations with new carries feeds fuel to arguments for a breakup. Last year the MPT had to intercede when the Astel Group of personal handy-phone carriers was told by NTT that negotiations over interconnection fees would take until mid-1996 despite the new company's clear intention to begin services in the Autumn of 1995. More recently, NTT's three long distance competitors have reached an impasse over charges for access to NTT's ISDN network. NTT wants to charge them 260 million yen a year for upgrading the internetwork gateway switches, but has delayed providing them with specific costs for network access. While NTT is dithering, they are providing the same types of ISDN-based services that their competitors want to provide. However, according to NTT spokesman Hideki Ohmichi, the new common carriers complaints are unfounded. While admitting that it takes time to negotiate interconnections, he said it also takes time for NTT to install the new equipment necessary for interconnections with some of the carriers. "The shortest period of time it takes to interconnect with an NCC is one month, and the longest it will take, if we have to install new equipment, is one year." "We do not think that competition will be promoted by breaking up NTT, we think that our announcement that we would open the network to all carriers for interconnection is sufficient," Ohmichi aserted. While these sorts of abuses have given rise to calls for NTT's break-up, the issues could be dealt with on an ad hoc basis by stop gap measures and MPT pressure. However, more fundamental issues, such as how the carriers set their rates and negotiate their tariffs, are the MPT's main concern at the moment. To be sure, nearly every sector of the industry is calling for further deregulation and for the MPT to cease micromanaging the way the carriers do business, but the size and influence of NTT has made this difficult to do. All carriers must apply for, and get approval from, the MPT to reduce rates, although this is set to change to some extent soon. In what has been called the "convoy system" of setting rates, by the time a company has applied to reduce its rates, all of the other have countered with one of their own just as ships in a convoy accelerate or slow down to match the speed of the leader. The net effect of this has been to discourage the kind of cut throat price competition seen in other less regulated markets. But rates are not the only issue. The Ministry announced in January that cellular phone carriers would need only to submit notification of rate reductions rather than submit applications. The deregulation will go into effect in the Spring of 1997, and the ministry expects this to increase competition in the cellular phone market. But Mr. Yoshio Utsumi, Deputy Minister for Policy Coordination at the MPT, told members of the press recently that such an arrangement was not possible for long distance services because the market is not yet fully competitive. NTT's deep pockets would allow them to continue their dominance in a price war and their control over the network could be used in anti-competitive ways, he pointed out. By contrast the cellular phone market is overly competitive by some industry insiders' accounts. With these structural problems in mind the Telecommunications Council is considering scenarios for breaking up NTT, and has reached a basic agreement that the corporation will be divided into three or four separate units, one long distance carrier and two or three local carriers. The actual split will not happen until 1999, according to Japanese press reports. In the mean time, the MPT is proposing the passage of a law that will allow it to impose specific regulations on NTT to make sure it did not engage in any anti-competitive practices. Such rules are not unprecedented, as the U.K. has had special rules on British Telecom for some time, but they are unusual for Japan. The importance of the council's final report, due at the end of February, is that the MPT hardly ever makes policy counter to what the council recommends, and Japan's Diet hardly ever makes major revisions on bills proposed by a ministry. After the report comes out, the MPT will include the proposals into a proposed bill that will then be presented to the Diet. MPT can not unilaterally break-up NTT. But this time, the simple rubber stamping of the proposed legislation is not assured. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, in particular the current Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, is on record as being opposed to the break-up. In addition the Ministry of Finance has for a long time opposed the plan because as caretaker of the government's 60% holding in NTT, they are worried that the value of the stock will fall. So although most of the press here is saying that there will be a breakup of NTT this Spring, there is also potential for the Diet to use this issue to both reinvent itself, and put the bureaucracies in their place. -------------------------- Kevin Scherrer is Technology Journalist at the Japan Press Network kevins@iac.co.jp He hopes to have his web page up and running soon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:02:11 CST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Some Interesting News About 710 At least one working number in 'area code' 710: 710-NCS-GETS ... I read thru the mailing I got from the NOF (Network Operations Forum), one of the Industry Forums sponsored by Bellcore/ATIS. GTE submitted this little tidbit to them which I'll share with you. It seems that 710 routed calls have `priority' if other circuits are busy, etc. On a `non-priority' call (like your's or mine), the various telco/carrier networks will try alternate circuit routings, but only so many. Using a 710 GETS call will allow more than the usual alter- nate routings. It appears that when one dials 1-710-NCS-GETS -- at least via many of the carriers -- one receives a new dial tone with a request to enter the desired number *and your passcode*. Of course I don't have a passcode, and neither do you, so let's not get carried away. Janet Reno is not a lady to trifle with, nor do her storm troopers take lightly to people who know too much for their own good. It should be more than apparent that those in a position and with the authority to do so will OBVIOUSLY use ANI/CID original number tracking. Even though most of you and I would do nothing more than `basic' experimentation (i.e. 0+710 and 1+710 and 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ 1/0+ 710), readers of some journals I could name on the Internet would try to hack out some passcodes. And you never know who is reading our little Digest each day, but you might assume Big Brother (or actually Big Sister, i.e. Hilarious and her friend Janet with her tanks and troops) like to Reach Out and