From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 15:02:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA26960; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:02:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:02:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603062002.PAA26960@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #101 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 15:02:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800 / 888 Replication Madness (Art Kamlet) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Peter Ilieve) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Richard Spall) Re: Telstra Telecard (an Australian Calling Card) (Kevin McConnaughey) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Gary Novosielski) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Mark Crispin) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Stuart Zimmerman) Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? (Dan O'Conor) Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" (Garrett A. Wollman) Re: Bellsouth Position on Bill and Keep (Cliff McGlamry) Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services (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: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: 800 / 888 Replication Madness Date: 6 Mar 1996 18:35:07 GMT Organization: InfiNet In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Ken Weaverling (weave@hopi.dtcc.edu): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The proponents of replication seem to > feel that it will be harder for consumers to discern the difference > between '888' and '800' than it is for the same consumer to discern > the difference between computers and phonograph records. They believe > that since the public is being told that 800 and 888 are 'the same > thing' (for the purpose of instilling confidence in persons who dial > an 888 number) that therefore the same people are likely to think > that 888-anything will reach the same business as 800-anything. Another problem: Since these are toll free calls, if you know the toll free number is BIG-GUNS but don't know if it's 800 or 888, you can dial either. If you dial the wrong number, you don;'t pay anything, but the poor guy you just called does. So if I were to get just a plain, no mnemonic 888 number, I'd want one that can't spell out anything! > Now whose interests should come first? That of large businesses who > seek to preserve the purity of their vanity number or that of the > telephone network and its rapidly depleting stock of available numbers? What is the extent of the Vanity number problem? If 1/2 of 1% of all 800 numbers are vanity numbers, it might be cheaper to just live with duplication of vanity numbers in 800 and 888. But if 40% are vanity numbers, that isn't acceptable. In my personal experience, almost all 800 numbers I call are not (to my knoweldge) vanity numbers. So I'd guess it's closer to 1% than to 40%, but that's strictly a guess. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: peter@memex.co.uk (Peter Ilieve) Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: 6 Mar 1996 13:27:49 -0000 Organization: MR-Memex Ltd, East Kilbride, Scotland In article , Tom Allebrandi wrote: > So, my idea is this: > Telemarketers should be barred from calling unlisted and non published > phone numbers. > What do you think of the idea? > Are there any states that have already instituted such restrictions? > I'd love an example when I send a letter suggesting this idea to my > state and federal representatives. It is a very good idea, and entirely practical. Here in the UK we already have such a thing. In the back of every phone book there is printed a set of guidelines from the Office of Fair Trading (a government body) on selling by telephone. It specifically says that telesales people should not call unlisted numbers. Over here we have various kinds of status for listing. You can be unlisted, which means you aren't in the phone book but you can be found via directory enquiries (assistance for you USA folk), or you can be ex-directory, where you can't be found from either. The code of practice says `unlisted' but I am sure it applies to both. Basically, telesales people can only use the phone book. We also have a separate prohibition on anything that calls someone and then plays them a recording, but I don't know exactly what these regulations are. There are also moves afoot at a European Union level to restrict telesales even further, so calls can only be made to people who have given their explicit consent in advance. This is at some sort of draft directive stage (the EU directive setting process is very longwinded) and the telesales industry is, not surprisingly, dead set against it, so I don't know how this will turn out. If it does eventually pass, expect to see very small print added to all sorts of things like finance contracts giving this explicit consent. Peter Ilieve peter@aldie.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:38:54 +0000 From: richard spall Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. I believe April's promotion is up to $50 free calls on Mondays ... Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know if a person has several lines and is willing to default at least one of them to each of the major carriers then by carefully scheduling your calling patterns and which phones you use on which days, your long distance bill could be almost zero. For example one phone defaulted to Sprint for use on Friday; one to MCI for whatever days of the month they plan to run these special offers; one to AT&T to pack with calls so you get their thirty percent discount each month; one to Frontier that you use for the thirty dollars or so in free calls they give you first sign up and after that point you don't use it it all but keep it on record so you are eligible for their inexpensive cellular resale service, etc. It may be about time for someone to get the most recent edition of the book 'Long Distance For Less' by Dr. Robert Self and review it here. Does anyone have a copy? A really sophisticated user could use that as a general guide and combine it with all the special offers from month to month to cut his phone bill to an absolute minimum. By the way, AT&T is still allowing the transfer of True Reward points between accounts. Anyone not using theirs is encouraged to transfer them as a gift to the Digest. I have another humongous phone bill to pay and only a few of those 'Pay to the order of the Telephone Company' checks left. Please help! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin McConnaughey Subject: Re: Telstra Telecard (an Australian Calling Card) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 10:45:59 -0800 Nawal Aggarwal wrote: > I made lot of International calls using the Telstra Telecard assuming > that calls were charged at the NORMAL rate. I discovered when I got > the bill that international calls made from outside Australia cost > more than three times the normal international rates. > For example: Australia to India - $1.92 peak time > Belguim to India thru' Telstra - $5.90 off-peak > This basically means that Telstra is charging for two international > destinations e.g. Belguim-Australia, Australia-Belguim. I wouldn't be too quick lay ALL the blame at Telstra's feet for the level of these third country calling charges. Offering third country calling to customers in a country other than the one in which the carrier operates AND making the charges acceptable AND abiding by local telecom laws as well as the carrier's existing interconnection agreements can be difficult. Third Country Service via the Carrier's "Country Direct" Calling Platform One big issue that any international carrier has with using its "Country Direct" calling platform for calls to destinations other than the home country is that the originating country may be "cheated" of its legally defined revenues for certain international calls. Telstra (and most other carriers with longstanding, direct interconnection agreements) need to be somewhat diplomatic and negotiate an acceptable arrangement with the "host" country PTT. Frequently these arrangements mean that the carrier, like Telsta perhaps in this case, must pay full settlements to both the originating country (to compensate for lost revenues) as well as the normal settlements to the terminating country as well as the network costs associated with call taking two "hops" (originating country to Australia to terminating country). This effects can easily more than double the cost the carrier. Also, according to ITU recommendations - as I understand them, authorization from both the originating country and the terminating country is always required. Otherwise the "middleman" carrier is engaged in unauthorized transit or refile -- both of which are frowned upon. > Ironically it's cheaper to call from Belguim to India directly. I > won't be surprised if it's cheaper to call thru' local carrier to > anywhere in the world. What IS interesting to me is that there is room for international carriers to squeeze into this business at all. <> The thought that a call from one European destination to another (or India in this case) might be cheaper via Australia is pretty counter intuitive. On the one hand is the high cost of facilities to/from Australia, and on the other are the high settlement costs mentioned above. I should note that time of day differences might allow Australian (and other) carriers to use their offpeak capacity and therefore not charge for the "fixed network" costs. > Also they take 45 days to process the billing for calls made thru' > Telecard. Which means you'll never know how you've spent in the last > 45 days thru' this card. Another Possibility - Telecard is just the Billing Mechanism Another alternative that carriers such as Telsta can use is to arrange with other carriers to carry their third country calls directly and to "bill" Telsta. Telstra would then need to get the billing information from the originating PTT and then re-bill the call to the customer. This might be an explanation for such a lag as mentioned above. The originating carrier views the use of the Telstra card something like they might the use of any credit card -- just a billing mechanism. I don't know if this is how Telsta handles these calls or not, but it is a possibility. > As far as calls to Australia are concerend, OPTUS is cheaper any time. Competition is A Good Thing. (Does OPTUS offer third country calling?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 12:29:30 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands In TELECOM Digest V16 #95, aveller@vnet3.vub.ac.be (A. Veller) wrote: > Regarding the buzzers, there has indeed been a huge advertising > campaign, by PTT Telecom, the incumbent operator, and to a lesser > extent Motorola. The buzzers are no longer the boring drab grey or > black pagers used to be, but they are produced in flashy colours. The > ads range from hip to funny e.g. featuring codes you could use for > buzzing: > 12 = I love you > 23 = Help, the baby is coming! > 34 = Come home, dinner is served. > 45 = Come home, dinner is cold! > 56 = Drink up that glass and come home immediately! > 67 = Don't bother to come home, I've found myself a more reliable boyfriend. If "buzzers" catch on in the New York area, we might want to add these to the list: 70 = You have a half hour to move your car. 73 = Your car has been towed away. 77 = Your car has been crushed into a cube of scrap metal. 80 = You have a half hour to move your cube. [credit to "The Simpsons" TV show.] Gary Novosielski GPN Consulting PGPinfo: keyID A172089 gpn@village.ios.com 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 finger for public key B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 18:07:51 -0800 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing Reply-To: Mark Crispin This sounds like the same sort of whine that the PTTs in foreign countries used to make against "rate arbitrage", used to justify their retention of monopoly control over the market. It's interesting that they phrase it as potentially causing "significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic" instead of what's really on their mind -- low cost competition to their exhorbitant rates. Not that the current crop of Internet voice products are what I'd want to use for long-distance/international voice communications... ;-) Mark DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045 ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39" Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 13:55 EST From: Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Pat - In v.16 #98 of TELECOM Digest I forwarded a press release complaining about products which allow voice communications over the Internet. I have received some e-mail suggesting that long distance carriers (Interexchange Carriers - IXCs) had a problem with this. Let me clarify that this press release and the petition to the FCC was made by a group of local telephone companies (Local Exchange Carriers - LECs). Their beef is that they do not get to charge the access fees for voice internet calls, that they get to charge for long distance calls via IXCs. It does seem unfair that if I use the local telephone network to place a call via an IXC, I have to indirectly pay access fees, but if I use the local telephone network to place a call via the Internet, I do not have to pay the access fees. These fees are approximately three cents per minute for each side of the conversation. Pat, to your points, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let me ask you this Stuart ... > Since your business is 'helping consumers save on long distance' do > you ever recommend I-Phone as one way for them to do so, or do you > recommend only the traditional types of carriers? We are following the technology for several reasons, but we have not yet recommended this as a solution to any customer. It currently has limited application for consumers. Since almost all consumers have only dial up access to the Internet, calls have to be prearranged. Given that, it is mostly for lengthy conversations that can be pre-planned where both sides have access to the appropriate equipment. > Does it seem odd that ISP's whine about having the giants like AT&T > and MCI getting into the business of selling Internet services while > thinking nothing of computer users having I-Phone as an inexpensive > way to communicate voice? I believe that many ISP's are afraid of I-Phone, etc. It may put into jeopardy their exemption from having to pay for access from the local telephone network. > It seems like everyone is getting into each other's business these > days. Maybe someone should write to the FCC and petition them about > 'misuse of the telephone network' whenever telco decides to try and > cut in on the cableco or the local ISP. Coincidentally, SNET (the LEC for most of Connecticut) recently went into the ISP business. They told me over the phone that I have to be a local telephone customer of theirs to use them as an ISP. If I sign up for local telephone service from AT&T (as I should be able to do here in a few months), I cannot use them as an ISP. My complaint to the state public utility commission should go out soon. > A sign on the wall in a local tavern comes to mind. Although the > intent of the message is a bit different, it discusses businesses > getting into venues which traditionally 'belong' elsewhere. "We have > an understanding with the local bank. They do not sell Booze, and we > do not extend credit." Yes, I know what the tavern was saying, but > it is an interesting thought. But, Ma Bell really has been extending credit for its entire existence. Not having to pre-pay calls, the calling card system, and more recently billing for other carriers and information providers (900,976) is not much different. > If AT&T can be in the credit card business, why shouldn't Visa operate a > telephone company? Because no one would pay what the inefficient banks would charge for telephone service. Remember these are the same people who bring us 21% interest for credit cards and fees to take out our own money they have been using. > But if they tried, you know the telcos would be angry. Personally I > see the ISPs of today as the telcos in the early twentieth century; > making more money than they know what to do with. Just as telephones > earned billions and gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in > the first half of this century I think ISPs are going to be very > wealthy in twenty years. PAT] Unfortunately, change is coming so fast, I doubt that ISPs in their current form will be around that long. Stuart Zimmerman 7382020@mcimail.com Fone Saver, LLC http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver "Helping Consumers Save on Long Distance" 1(800)313-6631 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just one note about your message. You said 'Ma Bell has been extending credit for its entire existence ...' This is not really true. Invoicing someone on thirty day terms is not the same as an extension of credit (i.e. here is money, or the right to spend our money, pay us back with interest over a few years). To go back to the tavern analogy, do you pay for each drink as it is placed in front of you or do you pay your tab at the end of the evening when you are leaving as a matter of mutual convenience to both yourself and the bartender? In any event, it is not 'credit' being extended. It is true perhaps a business will do a 'credit check' on you prior to even allowing open account invoicing with timely payment terms, but that really is not 'credit' either. Credit is when money is created in your account which did not previously exist, and you are allowed to spend it and pay it back. PAT] ------------------------------ From: doconor@winternet.com (Dan O'Conor) Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:36:33 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Reply-To: doconor@winternet.com On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:51:09 +0800, johnb@bird.Printrak.Com (John Bredehoft) wrote: > (1) Has anyone heard an *authoritative* timetable for Macintosh support for > Worldnet? > I called the (800) 967-5363 number and was told that Mac support > should be available in June, but the woman was obviously reading a > scripted response. By the way, she was ready to take my software order > anyway (I declined). If the AT&T WorldNet service is TCP/IP compliant any TCP/IP dialer and application should work from any platform once you have received a log-in and password string. > (2) In their current Windows software offer, why are they providing a > "special" version of Netscape Navigator for Windows? What are the > differences between this version and a "standard" version? Their version of Netscape may have be "special", but I doubt it. The only thing special about it will be the default "home page" on load. Every ISP in the world (it seems) is distributing some version of Netscape and Eudora in their Windows software package. There is nothing special about AT&T's offer in that respect > I'm somewhat leery of placing "custom" software on my computer, and > I'm wondering whether there is some technical reason that I can't use > my own software, or if there's something else going on. (I have > paranoid visions of the AT&T software "cleaning up" drivers from other > applications, or of seeing a Prodigy-esque AT&T advertisement on the > bottom of every Netscape screen ...) I have no intention of using AT&T's package software, as I have spent a lot of time tweaking my dialer and TCP/IP applications to work well on my machine. You can expect to see a "Prodigy-esque" advertisement on the default home page of the AT&T browser as the home page default on load will be the AT&T home page; that is easily changed, however. Regards, Dan O'Conor ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" Date: 6 Mar 1996 10:52:11 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , John R. Grout wrote: > Now that IXCs like AT&T are getting into the ISP business, it seems > inevitable that the RBOCs will eventually succeed in imposing such > charges ... I hope they won't end up being a tollbooth across the > whole information superhighway. It wouldn't bother me. Indeed, it would probably hasten the demise of this dial-up brokenness. People have to remember that, despite the current hype, the model of using the analogue telephone network to connect one's computer to someone else's computer, where that someone else is connected to the Internet, is broken. Or rather, it is just a transitory stage which small-time users have to tolerate until such time as they get an "Internet wire" into their homes to go along with (or hopefully supplant) the telephone, cable, and electric wires. (Alternatively, someone might build a wireless service to do the same thing.) This is the model that those of us working on building an integrated services Internet are working in anticipation of. I wonder how long it is before new condo complexes come with 10BASE-T drops in every home? Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 96 13:40:06 EST From: Cliff McGlamry <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Bellsouth Position on Bill and Keep > "In the 1996 Act, Congress has adopted a single, uniform > interconnection policy that is equally applicable to wireless and > wire-based telecommunications carriers. In light of this new statute, > there is no legal basis for the Commission to adopt its proposed 'bill > and keep' policy," BellSouth said. The new law requires parties be > given freedom to negotiate such interconnection under state > jurisdiction as the primary oversight authority, not by federal > mandate. > Wireless calls completed to telephones on the wired network far > outnumber calls completed going from wireline to wireless phones. > BellSouth is negotiating voluntary interconnection agreements with > potential competitors, as the new law requires. I find BellSouth's position to be a blazing example of exactly why the FCC MUST hold the line on the bill and keep policy. BellSouth has been gouging wireless service providers for years on this. The WSP's have no choice but to pay what BellSouth demands, at present there are very few, if any, alternatives to using BellSouth. By any definition, the hold market power and have used this to beat WSP's into submission if they want to continue to operate. BellSouth can operate just fine without the WSP's. The reverse just isn't so. Isn't it interesting that while BellSouth cries about the number of cellular calls orginated as opposed to received they are strangely silent on the subject of pagers (which generate NO outgoing calls)? And isn't it interesting they talk about negotiating with WSP's? I can tell you from experience that the way BellSouth negotiates is as follows: WSP: We really need to change this provision in this contract. BS: Why? WSP: It really hurts us. The cost is unreasonable and not competitive. BS: We know it isn't competitive, but it works for us just fine. So if you want service you are going to have to live with it. That is a real life example of what BellSouth does (it happened to me). I can't think of a single good reason to allow BellSouth to scrap the Bill and Keep provisions. They have demonstrated repeatedly an attitude that what they think should be the way it is, regardless of how their actions affect others. It's about time they had to give up what they are gouging everyone else for. It's time for the monopoly mindset to go. Cliff McGlamry Robin Hood Telecommunications Tucker, GA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 15:13:21 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services Telcos Will Soon Be Pushing Integrated Messaging Services, Says Insight Research LIVINGSTON, NJ. Passage of the Communications Act of 1996 means increasing competition for all the telephone companies, so the industry is pushing hard to develop new revenue opportunities, and integrated messaging services could be at the forefront of a new telecom marketing blitz, says a new report from Insight Research. Integrated messaging services allow a telephone subscriber to combine all her messaging needs -- voice, fax, e-mail, pager, data, and even video into one access form -- and for the phone companies, this bundled service could become a way to create customer loyalty in a marketplace full of competing communications services. According to Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services, a major trend in the voice processing industry is the convergence of voice messaging and voice response capabilities within a single platform. This integration favors an open architecture environment, with software applications winning out over hardware driven products with closed, proprietary systems. These new software applications will incorporate a multitude of features, from interactive voice response to multimedia messaging. The report expects a restructuring of the voice processing industry to occur, producing business alliances and ventures that are sensitive and adaptable to the integration of computer, telephony, and data networking capabilities. "Opportunities will abound for the companies presenting open-systems messaging solutions," explains Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "Systems that allow transportability of software from one vendor's hardware platform to another will sell extremely well." Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services posits that the greatest demand within the voice messaging equipment segment will be for multimedia applications -- a mix of video, audio, and document messaging capabilities. A mere $124 million market in 1995, the report expects the revenue for multimedia messaging equipment to top $1 billion by the year 2000, a 52% compound annual growth rate over the next five years. Extensive projections and analyses are published in Voice Processing Industry Dynamics and Network Services, available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecom market research and analysis. Visit Insight on the World Wide Web at http://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html. For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, NJ 07039-1023, (201) 605-1400 tel, (201) 605-1440 fax ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #101 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 18:53:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA20883; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603062353.SAA20883@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #103 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 18:53:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Free Modems! With a Slight Catch (Jody Kravitz) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (Fredrick T. Cordle, Jr.) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (Randy Finder) Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? (David H. Close) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (Sehlene Hart) Re: US Cross-Subsidies (Wes Leatherock) Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error (Carl Moore) Re: Distinctive Ringing Unavailable from Pac Bell? (Ray D. Harrison) Diagram of Sound Card/Telephone Interface (Robert J. Gleeman) Information Needed on USOC Codes (Edward Shuck) Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing (Steve Cogorno) Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing (Kingsley G. Morse) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (wombat@xs4all.nl) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Sam Spens Clason) Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands (Hendrik Rood) 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, 6 Mar 96 12:53:43 PST From: kravitz@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz) Subject: Free Modems! With a Slight Catch ... I'm forwarding this for a friend. Please snip below: - - - - Snip Here - - - - - Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 14:50:41 PST From: holl@priacc.com (Chris Holl) Subject: V.fc modem trade-in Hello, I am in need of a few V.fc modems. The modems must be V.fc compliant only (no V.34 implementation should be on the modem). If you are in possession of such a modem and would like to upgrade, I will trade your V.fc modem for a brand new V.34 modem. Your V.fc modem must be in good working order, complete with all accessories and documentation. This is a limited offer (I only need a few modems and they must be of different type). Please send all inquiries to holl@priacc.com. Thanks, Chris Holl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jody Kravitz has been a known and trusted user here for many years, and through his vouching for the person who submitted the above I agreed to print it. As always, readers should be cautious in sending things of value to persons with whom they are not aquainted. I am sure the above is legitimate, but *you* need to assure yourself of that also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fredc@magicnet.net (Fredrick T. Cordle, Jr.) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 6 Mar 1996 20:31:22 GMT Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Reply-To: fredc@rockwellcomm.com In article , Greg Monti says: > Area code 212, which serves the island (and nothing else), is now > nearing "that gassy, fullish feeling" (as the stomach remedy TV > commercials used to say), and has, perhaps 600 active prefixes in it. > That's an average of 38.46 prefixes per square mile. Assuming 10,000 > numbers per prefix, that's an incredible 384,615 phone numbers per > square mile. Assuming a square city block (which Manhattan doesn't > have) is about 1/100 square mile, that's 3,800 phone numbers per > block. Just as a short note ralating to this subject, we own 9000 numbers in the 212 area code. We have a callback company. Our platform takes up about three square feet of floor space at the Western Union Building at 60 Hudson St. I personally know that there are over 100 other platforms, some much MUCH larger than ours in this same building. I guess this kinda throws off your 3,800 numbers per block. Sorry. Fred Cordle, Jr. fredc@rockwellcomm.com MIS Director Rockwell Communications USA ------------------------------ From: naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Randy Finder) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 06 Mar 96 15:53:34 -0400 Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club In article , Greg Monti writes: > On 21 Feb 96, rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) wrote: >>- If 213 split along the lines described earlier, would that >> make it the smallest NPA in the country? >>- Geographically, what's the smallest NPA now? > Manhattan Island is about 3/4 of a mile wide near the north and about 1.5 > miles wide near the south end. Let's say the average width is 1.2 miles. > It's 13 miles long north to south. That's 15.6 square miles. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about DC/202? Wouldn't it come > pretty close also to being smallest? PAT] DC is in the running (compared to things like 907 :) but is about four times larger than Manhattan. The District of Columbia is 62 square miles. (About 2/3 of the original ten miles on a side diamond.) DC is not all that cramped exchange-wise. Seven digit permissive dialing to the DC suburbs only ended four or five years ago and the DC population hasn't really increased. There has been some growth due to FAX and cellular usage, but not enough to really make them even consider a split. The most logical way to split DC would be to go to the overlay idea, that is put all federal government phones on area code 666 ... :) Randy Finder Arlington, VA native [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You devil, you! That's a terrible thing to say about your president and her husband and all the congress critters and all the public masters -- ooops, I mean public serpents -- oops, I mean servants. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (David H. Close) Subject: Re: Where is the Smallest NPA? Date: 06 Mar 1996 07:08:39 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about DC/202? Wouldn't it come > pretty close also to being smallest? PAT] DC was originally exactly ten miles square, 100 square miles. After ceding a little more than half back to Virginia, it's still quite a bit larger than Manhattan. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 12:21:09 EST From: sehlene@e-universe.com (Sehlene Hart) Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing > Imagine if you had a job where you had to raise your hand to get > permission to go to the bathroom. Suppose your employer did not > allow water or other beverages at your desk, to make it easier > for you to avoid bathroom breaks during the work day. What if > your employer promised you commissions on your sales then later > cheated you out of those commissions making bogus excuses of > one kind or another ... I have no doubt that many of the allegations made by the employees against Sprint at this particular location are true. And, while slow, the disagreement is being handled through the legal system of this country. However, the intercession of NAFTA, an international trade agreement organization, into the legal system and the affairs of this country should set off HUGE alarm bells to those in this country who support our Constitutional form of government. Such Big Brother from foreign lands is exactly why the unions opposed NAFTA as did a large number of the public of this country. Just because NAFTA appears to be taking the side of the employees in their case against the company, and that is a position with which you apparently agree, I would remind you that ANY interference in the legal processes of this country by an international organization is against the precepts of the U.S. Constitution. Be careful who and what you support in the heat of the moment -- you could spend a very long time rueing the day you heard of NAFTA. Sehlene ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 14:50:00 GMT Subject: Re: US Cross-Subsidies (was: The Modem Tax if Back, Folks) Jeremy Parsons wrote: [ ... much useful text deleted ... ] > Personally, I would think there could be real benefits in the US > following suit by dropping 'free' calls. Whilst there is apparently > no incremental cost for such calls (certainly where they are truly > intra-switch), neither is it the case that the fixed cost is fixed! > As LECs well know, there are semi-fixed costs based on average and > peak usage criteria -- and so where these levels are jacked up by > Internet etc the LEC will recover the difference from all its > customers. Definitively a misplaced cross-subsidy, operating from > light local call users to heavy local call users. I have my doubts > about the effects of optional local usage charging packages here - the > way they have been implemented pushes the problem from the bottom up > and so the most massive users remain untouched. > The important point to bear in mind here is that beginning to charge > for local calls should not represent net new customer charges - it > should obviously operate fairly neutrally. Economic and social > considerations can be applied to dealing with the reallocation of > funds (lowered line rentals for all or for special needs, lowered toll > or/and access charges etc) to the greatest benefit. This point always > seems to be missed in the hue and cry whenever universal call charging > is discussed -- people talk as if it will be the poor and > disadvantaged most, while the reality is that it can and should work to > their advantage and it is the heavy users who will pay more. Everything you say is absolutely true. The only thing is that the public hates any kind of usage sensitive pricing for local calls with a passion that it hard to accept unless you've been in a state where regulatory approval was attempted. In Oklahoma, Southwestern Bell tried to get regulator approval of usage sensitive pricing. They had all kinds of surveys showing that customers agreed it would be "fairer." And there is no reason to think this is not true. But the public outcry was by far the worst I have ever seen (I was working for Southwestern Bell at the time). Nothing else the company has ever proposed caused so resentment ... or, for that matter, such long-lingering distrust of the company as still exists. The opposition was just as strong among people that you could demonstrate would save money under the proposed plan as those who would pay more. Bills were introduced in the legislature to prevent any telephone company from ever requiring usage sensitive pricing or for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the regulatory body) ever to approve such a plan. The proposal was withdrawn and clearly the Corporation Commission would never have approved it. The experience in most states has been very similar, and I believe one or two may have actually passed similar bills into law. Most parts of the United States, at least, have flat rate local calling service and clearly the public is willing to pay for it that way. Banks have had somewhat a similar experience. Their plans where "you pay only $5 a month" and no other charges are real money makers for the banks, since a great many of the customers who sign up under this plan would pay less than $5 a month on the traditional plans. For that matter, the same thing applies to appliance service contracts, where every study shows the average customer would save money by paying for service calls on a pay-per-service basis but prefers to have a fixed amount. So this is a very lucrative business for the appliance service companies. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 16:58:24 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: 800 Number Assigned to Two Subscribers in Error I wrote to the Digest very recently about people trying to call 800-VISIT-NJ (tourist information for New Jersey) and getting a gay men's party line at 800-847-HUNK. I heard of this on KYW news-radio in Philadelphia. Not as closely related (and the digest can leave the following off even if it uses the above): -Here in Maryland, I had the earlier cases of a call intended for Marilyn in Beverly Hills on 310-278 being received in area code 301 OR 410 (that was not for Marilyn Monroe, already dead 30 years by then). -I used to be in an office which had (among others) extension 3029, and that extension occasionally received calls intended for 3209, which was **GYNECOLOGY**. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago I worked in an office where my phone extension was 7261. The carry-out restaurant on the first floor of the building had the phone number 726-1xxx. Day after day about 11:45 AM at the start of the first lunch hour, my phone would ring. I would answer and a voice on the other end would say, 'oh, $##@^' and hang up. They were calling downstairs to get their lunch order started and had forgotten to dial '9' to get an outside line before dialing the rest of the number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rdh@apci.net (rdh) Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Unavailable from Pac Bell? Date: 6 Mar 1996 22:03:37 GMT Organization: APCI In article , mike@sandman.com says: > It's funny, I called Ameritech and asked them to put distinctive > ringing on a line. They said they no longer offer distinctive ringing. > Not believing what I was hearing, I asked for a supervisor who told me > the same thing. I was sure I was in the Twilight Zone -- how could they > be discontinuing a popular new service? Actually, Ameritech has discontinued connecting new customers to what they refer to as Distinctive Ringing (and what Pat called "Priority Ringing"). This is the service in which up to ten listed phone numbers can cause your phone to ring a distinctive pattern when one of the ten calls in. The Ameritech service which provides up to three phone numbers (with differing ring patterns) on one line is called Multi-Ring. In Illinois Ameritech charges $2.50 for the first Multi-Ring number and $2.00 for the second Multi-Ring number. Ray Harrison rdh@apci.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did they give you any reason *why* they were discontinuing the service? I'd have thought with the number shortage they would have done it the other way around and eliminated Multi-Ring service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: vmb60@best.com (Robert J. Gleeman) Subject: Diagram of Sound Card/Telephone Interface Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:42:41 GMT Organization: A&B Design Reply-To: vmb60@best.com Please go to this address for diagram and applications: http://www.best.com/~vmb60/ftel-app.htm ------------------------------ From: edshuck@visual-traffic.com (Edward Shuck) Subject: Information Needed on USOC Codes Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 22:30:06 GMT Organization: visual traffic Reply-To: edshuck@vosial-traffic.com I want to include a section in a book I am writing that covers USOC codes. Does anyone have a current copy or a source I can go to? Thanks, Ed ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 07:47:09 PST David Jensen said: > luck. Apparently, AT&T is the only Int' DA provider in the US, so > they feel they can charge what they want. Not true. MCI and Sprint both offer International DA as well. Sprint charges $4.95 as well and MCI, in keeping in it's policy of being less than AT&T charges $4.94. The charge used to be around $3.00 on AT&T, but I can understand why they raised it. It takes a huge amount of operator time. They don't just transfer you to an overseas DA operator. The US operator stays on the line, often for several minutes before the numbers is obtained. I used to call Italy regularly, and it would take at least five minutes to get a number. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sometimes this gets to be ridiculous. I noticed a few years ago in France they had installed a machine to hold the calls in a queue until the operators got around to them. That might be okay except that the message it gave out would make any operator go insane after a few minutes. Although for calls into France from abroad, it answered with a very crisp British man's voice saying, "Tel-eee-com! We're trying to extend your call; please stand by." This was followed by five or six bars of some jolly music and then the entire thing would repeat. The entire cycle took about 10-15 seconds, and the same message would be repeated along with the same bars of music. Therefore if you waited on hold three minutes for an operator in France, you got to hear that message and music a dozen or so times repeating itself endlessly. Five minutes on hold brought you 20-25 times around. Whoever sold that piece of worthless junk to France also sold one to Singapore; a few weeks later I had occassion to call over there and got the same man's voice and the same idiot music waiting on hold for the operator. As soon as it answered, I could sense the USA operator's eyes rolling backward in her head and her silent prayer, "Why me, Lord?" Chatting with one operator while waiting on hold, she commented to me she liked it better in the old days when it would just ring and ring for five minutes. I think most of the European counties have somewhat improved their response time. It used to be it was *always* five to ten minutes of ringing/waiting until they got around to answering. Is the USA better? An aquaintence once went to visit Cuba. This would have been about 1956 or 1957. While down there he decided to call back to Chicago and his family. The operator in Cuba got on the circuit to the USA and waited patiently for Miami to answer while it rang and rang for several minutes. Finally the Cuban operator's response was, "I am sorry sir, the United States is not answering." PAT] ------------------------------ From: change@nas.com (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.) Subject: Re: AT&T's International Directory Assistance Pricing Date: 6 Mar 1996 13:16:54 -0800 Organization: Network Access Services, Inc. David Jensen writes: > Yesterday when I got my phone bill, I saw that it had an international > directory assistance charge on it. The call had been made, but the > $4.95 charge puts COCOTs and AOSs to shame in market gouging. I called > AT&T in the forlorn hope that there was an error in the bill (maybe > the bill should have been in Pesos or French Francs, even DM). No such > luck. Apparently, AT&T is the only Int' DA provider in the US, so > they feel they can charge what they want. Sprint sells international directory assistance too, but they also charge $4.95. Maybe I should go into business providing international directory assistance. It seems easy enough; just ask the caller where they need directory assistance to and conference them in with that number! Kingsley G. Morse Jr. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you know *what numbers* the USA operators dial in other countries to get directory service, I guess you could do that, but unlike 555-1212 in this country for a long time, foreign directory assistance always did supervise, and you did get charged if you called it direct, which was frowned upon anyway for various reasons including language barriers, etc. I don't see how you could make any money at it without marking up the cost even higher than what the big three charge; do you want *your line* tied up on an international call for three or four minutes and only get two or three dollars for it? By the way, I notice now that AT&T is competing on directory assist- ance with the various other proprietors of 555-1212. In my new AT&T phone bill I got yesterday, I was told I can now give all my directory inquiry business to AT&T by dialing 900-555-1212; they will search a national database. They did not say what they are charging for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wombat@xs4all.nl (wombat) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: 06 Mar 1996 18:48:22 GMT Organization: The Trailing Edge of Technology According to Alex van Es : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' as opposed > to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned pagers here which > only beeped when called, without delivering any actual message, the > implication being when it beeped you called a preset number? PAT] 'Buzzers' are pagers which display can display a number, e.g. Motorola Bravo. The only difference is in the rate structure. Generally, pagers are rented and you pay a monthly fee. Also, for each page the caller pays a certain amount (pagers are accessible through a 900-like number). 'Buzzers' are pagers with no monthly fee, however, the paging costs are (far) higher than the paging costs for normal pagers. ------------------------------ From: sam@nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: 06 Mar 96 13:14:36 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' > as opposed to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned > pagers here which only beeped when called, without delivering > any actual message, the implication being when it beeped you > called a preset number? PAT] No they're numeric all right. I *think* the Dutch PTT runs the same concept as we have in Sweden. Telia Mobitel (the former PTT and only one pager company at present, Ermes is on its way...) has two kinds of pager services: monthly per page (caller pays) "Minicall Privat" 0 (0) 2.00 (~0.30) "Minicall" 67 (~10) 0.60 (~0.09) Numerical pagers cost between 700 and 1500 SEK (~100 - ~200). [prizes are in SEK and (~USD)] Technically they are equivalent (no alphanumerical Privats though), but the costs are distributed differently. Buying a "Privat" is like buying a cheap FM-radio; loose it and it's lost, someone else will find it and use it (unless you scratch away the number). You don't have to sign up for the Privat service, the pager is activated when manifactured. If you want all the fancy stuff you have to buy a Privat. The "real" Minicalls can also be alphanumeric, you can change your number, you can barr the pager if it's stolen, you can have a voicemail number (calling it allerts the pager) etc. Several hundred thousands Minicall Privats have been sold over the last 2 1/2 years. Sam http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam sam@nada.kth.se, +46 701234567 ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Booming Telecom Market in the Netherlands Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 03:19:26 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What precisely is a 'buzzer' as opposed > to a pager? Would this be like the old fashioned pagers here which > only beeped when called, without delivering any actual message, the > implication being when it beeped you called a preset number? PAT] The "buzzer" is a numeric pager painted in fancy colors that suits a skateboard user or the like. The whole invention is that you do not have to pay any subscription anymore. But your buzzer number is more expensive (but that is the price people pays who want to page you). The main other differences with standard numeric pagers are: You do not need to show an ID card for a "buzzer". The buzzer has one paging-number built in (not changeable). If you do not use the buzzer during one year the number is withdrawn and the buzzer does not work anymore. The advantage for the operator are: No risks for subscription-fraud. Easier selling, it is bought, up and active in a few minutes. So a very cheap administration issue. Two groups are very fond of this gadget: privacy lovers and criminals. The buzzer is the first telecommunications device that is completely anonymous. No police is able to tap your number because they do not know it. You also do not have to leave ID-data when you bought it. The latter fact is not mentioned by the marketeers. But I have heard from several sources this reason declares the huge sales in the first weeks. Buzzers are still outselling Internet subscriptions here! BTW. The Netherlands already did have the highest penetration of pagers in Europe before the new marketing storm started. Now it is used as a test-market for other types of pagers. We can also buy the Seiko Message Watch (which works on paging via extra signals on FM-radio networks) and the "Maxer" from a company called CallMax, which combines different types of pagers with all kind of Personal Numbering Services. Can anybody else give an example of selling telecommunications services and devices with advertisements using "steamy" house music, dance hall video-clips and other life-style elements directed at the 16 to 25 years old? ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #103 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 20:50:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA02352; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:50:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:50:55 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603070150.UAA02352@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #103 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 19:30:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 (Marty Nelson via alt.dcom.telecom) ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) (Keith Jarett) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Jack Decker) GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (David Ujimoto) Easiest Access to the U.S. (David B. Horvath) Cyberspace Monitor (David B. Horvath) 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: mwnelson@ix.netcom.com (Marty Nelson) Subject: NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:04:57 GMT Organization: Netcom The following information is taken from a Bellcore document that discusses the current status of the North American Numbering Plan. The following table contains dialing plans for the area served by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The information entered in the matrix is the predominant method of dialing at each location. There may be instances where the dialing plan of a community within the Numbering Plan Area (NPA) may be different than the general dialing procedure for that NPA. The following are definitions of headings and abbreviations used in the table: LOCATION: The state, province, country, or territory served by the North American Numbering Plan for which the dialing plan is being provided. NPA CODE: The Numbering Plan Area code (area code) for the LOCATION. ****STANDARD PROCEDURES***** HNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. HNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. FNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. FNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. OPER. ASSISTED: The procedure for dialing all operator assisted calls including credit card calls, collect, and third party calls. ****PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES**** PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA LOCAL call is HNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of HNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA TOLL call is HNPA TOLL: shown under the column of HNPA TOLL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a FNPA LOCAL call is FNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of FNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. NA: An entry of NA indicates that this option is not available for the LOCATION. |----- STANDARD PROCEDURES -----| |-- PERMISSIBLE --| NPA HNPA HNPA FNPA FNPA OPER HNPA HNPA FNPA LOCATION CODE LOCAL TOLL LOCAL TOLL ASSIST LOCAL TOLL TOLL ------------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- Alabama 205 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alabama 334 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alaska 907 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alberta 403 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Anguilla 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Antigua 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 520 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 602 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arkansas 501 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bahamas 242(1) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Barbados 246(2) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bermuda 441 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 250(3) 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 604 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British VI 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Cayman Islands 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA California 209 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 213 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 310 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 408 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 415 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 510 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 562(4) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 619 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 707 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 714 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 805 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 818 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 909 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 916 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Colorado 303 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 719 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 970 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 203(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 860(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Delaware 302 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Dist of Colum 202 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Dominica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Dominican Rep 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 305 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 352 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 407 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 561(6) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 813 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 904 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 941 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 954 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 404 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 706 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 770 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10D NA NA Georgia 912 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Grenada 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Hawaii 808 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Idaho 208 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 217 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 309 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 312 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 618 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 630(7) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 708 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 773(8) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 815 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 847 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 219 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 317 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 812 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 319 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 515 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 712 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Jamica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 316 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 913 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 502 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 606 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 318 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 504 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maine 207 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Manitoba 204 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maryland 301 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Maryland 410 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Massachusetts 413 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 508 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 617 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Michigan 313 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 517 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 616 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 810 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 906 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Minnesota 218 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 320(9) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 507 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 612 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Mississippi 601 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 314 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 417 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 573 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 816 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Montana 406 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Monserrat 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Nebraska 308 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nebraska 402 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nevada 702 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA New Brunswick 506 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New Hampshire 603 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New Jersey 201 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 609 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 908 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Mexico 505 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 212 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 315 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 516 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 518 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 607 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 716 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 718 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 914 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 917 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Newfoundland 709 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 704 7D 1+10D 7/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 910 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 919 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Dakota 701 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 403 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 604 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nova Scotia 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 216 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 330(10) 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 419 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 513 7D 1+10D 1+10D* 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 614 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Oklahoma 405 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oklahoma 918 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 416 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 519 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 613 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 705 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 807 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 905 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 503 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 541 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Pennsylvania 215 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 412 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 610 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 717 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 814 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Prince Edw Is 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Puerto Rico 787(11) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 418 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 514 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 819 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Rhode Island 401 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Saskatchewan 306 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 803 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 864 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Dakota 605 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Kitts/Nevis 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Lucia 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Vincent 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 423 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 615 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 901 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 210 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 214 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 281 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 409 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 512 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 713 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 806 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 817 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 903 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 915 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 972 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Trinidad/Tobago809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Turks & Caicos 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D 5D NA NA US Virgin Is 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Utah 801 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Vermont 802 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Virginia 540 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia(WMEA) 703 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Virginia 703 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia 804 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Washington 206 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 360 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 509 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA West Virginia 304 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA 1+10D Wisconsin 414 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 608 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 715 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wyoming 307 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Yukon 403 7D 1+10D NA 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA *7 digit dialing for FNPA local calling in Cincinnati Bell Area (1) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 10-01-96 when the 242 NPA is introduced (2) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 07-01-96 when the 246 NPA is introduced (3) Permissive dialing for the 250 NPA begins on 10-19-96 (4) Permissive dialing for the 562 NPA begins on 01-27-97 (5) Local calls across the 203/860 NPA boundary will be dialed on a 7-digit basis (6) Permissive dialing for the 561 NPA begins on 05-13-96 (7) Permissive dialing for the 630 NPA begins on 08-03-96 (8) Permissive dialing for the 773 NPA begins on 10-12-96 (9) Permissive dialing for the 320 NPA begins on 03-17-96 (10) Permissive dialing for the 330 NPA begins on 03-09-96 (11) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 03-01-96 when the 787 NPA is introduced ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: ISP Profitability (was: Re: Misuse of the Internet?) Date: 6 Mar 1996 23:14:55 GMT Organization: TCSI > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally I see the ISPs of today > as the telcos in the early twentieth century; making more money than > they know what to do with. Just as telephones earned billions and > gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in the first half of > this century I think ISPs are going to be very wealthy in twenty > years. PAT] Patrick, the early telcos had large capital requirements, which constituted a substantial barrier to new entrants. In fact, many economissts called them natural monopolies. While it is true that the ISP market is exploding, the barriers to entry are practically nonexistent now. Unless ISPs work together with the government to create some barriers, those gazillions of earnings will not materialize. Instead, this will be a low-margin high-volume business, having more in common with gasoline stations than with today's utility companies. The same trends are apparent in the long distance resale market, although there are at least some barriers to entry there. Who would have thought 15 years ago that carriers would be offering service at todays rates, let alone having Free Fridays and similar outrageous promotions? keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:47:54 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The America's Carriers > Telecommunication Association (ACTA), a trade association of > competitive, long distance carriers today petitioned the Federal > Communications Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling > software and hardware products that enable use of the Internet to > voice long distance services.[...remainder deleted for brevity...] In my opinion, this is a pretty serious threat to the Internet. Data is data and there will never be any way to assure that voice data is not being transmitted instead of something else. Granted, you could block the use of the ports that existing products use, but what happens when some bright person decides to configure a phone-type product to look like, say, an FTP client and server exchanging files? If this goes through, the hackers will have a field day figuring out ways around it. So what happens then? Are ISP's going to be expected to play policeman and examine all data and try to make sure no audio is flowing through? Will this also ban one-way radio streams, or .wav and .au files containing recorded audio? And of course, this comes on the heels of that other threat to the Internet as we know it -- the new so-called "Modem Tax" proposal that would require ISP's to collect a per-minute-of-use charge from Internet users, even those who currently have flat rate (untimed) service. Those who care about these should start thinking about reasonable responses to some of these threats -- persuasive arguments, as it were. Here is one thing to think about. It is unfair to tax (or place limitations on) one industry to subsidize another, competing industry. Suppose that many years ago, every phone call had been taxed at a high rate and then the taxes given to Western Union to subsidize telegraph service. While this certainly would have had the effect of keeping Western Union alive, it would have inhibited the growth of the newer, more modern technology -- the telephone! I see the Internet as a possible replacement for the telephone system of today -- certainly not this year, and perhaps not for many years, but a possible replacement nonetheless -- and not just a replacement per se, but something that can provide far more than what telephones of today are capable of, and at far lower prices. Even though telephone lines are used extensively now, that may not always be the case (it's worth remembering that in the early days of telephony, telegraph circuits were sometimes pressed into service to carry telephone calls, but they ultimately proved unsuitable for voice traffic. Quite similar, perhaps, to today's situation, where standard voice grade lines are proving to be unsuitable for Internet traffic due to bandwidth demands). I also see that the phone companies, who have a considerable investment in the older technology, don't wish to lose their investment, and they have certainly proven by their past actions that they are not above lobbying the federal and state governments to try and protect their income flow. And it's now becoming obvious that they see the Internet as a threat. They are already tilting over the idea that people are actually daring to send voice over the net. My question is, why is it fair for the government to take away an advanced technology from people in order to protect the investment of those who have a stake in the older technology? By this logic, we should have placed a tax on automobiles and given that money to the horse drawn carriage makers -- or perhaps we should require every driver to carry a buggy whip, so that buggy whips can be kept affordable for everyone. At the present time, Voice over the Net is not advanced enough to be any real threat to the income level of the phone companies. It is very likely true that most domestic VON calls would not even be made if there were a toll charge -- mostly it is still just computer hobbyists talking to each other. The network delays and packet loss make VON products pretty much unsuitable for most business communications. As the products improve, they will doubtless become a greater threat. But here is the point -- instead of asking for government intervention and protection, the phone companies should be reading the handwriting on the wall and developing the services that people will want and need, and then sell those on the open marketplace. They have a HUGE advantage going in -- a copper wire pair to almost every home in America. I daresay that there are probably a lot of ISP's that only wish they could have that kind of advantage! It's kind of ironic that the phone companies already have huge advantages (and now nothing to stop them from competing with ISP's on an even footing) and yet they want to beat up on the folks that are enjoying a little free, albeit substandard communication. What are they going to do next, propose taxes on ham radio and CB radio operators? I think the big reason the phone companies are having a fit is that they can't stand it that the average person just might have access to a less expensive way to spend voice traffic than a standard phone call. They don't really complain as long as they can offer the same thing cheaper ... for example, you don't hear them asking for a cut of point to point satellite audio that is used by some large businesses, because that service is far too expensive for the average person to afford. But now that inexpensive communication is coming down to the level that real people might be able to afford it, they want to take it away. The one thing the the phone companies seem to fear most is true competition. So far they have been able to forestall true competition by putting so many requirements and hinderances upon would-be competitiors that it will be years until any true competition for local service arrives (in most of the country). Then along comes the Internet, which has the potential to provide everything the phone company provides and more, and do it CHEAPER (not necessarily better or faster at this point -- what really galls them is that it's CHEAPER to the end user), and they can't stand it that some college kid might be able to hold a real conversation with mom and dad and still be able to afford to eat dinner the next day, or that someone can actually SEE how grandma is looking in a nursing home somewhere without buying an expensive specialty phone with a postage stamp size picture that updates about once a second (and is good for nothing else except talking to another unit of its own kind). If the FCC thinks it is so fair for the ISP's to pay off the phone companies and protect their business, then perhaps the phone companies ought to be required to pay tribute to Western Union (and Western Union would in turn be required to pay off the descendants of Pony Express riders, and so on)! If the truth be known, I think all the "access charges" ought to be eliminated. The reason is that it allows the phone companies to in effect charge for a service that they are not providing. Even with a conventional long distance voice call, if the carrier has a POP in the same local community where the call originates, then the phone company is in fact only responsible for completing a local link from the originator's phone to the carrier's switch. This is really no different from any other local call, except for the necessity to collect data for billing (which the phone company charges the carriers for anyway). If the phone company is not collecting billing information (as in a modem call to an ISP), they are providing NO service at all other than extending a local call. So why should they be paid any more for those calls than for any other local call? If you are a socialist, of course, you'll whine about "universal service" and how some should pay more so others can pay less. Karl Marx would have loved it. But in my opinion, if the phone company is not providing any additional service, they should not be able to charge anything extra. And in particular, if another company (voice carrier or ISP) is offering (or desires to offer) a flat rate, untimed service, the phone companies most certainly ought not be able to force them to collect a tax based on minutes of use (the other proposal they are attempting to float these days for ISP's). I felt the same way back when, here in Michigan, the phone company thought they ought to be able to charge about 60 cents a month extra for a _customer provided_ extension phone (this was in the tariffs for a few years right after it became legal for customers to own their own phones). My argument then, as now, is that the phone company was providing no additional service whatsoever for that 60 cents (they weren't offering to maintain the customer's phone or anything); therefore they ought not to be able to charge anything extra. It would be the same situation here. The ISP buys standard business grade lines and receives phone calls on them, in a manner no different from that of a private BBS operator or a private modem-to-modem connection between two users. The line connects to a modem in either of those cases. The fact that some modems are connected to the Internet, while some are connected to a BBS that is on Fidonet and others to a standalone BBS (and still others to someone's personal computer) should not really be any of the phone company's concern. When we put a modem on a phone line, should we really have to declare whether someone might send anything over it that might eventually wind up on the Internet? The fact is that this is not a cut and dried situation by any means. For example, if I dial up my Internet Service Provider, I could connect to a BBS at the local POP and never send any traffic outside the local area. By the same token, I could dial up a Fidonet BBS and leave an e-mail message that would go out onto the Internet. So how are they going to determine who's subject to these regulations and who isn't? As I say, these are just a few thoughts -- talking points, if you will -- for discussion. Some may be better than others, but they may inspire others to think of reasons that these proposals are bad ideas. One final note: There is a short article about the FCC petition to ban the use of phone-type products at this URL: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/960305a.html Jack ------------------------------ From: ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) Subject: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Organization: Toronto Free-Net Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:07:53 GMT Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently underway in Geneva? Any information/pointers would be greatly appreciated! David Ujimoto Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ab261@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:32:19 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Easiest Access to the U.S. I was in Vancouver B.C. for the DECUS Canada annual symposium and picked up a copy of the "Province" newspaper. On pages A26 and A27 was an ad from BCTEL: Frustrated by 1-800 lines that don't connect south of this one? [running along the US-Canada border] 880 _Easiest access to the U.S._ Crossing the border is now easier than ever. Thanks to BC TEL's new South of the 49(tm) service. It lets our customers get through to more than 1.5 million previously inaccessible numbers in the U.S. And it's only 18cents (CDN) a minute. So next time you dial a U.S. 1-800 number that doesn't connect, replace the 800 with 880 and try again. Fpr more information on this and other innovative services, dial 1-800-554-2551. Then call the land of the free. Hassle free. [Any typos are my fault] David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:37:48 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Cyberspace Monitor The things you find when looking through magazines piled on the desk ... From NewMedia, May 1995: Cyberspace Monitor: What are people saying about you on the Internet? EWatch will keep an eye out for company mentions and other criteria in over 3,000 newsgroups so you can find out about rumors or inaccurate information -- or about glowing testimonials. They will also help you draft and place appropriate responses. For a weekly report, the fee is $295 a month plus $2 per hit. Contact eWorks at (612)288-XXXX or at info@XXXXXX.XXX. I could see someone finding out who a client is and making hundreds of posts with the company name in their .sig to boost the number of hits with a very high noise level :-( This reminds me of a net.god who claims to have read every mention of his name on the net (notice that I'm not adding to the volume). David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a hundred years, these same services operated utilitzing the print media. They were called 'press clipping services'. A large service employed a couple dozen newspaper readers who sat there all day reading every last word in every single newspaper they received looking for mention of their clients. When they found something, they clipped it out of the newspaper and sent it to the client, and were paid some sum of money -- usually 25 cents -- for each such clipping. If you wanted, you could pay them to look for mention of *someone else*; they didn't care what they looked for. It was very common for politicians to have the press clipping services look for news about other politicians so they could use it to show how their opponent was inconsistent, a liar or just plain immoral. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #102 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 6 20:58:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA03242; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:58:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:58:56 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603070158.UAA03242@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #102 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Mar 96 19:30:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 (Marty Nelson via alt.dcom.telecom) ISP Profitability (was Re: Misuse of the Internet?) (Keith Jarett) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Jack Decker) GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (David Ujimoto) Easiest Access to the U.S. (David B. Horvath) Cyberspace Monitor (David B. Horvath) 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: mwnelson@ix.netcom.com (Marty Nelson) Subject: NANP Dialing Plans - Issue 5 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 16:04:57 GMT Organization: Netcom The following information is taken from a Bellcore document that discusses the current status of the North American Numbering Plan. The following table contains dialing plans for the area served by the North American Numbering Plan (NANP). The information entered in the matrix is the predominant method of dialing at each location. There may be instances where the dialing plan of a community within the Numbering Plan Area (NPA) may be different than the general dialing procedure for that NPA. The following are definitions of headings and abbreviations used in the table: LOCATION: The state, province, country, or territory served by the North American Numbering Plan for which the dialing plan is being provided. NPA CODE: The Numbering Plan Area code (area code) for the LOCATION. ****STANDARD PROCEDURES***** HNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. HNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) within the (home) NPA CODE. FNPA LOCAL: The procedure for dialing local calls (generally calls that do not incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. FNPA TOLL: The procedure for dialing toll calls (generally calls that incur a charge) outside of (foreign) NPA CODE. OPER. ASSISTED: The procedure for dialing all operator assisted calls including credit card calls, collect, and third party calls. ****PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES**** PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA LOCAL call is HNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of HNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a HNPA TOLL call is HNPA TOLL: shown under the column of HNPA TOLL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. PERMISS. Although the procedure for dialing a FNPA LOCAL call is FNPA LOCAL: shown under the column of FNPA LOCAL, it is also "permissible" for the dialer to place the call using the method under this column. NA: An entry of NA indicates that this option is not available for the LOCATION. |----- STANDARD PROCEDURES -----| |-- PERMISSIBLE --| NPA HNPA HNPA FNPA FNPA OPER HNPA HNPA FNPA LOCATION CODE LOCAL TOLL LOCAL TOLL ASSIST LOCAL TOLL TOLL ------------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- Alabama 205 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alabama 334 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alaska 907 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Alberta 403 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Anguilla 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Antigua 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 520 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arizona 602 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Arkansas 501 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bahamas 242(1) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Barbados 246(2) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Bermuda 441 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 250(3) 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British Col 604 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA British VI 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Cayman Islands 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA California 209 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 213 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 310 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 408 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 415 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 510 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 562(4) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 619 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 707 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 714 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 805 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 818 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 909 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA California 916 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Colorado 303 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 719 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Colorado 970 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 203(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Connecticut 860(5) 7D 1+10D 7/1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Delaware 302 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Dist of Colum 202 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Dominica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Dominican Rep 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 305 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 352 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 407 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 561(6) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 813 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 904 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 941 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Florida 954 7D 1+10D 7D/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 404 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 706 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Georgia 770 7D NONE 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10D NA NA Georgia 912 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Grenada 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Hawaii 808 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Idaho 208 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 217 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 309 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 312 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 618 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 630(7) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 708 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 773(8) 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 815 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Illinois 847 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 219 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 317 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Indiana 812 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 319 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 515 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Iowa 712 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Jamica 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 316 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kansas 913 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 502 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Kentucky 606 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 318 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Louisiana 504 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maine 207 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Manitoba 204 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Maryland 301 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Maryland 410 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Massachusetts 413 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 508 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Massachusetts 617 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Michigan 313 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 517 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 616 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 810 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Michigan 906 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Minnesota 218 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 320(9) 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 507 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Minnesota 612 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Mississippi 601 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 314 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 417 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 573 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Missouri 816 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Montana 406 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Monserrat 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D 4D NA NA Nebraska 308 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nebraska 402 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nevada 702 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA New Brunswick 506 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New Hampshire 603 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New Jersey 201 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 609 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Jersey 908 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA New Mexico 505 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 212 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 315 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 516 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 518 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 607 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 716 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA New York 718 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 914 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA New York 917 7D NONE 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Newfoundland 709 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 704 7D 1+10D 7/10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 910 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Carolina 919 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA North Dakota 701 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 403 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA N.W Territory 604 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Nova Scotia 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 216 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 330(10) 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 419 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Ohio 513 7D 1+10D 1+10D* 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ohio 614 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA NA Oklahoma 405 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oklahoma 918 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 416 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 519 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 613 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 705 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 807 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Ontario 905 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 503 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Oregon 541 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Pennsylvania 215 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 412 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 610 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 717 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Pennsylvania 814 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D 1+10D NA Prince Edw Is 902 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Puerto Rico 787(11) 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 418 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 514 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Quebec 819 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Rhode Island 401 7D 7D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA 1+10D NA Saskatchewan 306 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 803 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Carolina 864 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA South Dakota 605 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Kitts/Nevis 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Lucia 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA St Vincent 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 423 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 615 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Tennessee 901 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 210 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 214 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 281 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 409 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 512 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 713 10D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 806 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 817 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 903 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 915 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Texas 972 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Trinidad/Tobago809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Turks & Caicos 809 7D 0+1+10D NONE 1+10D 115+10D 5D NA NA US Virgin Is 809 7D 1+10D NONE 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Utah 801 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Vermont 802 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Virginia 540 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia(WMEA) 703 7D 1+10D 10D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 1+10D Virginia 703 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Virginia 804 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 10/1+10D NA 10/1+10D Washington 206 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 360 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Washington 509 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA West Virginia 304 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D 1+10D NA 1+10D Wisconsin 414 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 608 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wisconsin 715 7D 1+10D 1+10D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Wyoming 307 7D 1+10D 7D 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA Yukon 403 7D 1+10D NA 1+10D 0+10D NA NA NA *7 digit dialing for FNPA local calling in Cincinnati Bell Area (1) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 10-01-96 when the 242 NPA is introduced (2) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 07-01-96 when the 246 NPA is introduced (3) Permissive dialing for the 250 NPA begins on 10-19-96 (4) Permissive dialing for the 562 NPA begins on 01-27-97 (5) Local calls across the 203/860 NPA boundary will be dialed on a 7-digit basis (6) Permissive dialing for the 561 NPA begins on 05-13-96 (7) Permissive dialing for the 630 NPA begins on 08-03-96 (8) Permissive dialing for the 773 NPA begins on 10-12-96 (9) Permissive dialing for the 320 NPA begins on 03-17-96 (10) Permissive dialing for the 330 NPA begins on 03-09-96 (11) The 809 NPA must be used prior to the start of permissive dialing on 03-01-96 when the 787 NPA is introduced ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: ISP Profitability (was: Re: Misuse of the Internet?) Date: 6 Mar 1996 23:14:55 GMT Organization: TCSI > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Personally I see the ISPs of today > as the telcos in the early twentieth century; making more money than > they know what to do with. Just as telephones earned billions and > gazillions of dollars for their stockholders in the first half of > this century I think ISPs are going to be very wealthy in twenty > years. PAT] Patrick, the early telcos had large capital requirements, which constituted a substantial barrier to new entrants. In fact, many economissts called them natural monopolies. While it is true that the ISP market is exploding, the barriers to entry are practically nonexistent now. Unless ISPs work together with the government to create some barriers, those gazillions of earnings will not materialize. Instead, this will be a low-margin high-volume business, having more in common with gasoline stations than with today's utility companies. The same trends are apparent in the long distance resale market, although there are at least some barriers to entry there. Who would have thought 15 years ago that carriers would be offering service at todays rates, let alone having Free Fridays and similar outrageous promotions? keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 18:47:54 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The America's Carriers > Telecommunication Association (ACTA), a trade association of > competitive, long distance carriers today petitioned the Federal > Communications Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling > software and hardware products that enable use of the Internet to > voice long distance services.[...remainder deleted for brevity...] In my opinion, this is a pretty serious threat to the Internet. Data is data and there will never be any way to assure that voice data is not being transmitted instead of something else. Granted, you could block the use of the ports that existing products use, but what happens when some bright person decides to configure a phone-type product to look like, say, an FTP client and server exchanging files? If this goes through, the hackers will have a field day figuring out ways around it. So what happens then? Are ISP's going to be expected to play policeman and examine all data and try to make sure no audio is flowing through? Will this also ban one-way radio streams, or .wav and .au files containing recorded audio? And of course, this comes on the heels of that other threat to the Internet as we know it -- the new so-called "Modem Tax" proposal that would require ISP's to collect a per-minute-of-use charge from Internet users, even those who currently have flat rate (untimed) service. Those who care about these should start thinking about reasonable responses to some of these threats -- persuasive arguments, as it were. Here is one thing to think about. It is unfair to tax (or place limitations on) one industry to subsidize another, competing industry. Suppose that many years ago, every phone call had been taxed at a high rate and then the taxes given to Western Union to subsidize telegraph service. While this certainly would have had the effect of keeping Western Union alive, it would have inhibited the growth of the newer, more modern technology -- the telephone! I see the Internet as a possible replacement for the telephone system of today -- certainly not this year, and perhaps not for many years, but a possible replacement nonetheless -- and not just a replacement per se, but something that can provide far more than what telephones of today are capable of, and at far lower prices. Even though telephone lines are used extensively now, that may not always be the case (it's worth remembering that in the early days of telephony, telegraph circuits were sometimes pressed into service to carry telephone calls, but they ultimately proved unsuitable for voice traffic. Quite similar, perhaps, to today's situation, where standard voice grade lines are proving to be unsuitable for Internet traffic due to bandwidth demands). I also see that the phone companies, who have a considerable investment in the older technology, don't wish to lose their investment, and they have certainly proven by their past actions that they are not above lobbying the federal and state governments to try and protect their income flow. And it's now becoming obvious that they see the Internet as a threat. They are already tilting over the idea that people are actually daring to send voice over the net. My question is, why is it fair for the government to take away an advanced technology from people in order to protect the investment of those who have a stake in the older technology? By this logic, we should have placed a tax on automobiles and given that money to the horse drawn carriage makers -- or perhaps we should require every driver to carry a buggy whip, so that buggy whips can be kept affordable for everyone. At the present time, Voice over the Net is not advanced enough to be any real threat to the income level of the phone companies. It is very likely true that most domestic VON calls would not even be made if there were a toll charge -- mostly it is still just computer hobbyists talking to each other. The network delays and packet loss make VON products pretty much unsuitable for most business communications. As the products improve, they will doubtless become a greater threat. But here is the point -- instead of asking for government intervention and protection, the phone companies should be reading the handwriting on the wall and developing the services that people will want and need, and then sell those on the open marketplace. They have a HUGE advantage going in -- a copper wire pair to almost every home in America. I daresay that there are probably a lot of ISP's that only wish they could have that kind of advantage! It's kind of ironic that the phone companies already have huge advantages (and now nothing to stop them from competing with ISP's on an even footing) and yet they want to beat up on the folks that are enjoying a little free, albeit substandard communication. What are they going to do next, propose taxes on ham radio and CB radio operators? I think the big reason the phone companies are having a fit is that they can't stand it that the average person just might have access to a less expensive way to spend voice traffic than a standard phone call. They don't really complain as long as they can offer the same thing cheaper ... for example, you don't hear them asking for a cut of point to point satellite audio that is used by some large businesses, because that service is far too expensive for the average person to afford. But now that inexpensive communication is coming down to the level that real people might be able to afford it, they want to take it away. The one thing the the phone companies seem to fear most is true competition. So far they have been able to forestall true competition by putting so many requirements and hinderances upon would-be competitiors that it will be years until any true competition for local service arrives (in most of the country). Then along comes the Internet, which has the potential to provide everything the phone company provides and more, and do it CHEAPER (not necessarily better or faster at this point -- what really galls them is that it's CHEAPER to the end user), and they can't stand it that some college kid might be able to hold a real conversation with mom and dad and still be able to afford to eat dinner the next day, or that someone can actually SEE how grandma is looking in a nursing home somewhere without buying an expensive specialty phone with a postage stamp size picture that updates about once a second (and is good for nothing else except talking to another unit of its own kind). If the FCC thinks it is so fair for the ISP's to pay off the phone companies and protect their business, then perhaps the phone companies ought to be required to pay tribute to Western Union (and Western Union would in turn be required to pay off the descendants of Pony Express riders, and so on)! If the truth be known, I think all the "access charges" ought to be eliminated. The reason is that it allows the phone companies to in effect charge for a service that they are not providing. Even with a conventional long distance voice call, if the carrier has a POP in the same local community where the call originates, then the phone company is in fact only responsible for completing a local link from the originator's phone to the carrier's switch. This is really no different from any other local call, except for the necessity to collect data for billing (which the phone company charges the carriers for anyway). If the phone company is not collecting billing information (as in a modem call to an ISP), they are providing NO service at all other than extending a local call. So why should they be paid any more for those calls than for any other local call? If you are a socialist, of course, you'll whine about "universal service" and how some should pay more so others can pay less. Karl Marx would have loved it. But in my opinion, if the phone company is not providing any additional service, they should not be able to charge anything extra. And in particular, if another company (voice carrier or ISP) is offering (or desires to offer) a flat rate, untimed service, the phone companies most certainly ought not be able to force them to collect a tax based on minutes of use (the other proposal they are attempting to float these days for ISP's). I felt the same way back when, here in Michigan, the phone company thought they ought to be able to charge about 60 cents a month extra for a _customer provided_ extension phone (this was in the tariffs for a few years right after it became legal for customers to own their own phones). My argument then, as now, is that the phone company was providing no additional service whatsoever for that 60 cents (they weren't offering to maintain the customer's phone or anything); therefore they ought not to be able to charge anything extra. It would be the same situation here. The ISP buys standard business grade lines and receives phone calls on them, in a manner no different from that of a private BBS operator or a private modem-to-modem connection between two users. The line connects to a modem in either of those cases. The fact that some modems are connected to the Internet, while some are connected to a BBS that is on Fidonet and others to a standalone BBS (and still others to someone's personal computer) should not really be any of the phone company's concern. When we put a modem on a phone line, should we really have to declare whether someone might send anything over it that might eventually wind up on the Internet? The fact is that this is not a cut and dried situation by any means. For example, if I dial up my Internet Service Provider, I could connect to a BBS at the local POP and never send any traffic outside the local area. By the same token, I could dial up a Fidonet BBS and leave an e-mail message that would go out onto the Internet. So how are they going to determine who's subject to these regulations and who isn't? As I say, these are just a few thoughts -- talking points, if you will -- for discussion. Some may be better than others, but they may inspire others to think of reasons that these proposals are bad ideas. One final note: There is a short article about the FCC petition to ban the use of phone-type products at this URL: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/960305a.html Jack ------------------------------ From: ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) Subject: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Organization: Toronto Free-Net Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:07:53 GMT Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently underway in Geneva? Any information/pointers would be greatly appreciated! David Ujimoto Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ab261@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:32:19 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Easiest Access to the U.S. I was in Vancouver B.C. for the DECUS Canada annual symposium and picked up a copy of the "Province" newspaper. On pages A26 and A27 was an ad from BCTEL: Frustrated by 1-800 lines that don't connect south of this one? [running along the US-Canada border] 880 _Easiest access to the U.S._ Crossing the border is now easier than ever. Thanks to BC TEL's new South of the 49(tm) service. It lets our customers get through to more than 1.5 million previously inaccessible numbers in the U.S. And it's only 18cents (CDN) a minute. So next time you dial a U.S. 1-800 number that doesn't connect, replace the 800 with 880 and try again. Fpr more information on this and other innovative services, dial 1-800-554-2551. Then call the land of the free. Hassle free. [Any typos are my fault] David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 19:37:48 EST From: David B. Horvath, CDP Subject: Cyberspace Monitor The things you find when looking through magazines piled on the desk ... From NewMedia, May 1995: Cyberspace Monitor: What are people saying about you on the Internet? EWatch will keep an eye out for company mentions and other criteria in over 3,000 newsgroups so you can find out about rumors or inaccurate information -- or about glowing testimonials. They will also help you draft and place appropriate responses. For a weekly report, the fee is $295 a month plus $2 per hit. Contact eWorks at (612)288-XXXX or at info@XXXXXX.XXX. I could see someone finding out who a client is and making hundreds of posts with the company name in their .sig to boost the number of hits with a very high noise level :-( This reminds me of a net.god who claims to have read every mention of his name on the net (notice that I'm not adding to the volume). David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a hundred years, these same services operated utilitzing the print media. They were called 'press clipping services'. A large service employed a couple dozen newspaper readers who sat there all day reading every last word in every single newspaper they received looking for mention of their clients. When they found something, they clipped it out of the newspaper and sent it to the client, and were paid some sum of money -- usually 25 cents -- for each such clipping. If you wanted, you could pay them to look for mention of *someone else*; they didn't care what they looked for. It was very common for politicians to have the press clipping services look for news about other politicians so they could use it to show how their opponent was inconsistent, a liar or just plain immoral. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #102 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 11:36:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA24185; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:36:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:36:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071636.LAA24185@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:36:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Promotion Makes 888 Toll-Free Numbers Ring Sweeter (Mike Pollock) Teens Accused of Credit Scam (Tad Cook) Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (Ben Parker) Area Code/NNX Database Updates? (Ben Parker) Purchasing AT&T Gift Certificates From Abroad (Scott Montague) Tariffs For Leased Lines (Reinhard Burkert) CMIS HL API C++ Specification (John Harris) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Dan Pock) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Tom Lager) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (David Leibold) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (Alex Klaus) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Jonathan Edelson) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Barry Margolin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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: Mike Pollock Subject: Sprint Promotion Makes 888 Toll-Free Numbers Ring Sweeter Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 02:06:55 -0500 KANSAS CITY, Mo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 6, 1996--To celebrate the introduction of 888 toll-free numbers, Sprint announced Wednesday a unique, risk-free, money-back offer. Up to six months from the activation date, new Sprint 888 toll-free customers can obtain their money back, if they do not believe that their new toll-free number has been of value to their small business. The announcement comes on the heels of the March 1 introduction of the new 888 prefix for making toll-free calls. This prefix opens up an additional 7.6 million toll-free telephone numbers to supplement the nearly depleted supply of nearly 8 million 800 numbers. Through Sprint's money back offer, which is valid until Aug. 31, 1996, Sprint will refund customers the toll-free interstate usage charges and monthly recurring charges incurred up to $1,000 per month per toll-free number. The offer applies to new Business Sense, Sprint Clarity(R) or The Most for Business(SM) toll-free service numbers activated after March 1. "Sprint's money-back offer is further demonstration of our commitment to providing business solutions for our customers," said Robin Loyed, Sprint's director of small business market development. "We're confident we can demonstrate the business benefit of toll-free calling and help our customers do more business." As part of this commitment, Sprint is initiating an intensive campaign to educate toll-free small business prospects and customers on how they can use technology to enhance their productivity. Each new 800 or 888 customer will receive a Customer Tool Kit within ten days of ordering toll free service from Sprint. The kit contains: o Discount coupons to Kinko's to help reduce the cost of new business stationery and for other services. o Tips on advertising the new number. o Advice on avoiding abuse and fraud. o Suggested copy for letters that can be sent to customers introducing the new toll-free number for your business and explaining its many benefits. o Personalized self-inking stamp with company name, address and phone number. New Sprint 800 or 888 toll-free customers also receive 888 Callers' Plus Bonus Points each month for eight months. Callers' Plus is Sprint's unique frequent user program which enables small business owners to reward customers, employees and themselves by redeeming merchandise for points from Sprint. The 888 prefix offers the same benefits as existing 800 toll-free service. Consumers can make a call to get information or services 24 hours a day and the recipient, not the caller, pays for the phone call. For businesses, that can translate into significant increases in revenues through an expanded customer base as well as increased usage and enhanced satisfaction among current customers. Sprint is a global communications company -- at the forefront in integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services and the world's largest carrier of Internet traffic. Sprint is the leader in advanced data communications services and built the United States' only nationwide, all-digital, fiber-optic network, which provides the bandwidth necessary for today's sophisticated business applications. Sprint has $13.6 billion in annual revenues and services more than 15 million business and residential customers. CONTACT: Porter Novelli, New York Ann Mrkic, 212/872-8089 E-mail: amrkic@porternovelli.com or Juliet Glassroth, 212/872-8257 E-mail: Jglassroth@porternovelli.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Teens Accused of Credit Scam Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:56:07 PST NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. (AP) -- Four teens, accused of tricking a computer user to give his credit-card number over the Internet and then charging telephone chat lines and computer service bills to the card, could face criminal charges, police said. The boys, all unidentified students at Corona del Mar High School, were taken into custody Feb. 20 for investigation of conspiracy to commit petty theft, Sgt. John Desmond said. The three 15-year-olds and one 17-year-old were released to their parents. They allegedly charged about $100 to the pilfered credit card number, Desmond said. The teens allegedly used a home computer to flash a message to a Vacaville user while he was connected to America Online Serice, telling him his system was down and that he had to re-enter his credit-card account number to restore his service, Desmond said. "The number was immediately visible to the boys," Desmond said. Soon after, the card's owner saw $60 worth of calls to a telephone chat line billed in September and July. The chat line led authorities to Newport Beach, where police Detective Rob Morton tracked down the teens. ------------------------------ From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) Subject: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 01:34:46 GMT Organization: Best Effort Co. Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com When you call Directory Assistance (esp long distance xxx-555-1212) to ask for a number of a business, the operator's first response is "What city, please?" If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. I realize the answer may vary with each telco but aren't there alternate ways that operators can look up the needed info within that area code, especially if it's a business (as opposed to an individual name where there seems a greater chance for duplication)? Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Ben Parker (Oak Park IL) bparker@interaccess.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T offers nationwide directory assistance on 900-555-1212. They say you do not need to have any area code; just the name and general location of the person. I do not know what they charge for the service. It appears to be intended as direct competition to the telcos offering 555-1212 in each area code. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) Subject: Area Code/NNX Database Updates? Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 01:34:58 GMT Organization: Best Effort Co. Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com With all the many new area codes coming into use this year, it is a special problem time for database administrators, in updating national scope data files with the correct new area codes. What I am wondering is there any one source for the information needed to automate these kind of updates. Specifically, a lookup by old area code + NNX exchange prefix with a return of the correct new area code#. Many lists I have seen give towns or other vague references, which are less than completely accurate. An on-line or on-disk/tape or CDROM form of the data would be nice. Obviously this data changes frequently, so on-going updates would be necessary. Does the Bellcore TRA dept provide this kind of info or is it up to each local telco to provide? Ben Parker (Oak Park IL) bparker@interaccess.com ------------------------------ From: Scott Montague <4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:45:24 -0500 Reply-To: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca Subject: Purchasing AT&T Gift Certificates From Abroad Today I tried to buy AT&T Long Distance Gift Certificates for a friend in the US. Unfortunately, from Canada, that's not as easy as it sounds. I called the USA direct number (1-800-CALL-ATT), and asked if I could purchase LD Gift Certificates using my calling card. Not surprisingly, I couldn't, but the operator said she'd connect me with the office which does sell the certificates using credit cards. The operator then asked "Could I have your calling card number?". Baffled, I asked why she would need that. "Well, there's a charge for calling 1-800 numbers through USA direct". A little stunned, I asked "I want to buy LD certificates from you ... why do I have to pay toll to do it?". She couldn't answer that, and hopped off to see her supervisor. Three minutes later, she came on the line and said "There's a number that you can call internationally to discuss ANY of AT&T's services, free of charge. Do you have a pen? Good, you can just call USA direct and dial 412-553-7458 for our World Connect Information Centre". She then connected me. Apparently, this is a AT&T switchboard that can connect you to any AT&T number. So, I asked to speak to the office where I could purchase LD Gift Certificates from Canada. Needless to say, I did not speak the "key word" and so was shuttled through five different ACD's (which, BTW, did not recognize '0' for an operator). I finally gave up, and called back. After convincing the USA direct operator that 412-553-7458 is free, I got the switchboard again. This time, however, the person actually listened to what I said. Finally, I got through to the AT&T Certificate Enterprises Centre. From there, they pretty much knew what they were doing. The only problem was, they forgot to mention until the very end of the call that there was a $2.95 charge to complete the order _on top_ of the price of the gift certificates. Begrudgingly, I accepted the surcharge, said "thank you kindly", and hung up. The next big hurdle will be seeing the LD Gift Certificates actually get delivered. So, if you want to dial an AT&T internal number internationally, call USA direct, and connect with 412-553-7458. If you are speaking with an operator, say it's a non-billable call to their "World Connect Info Centre". You can then ask for the department you want, for instance "AT&T Certificate Enterprises" for LD gift certificates. It's a long way from what we do here in Canada, which is calling the operator and asking for a calling card or LD gift certificates. Scott Montague / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today. ------------------------------ From: Reinhard Burkert <100705.2645@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Tariffs For Leased Lines Date: 7 Mar 1996 11:25:34 GMT Organization: reinhard.burkert@chnet.mail.abb.com Doe anybody know where I can find a neutral survey of leased-line tariffs in the internet? I am especially interested in international links and international service providers. Any comment highly appreciated. reinhard burkert ------------------------------ From: John Harris Subject: CMIS HL API C++ Specification Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:09:59 -0600 Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Hi, Has anyone heard of any vendors with products that approach the CMIS HL API C++ Specification proposed by NMF? The specs for TMN++, ASN.1++, GDMO++, and CMIP++ look really good, some using capabilities of the Standard Template Library. John K. Harris (jharris@aud.alcatel.com) Chief Architect (tel) (214) 996-7088 Network Mgmt. Product Development (fax) (214) 996-7362 Alcatel Network Systems M.S. 408-200 Richardson, TX 75081-2206 WWW: http://web2.airmail.net/jkharris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:41:18 -0800 From: Dan Pock Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Monty Solomon wrote: > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. > A full study is now underway by the FTC. Everyone who wears hearing > aids should write the Federal Trade Commission, attention digital > phones/hearing aids, Washington, D.C. 20015 and make their voice > heard. What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going to happen. It is an interesting problem that few people with good hearing are aware of, and for that reason I applaude your zeal in pubicizing it. I realize that to a hearing impared person a sudden burst of static can seem like a rude assault by insensitive people with cellular phones, but that isn't the case. I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out to be reengineered hearing aids that are sheilded or filtered so as to block the offensive signals. The Americans with Disabilities Act will come into play sooner or later on this. But I suspect it will take a civil suit to get things moving. If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are going to have to file alot of law suits. ------------------------------ From: pteng@postoffice.ptd.net (Palmerton Telephone Co. - Engineering) Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids? Date: 7 Mar 1996 14:04:53 GMT Organization: Pencor Services, Inc. Reply-To: pteng@postoffice.ptd.net In article , monty@roscom.COM says: > Please consider sending your own variation of this letter it to your > local newspaper before PCS 1900 digital phones end up causing > disruption to your aids when you are a bystander and make it > impossible for you to use an ALD. > Dear Editor, > If you have a hearing loss and wear an expensive hearing aid, new > digital pagers and digital phones used by others cause loud static > that makes your aid useless. > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. > A full study is now underway by the FTC. Everyone who wears hearing > aids should write the Federal Trade Commission, attention digital > phones/hearing aids, Washington, D.C. 20015 and make their voice > heard. WOAH!!! Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furror over this lets get something straight. 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing aids. 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular phones are NOT PCS phones. They operate in an entirely different portion of the spectrum. Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get your facts straight first. Tom Lager Palmerton Telephone Company Serving the beautiful Blue Mountain Valley since 1900 ------------------------------ From: djcl@io.org (woody) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 6 Mar 1996 22:59:26 -0500 Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada In article , Scott Robert Dawson wrote: > Paul Robinson wrote: >> The industry decided that 1-888-555-1212 would not be placed into >> service, apparently because they felt it would set a bad precedent of >> encouraging people to duplicate their 800 numbers in 888. > ringing, six times. Then a polite male voice answered, 'Toll-free > Directory Assistance'. I said that I had dialed 1-888-555-1212, and he > said that the DA was shared between 800 and 888. I guess Bell Canada > is handling this better than AT&T or whatever in the States ... Been a bit busy to report this, but I tried the 1 888 555.1212 from Toronto last month and got Stentor's (i.e. Bell, BC Tel, et al) 800 DA ... it seemed to act the same way 1 800 555.1212 traditionally does, including the operator's request for the caller's area code to determine if the 800 number is reachable (despite all the CCS7/CID in Canada :-*). djcl@io.org ---> http://www.io.org/~djcl/ ------------------------------ From: aklaus@chat.carleton.ca (Alex Klaus) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 7 Mar 1996 02:08:39 GMT Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Scott Robert Dawson (srdawson@interlog.com) wrote: [other 888 service stuff snipped] > having trouble when dialing 1-888-555-1212 DA. So I tried it, at 1.15 > EST, (i. e. in the morning). There was a one-second silent pause, then > ringing, six times. Then a polite male voice answered, 'Toll-free > Directory Assistance'. I said that I had dialed 1-888-555-1212, and he > said that the DA was shared between 800 and 888. I guess Bell Canada > is handling this better than AT&T or whatever in the States ... I don't which area code (I'm in 613) you were using, but today I tried 1-888-555-1212 with Bell Canada, I got a recording directing me to 1-800-555-1212. I guess it depends on your location for Bell service. Alex Klaus Carleton University, Political Science IV Email address: aklaus@chat.carleton.ca or am676@freenet.carleton.ca (good until August 96) (no expiration date) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:44:13 PST From: Jonathan Edelson Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet If (for the sake of argument) one takes the concept of Universal Service and applies it to the internet, then IMHO one should not be paying per-minute charges to the local telco for internet connectivity. Instead, one should be figuring out ways for 'high cost' internet users to pay for 'low cost' internet users, thereby allowing for universal access to the internet. It seems to me that the best way to deal with the universal access argument is to turn it around: universal access to internet information services. This argues directly against per-minute charges for the local connection to the ISP. Instead one looks at the things that people do which load down the internet, and charge people for such. For example: the internet is all about moving data from one place to another. It would seem reasonable to me that cheap flat rate service would provide some low bandwith, and if you want a guarentee of higher bandwidth, you should pay more. In other words, people who want to push video down the pipe, with a guarentee of service, would 'subsidise' people who simply want to move text, and can wait through a 0.5 second pause. I guess that this relates to the idea that 'internet phone will kill the internet'; it seems to me that the best way to insure that people don't overload the net is to make them pay for things that will overload the net. If a high bandwidth guarantee costs money, then people will either a)not use IP phone, b) use it at off peak times when one doesn't need the guarentee, c) pay the fee, d)push for the development of better compression, etc. Similarly, for FTP: people will push for products which allow them to take advantage of off peak ftp, or will pay the fee, or will simply wait if the amount of bandwidth available is not that high. Jon ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 7 Mar 1996 03:22:15 -0500 Organization: BBN Planet Corp., Cambridge, MA In article , Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@mcimail.com> wrote: > A growing number of companies are selling software programs with > ancillary hardware options that enable a computer to transmit voice > conversations. This, in fact, creates the ability to "by-pass" local, > long distance and international carriers and allows for calls to be > made for virtually "no cost." For example, on-line service providers The interesting thing is that this (ab)use doesn't *really* bypass the traditional carriers, since much of the infrastructure of the Internet is provided by these very same carriers. For instance, BBN Planet makes extensive use of NYNEX and PacBell leased lines to connect our customers to our POPs, and we use MCI's Internet backbone as our default route out of our networks. So the phone companies get their money either way -- either in leased line and ISP access charges, or as metered long distance charges. I would think they would prefer the leased line style, since both the income and resource requirements are much more predictable. Barry Margolin BBN PlaNET Corporation, Cambridge, MA barmar@bbnplanet.com Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-6351 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #104 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 13:35:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA05696; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:35:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:35:38 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071835.NAA05696@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #105 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:35:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Steve Chilinski) Re: Computer Networks Classifications (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" (Eric Smith) Re: RF Interference (Ray Hazel) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (db@barc.com) Re: La Conexion Familiar (Van Heffner) CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Scott Plichta) Phone Number Retirement (was Re: NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion) (Eric Smith) Messing Around With 710 (Jim Lord) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (John Grossi) Linear Amplifier Modules (Jeff Giddings) History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-in (Carl Moore) Modem Tax - Internet Phone (Kevin J. Cameron) Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? (Henry Baker) The Busiest Payphone in America (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access (Brian Brown) Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access (Dub Dublin) Re: Telecard Rip-Off (Van Heffner) 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: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 05:12:30 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services Reply-To: chili@gwis.com Tom, I think your idea has little merit. Even though you may not make your living in the telemarketing industry, about four million others do in the United States alone. Additionally, recent rules just implemented have greatly protected the consumer further from many things. However, just because you choose to "unlist" your telephone lines, the only privilege this legally gains for you is to eliminate your name and number from public lists. Anyone and everyone, including your friends, my relatives and your local newspaper, is perfectly within their legal rights by calling you, and will be. Also, as a telemarketing industry veteran, I can also tell you that a rather interesting rule holds true. In almost all cases, the person with an unlisted number is universally more receptive to a purchase through a telemarketing call then a person with a listed number. Numbers back this up in study after study. The reason, I presume, is that many companies market solely from lists, therefore folks with unlisted numbers are less barraged by calls, and not as irritated by the interruptions. However, do not expect now or in the future for non-published telephone numbers to be non-marketable. This topic has been argued incessantly over the years, but the bottom line is -- unlisted means unlisted, and that's all. Steve ------------------------------ From: lr@access1.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Computer Networks Classifications Date: 7 Mar 1996 08:05:00 GMT Rosas Landa Ramos Octavio-IIE (orr@servidor.dgsca.unam.mx) wrote: > I've been reviewing Andrew S. Tanenbaum's book on Computer Networks > and found that there are several kinds of classifications for > networks, That book is by technology standards, is ancient, of course. > But I was wondering, since he doesn't give any hint on the subject of > size, would there be a classification according to the size of the > network? You can charaturize networks by all sorts of parameters, speed is another. The LAN/MAN/WAN characturstic is convenient because the networking technology available broke nicely along those lines. > And one other thing. Was ARPANET the first computer network ever > existed? What kind of network would it be? WAN? Network is a broad term, ARPANET was certainly the first wide area deployment of a packet switched network. Yes, it meets all the criteria of a WAN. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:11 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: A New RBOC Media Offensive For a "Modem Tax" In article j-grout@glibm5.cen. uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) writes: > Now that IXCs like AT&T are getting into the ISP business, it seems > inevitable that the RBOCs will eventually succeed in imposing such > charges ... We should try to convince the FCC that the access charges are obsolete, and rather than adding them to the Internet, they should *remove* them from long distance service. What are the legal and technical requirements for me to set up my own LEC (to provide Internet service, of course), and get the IXCs to pay *me* access charges for my incoming calls from my customers? If we must have this outdated cross-subsidy scheme, I want to get on the receiving end! Eric ------------------------------ From: razel@net.com (Ray Hazel) Subject: Re: RF Interference Date: 7 Mar 1996 10:53:35 GMT Organization: N.E.T., Inc. In article usexnjv6@ibmmail.com writes: > For a while now we have all been aware of the RF interference > likely to occur when a digital cellular telephone (GSM) is operated > near other digital installations such as PCs, file servers, PBXs, > medical equipment, CD players, etc. We ban the use of all cellular > telephones in our computer rooms accordingly to prevent the possible > crash of critical equipment. > However, is anyone aware of RF interference into equipment from > conventional, hand-held, narrow-band FM, VHF & UHF radios (say 1 to > 5W)? Are there any documented cases of interference with sensitive > digital equipment that would cause these devices to be banned as well? There is a great potential for causing problems. First and formost, the power of the hand-held sets (packset) you mention is up to 5 watts. That's almost 10x the power of most hand-held cellular sets. But my experience with Sprint years ago confirmed for me that they can cause problems. At one time I worked for Sprint in San Francisco. I took on a new job with Southern Pacific Transportation in the same building, and was given a 5 watt "packset" for communications in the building. I had a packset with me when visiting the switchroom (DanRay switching equipment) and answered a call while next to the processor bay. Two things happened. First thing was the hardcopy printout stopped momentarily, and the second (standby) processor went immediatly off-line and had to be manually restarted. I repeated this process once again, when a field support engineer was on-site to show what happened, and was from then on allowed to "visit" with the understanding that the packset wouldn't be used in the switchroom. Distance was about five feet from the cabinet with the two processors. I don't know if call processing was disrupted, as furter testing wasn't done (to my knowledge). But I would recommend that those packsets you mentioned be used outside the room as well. Ray Hazel ------------------------------ From: db@barc.com Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing Reply-To: db@barc.com Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 09:43:04 GMT ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > Sprint has responded saying the worker's claim that the company is > anti-union are outlandish. Sprint claims that its local telephone > service division has been unionized 'for decades' ... but they seem > to have forgotten the company has only been in business for about > twenty years and in local phone service for a much shorter time > than that. Furthermore, the local operations were unionized *under > their previous owners* and not through any decision made by Sprint > since that company has owned the locals ... I believe 'Sprint' is, in actuality, the renamed OLD owner, United Telecom (with the subsidiaries for local telco as United Telephone). If I have the trail correct, I believe that: Sprint was originally a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railroad and went under the name of SP Communications. It was then sold either wholly or partially to GTE (After Southern Pacific was sold ... I believe to a Kuwait company) GTE then ended up with a 50-50 with United Telecom, with United folding it's Long Distance subsidiary into Sprint (I forget what United called their service ... something with 'One ' in it or something like that). GTE sold their half of the company to United Telecom. Sprint became a wholly owned subsidiary of United Telecom. United Telecom renamed the company to Sprint to more reflect the long distance subsidiary than the local excange subsidiaries. Bottom line, I think, is that 'Sprint' is actually the 'old' United Telecom company that HAS been around for many decades. Doug ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:12:13 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: La Conexion Familiar Pat, Appareantly, someone at Sprint thinks that the "Dime A Minute" campaign should also apply to their worker's salaries. I would guess that Candice Bergen makes more for doing one Sprint commercial than their entire SF office made in a year. All the more reason to take advantage of the Sprint Friday's FREE offer! Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well a dime a minute comes out to six dollars per hour, and while that certainly is not a great salary it is fairly typical of wages paid to low-level office clerks in customer service type positions. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 09:24:03 EST From: splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) Subject: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller ID. As a Bell Atlantic caller ID user, I get significant amount of NO CID AVAIL on my caller id from callers who use AT&T (there are alot of you). Until these issues are resolved, I have a nice paperweight to sit next to my phone. Anybody with more technical information? Scott Plichta splichta@instalink.com Western Interactive Media Interactive 800/888 number programs and nearest dealer location services. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 01:01 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Phone Number Retirement (was Re: NPA 213 Nearing Exhaustion) rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) writes: > I have been told this by one person and have not verified it. One of > the reasons is that the cellular companies do not re-use a number if > it has been cloned. This results in a bunch of numbers being retired > (permanently) every day. What would be the point of that? They could just assign the number to someone else (perhaps six months later) and associate it with the ESN of the new customer's phone. The old cloned phones wouldn't work anyhow because they would have the wrong ESN. Presumably the owners of the cloned phones in question would long since have cloned some other ESN/MIN pair anyhow. Cheers, Eric [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You would think the cellular companies could reuse their numbers after some intervals in most cases. Only in instances where the fraud had really been outrageous and coming from several directions on one number should it be necessary to retire a number for more than a few months or a year at most. On the subject of permanently retiring numbers however, I am reminded of one situation in Chicago back in the 1960's where a phone number had been assigned for many years to to a house of prostitution. One day the police decided to raid the place and close it down for good. Don't ask me why they had not done it years before; maybe they did not get their regular handout and decided to make an example of the ladies working there. Or maybe it was time for an election and the politicians had promised to get rid of all the sin and vice; who remembers from that long ago. Anyway, the place shuts down and Illinois Bell reported five years later that there were still a dozen or more calls daily from all over the world coming in to that (now disconnected and intercepted) number. We had manual intercept in those days with an operator coming on the line and asking what number you dialed and then giving a status report or a new number to dial, etc. According to Bell, all these guys kept right on calling; most were not listening when the operator answered and they assumed they had reached the Madam of the house so they would start right out asking for an appointment, etc until the operator interuppted them to tell them in a more firm tone of voice that the number they were calling had been *disconnected*. Five years later! The guys calling would argue with the operator and insist that they were legitimate customers -- not police -- and that she did not have to 'pretend' with them. Many would explain to the operator in crude terms exactly what kind of services they would need when they came to their appointment. A businessman from Japan was in the United States five or six years after the place had been raided and closed; he lost his wallet and in the process of returning it to him it was noted that the number of that place -- MIchigan-2-xxxx -- was in his 'address book'; he planned a visit there while he was in the States. Fifteen years later, in the middle 1970's, Illinois Bell said that phone number never did 'quiet down' enough that they felt comfortable about assigning it to a new customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Messing Around With 710 From: jim.lord@t1bbs.t1.org (Jim Lord) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 07:19:00 -0500 Organization: ATIS/Commitee T1, Washington, DC-202/639-4469 Reply-To: jim.lord@t1bbs.t1.org (Jim Lord) Once more the misinformed/uninformed mess with things they shouldn't. I hope when the time comes that some one needs to call 710 its not your fanny that needs the protection or rescue or whatever the emergency was. Why shouldn't your government emergency agencies have the ability to place calls with some precedence when something like "Andrew" or a twister (I live in Kansas) happens! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe if 710 was not treated like such a deep dark secret there would be less attention paid to it. Maybe if the government was open and honest about facilities like this and encouraged the public to not abuse them it would not be such an interesting story for people in journals like this. Everyone wants to know about government 'secrets'. Anyway, I somehow doubt that 710 has anything to do with rescuing citizens in distress. I think it has to do ultimatly with the government gaining even more control over its citizens. I think it is intended to serve the government in times of civil disturbances and/or massive disasters, allowing the government to communicate among itself and retain/regain control as needed. If that is the case, then we certainly should have the right to know about it, and other than a single tiny mention in Harry Newton's magazine several years ago I have never heard a peep about it otherwise. By the way, I have yet -- a month later -- to hear from any federal authorities asking me to please not discuss it here; nor have I heard reports from readers about any such contacts. I have to wonder. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jgrossi@bbn.com (John Grossi) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 04:26:22 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) In article Mike Fox writes: > In , roavery@aol.com (Roavery) writes: >> Deer Isle, Maine residents are trying to get their local calling area >> extended to several adjacent mainland towns. 3000 people live on the >> island (half mile offshore) year round, but every call off-island >> whether to the local hospital, relatives, stores or computer access is >> an expensive toll call. This is not an uncommon thing in Hancock County. I've got several friends that live in the nearby town of Castine, and Blue Hills. Their local calling area is their town only. So they've told me ... I've got no Ellsworth Phone book to look it up. Unfortunately you probably don't have much recourse in phone service to getting your calling area expanded. And if they do do it they'll give you one town. Say Brooklin or Sedgewick. I suspect that most of your calls though are going to Ellsworth, Orland, and Bucksport for the local stuff and Bangor for business. That kind of expansion is not going to happen as NYNEX is not going to make much money off of it. The other problem that I know of in that area is that the lines running into Castine at least are rather minimal and NYNEX may be attempting to keep the volume down to avoid having to replace the hardware. I know Maine Maritime has been trying to get a net connection put in but NYNEX's lines into that area are still Analog (I was not paying attention to the explination at the time so you'll forgive if it's not accurate) and can't support a full feed net connection and the Academy is unwilling to pay NYNEX the cost of stringing the line down from US Highway 1 in Orland. To the guy from North Carolina, the area in question (downeast Maine, and Maine in general) is for the most part rural. The nearest city is Bangor which is an hour and twenty minute drive away and maybe has 70k people in the metro area. For most of that area I suspect NYNEX is losing money and only does service because the state won't let them get away with not doing it; this would also explain the somewhat outdated hardware. John Grossi Associate Engineer Bolt, Beranek, & Newman Inc. (617) 873-4152 10 Moulton St. Cambridge Ma. 02138 jgrossi@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: sis.intl@ix.netcom.com (SIS International) Subject: Linear Amplifier Modules Date: 7 Mar 1996 17:01:05 GMT Organization: Netcom I am looking for the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) on AT&T's and Spectrian's Linear Power Amplifiers (LPAs). I understand that AT&T's LPA has two versions of the same struture, but different plug-in modules, called Linear Amplifier Modules (LAMS), that determine the total power capability. I would like to find the following Subsytem MTBFs: 240 WATT version 110 WATT version Any information would be greatly appriciated. Jeff Giddings ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:13:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In I noted in the history file that area code 900 began in 1970, but that the earliest use I know of is 5 March 1977 call-in to radio program featuring then-President Jimmy Carter. The next day's {New York Times} even has transcripts of the calls aired from the TOLL-FREE number, which was 900-242-1611; I did not search them, but have seen newspaper references that Carter himself asked (on the air?) that callers dial carefully. (Carter had learned of the plight of Mr. Otto Flaig, whose telephone number at Mequon, Wisconsin was 414-242-1611 and who was bombarded with calls from people who, I take it, forgot to dial the 1-900 or, if 242 was a toll call within 414, the 900. 414-242 is a Thiensville prefix, and I don't know if it is local to Milwaukee. This was before 1+414+7D kicked in for toll calls within 414.) The {New York Times} also noted another number (it said it had only a slight resemblance) bombarded with misdirected calls for Carter: 990-2422 at the pediatrics ward of Queens Hospital Center in New York City. At the time, NYC had only area code 212, and long distance from NYC did not use the leading 1, so a scenario might be 9 - 9 (one dial click less than 0) - 0 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 2 (one dial click more than 1), with 611 being ignored. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Mass calling' was the original purpose of 900. There were no premium charges involved. It was intended merely as a 'choke' to prevent an overflow of calls into locations where some special telephone event was going on, such as the historic 1977 call-in to President Carter where he spoke directly with citizens who wished to contact him about concerns. It was only several years later that 900 began being used for premium services offered by information providers. And in the early days of its use in that way when there were only a dozen or maybe two dozen subscribers nationally to 900, a call to the traditional number for directory assistance, 900-555-1212 brought you a recorded announcement of about four minutes in length listing all the 900 subscribers and the fees they charged for service. When it got to where there were quite a few more 900 subscribers, such a recorded announcement listing them all became impractical and 900-555-1212 was discontinued until recently when AT&T took it over for nationwide directory assistance in competition with the Bell companies. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 06 Mar 96 21:53:10 EST From: Kevin J. Cameron <75272.304@compuserve.com> Subject: Modem Tax - Internet Phone Pat -- to clear up some seeming confusion: The RBOCs have launched a mainstream media attack on the ISPs exemption from access charges (perhaps driven by AT&T's press release, which stated AT&T was expecting its customers to be nailed-up 24 hours a day -- that ought to create a huge demand for second phone lines, but also require vastly increased switching capacity). The RBOCs now have an unlikely ally in America's Carrier Telecom Ass'n -- a grabbag of small IXCs. ACTA has petitioned the FCC to exercise jurisdiction over the provision of "telecommunications services" over the Internet and enjoining the sale of any I-phone type software until the FCC issues a rulemaking on Internet issues. What is less clear is how ACTA reads the new telecom act's definition of "telecommunications services". Are they after (quasi ) real time transmission like I-phone? Or all Internet traffic? In any event, looks like it might be time for a netizens meeting. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I certainly would like to see the 'Netizens Association' actually get started as was described in the special mailing I sent out to the readers several days ago. I think it is an idea whose time has come. Thanks for your more detailed explanation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet for Macintosh Real Soon Now? Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:51:03 GMT In article , johnb@Printrak.Com wrote: > (2) In their current Windows software offer, why are they providing a > "special" version of Netscape Navigator for Windows? What are the > differences between this version and a "standard" version? > I'm somewhat leery of placing "custom" software on my computer, and > I'm wondering whether there is some technical reason that I can't use > my own software, or if there's something else going on. (I have > paranoid visions of the AT&T software "cleaning up" drivers from other > applications, or of seeing a Prodigy-esque AT&T advertisement on the > bottom of every Netscape screen ...) Perhaps the ATT/Losent software should be called a 'Trojan Horse'?? Perhaps the reason why the account is free is that ATT wants to get some free marketing info on their customers. Perhaps the sw sends down a profile of the customer to ATT, including how much disk, memory, what sort of cpu, what popular programs are loaded, etc., etc., ... www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 15:48:03 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: The Busiest Payphone in America I just heard this piece of trivia on the radio- The busiest payphone in America is located in: The CHICAGO BUS TERMINAL! It averages over 270 outgoing calls a day! 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 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At one point not that long ago, the title 'busiest pay phone' went to one at Ohare Airport in Chicago. I am in the Chicago Greyhound Terminal from time to time but cannot really picture where that particular phone is located. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:09:40 GMT Organization: ConferTech, International A few years ago, my company did exactly this, and did it with a dedicated UUCP machine The machine, an old 386 with a 2400 baud modem, ran a WAFFLE (shareware) UUCP batch file-type program which made the UUCP connection whenever outbound mail was queued (it retrieved mail at this time also), and checked for incoming mail whenever an hour went by without any outgoing mail sent. It placed incoming mail into the appropriate MHS directory on the Novell server. We used Pegasus mail, at that time only available in DOS versions, as our mail client, which works great with Novell. It also has some good support for integrating WAFFLE UUCP. If you get a dedicated connection to the internet, you can set up your Novell server to run TCP/IP with a suite from Novell, and then run David Harris's (author of Pegasus mail) Mercury NLM which acts as an SMTP server on your Novell fileserver, and handles all kinds of great things, like aliases, mailing lists, and mail servers, as well as inbound and outbound mail via SMTP. Mercury is also free; David Harris is great. Pmail is great, and Mercury is great. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: Dub Dublin - Sun Network Ambassador Subject: Re: Network Internet E-Mail Access Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 08:42:32 -0600 Organization: Sun Microsystems Houston Todd A. Grissom wrote: > I'm running a Novell Network with fifty clients. We are > looking at world-wide e-mail and limited internet access for the Well, the first part (e-mail) is easy -- if you want to minimize the risk of break-ins, use uucp rather than a real IP connection. This will support mail and news and is all many of us old-timers had in the early days of the Net (gosh, that makes me feel *really* old at 33!) The risk can be further minimized by eliminating sophisticated mail handlers like sendmail, by using PC implmentations of uucp. Mortice Kern Systems in Ottawa sells a good uucp as part of their MKS Toolkit package, which is a bunch of really handy UNIX utilities for DOS/Windows/NT. If you want to support other services, (web, etc.) you'll need a firewall to do it correctly. Some of the better ISPs will sell you an Internet conection on the back side of a firewall, which eliminates the cost and complexity of having to get your own. Check around, and caveat emptor. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:34:59 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Telecard Rip-Off > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Can anyone tell me what this company > did precisely? Did they just take the money and run off or was it > a case of getting into some sort of financial trouble with their > supplier? How are the big retailers who sold the card (you mentioned > K-Mart) dealing with this? PAT] To the best of my knowledge, the stores that were affected are still being contacted by the USTelecard Association. They are being told to pull the product from their shelves and are being given refunds or equal value credit on cards from participating USTelecard member organizations. Nobody seems to know, or will say, what happened to the operators of the calling card company. If anyone out there has been "stuck" with one of these useless cards, they should call USTelecard ASAP at 1-800-333-3513 to obtain a refund, or credit. The Association provides sort of a "Good Housekeeping Seal" for Member's Calling Cards. Their "seal" was most likely printed on the back of this company's cards, and since consumers had no other (working) point-of-contact they called the Association. It's ironic that the USTelecard Association was created to give credibility to it's members, and the affected card company was a member of the Association. At least they are standing behind the cards that their members produce. That's a lot more than you can say for most other "consumer" organizations, such as the Better Business Bureau, which seems willing to sell their name to anyone - for a price. You certainly wouldn't see the BBB giving people refunds! Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #105 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 14:26:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA11563; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:26:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603071926.OAA11563@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #106 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 14:26:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill (Monty Solomon) PIM/Contact Manager With Caller ID Now Available For Download (D. Nguyen) Employment Opportunity: Manager of Datacom/Telecom; PC Support (J Bedits) EasyRun in Booth 330 at CT Expo (Boaz Zilberman) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Tom Crofford) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Gene LeDuc) Re: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications (John Godfrey) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Shri Balachandran) Re: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In (Garrett Wollman) 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, 7 Mar 1996 06:47:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: 6 Mar 1996 16:45:28 -0500 From: "EPIC-News" Subject: EPIC Analysis of Crypto Bill Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and several other co-sponsors have introduced the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1996 (S.1587). The proposed legislation comes in the midst of an ongoing debate concerning U.S. encryption policy and at a time when the need for secure electronic communications is becoming widely recognized. The explosive growth of the Internet underscores the need for policies that encourage the development and use of robust security technologies to protect sensitive personal and commercial information in the digital environment. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has long advocated adoption of a national encryption policy that emphasizes the protection of personal data and encourages the widespread dissemination of privacy-enhancing technologies. The text of the proposed legislation is available at: http://www.epic.org/crypto/legislation/s1587.html Analysis The proposed Encrypted Communications Privacy Act addresses a number of unresolved issues concerning the use of encryption technology. The proposed legislation would: - Relax export controls by transferring authority for export decisions to the Secretary of Commerce, and mandate the removal of controls on "generally available" encryption software; - Create a legal framework for key escrow agents, including an obligation to disclose keys and assist law enforcement, and establish penalties for improper disclosure; - Affirm the freedom to use and sell encryption within the United States; and - Criminalize the use of encryption which may have the effect of obstructing a felony investigation. Export Controls The bill moves encryption policy in the right direction by placing export control authority in the Commerce Department, rather than the State Department and the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the agencies currently charged with that responsibility. However, the legislation would only remove export controls on encryption software to the extent that software with similar capabilities is "generally available," or in the "public domain or publicly available." Likewise, controls would be lifted on hardware with encryption capabilities only if "a product offering comparable security is commercially available from a foreign supplier." These limitations raise two concerns: 1) The Commerce Department historically has been dependent upon NSA for assessments of the worldwide availability of encryption technology. The Commerce Department recently released the results of a survey it conducted of foreign encryption products. Portions of the Department's report were classified by NSA and withheld from public disclosure (EPIC is currently seeking the release of the complete report in a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act; Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Commerce, C.A. No. 95-2228 (D.D.C.)). By conditioning the relaxation of export controls on a finding that similar products are "generally available," the legislation will likely perpetuate NSA's ability to influence export determinations and to thwart public oversight of Commerce Department actions. 