From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 2 02:50:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA22090; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:50:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604020750.CAA22090@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #151 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 96 02:51:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Ron Elkayam) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Pavel Beker) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (John Higdon) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Dan Ryan) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Steve Travis) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Robert McMillin) Re: Sprint Goes Postal (Stanley Cline) Re: Sprint Saga Continues (ldlcoop@bnr.ca) Re: Sprint: Bait and Switch? (Linc Madison) Re: Sprint? More Like "Walk Slowly" (Mark Smith) MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems (Mike Fox) New List: Netizens Association Discussion (Michael Hauben) Talking Clock Changes Phone Numbers (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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, 01 Apr 1996 17:15:49 -0500 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays It sounds like Sprint is going to get a large number of complaints on Fridays are Free. The FCC provides informations on filing complaints at its web site (http://www.fcc.gov). A relevant excerpt follows: "TELEPHONE SERVICES (Common Carrier Bureau) -- If you have a problem with a telephone company or other company providing these services, you should first try to resolve your problem with the company providing the service or the company billing you for the service. If this is not successful, then you should file a complaint with the proper regulatory agency. For example, complaints about services provided within a state (intrastate) should be filed with the Public Utility Commission for that state. Complaints about services provided between states (interstate) should be addressed to the FCC Common Carrier Bureau, Consumer Complaints, Mail Stop Code 1600A2, Washington, D.C. 20554. The telephone number is 202-632-7553. You may file either an informal complaint or a formal complaint with the FCC. The FCC established the informal complaint process to make it easy for consumers to file complaints about telephone carrier services and for carriers to act promptly, where possible, to satisfy such complaints. Informal complaints are NO LESS important than formal complaints, which are more complex to file, require a $140 filing fee, and which may take an attorney's service. Informal complaints are simply easier to file." An informal complaint is basically just a letter. You should include any relevant facts including the name of the carrier, note what you think the carrier did wrong, and what remedy you are seeking. The FCC will ask the carrier to respond. If the carrier satisfies you, the file is closed. Otherwise the FCC may get involved. Carriers do not like these complaints because they have to respond, and the FCC tracks and may release the number of complaints against carriers. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f-save@snet.net ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron(ell) Elkayam) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 01 Apr 1996 21:10:24 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) wrote: > So you can make $50 worth of calls every Friday, nothing else during > the week, and pay only tax. (How much is tax, by the way? On > $1,000 it could add up!) No ... You'll pay $50 total (no tax) since you didn't make any calls during non-Friday days (and you definitely didn't break the $1000 barrier). Unless, they give you the $1000 free on their end ONLY, but you still pay the federal excise, local and state taxes??! I'd call them RIGHT NOW to clarify, but their business office is closed today. Oh, BTW, I hope everybody notices that some months have five Fridays while others have onlyfour. It's best to know what you billing cycle is (mine is 5th -> 4th) so you don't treat the current billing month as a four-Friday month while it really has five Fridays; that would mean you PAY for the calls on the fifth Friday. W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" ------------------------------ From: pbeker@crl.com (Pavel Beker) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 01 Apr 1996 12:01:15 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) writes: > Ken Leonard recently wrote: (He pointed out that the rate quoted was a night rate, not a day rate, and yet ...) > One of their TV commercials, which shows a man making a phone call > during what is obviously sometime in the afternoon (from a phone > booth), has a sticker on the phone booth door saying something like > "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". [ . . . ] Weekend. =) This is NO worse than "RATEGATE" or any of the hundreds of other various deceptive advertising / promotions every LD carrier does ... Paul (PS: Weekends are 10c/min, sunny or not, so technically, the call could happen...) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:39:38 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News randolph@coax.net (William Randolph) writes: > I was not aware that there was ever a Pic'ing charge. Are you saying > that if I am Pic'd to AT&T and I manually Pic to Sprint 10333 that > there is a 40 cent charge? The 80 cent AT&T access charge you're > speaking of is calling card access isn't it? Small point of order here. PIC (Preferred Interexchange Carrier) is the service a particular line uses by default. To change the PIC, the local telco must reprogram your line in the central office. When one dials a carrier (10XXX) code to circumvent the PIC, it is generally referred to as "casual" usage of the carrier. Any given line can only have one PIC (or no PIC), and it cannot be changed by the user on the fly. 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 | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 01:01:02 PST From: Dan Ryan Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Can there be anyone who still thinks that Sprint Sense makes any sense for Sprint? My own experience of the end of the offer was returning home after three days out of town on Thursday night to find the telegram which I gather everybody else has received. But better than that, my long distance service had been cut off. Any attempt to dial long distance got a Sprint recorded message telling me to press 1 for a customer representative. Presumably due to the thousands of other irate customers, this doesn't work and neither does their regular customer service line. So not only do I not have Friday free service, but I have no service at all, except by pic'ing to another carrier. I immediately called MCI who had contacted me with a rather attractive offer a few days ago and switched to them. A change of carrier around here takes over a week, so Sprint has left me with not even their residential service for that time. Anyone know if Sprint's luckless customer representatives, who must have had the worst few days of their working lives, are now going to be asked to cold call their unhappy former customers in a few weeks? But I guess we all knew before that Sprint doesn't care a whole bunch about its employees ... _ _ 681 Cambridge Drive / \ __ / \ __ Santa Barbara, CA 93111 / / /_/ /| / /__/ /_/ /_/ /| / (805) 967-3177 /__/ / / / |/ / \ / / / / |/ danryan@econ.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack Stravis Shawn Travis) Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Date: 02 Apr 1996 03:21:20 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. A useful tactic might be a polite letter to Sprint, questioning their legitimacy as a business, and explaining that further payments of Sprint bills cannot be processed without a copy of their articles of incorporation, and their vendor's license. Steve Brack - stravis@glass.toledolink.com ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 06:39:56 GMT On 28 Mar 1996 11:34:01 PDT, Pat said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, that would be sort of nasty. > People making calls *today, Friday* who have not yet seen the 26 > minute notice of cancellation sent out to them. So next month they > get this huge bill for calls and when they complain, Sprint says > 'tough luck, sucker! Your weekday calls were not balancing out with > your Friday calls so we reneged on our contract. We gave you 26 > minutes notice to get the required documentation to our office. Now > you can sue us if you like but we know you won't since it is a long > involved procedure you cannot afford. PAT] Do you really think so? Sprint extended its customers credit. If the customer didn't pay because of a legitimate, documented dispute, payment may not have to be made immediately -- or ever, which is what I expect will happen. Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from AT&T and switch. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Sprint Goes Postal Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:37:08 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services keith@tcs.com wrote: > customers. We are therefore writing to obtain verification of your > business status. The acceptable forms of documented verification > include: > An official document containing both the Tax ID number and the > Company Name (Examples include: Tax Returns, Notice of Tax ID) This still leaves open the question of: o "work-at-homers" who may in fact have a valid EIN (in the format 58-xxxxxxx, not 255-xx-xxxx), such as myself (an EIN is REQUIRED for those who pay employees, get a business license, etc. in this area) and can provide it and still get free Fridays on their "personal" lines _without_Sprint_ever_knowing_ o corporations based in someone's home who MAY run on residential lines (I know an ISP like this!) o nonprofit organizations (churches, fraternities, etc.) who qualify for "residential" rates from most LECs. Do most fraternities, or pastors at home, make business calls? Probably not. They are making no sense (PUN INTENDED) whatever with their "requirements". Does their tariff cover situations like these? They are ambiguous to say the least. Basing tariffs on such vague business "requirements", rather than on the requirement of a "business" rate LEC line, has caused all this confusion. I'm surprised the FCC didn't ask for clarification of their exact eligibility rules. They are just playing hardball with their customers. AT&T surcharges casual callers and increases rates all the time and cut off my calling card twice w/o notifying me ... MCI surcharges casual callers (otherwise, they're fine) ... Sprint tariffs are vague/they play hardball and discriminate and their cellular division (before they spun it off) hates roamers ... LDDS Worldcom still recognizes 205 for 334 in Mobile, AL (yes, they STILL do!) and can't get their network together. I can't say that my current LD carriers play such shenanigans. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 23:41:52 GMT From: ldlcoop@bnr.ca Subject: Re: Sprint Saga Continues Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Pat, I thought I should bring this to your notice, The local Southwestern Bell recently sent me a letter saying that my long distance bill has increased three times and that my service will be disconnected within four days if i did not pay $360 as deposit besides paying a $650 bill. The fact was that I had shifted to Sprint (like many even I think I had fallen as a bait to the butterly marketing and shifted to Sprint on getting confirmed that even residential lines can avail the facility), and Sprint was to have sent me the bill. Later with panic I called SWBT and had to talk to four representatives for two and a half hours and wait on hold to get the Sprint represen- tative only to be questioned continously whether it is a business line or not. Finally when I told the conversation that went between me and the marketing rep. they agreed to waive the bill and said that my Friday calling program stands terminated. The sad part of it was that the representative to whom I talked to did not return my calls and when I said that a friend of mine was willing to join Sprint he gave me a call and so I took the oppurtunity to discuss my problem but he arrogantly put the phone down ... My question is can someone promise something and then take back their word and then when we call back their behaviour is rude. It is pretty contrasting to how they talk before we shift to their carrier ... I just wanted to bring this to the reader's notice that they should never at the first instance believe unless they get something in writing from any person or company which promises to give a unbelievably good deal like the one Sprint offered (one couldn't say Sprint has given something because they never abided by their promise; in fact it is a breach of promise.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, they cannot legally break their word and back out of promises they made in their advertising, etc. However, their defense in a legal action against them might be that the representative had no authority or right to make such promises to you to begin with; that you made false or misleading statements to the rep to induce the rep to commit on behalf of the company to the program in which you were incorrectly and without tariff authority enrolled; and that the tariff specifically forbids you to be in the program in question. Anytime there is a misunderstanding or an improper arrangement set up in violation of the tariff, then in all instances, the tariff will prevail. The above is all a moot point anyway; they know that no one kicked out of the Business Sense program has the resources to sue them and win. Do *you* have a good attorney who is a skilled practioner in communications law? They're not really concerned about what you think. An informal complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission might get you some relief. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Sprint: Bait and Switch? Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 21:11:54 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , srkleine@midway. uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) wrote: > An issue that might be relevant: given that those Mailgrams some of us > have been getting inform us that our Sprint accounts will be converted > to Sprint Sense, couldn't some argument be made that this is a bait > and switch tactic? > BTW, since you asked, Pat, my first bill showed that the first four > Fridays had roughly $320 in calls. I expect the next one, of the last > three Fridays, to be around $240. I didn't sign up for the "Fridays Free" program, because the advantage of Friday for free is more than balanced in my case by the higher rate the other six days a week. However, the tactics Sprint is using brought to mind a recent discussion I had with their reps about the regular "Sprint Sense" program and its "cash back" provision. I finally got around to calling the stupid 800 number to sign up for the cash back program on Sprint Sense, and I demanded to know why they didn't just automatically sign me up for it, since in essence they just added a new feature to the existing program. In brief, the question boils down to, why would ANYONE ever want to have Sprint Sense WITHOUT the cash back deal? Maybe you don't make enough calls to qualify, so it does you no good, but it does you no harm and maybe as the months go by you'll peek above that magic $25/month threshhold. The reps INSISTED that they couldn't switch me to a new plan without my express permission! (Never mind that they did exactly that when they arbitrarily cancelled a previous discount plan, and then switched me "by default" to a plan that, again, no one in his/her/its right mind would ever choose.) Of course, AT&T's marketing slime woke me at 8:30 the other morning trying to sell me health insurance. Yippee. A couple of years ago, while I was in Europe for ten months, my credit union converted my checking (share draft) account "by default" from one with no monthly charge and no per-check charge to one with a $6/month service charge plus $0.35/check I wrote plus a charge for coming to the teller in person plus a $1/month charge for *having* an ATM card (whether I used it or not!) plus a $1/transaction charge if I used it. Again, why would ANYONE ever choose this account over any of the others offered?? Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Sprint? More like "Walk Slowly" Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 11:59:31 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In article , write: > I'm about ready to ditch them all entirely for Working Assets > as my LD carrier ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well surprise! Working Assets will get > you Sprint in disguise. WA is a big reseller of Sprint. It sounds like > Sprint may have really bungled up the Free Friday promotion. This may > even be more of a scandal for them than the 'free fax modem' promotion > a couple years ago. Long time readers will recall that one stunk up > the place pretty bad also. PAT] I'd just like to come to the defense of Working Assets as a happy customer. WALD has always handled my customer service requests immediately. They also have covered for their marketing mistakes. A year or two ago, they offered a $10 credit towards any customer whose name was mentioned by another new customer. I added a new line to my home, and wanted the $10 for adding a new line (because I could have set up a separate billing and gotten the credit anyway). They credited it to me grudgingly, but this year when I did the same, I got the $10 credit automatically. It seems that they learned that customers would be willing to double their billing for the credit, so they wised up and gave it to new lines as well. Working Assets may use Sprint's equipment, but their customer service is of a higher quality than any other company out there. Mark Smith [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I am sure they are quite good; probably because they do everything but actually supply the circuit; the wire between point A and B. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 01 Apr 96 14:25:59 GMT Subject: MCI Free 800# F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems Maybe some of you have seen MCI's ads in which they are giving away a personal 800 number and 100 free minutes to people who switch to the new F&F plan. I called to sign up for this and just got my materials. Once the fine print is known, the deal isn't quite what it seems. First, the free 800 number. One of the ads clearly shows Whoopi Goldberg giving a little girl a card with her personal 800 number on it: 1-800-xxx-xxxx. No four-digit extension is shown. However, lo and behold, the 800 number they give you has a four-digit extension. So you're actually sharing your "personal" 800 number with up to 9999 people. They call it a security code, but when I called MCI to ask them to change the "security code" to something I could better remember, they told me that the code I wanted was taken. Then the guy fessed up that they had had overwhelming response to the free 800 number promotion, and they only have one 800-nxx space for 800 numbers, so people are sharing. I guess this is OK, it will reduce the wrong number and wardialed calls on my personal 800 number that I have to pay for. But I wanted to get one of these numbers for my fax machine; however it's really not practical because most fax machines I know of can't dial extensions, err, I mean security codes. Then there's the 100 free minutes. The ads, and even the brochure that they sent me, said "100 free minutes", not "up to 100 free minutes." But the fine print of my materials sez "up to 100 free minutes." The even finer print explains that it's 100 free minutes at off-peak rates only, the maximum value of free minutes you can get is the value of 100 minutes at off peak hours, and once you have used $21.25 or something like that worth of free time, you're done, even if it wasn't 100 minutes. Rather disappointing. I've been an MCI customer for over ten years and I've never had a complaint with them until this. And it's still not a bad deal; the number is free and they're giving me free time. It's just not as good as their commercials show, and I think the commercials are a bit misleading. Mike ------------------------------ From: hauben@inibara.cc.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) Subject: New List: Netizens Association Discussion Date: 2 Apr 1996 05:36:24 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: hauben@columbia.edu NEW LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: NETIZENS ASSOCIATION During a recent trip to Japan, I met a number of networking enthusiasts who were interested in spreading the Internet in Japan. They found the Netizen concept to be helpful in their efforts. One student who I met in Tokyo, Hiroyuki Takahashi, suggested that there was a need to form a Netizens Association. This association could work towards educating people and helping them to gain literacy in both the technical and social aspects of working, living and playing on the Net. In addition, this Netizens Association would function as a forum to bring people together to protect and advance the Net as a new public commons and global community. I propose to work towards forming a prototype for a local Netizens Association chapter. The success of a few such chapters could lead to the spreading of chapters focused around educational institutions or communities. This would be in conjunction with efforts by people working for similar goals in other countries across the globe like Japan, and Canada. (From Towards a Netizens Association: Proposed Netizens List Charter) In response to these common goals, it was proposed that a Netizens Association be formed. Such an association would fill two purposes, 1) to bring together netizens interested in nuturing the net and 2) to spread knowledge and literacy to those not on-line. To that purpose, the majordomo mailing list netizens@columbia.edu has been created. This list will begin the discussion towards the principles, goals and questions for such an association. I would hope local Netizen Association chapters would form based on this list. These associations could help spread Net Literacy and encourage both new and old users to contribute to the Net. Look to the WWW page: for more information. How to Join: send an e-mail message to netizens-request@columbia.edu with the message body of subscribe
netizens If this does not work, send e-mail to majordomo@columbia.edu with a message body of subscribe
netizens If neither way works, write me at netizens-owner@columbia.edu Michael Hauben Teachers College Dept. of Communication Netizens Netbook http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ WWW Music Index http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many of you will recall that Michael Hauben wrote to the Digest not too long ago about his trip to Japan and the people he met there. At the time there was a discussion about the possible formation of a "Netizens Association" and I am glad to see he has decided to accept the challenge. I wish him best of luck with it and with his mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:09:01 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Talking Clock Changes Phone Numbers The phone number for the Naval Observatory Master Clock voice announcements has been changed. Calls to 202-653-1800 now reach a recorded intercept message saying: "Thank you for calling the Defense Department Tempo (?) network. The number you have dialed, two oh two, six five three, one eight hundred has been changed. The new number is 202-762-1401." That seemed strange to me but I dialed it and got the clock. So, you may wish to make a note of it also. Apparently the number for computers to call remains the same as it always was. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #151 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 11:08:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA14523; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:08:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:08:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031608.LAA14523@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #152 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 11:08:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (David S. Greenberg) FCC Rate Filings (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Keith Jarett) UC Berkeley Short Course on High Speed LAN Technology (Harvey Stern) BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing (Mike King) Caller ID and DID Trunks (Glenn Foote) No Payphone Calls After Dark? (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 mirror.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: mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David S. Greenberg) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 3 Apr 1996 08:49:26 -0600 Organization: Greeny's Bar & Grill Christopher L. Davis writes: Ahhh, sounds like AmeriWreck up here in Chicago. A few weeks ago, I began have troubles with my home mailman, so I started switching all my mail over to a PO box I have. Ameritech for my home use said "sure no problem...". AmeriWreck cellular however gave me some song and dance routine about not allowing that to be done because of the potential for fraud. I ended up arguing with the fool for about 30 minutes until he agreed to put it in the system. Then I called the business office back the next day to make sure it went thru -- it did. We'll see at the end of the month ... The other wonderful thing AmeriWreck has been touting is the PIN. The PIN is 'free', confidential, blahblahblah ... yeah right. How many people are going to use the same PIN for their phone as they do for their ATM cards and everything else? How can the PIN be confidential when it's transmitted in the clear over the airwaves? I have flat out refused to get YET another number that does little to prevent fraud (well, at least until the pirates out there get a software upgrade or two) ... Besides which, I usually keep my phone off and have the autolock enabled ... So I already have to enter a PIN everytime I turn the thing on -- WHY oh WHY would I want to enter a PIN everytime I make a call? I would be more than happy to have to use the PIN everytime I turn the phone on, but not everytime I make a call. It's bad enough to try dialing while driving, but to have to enter a PIN (or speed dial it) right after sending the number is going to be a real pain in the tail. I for one plan on cancelling my service if they force this crap on me. And if they say I can't break my contract, then I'm going to sue them for breach of contract. And I can't wait until someone causes a nice major pileup on the xpressway and blames it on having to enter the PIN in their phone. Am I correct in assuming that there is a device out there that 'fingerprints' the antenna of the phone and if the 'print' doesn't match (i.e. cloned phone) that it kills the connection? If so, why doesn't AmeriWreck use that rather than inconveniencing their customers. Oh, and don't even get me started on the 'Interconnect Charge' they started with ... Just waiting patiently until I can go with a different local provider ... for home ... for cellular. Mac, PC, UNIX, etc. Guru at Large.. Internet: mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However Cliff McGlamry says it may not be possible to break the contract simply because the carrier still continues to provide the essence of what the contract is about, namely cellular service. He says the fine print in the contract gives them the right to change some of the operating parameters and that the customer is responsible for having equipment which works correctly. PAT ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:32:18 GMT Organization: TCSI > As you can see they have changed their policy. I in fact called up > Sprint Business and was told that yes indeed what I was told in early > February that as a non-business customer I could use Sprint as long as > I paid the higher rates, but that since then the higher authorities at > Sprint have changed their minds and that more importantly if Sprint > does not enforce their new policy of offering this service to > businesses only they will be in serious trouble with the FCC. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The truth is the FCC does not care who enrolls for what program. > Sprint is saying that to pass the buck and try to get out of the mess > they created by their own marketing decisions and lack of coordination > with their customer service representatives. And here's the proof, Patrick. On page B12 of the March 22, 1996 {Wall Street Journal} is a story that the FCC has proposed eliminating rate filings by long-distance telephone companies, under authority granted it by the new telecom bill. Choice quotes from the article: "The FCC long considered the public filings a potential means of price collusion and unnecessary to protect consumers." "Indeed, the commission has largely ignored the rate filings since last fall when it declared AT&T Corp. a 'non-dominant' carrier." So Sprint isn't fooling anyone by pretending that the FCC is forcing it to cut off residential users of Business Sense, many or most of whom never claimed to have businesses. It's Sprint's decision all the way. BTW, has anyone faxed back to Sprint that: 1) they do not have a business at home, 2) they never claimed to have a business, and 3) they expect Sprint to honor its freely entered agreement? If so, what was the result? Keith Jarett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I imagine the result would be that Sprint would claim in reference to (3) that the representative had no authority to enter into such an agreement and that the tariff flatly prohibits it and therefore they are cancelling it. Now what happens after that if someone chooses to push further, I do not know at this point. This is still a fairly new problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: UC Berkeley Short Course on High Speed LAN Technology Date: 2 Apr 1996 22:37:14 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 2 Berkeley Nationwide Short Courses on: LEADING EDGE LAN TECHNOLOGIES (April 25-26, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 15-16, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION As LAN Technologies have matured, their use has expanded both in numbers of installations, and in the demands placed on them by emerging applications. This has spawned the growth of a multitude of options for new, high-performance LANs. This course takes an in-depth technical look at many of the technologies that may be applied to solve network growth problems, both today and in the future. The instructor, Rich Seifert, is a developer and co-author of many of the industry standards for LANs and internetworking. The course examines the application and operation of all of the available options for deploying next-generation LAN systems. Topics include: Interconnecting LANs, LAN Switches, Virtual LANs High-Speed LAN Alternatives: IEEE 802.3/Fast Ethernet: 100Base-T, IEEE 802.12/100VG-AnyLAN, ANSI X3T12: FDDI/FDDI-Over-Copper (CDDItm), Asynchronous Transaction Mode (ATM LANs), Wireless LANs. Emphasis is placed on real-world tradeoffs of cost, product availability and interoperability in a confusing evolving market. This course is appropriate for development engineers and managers, network planners and administrators, MIS managers, product marketers, and support personnel responsible for making decisions regarding the deployment of next-generation LAN equipment. This course is not a primer in networking; some familiarity with existing LAN technologies and application environments is assumed. Lecturer: RICH SEIFERT, M.S.E.E., M.B.A., is President of Networks and Communications Consulting, formerly with Digital Equipment Corp. and Industrial Networking, Inc., he was responsible for the development of the Ethernet physical layer and specifications, as well as Token Bus Factory LAN products. He is co-author of the IEEE 802.1, 802.3, 802.4 and Fast Ethernet standards, and is currently working on Wireless LANs, Internetworking, Protocol design, High Speed networks and new network architectures. A much sought after lecturer, Mr. Seifert teaches courses on networking for the University of California at Berkeley and many private companies. Networks and Communications Consulting works with a number of firms developing and manufacturing network products. LEADING-EDGE PROTOCOLS (April 23-24, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 13-14, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION This comprehensive course covers the very latest advances in Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) including: Ipv6 and transition strategies from Ipv4, smoothe address management, BOOTP and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, problems and issues for large IP networks, video server requirements, multicast, bandwidth reservation (RSVP) design and application, IP working with ATM. Lecturer: BEN TSAO is a leading expert in network protocols and network design. As Director of advanced technology for GIWA International, he specializes in meeting and exceeeding tactical and strategic business objectives through the effective use of information technology. Tsao brings 20 years of teaching and real-world experience to the classroom. He has taught Advanced Data Communication courses to over 5000 IS professionals in the US, Canada, Europe, and China. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Jennifer Keup U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 220 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:42:09 PST Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:49:43 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth .......................................April 1, 1996 ATLANTA -- Tomorrow, April 2, BellSouth (NYSE:BLS) is filing its sixth Annual Access Tariff under the FCC's Price Cap incentive regulation plan. These new rates become effective July 1, 1996. In this filing, BellSouth's overall access rates will be essentially unchanged from the 1995 filing level, despite 2.5% inflation in 1995 and a $90 million increase in allowable costs. These rates will continue to include additional voluntary rate reductions below the overall "Price Cap" levels permitted, amounting to $63 million this July. These voluntary extra rate reductions are but one more reflection of BellSouths ability to compete. The FCC's Price Regulation plan provides the incentive for Local Exchange telephone companies like BellSouth to improve earnings if a company can exceed the plan's annual efficiency gain targets. Again this year, BellSouth is electing the highest efficiency improvement target, 5.3%, which maximizes the plan's annual rate reductions for customers. The Price Regulation plan's 5.3% option also provides the highest opportunity for BellSouth to improve earnings from its efficiency gains. It also means the real (inflation adjusted) cost of telephone service will decline by 5.3 percent. Including these rates, since the start of FCC Price Regulation in 1991, BellSouth has reduced interstate switched access rates permitting approximately $800 million in savings to long distance customers had the long-distance companies reduced basic rates instead of raising them in virtual lock step. Under FCC Price Cap regulation, the cumulative value of these interstate switched access rate reductions indicates savings of approximately $2 billion. These access rate reductions have been implemented despite a rise of 16.6% in consumer price inflation for 1991 through the end of 1995. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BST), provides telecommunications services in the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. With headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves approximately 21-million local telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world. BACKGROUND On Tuesday, April 2, 1996, BellSouth will file with the FCC adjustments to rates for interstate services. The FCC requires carriers subject to price cap regulations to file revised access tariffs reflecting proposed rates and to make appropriate adjustments to the Price Cap Indices. This filing adjusts certain rates in BellSouth's FCC No. 1 (Access Services Tariff) for Switched and Special Access Transport Services. The rates filed are scheduled to become effective July 1, 1996. However, the FCC staff will study the filing and other parties will be allowed to submit comments prior to approval. __________________________ Annual Access Tariff Revisions -------------------------- Q. Are you filing a rate increase or decrease? A.We are filing an increase of 0.03% to these rates.The overall effect of this is a revenue increase of approximately $300,000. Q. What is the productivity offset? A. The productivity offset is used in the Price Cap formula to represent the FCC's expectation that productivity improvements in the company will exceed those in the economy in general. In simple terms, it encourages the company to do substantially better than simply offsetting inflation when it sets interstate prices. Q. Why is BellSouth choosing the 5.3% productivity offset this year? A. BellSouth has to assess many factors in making its selection. Factors such as increased competition and the impact of national telecommunications legislation had to be considered. We then determined that the 5.3% offset best met the needs of the company. Q. The general trend the last several years has been to decrease rates. Why is BellSouth increasing rates this year? A. This rate change is negligible (three one-hundredths of one percent) and overall interstate access rates remain $63 million below the allowed price cap. ### For Information Contact: Joe Chandler, BellSouth Telecommunications (404)529-6235 Bill McCloskey, BellSouth Corporation (202) 463-4129 ---------------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: 2 Apr 1996 15:20:10 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I'm posting this for a friend who has some interesting questions about Caller-ID, Call Blocking, and Related Services in Ameritech Land (Ohio). [They have a legitimate well documented need for this service.] He is responsible for several PBX systems (ROLM), which use DID (Wink Start) Trunks and Regular Central Office PBX (Ground Start) trunks for outbound calls. At least two of the PBXs are fed using T1 from the central office. Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). Since this change would effectively scrap a few hundred-thousand dollars of equipment, which is otherwise working perfectly, he is reluctant to accept this statement at face value. Nor is he willing to enter into an agreement which would require several thousand more per month in operating cost (not to mention station hardware) to get a Centrex system. There would be only a minor cost to upgrade some of the ROLM systems. Ameritech is somewhat "less than helpful" in this situation, as you might expect. From what he relates to me, it appears to me that response to his inquires at Ameritech are sluggish as best, and at worst either non-existent or misleading. I am semi-retired from this area of the Consulting Business, so I am a little rusty on the technical details of providing Caller-ID to DID circuits. If he needs it, I have offered to step back in, or to recommend someone else, if that would be better for him. They are not yet at that point. In fact, I don't even see this as a Consultant type of problem, although that may change. I would love to hear from anyone who is using Caller-ID on DID Wink Start trunks (Any Switch, AnyWhere but especially in Ameritech Territory). Any comments? ** Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:39:25 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: No Payphone Calls After Dark? BellSouth Wants South Carolina Approval to Turn Pay Telephones Off Overnight By Wendy Warren, The State, Columbia, S.C. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 3 -- Some pay phones across the state would stop working at night, if BellSouth gets its way. According to the phone company, a few businesses have complained that nearby pay phones encourage drug sales, prostitution and loitering. So BellSouth has asked state regulators for permission to temporarily turn off pay phones if businesses request it. Phones might be turned off overnight or for a few hours during the day. BellSouth didn't say Tuesday which businesses want nearby pay phones turned off. But, the company said, signs on the affected phones would reveal when the phones work and when they don't. Emergency 911 calls would go through, even while the phones are turned off. BellSouth says it is just asking for something that its business customers want: control over their grounds. "We are trying to give those folks the flexibility to deal with some less-than-pleasant situations," said Gregg Morton, a spokesman for BellSouth. But pay phones that don't work could leave other callers stranded, unable to call anything but 911 from some pay phones. Travelers could be frustrated by phones that only work in the daytime. And people who don't have phones in their homes could find their only access to telecommunications gone for hours at a time. "I would be really concerned if they cut off pay phones in the evening in certain areas," said Sue Berkowitz, co-director of the South Carolina Legal Services Association. "They could be cutting off any kind of access to phones for some people." Consumer advocates also are concerned that BellSouth would turn off a pay phone at the request of a business, without input from the police. BellSouth says it will study a phone's call patterns before turning the phone off, but won't request input from the police. In the past, the PSC has allowed pay-phone companies to change the way pay phones work to stem drug sales or other crimes. But, in those cases, the PSC only stopped incoming calls to those phones. And it always required a letter from a law-enforcement agency requesting the change. Police like it that way. "You need to do a lot of research before you jump on something like that," said Warren Gall, a captain with Myrtle Beach police. He asked the PSC to stop incoming calls to one pay phone, which he believed was used to sell drugs and hire prostitutes. Limiting phone use works, Gall said -- if it is part of a larger crackdown. When he asked the PSC to stop incoming calls to a pay phone at a convenience store on Highway 501, he also told the owner to install a fence and post no-trespassing signs. He even moved a police team into the neighborhood. "I think it's always needed to keep any and every legal means of disrupting drug activity and vice activity," Gall said. BellSouth's request is now being considered by the state's Public Service Commission. Tuesday, the commission decided to mull over the matter for another week before voting on it. But one commissioner said Tuesday that he wasn't sure the PSC should stop requesting a letter from police before changing a phone's operation. Dukes Scott said that BellSouth's request seemed broad. Businesses "might have people they just don't like using the pay phones," Scott said. "It's giving a lot of discretion to BellSouth." But BellSouth said that it didn't want to turn off pay phones indiscriminately -- and neither do businesses, which are paid for keeping a pay phone on the premises. Similar arrangements have been approved in all of BellSouth's nine Southeastern states, except North and South Carolina, Morton said. "I think it's really an effort to respond to what our customers are asking for," Morton said. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #152 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 11:55:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA19789; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:55:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:55:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031655.LAA19789@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #153 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 11:55:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Steve Bagdon) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Bob Goudreau) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Kammerer) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Thomas P. Brisco) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Garrett Wollman) Cellular Telephone PIN's and Authentication - View from UK (Greg Eaton) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (Phil Stanley) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (John A. Weeks III) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (Stuart J. Zimmerman) 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 mirror.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: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:35:20 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Our Esteemed Moderator Writes:> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You > would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five > one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower > and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- > ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to > each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help > cut down on fraud. PAT] The problem with voiceprint technology is that a simple thing like a cold renders the system worthless. Ever try voice dialing with a cold? There probably exists technology that gets around the problem but the cost is probably prohibitive. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:33:20 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN diamond@interserf.net (Dave Perrussel) said: > Both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One -- the carriers in the metro Washington > DC area -- force you to use it. > So, you're out of luck no matter what service you're on. > Hopefully it will stop "cloning" of ESNs -- but I doubt it. :) To the best of my knowledge (up to now), *no* SID uses the control channels to transmit the PIN, all systems use the voice channels. For the good radio designer/operator, this is a day's work to break this system -- first RECC, then FOCC, then FOVC, then capture PIN -- child's play. Since my experience is in programming and analysis, and not radio technology, the free-world should feel safe. :) But someone out there *does* have this capability, and they *are* doing it. Even if the carrier were to figure out some way to get the phone manufacturers to design a control channel transmitted pin (which could have been alleviated with encrypted ESN transmissions), then it would have to be compatible with control channels on SIDs that *don't* have the switching software upgrades. Backward engineering the control channel changes would be a day's work -- two at most. Remember, the best way to *feel* secure is to know how *not* to feel secure. then ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You > would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five > one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower > and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- > ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to > each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help > cut down on fraud. PAT] All good ideas. But you are looking at updating a 1000 SIDs, with hundreds of cells per SID -- think of the capital cost required to get the cells up to date with this technology. And by the time that AMPS had this capability, PCS will be here and the capbility won't be needed anyway. I think the cellular providors are hoping that PIN use will alleviate the *worst* of the fraud, then PCS will solve the problem entirely. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 09:59 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article is written: > A better solution might be to store the PIN in a speed dial memory and > just send it from there when needed. I've seen two ways to handle PIN's, one moderately inconvenient, and one very inconvenient. On one system, a PIN must be sent every time the phone is powered on a used for at least one call. Additional calls don't require the PIN to be re-entered. That's not so bad. But on my (Nynex) system, I have to enter the PIN after EVERY phone call. The really big problem with this is that is makes re-dial useless -- I can only redial the PIN. (And, as I've mentioned before, anyone who steals the phone just hits redial and my PIN pops up on the screen.) Is one system considerably safer than the other? Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:14:31 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Dave O'Shea (dos@panix.com) spaketh thusly: > I'll be amused to see the first case where a carrier is named as > co-defendant after a particularly horrid car accident attributed to > someone being inattentive while dialing that second string of digits. > A decent PI lawyer would *pay* for the opportunity to have some > carrier type on the stand, asking him in an oh-so-sincere voice "So > Mr. Jones, while you may have saved, oh, FOUR MILLION DOLLARS (wink, > nod, towards jury) in fraud, did the safety implications of making > drivers dial twice figure into that equation, and why did you make > your customers responsible for covering up a design flaw in your > security system?" Count me among the people who would be horrified and disgusted by such a case, not amused by it (although I do find humor in the oxymoronic phrase "decent personal injury lawyer" :-)). People need to be responsible for their own actions instead of always looking for some other party to blame. The fact is, if using your cellular phone (whether listening, talking, dialing a PIN or dialing some other number) diverts so much of your attention that you are no longer able to drive well, then you have no business trying to do these two things simultaneously. Either hang up the phone and concentrate on the driving, or else pull over to complete your call. I'd rather not see US states introduce laws like the ones now found in several countries which prohibit drivers from using handheld mobile phones. For most people, hitting a speed-dial button is no more difficult than fiddling with the car radio or climate system, and conversing on a handset is no more dangerous than using a CB microphone or talking to passengers in the same vehicle. I'd like to see common sense prevail. But if enough irresponsible people abuse their vehicles and phones and cause enough stupid accidents, I expect that lawmakers will be goaded into passing just that sort of rigid law. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 09:20:17 PST From: erick@sac.