Touch netters from time to time. So don't get any smart ideas about 710-NCS-GETS. (710-627-4387). I wonder if it works from overseas points? I know some of you have been interested in 710. Maybe we might be able to assemble something which would give some additional `public' information on 710 without compromising the security of the system. PERSONALLY, I don't like the idea of government having `priority' when compared to the citizenry. Why should the FEDERAL government have its own special area code? Bellcore and GTE only have themselves to blame however for printing the above number in their recent newsletter *which they sell to the public for a pittance*. It was a submission by GTE Federal Systems to a recent meeting of the Network Operations Forum (NOF), an industry forum sponsored by Bellcore and the ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunica- tions Industry Solutions). ATIS (located in Wash. DC; formerly ECSA, the Exchange Carriers' Standards Association) is an `umbrella' organization for the various industry standards forum and conferences. NCS = National Communications System, the headquarters are located in northern VA, probably the Pentagon. I recently received a mailing from the NOF (mailed from Bellcore in NJ), and it was a package of looseleaf pages regarding minutes and submissions of their recent meeting/conference. This regarding 710-NCS-GETS was several pages submitted by GTE as mentioned earlier. I say this only because I would hate to have Janet and Hilarious think that *I* sat here all day trying combinations looking for it myself and then be disappointed to find out anyone can get it by going to a library; sort of you know like Craig Neidorf and the 'millions of dollars in documentation' he was put on trial for 'stealing' regards the 911 system. . BTW: 10288+0-710... routes via AT&T's Operator Services system 10288+1-710... routes via AT&T with their recordings 10222+1-710... routes via MCI with their recordings 10333+1-710... routes via Sprint with their recordings The recordings are to enter a destination number and/or PIN or passcode number. AT&T operators claim that there is no such NPA. When I've dialed 710 numbers as AT&T 0+, I have gone to an AT&T card bongtone. And of course default one plus works as well. If you decide to try it from a pay station -- and that would be a good place to do it IMO, you might want to let us know how much money is demanded as payment. PAT ------------------------------ From: phils@RELAY.RELAY.COM Subject: Local Number Mapping For 800 Number Date: 15 Feb 1996 20:12:24 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA We have a need to find the local number to which an 800 number maps. The number is for one of our customers, and is an AT&T X.25 network; we have international folks who need to call it, but of course can't dial an 800 number from offshore. Called 800 555 1212, they were pretty useless, but the business office at the other end (we *do* know where it's located geographically) said that if we could get them the account number to which it's billed, they could look it up. That'll do, once our customer can find the number, but in the meantime, is there an easier way? 1-800-YOUR LOCAL # IS or some such? ;-) TIA, ..phsiii ------------------------------ From: Alberto Broggi Subject: CFP: Engineering Complex Computer Systems Track Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 18:30:10 +0100 Organization: Universita` di Parma Reply-To: broggi@Verdi.Eng.UniPR.IT CALL FOR PAPERS * ENGINEERING COMPLEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS * Thirtieth Annual HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS SCIENCES HICSS - 30 Maui, Hawaii, January 7-10, 1997 Papers are invited for the Minitrack on ENGINEERING COMPLEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS as part of the Advanced Technology track at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). 1. PURPOSES Modern computer systems and applications embody many different characteristics and properties that are currently addressed, studied, and optimized independently. Nevertheless, although it is of basic importance to focus on these aspects independently, as a whole these properties feature a complex interrelationship, and thus a higher-level view of the complete project becomes mandatory. While perhaps some of the earlier computer systems could be described, designed and implemented with a particular focus on one objective (such as fault-tolerance or timeliness), or using a single method (such as Structured Programming), it is very questionable whether such modern and future applications can be. Nowadays almost all electronic products are becoming more and more software based: complex computer systems are becoming common in many sectors, such as manufacturing, communications, defense, transportation, aerospace, hazardous environments, energy, health care, etc. These systems feature a number of different characteristics (such as distributed processing, heterogeneous computational paradigms, high speed networks, novel bus systems, or special-purpose hardware enhancements in general) and performance requirements (such as real-time behavior, fault tolerance, security, adaptability, development time and cost, long life concerns). The concurrent satisfaction of the systems requirements have a considerable impact on the hardware characteristics and vice-versa. The analysis of the complete project, as a whole, is a major point in the design of the computer system itself and plays a basic role throughout the entire system life. The ECCS Minitrack will bring together industrial, academic, and government experts from these various disciplines, to determine how the disciplines' problems and solution techniques interact within the whole system. Researchers, practitioners, tool developers and users, and technology transition experts are all welcome. 2. ADDRESSED TOPICS: Papers are solicited on all major aspects of ECCS including specifying, designing, prototyping, building, testing, operating, maintaining, and evolving of complex computer systems, including: * Software engineering, re-engineering, reverse engineering * Complex real-time architectures, tools, environments and languages * AI and intelligent systems * Database and data management * Dependable real-time systems * Virtual reality, multimedia, real-time imaging * Algorithms, optimization and analysis * Analytical techniques * Megaprogramming, visual programming * Performance estimation, prediction and optimization * Prototyping and testing techniques * Formal methods and formal specification techniques * Hardware/software co-design * Communications, networking, mobile computing * Highly heterogeneous, distributed and parallel platforms * Case studies and project reports 3. MINITRACK COORDINATORS Alberto Broggi Alexander D. Stoyenko Dip. Ingegneria dell'Informazione Real-Time Computing Laboratory, CIS Universita` di Parma New Jersey Institute of Technology I-43100 Parma, Italy Newark, New Jersey 07102 USA Fax: +39 - 521 905723 Fax: (201) 596-5777 Email: broggi@CE.UniPR.IT Email: alex@vulcan.njit.edu Papers should be submitted to: Alberto Broggi HICSS'97 ECCS Coordinator Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione Universita` di Parma, Viale delle Scienze I-43100 Parma, Italy 4. FURTHER AND UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION: Further information about the ECCS Minitrack are available at the following WWW address: http://WWW.CE.UniPR.IT/hicss/eccs * INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PAPERS: 1. Submit 6 (six) copies of the full paper, consisting of 20 - 25 pages double-spaced including title page, abstract, references and diagrams directly to the minitrack coordinator. 