2) The "generally available" requirement will continue to hamper the development of innovative security technology by U.S. firms. Restricting exports to products comparable to those already "available from a foreign supplier" will ensure that foreign, and not domestic, firms will be on the leading edge of privacy-enhancing technology. This is necessarily a non-competitive trade policy that will continue to obstruct the development of strong encryption. EPIC supports the efforts of the bill's sponsors to liberalize export control, but EPIC believes the bill should go further. EPIC supports the complete repeal of these out-dated barriers to the development and dissemination of software and hardware with encryption capabilities. This is a necessary step to ensure the development of a secure Global Information Infrastructure that promotes on-line commerce and preserves individual privacy. Key Escrow Procedures As currently drafted, the bill does little to roll back the deployment of Clipper-inspired key-escrow encryption within the federal government. Indeed, a significant portion of the legislation is devoted to establishing a legal framework for the management of key-escrow systems in the private sector. The bill would restrict certain activities by key holders and impose criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of keys. Key holders could only release keys (1) with the consent of the person whose key is held; (2) as may be "necessarily incident to the holding of the key;" and (3) to law enforcement or investigative officers pursuant to federal wiretap law or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under the current bill, keys could be disclosed to law enforcement officials without satisfying a warrant requirement. The legislation also establishes reporting requirements on the number of orders and extensions served on key holders to obtain access to decryption keys or decryption assistance consistent with current reporting requirements in the federal wiretap statute. However, there are no provisions for notifying the subject of an investigation when keys are disclosed, even for the purpose of alerting the subject that the security of keys may have been compromised. Statutory protection for the privacy of encryption keys appears to be a worthy goal. The bill's key-escrow procedures, however, must be considered in the context of the larger policy debate concerning encryption. Beginning with Clipper and continuing with the more recent "commercial key-escrow" proposal, law enforcement agencies and the national security community have lobbied aggressively for the implementation of key-escrow systems that would provide government the ability to decrypt secure data. Such proposals have also been supported by companies that have received substantial government contracts or promises of special deals on export licenses. Users and most businesses have remained firmly opposed to the key-escrow concept. Indeed, there is virtually no installed base for key-escrow encryption, while the number of users of non-escrowed encryption is in the millions. By placing a Congressional imprimatur on the key-escrow concept, the legislation will have the effect of supporting an escrow scheme that has already been rejected by users and businesses. A statutory scheme that creates a legal framework for key-escrow is contrary to the privacy interests of network users and the security needs required for network development. EPIC recommends that the key escrow provisions of the bill be dropped. Freedom to Use and Sell Encryption The proposed legislation appears to affirm an absolute right to use and sell encryption, but a close reading of the bill shows otherwise. The proposed legislation provides that it "shall be lawful for any person within ... the United States ... to use any encryption ..." and "to sell in interstate commerce any encryption ..." It then modifies that language with the words "except as provided in this Act and the amendments made in this Act or in any other law." As described below, the bill then sets out the first criminal penalties yet proposed for the domestic use of encryption. Other similar provisions could easily be added. Since there is currently no regulation of encryption in the United States, supporters of the bill must explain what will be accomplished by this effort to establish a government regulatory scheme for the use of encryption. EPIC believes that there is a fundamental constitutional right to use encryption and would support only an unconditional articulation of that right. The current statutory framework clearly opens the door to further regulation of privacy-enhancing technologies. "Unlawful Use of Encryption" The proposed legislation contains the first explicit criminal penalties for the use of encryption within the United States. It would criminalize the use of encryption to "obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance of a felony ... to an investigative or law enforcement officer." This provision is unlikely to add much to the existing legal arsenal available to law enforcement agencies or prosecutors. Use of encryption in furtherance of a crime could currently be prosecuted under existing conspiracy and obstruction of justice statutes. The effect of the proposed provision could be to discourage the deployment of encryption where it is appropriate and to raise unnecessary suspicion about the use of routine security procedures. The net result could be an increased risk to public safety and network security. EPIC recommends that this provision be struck from the bill. As currently drafted, it is far too broad to serve any useful purpose. Conclusion The proposed Encrypted Communications Privacy Act provides an opportunity to revise outdated encryption policies that have undermined network security, jeopardized personal privacy and frustrated public accountability. Although the current draft of the bill does not go far enough in removing antiquated controls on the export of encryption technology, the proposal recognizes the need for sweeping changes to the export regime. Removal of export restrictions on encryption technology is a pressing need and Congress should address the issue expeditiously. Less desirable is the bill's promotion of key-escrow encryption. This is the Clipper-like scheme that should finally be laid to rest. Congressional action on key-escrow management is unnecessary and the issue certainly need not be addressed in conjunction with a relaxation of export controls. Legislation concerning key-escrow will have a detrimental effect on the development of secure network technologies and necessary privacy safeguards. EPIC will remain opposed to this provision. EPIC commends the sponsors of the proposed legislation for moving the public debate on the relaxation of export controls forward and recognizing the need for an overhaul of an out-dated policy. We are confident that further consideration of the unnecessary and potentially dangerous provisions contained in the current version will result in a legislative approach that best serves the needs of all concerned -- users, industry and government. ======================================================================= EPIC Cryptography Litigation EPIC makes frequent and effective use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain the public release of government information concerning cryptography and privacy policy. The following cases are among those we are currently litigating: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Commerce, C.A. No. 95-2228 (D.D.C.). This case seeks the full release of a survey conducted by the Department on the foreign availability of encryption software. The report was created after Congress decided not to pass legislation in 1994 that would have relaxed export controls on encryption. An "unclassified" version of the survey was released in January, but substantial portions were withheld at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA). Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Council, C.A. 95-0461 (D.D.C.). In this lawsuit, EPIC is seeking disclosure of information concerning the Security Policy Board, which was established by classified Presidential directive in September 1994 and is charged with developing government-wide policy on information security. Based on information we have already obtained, it appears that this new structure is a formalization of the process that gave rise to the Digital Signature Standard and Clipper initiatives. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility v. National Security Agency, C.A. No. 93-1074 (D.D.C.). This lawsuit seeks the disclosure of key NSA and National Security Council documents concerning the controversial Clipper Chip encryption initiative. Issues to be decided include the propriety of NSA's classification of the Clipper algorithm on national security grounds. EPIC Cryptography Resources The EPIC website contains key materials on cryptography policy issues, including: - Efforts to Ban Cryptography - The Clipper Chip - Key Escrow (Government-proposed alternatives to Clipper) - The Digital Signature Standard - Export Controls - The Computer Security Act of 1987 - Reports on Cryptography Policy These and other relevant materials are available at: http://www.epic.org/crypto/ ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues relating to the National Information Infrastructure, such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, medical record privacy, and the sale of consumer data. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, email info@epic.org, HTTP://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax). The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send email to epic-news@epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes). ------------------------------ From: apdsuppt@apdsolutions.com (David Nguyen) Subject: PIM/Contact Manager With Caller ID Now Available For Download Date: 7 Mar 1996 01:22:05 GMT Organization: APD Solutions You can download the shareware version of PIM/Contact Manager with CALLER-ID (it's called 'APD Organizer with Caller ID V1.5') NOW from: http://www.apdsolutions.com APD Organizer with Caller ID is a PIM/Contact manager with complete PhoneBook, Call Log, todos with carry-over, appointments with reminder and recurring options, daily/weekly/monthly/yearly calendar, color reports, envelope printing, letter, notes, drag and drops, and more ... It's an intergated Computer Telephony software for your Home & Small Offices. If you have modem capable of CallerID, you can use this software: - Know who's calling and all information and contact history about the caller before you answer the phone. - Use it as your virtual answering machine, it logs all calls so you know who to return your call -- never miss a call ! - If you have sound card, it will anounce different sound file when the phone ring different phone number - ie: When your mom call, it will say 'Mommy call'... - Use the software to collect customer information and automatically add to its phonebook Database. Company: APD Solutions (Computer Telephony) Tools for Home and Small Offices WWW: http://www.apdsolutions.com email: apdsuppt@apdsolutions.com or apdsales@apdsolutions.com ------------------------------ From: tkdtaz@atlantic.net (Joe B) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Manager of Datacom/Telecom; PC Support Date: 7 Mar 1996 01:26:49 GMT Organization: MGA Technologies Reply-To: ian@mgagray.com Immediate opening available for a Manager of Datacom/Telecom and PC Support in the Tampa, FL area. Candidate should have experience with most, if not all, of the following: - Development of LAN/WAN strategies, desktop automation and client connectivity. - Provides technical support services and training for all systems users on all PC hardware/software applications. - Provides technical assistance for new implementations and provides on-site maintenance of UNIX operating system and supporting platform to bridge UNIX, AS400 and Windows for Workgroups. - Installs and maintains software, hardware, system terminals, PC's, and peripheral equipment, printers and modems. - Coordinates and administrates all company telecommunications equipment. - Provides staff with in-service training on computer operations, desktop applications and telecommunications equipment. - Provides the Information Technology team with after hours support (on-call). - Assists in the procurement of PC hardware, software, maintenance contracts. - Oversees the Help Desk. - Must have a B.S. in Engineering, Information Systems, or related field. Please respond or send resume including the following name and requisition number to: Joe Bedits MGA Technologies REQ#TELEMGR.A36 Phone: 1-800-642-4729 or (813) 791-7890 Fax: (813) 724-8039 e-mail: ian@mgagray.com ------------------------------ From: boaz@actcom.co.il (Boaz Zilberman) Subject: EasyRun in booth 330 at CT Expo. Organization: ACTCOM - Internet Services in Israel Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:49:39 GMT EasyRun Communication Software Systems Ltd. 7 Taasia St. Raanana 43654, Israel. EasyRun will demonstrate its new version of Call-Center products in Computer Telephony Exposition in Los Angeles on March 12-14, 1996. See us at booth #330 and mention this posting for your free gift. -------------------- Contact: Anat Liechtenstein, Press Coordinator. Tel: +972-9-910-953 Email easyrun@actcom.co.il EASYRUN ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF ITS CALL-CENTER 'EMIS' PRODUCT. EasyRun delivers its desk-top Call-Center Management Information System to work with TSAPI-based PABX systems. Raanana, Israel. EasyRun announced today that its new computer telephony integration (CTI) application for Call-Centers is available for Novell Telephony Services Application Programming Interface (TSAPI) computing environments. EMIS is supported on virtually any PABX system that provides support for the NETWARE Telephony Services environments and is ready for immediate delivery. Previously, the package was available for use only on a number of proprietary protocols with a limited set of PABX systems. EMIS offers an advanced CTI solution for medium to large size Call-Centers at functionality level offered by large scale systems at a fraction of the cost of traditional implementations. It can be deployed with a scaleable numbers of agents, supervisors and managers spread around a local or remote establishment. EMIS allows a Call-Center with even a small number of agents and complex topology to be an economic reality. EMIS uses the TSAPI information stream coming from a telephony system to collect performance and statistical information about the activity taking place within the call-center. The information is then displayed in real-time on the clients' computer terminals and stored in an ODBC based data-base system for historical reporting, trends analysis and call-center forecasting. "There are three main issues addressed by this release of the software: - delivery of a software package that works with a large variety of PABX systems: a computing architecture which provides a scaleable, cost-effective solution; wide use of configuration tools that enable the end-user to design and tailor any aspect of the display format and printed reports to his/her own taste" said Avi Silber, President of EasyRun. "Our unique report generation package enables the end-user to logically view and explore any data element collected and stored within the system and to 'drag and drop' it into any report or graph that best depicts accurate information of the Call-Center activity" added Natan Bronstien, VP for R&D in the company. Joseph Elati, the Project Manager for the EMIS system gave a clue on the technical merit of the product: "By using an advanced compression algorithm and utilizing ultra fast communication links we are able to deliver real-time information in single second resolution to hundreds of clients and graphical display devices in the Call-Center". The major elements of the EMIS system include: Agent status, Group status, Super-Group status, Trunk status displayed in real time. Multiple open windows on multiple instances of groups and super- groups. User-defined text, graphic and tabular report formats. Wide range of pre-defined historical reports available in text, tabular and graphic formats. Built-in report generation package provides logical view of the call-center data and full control over data content and display format. Automatic report generation according to pre-defined schedules to various destinations. --------------------- Founded in 1991, EasyRun is a privately owned international supplier of software solutions for the telecommunications industry. EasyRun specializes in the development of Computer-Telephony software, call- processing applications, wireless systems and network management products. EasyRun focuses on delivering intelligent adjuncts into multivendor networks of telecommunications systems with support for industry standards like TAPI, TSAPI, CAPI, GSM, IS-54/41 and SNMP. EasyRun leverages on its expertise in state of the art desktop computing technologies such as object oriented programming; client/server technologies; event-driven architecture; UNIX, OS/2, WINDOWS and real-time operating systems (iRMX, PSOS); advanced GUI builders and SQL servers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 12:39:18 -0800 From: Tom Crofford Organization: XETA Corporation Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, and the calls are much longer than voice calls. We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We make about four times the number of calls per extension as a non-information based company. So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some sort? Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com ------------------------------ From: GLeDuc@mktdev.com (Gene LeDuc) Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:43:16 GMT Organization: Market Development, Inc. In article jeremyps@eskimo.com (Jeremy Schertzinger) writes: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. MCI told me that the April deal will be $50/day on Fridays. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is odd; someone else wrote here and said it would be free calls on Mondays. Everyone had better find out for sure before milking this promotion and finding out too late you were busy calling on the 'wrong' day each week. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Godfrey Subject: Re: GATS and Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications Date: 7 Mar 1996 18:48:37 GMT Organization: National Academy of Sciences ab261@torfree.net (David Ujimoto) wrote: > Is there a WWW site that has information dealing with the current > status of the negotiations on Basic Telecoms that are presently > underway in Geneva? The World Trade Organization home page , in the "What's New" section, has a good article dated 22 Feb 1996, "Background Note on the WTO Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications." John Godfrey jgodfrey@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu ------------------------------ From: Shri Balachandran Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:56:31 -0600 Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Well. You got questions ... we got answers! (Sorry to plagiarize Radio Shack slogan). To solve this problem in GSM PCS phone, Ericsson and PacBell have worked together and come up with four (or is it five) solutions. Check out the news, a couple of weeks back, about this announcement. Just to show to the world that we telecom folk do care! Cheers, Shridharan Balachandran (Shri) 214-907-7530(O) Ericsson Network Systems, CCS-SS7 Group. 214-994-0486(H) ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: History Lesson: Details of 5 March 1977 Call-In Date: 7 Mar 1996 14:09:00 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Carl Moore wrote: > I noted in the history file that area code 900 began in 1970, but > that the earliest use I know of is 5 March 1977 call-in to radio > program featuring then-President Jimmy Carter. Hmmm. The first "premium" service using NPA 900 that I can remember having been advertised was a few years later than that. The service (or maybe the company) was called "Dial-It", and was a sports-score service. Their number (I don't know if it is still in service) was 900 976 1313, usually shouted by a large group of men in their commercials. Another slogan I remember associated with this service was "Dial-It ... We're talkin' to you!". I can't imaging these services being successful now, given the huge penetration of CNN Headline and ESPN, which both offer frequent scores for "free" (or rather, hidden in your monthly extended-basic cable bill). Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #106 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Mar 7 21:45:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24679; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:45:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:45:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080245.VAA24679@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #107 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Mar 96 21:45:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NBA in Full Court Press (TELECOM Digest Editor) Amerex Toll Restrictor? Help? (Michael Muderick) No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX (Fred Atkinson) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Hovig Heghinian) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Lynne Gregg) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (John B. Hines) Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Mark Tenenbau) Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing (Ray Hazel) 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, 7 Mar 1996 19:37:12 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: NBA in Full Court Press The National Basketball Association is ready for some court time; a court of law, not a basketball game. The NBA has filed a lawsuit against Motorola in Schaumburg, Illinois and a Skokie, Illinois company called STATS, Inc. That acronym means Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems, Inc. Motorola offers a new pager called SportsTrax, which offers up to the minute scores, statistics and play action during a sports event. They use the STATS, Inc. company here in Skokie to provide the data. STATS sends it out every few minutes to Motorola which then transmits it out to the pagers. Customers pay a one-time fee of $199 for the pager, and that gives them three year's worth of the sports update service. Any major sporting event at any time of day or night reaches the customers on their pagers within as little as two minutes after something of interest has happened in the game or the score has changed. The lawsuit filed by the NBA seeks unspecified damages claiming false advertising, copyright infringment and misappropriation. Although Motorola and STATS have a deal with Major League Baseball for similar service, but they never did reach an agreement with the NBA to do the same thing with basketball. The NBA claims that the process is basically an illegal retransmission of their games, which television networks, cable companies and radio stations pay to broadcast to their viewers. Although neither NBA or Motorola would comment on the suit, John DeWan, president of STATS, Inc. here in Skokie said his company is only in the business of providing statistics, and he would not comment further. I think this lawsuit is going to have major implications in the area of new technology and how information can be delivered. The core issue is whether the pager technology, which can send out the updates as quickly as two minutes after some action or event being reported, is giving too much information too quickly for a company that is not paying rights to broadcast. A wide range of technologies -- including everything from cable and phone companies to online services and the Internet -- could wind up testing the copyright law that was enacted in 1976. In fact the whole question of copyright infringement in cyberspace is one that we will be hearing a lot more about during the months ahead. PAT ------------------------------ From: am004d@netaxs.com (Michael Muderick) Subject: Amerex Toll Restrictor? Help Date: 8 Mar 1996 00:33:00 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider I have what I believe to be a toll restrictor, i.e. not allowed to dial 900 calls , or 976 calls. The name Amerex in Riverside, CA is printed inside. It has two green leads and a red lead. I assume the two greens interrupt the green side of the phone. Anyone have any info on this? It looks to have a crystal and three ic/s inside. ; Is it programmable? What exactly does it do? Hookup diagram? Instruction sheet? PHotocopy? It's about 1 x 1.5 " x .5" high. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 17:00:35 CST From: Atkinson, Fred Subject: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX Today I spoke to a representative of LDDS regarding their inability to route me to the LDDS operator (when dialling '00') on my cellular phone. As I have been unable to get any dialog going between these two (for all practical purposes) I was interested in knowing what she had to say. It appears that there is some legal thing going on between B.A.M.S./NYNEX and LDDS. She is telling me that the problem won't be corrected until the lawyers get through settling things. This will probably take months. She did not elaborate on exactly what this problem was or why the lawyers would take so long to resolve such problems (while their customers suffer). In the meantime, it appears that customers of LDDS who use B.A.M.S./NYNEX as their cellular carrier will be unable to get LDDS operator assistance when they require it. I told them this was unacceptable and she suggested I call their corporate headquarters in Jackson, Mississippi and discuss it with the upper management. I told her that I shouldn't be having to go to this much trouble to get such a simple problem resolved and that I would start shopping for another long distance carrier immediately. Does anyone have any insight as to exactly what this 'legal' problem is that they have to take several months to work out? Fred ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:28:43 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hheghini@telesciences.com Scott Plichta writes: > It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk to Bell Atlantic's for > exchanging long distance caller id. [...] As a Bell Atlantic caller ID > user, I get significant amount of NO CID AVAIL [...]. I am a Bell Atlantic/MCI customer in Philadelphia: * My folks are NYNEX/AT&T customers. I receive number, no name. * My in-laws are Ameritech/MCI customers. I receive both name and number. * We are Comcast Metrophone (wireless) customers. I get nothing from them. (They use Sprint for LD, if that makes a difference.) Do any wireless carriers deliver name and number? Will they? Must they? Thanks, Hovig Heghinian Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:22:00 PST splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) wrote: > I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and > DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk > to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has > sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller > ID. > Anybody with more technical information? There are no known problems with AT&T switches related to handling Caller ID. However, several IXC's reported to the FCC (documented in the FCC Order and 12/95 Memo on Calling Number Services) that DSC and Northern Telecom switches had software problems related to Caller ID. These problems, the IXC petitioners claimed, prohibited them from delivery of Calling Party Number (as the FCC orders). The IXC's sought and received waivers through 3/31/96. Recently, the FCC received an application for extension to 4/30. The software problems documented by the petitioning IXC's (to the FCC) involved the switch taking in ANI and substituting ANI in the Calling Party Number field. This meant that unwitting consumers (and even those who attempted to block with *67) would have their phone numbers displayed on Caller ID equipment - a privacy violation under U.S. and most state laws. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:37 -0500 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet From my position at an ISP, I can agree that "Internet Phone" is misuse of the Internet, but only because its IP traffic character- istics are improper. TCP, used on the vast majority of Internet high-volume applications, adaptively sets is transmission rate to the available bandwidth. It's almost magical; it makes the net scale beautifully and is quite fair in allocating bandwidth among varying user loads. Iphone, on the other hand, runs inside UDP, which has no such adaptation; its packet-emission rate is not affected by availability, so if the network is busy, TCP "good" users will slow down while Iphone "bad" users will hog what's left. But that's not what the RBOCs are talking about. Under existing rules, they are entitled to major-league compensation when somebody carries telephone calls *across a state line into a local exchange*. That's exactly what an Interexchange Carrier does. So if I call Pat on his 847 number via AT&T, Ameritech gets paid by AT&T to deliver it. If I use a NYNEX line to originate the call, NYNEX gets paid by AT&T to originate it. Now if Pat has an 800 (or 900, 500, 700, etc.) number directly served by an AT&T switch, then Ameritech doesn't get anything, since it's not using their network. (Leased "special access" line monthy rates are of course possible if they provide that service between AT&T and Pat.) Ditto if I make the call on a direct AT&T connection ("Megacom"). Indeed, corporate "on-net" calls can be very cheap, under a nickel a minute in some Tariff 12 arrangements. So what's an Iphone call? If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound Blaster, then no RBOC switches are involved. It's NOT a phone call, in the legal sense. Legally, an Iphone call today is no more a "bypass" of the RBOC's due payment schemes than a CB radio conversation. And if the RBOCs think that CB radio, ham radio, etc., own them money for calls not touching their networks, then they had better stand in line behind the Post Office who has an equal claim to the lost letter-post revenue caused by the phone company! (We'll omit the telegraph company stage, since WUTCO is history.) It sounds as if the RBOCs are trying one last desperate grab at the mediaeval notion of "franchise", or "staple" -- a payment due to them for their exclusive right to some part of the economy, even if they don't actively provide any value. Such franchises (not to be confused with the modern "McDonald's" type) are rare today in America, and are certainly not what the new "competitive" telecommunications environment is supposed to be about. If PacBell has a "franchise" right to all voice traffic into their territories, do TCG, MFS, AT&T/MCI and any other new "competitive LECs" also get a cut? The whole notion is preposterous! If somebody were to establish a dial-in/dial-out "pool" of phone lines linked to Sound Blasters, selling I-phone dialed-up links as a form of long distance telephone service, where I could I-phone Aunt Tillie without her even having a computer, then that person would indeed be a long distance carrier. Their phone lines would today be subject to IXC treatment. Of course they'd be a pretty poor-quality long distance company, but that's irrelevant. No rules need to change to cover this case, which to my knowledge is nonexistent at present. Iphone *can* be used as a form of transmission between telco networks, and it matters not whether an IXCs transmission is good or bad. But even the IXCs only pay the telcos for calls that are connected *as phone calls* to their networks, not for phone calls placed over tie lines between PBXs, or data circuits, or anything else. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: John B. Hines Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:39:10 CST Reply-To: jhines@mcs.net Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? In , Tom Crofford writes: > I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this > group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected > to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My > point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, > and the calls are much longer than voice calls. > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? Why do you think there is no revenue involved? Around here, business calls are all metered, you pay for every minute of every call. All residential calls over eight miles are also metered, and there is no unlimited calling options. So Ameritech (in this case) is already making money on modem calls. If the phone company isn't already making money on modem calls, its not because they don't want to, but because someone is forcing them, e.g. politics. john ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Here's What Happens With 1-888-555-1212 Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:24:17 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net > The industry decided that 1-888-555-1212 would not be placed into > service, apparently because they felt it would set a bad precedent of > encouraging people to duplicate their 800 numbers in 888. > Accordingly, no matter which of the two area codes a toll free number is > in, you still have to use 1-800-555-1212 to look up the number, then dial > the number whether it's 1-800 or 1-888. Bell Canada seems to agree with you that this is stupid, and they have already duplicated toll-free directory in the 888 prefix. I would hope that US toll free directory will do same. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:42:34 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net Mike Fox (mjfox@raleigh.ibm.com) wrote: > In , roavery@aol.com (Roavery) writes: > Is this really unfair? Sure, there probably are some areas on the > mainland with bigger calling areas in pure square miles, but have you > considered the cost of carrying calls over/under/whatever 1/2 mile of > water (with probably no revenue producing subscribers in that 1/2 mile > stretch)? Let's face it, if you choose to live in a remote area there > are many compensations, but there are some costs too. A cable or microwave tower. Big deal. In the Northwest cable and microwave runs to remote towns high in the Cascades, through lakes, and up and down steep hills. Yet we still don't pay extra for local calls. Once the investment is made there's little additional cost. The facilities are going to be there anyway, it's just how the usage is billed. You can call in the Portland (OR) area over 3500 square miles and it's all a *free* local call (no monthly call limit, per call charges, or any similar nonsense such as Ameritech and Nynex get away with). Telco seems to do fine on their $25/ mo average local bill. > I live in a larger metropolitan area. It seems like every couple of > months or so, I get notified that some rinky-dink rural town is being > added to our local calling area, and everyone's phone bill is going up > a few cents as a result. Since the number of calls coming in from > these outlying areas is probably going to be a lot more than the > number of calls going out, in effect the people in these small towns > are forcing those of us in the larger cities to subsidize their > calling. Those rinky-dink towns are often calling businesses that they would not otherwise patronize if they had to pay long distance rates. And those businesses are in your local calling area, aren't they? I'll bet your economy benefits. > Sorry for the flame. I'm just annoyed by the notice that my Raleigh, > NC phone bill is going up so that Pittsboro can be added to our local > calling area. Our bills are only going up a few pennies, but if the > Pittsboro were paying for it, it would cost each of them a lot more. > It's a classic case of a small constituency widely distributing the > costs of something whose benefits will be concentrated on them. It's > how our government got into the mess it's in now, IMO. When Yamhill OR and Hoodland OR got added to the Portland EAS region, their bills went from $8 or $9 per month to over $25 per month. My bill went up 40 cents. True, I don't call Yamhill much (it's a dinky town out in the middle of nowhere). On the other hand, Hoodland contains many mountain cabins used by people in the Portland area, and a ski area. There was arguably some benefit to people in the Portland area. What I find irritating is that dinky towns get added, while Vancouver WA on the other side of the river remains a long distance call. You can see it from the Portland side of the river but you can't call there. I suspect that the reason it hasn't been added yet is that Washington is reluctant to pay Oregon-tariffed phone rates. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:20:25 -0600 From: Mark Tenenbaum Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. In Volume 101, Richard Spall added: > I believe April's promotion is up to $50 free calls on Mondays ... I just got my GTE bill yesterday and in reviewing my MCI pages (ah! the convenience of having just one bill -- take note AT&T), I noticed that MCI had a Friends and Family promotion for Martin Luther King Day in January (no, I did not "dream" it!) and that I received some nominal additional savings for calls I made on that day. Seems like MCI is having a promotion per month. I ask this very important question, being in Marketing at GTE myself, why have a promotion but not promote it? Maybe our new friend on the Digest, Ms. Leslie Aun (she is a she, isn't she?) can reply on behalf of MCI. I am sure I am not alone in being more than willing to change my LD calling patterns if I know of additional savings. Maybe a moot point for me anyway -- I'm planning to switch to GTE Long Distance when it's available to me in Texas. Mark D. Tenenbaum Plano, TX ------------------------------ From: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Unadvertised MCI Deal During March Date: 7 Mar 1996 21:19:22 GMT Organization: Vancouver Community Net Jeremy Schertzinger (jeremyps@eskimo.com) wrote: > MCI has a deal for their customers that is not publicized anywhere (at > least that I've found). Residential customers can make up to $75.00 > of free calls on Saturdays in March for *free*. This is all 24 hours > on Saturdays, not just certain hours. If you don't believe me, call > MCI Customer Service yourself at 800-444-1616 and ask about it. I > also understand they are going to have another unadvertised deal in > April. Unfortunately, this is only for MCI subscribers who have "friends and family" and want to make their calls from their home phone. My account with MCI includes only a calling card, so they won't let me do it. Also, it only applies to *domestic* calls made *from the subscribed number*. So even if you have a line with "friends and family" subscribed to MCI, you stll can't make the free $75 to India or wherever, or from your calling card. Oh well. dialtone@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: razel@net.com (Ray Hazel) Subject: Re: Sprint Employees Still Bitter About Office Closing Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:15:12 GMT Organization: N.E.T., Inc. In article db@barc.com writes: > If I have the trail correct, I believe that: Just a couple "alterations"... > Sprint was originally a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Railroad and > went under the name of SP Communications. S.P. Communications started out as a private line carrier. When they went into the switched services business, they started it under the service name "Sprint". There was no "official" definition as an acronym; the only "request" was that SP be reflected in the name, as it was owned by Southern Pacific Company. Another subsidiary of SPCo. was SP Transportation, aka the railroad. > It was then sold either wholly or partially to GTE (After Southern > Pacific was sold ... I believe to a Kuwait company) Due to the capital intensive nature of operating a railroad and a communications company (especially a growing one), SP Communications was sold to GTE, where the GTE company subsidiary was named "GTE Sprint". The railroad and its parent company attempted to merge with Santa Fe industries. The merger went through with the exception of the rail operations. (Santa Fe ended up being the largest landowner in California, surpassing the Federal government and the State of California). To the best of my knowledge, no Kuwait company was involved. Eventually the rail operations was bought by Phillip Anschutz, and combined with the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For years and years the story has been that SPRINT is an acronym for: outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications (or) outhern

acific ailroad ternal elecommunications You have to go back to how Sprint came into existence in the first place. There was no intention originally to offer any sort of public long distance service. For more than sixty years, the Southern Pacific like every other railroad operated its own corporate phone system between locations and the wires ran on poles on their right of way next to the tracks. At intervals of every five miles or so there were trackside telephones -- outdoor phones in secure metal boxes mounted on the pole and fed from the wire which ran overhead. In the event of a malfunction or emergency on the train the crew used these trackside phones to call ahead to the next station for assistance. The telephone operators at the various terminals on the railroad had jacks on their switchboard connected to these lines. Therefore you could call for example the office of the Santa Fe Railroad in Chicago at their depot downtown on Dearborn Street and ask to speak with someone in the Los Angeles depot. The operator would plug in there on the board and presently the operator in the Los Angeles depot of the Santa Fe RR would answer the circuit and extend it on her switchboard. Now the finest in quality audio it was not ... the connections were just horrible from years of neglect of the wires strung for a couple thousand miles along the track right of way. On the few occassions I had to speak over one of those circuits (when I worked for a summer at the Baltimore and Ohio RR office in Chicago in the 1960's) it sounded like the people on the other end were at the bottom of a barrel. You had to speak loudly to be heard. In the late 1960's, the Southern Pacific decided to overhaul the system with all new and modern (for its day) equipment. They wound up with lots of excess capacity and decided 'on a temporary basis' to sell the excess capacity to other railroads and large corporations seeking private tie-lines between cities. They planned on taking it all back when their own needs expanded. Where their telecommunications department staff consisted of about five people (not including the telephone operators) prior to the upgrading of the system and for a short time afterward, it soon reached the point where they had to hire 'a couple extra women' to handle the added bookkeeping and customer service functions. Within perhaps a year or so, they were up to a couple dozen employees in the railroad's telecommunications department and that is when serious consideration was given to simply spinning the whole thing off on its own. The very, very early customers of Sprint actually got bills for their service each month from the accounts receivable department of the Southern Pacific Railroad itself, printed on a Victor Comptometer machine; a bookeeping device which served well for decades. A very close analogy would be the growth and transformation of the Diner's Club credit card back in the 1950's from being a promotion offered as part of the in-house credit card offered by Bloomingdale's Department Store in New York to a full fledged thing of its own. In recent years, Alfred Bloomingdale commented that he really missed the personal service they offered in those days. He said that a cus- tomer would come into Bloomingdale's with a complaint about some erroroneous charge on the Diner's card; someone would 'run in the back office and talk to the *two ladies* who handled all the bookkeeping for Diners and get the matter resolved then and there ...' All the bookeeping was done on a Victor Comptometer machine, the same kind of bookeeping device the Southern Pacific Railroad used in its accounting department in the 1960's and very early 1970's, along with clerks making manual entries on ledger cards. The Victor Comptometer Company was located here in Chicago at 1730 North Paulina Street until they went out of business sometime in the late 1960's. The building still stands there as a deserted warehouse/ factory. It has housed several firms that have moved in and out since. Old-timers still call it the Victor Comptometer Building, although hardly anyone in the neighborhood now has any idea what the building used to be fifty years ago -- just the international headquarters for the greatest mechanical bookeeping system in the world is all ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #107 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 8 01:39:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA15545; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080639.BAA15545@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #108 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Mar 96 01:39:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Source For Western Union Clocks Located (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Tim Hogard) Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic (Steve Granata) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (John Cropper) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? (Peter M. Weiss) ATT and Long Distance Information Services (Glenn Foote) 888-555-1212 From Canada (Ian Angus) Re: No 28.8kbps Over Fiber Optic POTS Lines (Robin Bassett) CallerID Only For Some Local Calls (Jonathan Bradshaw) Employment Opportunity: Telecom PM Job - Atlanta (David B. Hughes) CIR Update (Free News Headline Service) Back Issues on WWW (Jeff Breen) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:54:14 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Source For Western Union Clocks Located Several readers have asked me at one time or another to let them know if I ever found a source for the old Western Union clocks ... and I have! eli@seldon.terminus.com has a limited number available for sale, all in pretty good condition. The price depends on the exact style and the condition of the clock, but I suspect a couple hundred dollars or maybe a little less would get you one ready to use. You deal with him on that. As I understand it he has both the square case 16 inch dial version and the round case 16 inch dial with sweep second hand version. He might have others. I think they are all 60 beats per minute; I asked him if he had any at 90 beats per minute and he said he did not think so at the present time. I have a 90 here; it is from Self-Winding Clock Company and has that name on the dial. It does not say Western Union on it. It is in a wooden case. All of his have Self Winding Clock Company works and authentication tags to prove the works go with the case, with the WU logo on the dial and the little red light on the setting circuit. You would need to ask him for a description of the various styles he has available, and there are not that many of them so if you are interested you might want to get in touch with him soon. Western Union shut down their Time Service division about 1965. The last twenty years or so before that there were no new clocks manufactured, so all of them are at least fifty years old. Two of mine that I got from other sources are in their eighties. I imagine his are about that old. He has been prompt to respond to my email and he is known by several netizens on the mailing list dealing with old clocks. You'll want to exchange correspondence with him and decide for yourself whether or not to purchase one of these pieces of American history. With some patience at the time you install it, i.e. leveling it very precisely on the wall and *tiny*, careful adjustments of the pendu- lum over a period of a few days when you first hang it, it is quite possible to get the clock to operate on its own with an accuracy of a few seconds per month even without the setting circuit. One of mine has gone for about two or three months before the discrepancy was worth bothering with. In addition there is a program available which allows you to operate the setting circuit on the clock from your PC with a phone call to the Naval Observatory, whose name appears on the clock dial as part of the old Western Union logo. He mentioned in one letter to me that 'there is a warehouse where these old clocks are stacked by the thousands and have been sitting there for years after they were taken out of service ...' Well, I got lust in my heart, but he would not tell me where it is, and I doubt he will tell you either. I've got a check in the mail to him now for still another one for my collection. Anyway, if interested contact him direct and talk it over. He is out in California but will ship UPS to you carefully packed and insured, etc. Get them while they last! eli@seldon.terminus.com And if you get one, let me know later what you think of it. Some say the brown metal cases are ugly, but I don't think so. By the way, he paid me nothing to put this here, and did not give me any discounts or special consideration. I just happen to be enthusiastic about old clocks, especially considering the source and history behind these. PAT ------------------------------ From: thogard@inmind.com (Tim Hogard) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 8 Mar 1996 03:54:48 GMT Organization: In Mind, Inc. Tom Crofford (tomc@xeta.com) wrote: > I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this > group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected > to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My > point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, > and the calls are much longer than voice calls. Between my mother and my sister, they use up many more hours of local free calls than my modem. All they do is talk for hours. That is figured in as part of the cost of doing business, a fixed number of lines will be tied up for an average amount of time. Basicly modems modify the averages slightly. > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? My phone company just stopped charging for touch-tone even though it has been years since rotary was cheaper than touch-tone. I'm sure the phone company has more than made up for the slight increase in phone line use over the last decade with the rip-off prices for the "extras". Many states set up rates so that the good 'ole phone company makes a nice profit. The PUC would set up a % that the company would do well and could invest in equipment. Now what has happend is that many new companies would love to provide a local dial tone at a fraction of the proffit that the traditional phone company gets. That sould be a reason to drop the profit ratio. tim http://www.abnormal.com/~thogard GPS, VW and Usenet topics. ------------------------------ From: sgranata@cais.com (Steve Granata) Subject: Re: CallerID, AT&T and Bell Atlantic Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 01:48:25 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) wrote: > I am suprised that I haven't heard anything about Bell Atlantic and > DCS suing AT&T recently. It appears that AT&T's switches won't talk > to Bell Atlantic's for exchanging long distance caller id. Bell has > sued AT&T saying that it has decreased the usefullness of it's caller > ID. As a Bell Atlantic caller ID user, I get significant amount of NO > CID AVAIL on my caller id from callers who use AT&T (there are alot of > you). Until these issues are resolved, I have a nice paperweight to > sit next to my phone. Interesting to read this. I live in Bell Atlantic - VA territory. My mother is at home in Oregon using AT&T long distance. Mom and I decided to set up an arrangement where I would get BA CID and monitor the box for her phone number in Oregon, thus saving her toll charges for leaving short messages on my answering machine. As a test, I had Mom call me on my Sprint Spectrum PCS handset, which has CID. Her phone number came through loud and clear. I had planned (and will) sign up for BA CID tomorrow afternoon, to implement our toll-saving arrangement. I'll e-mail my results to the Digest. Steve Granata sgranata@cais.com http://members.aol.com/sgranata/index.htm ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: 8 Mar 1996 00:38:47 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Mar 07, 1996 01.34.46 bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) wrote: > When you call Directory Assistance (esp long distance xxx-555-1212) to > ask for a number of a business, the operator's first response is "What > city, please?" > If I don't know the city (and don't know anything about the area to even > make a dumb guess) it seems impossible to get any help. > I realize the answer may vary with each telco but aren't there > alternate ways that operators can look up the needed info within that > area code, especially if it's a business (as opposed to an individual > name where there seems a greater chance for duplication)? > Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Try http://www.switchboard.com. It does a search on all US white pages for personal AND business listings (tho some are up to one year old). Brand new, and featured in several local papers. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:06:18 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? If your company has their own domain on the network, you can always check the WHOIS db at rs.internic.net. Of course some LD consortium will now want to charge you extra for this service because you bypassed their service ;-) Pete Weiss at Penn State ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: ATT and Long Distance Information Services Date: 7 Mar 1996 15:04:19 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I recently had occasion to contact several Chambers of Commerce in Kentucky. When I called (my LD service is through ATT) 1.606.555.1212 and asked for a listing in Lexington, and one in another city, I was told that ATT could provide the second city, but they would have to transfer me for the Lexington Number. Why? Seems as though they are "not allowed" to give out information (or maybe just don't have access to it?) from Lexington because it is a "Independent Telephone Company (GTE)". Hummm ... The transfer was made, at (I assume) no charge, and I got the information, but ... since when has this been a standard practice. Would someone who knows more than I do about this (which is probably almost anyone) shed some light on this, and possible future problems that might be encountered when we start to have *multiple* "local" companies competing in the local access areas? Glenn "Elephant" Foote ... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A number of years in the past when the 555-1212 service was first getting started, quite a few telcos just contracted with the local predominant carrier -- usually Bell -- to provide their directory assistance service. Many also over the years found it was more economical to contract out their operator service to the predominant company -- usually Bell -- in their area. Now there was no rule they had to, and some small independent telcos to this day maintain their own operators and their own directory assistance. For whatever reason, they prefer to do it themselves. When you come across a case like this, the public is not expected to know that for all of a certain area Bell is the telco but in one small community there is a separate telco with their own thing going on. So to better serve the public, as 555-1212 became widely known, the decision was to just encourage everyone to use that number and in the instances where an independent telco did not want to contract with Bell to handle it then on reciept of a call about that area the operator would just tell the party to hold on and she would connect them there for local handling. There used to be bunches and bunches of these in North and South Carolina for some reason. It seems to me the operators answering on 555-1212 there rarely did anything but pass the customer on to the local, usually small rural telco which wanted to handle its own directory assistance. Maybe they figure they can do it cheaper than whatever price the Bell would charge them for the service there. You haven't heard anything yet. In the latter years of manual service when there were still a number of manual exchanges being run by small telcos, they were not, strictly speaking, part of the area code wherein they geographically sat. Like Lafayette, Indiana, a GTE holdout with an odd dialing arrangement and no direct long distance dialing for years after it became common elsewhere, they sat in the middle of Indiana but were not technically part of 317. Yes, for rate and route purposes and operator ticket writing they were, but not for dialing purposes, which the customer could not do anyway. I remember once calling a small rural community; I think it was in Mississippi which was still manual and not reachable by dialing 601. None the less I called 601-555-1212 to get a number there, knowing full well it was manual and with funny three digit numbers and letters at the end, etc. When 555-1212 answered me and asked what place, I gave her that town name. Just a minute, she says, I will ring there for you. A few rings later, what sounds like a much older black lady answers who was the operator in that little place. Before I get a chance to get a word in edgewise, the Bell operator who put me through speaks up and she says, "Operator! This is a call for information only! Do not connect for party, just give him the number! ..." Well, I was told the number I wanted, but of course I had to hang up and dial my operator to actually put the call through. I guess at least a few people had tricked the poor old operator down there into putting a call through via the 555-1212 connection to the rural switchboard, so now the Bell operator who passed the call would always warn her about the call coming in. Based on your experience, I guess there are still some small indepen- dent telcos who prefer handling their own operator and directory assistance functions. Most long ago contracted them out to Bell. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:20:36 -0400 Subject: 888-555-1212 from Canada Scott Robert Dawson wrote that he had dialed 1-888-1212 from Toronto, and reached Toll free Directory Assistance, and guessed that "Bell Canada is handling this better than AT&T..." Alex Klaus wrote that he dialed 1-888-555-1212 from Area Code 613 (Ottawa) and got a recording directing him to call 1-800-555-1212. He guessed thart "it depends on your location for Bell service." I did some checking with Stentor, which actually is responsible for telco Toll-free service in Canada. Here's what I learned: When the 888 Code was activated on March 1, Stentor implemented a translation routine, so that all calls to 1-888-555-1212 went to 800 Directory Assistance. Several days later, they were ordered, "by the FCC" to stop doing this, because 1-888-555-1212 is under Replication Protection for AT&T. Apparently AT&T "owns" 1-800-555-1212, and wants to own its 888 counterpart. So on March 6, Stentor eliminated the translation routine, and began routing all calls to 1-888-555-1212 to a recording which says "For Toll-free Directory Information, please dial 1-800-555-1212." Isn't progress wonderful? IAN ANGUS Tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222 Angus TeleManagement Group Fax: 905-686-2655 8 Old Kingston Road e-mail: ianangus@angustel.ca Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ From: rbassett@aztech.com.sg (Robin Bassett) Subject: Re: No 28.8kbps Over Fiber Optic POTS Lines Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:40:58 GMT Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore rf@ZONE.NET (Bob Forsythe) wrote: > Recently, our client has been having difficulties with their new > telephone service. They use a LEC by the name of Teleport ... > bank. The nonsense that is being fed our poor client is that the POTS > lines they've been connected with are incapable of data transmission > speeds in excess of 9600bps. Of course, this sounds like sheer BS > because of a number of factors (including e.g. between the hours of > 2AM and 6AM, disconnections rarely, if ever, occur and full speed > transfers sometimes occur flawlessly for hours). To add insult to > injury, its been mentioned to our client that "... only copper POTS > lines can really support these higher data speeds". The client > specifically wished to avoid the RBOC in this area due to the long and > distinguished history of extraordinary customer service problems (with > NYNEX). ... The first rule in this situation is never to say "Modem". Tell them you have problems faxing. In comp.dcom.modems I have seen several people with similar problems (telco "upgraded" my line, can't get high data rates, called them and they said "we only support 9600bps). The answer to their post was almost always "tell them you have a fax problem." Hope this helps. Robin ------------------------------ From: jonathan@NrgUp.Com (Jonathan Bradshaw) Subject: CallerID Only For Some Local Calls Date: 7 Mar 1996 19:26:50 -0500 Organization: NRG-Up Internet Services I live in Ameritech Land ... Indianapolis, Indiana to be exact. Although CallerID is offered and works from some out of state calls such as Michigan and Kentucky etc. it doesn't work from any of the outlying areas that are still local calls for me such as Greenfield. There is little doubt these places are on older switches but the question is, is Ameritech required to pass this information? If the LD companies must, does this not mean they should too? Jonathan M. Bradshaw | Jonathan@NrgUp.Com | http://WWW.NrgUp.Com/jonathan 1024 PGP Key fingerprint EA 16 1B 5D 5D 94 6B 06 58 FD E6 E9 52 F3 6E 11 Software Administrator, Boehringer Mannheim Corporation, Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------ From: davidh@mindspring.com (David B. Hughes) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom PM Job - Atlanta Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 00:12:13 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: davidh@mindspring.com Project Management Services, Inc. in Atlanta GA needs a Project Manager with 5+ years experience in aviation, telecommunications, or information technology. Salary is commensurate with skills and experience. To apply, email your resume or call me direct at 770/518-3213. ------------------------------ From: cir@cir-inc.com (CIR) Subject: CIR Update (Free News Headline Service) Back Issues on WWW Date: 08 Mar 1996 03:10:05 GMT Organization: Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. CIR Update is an electronic publication containing headlines from the printed newsletters of Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. CIR is a leading consulting and publishing firm serving the telecommunications, CATV, and broadcast industries since 1979. Back issues of CIR Update are now available at http://www.cir-inc.com/update/ on CIR's Web site. If you would like to subscribe to CIR Update, send e-mail to "majordomo@cir-inc.com" with "subscribe cir-update" in the _body_ of the message. Thanks, Jeffrey Oliver Breen Complete Internet & WWW Solutions Consultant & Webmaster Novus Papyrus Incorporated Voice/FAX: (804) 977-4WEB (4932) 977 Seminole Trail, No. 224 http://www.NovPapyrus.com Charlottesville, VA 22901 e-mail: job@NovPapyrus.com ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 7 Mar 1996 20:45:51 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Lisa wrote: > I think part of the issue is the cost of carrying said calls. How far > is the island from the mainland, and what is involved in installing a > new cable to carry the traffic? In the longterm it's not very significant. It's just a typical Nynex ploy to rape the consumer, and I do mean RAPE. Of course there is hope. The folks that live in the Diamond Hill section of Cumberland, RI fought like the devil with Nynex for several years. Seems their calling area was only the extreme northern part of the state with Providence, the capitol, being a toll. Don't ask me how it happened bu the 658 exchange was created that gave those residents not only their old calling area but access to all the Providence exchanges as well. So there is some hope. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do they *need* a new cable to carry > the traffic? Aren't we talking here more about bookkeeping entries > than we are any significant increase in traffic? Of course there is > a theory which says people do not need a particular telecom service > until they have it, then once it is available they use it a great > deal. So it is possible I guess that if the 'free' calling range is > expanded there will suddenly develop a lot more traffic than prev- > iously. But an entirely new cable being required? PAT] Cable? I suppose Nynex is still in the dark ages but a microwave system would be more than likely be adequate to service that island. In article , Mike Fox wrote: > Is this really unfair? Sure, there probably are some areas on the > mainland with bigger calling areas in pure square miles, but have you > considered the cost of carrying calls over/under/whatever 1/2 mile of > water (with probably no revenue producing subscribers in that 1/2 mile > stretch)? Let's face it, if you choose to live in a remote area there > are many compensations, but there are some costs too. But the cost of providing that service isn't much more than what it costs to serve their mainland neighbors. It's just the same old same old from Nynex. I can't wait for competition. > I live in a larger metropolitan area. It seems like every couple of > months or so, I get notified that some rinky-dink rural town is being > added to our local calling area, and everyone's phone bill is going > up a few cents as a result. Since the number of calls coming in from > these outlying areas is probably going to be a lot more than the > number of calls going out, in effect the people in these small towns > are forcing those of us in the larger cities to subsidize their > calling. So talk to the business owners in Nynex territory who are FORCED to subsidize unlimited local service. Yup, business is measured service only unless you hookup with DID lines and Flexpath outdials. > In your case, how many people on the mainland are clamoring for free > local calls to your island? Probably few to none. But if you get what > you want, will everyone's bill in the new local calling area go up, > including those on the mainland? If the answer is yes, then you are > in effect requesting that they be forced to subsidize your desire to > call them for free. Or are you just requesting that NYNEX eat it? > Since you don't want to pay any more, you're obviously requesting that > SOMEONE besides you eat it. Who? You should contact kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com since you both share similar views about subsidization. > Sorry for the flame. I'm just annoyed by the notice that my Raleigh, > NC phone bill is going up so that Pittsboro can be added to our local > calling area. Our bills are only going up a few pennies, but if the > Pittsboro were paying for it, it would cost each of them a lot more. > It's a classic case of a small constituency widely distributing the > costs of something whose benefits will be concentrated on them. It's > how our government got into the mess it's in now, IMO. IMO it makes more sense to charge you the extra couple of pennies than charge the Pittsboro residents exhorbitant rates. It's always the same argument. It's gotten to the point where it probably costs your LEC no more to provide service in Pittsboro than it does in your town. It's always nice to have a monopoly. Of course with any luck that's all going to end very soon. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #108 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 8 03:05:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA20369; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:05:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 03:05:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603080805.DAA20369@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #109 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Mar 96 03:05:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson San Jose Mercury Strikes Again (John Higdon) MCI Mail Statement About the Week-Long February Outage (W. Hatfield) Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Dan Pock) Public 710 Information (Louis Jones) Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers (Steve Politsch) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Dan Rosenbaum) Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City (Dave Close) MCI Friends Promotion - Limits (Stan Schwartz) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:42:10 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again I have many residential telephone lines, so I probably have a larger than normal exposure to that company's annoying telemarketing calls. But over the years, I have repeatedly and painstakingly attempted to make sure that my numbers appeared on that firm's "do not call" list. It appears that this has been wasted effort. First, to bring you up to speed, here is a letter sent last week to the SJMN's subscription marketing department: **** To Whom It May Concern: I have seventeen phone lines in my home. Several years ago, your telemarketing contractor nearly drove me out of my mind with subscription calls week after week after week. After months of complaining, I was able to get the calls stopped. About a year after that, the calls began again. Once again it took considerable effort, but finally the calls ceased once more. Last night, they began again. "Hi! I'm ______ from the San Jose Mercury News [blah blah blah]." And this happens on line after line after line. But I am going to tell you something. If it continues, you, your telemarketing contractor, and everyone associated with the project are going to wish you had never heard of subscription solicitation calls. What I am going to do, since I have previously repeatedly asked you and your contractors to stop bothering me on my home phones, is to record each and every occurance on each and every line. I have Station Message Detail Recording enabled on every line in the house. All I have to do is dial a code to flag that call as being from "the San Jose Mercury News" and then after a period of time I can have the details collated automatically. At that time, I will present my data to Pacific Bell, my attorney, and to other agencies as may be appropriate. I will extract every ounce of compensation, pursue every redress, and seek all possible relief for your refusal to comply with my wishes to not be called by you or your contractors at my residence. I intend to benefit handsomely from your lack of compliance with laws that entitle me to remain undisturbed after duly notifying you of my demands in this matter. Consider this my final demand that you refrain from bothering me on any of my seventeen residential telephone lines, and also consider it fair warning for the consequences that will follow if you choose to ignore the demand. Thank you for your time. **** In response to that letter, I received a call on Monday, March 4 from a Mr. Tim Fullerton who assured me that my numbers were indeed on file (he even read them back to me) and that he would investigate into the matter. But this evening (March 7), I received two more solicitation calls. The first SJMN caller had a not-so-polite expletive as a response to my polite assertion that I did not want to be called by them. The second caller informed me that the calls "come from Pennsylvania and it is impossible to guarantee that you won't be called just because your number is on 'some list'". Now that we have set the stage, here is what I would like to do: There are new, very tough, Federal laws about being called by any person or business after you have duly notified them of your wish not to be called. I would like to hear from anyone who has been called by the San Jose Mercury News AFTER they have asked to be put on the "do not call list". I want to document as many hits as I can, not only from myself, but from others in the same situation. I have complete records of all incoming calls so my case is in the bag--but the more the merrier. These people have had years to get the act together. They have blown it. It is time to set them straight. I am going to make it a point to do just that. 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: You need to get in touch with Robert Bulmash of the 'Private Citizen' organization here in the Chicago area. He has been quite successful in handling cases like this and often times in getting money for the victims. Since he is a reader of the Digest he may well get in touch with you if you do not try to contact him first. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 23:43 EST From: W. Hatfield <0001177259@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Statement About the Week-Long February Outage [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCI Mail sent out this letter to their customers on Thursday evening, and Mr. Hatfield passed along a copy for us to read. PAT] --------------- Date: Thu Mar 07, 1996 7:19 pm EST From: MCI Help / MCI ID: 267-1163 Dear Customer, Within the next week, you will be receiving your invoice for MCI Mail charges for the month of February. You will see a credit has been automatically applied to your invoice for all February messaging traffic. This is to reflect any inconvenience you may have suffered from the service outage beginning on February 3. Many of our customers have asked for a written explanation of the outage and the actions taken by MCI to prevent such a situation from reoccurring. After extensive research and analysis, the following information is available. MCI Mail message traffic continues to increase and, in fact, exceeded normal traffic patterns by 27% for the month of January. This increase in message throughput was coupled with a dramatic rise in Internet traffic. The combination of these two events necessitated a change in both system configuration and load distribution. Although initiating system changes ran the risk of further taxing system resources, taking no action contained even greater customer-impacting risks. Plans were developed to maximize system efficiency by balancing high volume Internet users and low volume Internet users across the MCI Mail system. In addition, two new state-of-the-art processors and additional storage devices were installed. It was during the execution of the user transfer and balancing strategy that system utilization reached its maximum processing ability. This unexpected impact required the development of an alternate plan. During the execution of this alternate plan about 320 customer accounts became inaccessible. Additionally, a latent software deficiency was encountered that, while not an issue during normal processing, resulted in roughly 8% of messages in transferred accounts to be rejected into hold queues. Repair code was developed within hours and used to finally correct this situation, but execution of this repair procedure took several days to complete so as to ensure full restoration and message integrity. Although customers were severely impacted, no messages were lost or, at any time, was the system security compromised. With the pending installation of two new Internet gateways, heavy Internet users will now be able to be vectored to other systems. This action alone is expected to significantly improve system performance and reduce the possiblity of a reoccurence of similar problems. In addition, the installion of additional new disk drives will further improve system efficiency and avoid the risk of a similar situation. MCI apologizes for the disruption in service. We appreciate your business and recognize that we have all come to rely on MCI Mail as an important business tool. Our focus is on the future and our goal is to maintain MCI Mail's high level of system performance, reliability and customer satisfaction. Sincerely, MCI Messaging Support ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:49:41 -0800 From: Dan Pock Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Rob Levandowski sent this reply to me so I am forwarding it to the Digest since the discussion originally started here. My latest response follows Mr. Levandowski's, > From: Rob Levandowski > To: nadaniel@earthlink.net > Subject: Re: PCS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids > Dan Pock wrote: >> Monty Solomon wrote: >>> Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to >>> ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that >>> does not cause noise pollution. >> What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going >> to happen. It is an interesting problem that few people with good hearing >> are aware of, and for that reason I applaude your zeal in pubicizing it. I >> realize that to a hearing impared person a sudden burst of static can seem >> like a rude assault by insensitive people with cellular phones, but that >> isn't the case. > The matter at issue is not digital technology, but the manner in which > it is implemented. My understanding of the problem is that it stems not > from the digital data stream itself, but the way that the RF frequency > bandwidth is time-shared. This "time division multiple access" scheme > results in a sort of RF "pulse" in the vicinity of the phone. These > pulses occur at such a frequency that any RF interference in audio > circuits is quite audible, and annoying. > The question is, do people with no hearing loss have the right to deprive > others of the use of one of their senses, for the mere reason of personal > convenience? If a cellphone somehow blinded a certain percentage of people > nearby when it was used, would that be permissible? > My mother has a congenital hearing loss. Legally, she is deaf. With > hearing aids, she can hear pretty well. However, she already faces > discrimination because of her aids. This discrimination is not what you > may think, though. It comes in the form of security systems. A large > number of the "inventory control" systems in retail stores interact with > her hearing aids. These systems are the "gates" that you pass through > when entering or leaving a store. The RF signals they use to determine > when an inventory tag passes through also affect hearing aids. In many > stores which use these systems, my mother cannot shop. The alarm causes > loud, painful noise in her ears from the hearing aids. If she wants to > shop in such stores, she must either endure debilitating pain, or go deaf > by turning off her hearing aids. Imagine having to wear heavy earplugs > to shop in a store in the mall. She has, in the past, approached managers > of such stores about the problem. Most of them had never heard of the > problem. None of them would turn off the system so she could shop, citing > the possibility that someone could steal something while the alarm was off. > Citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, which would seem to outlaw the > use of devices which effectively deny access to the hearing-impaired, had > no effect. > When I hear of TDMA digital cellular phones, I think of my mother. I think > of her being unable to go out in public for fear of sudden, unpredictable > migraine headaches from loud, painful noise. Is it fair to deafen people > like my mother just because TDMA phones are convenient and cheap? Is it > fair to deafen people when other technologies, like CDMA, are available > which don't have the problem? > Is it fair to say that personal convenience is more important than other > people's use of their own senses? >> I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution >> will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out >> to be reengineered hearing aids that are sheilded or filtered so as to >> block the offensive signals. > Have you ever examined a hearing aid? > A battery, an amplifier, a signal processor, a microphone, a speaker, > a volume control, and an induction pickup. These items must all fit into > a durable, hypoallergenic casing that has to fit within your ear canal. > Why? Have you ever looked oddly at someone with a big hearing aid hanging > off their ear or clipped to their belt? If so, be sure that the wearer was > aware of your stare. > There's only so much sheilding you can pack into such a unit. You also > have to consider that such aids are made to a mold of the wearer's ear, > so good hearing aids are usually largely hand-built for each person. > To the extent that they are mass-produced, they must fit into the smallest > possible space, to fit within the widest possible range of ears. > There's certainly no room for the kind of filtering that would be needed > to remove TDMA noise without impacting performance for everyday sound. >> If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to >> you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because >> if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are >> going to have to file alot of law suits. > You don't need to go after every user of digital technology -- only those > who knowingly make equipment that radiates strong RF harmonics at audible > frequencies, like TDMA. My mother has no problem watching TV, or working > on a computer, or using a standard cellular phone, or operating any of > the other myriad devices out there which use digital technology. It's > mainly security systems that stymie her. I'm concerned that TDMA cellular > phones will become a further bane of her existance. > Robert Levandowski > VAR Support, Office Document Systems > Xerox Corporation, Rochester NY [Opinions mine, not those of Xerox] > rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ----------------- Dear Rob, I do sympathize with your mother. To the extent that security systems and cell phone manufacturers can "reasonably" produce products that accomodate the hearing impaired they should do so. That is the wording that the ADA uses. The key word is "reasonably". The difference between your perspective and mine is one of econimic philosophy. You clearly embrace socialism in which we go running to the government everytime we have a problem like a child taddling on a sybling. "Mommy, make Johnny stop bothering me." The problem is that we are not children and the government is not Mommy. "Big Brother" would be more accurate under socialism. Capitalism on the other hand would dictate that we give our patronage to the hearing aid manufacturer who rises to the occasion and produces an aid that sheilds RF. As for your argument that this can't be done, I would ask you to take a look at a peice of coaxial cable. (The kind that your cable company uses to bring you television service.) It uses foil to sheild the RF signal. What would be so hard about coating the inside surface of a hearing aid with a layer of foil for sheilding and a layer of sullifane for insulation against the foil conducting electricity to the wrong places? It can be done. The question is: Will the manufacturers do it? Pure capitalism may not be enough. It may very well be necessary to ask the government to step in. I believe the courts are going to inclined to think that it is more reasonable to ask hearing aid manufacturers to sheild their products than it will be to suppress an entire technology. It is also more reasonable to burden one industry, (the hearing aid manufacturers), than it is to burden multiple industries, (Cell phones, security systems, etc.) You can stay on your pesent course or move to one that will give your case more favor with the courts and still solve the problem. The choice is yours. Sincerely, Dan Pock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:18:53 -0500 From: du465@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Louis Jones) Subject: Public 710 Information Reply-To: du465@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Louis Jones) PAT, I'm surprised that, with all the discussion of the 710 area code, no one has mentioned the fact that there is a set of US Government Web Pages on the subject. Try the Defense Information Systems Agency website at: http://164.117.147.223/~nc-pp/html/getswork.htm Not overly informative, but hardly secret. Lou Jones du465@cleveland.freenet.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very interesting! I know a lot of folks here will be checking it out over the weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: spolitsch@attmail.com Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 18:14:46 -0900 Subject: Seeking Information on Radio Control Multiplexers I am looking for information on the best multiplexers to handle radio control lines. The radios are all tone controlled UHF base station or VHF repeaters. I currently have 14 radio channels that need to be transmitted over a distance over 20 miles. What I am looking for is multiplexer that can handle all that with using minimum bandwidth. My local teleco can provide 9.6 kbps, 64 kbps, 128 kbps and T-1 lines. The current system that handles the radio is a microwave, but it?s getting old and needs to be replaced. The other option is to buy a new microwave, but I think the multiplexer is cheaper. Additionally, I am looking at using another multiplexer over a WAN that may go through two satellites depending on routing. This system will carry radio, voice, FAX and data. I am interested in any suggestions/comments on products and problems with using multiplexers. Thanks, STEVE POLITSCH spolitsch@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: 8 Mar 1996 01:43:57 -0500 Organization: Panix I hope the NBA isn't thinking that they'll be able to steamroll STATS; it's owned by Paul Allen -- co-founder of Microsoft, an NBA team owner (Seattle Supersonics), and a man with a few spare bucks to defend himself in court. Dan Rosenbaum Editor, NetGuide drosenba@panix.com ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Without Knowing City? Date: 8 Mar 1996 07:54:19 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) writes: > Will we ever get to on-line (web page type) automated lookups? Try http://www.switchboard.com - nearly 100m white pages listings for people and businesses over the whole USA - and it's free. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: MCI Friends Promotion - Limits Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 22:41:27 -0500 I called MCI today and spoke to both the voice-response system and a live operator, who told me that the FRIENDS promotion for March is limited to $75.00 PER LINE PER MONTH. So, before you run up that big bill this Saturday ... Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Har, har, har! It would serve these leeches right, wouldn't it Stan ... they run up a big humongous, hellish telephone bill figuring MCI is going to write it all off in this promotion; then they receive the bill and go into shock. Not having budgeted for such a thing, they are unable to pay the bill. They keep stalling and finally MCI cuts off their long distance service and places them with an agency for collection purposes. Listen up all! You have been warned. I hope this issue reaches you before you start an orgy of long distance calling on Saturday morning. Don't get cauliflower ear from holding the receiver up there for hours on end figuring MCI is going to bail you out of it. As for me, I have a bunch of stuff to do Saturday and won't be around anyway, so how about we get together the first of next week in this same space about the same time? Have a nice weekend, all! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #109 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 10:47:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA28064; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:47:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111547.KAA28064@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #110 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems (Paul Robinson) Mailing List Opposing Ban on Voice on the Internet (Jack Decker) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Dave Hughes) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Mike Pellatt) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Gregor Markowitz) 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: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 06:49:57 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Dialing For (no) Dollars on the Internet; Solving Problems In a prior article, I mentioned about how Long Distance companies are not happy by the recent development of the use of the Internet as a means to bypass them and make telephone calls without paying long distance charges. Specifically, the issue is because inexpensive software allows anyone with a computer and a SLIP or PPP connection to the internet to be able to make telephone calls. There are lots of other things being done. The developments in technology amaze me (has anyone seen the recent work with slow-scan TELEVISION?) What this reminds me of is the work by Ham Radio operators in the early days of the hobby (or which may still be going on, I'm not sure.) I got thinking about this once, and realized that there is a big problem -- and a big opportunity -- for long distance companies. Consider the following: A prospective customer wanted me to find out what it would cost to get a T1 to the Internet into their location which was in Rural Virginia. I contacted the four largest carriers I know supply Internet connections (AT&T, MCI, Sprint and Cable & Wireless). Of these four, only the rep from MCI bothered to return my calls. She was extremely helpful, and I found out some additional information. Consider that, for example, a place has five sites across the country, and wants to connect them to the Internet. There are many options including a virtual private network, frame relay, and others. In one example, they could set up a virtual private network, with the ability to contact other VPN sites (I think this is similar to Shared Metropolitan Data Service (SMDS)) if they know their network address and also connect to the Internet over the same system. It can be purchased according to how big a pipe you need, e.g. a 128K guaranteed bandwidth ("Committed Information Rate" or CIR) is slightly higher than 56K, and 256K is slightly higher than 128K, all the way up to using a full T1 if they need it. It's always been possible to do this, but the costs were usually astronomical. Now, the costs are merely on the high side for individuals, but not too bad for a business. The example given was if a place wanted to take a T1 with a 128K CIR (which means if they use more than 128K at a time, there may be charges for exceeding bandwidth, but only when and if they use more), and otherwise having no additional charges no matter how much use of the pipe occurrs. The rate for such an example was about $1500 a month, and in some cases, the installation could have been waived, saving several thousand dollars. This gives an average per site of $300 a month. Now, what do you get for this money: - The ability to have up to ten simultaneous telephone conversations at each of their sites (assuming that a conversation requires about 12K of bandwidth) which, when converted by the equipment from an analog voice to digital data, should now be considerably clearer. - Five simultaneous fax transmissions, (presuming 24K bandwidth) at each site. This doesn't even consider that the number might be higher, since one possibility is to merely use a fax machine as a scanner, then have a computer transmit it as digital data to another computer at a destination site and send the image to a laser printer or another computer for display at that site by the addressee. - Either two (with 56K compessing codecs) or one (128K) video conference, per site (which, as I understand, provides fairly good quality). - Ability to network any of these (which would mean holding a conference call without paying CC charges, or a video conference). - A 128K internet connection the rest of the time the network isn't being used. What this can mean, simply enough, is that an organization can get dual channel 56K video conferencing for $300 a month per site, plus free tie-lines when the video conferencing isn't being used, and internet connectivity free, too! Or another way to put it is they can buy Internet connectivity and get free tie-lines and video conferencing! If you spend more than that on travel for meetings and on long-distance calls between offices, this could be a considerable savings. Plus, since you can hook the equipment through each site's PBX, it means you can have direct-dial between any office in the company whether they are next-door or across the country, and it doesn't cost anything no matter how many calls you make. To go to a higher CIR isn't that much more expensive, either, say $100 per doubling. As you get into larger volumes, it becomes less expensive for the amount of bandwidth being used. This means that many of these formerly expensive capabilities are now available to smaller businesses. The development of software such as these programs that allow use of the Internet for telephony, isn't anything new, it is simply pushing the reach of bypass down to the individual. Large companies have always been able to do things like negotiate huge discounts for such services because they can buy in bulk, or purchase their own internal network as dedicated tie-lines, or if big enough, build it themselves (SPRINT started as the internal network for the Southern Pacific Railroad, and it used the wires they had on their own rights-of-way). As I said earlier in this article, this creates a new problem for Long Distance Companies as well as a new opportunity. The stance being taken by their lobbying association is the old, "Whine, complain about the development of technology and try to get the law to outlaw it" stance that too many organizations have used to try and protect their status quo. I wonder what personal transportation would be now if the blacksmiths, buggy whip and carrage makers had been able to organize to stop the production and sale of the automobile. You can whine about the problem, or you can use it as a new means to make money. Instead of whining about how unfair this sort of thing is, take advantage of it. Start selling Internet Connections to companies, trying to push larger pipes into their offices. Instead of trying to sell some company merely a reduced-rate long distance service, show them that they can buy a new service that gives them several new features AND ELIMINATES ANY USAGE CHARGE. So maybe, due to the size of the pipe, this only cuts 20% of their long distance charges. Well, if a $300 a month per site pipe cuts perhaps $1000 in toll costs, then isn't increasing the pipe an even better idea? Thus, you now sell them an even bigger minimum monthly charge, and they now cut even more of their costs. Doesn't that sound like a win-win situation? Oh, sure, you can realize that if their taking a data pipe reduces your sales of long-distance service to them, you are cutting some of your own profits. That is short-term thinking. Would you rather sell them more of one service and less of another, even if it means you make less in total, than have a more limber competitor sell them more of their service, and eventually cutting you out? But you have to be willing to see what the customer wants or needs. What can a salesman point out to a customer? "How many of your places are either spending money on travel, or having trouble because they can't afford to have meetings between distant people? Providing inexpensive videoconferencing could solve either issue. Then, the benefits of other features that, once you get the basic feature you want, everything else is gravy on top of that!" There are so many things that can be done, if people have the means to do them. Reduction of cost increases that means. Creating new means to do things gives more opportunities to sell those means. Selling those means not only means you can make money out of it, you may eventually be able to sell them things to use more of what you sold them. King Camp Gillette {gave away} razors. Then he kept selling people blades. Sell people lower-cost non-metered service. Then watch as they use so much that you sell them even more. Or give them new ideas to use more of the service, then sell them the equipment to use it, too. Or, if they buy it from someone else, suggest ways to be "more efficient" by using more of that equipment. Then, when they find that it's overtaxing the service, "suggest" that they increase what they are buying. They end up saving money or getting some new service that makes them more efficient, you end up selling them more bandwidth, and everyone wins. Business does not always have to be a zero-sum game. You can look at ways that everyone makes out better on the deal. Do that, and you often don't even have to sell the service: show the customer (s)he's better off with the service than without it and it sells itself. You were just there to let them see the difference. It's all a matter of thinking of new ideas. Keep thinking of ideas, and some of them will be successful. We do not have too many problems in this world. We have too few ideas and people willing to go out and sell them. Everything that has ever made people money has started with an idea, and someone willing to champion it. No, not every idea will succeed, but realize that if you try enough ideas, you have more chances for success. If you see that a product or service is facing competition, the answer to that isn't to try and use the law to stop that competition -- in the end, such a stance will probably come back to haunt you, either because someone will do the same thing to you, or because people will figure out how to do an end run around the law if the issue is serious enough -- but to look at what the competitor is doing and figure out how to meet that competition either with better service or more features. If you expect to be able to prevent your market from being changed -- either by trying to use the law to stop change, or trying to scare people away from it -- you are kidding yourself right into Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy code if you don't wake up and smell the coffee soon enough. You have to be willing to take risks, to innovate, to try new ideas. The companies that are doing this are record profit makers and fun places to be at. The ones that sat on their kiester and tried living off of the market while failing to innovate are the dinosaurs of which the deserts of competition are littered with their bleached bones and bankrupted carcasses, when the asteroid of change came crashing down on their world. :) I said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: Where the U.S. can win over the Japanese, the Europeans, the Koreans, and every other country is our ability to be willing to take risks, and possibly make mistakes and fail. No other country has the culture to permit such things; in Japan, a failure in {Kindergarten} can mean the difference between whether you can get into a University or end up going to a trade school! You don't need to have huge successes to win big. For example, if someone spends $5 million (considered "chump change") to make a motion picture and makes $25 million (considered "small potatoes"), the return is 5:1, which is better than spending $100 million to make $300 million, which is a 3:1 return (6 times as much money in absolute terms, but costing 20 times as much to get that return.) Consider which was a better investment in terms of costs: {Pulp Fiction} which cost $7M and returned over $200M, or Jurassic Park, which cost $100M and returned over $1B. Sure, JP returned $900 million above costs, which is 10:1 on investment, but PF returned more than 28:1. And on less money to start with! But this is 20/20 hindsite; let's use a simpler explanation: it's a whole lot easier to raise $7 million in investment capital than it is to raise $100 million! Another consideration: if some company makes ten films for $10 million -- if they are of decent quality -- there is a higher likelihood they will make a profit than on one film of $100 million. Simple arithmetic tells us that ten $10 million films have a higher probability of returning a net profit, because even if most of them lose money, but three return five times their cost, or four make four times their cost, or five make three times their cost, the company has less exposure per item and more chance to make a profit, even though 1/2 of the films lose money! (Don't remind me about the "creative accounting" tricks in Hollywood; I know most of them. If they'd put the kind of creativity into the scripts that they do into hiding income, there'd be a lot better material coming out of there, but that's a whole 'nother story. :) ) Make more tries and you have more opportunity to make more money. It's that simple. Look for more ways to sell a product or service and you can make more money. Look at problems and figure a way to solve them. Not every one will succeed, but with enough failures you eventually will, and more importantly, have more chances to succeed. You can whine about problems, or you can look for ideas to provide solutions to those problems. Try to get the law to stop problems and you end up with more and worse problems. Try enough ideas to solve problems and you eventually come up with some successes. The question of which of these will make money is left as an exercise for the reader. :) Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Mailing List Opposing Ban on Voice on the Internet Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 12:55:18 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net If you are opposed to the ban on Voice on the Internet, you might want to sign up for this moderated e-mail mailing list. It is called "VONYES" and to subscribe, you can send mail to: "Majordomo@enterprise.pulver.com" with the following command in the body (NOT the Subject line) of your email message: subscribe vonyes I am *NOT* the moderator of this list, but I have found the discussion interesting so far and a lot of good ideas have come forth. I'll just throw out a couple of other quick comments. I agree with those who say that the best answer would be to eliminate ALL access charges paid by ALL long distance carriers to local phone companies, in the spirit of true competition. This would resolve the so-called "injustice" of long distance carriers paying access charges while Internet users supposedly do not. Of course what nobody is saying is that on most Voice over the Net calls, at least FOUR monthly access charges are being paid (for calls with the U.S.): 1) The Internet user pays a monthly access fee on his modem line. 2) The user's ISP pays the same monthly access fee on each line of the modem pool, so there's another monthly fee. 3) The recipient of the call pays a monthly acces fee on his phone line. 4) And, of course, the recipient's ISP also has a modem pool that they are paying access charges on. So it is just plain wrong to say that no access fees are being paid. What are NOT being paid are fees _based on minutes of use_, but bear in mind that many ISP's aren't charging customers that way ... rather, they are charging a flat rate. Another thing to keep in mind is that all ISP to ISP connections are up 24 hours per day, seven days a week, and some users have full-time connections as well. Is every user that has a full-time internet connection going to be charged an access fee for 1440 minutes per day? If we cannot convince the regulators to eliminate access charges entirely, maybe it would be fairer for all concerned to redefine access charges to be based on monies actually collected rather than minutes of use. In other words, let's say that there was a flat access charge of 25% (this is much higher than I'd like to see, but I'm using it to make a point here because it's an easy calculation). If a carrier or ISP sold a flat rate service at $20 per month, they'd collect $25 and give $5 to the local telcos handling the call (IF we assume that ISP's should even be liable for this charge - see below). If they sold access at $3.00 per hour, they'd charge $3.75 and 75 cents would go to the local telcos. If a phone call were priced at 10 cents per minute by the carrier, 12.5 cents would be collected and 2.5 cents would go to the local phone companies. In other words, the carriers would be free to charge strictly according to market forces, including flat rate service if they care to offer it, and yet the local phone companies would still get some subsidy. I'm not saying that I LIKE this idea - I'd much rather see the subsidies gone entirely, especially since we're supposedly moving toward an open market for communications services - but it would be far better than the situation now, at least as far as long distance phone service is concerned. I actually feel that in the end, if access fees were collected as a percentage of monies collected, the local telcos just might come out ahead because a lot of people who avoid making long distance calls now would sign up for a $20/month "unlimited" calling plan (even one that excludes business hours) if the carriers could offer it. That would give the phone companies an additional access charge they would not otherwise get from those people. Yes, there are a lot of people who spend more than that much in a month, but there are also a lot of people (even in this day and age) that try to avoid making toll calls (the dimwit dad on the AT&T commercial that wanders around watching his kids run up the phone bills is definitely the exception rather than the rule!). It has been shown time and again that people prefer flat rate service when they can get it, and if any long distance companies care to offer it that way, they should be able to. The one complaint I would have about ANY access charges being applied to ISP's is that it would in effect be double taxation ... as I mentioned above, you, the folks you communicate with on the 'net, and all the ISP's involved are already paying access charges on their phone lines, so it really would NOT be fair to impose an additional charge on ISP's. But if the government becomes determined to take multiple bites from the same apple (or to let the local phone companies do it), then at least let them base the charges on revenues actually collected, rather than on minutes of use! Jack ------------------------------ From: dave@oldcolo.com Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 11 Mar 1996 13:50:04 GMT Organization: occ Reply-To: dave@oldcolo.com In , Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@ mcimail.com> writes: > FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! > Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to > control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as away > to "by-pass" the traditional means of obtaining long distance service > could result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to > transport its ever enlarging amount of data traffic. Therefore, ACTA > has petitioned the FCC to define the type of permissible > communications which may be effected over the Internet. Of course the characterization of the use of I-phone as 'misuse' of the Internet implies there is some 'proper use' of it. Wonder if ACTA would like to define that? A major and important future (and just ramping up) 'use' of the Internet is in Distance Learning. And there are many efforts to make individual workstations for education handle as much 'multi-media' forms of student teacher communications as possible. Including the use of voice *and* data -- in such forms as White Board, (teacher on one side of screen, student on other, writing math/physics solutions while both 'converse' via speakers and microphone attached to workstation), CuSeeMe forms of videoconferencing, and asynchronous voice messaging, where messages are either email or computer conferences (ala newsgroup/bbs form) 'attachments' to text. Such as the services 'RealAudio' server software now permits. Not to speak of front-of-the- classroom systems such as PicTel which carry two way voice and video via the net. With 84,000 public and 23,000 private schools out there with over 42 million students and 3 million teachers, besides the 4,000 or so colleges and universities trying to get into net-based learning and teaching, for, not only its dollar savings but also time savings (travel time to/from 'classrooms' or where ftf teachers exist) as well as demonstrated convenience to a huge out-of-school work force which cannot simply 'go to class' to pursue education or training -- it seems that this use alone is not only not a 'misuse' but a superior 'use' of communications technologies. Then to make things even more interesting, the uses of new forms of wireless communications, such as Part 15 (no licence) spread spectrum radio to interconnect to wired circuits both carrying data traffic, is, and will, continue to grow. I was asked by the National Science Foundation to pursue a year of Field Tests of Wireless communications for Education. Part of it in order to work out wireless ways to get higher bandwidth connections than pots lines with 28.8 modems can deliver, and for communications between schools, including the special case of *rural* schools and other schools in a district, as well as to the nearest Internet POP, at costs which are affordable to the school - i.e. taxpayer. As part of that testing, at this moment we have twenty teachers in four separated schools (three in the very rural San Luis Valley of Colorado, where also community income levels are low -- and one large urban school), with the 'instructor' a physicist at MIT, taking a 48 hour, 3 credit hour, formal course in math and science, using individual school/home workstations connecting both to school server/gateways to a commercial pop, and to the pop directly, by 28.8 modem, 56kbs 'personal' wireless modem, and connections from school server to pop, up to 20 miles away, via 56kbs to 2mbs, no-licence wireless connections, which do, indeed, 'bypass' the local loop, partially or completely. (but as pointed out here, the long distance carriers are already being paid to provide carrier across the net long distances. In fact we, the NSF project, purchased double the bandwidth of the rural POP back to Colorado Springs -- in the same area code, therefore the local loop provider) The teachers are sitting at LAN workstations at school, equipped by us with sound board and mike, Connectix video camera, graphics tablet (for both writing, freehand, math formulas and diagrams, and for use while doing White Board work with remote 'classmates' as well as the instructor.) And the ability to do this multi-media in real time or asynchronously (posting their 'dialogue' on an intermediate server) And testing the ability of wireless modems as well as school-server to pop (which also might be a nearby college with higher speed connection to the net) wireless devices to achieve 'last five mile' bandwidth necessary to do voice over data simultaneously. In the case of one school, 10-15% of whose students live in homes without voice phones (can't afford it), the student can use a loaned laptop and wireless modem to connect to the school server, and thence to the net -- to do his/her homework. With voice as part of the data. Bits is bits. To even suggest that the 'voice' component of such data communications be seperately regulated and and tariffed, much less technically monitored and audited over the Internet, on the grounds that such communications is, de facto, 'misuse' of the net is pretty backwards. Dave Hughes, Principal Investigator NSF Wireless Field Tests ------------------------------ From: mike@ktgroup.co.uk (Mike Pellatt) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 10 Mar 1996 17:53:37 GMT Organization: Knowledge Technology Group In article , Stuart Zimmerman wrote: [ Snipped so-called "internet misuse" petition ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let me ask you this Stuart ... [snip again] > A sign on the wall in a local tavern comes to mind. Although the > intent of the message is a bit different, it discusses businesses > getting into venues which traditionally 'belong' elsewhere. "We have > an understanding with the local bank. They do not sell Booze, and we > do not extend credit." Yes, I know what the tavern was saying, but it > is an interesting thought. If AT&T can be in the credit card business, > why shouldn't Visa operate a telephone company? But if they tried, > you know the telcos would be angry. Just like the way the Accountancy Partnerships have stomped over everyone else's business. But just see them scream if a firm of Consulting Engineers were to offer Audit and Financial advice ... Mike Pellatt, VCS Limited (A Knowledge Group company) Tel: (+44) 117 9007500 Fax: (+44) 117 9007501 Mobile: (+44) 468 192021 Home Page: http://www.ktgroup.co.uk/~mike/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Going back years ago, AT&T as the Bell System was always vigilant about anyone getting into their business in the most minor ways. I put in an intercom system which amounted to nothing more than a wire between two places several yards away from each other along with a buzzer on each end notifying the other end to 'pick up the phone. I installed a buzzer in each phone and wired it through the switchhook on the other end so that either party lifting their phone caused the buzzer on the other end to sound until the person on that end also lifted their receiver. That caused the current on the line to be shunted into the pair they talked on. I did this about 1975. There was *no* connection to the phone network at all, and the phones were an old style of Automatic Electric (GTE) instrument from back in the 1950's. Not a single use of the Bell System at all, yet one day a Bell Security guy said to me it was 'illegal'. He said I should have called Bell and had them install this 'hotline' at some price per month. Bell had a 'legal monopoly' on all voice communications. But readers should note however that turn about was not fair play. Bell got into the business of printed text many years earlier with their TWX network, and in turn Western Union responded by suing AT&T to make them get out of TWX and stay in traditional telephony. The suit by WUTCO against AT&T -- was it about 1960 or so? -- claimed that AT&T was 'misuing' the phone network by allowing printed text via TWX. WUTCO's claim was that their telegraph business would be irreparably harmed if AT&T was allowed to continue doing this. AT&T was forced out of TWX. The more things change, the more they stay the same. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gregor@myhouse.com (gregor markowitz) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 18:28:47 GMT Organization: myhouse.com Reply-To: gregor@myhouse.com > What follows is an interesting whine I mean, press release. I > do not agree with their proposed solution. However, they have a valid > point. Note, though, they only count the cost of one side of an > Internet telephone conversation in their analysis. >FCC PETITIONED TO STOP MISUSE OF THE INTERNET! ---snip--- My small home www design business pays about $1000 per month for IP connection to the internet on a fractional T1 line. About half of that goes to Bell Atlantic for the leased line. For my $500 monthly payment, don't you think I should be able to telecommunicate over the line? How many more times can they charge me for the same data flow? I think the monopoly which allowed us as a society to wire up the world with telephones was a fantastic human endeavor. One of the wonders of the modern world. At one point or another in recent history, that monopoly became obsolete after the job at hand was mostly completed. A breakup occurred, forming the Baby Bells and private long distance companies. Now the Baby Bells are in turn obsolete. They were just a stepping stone in a longer process of breaking things up into far more effecient units to perform the job at hand. This is the dawning of the era of Micro Bells, heck, NANO Bells. We operate a Free World Dialup system here in Washington DC that allows anyone in the world with many different internet phones to call through us to any standard phone number in our local calling area. The call itself is free, but the total expendature is probably higher for the user, because they need a good computer with commercial software on a monthly billed internet line to work. In effect, our FWD server is an international phone company, but with only one line. A nano bell. There is a lot more information about this whole issue on the URL: http://mybell.com We are not telecom people to begin with. We are interneters. If you can help make this site more sophisticated and understandable from the telecom viewpoint, please don't be shy. Thanks! gregor markowitz ~ gregor@myhouse.com publisher ~ internet love fest ~ http://myhouse.com/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #110 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 12:27:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA06914; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:27:58 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111727.MAA06914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:27:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Rob Carlson) Re: Misuse of the Internet (Robert Wolf) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Dan O'Conor) Re: CS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids (Osman Rich) Re: Allegations About MCI (Bob Hofkin) Re: Messing Around With 710 (Ed Ellers) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Robert Bulmash) Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions (Gary Fancher) Re: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX (Stanley Cline) Re: The Busiest Payphone in America (John Agosta) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? From: sysop@cola.westmark.com (Rob Carlson) Reply-To: sysop@cola.westmark.com Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:07:10 EST Organization: Cola, South Plainfield, New Jersey, USA Tom Crofford writes: > We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We > make about four times the number of calls per extension as a > non-information based company. > So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required > to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some > sort? Its also crucial to consider that data calls prohibit telcos from using one of the most potentially money saving technologies available to them today -- voice compression. With inexpensive systems, it would be possible for them to put six or seven (perhaps more) voice calls in the same bandwidth as one with no audible loss of quality. Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate certain information? Not for me, thanks. Rob Carlson sysop@cola.westmark.com uunet!westmark!cola!sysop Tel: 908-937-0452 Cola, South Plainfield, NJ, USA I use PGP ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet Date: 11 Mar 1996 10:31:43 GMT Organization: Millennium Telecom Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > But that's not what the RBOCs are talking about. Under existing > rules, they are entitled to major-league compensation when somebody > carries telephone calls *across a state line into a local exchange*. > That's exactly what an Interexchange Carrier does. So if I call Pat > on his 847 number via AT&T, Ameritech gets paid by AT&T to deliver it. > If I use a NYNEX line to originate the call, NYNEX gets paid by AT&T > to originate it. Now if Pat has an 800 (or 900, 500, 700, etc.) > number directly served by an AT&T switch, then Ameritech doesn't get > anything, since it's not using their network. (Leased "special > access" line monthy rates are of course possible if they provide that > service between AT&T and Pat.) Ditto if I make the call on a direct > AT&T connection ("Megacom"). Indeed, corporate "on-net" calls can be > very cheap, under a nickel a minute in some Tariff 12 arrangements. That's an accurate description. > So what's an Iphone call? If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound > Blaster, then no RBOC switches are involved. It's NOT a phone call, > in the legal sense. Legally, an Iphone call today is no more a > "bypass" of the RBOC's due payment schemes than a CB radio > conversation. And if the RBOCs think that CB radio, ham radio, etc., > own them money for calls not touching their networks, then they had > better stand in line behind the Post Office who has an equal claim to > the lost letter-post revenue caused by the phone company! (We'll omit > the telegraph company stage, since WUTCO is history.) This part of your logic is flawed. If the originator of the Iphone call is connected to the ISP via a dial-up line, the LEC (it does not have to be an RBOC) is very much involved. It provides the originating connection in exactly the same way as in a "traditional" long distance phone call. And if the recipient of the Iphone call is also connected to an ISP via a dial-up connection, then that LEC provides switching facilities at the terminating end. That is the RBOC argument. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: doconor@winternet.com (Dan O'Conor) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:36:50 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Reply-To: doconor@winternet.com On 8 Mar 1996 03:54:48 GMT, thogard@inmind.com (Tim Hogard) wrote: > Tom Crofford (tomc@xeta.com) wrote: >> I am not in favor of a 'modem tax', but I'd be interested in this >> group's various opinions of how the telcos can be reasonably expected >> to carry the longer and more frequent calls spawned by modem use. My >> point is that I know those of us using modems place lots more calls, >> and the calls are much longer than voice calls. > Between my mother and my sister, they use up many more hours of local > free calls than my modem. All they do is talk for hours. That is > figured in as part of the cost of doing business, a fixed number of > lines will be tied up for an average amount of time. Basicly modems > modify the averages slightly. Modems modify the averages more than slightly; they change the connection model in a major way. The frequency and duration of call attempts and the busy hour (key variables in the traffic engineering model) from a modem equipped line are not the same as a voice only line. >> We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We >> make about four times the number of calls per extension as a >> non-information based company. >> So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required >> to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some >> sort? > My phone company just stopped charging for touch-tone even though it > has been years since rotary was cheaper than touch-tone. I'm sure the > phone company has more than made up for the slight increase in phone > line use over the last decade with the rip-off prices for the > "extras". The Telco pricing model is oriented towards the out-dated notions of guaranteed rates of return, cost-plus and cross subsidies and has no relationship to the marketplace, the consumer or even profitability. The Telco will always seek a tariffed price addition to current services when they feel threatened by changes in the marketplace. Doing it that way means that they are guaranteed a revenue increase without having to do anything, or even add value to the service. > Many states set up rates so that the good 'ole phone company makes a > nice profit. The PUC would set up a % that the company would do well > and could invest in equipment. Now what has happend is that many > new companies would love to provide a local dial tone at a fraction > of the proffit that the traditional phone company gets. That sould > be a reason to drop the profit ratio. Changes in key engineering variables caused by market changes bring unhappiness to organizations which don't have the marketing skills and, I have to add, regulatory freedom, to develop and promote new products that address the market changes. Why doesn't the Telco market a " dial-up data line"? Engineer the line to deliver high quality dial up data connections (the engineering would include loop qualification and routing to a data quality inter-switch trunk group),include a service quality guarantee (loop loss specifications, noise specifications, etc.), then price this service at a premium to voice only service. They could buy mailing lists of all new owners of PC's equipped with modems from PC manufacturers , then direct mail and telemarket the offering. Instead they've fallen into the ISDN trap. That's a service offering that will require that they spend heavily on software and switch upgrades and which requires the consumer to buy expensive hardware to support, not to mention that configuring ISDN NTI's and TA's is not for the faint of heart. Regards, Dan O'Conor ------------------------------ From: Osman Rich Subject: Re: CS Phones Disrupting Hearing Aids Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 04:34:00 PST Monty Solomon wrote (monty@roscom.COM) : > Cellular phones that cause noise pollution should not be allowed to > ruin anyone's ability to hear when other technology is available that > does not cause noise pollution. Dan Pock replied: > What would you have the FTC do, outlaw digital technology? It isn't going > to happen. > {other stuff deleted} While some folks have taken extreme positions on both sides, there's a *very* large group working to resolve the problems cooperatively. The group was formed on the recommendation, and with the sponsorship of FCC commissioner Reed Hundt. The group involves active participants from several orgainizations in the hearing impaired community, hearing aid manufacturers, and wireless equipment manufacturers. > I think that if you succeed in making the problem known a solution > will be found. However, don't be surprised if that solution turns out > to be reengineered hearing aids that are shielded or filtered so as to > block the offensive signals. The Americans with Disabilities Act will > come into play sooner or later on this. But I suspect it will take a > civil suit to get things moving. Actually, a suit isn't required, and would probably stifle good work progressing today. There was a series of quite serious meetings last week with representatives of all three groups discussing issues and sharing information. Quite a bit of analysis and engineering has already been done and modifications to hearing aids and phones are being discussed. > If you think that such a law suit needs to be filed, my suggestion to > you would be that you go after the hearing aid manufacturers. Because > if you try go after every manufacturer of digital technology you are > going to have to file alot of law suits. There a lot of wireless phone manufacturers, and more hearing aid manufacturers than wireless phone manufacturers. Tom Lager (pteng@postoffice.ptd.net) also replied: > WOAH!!! > Before anybody goes off half cocked and starts a national furor over > this lets get something straight. > 1. According to the articles I have read in the trade > magazines, it is only GSM handsets that cause interference with hearing > aids. Actually, this is not correct. Many current US manufacture hearing aids are very susceptible to interference from many sources. GSM Digital AMPS, and CDMA handsets are all quite capable of being detected on a hearing aid, or a number of other appliances (TV sets, etc.) The fact is that there are two sides to the problem, and both need attention. Hearing aids (and many other appliances) are susceptible to strong RF fields, but this is a surmountable problem. Likewise, wireless systems need to consider compatibility issues as they identified. The problem isn't any one technology, it's the need to (co)operate in a changing world. > 2. Although they use somewhat similar technology, cellular > phones are NOT CS phones. They operate in an entirely different > portion of the spectrum. But they are still potential interferers regardless of the technology, as are two-way radios, computers, monitors, etc., etc. Conventional analog phones are less noticed because they don't have a high rate of amplitude variation. I can tell when my cellphone is about to ring, my CD player shuts down. Inconvenient, but no crisis in this case. The digital technologies have a substantial amplitude modulation component, and this amplitude change is what hearing aid wearers are detecting. GSM and D-AMPS phones have a pulsed waveform, current CDMA phones use very precise power control, and variable rate vocoding which has the effect of substantial radiated power changes. Either technology can demonstrate a "no interference case" by disabling these features, but the fact is they are required to provide the capacity specified by the systems. > Whoever you are and whatever your purpose in posting this article, get > your facts straight first. This is an area where strong emotions come into play on all sides. I've expressed _my_ _opinions_ based on my background and observations. I don't speak for my employer on this subject or any other. Rich Osman ------------------------------ From: bhofkin@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Bob Hofkin) Subject: Re: Allegations About MCI Date: 10 Mar 1996 20:38:51 -0700 Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept. Here are a few bits of misinformation MCI gave me this week. I signed up for an "InternetMCI" password, which allows access to one's customer records. Based on social security number(!) and zip code, they came up with THE WRONG NAME. My customer records with MCI and Bell Atlantic are correct, but the Haines people have been circulating this error for a while. In theory, MCI could mail YOUR password to somebody completely unrelated -- and they haven't bothered to get back to me about this possible security problem. A customer service rep told me about the Friends and Family deal, and signed me up. She forgot to mention the package included an personal 800 number. (I discovered this bonus via InternetMCI.) The 800 service rep claimed they had generated these numbers for ALL their customers, and I should have gotten a letter explaining the whole thing a week earlier. The rep also claimed that each customer got a unique (ten-digit) 800 number, and that the "PIN" was only for security. (My own quickie test suggests that around one in ten "PIN" codes is accepted.) Do they do this deliberately? Do they make it up as they go along? I have no idea, but accuracy sure doesn't seem to be MCI's strong point. Bob Hofkin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would Ms. Aun care to respond after perhaps discussing this with the MCI employees involved? PAT] ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: Messing Around With 710 Date: 11 Mar 1996 04:41:05 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe if 710 was not treated like such a deep > dark secret there would be less attention paid to it. Maybe if the > government was open and honest about facilities like this and encouraged the > public to not abuse them it would not be such an interesting story for > people in journals like this. Everyone wants to know about government > 'secrets'. Especially those who want to sabotage what the government does. Don't forget that there are people who occasionally do things like blow up Federal buildings; too much information in the public domain might reveal a "back door" that somebody could use. The dilemma in an open society is that the bad guys read the same newspapers as the good guys. > Anyway, I somehow doubt that 710 has anything to do with rescuing citizens > in distress. I think it has to do ultimatly with the government gaining even > more control over its citizens. I think it is intended to serve the > government in times of civil disturbances and/or massive disasters, allowing > the government to communicate among itself and retain/regain control as > needed. But does one *necessarily* lead to the other? Does the ability of the Federal Government to respond to a hurricane or terrorist act *necessarily* lead to oppression of the people? > By the way, I have yet -- a month later -- to hear from any federal > authorities asking me to please not discuss it here; nor have I heard > reports from readers about any such contacts. I have to wonder. PAT] Maybe (hopefully) what's been discussed here hasn't been detailed enough to be a security threat to the 710 system. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: 11 Mar 1996 10:24:58 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) In a recent posting: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net wrote: > I think your idea has little merit. Even though you may not make your > living in the telemarketing industry, about four million others do in > the United States alone. Is that so? And what about the the 500,000 who make their living selling drugs or robbing people? Does the number people involved in a sociopathic industry give legitamacy to that industry ... so what's your point? > Additionally, recent rules just implemented have greatly protected the > consumer further from many things. Huh? > However, just because you choose to "unlist" your telephone lines, the > only privilege this legally gains for you is to eliminate your name > and number from public lists. Anyone and everyone, including your > friends, my relatives and your local newspaper, is perfectly within > their legal rights by calling you, and will be. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable indication to tele-annoyers that the unlisted party is unwilling to be duisturbed by unsolicited calls. Or does the telemarketing industry consider reason as on of its foundations? > Also, as a telemarketing industry veteran, I can also tell you that a > rather interesting rule holds true. In almost all cases, the person > with an unlisted number is universally more receptive to a purchase > through a telemarketing call then a person with a listed number ... > The reason, I presume, is that folks with unlisted numbers are less > barraged by calls, and not as irritated by the interruptions. You make my point very well. TELEMARKETING= TELE-IRRITATING. > ...This topic has been argued incessantly over the years, but the > bottom line is >-- unlisted means unlisted, and that's all. And telemarketing means telenuisance, and that's all. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except Bob, I would have to defend Steve on one of his points that you made exception to. He said four million people earn their living that way; you responded by noting that many earn their living 'selling drugs and robbing people'. The answer to your statement would be the one has been traditionally defined as a legal activity while the other has been traditionally defined as an illegal activity in which there are victims. Now like any number of activities which at one time -- some as recently as twenty or thirty years ago -- were defined as illegal because we perceived that there were 'victims' and have since been if not made legal with any stamp of approval have at least been decriminalized, the law is basically all we have to go with. His activities are, within a certain framework, legal. In your example, robbing people is never legal. In the few cases where it is, we do not refer to it as 'robbery' by definition. Maybe as the old Herst newspapers comic strip {There Oughta be a Law} would say, something ought to be done about those critters; and there have been some laws, but the activity itself remains quite legal. In your example, they never are legal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Fancher Subject: Re: Idea For Additional Telemarketing Restrictions Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:21:27 -0600 Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Tom Allebrandi wrote: > So, my idea is this: > Telemarketers should be barred from calling unlisted and non published > phone numbers. > What do you think of the idea? Tom, I wish that we could outlaw ALL telemarketing, unless the telemarketers are willing to pay at least a part of our phone bills. We watch free TV and listen to free radio because we are willing to tolerate the incessant commercials of those who are paying for the programs. But the telephone is different -- we pay for them. If the telemarketers are going to invade our space again, they should pay for the right to do so. What do you think of this idea? Does this make any sense to anyone else? Gary DSC Communications Corporation Internet: gfancher@spd.dsccc.com 1000 Coit Road (214) 519-5268 Plano, Texas 75075 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To add a little insult to injury, to pour some salt in the wound, years ago -- going back to the 1950's now, in the days before WATS lines and very cheap long distance, there were not nearly as many telemarketers as there are now. It was a much more expensive proposition for the few companies doing it in those days. Most sales pitches were either door-to-door salesmen (when is the last time you saw one of those) or via the mail. But one of the telemarketing firms -- I think they sold magazines and books -- got a bright idea: they placed their calls *collect*, asking the called party to pay for the call. And you know, quite a few people would accept the collect call before realizing they had done so and who it was that was calling them. Collection agencies back in the same 1940-50 era were faced with the same problem: write letters that were ignored or use the phone at a greater expense for more immediate and direct confrontation with the debtor. They also tried calling collect and oddly enough, some debtors would accept a collect call from the collection agency also. It led to a lot of backlash though, and finally the Federal Trade Commission clamped down on 'collect calls' to debtors and to recipients of tele- marketing calls and made the companies quit doing that. A company in the 1950's marketed a little sign you were supposed to place on the front door of your home if you did not want door-to-door salesmen stopping there; it meant they were not welcome. They promised that the sales representatives of honorable companies will see this and recognize your desire to be left alone ... they won't knock on your door. But of course that was a crock; sometimes three or four salesmen per day would come by and all pretend they did not see the little sign or know what it meant. There were as many door-to-door guys then as there are telemarketers now; everything from encyclopedias to brushes to pots and pans, vacuumn cleaners, household supplies, women's lingerie, magazines, collectors for charities, poll-takers, etc. None of them had any idea what the little sign on your door saying 'no solicitors' meant or they ignored it if they did. The expression 'to get a foot in the door' came from those guys. When you opened the door they would get right in the doorway so it was impossible to shut the door without slamming it on their foot, which a few people were willing to do anyway. A revolution came in the 1960's with the birth of long distance service in bulk or wholesale from AT&T. ide rea elephone ervice or WATS started telemarketing as we know it today. This was a new way of selling things at far less expense than door-to-door. And when 800 service, or IN-WATS followed a few years later, the door-to-door guys about all faded away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: No LDDS Operator on B.A.M.S./NYNEX Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:46:26 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Atkinson, Fred wrote: > It appears that there is some legal thing going on between > B.A.M.S./NYNEX and LDDS. She is telling me that the problem won't be > corrected until the lawyers get through settling things. This will I don't know what is wrong with LDDS and BANM. Here, on BellSouth Mobility, only one CIC code (10450/101-0450) is valid for LDDS; 10450+0+ works just fine. LDDS is in the list of carriers that have agreements with BSCC/BMI. With CellOne/GTE, OTOH, there's no choice of LD carriers. What's even worse, though: Subscribers to BellSouth's "own" LD service *in this area(?)* currently have no 0+ service at all! Dialing 0+ with BellSouth LD (on a Hughes GMH2000 cell switch) results in a "this feature is not available" recording. Dialing 00 is translated as *611/*811, and goes to BMI's customer-service line. 1+700-555-4141 is mishandled as well; it goes to an LEC "call cannot be completed ..." recording. To place ANY 0+ calls (even intraLATA which are rare anyway as virtually the whole LATA is local) I am forced to dial a CIC code (10ATT, 10222, etc.) to route through another IXC. 0+500 is handled correctly, however, and goes straight to AT&T "True Connections" bong ... it didn't work before! This odd behavior may be due to the fact that the Hughes switch came online just YESTERDAY, but they should have gotten 0+ right. Before, on a Motorola EMX switch, 0+anything went to AT&T, even if one was presubscribed to another IXC (MCI, LCI, BellSouth, etc.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) Subject: Re: The Busiest Payphone in America Date: 10 Mar 1996 23:28:48 GMT Organization: Agosta and Associates In article , Mark J Cuccia says: > The busiest payphone in America is located in: > The CHICAGO BUS TERMINAL! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At one point not that long ago, the > title 'busiest pay phone' went to one at Ohare Airport in Chicago. At one time it was a pay phone in Grand Central Station, NYC. BTW, I was talking to an Illinois Bell Employee one day waiting for my luggage after an American Airlines flight. He was changing all of the labels on each airport telephone from "Illinois Bell" to "Ameritech" labels. I asked him if he could have all the revenue generated by a single phone in the airport, which phone would that be? He pointed to the phone adjacent to the one I was using at the moment to check with my ride home ... The busiest phone in O'hare airport is located across from the American Airlines oversized bag claim area, which is between doors 3E and 3F. It is the phone closest to the baggage conveyors, and as you use it, you are facing towards the airport's exit. The keypad was quite worn. ja ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #111 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 11 13:43:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA14383; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:43:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:43:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603111843.NAA14383@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #112 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:43:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft ISDN Announcement on Monday (Joscelyn Zell) Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Les Reeves) Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? (Elana Beach) Houston AC: It's Not Over (Jeff Brielmaier) Changing Responsible Organization on 800/888 Numbers (Jim Weiss) Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area (Greg Monti) ICA Annual Conference and SUPERCOMM (texlink@aol.com) First Major User of "888" is Now in Service (Danny Burstein) 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: Joscelyn Zell Subject: Microsoft ISDN Announcement on Monday Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 09:18:00 PST Wanted to give you a heads up on an ISDN announcement Microsoft made today. Microsoft is announcing a web site called "Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows" (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn), basically a one-stop way for users to obtain ISDN, as well as the ISDN Accelerator Pack, downloadable software for native Windows 95 ISDN support. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Joscelyn Zell 503/245-0905 jzell@wagged.com REDMOND, Wash. March 11, 1996 Microsoft Corp. today announced a comprehensive program to simplify the acquisition and use of high-speed digital ISDN lines for users of the Microsoft? Windows? 95 operating system. The program includes new ISDN software for Windows 95 that is downloadable today at no charge, alliances with major North American telephone companies to allow users of Windows 95 to request an ISDN line electronically over the World Wide Web via Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows, and broad support from hardware manufacturers and ISDN-capable Internet service providers (ISPs). Software supporting ISDN with Windows 95, called the ISDN Accelerator Pack, will be made available to end users by leading ISDN hardware vendors, telephone companies and ISPs over the Internet at no charge. The customer experience of having ISDN installed and working has at best been extremely painful until now, said Rob Enderle, senior industry analyst at Giga Information Group. With this announcement, Microsoft has delivered a solution that makes ISDN a reasonable option for those of us who are not telephony technicians. This service and related support for Windows 95 should accelerate significantly the adoption of ISDN into home as well as small-office and home-office markets. I would expect a whole series of new, feature-rich applications and services to be created for these markets by third-party developers and service providers. Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows The Get ISDN program helps simplify and streamline the process of connecting an ISDN line to a Windows-based PC. The program includes information from major local telephone companies offering ISDN service, including Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell Canada, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southern New England Telephone and US West Communications, as well as MCI and Sprint as providers of long-distance ISDN service. The Get ISDN software, accessible today on the World Wide Web (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn) and planned for inclusion in future versions of Windows 95, helps customers request an ISDN line electronically. It forwards the information to the appropriate telephone company, which finalizes the ISDN installation. A line will be configured automatically for use with a Windows-based PC. The Get ISDN software is also supported by leading online services and ISPs with broad ISDN access to their services, including MSN , The Microsoft Network; Netcom; PSINet; and UUNET. ISDN Speeds Internet Access ISDN is an increasingly popular solution that allows customers to surf the Internet, to access commercial online services such as MSN or to connect to a corporate LAN remotely at speeds five or more times faster than today s analog modems. In addition to providing higher data-transmission speeds, ISDN is attractive because it can work via existing telephone lines. Our customers have asked us for a no-hassle way to turbocharge their Internet use, said Brad Silverberg, senior vice president of the Internet platform and tools division at Microsoft. With the Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows program and the ISDN Accelerator Pack, Microsoft Internet Explorer 2.0 becomes their free ticket to the fastest Web surfing possible. ISDN Accelerator Pack: Native ISDN Support for Windows 95. The ISDN Accelerator Pack includes the system software support a customer needs in Windows 95 to access and use ISDN, as well as Internet Explorer 2.0 for high-performance access to the Internet. The native ISDN support takes full advantage of the built-in dial-up networking capabilities in Windows 95, providing fast, reliable and standardized access to information over the Internet or corporate LAN. It supports the industry standard point-to-point protocol (PPP) as well as remote access to TCP/IP, IPX and NetBEUI LANs. The ISDN Accelerator Pack also dramatically broadens the range of applications available for ISDN. Instead of requiring specialized applications that work only with ISDN, users will be able to run any networked Windows 95-based applications. This native ISDN support is scheduled to be incorporated into future versions of Windows 95. Microsoft is making the ISDN Accelerator Pack broadly available to ISDN hardware manufacturers to ship as part of complete high-speed Internet access solutions. It s also available to customers free of charge immediately from the Microsoft Windows Web site (http://www.microsoft.com/windows). ISDN Hardware Industry Support ISDN hardware manufacturers already shipping support for the native ISDN software for Windows 95 include Diamond Multimedia, Digi International Inc., Eicon Technology Corp. and Elmic Systems. ISDN hardware adapter manufacturers that shortly will ship support include 3Com Corp., ACOTEC, ADTRAN Inc., Boca Research Inc., Cardinal Technologies Inc., Global Village Communications Inc., ISDN*tek, Jetstream Communications, Link Technology Inc., Microcom Inc., Motorola Inc., Picturetel, Racal-Datacom, Radicom Research, U.S. Robotics, Xircom, ZOOM Telephonics Inc. and ZyXEL. The combination of Windows 95, Eicon s DIVA for Windows 95 and Get ISDN will help the wide deployment of ISDN to enable high-performance remote access, said Maks Wulkan, executive vice president at Eicon Technology. All digital access to the Internet and corporate intranets will now be available as an integrated solution, significantly reducing the overall cost of ownership traditionally associated with the deployment, management and support of remote users. Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ MSFT ) is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products and services for business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing every day. ######### Microsoft, Windows and MSN are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. The Microsoft Network is operated by Microsoft Corp. on behalf of Microsoft Network LLC. For Online Product Information: Windows Web page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows Get ISDN for Microsoft Windows Web page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/getisdn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:37:20 PST From: Les Reeves Subject: Sprint Wants Asian American Customers (Thanks to Van Hefner, publisher of the "Discount Long Distance Digest" for passing this along to me. The document is no longer available on Sprint's Web page.) For info on Van's DLD, check out his page at: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ---------------------------- BIG SAVINGS ON EVERYDAY PRODUCTS, SERVICES AWAIT ASIAN AMERICANS WHO JOIN SPRINT AND NEW BUYING CLUB. EL MONTE, Calif., November 16, 1995 -- Asian Americans who sign up for Sprint long distance service will now automatically receive substantial savings on a wide range of everyday needs -- from car rentals to health insurance -- thanks to an Asian buying club announced today. The Asian American Association, formed by leading Asian business people, is the comprehensive, new one-source membership service for Asians. Thanks to its considerable buying clout, the association provides members with significant discounts on a vast portfolio of products and services in areas such as travel, entertainment, insurance, banking and telecommunications. In addition to discounts, association members can take advantage of a free directory assistance and information hotline. This service provides callers with in-language support for a full host of community needs, such as advice on filing immigration papers, as well as choosing restaurants and hotels. Sprint is a founding member of the Asian American Association, along with at least 20 other national companies, including Avis, Pearle Vision and DHL Worldwide Express. Through its marketing arrangement with the association, Sprint is proud to be part of the association's valuable package of products and services for Asian Americans, said Jim Dodd, Sprint assistant vice president for Asian marketing. "This arrangement with the association is a unique way for Sprint to forge a competitive advantage in the U.S. Asian marketplace for telecommunications, which is growing significantly," Dodd said, adding that total volume for U.S. calls to the Asia/Pacific region has increased at least 17 percent in each of the last four years. "The membership program provides Sprint with an excellent vehicle in which we will market Sprint products and bundle them together with products of the association's other member companies," Dodd said. "The program also opens up an exclusive new sales channel through which the association will promote Sprint products. "Asian Americans who sign up for Sprint through the association will receive: Automatic membership in the Asian American Association buying club, ensuring eligibility for deep discounts on a wide array of products and services; Additional discounted calling hours on Sprint's lead international calling plan, Sprint Sense International, specifically for association members; Special promotions on top of the already discounted Sprint Sense International rates; Low rates on domestic calls with the Sprint Sense dime-a-minute calling plan. Membership in the Asian American Association entitles Asian Americans to save on a variety of other needs: personal, travel and entertainment, communications and insurance. Among the offers: 25 percent off prescription eye wear from Pearle Vision; up to 30 percent off major hotels; 15 percent off Avis car rentals; and coupons to major theme and amusement parks across the country. With Sprint long distance, members of the Asian American Association getlow rates on every call -- international and domestic. Sprint Sense International, a global calling plan, provides a clear, bottom-line price for all international long distance calls. For example, Asian Americans can call Taiwan for only 61 cents a minute, or $3.05 for a 5-minute call between 8:00 p.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Friday and all weekend (U.S. time). Callers on Sprint Sense and Sprint Sense International now get an added bonus -- 10 percent cash back on their annual long distance bill. The minimum cash back checks are $25. For information, and to learn more about the benefits of membership in the Asian American Association, call 1-800-297-4663. Sprint is a global communications company -- at the forefront in integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services, and the world's largest carrier of Internet traffic. Sprint built and operates the United States' only nationwide all-digital, fiber-optic network and is the leader in advanced data communications services. Sprint has $12.6 billion in annual revenues and serves more than 15 million business and residential customers. Copyright; 1995 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. | ------------------------- Les Reeves -- lreeves@crl.com lreeves@america.net -- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you think members of the Asian American Association can sign up for "Fridays are Free"? :-). Sprint has been sort of picky about people from India who are signing up on that program. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Patching Other Sound Sources Into Phone Line? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 00:09:00 GMT Hi, there! :) I want to be able to somehow patch sounds directly into my own phone line. My sound sources will be things like my own CD player (play cool tunes for my friends without having to hold the phone into the speaker), sampling keyboard (yeah, a MIDI-compatible), my own PC (lotsa .wav files to play with!) etc. etc. etc.. The applications for this are many. Get a heavy-breather on the phone, play him a sample of a click, then a phone-ringing sound, then something of a "Phone Police, may I help you?" kind of situation. Or worse. :) For phone solicitors: "Bee-bee-beep! If you want to make a call, please hang up and dial again ..." Hang up, and see if they call back. Repeat process ad infinitum if one is feeling both bored and mischevious. :) For obvious phone scams: " This is the Attorney General's Phone Fraud Verification Center. Please hold while we trace your call and find out where you live ..." For certain fellow fans of music composer Chris Franke calling me, whose numbers I would recognise on my CID box; I'd sample part of a long-ago, preciously saved, original answering machine message as a way to greet them instead of my own voice: " Hello, this is Christopher Franke" in that cool German accent of his ... (I'd have to ask the artist's permission first, of course ...) :) Record and save the answering-machine messages of two people I know (and am not fond of) who absolutely DESERVES to have their heads completely messed with. I see their numbers on my CID box as they call in, and they hear not me saying hello (as per previous paragraph) but their own outgoing answering-machine message! Cause them to sing the "Twilight Zone" theme for the rest of the day. :) Anyone else have some creative and humorous ideas along these lines (no pun intended)??? Yeah ... I wanna have some *fun*. :) :) :) So how *do* I go about patching sounds directly into my home phone? Elana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How? Very carefully, and very slightly. You can take the output jack from a tape cassette player and plug it into the phone line at the appropriate times, but keep the level *very* low so as not to overload the line with a lot of distortion, etc. It is fun to play pranks sometimes. A long time ago I had someone else's answering machine message on a cassette tape and when I called them, as soon as they answered I started playing their own outgoing tape to them. I did it three or four times in a row, and the poor fellow -- not being very smart -- soon called me up on the phone to say, 'you know, I think my answering machine must be broken; now and then it makes my phone ring and starts playing its message.' I told him some baloney about maybe the 'logic' in the machine was out of synch. If he turned it off and then back on it would go back to normal operations. He believed me and tried it. Naturally his machine worked just fine from then on. . In the days when CB radio was the big rage, it was also fun to tape record the most obnoxious users and the play their tapes back out over the air and let them hear how they sounded. One day, a fellow was on CB with a lot of illegal power, ranting and raving about Jews and black people and whoever else he had a dislike for. About three minutes of the worst part of his rant got recorded on a endless loop mobious tape and then played back, over and over. Go up a few channels, a couple of women talking quietly ... key up with a lot of power and play that tape. Pretty soon back on his 'home' channel a fellow comes down there and says 'Satan (that was his radio name); why do you come up on the channel where my wife is talking to her friends and talk garbage like that. Do not come on the radio and uses cusses and language that way when my wife is on the radio.' Well of course Satan insisted it was not him. 'Some fool made a tape of me and is going around playing it on all the other CB channels.' Now take the same tape; another channel where a lot of young black guys congregated on the south side of Chicago. Kick up that power to some obscene level; five hundred watts should do. Play that endless loop tape of Satan 'dissing the black guys. The dudes all hear it over and over, not realizing it is a tape replay of course, and soon they are descending in droves up on Satan's home channel. All the rest of the afternoon, black guys all over Chicago are hearing that 'some white guy on the north side dissed one of the brothers' and everyone is tuning in on Satan's home channel to voice their own opinion about the matter. Satan is busy trying to defend himself; his excuse is a weak one at best. He agrees finally that he did say those things, but that he did not *go over on the channel the black guys were using to say it*. Someone, he decides, must have been playing a trick on him by recording him unwittingly while he was talking. Let's take the tape and play it again, this time back on Satan's home channel while the argument is raging between him and the guys who tuned in to confront him. Many of the newcomers who had not heard the message originally -- they had only heard about the 'incident' from others on CB -- now get to listen to it also, and the tape is of good enough quality it is hard to say that it is not Satan himself delivering the message live. He keeps insisting that someone has 'forged' him on that message; but no one will listen to his protests of innocence the second time around. Finally he just turns off his radio completely; he is not heard from again on CB for several days, which in itself was a minor miracle. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Houston AC: It's not over From: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 04:28:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: jeff.brielmaier@yob.com (Jeff Brielmaier) As the old saying goes, it isn't over til the fat lady sings. Well, it appears that she has been called off the field just as she was warming up for the final song. Just when we thought we knew what the state regulators wanted to do with the 713/281 AC, the waters have just got muddy again. About a month ago, the Texas Public Utility Commission decided to force a geographic split of the 713 AC rather than implement the overlay plan that South West Bell had plan to implement for over a year. In addition, the PUC had requested that SWB look into adding a third AC in the near future so that there could be stability in this market for a number of years. Well, the local newpaper ran a front page article today (Fri 08 March 1995) entitled "281 Area Code Looks For A Home." The article seems to indicate that someone didn't do all of their homework. Since SWB and the PUC had intended to use the 281 AC as an overlay, SWB has been allocating phones numbers in 281 for pagers and cell phones since March '95. There are apparently about 100,000 numbers allocated already. Some of those users (quantity unspecified) are in what will remain as 713. This means that they will have to change their wireless phone number from their current 281 number to (possibly) an entirely 713 number based on what 281 exchange their were given. This will be required to avoid conflicts with exchange allocations in the 281 AC. With a November 2nd cutover date looming, the PUC is indicating now that SWB should immediately allocate a 3rd AC. Then SWB should implement the geographic split as planned with 713 serving the "Central Zone" (downtown Houston plus some of the surrounding area), the 3rd AC would be assigned to all of 713 outside of the "Central Zone" (what is currently supposed to become 281), and 281 will be used as a wireless overlay over 713 and the 3rd AC. Confused yet ? The PUC is scheduled to make a final (finally?) decision next week. SWB indicates that the idea is technically feasible but it might take some time to implement. SWB also indicates that the FCC could say no to the overlay since the one was rejected in Illinois as discriminatory. The PUC believes that this plan is okay, but SWB warns that any court challenge (and anyone here believe that there will not be a court challenge?) will risk the entire AC plan's Nov.96 implementation date. Now, the only question I have is "Why can't just implement 281 as an overlay on top of 713 call it a day ?" 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: NBJimWeiss@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:05:54 GMT Subject: Changing Responsible Organization on 800/888 Numbers I would like to interrogate the Group's readership as to the FCC's position and the legality of a Responsible Organization DENYING the transfer of an 800/888 number to new Resp Org because of a customer's balance due to the current Resp Org. That is, if an 800/888 customer owes a significant amount to a long distance carrier or reseller serving as the Resp Org, can the Resp Org "legally" refuse to transfer the 800/888 number to a new Resp Org when requested by the customer? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 10:01:21 PST From: Greg Monti Subject: Unlimited Local Calling For New York Area After 50 years (100 years?) of mandatory local measured service for New York metropolitan area residential telephone customers, NYNEX has begun to advertise what a few years ago would have been unthinkable. Ads I've seen on New York City TV stations say that NYNEX will begin offering a plan which allows unlimited calling for a flat rate. The thirty-second spot doesn't explain many details -- and it does not mention what the monthly price will be. The script reads that you can make, "any local or regional call without restrictions". No waiting until 11 PM when the rates go down. The commercial applies to residential callers in areas served by NYNEX, and does not apply to New Jersey or Connecticut, which are served by different local companies. The NYNEX phone number given in the ad is 800 366-7221. The small print at the bottom notes that the plan must be approved by the New York State Public Service Commission. The new campaign and price plan are obviously in reaction to long distance carriers who have descended on the New York area to offer in-state, in-LATA calling at lower per-minute rates than NYNEX offers. NYNEX wants to keep its customers from dialing around their in-LATA rates. It's important to note the use of the word "regional" in the ad copy. NYNEX does not use the term "LATA" in its consumer literature or advertising that I know of. They use "regional" to mean "intra-LATA." The New York LATA is a huge chunk of land extending from parts of Orange County 40 or 50 miles northwest of New York City to Montauk Point, Long Island, which is 120 miles east of the city. Will subscribers to this new service be able to make a free regional call from Orange County to Montauk Point and what will that level of service cost per month? Who knows? Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ From: texlink@aol.com (Texlink) Subject: ICA Annual Conference and SUPERCOMM Date: 11 Mar 1996 01:09:42 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: texlink@aol.com (Texlink) Announcing the ICA Annual Super Conference, to be held in Dallas, TX - JUNE 23-27, 1996. This year, the conference is being held in conjuntion with SUPERCOMM '96. Our full schedule includes Mini-Conferences, "How-To"Sessions, Tutorials, and so much more. A must for any technology, communications, or purchasing manager. For more information, please call: 1-800-ICA-INFO ext. 122 or send request to intlcoma@onramp.net. Full information can be found on our webste: http://www.icanet.com Netscape or Explorer browsing recommended. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:44:02 EST From: danny burstein Subject: First Major User of "888" is Now in Service McAfee Associates, a software group primarily known for virus protection programs, had a full page advert in Thursday's NY Times promoting their products. Phone number: 1 888 VIRUS NO (I pity the poor person at '1 800 virus no', unless, of course, it too is this company. I did _not_ try it out.) BTW, the first time I called it I mistakenly remembered it as "1-888-NO-VIRUS" which, fortunately, merely got an intercept but does say something about either my poor brain or the RISKS of 'easy-to- remember' alpha-numbers of this sort . dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #112 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 12 10:10:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA23660; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:10:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603121510.KAA23660@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #113 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Mar 96 10:10:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs (Monty Solomon) India Grants Basic Telephony, Cellular Licenses (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) AT&T Wireless Rate Restructuring (Larry Schwarcz) More Allegations About MCI (Robert Freimer) 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: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:32:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: love@Essential.ORG From: James Love Subject: CPT Survey of ISDN Tariffs TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTE March 9, 1996 Selected ISDN Tariffs Version 1.0 March 8, 1996 James Love, Consumer Project on Technology [1] http://www.essential.org/cpt love@tap.org / 202/387-8030 Executive Summary This is a list of selected residential ISDN tariffs. It is not complete, and we will expand and update the list from time to time. The list compares tariffs among various local exchange telephone companies, based upon a purchase of 100 hours of 2B + D service, or a line which is in service full time, such as would be used for a Web server.[2] The full time connection is referred to as a "nailed down" line. Future enhancements will include more states, an executive summary of installation and distance charges, and a little fine tuning of the results. Comments or corrections are welcome. Here are the results: Company/State 100 hours 2B+D Nailed Down (Dollars) (Dollars) NATCO Arkansas 17.90 17.90 Ameritech Michigan 36.61 33.51 Ohio 26.00 26.00 Wisconsin 36.56 30.90 Illinois low 33.05 28.05 high 39.50 34.50 Indiana 314.83 1,828.59 PacBell California (current tariff) 63.62 268.32 (Proposed tariff) 173.88 1,106.17 US WEST Utah 68 184 Oregon 69 1,949.64 Southwestern Bell - SBC Missouri 104.30 104.30 Kansas 104.30 104.30 BellSouth Alabama 68.60 68.60 Florida 57.15 57.15 Georgia 63.75 63.75 Kentucky 60.05 60.05 Louisiana 71.66 71.66 Mississippi 65.51 65.51 N Carolina 75.10 75.10 S. Carolina 60.40 60.40 Tennessee 29.50 29.50 Bell Atlantic Delaware 198 1,206.48 District of Columbia Proposed 198 1,206.48 OPC Staff Recommendation 32 32 Maryland 198 1,206.48 New Jersey 198 1,206.48 Pennsylvania 198 1,206.48 Virginia 198 1,206.48 West Virginia 198 1,206.48 NYNEX New York 153.58 890.98 Massachusetts Area Code 617/508 226.39 1,419.41 Area Code 413 159.19 911.65 Northern Arkansas Telephone Company (NATCO) Voice: 1-800-775-6682 http://southshore.k12.ar.us/natco1.html Installation fee $25.20 Fixed Monthly fee $17.90 Usage Charges None. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $17.90 Nailed Down Line $17.90 Ameritech Voice 1-800-419-5400 http://www.ameritech.com http://www.ameritech.com/products/data/rates.html Michigan Installation fee $122 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $20.25 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $33.51. Usage Charges After the first 50 calls, a charge of 6.2 cents per call. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $36.61 Nailed Down Line $33.51 Ohio Installation fee $116.50 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $26.00 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $26.00 Usage Charges None. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $26.00 Nailed Down Line $26.00 Wisconsin Installation fee $113.05 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $20.75 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $30.90 Usage Charges No per minute charges. Usage charges based upon number of calls: 1-60 6 cents 61- 90 5 151-300 4 301-400 3 401-1200 2 >1200 5 Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $36.56 Nailed Down Line $30.90 Illinois Installation fee $113.05 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $22.50 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $28.05 to $34.50, depending upon area of state. Usage Charges Within local area, no per minute charges. Each call is 5 cents. For distances greater than 8 miles per minute charges apply. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $33.05 to $39.50 Nailed Down Line $28.05 to $34.50 Indiana Installation fee $127.00 Distance Charges For homes more than 3 miles from the local telephone exchange office location, there is a repeater charge of $22.50 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $94.83 Usage Charges Per minute charges apply. Nine cents for first ten minutes and 9 cents for each additional 5 minutes, per channel. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $94.83 + $220 = 314.83 Nailed Down Line $94.83 + $1,733.76 = $1,828.59 PacBell 1-800-4PB-ISDN http://www.pacbell.com http://www.pacbell.com/Products/SDS-ISDN/sds-isdn.htm California Installation $34.75 for conversion of POTS line, plus $125 for a new line. Under current tariff, PacBell waves installation fees with 24 month service commitment. Under proposed tariff, the $125 new line charge will no longer be waived. Fixed Monthly fee $24.50 per month. Usage Charges Under present tariff, PacBell meters usage from 8 am to 5 pm weekdays, at 3.33 cents for first minute and 1.05 cents for each additional minute. These charges are per B channel. Usage after 5 pm on weekdays and on weekends is unmetered. Under proposed new tariff, PacBell seeks to double additional per minute charge in prime time, to 2.1 cents per minute, and to impose a per minute charge of 2.33 cents for first minute and 1.46 cents for additional minutes from 5 pm to 11 pm, and 1.33 cents for first minute and .84 cents per additional minute for late night and on weekends. These charges are per B channel. There will be a 20 hour allowance for off-peak usage. Cost to Consumer [2] PRESENT TARIFF 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.50 + $39.12 = $ 63.62 Nailed Down Line $24.50 + $243.82 = $ 268.32 PROPOSED TARIFF 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.50 + $179.4 - $30.02 = $ 173.88 Nailed Down Line $24.50 + $1,116.71 - $35.04 = $ 1,106.17 US WEST 1-800-872-4658, ext 8903 1-800-PATHWAY http://www.uswest.com http://www.w3.uswest.com/isdn/index.html http://www.w3.uswest.com/isdn/pricing.html Utah Installation fee $110 Distance Charges Installation where loop is greater than 18 kilofeet (three miles from central office) is an additional $100. Fixed Monthly fee There are three options. The fixed monthly fee for the fully metered option is $39 per month. The option that includes 200 hours of B channel use (100 hours of 2B + D) is $68. The flat rate option is $184 per month. Usage Charges The usage charge is three cents per minute per B channel. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $68 Nailed Down Line $184 Oregon Installation fee $110 Distance Charges Fixed Monthly fee $69 Usage Charges The first 200 hours of B channel use (or 100 hours of 2B + D) is covered by the $69 fee. Thereafter there will be a charge of three cents per minute per B channel in the local change area, and 5 cents per minute per B channel for calls outside the local exchange boundary. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $69 Nailed Down Line $69 + $ 1,880.64 = $1,949.64 SBC - Southwestern Bell 1-800-792-4736 (for Texas, 713-567-4736) http://www.sbc.com/ http://www.sbc.com/kc/isdncost.html Kansas and Missouri Installation fee $457.40 for Kansas and $452.25 for Missouri. SBC will waive $400 of the installation fee with a 24 month committment for service. Distance Charges Fixed Monthly fee There are three options. The two metered options include a $57.30 rate with 10 hours included, and a $75.30 option with 80 hours included. The flat rate option is $104.30 per month. Usage Charges Additonal usage for the 10 hour plan is four cents per minute. Additional usage for the 80 hour plan is two cents per minute. According to SBC staff, this rate applies to 2B+D service. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $104.30 Nailed Down Line $104.30 Bellsouth 1-800-858-9413 http://www.bellsouth.com The Bellsouth Web page has some information on tariffs available, but it was out of date when I checked on March 8, 1996. All Bellsouth residential ISDN tariffs are flat rate. Installation Fixed Monthly Charge Alabama 190 68.60 Florida 190 57.15 Georgia 197.50 63.75 Kentucky 213 60.05 Louisiana 193 71.66 Mississippi 196 65.51 N Carolina 192.75 75.10 S. Carolina 212.50 60.40 Tennessee 41 29.50 Bell Atlantic http://www.ba.com Basic Bell Atlantic residential ISDN Tariff for Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. In the District of Columbia, the PSC is considering an Office of People's Counsel (OPC) proposal for a $32 flat rate tariff, with a $34 fee for installation. Installation Fee $125 Fixed Monthly fee $19.50 plus local measured service POTS, for an approximate $30 to $34 per month. Usage Charges Per minute charges apply. Two cents per B Channel from 7 am to 7 pm, and one cent per B channel from 7 pm to 7 am and on weekends. Notes: The tariff is designed to discourage use, first by charging by the minute, and then by basing the charge on the number of B channels being used. Consumers who can afford this service will have incentives to use the service at half its possible speed. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $168 usage plus $30 = $198 Nailed Down Line $1,176.48 usage plus $30 = $1,206.48 NYNEX http://www.nynex.com http://www.nynex.com/iixxxpg1.html 1-800-438-4736 New York Installation fee $225 for new line. Upgrade of POTS line is $24.05 + 35 = $ 59.05 Distance Charges The service is only available within 18 kilofeet from a central office. If that central office isn't equipped for ISDN, you must pay for "Virtual Service." This will add $75 for a residential installation, plus a fixed fee of $10 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $10.10 for POTS plus $14.00 for 2B + D, for a total of $24.10. Usage Charges Both per message and per minute charges apply. The NYNEX "Circuit Switched Data" charge is one cent per minute per B channel. Per call charges also apply. The per call charge is 10.6 per call, with a discount of 40 percent from 9 pm to 11 pm and a discount of 65 percent from 11 pm to 8 am on weekdays. On weekends the per call discount is 65 percent, except for 5 pm to 11 pm on Sunday. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D $24.10 + $9.48 + $120 = $ 153.58 Nailed Down Line $24.10 + $866.88 = $890.98 Massachusetts Installation fee $67.07 Distance Charges The service is only available within 18 kilofeet from a central office. If that central office isn't equipped for ISDN, you must pay for "Virtual Service." This will add $190 for a residential installation, plus a fixed fee of $32 per month. Fixed Monthly fee $14.39 for line charges plus $18 for BRI ISDN, for a total of $32.39. Usage Charges Voice calls are the same as the local POTS rates. Per minute charges apply for data. For data calls, in the 617 and 508 area codes, it is a one cent per "message" charge, which is applied to each B channel. Usage is also subject to a 1.6 cents per minute per B channel charge. A higher per minute per B channel charge of 5.5 cents per applies to "Zone 2" calls. In the 413 area code, calls are one cent per "message" plus 1.6 cents from 8 am to 5 pm week days and .8 cents in the off peak hours. Cost to Consumer [2] 100 Hours of 2B+D Area Codes 617/508 $32.39 + $2 + $192 = $226.39 Area Code 413 $32.39 + $2 + $124.80 = $159.19 Nailed Down Line Area Codes 617/508 $32.39 + $1387.01 = $1,419.40 Area Code 413 $32.39 + $879.26 = $ 911.65 ----------------- [1] Thanks to Janice Shields of the Center for Study of Responsive Law for research on this topic. [2] The consumer's cost of 100 hours of 2B + D service is based upon the following assumptions. The time online is divided as follows: from 8 am to 5 pm 30 percent, from 5 pm to 7 pm 10 percent, from 7 pm to 11 pm 35 percent and from 11 pm to 7 am and weekends, 25 percent. This works out to 30 percent peak for the PacBell tariff, or 40 percent peak for the Bell Atlantic Tariff. Number of calls is 100. In practice, the number of calls will depend upon the pricing incentives, but generally this isn't a very large number, compared to the cost of the per minute charges. INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of TAP-INFO are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/ TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages. http://www.tap.org/tap http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:30:39 -0800 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: India Grants Basic Telephony, Cellular Licences The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary, March 10, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Contents: India grants cellular, basic telephony licences India's NIIT opens software exports complex India grants cellular, basic telephony licences Finally, after the clearance of the Supreme Court, the Indian government has started issuing licences to winners of the first round of bids for nationwide basic telephony. HFCL, the controversial winner of four "circles" - Delhi, UP (West), Haryana and Orissa, has already signed letters of intent with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The fifth clear first-round winner, Hughes-Ispat in Maharashtra (which includes Bombay, now called Mumbai), is expected to get its licence soon; this has been delayed due to a legal challenge by another bidder, Tata-Bell Canada. The second round of bids for basic telephony, which received a poor response as it was held just before the Supreme Court's verdict, should be resolved this week. The Tender Evaluation Committee cleared all six bids (for a total of five circles) and recommended that licences be awarded to the five high bidders. A final decision, which has to be approved by the DoT Secretary and Communications Minister, is expected by March 15th. The DoT is also expected to announce a third round of bidding for basic telephony, for the remaining nine (mainly poor, "C" category) circles, later this week. It will reduce the reserve prices that were announced late last year, by between 25% and 50%. This round, like the previous one, will be limited to consortia who bid in the original round; if despite the lower reserve prices some circles go wanting, yet another round of bids is expected, but open to anyone. Basic telephony licences, first- and second-round bids, and reserve prices can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Meanwhile, licences for operating cellular services have been granted to two competing bidders in most of the 18 circles. A list of licensees is at: http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html One of the cellular licensees, Koshika Telecom, a venture between India's Usha Group and Philippines Telecom, has sold a 3% equity stake to Alcatel, the French telecom giant. Alcatel has also signed a US$ 100 million contract for GSM cellular equipment in the entire region covered by Koshika's licence - four circles in eastern India. Another cellular licensee, JT Mobile, is in a bit of legal trouble. The Indian partner, the Parasrampuria group (foreign partners are Sweden's Telia, along with ToT and Jasmine from Thailand) has been accused by a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) of reneging on an unwritten agreement whereby the Group was to be a "front" organisation for him. NRIs are Indian citizens residing abroad, and receive numerous investment incentives and tax benefits not available to foreign citizens or Indian residents. Nevertheless, NRI equity is considered foreign equity for the purposes of the telecom bids; foreign equity is limited to 49%. As Telia, ToT and Jasmine together own 49% of JT Mobile, it is possible that Parasrampuria did, as alleged, promise to act as a "front" for the NRI, who could not invest himself. Possible (and, if true, illegal) but unlikely - the Group is rich enough anyway, claims any agreement with the NRI was "pre-contractual" and is not likely to lose any court case. India's NIIT opens software exports complex New Delhi's largest software development complex, owned by NIIT Ltd (a part of the HCL Group, which has links with Hewlett-Packard and is the country's largest information technology firm) was inaugurated by the Commerce Minister last week. Built at a cost of $2 million, the complex, which holds 600 networked computers, is intended for exports. What NIIT calls an extended local area network has extensive links to the Internet and direct satellite links to overseas sites, allowing over 1,000 employees multimedia communication between more than 50 locations in 12 cities spread across five countries where NIIT operates. The $35 million company is among the largest information- technology training firms in the world, in terms of students; it trained well over 100,000 last year. It has migrated successfully to software development for exports; this now generates close to half its revenue. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Wireless Rate Restructuring Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 17:24:13 -0800 From: Larry Schwarcz Last week I got my LD bill for my cellular phone from AT&T. At first I was laughing since I hadn't made any LD calls and the bill was for $0.00. Well, it turns out they sent out bills to everyone just to inform us of a change in their hours for peak and non-peak billing hours. Enclosed was a notice from AT&T about a rate restructuring. They've eliminated the evening rates and now have peak rates from 8am - 11pm M-F and off-peak is 11pm - 8am M-F and Sat & Sun. Here's the whole letter from them: ------------------------------------- IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WIRELESS LONG DISTANCE RATE STRUCTURE Dear AT&T Wireless Long Distance Customer: Effective April 1, 1996, AT&T will be changing its rate structure for the long distance portion of your California intrastate wireless calls. The basic difference you will find is in the way AT&T assesses charges for wireless long distance calling during different times of the day. This change does not affect your local wireless carrier's rates for airtime. The current rate periods will be changed to a new, simplified Peak and Off-Peak structure as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ | Current | New | |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | Day | 8am - 5pm Mon - Fri | Peak | 8am - 11pm Mon - Fri | |-----|--------------------------|-------|----------------------------| | Eve.| 5pm - 11pm Mon - Fri & | Off- | 11pm - 8am Mon - Fri & | | | Sunday | Peak | all weekend | |-----|--------------------------| | | | N/W | 11pm - 8am Mon - Fri & | | | | | weekends until 5pm Sun | | | |_____________________________________________________________________| The new wireless long distance Peak rate for an initial minute of a call will range from $0.12 to $0.15 per minute depending on the distance, while subsequent minutes of a call will range from $0.07 to $0.14 per minute. The old Off-Peak rates will range from $0.08 to $0.13 per initial minute of a call based on the distance, and subsequent minutes of a call will range from $0.06 to $0.109 per minute. While the elements of the rate schedule most utilized by callers have not been affected by this change, the new rate schedule does represent an overall average increase of approximately 15%. Depending upon your personal calling patterns you may very well see no change to your bill. You may communicate with the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the proposed restructuring within fifteen days at the following address: Telecommunications Branch, Commission Advisory and Compliance Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 As always, AT&T looks forward to serving all of your wireless long distance needs. ----------------------------------------- Well, AT&T may look forward to serving all of my wireless LD needs, but, they won't have the chance. I switched to MCI today. AT&T may communicate with rate increases, but, I'll communicate back by giving my business to someone else. Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 Internal-only WWW: http://hpisrhw.cup.hp.com/~lrs/homepage.html ------------------------------ From: robert@caliper.com (Robert Freimer) Subject: More Allegations About MCI Date: 11 Mar 1996 17:59:27 -0500 Organization: Caliper Corporation bhofkin@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Bob Hofkin) writes: > A customer service rep told me about the Friends and Family deal, and > signed me up. She forgot to mention the package included an personal > 800 number. (I discovered this bonus via InternetMCI.) The 800 > service rep claimed they had generated these numbers for ALL their > customers, and I should have gotten a letter explaining the whole > thing a week earlier. The rep also claimed that each customer got a > unique (ten-digit) 800 number, and that the "PIN" was only for > security. (My own quickie test suggests that around one in ten "PIN" > codes is accepted.) > Do they do this deliberately? Do they make it up as they go along? I > have no idea, but accuracy sure doesn't seem to be MCI's strong point. This stupidity is consistent with the MCI's behavior that I saw before I gave up on them and switched carriers. They insist on setting up the insecure personal 800 numbers without notification nor permission anytime you switch calling programs. I had been happily using MCI for a few years until one month last fall, I discovered by reading my monthly bill that they had raised their Primetime program rates from .11/min to .13/min, eliminated their Best Friends program, and lowered their the discounts I received with my international calling plan without prior notice. After talking with the service rep, I gathered they wanted to phase out these old programs and either milk their customers who didn't notice the change or else convince you to switch to their new programs. Their behavior caused me to compare rates and discover that Frontier had a much better domestic calling plan (.10/min except 8-5 M-F) for moderate domestic usage than either MCI or AT&T, and slightly better hours than Sprint, so I decided to switch. Frontier didn't have quite as good international calling plan, but their rep mentioned that I could still have a 10XXX account with another company. I called MCI and told them that I wanted to keep my account and enroll in their new international calling plan and access their network using 10222. Their rep said this would be fine. Of course he was wrong. I received a letter listing my new service, which included the undesired 800 number. When I called to complain, I was told that they had canceled all my discount programs since I no longer had 1+ dialing and claimed it was due to billing issues. At which point, I said that I would stop using them completely, but they would have give me the promised discounted rates on the international calls that I had already made. Those calls were billed correctly, but directly by MCI instead of NYNEX. So who knows what the supposed billing issues were that prevented them from having 10222 accounts. However, the next month I received a bill for something like $3, because they still had left the personal 800 number active and there is a monthly fee if that is your only service with MCI. One more call finally cleared that up. The following month, they send me a switch-over check for $50, thinking they could bribe me to return. Doesn't it ever occur to them, that if they treated their customers better to start with, they could save such expenses. The other interesting part of this experience is with Sprint, which I am now happily using for International calls. They had no problem with my request for an account with 10333 access. However, their scripts are geared to 1+ customers, since they tell you to call you local phone company, which of course should be unnecessary in such situations. I took this advice to mean I should get NYNEX to block switch requests from long distance companies. Luckily I did, since later Sprint sent me a postcard stating that they had tried to switch me, but could not. A call to the 800 number on the card, straightened up the problem but their rep warned me that their records indicated that I had been switched earlier that week. A final call to NYNEX showed that was not the case and the account has been correct ever since. After these experiences, I am now very cynical that the major long distance companies are intentional making everything as complicated as possible in the hope that most people will give up and just accept what comes. Robert Freimer robert@caliper.com Software Engineer Caliper Corporation Mapping the Way 1172 Beacon Street, Newton, Massachuessets 02161 USA (617)527-4700 (617)527-5113 (Fax) http://www.caliper.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #113 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 12 23:48:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14896; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:48:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603130448.XAA14896@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #114 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:47:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 710 NCS GETS Explained in Detail (Shawn Travis) British Columbia 604/250 Split: End Date Advanced (Dave Leibold) More Details on the Western Union Clocks For Sale (TELECOM Digest Editor) Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 (Steve Granata) 800 Protection Deadline March 15 (Judith Oppenheimer) RAM/Mobitex 'Sweeping' Question (Daniel Heilman) 55 Octet BERT Pattern (Andrew Morley) Deadlock Detection In Distributed Systems (Bernard L. Bailey) Advertisement of 900 Numbers (Jan Ceuleers) 888 Appears in Advertisement (Carl Moore) 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: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Shawn Travis) Subject: 710 NCS GETS Explained in Detail Date: 13 Mar 1996 02:22:48 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. Copied from the NCS-GETS website... HOW GETS LOGO WORKS The tremendous growth in the telecommunications industry has enabled Government users to expand services at reduced costs, which, in turn, has increased our reliance on the telephone. But this growth has been accompanied by an increased vulnerability to a variety of problems. Economic viability and technical feasibility have combined to produce such advances as nationwide fiber optic networks, high-speed digital switching, and intelligent features. Although backup systems are in place, the loss of a single fiber optic cable or the failure of a computer program can disrupt thousands of telephone customers for hours or days. GETS provides a cost-effective means to overcome network outages through the following key features: * Dialing Plan * Access Control Through PINs * Enhanced Routing * Priority Treatment * Signaling * International Calling * Interoperability with Other Networks * Transmission Augmentation and Restoration * Access Through "Number Translation" Calls * Protection of Records DIALING PLAN The dialing plan is based on the 710 area code that is reserved for NS/EP use. This area code is valid in the IECs and all LECs, cellular carriers, and foreign carriers. The normal access mode is through your pre-subscribed long-distance carrier by dialing the universal access number. If this is not successful, alternative long-distance carriers can be accessed by first dialing 10288 for AT&T, 10222 for MCI, or 10333 for Sprint, followed by the universal access number. Means of accessing GETS through FTS2000, DISN, or other Government capabilities are also available. ACCESS CONTROL THROUGH PINS GETS has been designed to ensure that only authorized users access the service through the distribution, use, and control of PINs. The GETS user will be provided with a unique PIN that must be used to access the service. After the universal access number has been dialed, the GETS user will be prompted to enter a PIN and destination number. If the PIN is valid, the call will be processed. If the PIN is not valid (for example, if you entered it incorrectly), you will be prompted to reenter the PIN. If the PIN, after three attempts, is again determined to be invalid, the call will be disconnected. If the access control system fails, the call will be processed and allowed to complete. PINs can be deactivated for fraud or abuse. ENHANCED ROUTING LEC, cellular, and foreign carriers will route 710 calls to one of the three IECs. AT&T has implemented an enhanced routing service for 710 calls in its network. Enhanced routing services for MCI, Sprint, and the LECs are under evaluation for benefits and cost effectiveness. PRIORITY TREATMENT GETS traffic receives priority treatment over normal traffic through: * Controls such as trunk queuing, trunk subgrouping, or trunk reservation. * Exemption from restrictive network management controls that are used to reduce network congestion. * High probability of completion (HPC) capability to provide: + NS/EP identification + Priority signaling. These features enhance the capability of NS/EP calls to be completed in congested networks. GETS will not preempt public traffic, nor are there levels of precedence in GETS. SIGNALING The normal signaling provided by the LECs, IECs, cellular carriers, and foreign carriers will be used for 710 traffic. This includes inband and common channel signaling. INTERNATIONAL CALLING GETS can be used to place or receive an international call. GETS routes the call to the appropriate international gateway switch for subsequent call completion to the destination country. For GETS calls that are originated overseas and destined for the United States, the foreign carrier assigns the call to the appropriate IEC in accordance with existing arrangements. After the call has reached the gateway switch in the United States, it is routed to access control for PIN validation and then to the destination. INTEROPERABILITY WITH OTHER NETWORKS You can access GETS through your FTS2000 or DISN circuits by first accessing these circuits and then entering the universal access number. The FTS2000 or DISN switch will automatically route the call to GETS. This direct access around potential PSN problems using facilities of FTS2000 or DISN is an important method of avoiding outages or congestion in the local carriers. TRANSMISSION AUGMENTATION AND RESTORATION GETS uses the following OMNCS-managed capabilities to provide improved connectivity and network management service during times of crisis. * Commercial Satellite, providing transmission augmentation through new and emerging satellite resources. * Commercial Networks, providing transmission augmentation through terrestrial, fiber optic, microwave, and transportable capabilities. * Cellular Priority Access, nationwide access/egress into GETS through commercial cellular services. * National Telecommunications Management Structure (NTMS) and Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP), providing network management and restoral. ACCESS THROUGH "NUMBER TRANSLATION" CALLS GETS provides called telephone number translations for users who require this type of service. PROTECTION OF RECORDS Carriers that provide access control capabilities protect PIN data bases and call record information by limiting access to selected trusted personnel. _________________________________________________________________ GETS Logo Return to the GETS Front Page NCS Logo Return to the NC-PP Home Page _________________________________________________________________ Last update: June 22, 1995 - National Communications System: oconnoj@cc.ims.disa.mil owensw@cc.ims.disa.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So much for its 'top secret' status, huh? The universal access number referred to above is 710-NCS-GETS or in all digits, 710-627-4387. That is apparently the only number which is access- ible in the 710 'area code', usually defined as 'government special services' or 'special government services'. Obviously, if you do not have a valid PIN you should not be playing with it, and I think it is safe to assume calls to the number are logged or recorded using ANI, or a similar method. I suspect however there are other features and functions in 710 which the nice press release above does not discuss. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 11 Mar 96 20:49:10 -0500 Subject: British Columbia 604/250 Split: End Date Advanced; NXX Details Bellcore released an information letter on the upcoming NPA 604/250 area code split for British Columbia. The split will begin 19 Oct 1996, but the "mandatory" date (the date at which area code 250 must be used to dial BC areas outside the lower mainland - that is Metro Vancouver and surrounding communities) is now 6 April 1997, advanced from 1 June 1997. BC Tel claims that 604 is in jeopardy of exhausting all its exchange or NXX codes earlier than the original mandatory date. Changes to ANI (automatic number identification) will be completed by 7 March 1997. NXXes (central office codes) will split as follows as transcribed from the Bellcore Letter listing. (* following an NXX means it is new since 1 Jan 1996). I haven't had time to map places to the NXXes yet. Remaining in 604: 202 205 209* 215 217 218 219* 220 221 222 224 228 230 231 240 241 244 250 251 252 253 254 255 257 258 261 263 264 266 267 268 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 290 291 293 294 298 299 301 302 303 306 307 309 312 313 316 318 320 321 322 323 324 325 327 328 329 331 341 351 377 412 415 420 421 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 443 444 448 450* 451 452 454 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 469 473 482 483 485 486 487 488 501 514 517 520 521 522 524 525 526 527 528 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 538 540 541 543 550 551 552 555 556 572 574 576 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 588 589 590 591 594 596 597 599 601 602 603* 606 607* 608 612* 617* 618* 623 631 640 641 643 644 645 649 650 654 657 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 671 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 691 702 708 714 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 760 775 792 793 794 795 796 797 801 802 805 806 807 808 813 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 826 844 850 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 863 864 867 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 882 883 884 885 886 888 889 891 892 893 894 895 896 898 899 903 905 908 913* 915 917 918 921 922 924 925 926 927 929 930 931 932 933 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 951 961 970 975 977 978 979 980 981 983 984 985 986 988 990 Changing to area code 250: 203 212 216 223 225 226 227 229 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 242 243 245 246 247 248 249 256 259 260 262 265 269 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 292 295 296 297 304 305 308 314 315 317 319 326 330 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 413* 416 417 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 440 441 442 445 446 447 449 453 455 456 457 458 459 468 470 471 472 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 484 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 503* 523 529 537 539 542 544 545 546 547 548 549 553 554 555 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 573 575 577 578 579 587 592 593 595 598 613 614 615 616 620 621 622 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 642 646 647 648 651 652 653 655 656 658 659 670 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 690 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 706* 707 715 716 717 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 776 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 798 799 804 809 812 814 825 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 845 846 847 848 849 851 860 861 862 865 866 868 881 887 890 897 902 906 920 923 928 934 935 949 952 953 954 955 956 957 960 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 971 972 973 974 982 989 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730 Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 09:20 CST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: More Details on the Western Union Clocks For Sale After mentioning last week that several clocks had been located and were available for sale, the seller reports getting quite a few inquiries from Digest readers. Below is the standard letter he is sending out to inquiries in case you are interested. Once this supply has been sold, I do not know when/where there will be more. I suppose they are around. You should write direct to eli@seldon.terminus.com to place an order or ask more questions. Please note that if you get a clock or two, obviously the setting circuit will be inoperative, considering Western Union discontinued that service about thirty years ago. However there are a couple of clever things you can do: 1) A program is available on the net somewhere which allows you to set the clock using your PC by making a call to NAVOBS. When NAVOBS returns the time, your PC clicks a relay that hits the clock and yanks the hand as needed. 2) If you are patient and careful in hanging the clock *absolutely level* and then *barely tweaking* the pendulum up or down as needed once a day for a few days and then once a week or so for a month afterward, you will in essence have it keeping perfect time anyway, or so close that it will be hard for your eye to discern any adjustment needed for a month or so at a time. 3) Run a nine volt battery in series through a doorbell button you hide under your desk somewhere, up to the setting circuit on the clock. Then once every month or two when you note the clock is possibly 30-45 seconds in error based on a phone call to NAVOBS, you tap the button at just the right time. 4) The little red light bulb in the center of the dial was intended to flash when the setting circuit was activated. You can leave it that way or if you prefer, wire the light so it illuminates on the winding rather than on the setting. Mine are all hourly winders; I think some of the ones he is selling are fifteen minute winders while others are hourly. One of mine has a sixty beat per minute mechanism and one has a ninety beat per minute mechanism. The ones he is selling are all sixties I think. There were various styles of clock as well as dial. He notes his are all sixteen inch dials. Oddly, the one large brown one in a metal case that I have does *not* say Self Winding Clock Company on the dial, although it has that stamped on the works. The one I have in a wooden case says Self Winding Clock Company on the dial and not a word about WUTCO, yet inside is a diagram from WUTCO about how to hang the clock, and using a pencil inside the cabinet someone wrote it was installed in the Board of Education lunchroom in May, 1939. Anyway, quite a few people have asked at one time or another about getting these; all I can tell you is do so now if you plan to. He can probably rustle up a few more clocks if the demand is there. PAT Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 04:41:54 -0800 From: eli@seldon.terminus.com Subject: Re: Round Western Union Self Winding Clock W/Sweep Sec Hand To: telecom@rci.ripco.com (Pat Townson) Thanks for interest. I have 9 (metal case) Western Union Clocks made by The Self Winding Clock Co Of NY. They all have 16" dials, run, keep very good time and are in good shape. The work needed is mainly cosmetic with nothing 30 minutes of cleaning and paint couldn't fix. This is no "rip off" or scam, these babies are great. You can take one out of a ups box, hang it on a wall, hook up to a 3 volt transformer or 2 of the old large and cylindrical 1.5 volt batteries and away it goes. If you collect and like Americana these Clocks are a must. I have 3 square and 5 round with sweep second hand, 1 square with no second hand. I am told they are all pre WWII. Each has a movement with a serial number and a matching tag in the case with the same number. The dials are very off white and say: Naval Observatory Time WESTERN UNION Self Winding Clock Co. Inc. New York There's a lightning bolt under Western Union and above Self Winding etc. The cases are brown and look nice. IMPORTANT: They must not have more than 3 volts DC used to wind them, I know a couple that didn't survive the shock (ouch, did I say that?). If you would like a picture in .GIF or .JPG, let me know and I will attach one to a return post for you. Now........the hardest part of the deal..............they are gonna go for $180.00 plus $10.00 for shipping and will be in working condition when they leave. If you don't get one, you'll wish you had when you see one. Thanks again. Jim Hill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He does not mention them having the little red light bulb in the center and there were a few models that did not have it, but I am pretty certain all of his do. Also, he says 'important must not have more than three volts to wind' and I have to say, this all depends ... if you wire the light bulb so it illuminates on the winding, it is a 3.2 volt bulb, so you want to use a six volt transformer. But otherwise as he says, use only three to be safe. I've never had trouble with mine not holding up well to slightly more than three volts; of course don't overdo it. If you use the tall cylindrical one and a half volt 'telephone cells' (two go in the case) they will last for *years* on the winding only but as soon as you wire the light bulb through them also, they tend to run down fast, which is why I use a small DC transformer instead. Also what he calls 'very off white' as the dial color, I refer to as 'cream'. If you order one or two of these, consider installing them in your office or in a public place where they'll be seen regularly, and watch the amazed looks they get from people who see them in operation. Most folks have never seen them; the ones who have, haven't seen them for years; they'll find them rather incredible. I might add they will find them rather tempting also, so make sure you mount it *well* and slightly out of reach of people who like to put their hands on things that don't belong to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sgranata@cais.com (Steve Granata) Subject: Bell Altantic CID - 3 for 3 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 02:34:47 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. This is a follow-up to previous postings about the inability of Bell Atlantic subscribers to receive CID information from calls carried by AT&T long distance. I am a Bell Atlantic-VA local exchange subscriber, who recently signed-up for CID. My main purpose in having CID is to allow my out-of-town relatives to avoid tolls for leaving short messages on my answering machine. This past Saturday, the service went three-for-three. I received two long distance calls from Oregon, one carried by AT&T, the other by MCI. Both calls' numbers came through loud and clear, although neither call showed the name. For good measure, I dialed the landline number with my Sprint Spectrum PCS handset. Sure enough, CID displayed the handset number; what amazes me is that I can receive the number of a Sprint Spectrum phone, but I cannot receive CID information on calls placed by Bell Atlantic Mobile users. Steve Granata sgranata@cais.com http://members.aol.com/sgranata/index.htm ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: 800 Protection Deadline March 15 Date: 12 Mar 1996 16:03:25 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Per earlier postings, there are currently approximately 375,000 toll-free vanity numbers set-aside -- grandfathered -- in the 888 area code. These 888 equivalents of existing 800 vanity numbers are protected, at least for the moment, from competition, trademark infringement, misdial costs, lost business and customer confusion, pending the FCC Rulemaking on replication. To add your 800 vanity number to this "protected" list, contact Database Services Management at 908-699-2100. If you are submitting fifty 800 numbers or less, submissions will be accepted in writing directly from subscribers. If your list exceeds fifty 800 numbers, DSMI asks that your submission be on disk. Email me directly for submission specs (both written and disk). No charge. 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/ [TELECOM Dgiest Editor's Note: And as per the discussion here last week, if you think this is all silly as some have noted, then respond by getting your various 800 numbers replicated in 888 today. Just a couple days remain for this exercise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: danh@rain.org (Daniel Heilman) Subject: RAM/Mobitex 'Sweeping' Question Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 21:34:09 GMT Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN Is there a way using MASC protocol (or otherwise) to force my Motorolla 435i modem to its 'sweep' mode so it can try to find a stronger base (tower)? Currently, I lock onto a tower in NY, and my vehicle drives to New Jersey. My signal strength plummets, but the unit will not sweep to find a potentially better tower. I've called RAM, and they can SOMETIMES ping my unit. RAM tells me I'm locked onto a tower in NY, but the closest tower would be in Elizabeth NJ. My battery strength is okay. So far, I shut down the modem and restart it (which takes extra time) and when the modem is brought back online, I get the closer tower and all my packets go out. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Morley Subject: 55 Octet BERT Pattern Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 15:53:42 GMT Organization: Trend Communications Ltd. Reply-To: andym@trend.demon.co.uk Does anyone know where the 55 Octet BERT pattern is defined. Presumably it is in some ANSI or (possibly?) Bellcore document, but which? I'm sure I can remember reading such a doument but I can't remember what it was called. Can anyone help? Andrew Morley ------------------------------ From: bbailey1@osf1.gmu.edu (Bernard L Bailey) Subject: Deadlock Detection In Distributed Systems Date: 12 Mar 1996 23:48:02 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA My name is Bernard L. Bailey (bbailey1@gmu.edu), and I attend George Mason University. I am currently working on a paper concerning Deadlock detection in Distributed Systems, however, there is an issue I could use some advice on. In my research, I have yet to see the issue of how to determine which algorithm is best for your system. If anyone can email me some documentation at the above address it would be greatly appreciated. I am also welcoming any on the job expertise that readers would like to pass on e.g.. How did you make the decision to use a specific deadlock detection algorithm? Which algorithm is best used with what type of station? Does a limit exist on how many users a certain algorithim is good for, etc? Please email any responses to the above address. ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 18:45:32 +0100 Subject: Advertisement of 900 Numbers 900 numbers, at least in Belgium, are numbers that carry a surcharge which is partly paid to the subscriber of the 900 number. This means that calling a 900 number is generally more expensive than calling other numbers, and that the called party makes money out of people calling him. I'd be interested in hearing about the regulations applying to the advertisement of 900 numbers or their equivalents in different countries, particularly with respect to the requirement or lack thereof to mention the price (per time unit) of a call in the advertisement. If such a requirement does not exist, is there a requirement to mention the price of the call during the first few seconds of the conversation, giving the caller time to hang up if he does not agree with the charges? Olease respond directly to: Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org and I'll be happy to summarize. Thanks, Jan Ceuleers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 15:43:02 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 888 Appears in Advertisement OK, it has happened; I have heard a radio advertisement for 888-ABS-4000. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B, reported here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. I suppose that we will start seeing a flurry of 888 numbers now over the next few months in the same way that once the new style area codes became 'official' they started popping up all over the place. Anyone on the list called in yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #114 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 00:25:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA18196; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603130525.AAA18196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #115 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 00:24:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 1996 ICFC Agenda (bdacxgr@newark1.bell-atl.com) Ohio ISDN Correction (Monty Solomon) US Phonebooks on the Web (RISKS via Jonathan Welch) WWW.Switchboard.Com (Dale Robinson) TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement (Toby Nixon) Employment Opportunity: Manager RF System Engineering (Kossuth Associates) 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: BDACXGR@NEWARK1.BELL-ATL.COM Subject: 1996 ICFC Agenda Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:43:51 -0500 1996 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE THE GRAND KEMPINSKI OF DALLAS April 16-19, 1996 1996 ICPC PROGRAM Tuesday, April 16 1:00 - 2:30 Tutorial:Technology Substitution Larry Vanston,Ph.D Technology Futures, Inc. 3:00 - 4:30 Tutorial:Maket Share Simulation Winslow Farrell Coopers & Lybrand Wednesday, April 17 8:15 - 8:20 Opening Remarks: Dennis Trimble - GTE 8:20 - 8:25 Welcoming Speech: GTE President 8:30 - 10:00 Plenary Session: Dr. Alfred Kahn "Deregulation and Competition in the Telecom Industry" 10:35 - 12:20 Plenary Session: Dr. Alan Pearce "Telecom Act of 1996 and Future of the Telecom Industry" 12:00 - 6:00 Technology Showcase 2:00 - 3:00 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution I Chair: R. Green - BellSouth "Wireless Communications and Technology Susbstituion: What S-Curves Reveal about Pending Cellular Competition" James Shaw Ph.D Director Applied Economics Program University of San Francisco "PCS in Peril: the Price of Complacency" Dr. Nettleton President NettWork Consulting International Toll: I Chair: C. Dineen - Bell Canada "Modeling Toll Demand in a Competitive Environment" Mohammed B. Abrar Chris Dineen Bell Canada "A Model of Spain-Europe Telecommunications" Teresa Garvin-Munoz, Universidad Nacional de Ecucacion a Distancia, Spain Teodosio Perez-Amarl Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Forecasting with Real Time Data Chair: P. Cox - Bell Atlantic "Real Time Switch Capacity Information along with Current Customer Usage Trends Makes for Expert Forecasting in Today's Dynamic Environment" David Brogdon Bearcreek Technology "Daily Traffic Analysis and Seasonal Adjustment" Steve Guo Sprint Long Distance Division Enhanced Services Chair: T.Applebe - Bell Canada "An Econometric Demand Model of Non Published Number Messaging" Anderson Reynolds SBC Communications "Cross-sectional Analysis of Subscription to Call Waiting in Canada Using 1992 Data" D.L.Solvason Bell Canada 3:30 - 4:30 Concurrent Sessions Model Specifications Chair: F. Sabetan - PacTel "A Common Probit/Random Utility Framework for Conjoint Experiment: Formulation, Efficient Estimation, and Inference" Greg Duncan GTE Labs "LATA Toll Price Elasticity Estimators: Non-Parametric Methods" Armando Levy University of California, Berkeley International Toll II Chair: L. Thompson - SNET "Competition and the Regionalization of Tele- communications Demand" Michael Berlage EUTELIS Consult, Germany "An Alternative to Multiple Regression Methods II: Elasticities Estimation" Nelson Alvarez Telefonica, Spain New Forecasting Techniques I Chair: B. McGrory - NYNEX "Best Forecasting Practices and Benchmarks" Geof Wyght SRCI, Canada "Activity Based Forecasting" Peter Dilworth Bell Canada Local Competition I Chair: K. Bjornstad - Bell Atlantic "Criterion Based Cluster Analysis and Segmented Forecasting" Gary Sakihara GTE Telops "Customer Switching Behavior: Local Competition" Brian Staihr Sprint Local Division Thursday, April 18 8:15 - 9:45 Panel Discussion Bob Stoeffels-Moderator "Competition in the Local Loop; Who will it Help?, Who will it Hurt?, and How do we Plan for it?" Bob Casali-SBC, Victor Glass-NECA Tony Parella-MFS Vince Vittore-Cable News 10:15 - 11:45 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution II Chair: M. Cristiani - Cincinnati Bell "Discrete Choice Analysis for Multi-Attribute Products and Services: A PCS Case Study" Terry J. Atherton Cambridge Systematics Moshe Ben-Akiva MIT "Forecasting Demand for Mobile Communications in a Simultaneous Equations Framework" Seuing Hee Choi Electronic & Telecommunications Research Institute, Korea Additional Residential Access Lines Chair: R. Williamson, SBC "Telephone Subscribership and Employment: A Simultaneous Probit Model" Emily Hoffnar FCC Michael Green University of North Texas "Empirical Investigation of Household Multiple Phone Line Demand" Daniel Tantum AT&T "Cross-sectional Analysis of Residential Telephone Susbcription and Additional Line Subscription in Canada using 1994 Data" D.L.Solvason Bell Canada California Toll Demand Chair: R. Jacob - Sprint "Effects of Large Price Reductions on Toll and Carrier Access Demand" Tim Tardiff NERA "Modeling Toll Demand in a Competitive Environment: A Case Study of California" Paul Rappoport Temple University Lester Taylor University of Arizona Don Kridel University of Missouri, St. Louis, Bill Newman PNR and Associates New Forecasting Techniques II Chair: R. Luginbill - Ameritech "Adaptive Forecasts for the Communications Industry" D.H. Phillps University of North Carolina, Charlotte "Competitive Intelligence into Forecasts: the Relevanceof Data Fusion and Posture Assessment Modeling" Paul Caldwell CEO PSYTEP "Market Analysis and Demand Forecasting using Neural Net Technology" Dr. Richard Hoptroff President Right Information Systems 11:45 - 12:15 Concurrent Sessions GDP Data Revisions Chair: R. Richardson - USWest "Gross Domestic Products Revisions: What Have They Done to Our Statistics" David K. Pitcher Bell Atlantic The Communication Fraud Perpetrator Chair: D. Jauchius - Bellcore "The Loyal Dark Side of Your Customer Base: the Fraud Perpetrator" Virginia Ferrara Bellcore Demand in Emerging-Market Countries Chair: C. Dineen - Bell Canada "Assessing Demand Forecasts for Emerging-Market Countries" Peter J. Macaulay Deloitte & Touche, Canada TV Transmission Techniques & Trends Chair: P. Cox - Bell Atlantic "Television Transmission Techniques, Technologies, Trends and Trades" Khalid Kahn MCI 2:00 - 3:00 Concurrent Sessions Issues in Wireless Evolution III Chair: M. Cristiani - Cincinnati Bell "Statistical Regressions among Dynamic Simulation Scenarios in Wireless Markets" Stephen Maloney Devonrue LTD "The Demand for Cellular Phone and Cellular Calls" Bill Newman PNR & Associates Paul Rappoport Temple University Lester Talyor University of Arizona Post Telcom Reform: Issues & Forecasting Chair: D. Jauchius - Bellcore "Competitive Telecommunications and Its Aftermath:Economic Policy Issues and Modeling Needs" Andy Banerjee NERA "Revenue-Based Capacity Management in Telecommunications" Randall S. Stanislav Bellcore Douglas A. Gray Sabre Decision Technologies Consumer & Marketing Strategy Chair: A. Parrish - SBC "Advertising and Marketing Strategies of Telecommunications Firms" Sandra D. Rhue Bellcore "Telecom Technology Acceptance and Aversion: an End User Perspective" Carl E. Batt Bellcore Local Competition II Chair: R.Richardson - USWest "Local Competititve Cost Structure" Lawrence J. Cataldo Laurie C. Spiegel Frank J. Szczurek Bellcore "The Implications of Cross-Industry Competition: A Comparison of IXC and LEC Positioning versus Electric Utilities" Kerry Diehl PNR & Associates 3:30 - 4:30 Concurrent Sessions New Products and Choices Chair: F. Sabetan - Pactel "Estimating Long-run Telephone and Cable TV Demand in Chile: A Multinomial Logit Approach" John S. Watters Phillp K. Clark Basile P. Goungetas, SBC Communications "The Introduction of a New Interactive Information Service:the Individual Demand for Telebanking" Massimo G. Colombo Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Italy Paola Garrone Politechnico di Milano, Italy Market Assessment Tools Chair: K. Bjornstad - Bell Atlantic "Finding Demand and Response "Truth" in Forecasts of New Telecommunications Products" Susan Higgins Rob Arnett The M/A/R/C Group "Predicting the Diffusion Path of a New Service via NEWSMART" Siddhartha R. Dalal Yu Yun Ho Robert P. Sherman Bellcore Competitive Simulation Games Chair: B. McGrory - NYNEX "And the Winner Is?: Simulation and War Gaming to Create Winning Competitive Strategies" Devereaux G. Dion Vice President Advanced Competitive Strategies Local Competition III Chair: R. Jacob - Sprint "One -Stop Shopping for Communications Services- Research Method and Design" John Colias The M/A/R/C Group "An Approach to Analyze a Wholesale Strategy" Michael N. Murphy Juan Carlos Ortiz Bellcore Friday, April 19 8:15 - 9:45 Plenary Session: Dr. Peter Huber "The Internet and Future of Telecom Industry" 9:45 - 10:00 Concluding Remarks/Next Year's ICFC Peter Chung - GTE 10:30 - 12:00 Tutorial: Forecasting Techniques Dr. Oral Capps Texas A & M University ************************************************************ Special Opportunity!!!!!! Technology Forecasting for the Telcom Industry Instructor: Larry Vanston, Ph.D. Technology Futures, Inc. Grand Kempinski Hotel Attend this class, immediatelly preceeding the 1996 ICFC, and receive a 10% discount on the normal seminar fee and the 1996 ICFC fee. For enrollment, call 800-835-3887, 512-258-8898 Fax=512-258-0087; Fee=$995 in US dollars ************************************************************ REGISTRATION INFORMATION Registration Fees: Early Registration: $500 in US dollars Before March 25,1996 Late Registration: $550 in US dollars After March 25, 1996 One Day Registration: $150 in US dollars Student Rate: $150 in US dollars for the Conference Hotel Accommodations: The Grand Kempinski Hotel of Dallas The conferees need to register with the Hotel Directly by calling: 800-426-3135 or 214-386-6000, FAX: 214-701-0342. The Hotel room rate (single or double) is $110.00 in US dollars. Conference fees: Methods of Payment: The preferred method of payment is a check or money order payable to: ICFC 96. However an optional credit card registration is allowed. BUT ALL CONFEREES SHOULD FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING FORM AND SEND IT ALONG WITH CHECK, MONEY ORDER OR CARD INFORMATION TO: Attn: Don Gorman 204 Murray School Road Tel: 610-469-0515 Pottstown, PA 19465, USA Fax: 610-469-0515 Registration Form: First Name____________________Last Name_________________________ Company Name & Title____________________________________________ Street________________________________City______________________ Prov/State__________________________Country_____________________ Post/Zip__________________________ Tel:______________________________ Fax_______________________________ InternetMail____________________________________ Check/Money order enclosed________$500, or_________$550, or _________$150 (One Day Pass) , or _________$150 (Student). For Credit Card Registration: Card:_____AMEX, _____MC, _____VISA ______OTHER, Please specify the card name____________________ Card No.____________________________, Expiration Date______________ Name on the card if different from the registration_______________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:33:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Ohio ISDN Correction Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:48:57 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: love@Essential.ORG From: James Love Subject: Ohio Correction Oops! I quoted the $26 distance charge for Ohio as the monthly fixed rate. It should have been $32.20. I'm sure there are a number of other problems with various tariffs, and I'll try to report some more states and some corrections by next week. some of the area which are a bit thorny to work out are figuring out what has been left in and left out of the various reports (local calling usage fees, state taxes, FCC network access fees, etc). jamie http://www.ameritech.com/products/data/rates.html AMERITECH ISDN DIRECT SERVICE - RESIDENCE CHARGES (Popular 2-channel configuration as used in Ameritech Professional Package) DESCRIPTION IL-A IL-B IL-C IN MI OH WI 1 STANDARD ACCESS LINE 2.55 5.53 9.00 - 8.01 6.70 5.40 2 SUPP LINE CHARGE 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.33 3.50 3.50 3.50 3 ISDN 2B VOICE/DATA * 22.00 22.00 22.00 90.50 22.00 22.00 22.00 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 4 TOTAL MONTHLY CHARGE # $28.05 $31.03 $34.50 $94.83 $33.51 $32.20 $30.90 5 MONTHLY DIST EXTENSION $22.50 $22.50 $22.50 $22.50 $20.25 $26.00 $20.75 (if required)# 6 ONE-TIME INSTALLATION $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 $127.00 $122.00 $116.50 $113.05 * Subtract $4.00 month (IN=$37.50) and $15.00 one-time for a single voice/data channel (versus 2-channel configuration, priced above). # Does not include applicable taxes and state mandated 911 charges. Also standard residential usage charges will apply (except for Indiana, where voice usage is included as a flat rate monthly charge above, and data calls are charged at $.09 for first ten-minute period and $.09 for each five-minute increment thereafter.) Monthly distance extension charge applies for service to customer locations that are beyond 18,000 feet from the local telephone company exchange office location. IL: IL-A is for downtown Chicago, IL-B for the rest of Chicago and select suburbs, and IL-C is the rest of Illinois. To order Home Professional & ISDN service call: 1-800-419-5400. To order Business Professional & ISDN service call: 1-800-417-9888. For general information on ISDN call: 1-800-TEAMDATA (800-832-6328). James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.essential.org/tap ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:33:56 -0500 From: Jonathan_Welch Subject: US Phonebooks on the Web Pat, I thought you might be interested in the following article, which came out recently in RISKS Digest. Jonathan Welch VAX Systems Manager Umass/Amherst JHWELCH@ecs.umass.edu Subject: RISKS DIGEST 17.86 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:11:41 -0500 From: Joseph125@aol.com Subject: New web page and risks to personal information The web page of the week in the most recent {Information Week} is www.switchboard.com. It is a compilation of the telephone white pages from all across the nation. You can search on combinations of last name, first name, city and state to find long lost friends, relatives or just interesting names. (A quick search found a Santa Claus in FL and a Bunny Easter in WA.) This kind of information is not particularly new, of course. What is interesting is that Switchboard allows you to register by identifying your listing and sending your email address. They send back a password. Now you can login and add or modify information in your listing or even make your listing "unlisted". It is clearly a very easy thing to use throwaway email addresses to modify any number of listings. Switchboard admits as much in their policy statement (http://www2.switchboard.com/policy.htm) saying that their security is "designed to discourage" such impersonation. They will correct any falsification with appropriate documentation and take steps (this seems to mean blocking access from the offending email address) to prevent additional occurrences including, if applicable, legal action. (I fear there is very little substance behind that claim.) Despite Switchboard's benevolent claims, the possibilities make me nervous. I should note that when a listing has been modified by a user, it appears with an asterisk. Joseph Richardson (Joseph125@aol.com) ------------------------------ From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:52:10 +0930 Subject: WWW.Switchboard.Com Pat, Thought this might be of interest! In a recent comp.risks digest (V17.86), a correspondant mentioned Switchboard.Com, which provides a electronic white pages. Now I'm not going to re-hash the risks mentioned, you can see the article at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk Anyway in the words of Switchboard.Com Web page (http://www.switchboard.com): "Find friends, colleagues, and old roommates for free. Any time, nationwide. Look up over 90 million names and get fast response to addresses, phone numbers, and personalized updates. Even send email to registered users." "Find over 10 million businesses across the U.S.A. for free. Whether or not they're on the web. Day or night with immediate results." It only seems to have U.S. people Regards, Dale ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:18:35 -0800 TAPI Bakeoff IV Announcement GTE Telephone Operations/GTE Hawaiian Tel and Microsoft will jointly host the next TAPI Bakeoff which will be held May 7-9 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The purpose of the "Bakeoff" is to provide a forum to test the interoperability of computer telephony software, hardware and network services. The event is open to developers of computer telephony applications and service providers that work with the Windows Telephony API (TAPI). TAPI provides a standard programming interface to integrate computer applications with telephone networks. The Bakeoff is a working event and participants must have products to test. Developers interested in participating in the Bakeoff can get more information by sending email to bakeoff@microsoft.com. An autoresponder will provide information about how to sign up and logistics. Space is limited and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. ------------------------------ From: kossuth@halcyon.com Subject: Employment Opportunity: Manager RF System Engineering Date: 12 Mar 1996 20:21:44 GMT Organization: Kossuth & Associates, Inc. MANAGER RF SYSTEM ENGINEERING COLORADO SPRINGS A leader in commercializing personal communications services, both as a major license holder and developer of technology and equipment, is looking for dynamic engineers to contribute to their fast-paced growth. The company's proprietary technology is suitable for a variety of digital wireless applications including mobile network systems and wireless local loop. The company is an FCC award winner for it's technological accomplishments in digital PCS systems. This opening offers the right candidate opportunity for career and financial growth with this newly public company. POSITION DESCRIPTION ** Lead the radio systems engineering staff for Omnipoint IS-661 PCS network development. ** Responsible for development of all radio system performance requirements including modulation/demodulation, coding, channel models, deployment models, hardware performance requirements, interference rejection, blocking, power control, handover, etc. ** Lead technical contributor in RF systems. ** Direct staff to perform analysis, simulation and testing of Omnipoint PCS systems to ensure compliance with market requirements. ** Document requirements and specifications to support both hardware/ software development engineering and marketing. ** Interact closely with counterparts in network systems engineering and hardware development engineering to ensure a cost-effective, deployable PCS network. QUALIFICATIONS ** MSEE/PhD Communications Theory ** 10+ years experience in radio systems engineering and analysis for commercial wireless applications, preferably cellular. ** Must be skilled in decomposing market/product requirements into detailed radio system performance specifications. ** Analysis skills to include link budget analysis, path loss modeling, deployment modeling, modulation techniques, handover algorithms, power control algorithms, multipath, adjacent and co-channel interference, blocking, etc. ** Strong analytical skills with extensive simulation and modeling experience (SPW and C). ** Must have excellent communication and presentation skills. ** Must be a strong leader with supervisory experience. Qualified candidates please send your resume to the company's search consultants at: Kossuth & Associates, Inc. 800 Bellevue Way N.E., Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98004 fax (206) 450-0513 email kossuth@halcyon.com Kossuth & Associates, Inc. Is an executive search firm that specializes in the wireless communications industry. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #115 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 13:03:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA07477; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:03:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603131803.NAA07477@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #116 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:03:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Benjamin Ellsworth) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Phil Karn) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (David Hough) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Misuse of the Internet? (Curtis Wheeler) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Evan Ross) Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement (Bob Goudreau) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Wes Leatherock) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Stanley Cline) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Roavery) Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area (Tad Cook) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Bill Sohl) Re: NBA in Full Court Press (Atri Indiresan) 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: Benjamin Ellsworth Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:10:30 -0600 Organization: Sapiens Technologies Ltd. > ... If it goes from Sound Blaster to Sound Blaster, then no > RBOC switches are involved. Hmmmmm ... how does it get between SB cards? Through RBOC switches you say? CB's are not at all analogous. Benjamin Ellsworth ben@sapiens.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Karn Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:13:39 -0800 Organization: Qualcomm, Inc ACTA's "concern" over the load that packet voice puts on the Internet is a bit like the East Germans claiming they built the Berlin Wall out of sincere concern that West Berlin was becoming overpopulated. (Thanks to Mike O'Dell for this wonderful metaphor.) Phil ------------------------------ From: David Hough Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 08:50:30 GMT Organization: Chaotic In article sysop@cola.westmark. com (Rob Carlson) writes: > Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly > accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? > I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for > high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem > tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. > Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate > certain information? What is wrong with the telco detecting the use of data, putting their own modem on the line (and getting 28.8K data out), sending this as half a 64K channel to the far end, through another modem and out to the recipient. I understand that fax calls across the Atlantic are dealt with in this way. Dave djh@sectel.com Tel +44 1285 655 766 Fax +44 1285 655 595 ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:43:25 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio sysop@cola.westmark.com (Rob Carlson) wrote: > Tom Crofford writes: >> We do a good deal of our equipment's service calls via modems. We >> make about four times the number of calls per extension as a >> non-information based company. >> So, do you think it is fair or unfair for a given telco to be required >> to support higher traffic levels without a revenue increase of some >> sort? > Its also crucial to consider that data calls prohibit telcos from > using one of the most potentially money saving technologies available > to them today -- voice compression. With inexpensive systems, it > would be possible for them to put six or seven (perhaps more) voice > calls in the same bandwidth as one with no audible loss of quality. Any telco that has any concern for the quality of service it provides to it's customers will opt for Concentration over Compression. The entire phone system is based on Concentration. I suppose that businesses should be happy with FAX speeds of 1200 or 2400 so some greedy telco can buy dirt cheap equipment. > Why should the telcos suffer when they are forced to constantly > accomodate bandwitch-hungry 28.8bps modems which cannot be compressed? > I believe that perhaps they may be entitled to higher revenues for > high bandwidth calls, but that any collection methods (ie. a modem > tax) would be too intrusive and "tacky" for most customers to accept. > Think about it: a telephone call charge based on HOW you communicate > certain information? 28.8 modems were designed to work over the majority of the telephone lines. It doesn't cost any more to option a subscriber line carrier for Concentration than it does to option it for Compression. In the 70s GTE was using concentrations of 2.3 to 1 and 3 to 1 concentration on all of their new Subscriber Carrier installations. In the last eight years, or so, everything has been 1 to 1. If a telco has an area that can't use Concentration, such as an Industrial Park, they should have enough brains to figure out that these businesses will be doing a lot of data calling and know that Compression is not a viable option either. Well, I will get off of my soap box now. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: Misuse of the Internet? Date: 13 Mar 1996 01:38:35 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA I guess I am confused about how users of products like the I-Phone are denying carriers any revenue. Someone correct me if I am wrong on these points. Lets say I am a residential user. (1) I might be on a couple of hours a day. Probably dialed in to a local provider that has a modem pool nearby. The calls fall under my unlimited local calling. I pay my bill, so I am paying my LEC for the call. (2) My ISP is paying their LEC (or other legitimate carrier) for leased circuits from between their servers, routers, etc. They are also paying for all of the lines going into the modems pools, right? (3) My ISP is paying for circuits to connect them to other routers, servers, etc., I suppose. (4) The organizations that run the other routers, servers, etc. are paying for the facilities they use, right? (5) If any of these facilties go interLATA, an IXC is probably getting revenue for at least some of it. It would appear that ALL of the facilities that are being used are being paid for. Whose getting denied revenue? Am I thinking too simple of terms here? Maybe I just don't get it ... or maybe they have been giving it to me all along. :) Curtis ------------------------------ From: eross@terraport.net (Evan Ross) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 15:17:31 GMT Organization: Flashpoint Database Consulting Limited > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B. reported > here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. I suppose that we will > start seeing a flurry of 888 numbers now over the next few months in > the same way that once the new style area codes became 'official' they > started popping up all over the place. Anyone on the list called in > yet to get their 800 number replicated, or put in an order for an 888 > number? As always, stories welcome. PAT] Pat, I put my order in for a vanity 888 for my company as soon as Bell Canada started accepting orders in February. About three or four weeks ago they let me know that the number is available, and it should be live sometime today. The Customer Service people actually knew what I was talking about when I called them -- will the miracles never cease?!? There is an American company also called Flashpoint that has 800-FLASHPT locked up, so they obviously didn't manage to replicate it. Evan Ross | 238 Davenport Rd., Suite 333, Flashpoint Database Consulting Ltd. | Toronto, ON M5R 1J6 +1-416-920-6926 | Fax +1-416-920-6936 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:00:20 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: 888 Appears in Advertisement Carl Moore wrote: > OK, it has happened; I have heard a radio advertisement for > 888-ABS-4000. To which PAT responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you are a day late. Danny B, > reported here Monday that 888-VIRUS-NO was in service. Well, as long as we're trying to identify the first mass-media advertisement containing an 888 number, I suppose I had better mention one that predates both of the above episodes, although I imagine many readers out can cite even earlier ones. Sometime *last week* (March 4 or 5, I think), I heard a radio ad for 360 Communications, which is the new name for Sprint Cellular (in print ads, there's a degree symbol above the "360"). The phone number cited was 1-888-CALL-360. I tried it from my home phone (BellSouth), and it got through just fine. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, speaking of 360 Communications, I was going to run a small article I wrote about them later today but I guess I will mention them now. Although most people have never heard of them, they are planning to spend fifty million dollars this year to make sure that you know about them before the year is over. As you point out, it is the new name for Sprint's cellular service, which has been spun off as a company on its own. Their headquarters is in the Chicago area. Dennis Foster, president and CEO of the new 360 Communications noted the company 'plans to dominate the cellular market' before much longer. He said the company gained 462,000 new cellular customers in 1995, and they plan to have at least that many new customers come aboard in 1996. According to Foster, the company will expand tremendously in the cellular market this year, and he also expects the bottom line to improve as operating margins and cash flows increase, although he was not specific about how he intended to accomplish this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:26:00 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do they *need* a new cable to carry > the traffic? Aren't we talking here more about bookkeeping entries > than we are any significant increase in traffic? Of course there is > a theory which says people do not need a particular telecom service > until they have it, then once it is available they use it a great > deal. So it is possible I guess that if the 'free' calling range is > expanded there will suddenly develop a lot more traffic than prev- > iously. But an entirely new cable being required? PAT] I remember many years ago when Nederland, Texas, finally got extended area service with Beaumont and Port Arthur. (Nederland is an exchange area located more or less midway between Beaumont and Port Arthur, and besides being a residential area also had quite a number of commercial and industrial installations, including the Beaumont- Port Arthur Airport, several major trucking company terminals that served both cities, and various other major employers. The EAS that was established was Beaumont-Nederland and Port Arthur-Nederland, but not Beaumont-Port Arthur.) Experience with EAS conversions was somewhat limited in those days, but usually 2 to 1 or at most 3 to 1 was the increase in traffic that occurred when a route became toll-free. The traffic engineers recognized that this was a little unusual situation, so they engineered generously with a 4 to 1 ratio. The office was in terrible shape right from cutover. When they finally got enough measuring equipment in to calculating the failing calls, they determined that the actual ratio was something like 12 to 1. It was a couple of years before they could finally get all the equipment and trunks in place, and in the meantime all the Plant supervisors had their raises held up because their indices had all kinds of failures. Of course, the bogeys set up were based on adequate equipment and trunking being provided, and failures in such cases indicated the plant was being poorly maintained. But it this case they were working their you-know-whats off just trying to keep it working under the overload but still got gigged. The results were so bad that they seriously affected the results for the division and had a significant impact on the results for the entire state of Texas. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 01:46:25 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > In the longterm it's not very significant. It's just a typical Nynex > ploy to rape the consumer, and I do mean RAPE. What's funny about all this is that I got my BellSouth bill over the weekend, and guess what -- they were ADDING yet ANOTHER "rinky-dink" town, served by ALLTEL, to the local calling area. Right now I can call 30 miles south, 60 miles north, 25 miles east, and 25 miles west of home with NO LD charges (except for PART of one LEC -- see below.) It seems that BellSouth local calling areas are almost always huge -- Atlanta is the world's largest (so large that _multiple_ cellular carriers -- BellSouth and InterCel on B, AirTouch and two CellularOnes and US Cellular on A -- serve the "local" calling area!). Knoxville and Chattanooga are also large, including a number of independents; the Chattanooga, like Atlanta, local calling area contains multiple cellular carriers (who don't necessarily get along.) NYNEX is just playing games. > Of course there is hope. The folks that live in the Diamond Hill > section of Cumberland, RI fought like the devil with Nynex for several > years. Seems their calling area was only the extreme northern part of > the state with Providence, the capitol, being a toll. One telco in this area (Trenton GA Telephone) is LD to Chattanooga from all but one prefix (706-398). TTC charges nearly $60/mo for a "398" number for customers in the other prefixes (657 and 462) -- but over half of TTC's assigned numbers are 398; most residents have a "398" and a "657" or "462" number. Why? Everyone wants Chattanooga to be a local call. Worse, until recently those numbers only allowed calls INTO Trenton, NOT out to Chattanooga! OTOH, another independent, Ringgold Telephone, allows "local" calls that CROSS LATAs (to Dalton which is in the Atlanta LATA, but really shouldn't be!). They've been local to Chattanooga for nearly 35 years! Georgia State Reps. Mike Snow and Brian Joyce have pled with independent telcos (including Trenton) to expand calling areas. County-wide toll-free calling is now implemented in Georgia, but with some counties having as many as SIX telcos (Walker County before recently, for example), that was long, long in coming. "Communities of interest" in adjacent counties for some areas, such as Dalton/LaFayette, are still interLATA LD -- calls from LaFayette to Dalton often cost more than virtually any other call. US Cellular also has been troublesome and VERY uncooperative, charging Chattanooga/NW-GA CellOne customers nearly $1/min to "roam" in Dalton (with no call delivery to boot), while USCC's customers in Chattanooga pay less. BellSouth Mobility charges just 35c/min, and if the MFJ falls apart, Dalton may be LOCAL. Seems in this case, the big telco (BellSouth) wins out over small ones (Trenton, US Cellular, etc.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: roavery@aol.com (Roavery) Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: 11 Mar 1996 12:13:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: roavery@aol.com (Roavery) Thanks for your replies to my original question re enlarging our island's calling area. (I am not a spokesman for our group.) I don't think Nynex or PUC claim that our limited calling area and the concomittant toll revenues we generate are directly linked to the cost of providing us phone service. Originally, the toll structure may have been based on actual costs, but it is now a mostly arbitrary structure designed to generate revenues in a predictable way while meeting customers' minimal expectations. As several people commented, the monthly service charge in each calling area is based on the number of telephones included in the calling area. By that standard, if Deer Isle received the larger calling area it seeks, its charge should go up several dollars per month. But the suggestion made to us is that we should pay much more than that, so as to totally compensate Nynex for the tolls we now generate. Under this approach, the more our toll calls increase with our current limited calling area, the more we would have to pay later to enlarge the area. Under the current system, Nynex is allowed so much state-wide profit; part of that profit currently comes from the tolls we pay. Suppose PUC decided to increase Nynex's total revenues; one way to do that would be to shrink some calling areas in the state and thereby generate more in-state tolls for the company. Unlikely of course, but the flip side of that approach is the status quo for Deer Isle. I think that rather alleging one group is subsidizing another, or that the "true costs" of service are such and such, the primary basis for allocating phone service should a standard of equivalent access at equivalent cost for all users; what is generally called "fairness." ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Maine Island Seeks Wider Calling Area Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 04:00:18 PST When adjusting the calling area for a small island, one thing to keep in mind is possible cross-subsidies for local service from toll. Providing local service to a small number of subscribers on an island is a lot more expensive (per subscriber) than providing service in the city. So already high local rates may be subsidized by all of the off-island toll calling. Eliminate most of the toll revenue, and basic rates may rise a lot. A few years ago Vashon Island was added to the local calling area for Seattle. I thought this was great, because it meant I wouldn't have to pay toll anymore to call my friend Elaine. It turns out that we US West customers in Seattle paid an additional 30 cents per month to have Vashon and also the community of Auburn (not really near Vashon Island) added to our free calling area. But guess what? Vashon Island isn't served by US West, its served by a small independent telco (now actually part of PTI) and in order to pay for the elimination of cross subsidy from all that local toll traffic to Seattle, PTI had to raise Vashon rates quite a bit. It seems to me it was six or eight bucks a month for residential and much more for business lines. As you would expect, because the rates and profits are regulated, for the average Vashon customer the change made no difference. The increase in rates was offset by the cost of the toll calls that were now free. People who didn't call Seattle were outraged, and those who made lots of calls were very happy. Now several years after the change Vashon even has its own internet provider which also serves Seattle. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:07:44 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises drosenba@panix.com (Daniel Rosenbaum) wrote: > I hope the NBA isn't thinking that they'll be able to steamroll STATS; > it's owned by Paul Allen -- co-founder of Microsoft, an NBA team owner > (Seattle Supersonics), and a man with a few spare bucks to defend > himself in court. One might wonder why the NBA thinks their game scores are in any way protectable under copyright. At any instant in time, the score of a game is a factual item, and (unless my understanding of copyright is flawed) the NBA can not copyright facts. The telephone industry had that hammered home in Feist vs. Rural tel. So, it wil be interesting to watch this case, but unless the pager delivery of game scores is also including play-by-play, I can't see the NBA winning this. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When does 'reporting' actually become 'broadcasting'? As I understand it, they are not including play-by- play of the games, except perhaps in the case of certain very extraordinary plays which causes one team or the other to go into the lead or win the game, etc. They are merely reporting the score as it changes throughout the game. Can you legally do this as it occurs without violating the copyright? In order to be 'reported' instead of 'broadcast' must there be some time delay of more than just the few seconds required for the transmission itself? Memories: anyone around here remember years and years ago when the radio stations 'reported' (or did they broadcast?) baseball games using the Western Union ticker? Now, this goes back to pre-television days, and/or the very early days of television when major league baseball games were covered on radio like they are on television now. But usually a local radio station only offered 'live', or on location coverage of 'home' games. They did not want the expense of sending their announcer to a distant city. So these 'away' games were covered by the Western Union operator at the city in particular and sent back to the radio station in the 'home' city. For example, when the Chicago Cubs were playing at home, they were broadcast live by WGN Radio, 720 on the AM dial. The White Sox were broadcast by WCFL, AM-1000. As an aside, we know that WGN's call letters refer to the "World's Greatest Newspaper", i.e. the {Chicago Tribune}, the owner of the station. WCFL on the other hand referred to the Chicago Federation of Labor which was the owner of the station known as 'the voice of Labor in Chicago'. If either team was playing out of town, an announcer in the studio covered the game by literally reading the paper as it came out of the WUTCO printer. The announcer would read whatever was sent, and the WUTCO operator assigned for instance to travel with the Chicago Cubs would just type verbatim whatever happened; 'Ernie Banks hit a line drive to center field; he is running to first base; he is safe; he is running on to second base; tagged him out at second base.' And the local station announcer would read it the same way. The WUTCO machine had a tendency to run in spurts. That is, it would print continuously for two or three minutes, then pause for a minute or two, then print some more. There were always pauses of a minute or so as new batters came up to home plate for their turn. So the guy in the radio station would say whatever action had taken place and as long as the machine was printing he would just keep reading. When the machine came to a halt and he had caught up with reading what was there, the announcer might say, 'well, that's all I have on the wire right now, I'll start reading again when the wire starts moving again ...' and he would put on a record and play music for a couple minutes. Usually by the time the song ended the wire had 'started moving' again and he had another five or ten minutes of reading to do. It was hard for one person to sit there and read out loud for the two or three hours the game was in progress, so after an hour or so the announcer might say 'I am going to take a break for a few minutes and while I am gone, will read the wire. I will be back in about fifteen minutes to take over again.' New person would take over and read a few minutes, then the regular announcer would be back. There were a couple of very small, rinky-dink radio stations whose only reason for existence was to read the wire from the local horse racing tracks. That's all they did. In between races they played music. Those stations mostly were listened to by illegal betting parlors, etc. The WUTCO operators assigned to the race tracks had to be very good, very fast typists, feeding accurate and quick information to the stations, but so did the ones at the baseball games. Once live, remote coverage from distant cities became practical and less expensive, all the radio stations (by then it was mostly the television stations) began covering the games with their own person and their own equipment at the location. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NBA in Full Court Press Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:38:44 -0500 From: Atri Indiresan TELECOM Digest Editor said: > I think this lawsuit is going to have major implications in > the area of new technology and how information can be > delivered. The core issue is whether the pager technology, > which can send out the updates as quickly as two minutes > after some action or event being reported, is giving too much > information too quickly for a company that is not paying > rights to broadcast. > A wide range of technologies -- including everything from > cable and phone companies to online services and the Internet > -- could wind up testing the copyright law that was enacted > in 1976. In fact the whole question of copyright infringement > in cyberspace is one that we will be hearing a lot more about > during the months ahead. At present, the cricket World Cup is taking place in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In addition to direct telecast on PPV and specially arranged satellite hookups, a minute-by-minute game update is available on IRC and on the web. The web locations are http://www.cricket.org and http://jade.indiaworld.com. The service is free, but, IndiaWorld does sell advertising at their web site. As far as I know, no royalties are paid to the World Cup organizers. Would this (and the pager updates of NBA scores) be no more than reporting on the matches in progress? I assume that a newspaper does not pay royalties to NBA to cover a match, and so, why shouldn't I be free to post to UseNet, or update a web site as I watch a game progress on TV? While the actual transmission is copyrighted, I doubt if the scores can be copyrighted too. Atri Indiresan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the answer to your question is that newspapers of necessity have a delay between the event taking place and their report of what occurred. Also, in any event they only summarize the activity and do not report it in detail on a time- delayed basis or otherwise. In the long ago days when radio stations read the Western Union ticker report of the literal game as it was occuring, they also had to pay royalties to the organizers of the sporting event, just as television and radio stations do now. Why should you not be free to update your web site as you watch the event? Well, in the case of Major League Baseball at least, because they give a firm warning at the start of the game that the broadcast is for the exclusive enjoyment of the viewers and may not be rebroadcast or re-transmitted without the express consent of the organization. All this has to be taken in the proper context. Again, at what point does a 'report' of something happening become a 'broadcast' of what is happening? That is why we have courts and lawyers I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #116 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 13 14:40:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA17917; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:40:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199603131940.OAA17917@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #117 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Mar 96 14:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Global Spectrum Regulation/Spectrum Efficiency (101335.772@compuserve.com) NJ ISDN Proceeding (Monty Solomon) Reservation of 888 Toll Free Number (Steve Bunning) 800 Protection Process - User Comment (Judith Oppenheimer) AT&T, AOL, the Baby Bells and the Internet (Bill Sohl) Ameritec ISDN Bulk Call Generator (Bruce Joren) WorldCom/LDDS/WilTel: Comments? (Mark Kushigian) Sound Output Direct to Phone (Bill MacIntosh) Seeking Voice Technologies FAQ (David Bertagni) Caller ID/Calling Card Question (Art Kamlet) "Send" Key Patented? (A.N. Ananth) Telephone Line Monitor (David Neal) Telephone Pioneers Offer Service Vehicle Replica (Van Heffner) 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: 101335.772@compuserve.com Subject: Global Spectrum Regulation/Spectrum Efficiency Date: 13 Mar 1996 09:08:56 GMT Organization: CompuServe Incorporated Summary Of Programme Posted By The Conference Producer - Hugh Roberts - hugh.roberts@itu.ch Announcing an International Conference to be held at the London Marriott Hotel on 28th - 31st May 1996 STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT AND FREQUENCY ALLOCATION IN A GLOBAL MARKETPLACE An up-to-the-minute examination of the potential impact on your business of: Resolutions passed at WRC '95; Regulatory initiatives from around the world; Converging and competing wireless, cordless, cellular and satellite technologies; Recent trends in spectrum pricing and licensing; The economics of spectrum management and allocation; The potential for the global harmonisation of spectrum management and frequency allocation; Including 41 Speakers from 18 countries. The first day's technical briefing - Optimising Spectrum Efficiency and Technology Choice - focuses on the cellular and wireless technologies which underpin the development and roll out of radio based trunk, fixed radio access and mobile cellular and wireless systems. The second and third days - Global Spectrum Management & Frequency Allocation - will concentrate on exploring and discussing the latest regulatory initiatives from around the world, and includes a particular focus on the emerging LEO and MEO global mobile satellite systems. Opening with a review of the outcomes and implications of WRC '95, other key areas to be discussed include an examination of the ways in which spectrum pricing and licensing is developing and a detailed discussion on the extent to which economic factors should determine how the radio spectrum is managed. The conference ends with a panel discussion on the potential for the global harmonisation of spectrum management. Finally, the fourth day's workshop - Preparing A Successful Bid For A Radio Licence - will provide the opportunity to question the experts in a fully interactive environment on how to prepare and submit an application for a radio licence. Although concentrating on the US and Europe, the day's proceedings will also be of great benefit to regulators from emerging markets who would like to gain a clear understanding of the procedures employed. PROGRAMME SUMMARY TECHNOLOGY BRIEFING - TUESDAY 28TH MAY 1996 OPTIMISING SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY & TECHNOLOGY CHOICE 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 6.15 Programme 6.15 Cocktail Reception Chair: SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING, DELOITTE & TOUCHE CONSULTING GROUP Technology Update: FINNET GROUP, QUALCOMM, HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, PCSI, TETRA MoU/TELEDANMARK, NATIONAL BAND THREE Spectrum Usage And Efficiency: DELOITTE & TOUCHE CONSULTING GROUP Frequency Hopping & Reuse: NORTEL GSM WIRELESS NETWORKS, TADIRAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS Spectrum Allocation & Network Planning: ALCATEL TELECOM Third Generation Mobile Systems: NOKIA MOBILE PHONES, ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEMS Modulation Techniques: SIEMENS CONFERENCE DAY ONE - WEDNESDAY 29TH MAY 1996 GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT & FREQUENCY ALLOCATION 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 6.15 Programme 6.05 Cocktail Reception Chair: RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING The Implications Of WRC '95: ITU, Richard Butler Mechanisms For Allocating Spectrum Licences: FCC (USA) The Economics Of Spectrum Management: INDUSTRY CANADA, N/E/R/A (NATIONAL ECONOMIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (THE NETHERLANDS) Global Satellite Systems: ICO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, IRIDIUM, ODYSSEY, GLOBALSTAR, TELEDESIC Regulating A Global Satellite Market: COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, LESLIE TAYLOR ASSOCIATES CONFERENCE DAY TWO - THURSDAY 30TH MAY 1996 GLOBAL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT & FREQUENCY ALLOCATION 8.45 - 9.20 Registration 9.20 - 5.00 Programme Chair: CEPT ERC, SMITH SYSTEM ENGINEERING Regional Updates: Trends In National Spectrum Management: FCC (USA), SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT AGENCY (AUSTRALIA), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), DEPT. OF POSTS AND TELECOMMS (SOUTH AFRICA), GENERAL INSPECTORATE OF COMMUNICATIONS (HUNGARY), TELECOM NEW ZEALAND Moving From Analogue To Digital Broadcasting: EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION The European Harmonisation Of Frequency Allocation: EUROPEAN RADIO OFFICE, RAM COMMUNICATIONS/ETSI, LUCENT/ETSI The Potential For Integrated Global Spectrum Management, Mr A. M. Joshi (INDIA), Mr A. Berrada (MOROCCO) WORKSHOP - FRIDAY 31ST MAY 1996 PREPARING A SUCCESSFUL BID FOR A RADIO LICENCE 9.00 - 9.30 Registration 9.30 - 4.15 Programme The timing of this highly interactive workshop programme will remain flexible to meet the needs of the participating delegates. Attendee numbers will be limited to ensure a fully participative event. Applications for attendance will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Workshop Led By: INTERCONNECT COMMUNICATIONS Further contributions will be made by: FCC (USA), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (UK), RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (NETHERLANDS) and others WHO WILL YOU MEET? This Telecoms World Congress is a high level forum designed specifically for Government Officials, Regulatory Administrators, Directors, Heads and Managers of Companies whose business depends on achieving an intimate understanding of this key area of communications policy and technological development. Attendees will be drawn from the areas of Spectrum Management and Frequency Al