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. Voice prints aren't all that reliable. They are negatively affected by environmental noise. They don't work nearly as well with high-pitched voices. If you have a sinus infection or cold, your voice print will be different. Voice print equipment is not cheap, nor is it part of the switch. A very significant investment would be required to mandate voice print security. Who do you think would end up paying for it? OTOH, such equipment does increase the airtime of a call, (especially with retries) so it could generate a lot of extra airtime minutes. In the near future, carriers will be able to confirm roamer PINs at the same time they verify the roamer -- the additional data transfer is tiny. Now, to do this with voiceprints would require huge data transfers, and identical systems at both ends (Probably even identical software). Not very practical. Final issue, if I loan my cellphone to my wife today, she can make a call -- with or without a PIN requirement. That is not true for voiceprints. If I have a heart attack, she couldn't call for help. True, the carrier could do special routing for 911, but special routes increase costs, and increased costs get passed on to the customer. Now, voice activated dialing is another matter. It can be very helpful, as long as you keep in mind the limitations described above. Some carriers are providing that service today. Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com ------------------------------ From: Thomas P. Brisco Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:36:46 -0500 Organization: IEEE Lest we forget: For people who read the manuals, I believe that most manuals indicate that you should neither dial nor operate a cell phone while operating a vehicle. Some states have explicit laws covering this. Interesting lawsuit indeed ... Tp ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 2 Apr 1996 11:49:24 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY <102073.1425@compuserve.com> wrote: > Of course, if you really want to deal with [cellular fraud], write > your congressman and tell him you think that cloned phones should > carry the same penalties as counterfit money for manufacturing or > mere possession. Or even better, write your congressbeing and tell it you think that cellular carriers should be required to implement /real/ security within the next five years, or lose their licenses. (Unfortunately, this hasn't got much chance of passage, since the telecom lobby is so huge and spends so freely, and a lot of "law enforcement" types are unhappy about the prospect of people being able to have private conversations.) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:40:43 +0100 From: Greg Eaton Subject: Cellular Telephone PIN's and Authentication - View from UK In TELECOM Digest 143 Michael Schuster (schuster@panix.com) writes: > 1. What is "authentication" - I am familiar only with PIN codes and RF > fingerprinting. In the UK, Vodafone have recently introduced a clone prevention system called authentication, on their analogue (ETACS) network, which may be similar to the one your carrier suggested. Note: The UK has also been hit by fraud on the ETACS system on a large scale in the last couple of years, but not to the huge extent of the US. I think this is to do with our two NATIONAL networks, Vodafone and Cellnet, reducing the need for "Roaming" and having alternative carriers. However we have never introduced PIN's in the way it seems to be understood on the AMPS system. Indeed there were no defensive measures until Vodafone rolled out the above system quietly at first in September 1995 and then loudly thereafter, particularly once they realised it gave them a huge advantage over Cellnet from a marketing, operational and profitability point of view. How it works: Firstly you must setup the phone: The service provider (carrier) mails all customers a little security sealed envelope, with a PIN code inside (16 digits). On the outside is a 11 digit PIN ID code, not the full 16 digits. The customer then calls the network operator's PIN entry centre, and is helped through the entry of the PIN into their particular type of phone. This is a simple job on an Ericsson 237 or NEC P4. The customer is told not to read out their PIN at any stage, nor release this information to any third party, including their dealer, or service provider. The customer then tells the PIN entry centre the PIN ID - NOTE: Not the full PIN, who enters it into the Network Computer Systems. A complicated and top secret algorithm then decodes this ID, into the full PIN which remains undisplayed. The above steps only need to be carried out on a "Once only" basis unless the subscriber or the network feels the security of the PIN has been compromised. In this case its simple to issue a new one and start again at the top. Therafter: At call setup, the subscriber dials the number they wish to call, then the phone transmits the subscriber number, the number called and a B- ESN. This B-ESN is a "Bastardised" ESN which has been encrypted by the phone with an algorithm that works using the PIN number and the number dialed. Obviously the network can decode the B-ESN, as it knows the number dialed, and the appropriate PIN for that subscriber number. After checking it all for matches the call then proceeds. The B-ESN varies for nearly every call made, as it is encoded using the number dialed as well as the ESN and PIN Code. The security of the system is inherent, in that only the phone and the network know all three codes, and the ESN is NEVER transmitted without being encoded. Vodafone have currently been introducing this system over the last few months, in batches of numbers, and now the old game of having a carphone and a h/portable on the same number is all but gone. As a result of introducing it, the number of clones they are having to deal with is falling quite rapidly, where as I'm led to believe Cellnet's clones are increasing monthly, (You cant keep a good cloner down!) I hope this might give you and other readers a few pointers, please excuse any slight technical inaccuraccies. I'm in sales not in engineering. Greg Eaton - Adam Phones Ltd. - The Mobile Phone Hire Specialists Tel: +44-181-742-0101 Fax:+44-181-742-3679 ------------------------------ From: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:41:05 -0400 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Tim Tyler wrote: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. > I'd like to beat Ma Bell at their own game, so I'm wondering if there > is anything that would stop me from endorsing the check, getting the > $100 and having my LD service switched to AT&T, and then within a week > or two, switching it back to my current LD carrier? I realize I might > have to pay to have the service switched back from AT&T, but I think > the amount would be on the order of around $10, leaving me still with > $90 from AT&T, and it is likely I could get the LD carrier to switch > me over to them for free. > I saw no fine-print on the AT&T propmotion that would prevent or deter > me from cashing the check/switching to them for LD service, then > switching back to my original LD provider within a matter of days. > But I'm wondering if other people have tried this, and what the > outcome was. If you lost AT&T interest after cashing the check and switching away in a short period of time, you wouldn't be losing much. They charge the highest rates of all the Long Distance carriers. Yes, quality comes with AT&T but, you can have that same quality at lower rates elsewhere. ------------------------------ From: jweeks@visi.com (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:18:48 -0600 Organization: Newave Communications In article , tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) wrote: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. One strategy I recently heard about was to call your local phone company, and request a PIC freeze. Then endorse the check "for deposit only". This is enough to cash the check, but you have not signed it to allow AT&T to change your carrier. The PIC freeze to make sure that they don't try to slam you. I don't think that this game will still work. The check I just received requires a signature to be cashed (says right on it), and you need to have AT&T service a minimum of 30 days. According to FCC stats, the typical AT&T customer stays with AT&T only seven months. Divide this into the $100 check, and you find that AT&T needs to overcharge you $14 per month to break even. I reccomend tossing the check in the trash and going with a smaller discount carrier like Frontier, LDDS, or Excel. BTW, an MCI rep told me that they are authorized to spend up to $300 in incentives to bring back a customer. If you are on MCI, use the AT&T check, then hold MCI over the fire for at least $200 in free calls to "come back home". John A. Weeks III (612) 946-8815 jweeks@visi.com Newave Communications FAX 946-8816 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:18:57 -0500 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes I TELECOM Digest #149, Tim Tyler said: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. > I'd like to beat Ma Bell at their own game, so I'm wondering if there > is anything that would stop me from endorsing the check, getting the > $100 and having my LD service switched to AT&T, and then within a week > or two, switching it back to my current LD carrier? A day or two will work as long none of the terms give a minimum trial period. Last year I did so. For business reasons I wanted to check out AT&T's customer service. (Unfortunately, I only received $75.) The check stated that only the listed line would be switched. I was suspicious, so I checked both of my lines every few days. Sure enough they switched both lines. Given their greediness, I immediately switched both lines back to my original carriers. (One gave me frequent flier miles for coming back.) Phone bills showed that I had been with AT&T for about two days. > I realize I might have to pay to have the service switched back from > AT&T, but I think the amount would be on the order of around $10, leaving > me still with $90 from AT&T, and it is likely I could get the LD carrier to > switch me over to them for free. Since AT&T either expects you to pay the switching fee to AT&T out of the $100 or will reimburse you in a credit/AT&T coupon (depending on the offer), you will probably end up paying the fee to switch to AT&T in the first place. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They won't sue you to get back the > hundred dollars if that is what you mean. Like most people who perpetrate > petty fraud through the mail -- send in book club and record/tape club > coupons to get free merchandise when promising to buy more later on > and then failing to do so, etc -- you'll simply get listed on the > carrier's records as a petty chisler; someone not to be trusted in > minor matters of honesty where mailorder is concerned. The essence of > it will be you won't get any more promotions from them through the mail > of any value. You may find your account flagged in such a way as is > understood by insiders 'do not extend courtesies' meaning on future > dealings where the service rep may have considerable latitude in whether > or not to charge or writeoff an installation or service fee or make an > adjustment on some minor matter they'll be less likely to try and > appease you as they might do for other customers. In other words, it > won't go unnoticed. PAT] Not so. While your way of running a long distance carrier makes sense to me, that is not what happens. First, it is not petty fraud. They do not specify how long you need to stay with them. (This is because their marketing gurus believe that it lowers the response rate.) Second, after the incident I described, I received a half dozen other offers from AT&T to try them again. When it got up to $75 I took their offer again. While I do not use them for many calls, and put in a PIC freeze on my other line before doing so, I switched one line and currently have AT&T on one of my lines. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f_save@snet.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #153 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 12:58:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA27071; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031758.MAA27071@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #154 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 12:58:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Henry Baker) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Steve Bagdon) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (William Hawkins) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Ron Schnell) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Peter Simpson) Report From ACTA In Phoenix (Jeff Buckingham) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Tom Olin) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Steve Brack) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Heflin Hogan) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Dave Levenson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Rob Carlson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Kammerer) 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 mirror.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: The ACTA Petition At The FCC From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:01:42 CST In comp.dcom.telecom, jbucking@callamerica.com writes as an ACTA member: > There is no reason that talking over the Internet should be any > cheaper than talking on the phone. Once access charges are fixed the > decision could be left up to the consumer to decide. Here's the whole of the problem. Actually, the opposite is true: there is no reason that talking on the phone should be more expensive than talking over the internet. Data are data, guys. What are you going to do when the final collimation happens and we have a single data communications avenue for all types of traffic? "Telephone" companies, as such, are obsolete. Ry M. Silvernail roy@cybrspc.mn.org ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:08:47 GMT In article , jbucking@callamerica. com wrote: > There is no reason that talking over the Internet should be any ^^^^^^^^^ > cheaper than talking on the phone. Once access charges are fixed the > decision could be left up to the consumer to decide. Uh ... how about Quality of Service? Between the low bit rates, the lack of guaranteed latency, and the high blocking factor, I'd say that the Internet phone should cost about 1/100 that of a real phone call. And, surprisingly enough, that is about what it costs! [Do your children know what you ACTA guys do for a living?] www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:33:16 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone John Higdon said: > And I must say, this is the most pathetic filing to come across my > desk in many years. Out of the box, let me say that I feel that > Internet voice communication is a substantial misuse of packet > technology. And I agree that it is an inefficient use of network > bandwidth. And I say: This is what I have been saying ever since this issue came up -- this is a (technical) non-issue. I-Phone software probably represents about 00.0000001% of the toll company's entire revenue base. The 'Internet' is the greatest limitator of the I-Phone debate -- there just isn't enough digital bandwidth out there to place a big hit (or small hit) against the toll carrier's bottom line. Do you get the idea that a marketing person, a general counsel clerk, and an AVP got together over drinks, and convinced someone 'higher up' of this perceived threat to the bottom line? My impressions is that there will be more money spent *trying* to outlaw I-Phone, then will be *lost* from I-Phone usage. That's right -- we are keeping the lawyers busy on this one, with no geniune purpose. Yes, more government rules and regulations scare me -- we are already top heavy to begin with. But why can't logic take over, and we can just let this darned thing die the death it deservers? Should we outlaw *all* recording devices and A/D & D/A technology? Isn't recording a voice message, and sending e-mail with this voice mail message as an enclosure, bypassing toll carriers? Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine and Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Organization: Rosemount, Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:33:18 GMT chiner@quark.gmi.edu (Chris Hiner) wrote, in part: > Personally, I'd be more in favor of these kinds of programs, only if > there was a way to have their packets sent at a lower priority ... > But then, that'd make it less useful ... There is another group that ought to be concerned about I-Phone. The Network Time Protocol presently makes use of those high priority packets to synchronize the clocks of computers on the Internet with sub-millisecond accuracy. The method relies on a narrow spread in the propagation times of the packets. Congestion will reduce the possible accuracy. Then again, perhaps the Global Positioning System time broadcasts will replace ntp as a way to get accurate time, relegating ntp to local networks. Bill Hawkins bill@bvc.frco.com 612 895-2085 Minneapolis, MN USA ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 02 Apr 1996 22:12:59 GMT Organization: MIT This is really stupid. How can you call the manufacturer of a software product a telecommunications CARRIER? That's like calling Panasonic a carrier because they make Easa-phones. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Ron ronnie@space.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:25:05 EST From: Peter Simpson Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone A few points need to be raised here: 1. The filing seems to overlook the fact that the companies named are supplying, not "telephone service", but software which digitizes speech, and a program which allows the digitized speech to be transferred over a TCP/IP network. 2. *Someone* is paying for the communications bandwidth used to transport the digitized voice packets. It may not be the person talking into the microphone, but it most certainly is their ISP. So, the telephone company is collecting their fee for carrying the bits. 3. Real-time transmission of the packets over the Internet is *not* guaranteed. And you can be sure the situation will be self-limiting as soon as more than a few people try to use I-phone at the same time. 4. Bits is bits. It's none of the phone companies' business what I send over a packet data network. I can also send CuSeeMe video ... uses quite a bit more bandwidth, doesn't it? 5. I find it hard to believe that real-time voice over Internet is a serious threat to any phone company's revenue. This sounds rather like the old state of affairs in ham radio, when the monolithic Bell System pressured the FCC to restrict the hams' use of radio-to-landline interconnect ("phone patches") because they claimed it would cut into their mobile telephone revenues. Shouldn't we be using the Internet to explore new communications techniques, instead of trying to squash innovation? Granted, too many people using I-Phone would slug down the network to an intolerably slow rate, but that's none of the phone company's business ... Oh, and by the way ... has anyone else noticed how hard it was to get a dialtone during the snowstorms in the northeast this winter? One reason mentioned in the local papers was that all the people who stayed home, dialled up their ISPs or offices and stayed connected for the rest of the day; knowing that if they disconnected, they'd never get dial tone again! Peter Simpson, KA1AXY Linux! Peter_Simpson@3mail.3com.com 3Com Corporation The free Unix (508) 264-1719 voice Boxborough, MA 01719 for the 386 (508) 264-1418 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:42:06 -0800 From: Jeff Buckingham Subject: Report From ACTA In Phoenix Reply-To: jbucking@callamerica.com I had an open debate with member of ACTA Monday in Phoenix regarding the ACTA petition at the FCC. My conclusion from the debate is that there was not a consensus of members to alter or withdraw the petition at this time. I do think it is important to mention that the real target of the ACTA petition is not ISPs or talking over the internet but access charges that are five to seven times what they should be. Most of us who are familiar with the Internet and the FCC would agree that the chances of the FCC imposing access charges on ISPs or banning software are slim to none. My suggestion here is that the carriers and ISPs focus on the real source of the problem which is high access charges. We will all benefit from access charge reductions and the reductions in prices of long distance calls that they will cause. I have to say that as an ACTA member I am very disappointed in the position my association has taken. I do have to realize that there are many people out there who are not familiar with the Internet and may be threatened by it. I do think it is important to note that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and CompTel have not joined with ACTA and I think this tells us all where the real support is in the long distance business. Jeff Buckingham Call America, San Luis Obispo, CA 805-545-5100 MyLine (voice and fax) jbucking@callamerica.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please keep us posted whenever you hear more from the organization on this matter. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:31:37 -0500 From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Reply-To: tro@partech.com In article edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! Ed might think it bizarre, but Bill Gates apparently did not view it that way. Although there was no collusion between Microsoft and Intel, that "guy" was essentially correct. Here's an excerpt from an article I just located on the net: First, to date, Microsoft has required computer vendors to pay a license fee for every PC they ship that contains a particular microprocessor (e.g., every xxx86), regardless of whether the OEM includes DOS or Windows with the shipment. This created an economic disincentive to ship any OS other than Microsoft DOS, since the vendor was forced to pay for the Microsoft program whether or not the vendor included it. This practice must now stop. In the future, Microsoft must charge its licensees on a per copy basis; that is, a licensee must pay Microsoft only if it chooses to ship a PC unit with DOS, Windows or Windows95. The full text of the article can be read at http://www.lgu.com/an50.htm. I'm sure other references are readily available if you don't trust that one. Tom Olin Telephone: +1 315 738 0600 ext. 638 PAR Government Systems Corporation FAX: +1 315 738 8304 8383 Seneca Turnpike E-mail: tom_olin@partech.com New Hartford, NY 13413-4991 WWW: http://www.partech.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:30:35 -0500 From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library In article is written: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! As I understand it, Microsoft had agreements with several system manufacturers such that the manufacturers pay a license fee for every system they produce, or a certain percentage of systems produced, regardless of what operating system is installed on it. The net effect of this is that if these companies wanted to produce some machines with say OS/2 pre-loaded, they'd effectively be paying twice, once to Microsoft, and once to IBM. So, what ends up happening is that other OS providers are effectively locked out of the new PC pre-installed market. The Justice Department had a problem with these licensing agreements, threatened anti-trust action, and Microsoft backed off. ------------------------------ From: alex@Xenon.EE.McGill.CA (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 2 Apr 1996 14:12:25 GMT Organization: McGill University, Undergraduate EE Lab > In article TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > If I were asked which was more likely, that I would win the lottery > and live to collect it all or that Bill Gates walked up to me > personally and handed me a check for a million dollars, I would say > the latter ... Wasn't there a case recently in which a lotter winner in California sued because of the 20-year payout period? He had calculated that $50,000 a year over 20 years was so much less than the million he was entitled to, and won the lawsuit ... Alex Okapuu-von Veh - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - McGill University 3480 University St. - Montreal, QC, CANADA - H3A 2A7 Ph: (514) 398-5993 - Fax: 398-7348 Hydro Quebec: (514) 251-4263 ------------------------------ From: mhh001c@pdnis.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 2 Apr 1996 14:17:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Paradyne In article , edellers@shivasys. com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! > Honestly, the more I read Usenet the more examples I see of people who > need to grow up and start living in the real world. Except this is partially correct. MS has in the past licensed its operating system on a per processor basis, regardless of whether the OS was installed on the all of the machines or not. It was one of the practices the feds looked into a while back and I believe MS was asked to stop. I do not know whether the practice continues, and Intel never had anything to do with it. Lesson: At least some of the "bizarre claims" out there have a basis in fact, and not everyone with a strong opinion is a juvenile living in a fantasy land. Regards, Heflin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are also partly correct, but in actual practice over the past dozen years I have seen some incredibly naive postings on Usenet from people who have apparently lived in fantasy worlds all their lives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 3 Apr 1996 09:13:31 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > Any chance you have the 800 numbers for ATT, MCI and US Sprint to get > put on their "do not hassle" list? I'm tired of hearing from them. Here are the 800 numbers you were looking for: MCI 800-444-3333 Sprint 800-877-4000 AT&T 800-222-0400 Here is what to say: "Put me on your do-not-call list. You may share my request with affilliated entities. I do not wish to be solicited for any product or service offered by your firm." Here is what to give them: - your telephone number only - Here is what to log: The date and time of your request, and the name of the person you gave it to. Here is what to know: It may take ten minutes of wait time to get these "customer service" numbers to anwser. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted in their records? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 04:04:41 GMT Christopher L. Davis (cld@prin.edu) writes: > My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to > some types of fraud... and Pat adds: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to think PINs would not be much > good, but I have changed my thinking somewhat. The reason is that the > ESN is transmitted on a control channel and your PIN is transmitted > on a different channel a few seconds later. Like so many things in the wide world of telephony, this is the case in some areas; it is not the case in _all_ areas. At AT&T Wireless in the New York City metro area, the PIN is sent over the control channel as part of a call-setup message, the same message that contains the ESN. To turn off anti-fraud (and thus enable the phone for its intended user) we actually place a call to the PIN. That is, we enter the PIN and press SEND. The phone acts as if it is calling that number. It transmits an ACCESS message containing its ESN, its MIN, and the PIN (which occupies the dialed number field of the ACCESS message). The cellular system responds by assigning a voice channel and transmitting a brief stutter-tone to the caller. It then disconnects the call. The MIN is now enabled for as long as the phone is powered up (actually, for as long as the phone continues to register periodically). We then place ordinary calls without using the PIN again. We can place a call to a variation of the PIN that turns anti-fraud back on, or let it time out. This way of doing things offers certain conveniences to the user. I can store the PIN as a speed-dial in the phone, and enter it by pressing only one key. (On my phone, I dial 9 to turn off anti-fraud. It seems natural to me, like dialing 9 to reach an outside line from the office PBX.) It may well be that in other cellular systems, PINs are sent as DTMF messages over the voice channel, but when I roam in Chicago, I still use the same PIN method as when I'm at home in NYC. It works for me. Given that NYC is reputed to be the cellular fraud capital of the known world, it is likely that someone will eventually figure out how to intercept the MIN/ESN/PIN combination from the ACCESS message, so perhaps we'll be switched to the more secure (but probably less convenient) system Pat describes. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN From: Rob Carlson Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 12:05:53 EST Organization: Cola (Neon/CSA Productions), South Plainfield, NJ, USA joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) writes: > I, too, despise the use of a PIN, particularly because I have to dial > it after every number, which makes re-dial useless. Not only that, > but if the phone is stolen, all the theif has to do is press > "re-dial," and up pops my pin! I beg to differ -- isn't the pin transmitted on a different frequency then the rest of your cellular phone information? That provides an extra level of security from those people that can scan and grab your cellular codes right off the air. If you can't make things impossible, just make them really difficult for them. Even I have my pin stored in the automatic register of my phone (number 7 I think) so all I have to do is press send after the double rings and my PIN is automatically sent -- I just figure if my phone is stolen I'll have enough time to call the company and tell them to turn it off before too much damage is done. Just my two cents. Rob Carlson tel: +1-908-937-0452 email: sysop@cola.westmark.com System Administrator, Cola (Neon/CSA) uucp: ..uunet!westmark!cola!sysop South Plainfield, New Jersey, USA fax: +1-908-412-9291 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 08:58:59 PST From: erick@sac.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > Now if you really are opposed to using a PIN and your phone will > not work without one, then yes, you can cancel your service and > no, they *cannot* charge you a cancellation fee simply because they > have broken the contract with you by changing the terms of the > service agreement. I'm not too sure that you can claim a broken contract here. The carrier hasn't changed the terms of the service agreement. Only the dialing pattern has changed. If changes in dialing pattern caused the contract to be broken, there would be no practical way to allow for such things as new codes, NPA splits or overlays, new feature access codes, etc. Ameritech's actions to eliminate roaming _might_ be considered a breach of contract, but even there, you don't own the MIN, the carrier does. I'll bet if you looked at your contract, you would see that it basically requires you to pay for the use of airtime on the carrier's system. There are probably no guarantees of service availability. There probably are specific reserved rights to change any and all methods for access to and operation of the network. In essence, you have a rental agreement for airtime. You pay a minimum fee for access and a variable fee for usage. Rent a truck, and you'll pay the same way (e.g., $19/day plus mileage). Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well this is what Cliff McGlamry said in an article a couple of days ago, so I think I stand corrected on it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #154 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 13:35:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA01734; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031835.NAA01734@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #155 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 13:35:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Phil Stanley) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Rodney Green) Re: Can PacBell Block Caller ID on my Maryland Phone? (John W. Waters) Re: BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates (Stanley Cline) Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Docs (Steve Bunning) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Steven Lichter) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Mike Seebeck) Re: Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) (Mike Seebeck) Re: MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems (S Cline) Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign (S. Trevino) 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 mirror.