2. Do not submit the paper to more than one minitrack. The paper should contain original material and not be previously published or currently submitted for consideration elsewhere. 3. Each paper must have a tile page which includes the title, full name of all authors, and their complete addresses including affiliation(s), telephone number(s) and e-mail address(es). 4. The first page of the paper should include the title and a 300-word abstract. * DEADLINES: March 15, 1996: Abstracts submitted to track coordinators for guidance and indication of appropriate content. Authors unfamiliar with HICSS or those who wish additional guidance are encouraged to contact any coordinator to discuss potential papers. June 1, 1996: Full papers submitted to the appropriate track, or minitrack coordinator. August 31, 1996: Notification of accepted papers mailed to authors. October 1, 1996: Accepted manuscripts, camera-ready , sent to minitrack coordinators; one author from each paper must register by this time. November 15, 1996: All other registrations must be received. Registrations received after this deadline may not be accepted due to space limitation. * CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS: The conference Proceedings are published and distributed by IEEE Computer Society. The ENGINEERING COMPLEX COMPUTER SYSTEMS Minitrack is part of the Advanced Technology. For more information on the Advanced Technology Track contact: Ralph H. Sprague, Jr. E-mail: sprague@hawaii.edu Voice: (808) 956-7082 Fax: (808) 956-9889 * OTHER CONFERENCE TRACKS There are three other majors tracks in the conference: Software, Digital Documents, and Information Systems. The Information Systems Track has several minitracks that focus on a variety of research topics in Collaboration Technology, Decision Support and Knowledge-Based Systems, and Organizational Systems and Technology. For more information on the other tracks, please contact: Software Technology Track: Hesham El-Rewini rewini@unocss.unomaha.edu Digital Documents Track: M. Stuart Lynn msylnn@ucop.edu Information Systems Track: Ralph H. Sprague, Jr. sprague@hawaii.edu Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. nunamaker@bpa.arizona.edu Eileen Dennis (Track Assistant) edennis@uga.cc.uga.edu The purpose of HICSS is to provide a forum for the interchange of ideas, research results, development activities, and applications among academicians and practitioners in computer-based systems sciences. The conference consists of tutorials, advanced seminars, presentations of accepted papers, open forum, tasks forces, and plenary and distinguished guest lectures. There is a high degree of interaction and discussion among the conference participants because the conference is conducted in a workshop-like setting. For more information on the conference, please contact the conference coordinator: Barbara Edelstein College of Business Administration University of Hawai'i 2404 Maile Way Honolulu, HI 96822 Voice: (808) 956-3251 Fax: (808) 956-9685 E-mail: hicss@hawaii.edu or visit the World Wide Web page: http://www.cba.hawaii.edu/hicss ------------------------------ From: grenhaus@ix.netcom.com (SG ) Subject: FTC on-line Telemarketing Sales Rule Date: 15 Feb 1996 19:25:20 GMT Organization: Netcom For those of you in the telecom industry, or those that use the telephone for sales, marketing or customer service, you may be interested in upcoming sessions on The Tele-M@rket, a WWW site dedicated to telecommunications and call center industry. The Tele-M@rket is holding on-line interactive legislative sessions this month. On February 21 at 11:00 EST and February 28 at 2:00 EST, a representative for the American Telemarketing Association and representatives from the Federal Trade Commission will be on-line to answer any questions and discuss issues concerning the Telemarketing Sales Rule and Telecom Legislation in general. Any opinion or views shared are not binding by the FTC. The sessions are free and open to all. Just enter the forum on The Tele-M@rket http://www.telemkt.com Sheri Greenhaus http://www.telemkt.com Cyber M@rketing Services The Tele-M@rket Grenhaus@ix.netcom.com Gateway to the Call Center Community ------------------------------ From: drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) Subject: Re: Seiko Pager and Watch Combined! Too Cool! Date: 15 Feb 1996 14:53:28 -0500 Organization: Panix In article , Michael Wengler wrote: > The *only* downside is they are only available in a few west coast > locations, the web page has maps. > My sweetie just bought me one for Valentine's Day. > Not only is it a digital watch, but it gets its time updated every half > hour by the national standard, so it is ALWAYS right! > Pages are received on the watch face, brief text OR phone message to > call back. > It is REALLY COOL! You can check 'em out on the web: > http://www.messagewatch.com/ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, that really sounds hot! I > would love to get one when they become available here. Care to tell > us about the price, the life of the battery, the paging service > that goes with it, etc? PAT] The service works on FM sideband, so if you're deep inside an office building or in a fringe reception area, or in the air between cities, don't count on getting your pages. Conventional pagers do much better with reception. Also, the antenna is in the watchband, considerably limiting your fashion options. Dan Rosenbaum Editor, NetGuide drosenba@panix.com et al @ infinitum [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In other words, you might occassionally miss the half-hourly time settings as well, but if the watch is any good at all it should not matter as long as sometime that day you are in a good reception area. It would be fun to deliberatly set the watch for the wrong time (I assume you can manually set it?) and then watch as the corrective action occurs. Got any prices on this? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 13:57 CST From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: No Overlay in Houston, TX Organization: TIPFKAG [World-Wide Access, Chicago, Illinois 60606-2804] Dave Levenson quoted Jeff Brielmaier: > Jeff Brielmaier (jeff.brielmaier@yob.com) writes: >> The 6PM newscast indicate that there will be seven-digit dialing within >> each AC and ten-digit dialing for 713<->281 dialing. They also >> indicate that because of geographic split, it is possible a third AC may >> have to be added shortly ... ... and then Dave responded so: > If they'd implement 1 + ten digits, rather than ten digits between > area codes, it would probably delay the future splits by adding > approximately 180 possible prefixes per area code. Why are they not > doing this? If I understand it correctly, requiring eleven digits between 713 and 281 would free up only _one_ prefix per area code. Ten-digit dialing will work only between 713 and 281. If you want to dial into 409 or anywhere else in the NANP, you'll need to dial eleven digits. Say you're in 281, there's a (713) 214, and there's also a (281) 214: 713-214-XXXX will get you a number in 713, 214-XXXX will get you a number in 281, while 1-214-NXX-XXXX will get you a number in Dallas. There is no ambiguity. You just can't have (713) 281 nor (281) 713 as working prefixes with ten-digit dialing, as you could with eleven-digit dialing. However, all other N1X and N0X prefixes are still available. Because people are very slow to learn to include their area codes when they give their phone numbers, it's a bad idea to have a working pre- fix that matches a nearby area code anyway (you don't know when people start saying the number if they're giving you ten or seven digits, and if they stop speaking or writing after seven digits you don't know if that's the phone number or if the person got interrupted after telling you the area code plus four digits of the number). Thus I'd say that the intention was to leave (713) 281 and (281) 713 unused in any case, and there really is no loss at all. [Metropolitan Chicago, however, has or soon will have (312) 630, (630) 773, and (773) 847 as valid prefixes, so ten-digit dialing is beyond hope here.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #66 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 19 16:01:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA15685; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:01:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:01:55 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602192101.QAA15685@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #67 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Feb 96 16:02:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Launches Test of Interactive Yellow Pages (Mike King) BellSouth Chooses Nortel Next Generation Payphones (Mike King) Book Review: "The Internet Publishing Handbook" by Franks (Rob Slade) Data Transmission Over PCS-1900 (Konstantin Zsigo) Ring No Answer on 5ESS and USR Total Control MP16 (Larry Vaden) Anti-Slam Provisions of New Telecom Bill (Danny Burstein) Anyone Having Trouble Calling Japan? (John R. Levine) "Lobby Phone" ACD Restrictions? (Chris Strawser) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: BellSouth Launches Test of Interactive Yellow Pages Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:59:10 PST Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:57:17 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BELLSOUTH LAUNCHES TEST OF INTERACTIVE YELLOW PAGES Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BELLSOUTH LAUNCHES TEST OF INTERACTIVE YELLOW PAGES World Wide Web site is the place to go for information on metro Atlanta ATLANTA -- February 19, 1996 -- Consumers will get free on-line computer access to current Yellow Pages listings for metropolitan Atlanta and a whole lot more as BellSouth Corporation (NYSE: BLS) kicks off its first-ever test of directory services on the World Wide Web. The new BellSouth Interactive Yellow Pages makes metro Atlanta Yellow Pages business listings available over the Web, a fast-growing part of the Internet that features easily accessible text and graphics. BellSouth's Atlanta Web site also builds in uniqu e features that will make BellSouth's Interactive Yellow Pages Web site the coolest place to get up-to-date business listings and information on area attractions. In addition to on-line Yellow Pages listings, which will be updated weekly, BellSouth's Interactive Yellow Pages will feature special restaurant and lodging sections; a guide to local attractions; and general information including helpful hints for newcom ers. Users can search for businesses by name or by category. What's more, BellSouth's innovative Interactive Yellow Pages listings include special geographic locators that help customers find unfamiliar destinations by automatically measuring distances from familiar landmarks. For example, using just a few keystro kes or clicks of the mouse, customers can find restaurants within a specified distance from familiar landmarks, such as Stone Mountain Park, or from most Yellow Pages-listed businesses. "We've carefully designed our service to make it the most comprehensive of its kind and to build in features -- such as our automatic business locator -- that will make our Interactive Yellow Pages the most personally useful anywhere. We haven't just put the Yellow Pages on line. We've built an interactive guide to Atlanta that we think will become a model for interactive guides to other communities," said Bill Goldblatt, vice president of marketing for Intelliventures, the product development unit for BellSouth's Advertising and Publishing Group. BellSouth's Interactive Yellow Pages also includes text and graphic links to Web sites developed by The Interactive Studio @ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, making BellSouth's Yellow Pages Web site a gatew ay to other comprehensive sources of information about Atlanta for residents and visitors alike. The BellSouth Yellow Pages is the official telephone directory of the 1996 Olympic Games. Where available, business listings will also include electronic mail and Web site addresses. "Our comprehensive data base and in-depth focus on Atlanta make BellSouth's Interactive Yellow Pages the standard for interactive guides to cities in the Southeast," Goldblatt said. BellSouth's test, which is under way beginning today, will allow the company to gauge future demand for such services. With favorable consumer results in the BellSouth Interactive Yellow Pages test, BellSouth will create Web sites for the key markets in the nine-state Southeast region where it provides local and advanced telecommunications services and directory publishing. The BellSouth Interactive Yellow Pages Web site address is http://yellowpages.bellsouth.com . As with other Web sites, there is no charge to use BellSouth Interactive Yellow Pages. Web interface programming for the BellSouth Interactive Yellow Pages was done by Horizons Technology Inc., a San Diego, Calif.-based software engineering and systems integration firm. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications company, providing voice, data, video and wireless communications and directory publishing and information services to more than 25 million customers in 16 countries. ### Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: BellSouth Chooses Nortel Next Generation Payphones Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:37:23 PST Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:53:13 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Chooses Nortel Next Generation Payphones Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth Chooses Nortel Next Generation Payphones for Largest US Smart Card Trial During Summer Olympics For additional information: John Goldman BellSouth (205) 977 5007 john.goldman1@bridge.bst.blf.com Laura Teder Nortel (214)684-8721 laura_tder@nt.com http://www.nortel.com ATLANTA - BellSouth and Northern Telecom (Nortel) today announced the latest advancement in the nation's largest smart card technology trial. BellSouth will deploy 200 Nortel Millennium intelligent payphones in downtown Atlanta for use during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games as part of a smart card launch sponsored by First Union Bank, BellSouth and other Atlanta Alliance members. BellSouth's participation in the First Union VISA Cash launch will enable consumers to use the stored value cards to make local and long distance telephone calls using the next generation Millennium products. Millennium's Multi Pay Multi Card intelligent terminals, which accept payment via VISA Cash, traditional coins, credit card, or calling cards, offer more payment options to BellSouth's customers. BellSouth will begin installing the Millennium payphones in June. "Our participation in the Visa Cash introduction during the Summer Olympics is a continuation of the advanced telecommunications trials we have conducted using various payment and media equipment over the past few years," said Jim Hawkins, president of BellSouth Public Communications. "We see smart card technology as a possible platform for future services, offering additional convenience, as well as enhanced choices for our consumers. For example, by using smart payphones such as the Millennium, our public telephones could someday also be used as cashless virtual ATMs." First Union will distribute one million smart cards through its banks, and Atlanta area merchants and retailers. Additionally, devices similar to that of a combined vending and ATM machine will be available at high traffic locations. The cards, issued in various denominations from $10 to $100 can be used to make telephone calls and purchase gasoline and convenience store items at some 5,000 locations in Atlanta. Resembling a credit card, the smart card uses a computer chip to "store" money. Each time a purchase is made, the amount is electronically deducted from the card. BellSouth customers who use the Millennium terminals will not have to use coins, calling cards or credit cards to make a telephone call. "We are pleased to work with BellSouth in providing Millennium terminals for this exciting next step in the evolution of smart card applications in the United States," said Bobb Swope, director of North American Sales and Marketing, Nortel. In addition to its smart card capabilities, Millennium terminals feature quick access keys that can be programmed for one touch dialing of information services, emergency assistance, public service announcements or direct access advertising. Nortel's Millennium terminals also feature visual and audible usage instructions and a choice of language options. The terminals will quickly validate, provide card authorization, and track abnormal use of cards, which are all additional features that enhance customer security. There are currently more than 90,000 Millennium pay phones throughout North America. BellSouth provides telecommunications services in the nine Southeastern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina and Tennessee. With its headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves more than 21 million local telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world. Nortel provides equipment, services and network solutions for information, entertainment and communications networks operated by telephone companies, personal and mobile telecommunications companies, cable TV companies, corporations, governments, universities and other institutions worldwide. Nortel had 1995 revenues of $US 10.7 billion and has approximately 59,000 employees worldwide. ### Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:23:43 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Publishing Handbook" by Franks BKINPBHB.RVW 960202 "The Internet Publishing Handbook", Franks, 1995, 0-201-48317-3, U$22.95/C$32.00 %A Mike Franks franks@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1995 %G 0-201-48317-3 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$22.95/C$32.00 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 bkexpress@aw.com %P 380 %T "The Internet Publishing Handbook" Franks has prepared an excellent introduction to establishing a net "presence". He does not include everything you need to get up and running, but provides the concepts and background necessary for an overall picture of Internet publishing. In addition, there are pointers to the instructions and software you need to get started. Most books today concentrate exclusively on the World Wide Web. This work covers Gopher and WAIS (Wide Area Information Service) as well as touching on other Internet tools. Ironically, the tool that gets the least space is the one with the largest reach: electronic mail. There is mention of the use of list servers, but little on their more advanced functions as mail servers or "mailbots". Along with chapters on "Internet Commerce" and "Hiring Out the Work", there is an overall commercial orientation to this book that makes it possibly of more interest to businesses (large or small) than to hobbyists or special interest groups. Nevertheless, this is definitely a worthwhile first stop for those who want to see their name in bits. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINPBHB.RVW 960202. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. roberts@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1.fidonet.org Just about every computer on the market today runs UNIX, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). - Bill Joy, 6/21/85 Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: zsigo@netcom.com (Konstantin Zsigo) Subject: Data Transmission Over PCS-1900 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 02:01:38 GMT Several experts to speak regarding data transmission over PCS-1900 frequencies --------------------------- Some people think that the new PCS-1900 frequencies in the United States will be used primarily for voice communications, positioned as a low-cost local loop replacement with the advantage of mobility. However, if you look carefully at the airlink technologies proposed for those new frequencies, and even modest estimates regarding their capacity, it is unclear that the voice market will ever be big enough to fill the new band. While the impending battle for marketshare amongst new providers will likely be good for price-conscious consumers, the low revenue-per- subscriber and high infrastructure costs would indicate that the current wireless market could not support all of these competitors. We think this is an opportunity for PCS carriers, especially those in the smaller bands (D, E and F) to create data-only networks, where service differentiation would come as a result of offering extremely high airlink rates, perhaps even to T1 speeds. Services that could be offered include high speed packet-switching for LAN access or mobile video conferencing. At this years upcoming CelluComm '96 Cellular Data Conference, several individuals will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on this subject and relay their company's initiatives. A list of them appears below. We are looking for opinions/questions to pose to this group prior to the event itself. The media will be following this event, and several interesting articles will likely hit the press just after the presentations. If you have an opinion/question/comment, please email it to us, and we'll present it (anonymously if you prefer) to the panels, the press, and may even read it aloud at the conference itself. Current list of presenters on digital cellular data and PCS-1900 Jay Kitchen, PCIA the President of the Industry Association Dave Gaetani, Sprint Spectrum pioneer pref PCS carrier, deployed in Washington DC Mark Vonarx, Omnipoint pioneer pref PCS carrier, deployed in New York Roy Gunter, Nokia expert on data over GSM networks Dennis Abremski, QUALCOMM in charge of developing data over CDMA Okan Azamuk/Nortel & Steven Howser/Omnipoint working on data over IS-661 Duane Sharman/ISOTEL member of TDMA data working group CelluComm '96 Overview CelluComm is the only conference/exhibition exclusively dedicated to data transmission over 850, 1800, and 1900MHz networks. Technologies addressed include data over upbanded GSM, CDMA, TDMA, IS-661, AMPS, CDPD, Circuit- Switched, CS/CDPD and Cellemetry. Experts gather from all over the world to share ideas, technologies, and business strategies. There are vendor workshops, IndustryTrack sessions, CorporateTrack teaching tutorials, and a full trade show floor. For information on attending or exhibiting, contact: Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants, Inc. 2875 Northwind Drive, Suite 232, East Lansing, MI 48823 517-337-3995 (phone); 517-337-5012 (fax) zsigo@netcom.com (company) Konstantin J. Zsigo, President kzsigo@ix.netcom.com (personal) ------------------------------ From: vaden@texoma.net (Larry Vaden) Subject: Ring No Answer on 5ESS and USR Total Control MP16 Date: 18 Feb 1996 22:47:39 GMT Organization: Internet Texoma, Inc. We are experiencing a rather incredible Ring No Answer situation. Dialin service is via POTS to USR Total Control MP16 (Courier-based); technically, the service is a hunt group with sequential search from the top for a free terminal in the hunt group. The terminals on the hunt group are not individually dialable at this time; overlapping DIDs have been ordered for installation 02/19. RNA's seem to cluster on sequential terminal numbers of the hunt group, but this is not always the case. All modems behave as expected when tested with a separate (single) phone line (that is, they answer every call). Further, the situation seems somewhat time variant. Does anyone know if an out-of-spec ring at SWBell's CO would cause this? Is a ring generator global to the 5ESS, on a trunk basis, on a line card basis? If one of the latter, what is the span factor? Would an out of spec ring generator declare as random within a given hunt group or would it declare as sequential; in other words, what is the domain (scope, sphere of influence) of a ring generator in a 5ESS switch? Or, if my hypothesis is way off base, what are the known causes? Thanks in advance for your help. Larry Vaden, founder and CEO Voice: 800-697-0206 Internet Texoma, Inc. Modem Pool: 903-465-9335 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland email: vaden@texoma.net ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Anti-Slam Provisions of New Telecom Bill Date: 18 Feb 1996 16:27:56 -0500 Yep, while everyone's attention has been focused on the so-called "decency" provisions in the new law, there's a lot more in it. Full text is at www.bell.com. Here's one provision that is actually consumer friendly. ``SEC. 258. ILLEGAL CHANGES IN SUBSCRIBER CARRIER SELECTIONS. ``(a) Prohibition .--No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe. Nothing in this section shall preclude any State commission from enforcing such procedures with respect to intrastate services. ``(b) Liability for Charges.--Any telecommunications carrier that violates the verification procedures described in subsection (a) and that collects charges for telephone exchange service or telephone toll service from a subscriber shall be liable to the carrier previously selected by the subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by such subscriber after such violation, in accordance with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe. The remedies provided by this subsection are in addition to any other remedies available by law. ---------------- Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Anyone Having Trouble Calling Japan? Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 23:15:06 EST For the past day or two, we've been unable to call friends in Nara, Japan. Calling through Wiltel, my regular company, or Allnet (backup #1), or Sprint (backup #2), I get a cheery recording at KDD in Japan with bouncy background music assuring me that the number I've called is not in service. Tried calling via AT&T, it worked. The number is certainly good, we've been calling it for years. Any ideas? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be ------------------------------ From: chriss@digital.net (Chris Strawser) Subject: "Lobby Phone" ACD Restrictions? Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 05:01:15 GMT Organization: FLORIDA ONLINE, Florida's Premier Internet Provider Reply-To: chriss@digital.net I've blocked 900, 976, and numbers that start with 1. I've allowed 10xxx (for calling cards), 800, and seven digit numbers starting with 2 thru 9. Am I missing anything? Any suggestions? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If allowing 10xxx, you want to allow zero plus at that point but not one plus. What are you doing with calls to the outside zero or double zero operator? People can talk to the outside operator and convince her to do things also, you know. What about calls to 500? What about calls beginning 011 to interna- tional points? A lot of companies simply block off '9 for an outside line' on all the phones in public areas under the assumption people who work there can go to their own desks to make calls (and be held accountable for same.) Do you need outside access from your lobby phone at all? Why not just send all 'dial 9' from there to the company operator for handling? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #67 ***************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Feb 19 18:28:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA00781; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 18:28:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 18:28:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199602192328.SAA00781@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #68 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Feb 96 18:28:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Program - 1996 World Conference Mobile Communications (Tom Worthington) Indian Datacom Freed? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion (John Cropper) AT&T Corporate History Webpage (Mark J. Cuccia) Netscape Movie Player (Kelly Breit) Macintosh Shockwave For Director is Available (Kelly Breit) I'm Looking For Help (Fredric L. Rice) Fed Up With Junk Calls? Complain to FTC On-Line (Robert Bulmash) Using ANI For Credit Card Verification (John C. Fowler) Will My Real Long Distance Carrier Please Stand Up? (Bill Breckinridge) Need Information on Telco Disasters/Fires/Outages (Quad) Book Review: Internet Health, Fitness and Medicine Yellow Pages (R Slade) Re: LAN Interface Specifications (Tara D. Mahon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Worthington Subject: Program - 1996 World Conference Mobile Communications Date: 19 Feb 1996 12:00:20 GMT INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING 1996 World Conference Mobile Communications Part of the 14th World Computer Congress (IFIP96) 2-6 September 1996 Hosted by the Australian Computer Society in Canberra, Australia Track 1: Innovative Applications in the Public Sector Track 2: Innovative Applications on the Horizon Registration: http://www.acs.org.au/ifip96/advrego.html Attention Speakers: the deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to 22 February 1996. Track 1: Mobile Technology, Tools and Applications Mobile computing is one of the big issues of computer technology, computer science and the computer industry. Therefore, the questions are: What are the challenges in developing mobile computing systems and application software for mobile computing today? What are the requirements for mobile computing hardware, infrastructure and communication services? What are the methods and techniques for presentation of and interaction with all types of information and all kinds of media on mobile computing hardware? The benefit of mobile computing devices for the user will be substantially increased if mobile computing devices become part of a greater computing infrastructure. Thus, mobile computers of the future will always be equipped with telecommunication facilities. Those systems will provide access to information servers connected to the networks and will support all types of communications between users of mobile or stationary computing devices. Therefore, all aspects of the development of mobile computing and information systems should consider: * the communications requirements; * the mobility of the users; * the portability of the equipment; * the issues of information access as well as information presentation using mobile systems; and * the issues of presentation and interaction with all types of media in mobile systems Original contributions in the area of networked mobile computing and data communications dealing with one of the following areas are invited to be presented at the conference: * architecture of information systems consisting of mobile clients and stationary servers * methods and algorithms for information access and information flow in distributed, mobile systems * networking issues and protocols for mobile data communications * exchange, synchronisation and presentation of multimedia data * interaction of humans with mobile information systems * telecooperation using mobile computing devices * integration of stationary and mobile information systems * hardware developments for mobile computing and communications * applications of networked, mobile computing systems * new applications Track 2: Trusting in Technology; Authentification; Security In order to pave the way for the future consumer and business markets in the field of mobile communications, the requirements of the different participants in this communications world need to be fulfilled. Some of the very strong presuppositions for the success of new services and products are related to the necessity of users, information providers, service providers, equipment providers and carriers to trust in the new technology. These requirements can be met by consideration of security, privacy and billing aspects from the early beginning of the design of such mobile communication systems. The topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * reliable communication * authentification by + cryptographic protocols + smart cards, PMCCIA cards + biometric features, eg speaker recognition * access control/conditional access * protection of privacy and anonymity * encryption/scrambling of multimedia data * billing/electronic payment * copy and downloading protection, copyright protection * trusted third parties * interoperability between different domains * new applications; case studies Conference Chairman Professor Dr J. L. Encarnacao Fraunhofer Institut fur Graphische Datenverarbeitung email: jle@igd.fhg.de Conference Co-Chair Jan M. Rabaey Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California email: jan@eecs.berkeley.edu IFIP'96 Congress Secretariat: http://www.acs.org.au/ifip96/mobile.html Australian Convention and Travel Services GPO Box 2200, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Telephone +61 6 257 3299 Facsimile +61 6 257 3256 Posted by Tom Worthington President of the Australian Computer Society ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:37:38 