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: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:53:48 -0400 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Pavel Beker wrote: > vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) writes: >> Ken Leonard recently wrote: > (He pointed out that the rate quoted was a night rate, not a day > rate, and yet ...) >> One of their TV commercials, which shows a man making a phone call >> during what is obviously sometime in the afternoon (from a phone >> booth), has a sticker on the phone booth door saying something like >> "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". [ . . . ] > Weekend. =) This is NO worse than "RATEGATE" or any of the hundreds of > other various deceptive advertising / promotions every LD carrier > does ... > Paul > (PS: Weekends are 10c/min, sunny or not, so technically, the call could > happen...) My long distance carrier didn't advertise rates on a per minute charge basis. They said they would give me 30-50% off AT&T basic rates and a 90 day guarantee that if I wasn't happy they would pay any cost incurred to switch me back to my original carrier. I tried it and I must say, I like the savings so much that I became an Independent Rep and now sell the service. And no, I wasn't haggled into becoming a rep by another rep. I went looking for him! You can have quality and great rates. You just need to know the code! And it ain't AT&T, Sprint or MCI! Phil Stanley|travlr@magicnet.net Excel Telecommunications|http://www.magicnet.net/~travlr/ Independent Representative|407-870-2526 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:04:32 +0000 From: rodney green Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Robert McMillin wrote: > Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've > stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South > Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough > to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from > AT&T and switch. Don't throw that check in the trash. Give Sprint a call. They will credit you for $100 if you send the check to them. According to the person I spoke to at Sprint, they will do this once a year for a subscriber. My family has taken advantage of this twice rather than switch carriers, as we are also very happy with Sprint. Rodney Green Rodney.Green@bnr.ca (919) 991-8468 BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC ------------------------------ From: jwaters@ibm.net (John W. Waters) Subject: Re: Can PacBell Block Caller ID on my Maryland Phone? Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:33:11 GMT Pat: >> I hung up, resisting the temptation to be silly, give her my actual >> number and complain, "Well, why are you taking calls from here if you >> only operate in California?" > The SERVICE may be in California, but if you were privy to telephone > company records, you would be amazed to find out that, gosh darn, > there are a lot of major corporations who do business and need > telephones in California, but pay their bills out of another state. > Those states need to be able to call and ask questions about their > telephone bill, just as much as John Smith living in Mission Viejo, CA. >> If Pacific Bell can't even set up an 800 number that only operates in >> their service area, I shudder to think what kind of other mistakes >> they are likely to make. > Good customer service is a mistake? > Some companies, like PacBell, GTE, etc., feel that providing good > customer service to ALL our customers, not just the ones whose > accounts payable offices are local to us, is a FAR more profitable > motivation than the small revenue we spend on inter-state 800 #'s. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. Virtually ALL American telcos are inaccessable for me. I am the telecommunications manager (department of 1) for a multi-national company with plants in four, and soon five American states. I'm based in Toronto. All telcos give out 1-800 numbers. None of which seem to work from here. Ameritech is the worst example of this. The only way I can get to them is either via their executive office, or temporarily opening a DISA port in a switch in the US. This is from Windsor, ON. The RBOCs are hopeless for access from Canada. I pity anyone overseas who has to get in touch with them. As far as good customer service goes, the RBOCs have a long way to go before they can come close to Bell Canada. The quality of service, in line quality, grovelling at the customer's feet, and "Having a Clue" is far better here than in most states. SouthCentral Bell is the best I have come across in the US, and it is still not quite up to Bell Canada's standards. Ameritech(Detroit) has proved to be hopeless. Thus, TCG Detroit handles all the traffic from the Detroit plants. One competent service call makes a far better impression than a thousand "Thank you for choosing AT&T"s. The Mighty Zed hath spoken ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:36:22 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) wrote: > BellSouth has totally revamped their intra-lata (aka: within your > calling zone) rate structure. Gone are three rate periods. Gone is > the evening rate from noon to one PM. Gone is one minute minimums. > Gone is rounding; after the initial 30 second minimum you are billed > in six-second increments. Sounds good, huh? On one intraLATA (Chattanooga) INTERSTATE call (from my house in Ft. Oglethorpe, GA to Pikeville, TN) I was actually charged for a "0.1" minute call! Even LCI doesn't do THAT! In the Chattanooga LATA, calls from Hamilton County Tennessee (Chattanooga proper) to any BellSouth area within the LATA (except for the Copper Basin, where US Cellular is the B side cellular carrier, etc.) are local. The only intraLATA LD calls are (now) to non-BellSouth areas, such as Dunlap/Pikeville (Bledsoe Co-Op) and Trenton, GA (Trenton Telephone Co.) and to the Copper Basin. Calls from one outlying area to another are _usually_ intraLATA LD. Calls between independent telcos serving outlying areas of the Chattanooga "local" area (Century/Ooltewah, Ringgold, Chickamauga, ALLTEL/LaFayette, and half of the Trenton area) are also LD. > calls I could make. This is a hideous rip-off, since almost all of > these calls originate, transport, and terminate over facilities owned > by BellSouth. They are the least expensive toll calls BellSouth can ^^^^^^^^^ Not necessarily. Most of the _northern_ part of the Atlanta LATA is serviced by either ALLTEL (Dalton, Jasper, Toccoa) or Standard Telephone Company (Dahlonega, Cornelia, Helen, Blairsville.) These telcos, particularly STC, face fairly high service costs, as the population density of the mountainous areas is so low. So fairly high rates to THOSE areas may be understandable. The only "BS-to-BS" LD calls from Atlanta should be the ones to the Rome and Calhoun areas, and to points to the east (Athens, etc.) For such high rates from Atlanta to Rome in particular is uncalled for. (Rome has NO ISPs, partly because of the convoluted rate structure.) > I frequently call a location that is located 68 miles via V and H > coordinates from me. For this call I am charged $0.24/min. This is > absurd. I don't exceed $0.24/min on AT&T's non-discounted rates for > calls under 1,500 miles. What used to be really ridiculous was when I had AT&T and had to call Dalton (which is INTERLATA from Chattanooga, but anyway ...) It was nearly 29c/min during the day! I could call anywhere in the US, including Alaska, for less! *GTE* CAUSED this -- they all but forced Dalton to be in the Atlanta LATA, despite the fact that it's so close to Chattanooga (25 miles), and that so many Chattanooga LATA residents work in the area (at Shaw carpet mills, etc.) What good GTE saw out of this, I do not know. (And it resulted in roaming hell with GTE Mobilnet and US Cellular, who NEVER got an agreement. But USCC is selling GA RSA#1 to Palmer Wireless so THAT may change.) Now with ALLTEL who is quickly opening up calling areas, Dalton will remain LD from BellSouth Chattanooga, and from both cellular carriers (A-band is GTE who only gains from Dalton being LD; they do not offer choice of LD carriers) because of the MFJ. Dalton is already local from the Ringgold area, served by Ringgold Telephone Co. (Callers still must dial 1+706 at this time.) > There are few alternatives to this highway robbery. AT&T gives a > ten-percent discount off of BellSouth rates if you dial 10288 before > your intra-lata calls. The best bet may be to buy a prepaid calling Naturally, only if you're their customer for interLATA LD. Otherwise, you'll pay the "base" rates along with the 80c surcharge. LCI charges only 18.1c min flat within GA, if you're their customer. DeltaCom of Alabama charges only 12-13c/min within TN & GA (their out-of-state and Canada rates are not as good as LCI's however.) I'm not sure if this applies to intraLATA calls, however ... I don't call Trenton enough to know. (Other intraLATA calls are interstate which would fall under their normal 19/14/12 etc. rates.) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 04:37:37 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Amish Chana wrote: > I carried out a search on a number of Archie servers, for ITU > recommendations (the SS7 & ISDN recommendations in particular). The > search for q700 came up with the following : > Host ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com (16.1.0.2) > Last updated 16:37 8 Sep 1994 > Location: /.2/bruno.cs.colorado.edu/pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -r--r--r-- 81341 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.asc > FILE -r--r--r-- 74179 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.doc > FILE -r--r--r-- 107008 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.rtf > FILE -r--r--r-- 109889 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.wp5 > Host scitsc.wlv.ac.uk (134.220.4.1) > Last updated 17:04 1 Mar 1996 > Location: /pub/infomagic/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 81341 bytes 05:00 31 Dec 1991 q700.asc > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 74185 bytes 05:00 11 Dec 1991 q700.doc > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 368907 bytes 05:00 25 May 1994 q700.ps > Host ftp.iij.ad.jp (192.244.176.50) > Last updated 02:40 20 Jan 1996 > Location: /pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 15:00 26 Aug 1993 q700.eps > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 19:00 25 Aug 1993 q700.eps > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 81341 bytes 19:00 30 Dec 1991 q700.asc > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 74185 bytes 19:00 10 Dec 1991 q700.doc > There were a number of other FTP servers but the above turned up in > almost every search. All the documents listed above are called > "Fascicle". What does that mean? (I haven't come across this in the > ISDN documents from the ITU). At the beginning of each Fascicle there > is also a statement saying that all drawings have been done in > Autocad, but all these documents have rectangles where the drawings > should be. Are the drawings available in another file? > Who creates these Fascicles? These fascicles were created by the CCITT (now known as the ITU), the international standards body for telecommunications. The word fascicle is just an English (and also French) word meaning "one of the divisions of a book published in parts". Fascicle was the CCITT's term for the parts in their set of standards. In the past, the CCITT published a new set of standards every four years. Each set had many separately bound parts containing "Recommendations", their term for standard. The sets were known by the color of their covers (i.e., The Yellow Books in 1980, The Red Books in 1984, and The Blue Books in 1988). The recommendations were organized in series designated by letter (e.g., the X series contained the X.25 packet data standard, the V series contained the V.32 modem standard). Now, the ITU is publishing the individual standards as they become available and as they need updating. Some of the files you mentioned came from a compact disk (CD) sold by InfoMagic. InfoMagic sells a CD titled "STANDARDS, CCITT/ITU Blue Book, Windows Sockets, RFC's & IEN's." You can request information on InfoMagic and its products through their email address, info@infomagic.com. You can pursue ITU/CCITT information via their web page at www.itu.com. At one time, the ITU had selected copies of the standards online for everyone, but now only offer them to their paying customers. The only way I've been able to get a hard copy of the figures is by using a postscript printer to print the files with a ".ps" file extension. These files contain the complete text with the figures in-line with the text. Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 258-9850 (voice) Product Manager | 209 Perry Parkway | 301 921-0434 (fax) TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20877 | bunning@acec.com "CDRs collected and managed in real-time." ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: 02 Apr 1996 21:41:01 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) writes: > Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at > home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > Florida Telephone Customers ... New dialing instruction stickers ... > Enclosed." I get stickers telling me always to dial 10297 before the > number and a flyer claiming an 83% savings (savings from *what*, they > don't say). About a year ago I got one of those. I know it did not come from the LEC. I wondered about it so I called PacBell who said they had got a few calls, but since it involved the LD they had nothing to do with it. I contacted AT&T which told me they know about it, but it was not against any rules or laws, but did say it was investigating it to make sure that none of their customers get ripped off. The PUC took my complaint and that was the last I heard, so maybe they did not violated anything other then not letting you know where it really came from by wording it the way it was, and I believe it was the dime a minute company. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:28:39 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Joseph Singer (jsinger@scn.org) wrote: > jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) wrote: >> Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at >> home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > I have used this service and you need to also be made aware that they > don't charge like everybody else in that all calls no matter how short > are charged a minimum of three minutes so you'll never have any one > minute calls on your bill. I'd recommend against _not_ using them > unless you plan on making a call that will be longer than a minute. > Supposedly they also charge a $5 fee per month for use of the service, > but so far I haven't seen this charge on my US West bill. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct, a five dollar service > fee which is not applied to the calls you made. So plan on amortizing > that into your monthly bill, and you'll see you need several dollars > in actual calling charges before you come close to realizing the ten > cents per minute rate. And also, as you note there is a three minute > minimum per call. This has to be factored in as well. PAT] You should also look at the minimum billing increment. Normal phone service bills in six second increments. I would not be surprised if this service bills in one minute increments like cellular service does. Since phone companies always round up, a one minute increment is costly to the user. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Three minute minimum and one minute billing periods thereafter. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:42:56 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder gb (HealthNet.medlab@whytel.com) wrote: > Help. We are in need of an external remote call forwarding device that .... > even considered setting up a basically dummy PC with no more than a > FAX/Modem card and tiny hard drive that could "store and immediately > forward" incoming data via some sort of automated software program > that we might come across ... but where is it and would it actually > work? I do not understand why you cannot use the RBOCs call forward service. With this service you would pick up the line, enter a code, and the line is forwarded. You are already using RBOC lines for transmission and the line can be forwarded only from your office line. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not What it Seems Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:09:31 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Mike Fox wrote: > it: 1-800-xxx-xxxx. No four-digit extension is shown. However, lo > and behold, the 800 number they give you has a four-digit extension. > So you're actually sharing your "personal" 800 number with up to 9999 > people. They call it a security code, but when I called MCI to ask LCI's home "800 numbers" (actually, there are only two 800 numbers used) uses SIX-digit "security codes." This, to me, is kind of like the old six-digit "account codes" used back in the 950 access days. US Billing, which handles LCI LEC billing, treats the 800 calls as "calling card" calls (without the calling card surcharges, however); CID (formerly ANI) is sent on the 800 numbers (as does LCI's calling card access number!) As far as LCI is concerned, this helps keep the hogging of 800 numbers by individuals, and 800 churn, down. However, the pin is difficult to key when driving and using a cellular! BTW, the NXX MCI uses for _most_ personal 800 number is 484 -- used ever since Telecom*USA started the personal 800 craze several years ago. So there are 10k 484 nxx's (assuming none are used for vanity 800s, etc.) * 10k pins = 100 MILLION possible "personal 800 numbers." LCI has the capacity for two million, using six-digit pins and the two numbers assigned for personal 800s. 