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Indian Datacom Freed? The Indian Techonomist: bulletin Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Indian datacom freed? by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh February 16: Today, in a "brainstorming" session to discuss the new datacom policy proposed by The Indian Techonomist, the Department of Telecommunications indicated its enthusiasm for a free datacom environment in India. As no official decision has yet been taken, I cannot make the details public for the moment. There is one exception: the Telecom Secretary (and Chairman, Telecom Commission) R K Takkar has made it quite clear that content providers in cyberspace will receive all the free-speech protections available to other media. Mr. Takkar said that existing laws for obscenity and national security were enough for the Internet, and in any case were not the concern of the DoT. Mr Takkar said that there was no need to licence on-line content providers, and indicated that Internet service providers would not be responsible for illegal content, apparently implying common carrier status for ISPs. The other parts of the proposal, relating to low entry barriers for ISPs and free competition met with a largely positive response. The full text of the proposal is now available at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/newdcom.html Apart from Mr. Takkar and myself, present at the meeting were Telecom Commission Members P Saran and P Khan, as well as some other senior DoT staff. I would like to thank Vinton Cerf and Lawrence Landweber for the support given by the Internet Society to the proposal. The Indian Techonomist: bulletin. http://dxm.org/techonomist/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion Date: 19 Feb 1996 20:06:01 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA From Pacific Telesys Group Web Site: FOR MORE INFORMATION: David D. Dickstein 213-975-4074 213 Area Code Running Out of Numbers Telecommunications Industry Evaluates Relief Options Los Angeles, CA -- Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, a new area code will be introduced in some or all of the Los Angeles area that now uses the 213 area code, the telecommunications industry has started to announce. The telecommunications industry, which is comprised of representatives from local and long-distance carriers, cable, cellular and paging companies, and other wireless companies, is currently developing and evaluating different options for introducing the new area code. The new area code could be in use as early as February 1998. Under California law, public participation and comment must be obtained before the industry submits the proposed area code relief plans with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan. Bruce Bennett, area code relief coordinator for California, said a series of meetings will be held before August 1996 to seek public comment and input on potential area code introduction options and proposals. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will announced at a future date. Boundaries for the new area code, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced later this year after customers have had an opportunity to evaluate and comment on various boundary proposals in the upcoming public meetings, Bennett said. Some of the cities currently served by the 213 area code include Hollywood, Highland Park, Laurel Canyon, Huntington Park, Montebello and all of downtown Los Angeles. (JC's note: As of 1/96, NPA 213 was showing only 456 NXXs in use, with growth rates of about 20-25 NXXs per quarter. Assuming a 10-20% quarterly increase in the growth rate, 213 will exhaust in early 1999. 213 joins a list of six other planned NPA splits in California including: 310/562, 818/626, 619/760, 714/???, 415/???, 916/???. Of the remaining NPAs in California, 209, 408, 510 and 805 are all projected to exhaust by 2001, with 909 exhausting by 2003. Only 707 is projected to last well into the next decade. With all the splits planned and/or possible, California could have as many as -TWO DOZEN- NPAs by early next century ...) John Cropper Nexus Information Services psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:43:03 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T Corporate History Webpage Another historical gem of a webpage is from AT&T, http://www.att.com/corporate/restructure/history.html which has some nice pictures. This URL brings you to an index of additional pages that you can click from to specific periods of time in AT&T's 100+ year history. One of the pages includes pictures of the various Bell System logos over the years including the 1970's-> era modern Bell logo, as well as AT&T's `fried brain'. It *is* always nice to know that these modern-day multinational corporations still take *some* time to preserve and remember their rich history. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:05:36 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Netscape Movie Player Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 22:52:13 -0800 From: Kawasaki@eworld.com To: macway-for-guy@solutions.apple.com Subject: Netscape movie player Reply to: todd@tecs.com (Todd Carper) At this address I've made available a QuickTime plug-in for the Mac version of Netscape 2.0. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:05:49 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Macintosh Shockwave For Director is Available Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 06:15:19 -0800 From: Kawasaki@eworld.com To: macway-for-guy@solutions.apple.com This is from Bill Gibson of MacroMedia. I'm pleased to announce the availability of the Macintosh Shockwave for Director plug-in. Version 1.0b1 can be downloaded from the Shockwave Home Page at: This is a plug-in file for Netscape 2.0 that permits you to view embeded Macromedia Director movies in web pages. Surf around after you have installed Shockwave and enjoy the new face of the web. ------------------------------ From: Fredric L. Rice Subject: I'm Looking For Help Date: 19 Feb 1996 12:12:34 GMT Organization: Transtream Technologies Inc. Greetings, guys and gals. I'm Fredric Rice and I've been doing heavy ISDN software engineering for the past seven years. I'm having difficulty finding someone to help me do solid telecommunications programming so I ask that you bear with me as I SPAM a minor segment of the net with something approaching a plaintive cry for help. I need someone to come work with me on ISDN and other telecommunications projects because I'm not quite bright enough to do it all on my own. Not _quite_. }:-} Since the company I'm with moved to Simi Valley, I've lost my fellow programmers due to lengthy commutes. Alas I'm left here all alone and, damn it, I have no software dinks to talk things over with