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: Stormy Trevino Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:14:31 -0800 Organization: Call America Business Communications Mike King wrote: > Forwarded FYI to the Digest: > From: Marcia.Flint@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint) > Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campai > Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Copious amounts of BS deleted. Pac Bell standing up for the consumer? You've got to be kidding me. Don't they really just want to be able to keep potential competitors from using current NPA? Seems to me this is just more of the typical anti-competitive behavior we've come to know and love from our "favorite" LEC. BTW, I called Pac Bell last week to block caller ID and at the close of my conversation with their rep she actually said, and I quote, "Thank you for CHOOSING Pacific Bell"???!!! I couldn't believe my ears. If I had any choice I would have left years ago. Stormy Trevino Call America Business Communications strevino@callamerica.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #155 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 16:33:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA02120; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:33:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:33:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604032133.QAA02120@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #156 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 16:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Docs (Mark Jeffrey) Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today (Bob Goudreau) Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Dave Levenson) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Gary Novosielski) Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Mark Smith) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Tom Lynn) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Ivan Sindell) Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign (Linc Madison) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (cassuto@bnr.ca) Re: Caller-ID Comes to California (dapet@aol.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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: Mark Jeffrey Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:12:44 -0800 Amish Chana wrote: > I carried out a search on a number of Archie servers, for ITU > recommendations (the SS7 & ISDN recommendations in particular). The > search for q700 came up with the following: > There were a number of other FTP servers but the above turned up in > almost every search. All the documents listed above are called > "Fascicle". What does that mean? (I haven't come across this in the > ISDN documents from the ITU). At the beginning of each Fascicle > there is also a statement saying that all drawings have been done in > Autocad, but all these documents have rectangles where the drawings > should be. Are the drawings available in another file? > Who creates these Fascicles? Fascicles are the volumes used in previous versions of CCITT and ITU standards. Since 1992(?), the ITU has produced separate free-standing Recommendations rather than a complete set like in the "Red Book" and "Blue Book" days. The ITU retains the copyright on all of it's standards, as the sale of them is a major source of income to fund the organisation, so any ITU documents you find on the open internet will either be pre-approval drafts (those still being worked on) or illegal copies. In either case, beware of relying on them. Official ITU versions are available from the ITU at http://www.itu.ch, but you have to pay a subscription to have access to many of them (I don't know about q700 series). Many people, particularly those in educational or other limited-budget organisations, object to paying for copies of standards. However, as an ITU delegate myself, I can attest to the huge cost and complexity of organising the meetings that agree the standards in the first place. As member companies we have to pay quite a hefty subscription to participate, but I also know that the ITU is always seeking ways to cut costs. They now have to produce more standards at a far greater rate than ever before, but with even less funding. I don't believe they get a subsidy from the UN, and their major contributors (the old national PTTs) are mostly no longer able to recover costs from national governments. The costs to produce an ITU Recommendation are much higher than (say) an ANSI standard, because the original English also has to be translated (with IDENTICAL meaning) into the other official languages, notably French and Spanish. There are a number of organisations who have the right to reproduce ITU recommendations, notably Bellcore, but they won't be for free either. There used to be free Internet access to the ITU's ftp server, and a lot of mirror sites sprang up that you may have found, but with the increasing commercial use of the Internet the ITU was losing out financially. A lot of the mirrors still carry the stuff from when the public site closed, which is now about two years out of date. The ITU also publishes a CD-ROM version that is updated frequently. It still costs quite a lot of money though. Hopefully a system will evolve that allows online purchase of just the documents you need, without having to pay for everything you'll never want. That has yet to be established though. Mark Jeffrey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:45:41 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today Pierre Thomson writes: > No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Today I got Bellcore Letter > IL-96/03-005, stating that Antigua and Barbuda are activating their > new area code 268 today, April 1, 1996. Talk about short notice ... I too am surprised by the the abruptness of this activation. There's been an entry for Antigua's new NPA 268 in Bellcore's Web page of new area codes (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html) for at least two months, but as of today, the entry still lists the "Effective" and "Permissive Dialing End" dates as "To Be Determined". Bellcore, are you listening? Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:30:27 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today On 1 Apr 1996, Pierre Thomson wrote: > No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Today I got Bellcore Letter > IL-96/03-005, stating that Antigua and Barbuda are activating their > new area code 268 today, April 1, 1996. Talk about short notice ... > All eight (count 'em) exchange codes on the two islands can be dialed > with either the old 809 Caribbean NPA or the new 268 code until March > 31, 1997. > The exchange codes moving from 809 to 268 are: > 404 409 460 461 462 463 464 480 I received my Bellcore NANPA IL in Monday's mail. The IL is dated 3-26-96. What short notice! Bellcore's webpage (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP) as of this morning still doesn't yet show the date of beginning of permissive dialing. The Bellcore IL includes a map of the Caribbean and the area of Antigua and Barbuda, prepared by Cable & Wireless. The caption states the following: "Antigua/Barbuda New 268 Area Code *From 1st November, 1996*. On Independence Day 1996, all Antigua and Barbuda telephones will change to the new Area Code 268..." I don't know why the date of beginning of permissive dialing was moved from November 1 to April 1. In the body of the IL, it mentions that the test number is 268-ANTIGUA (268-268-4482). All Home NPA "local" calls will continue to be dialed 7-digits local. All Foreign NPA dialed (sent-paid) toll calls will be dialed 1+ten-digits. All Operator Assisted and card calls will be dialed 0+ten-digits. There is also *another* interesting note in the IL (and this also is happening with Puerto Rico's 787 split from 809) ... Beginning 1 April 1996, all *new* NXX (Central Office Codes) in Antigua and Barbuda will be assigned *only* with the new 268 area code. Inbound calls to these new Antigua/Barbuda NXX's *must* be dialed with the new 268 NPA code. If 809 is used to call the *new* Antigua/Barbuda NXX codes, one will reach either a vacant code or number, *or* the *wrong* number in another part of the still existing 809 Caribbean !?! As of today, 268 *is* in the PBX here at work, however Bell South does *not* have 268 programmed in *any* central office switches I've tried here in New Orleans. With such short notice of the effective date of permissive dialing, it might be *many* months before most of the NANP area can dial the new 268 NPA. AT&T's "OSPS" switches *do* allow 268 as the new NPA for Antigua/Barbuda, but it must be dialed as either a sequence calling card call, or as a 800-CALL-ATT or 800-3210-ATT access, since 0+268+ is not *yet* programmed in most local central office switches in North America. Operational questions regarding 268 can be directed to Dean Jonas, Cable & Wireless, 809-462-0840, Ext.413. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1996 11:11:46 GMT Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) writes: > Here in the New York area... > ... We have three cellular carriers in NY (Nynex, AT&T > and "Cellular One")... New York, like most places, has _two_ cellular carriers. They are Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the two wireline carriers have merged) and AT&T Wireless Services (formerly CellularOne of New York), the non-wireline carrier. They claim that New York City is the cellular fraud capital of the world, and that real estate for cell sites is the most expensive anyplace in the US. A lot of other things cost more in the New York city area than in most of the country. Some things (like residential flat-rate telephone service) are simply not offered at any price in New York City itself. (Fortunately, some of what we sell is also priced higher around here, so it's all relative unless you're trying to trade with out-of-towners!) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:23:46 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere In TELECOM Digest V16 #145, Jim Anderson wrote: > One reason for the increased prices in these areas is the high "fraud" > rates. The cellular companies have to charge increased rates to cover > their huge losses due to fraud. It seems to me that, especially in these regulated duopoly situations, the cost of any fraud losses should be borne by the company (i.e., the stockholders), not by the customers. The customers weren't the ones who decided to implement such a pathetically insecure system; they're just stuck with the results of it. In similar situations in, for example, the electric power industry, if a company loses a bundle as a result of a bad management decision, they are not automatically permitted to pass the cost along to their rate-payers, but are required to cut their dividend payments, or otherwise make it up internally. (As a stockholder, I know this from experience.) But that's much fairer than crediting fraudulent charges off one customer's bill, only to debit them right back to ALL customers' bills. That smells like corporate welfare, and lack of accountability. What's their fiscal incentive to make a serious effort (don't even mention PINS) to eliminate fraud if they can just jack up the rates of their captive customers to cover it? Besides, as other correspondents have pointed out, this may have more to do with "what the market will bear" in the atypical area that is New York than with any true cost-based pricing methodology. They charge 65 cents simply because there are enough people who will pay 65 cents, and they are allowed to get away with it by the "Best Regulators Money Can Buy." Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC Date: 3 Apr 1996 12:12:09 -0600 > I think we should all keep our reactions to this filing to a minimum > until this internal debate at ACTA has taken place. ACTA should have completed the internal debate before filing with the FCC. It's no longer an ACTA internal debate. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 14:05:22 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In Article , write: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. Voiceprints are a good idea if the phone has a single user. However, my wife and I until recently shared a phone (the person driving furthest away took the phone). Also, we now each have a phone, but if we are travelling together we take one phone. This means that either of us may be using the phone at any given time. Voiceprints would make this difficult. Mark ------------------------------ From: foole@earthlink.net (Tom Lynn) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 01:37:21 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 03:09:41 GMT, fletcher@gate.net (mike fletcher) wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 96 17:31:47 PST, Alan Frisbie > wrote: >> One of my customers is trying to select a new telephone system for his >> company. As their primary computer consultant, I was asked for my >> comments. Since I am not a telecom expert, I am turning to this group >> for help. >> A telecom salesman is trying to sell them a system, "Axxess", from >> Inter-Tel in Chandler, Arizona. Can anyone tell me anything (good or >> bad) about this company and/or their products? >> Is it normal to loan a copy of the system documentation to >> potential customers? I would like to ask for this, but am unsure what >> kind of reaction I would get. Don't worry about getting a negative reaction, EVER! Any question is acceptable and you can tell a lot about a vendor by the way they react. To heck with him, if he wants to withhold information. If it's proprietary information (not likely), sign a non-disclosure statement. I agree with the other respondents that you should go with a system which has WIDE third party support. Don't be shy about putting your requirements in an RFP and putting this thing out to bid. You might be under a lot of pressure to get this thing in now, but make sure to take enough time to do this right. You will either be thanked by few (in which case they're happy) or become famous with many! Things to include: Required system features (ACD, Computer Telephony Integration, voice response, etc) Required Carrier Network features that must be supported (centrex, ISDN PRI, ANI delivery, caller id, etc) Current Station and Trunk capacity requirements Projected Station and Trunk capacity requirements through the life of the system (3 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr) Make sure you can grow. Consider carefully how much headroom you need. It can be expensive later to underestimate. Have them price out any new cabling and lock in a price for late changes and additions to the project. Don't be shy about having the cable bid out separately. Many system providers cannot compete with companies who specialize in structured cable systems. Perhaps you can integrate your lan / wan cable concept with the telephone cabling concept? Personally, I'm a fan of the AT&T Definity systems, which have become much more scalable over the past three years. Not too much experience with the others, but I'm happy with what I've got. Tom Lynn ------------------------------ From: isindell@ix.netcom.com (Ivan Sindell) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: 3 Apr 1996 01:51:52 GMT Organization: Netcom The Society of Telecommunications Consultants members do not represent any manufacturer or service. We will post your clients request to mour membership. Contact me if you wish. Ivan Sindell, President/ Global Communications Systems Research Member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants (STC) 3940 Highwood Ct. NW; Washington, DC 20007 202-342-1500v; 202-298-6240f ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 10:34:41 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) wrote: > Forwarded FYI to the Digest: > <<<>>> > [a coalition of AT&T, MCI, TURN, et al., is urging the CPUC to prohibit > Pacific Bell from *proposing* area code overlays in California. Pac > Bell is raising a stink and urging the CPUC to reject the proposal.] I've got to say, this is one where I wholeheartedly agree with Pac Bell. I did not support their overlay plan for 310/213, especially the plan that had the new area code overlay more than one existing area code, but I don't think they should be prohibited from proposing one. That's lunacy. In another ten years, there will probably be a dozen area codes wholly within Los Angeles County, at which point overlays will make a lot of sense. An overlay of 916 now would not make sense, because it's such a large geographic area, with an obvious division between Sacramento and not-Sacramento. The other California area codes outside greater L.A. are also not ready for overlays, but a couple of splits from now they may be -- 408 is going to split in the next two years, and it would be very difficult to split again. The same goes for 415 and 714. I believe overlays are appropriate where the area involved is very small, the area has no obvious dividing lines in it, and the overlay goes on top of exactly ONE existing area code. This business of (212 and 917) and (718 and 917), or (312 and 630) and (708 and 630), to name two proposals, is confusing. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, 630 has ceased being an overlay code and is now a geographic code covering Dupage County, Illinois and the far western suburbs of Chicago. It was an overlay for cellular/pager purposes at the time it started in January, 1995, with 312 and 708 'under' it. With the expansion of area codes and the resulting shakedown going on here at the present time, those cell and pager people who were 'overlaid' a year ago are welcome to remain in 630 if they wish to do so, but unless they happen to be located geographically in the new 630 it really does not make sense. Likewise with the 'new' 708: from a few years ago there were lots of pagers and cell phones in 708 around this north suburban area. Some of those people are insisting they want to continue with a 708 number which is fine with everyone concerned, but it now geographically places them way out of their 'natural' area which is the south and near west suburbs. Quite a few people are like myself and want seven digit dialing whenever possible, so we are seeing quite a few of the 630 and 708 cellular/pager numbers now getting dumped in favor of where the subscriber spends most of his time, i.e. 847, or 'true' 708, 630, etc. Some users of course just fell into place naturally. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:59:52 GMT From: cassuto@bnr.ca Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Organization: Nortel Matra Cellular In article is written: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... >> A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He >> dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the >> number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has >> to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It >> seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being >> sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that >> his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this >> be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an >> analog set. I don't think there is a problem with the number of digits being sent by the M2616; once he's connected to the Unitel server, he's not in a dialing phase anymore, the calling card and PIN are sent over the voice channel as DTMF tones, just like normal speech, so there is no limit. I cannot think of what the problem might be in this case; sorry. Philippe. ------------------------------ From: dapet@aol.com (Dapet) Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California Date: 3 Apr 1996 15:10:12 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dapet@aol.com (Dapet) leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) wrote: > Little most people realize they will have to dial *82 (block Caller ID) > every time to order a pizza ... But if your local pizza store has computerized their caller ID to pull up your favorite order, the ordering process is much faster, and the pizza store can cut down on the number of fraudulant (prank) orders they receive. I can order a pizza from my local pizza store in under 15 seconds because they use this technology. California is so far behind the rest of the country in utilizing this technology. Once you have it and learn to use it -- it will make your life easier in many ways. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for example, why they should be required to provide a social security number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or the right to cash a check in a store. They are certain that being required to provide some personal information about themselves as a condition of doing business with some merchants, is nothing but an evil plot by the company to get something over on them. These same people generally are positive that if they use their telephone without blocking their ID it will result in a nearly constant barrage of telemarketing calls 'invading their privacy' even more. We have had messages in the past from people who seriously questioned why the pizza delivery service had the right to know anything more than just to take a pizza to the corner of Oak and Polk Streets and hope for the best where payment and delivery-person safety was concerned. So you are not going to convince them of anything where the wonders and conveniences of Caller-ID are concerned. *They hate it*. They do not like it at all that companies like American Express can tell immediatly who is calling them before even answering the phone. They will tell you it is just dreadful that owners of 800 numbers -- the people who are paying for the phone call -- insist on the right to know who is calling them. They would not be happy here in Skokie. Our local taxicab service has used a combination of caller-id and touchtone pad entry for several months to provide virtually 'instant service' to their regular riders. In the past, we dialed 673-1000 and frequently waited on hold for a period of three or four minutes as orders were taken manually, then handed off to the dispatcher in another room. Orders got taken wrong; the digits in addresses were transposed, etc. Now, all riders other than first time customers can if they choose get on and off the phone in thirty seconds or less using the automated system where the rider enters his own order into the computerized queue from which the dis- atcher and drivers operate. When you call, you just tap out a few single keystrokes in respnse to prompts *you do not have to wait for* and after it validates your phone number against your address from their files a cab is on the way. The orders go into the computer and out to the display pagers the drivers have. A radio dispatcher oversees the whole thing but seldom reads your name or address over the air since the computer transferred the whole thing out to the drivers. All the dispatcher has to do is tell the driver, 'the order came from the computer and is on your pager.' The computer reads back your address so that you can make corrections if needed. It remembers if you want a specific driver if that one is available or if you do not want a certain driver for whatever reason. It remembers if your preference is for a 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' cab and driver. If you do not want the cab until ten in the morning then the computer stores it and pushes it to the queue about fifteen minutes before the desired time. First time customers not in the database need to hold for operator assistance, but on subsequent calls they are all set up. I suppose the privacy freaks would complain that the computer is going to have records of their travels about the village or to other nearby places. That's too bad. :) The computer also remembers which from and to addresses/phone numbers caused the driver to get stiffed on his fare or assaulted by someone who ran off with all the money. That's good. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #156 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 19:40:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA24399; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:40:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040040.TAA24399@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #157 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 19:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges (Stanley Cline) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Tom Watson) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Michael David Jones) Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks (Lynne Gregg) St. Lucia's New 758 (SLU) NPA (Mark J Cuccia) On the Subject of CellPhone Service - LA Cellular (Rupa Schomaker) Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc (was Sprint Fridays) (Stanley Cline) Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number (Gordon Burditt) 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 mirror.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: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:40:02 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Gary Novosielski wrote: > TV news over the weekend carried a story of a reporter in Virginia > discovering that MCI had, as far back as anyone could remember, been > overcharging on 1-800-COLLECT calls by charging for an extra minute, > compared with other carriers. MCI has also overcharged occasionally in a less subtle way -- in some areas, calls placed using 1-800-COLLECT (and 10222+0) were routed to MCI's "AOS" subsidiary and former LD carrier Telecom*USA. (I had one bill which involved the use of 1-800-COLLECT which I disputed -- I KNOW the caller used 1-800-COLLECT but Telecom*USA, NOT MCI, billed it! MCI refused to adjust the bill -- one reason why I now have *L*CI.) This was reported on on "Dateline NBC" a few months back ... but from some payphones in the Chattanooga area, dialing 10222 STILL goes to Telecom*USA (despite FCC orders to fix the network.) It's hard to tell what happens with 1-800-COLLECT. (Some payphones refuse to connect to LDDS' operator services, too; it depends on the NXX.) The "1-800-COLLECT" system, along with the "newer" MCI calling cards (the ones that offer speed dialing, news/stock/sports info, etc. and don't use 950-1022) and MCI's Personal 800 system, all come from Telecom*USA, which was based in Atlanta (MCI's Business Markets HQ is in the same building where "Telecom"'s HQ was located.) 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: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 14:44:30 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But it would be more like meeting at > 99.999999987 percent of the way. Lotteries are taxes on people who > are very poor at mathematics. Yes, I know *someone* has to win, but > it is not going to be you or me, or at least not me. If I were asked > which was more likely, that I would win the lottery and live to > collect it all or that Bill Gates walked up to me personally and > handed me a check for a million dollars, I would say the latter, and > I am not holding my breath until he knocks on my front door either. PAT] Its often said that the odds of winning at the lottery are the same whether you buy a ticket or not! The problem is that it is true: I personally have turned in a winning lotto ticket I found (it was a $5.00 winner). I also found a $2.00 "scratcher" on the pavement of a parking lot, and turned it in as well. My purchases of tickets haven't been so fruitful at all, as I've lost most of them. Please refer any comments to a "make money fast" posting. Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 3 Apr 1996 18:13:46 -0500 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! There's more than a grain of truth to this, or at least there was a couple of years ago. I know a fellow who worked for a local clone manufacturer (BitWise Designs, if anyone knows of them). He told me that the only licensing agreement they could get from Microsoft was to sell (or at least pay for) a Windows license for every machine they sold, whether Windows was bundled with it or not. That's not the same as the odd claim you mention, but it's relatively easy to see how the one got mangled into the other. > Honestly, the more I read Usenet the more examples I see of people who > need to grow up and start living in the real world. I'm not sure whether this bothers me more than the number of people I see who dismiss far too many things out of hand. Both are distressing. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 12:53:00 PST glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) posted: > Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... > "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this > system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to > effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). Not necessarily true. The ability to receive inbound Caller ID in an office (PBX) environment depends on a number of factors: * Connects to the PSTN must be ISDN so CPN may be passed (in both directions). * Age/state of the PBX: the office system -- including desk sets -- must be able to receive and display Caller ID. Some PBX's may be configured to send either or combination of) station ID or main company number. Some PBX's cannot be configured to support *67 for per call blocking (I'm not aware of any that can). So if support for per call blocking is a big issue, then the Centrex conversion is the only way *67 could be supported. On the other hand, the PBX can be configured to not send a CPN on outbound calls (all outbound calls would register as OUT OF AREA on Caller ID gear). Unless there is some security reason why your friend's business wouldn't want their number presented, they should configure the PBX to send either station ID or the main phone number. Conversion from a PBX environment to Centrex (and vice versa) is not a trivial job. I wouldn't base such a conversion solely on the availability of Caller ID. But then, I guess it really depend on company size and number of users. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:30:01 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: St. Lucia's New 758 (SLU) NPA Since we've seen the Antigua/Barbuda 268 NPA go into effect almost overnight (although most of us probably don't have it in our own local switches), I'm posting the following on St. Lucia's new 758 NPA, from the ITU Operational Bulletin of 15 March 1996, which can be downloaded (in MS-Word) from the ITU's website (http://www.itu.ch) and gophersite (gopher://gopher.itu.ch): Saint Lucia Communication of 1.III.1996: Cable and Wireless (West Indies) Ltd., Castries, announces that a new geographical area code 758 has been assigned to Saint Lucia upon the request of the Government of Saint Lucia. With effect from 1 July 1996 the existing NPA 809 will be changed to the new NPA 758. Dual access to both the existing NPA 809 and the NPA 758 numbers will be available for a period of six months (1 July 1996 to 31 December 1996). During the permissive dialling period either NPA 809 or NPA 758 will be accepted in a dialled number terminating in the new NPA 758. After the permissive dialling period, calls dialled with the NPA 809 will be intercepted. The dates that switching systems in the NPA 758 will begin transmitting 758 for calling number Automatic Number Identification (ANI) purposes will be coordinated by Cable and Wireless, Saint Lucia, with the international exchange carriers. Test calls to verify routing to the new NPA 758 can be made by calling +1 758 555 1212. This test number will become available on 1 April 1996. A recorded announcement will indicate that the test call has been successfully completed with the following message .You have reached the test number for Saint Lucia's new 758 area code. The 758 area code will become active at 1201 local time (0401 GMT) on Monday 1 July 1996. The dialling plans for the new NPA 758 will be as follows: All national local calls will be dialled on a seven digit basis with no prefix, i.e. NXX XXXX. All foreign NPA (FNPA) direct dialled toll calls will be dialed with the prefix 1P and ten digits, i.e. +1 FNPA NXX XXXX. Operator assisted calls including credit card, collect and third party calls will be dialed with a prefix 0P and ten digits, i.e. 0 758 NXX XXXX. Routing to the new NPA 758 for international operator and directory assistance can be made by calling +1 758 089 121 and +1 758 089 131 respectively. Operational questions concerning the introduction of the NPA 758 should be directed to: Operations Department, Cable and Wireless, Saint Lucia, telephone number +1 809 453 9441, facsimile number +1 809 452 4127. Any other questions may be referred to: Mr. Perry Mason, Telecommunications Officer, Government of Saint Lucia, telephone number +1 809 452 2429 fax number +1 809 453 2769. --------------------------- I don't think that this Perry Mason with Cable & Wireless could help us out with legal matters, however but I would guess that he gets calls like that all the time! ;) The ITU Operational Bulletin comes out twice a month (dated the 1st and 15th) and is usually available via Web and Gopher about a week after those dates. There are all kinds of data in the bulletin regarding codes, operational, tarriff, etc. aspects of International Telephone, Telex, Fax, Telegram, Data, SS7 International Point Codes, International Mobile networks, etc. There are also downloadable lists of international code assignments at the ITU Web and Gopher sites. These Bulletins and lists are not restricted to ITU subscribers. The ITU recommendations, however *are* restricted to subscribers at IMO highly inflated prices! :-( MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker) Subject: On the Subject of CellPhone Service - LA Cellular Date: 2 Apr 1996 00:34:01 -0700 Organization: Rupa Schomaker Consulting With the talk about cell phones and carriers, I thought I'd give some info about my recent purchase of a cell phone through LA Cellular. I live in Orange County (Laguna beach, about an hour south of LA) but we are still served by the LA area cell phone companies. Airtouch is the land-line operated CO, LA Cellular is the other. The rates are identical (at least for the lower end plans). LA Cellular sale's people are quick to point out what extra goodies you get from them. LA Cellular has a digital network (more on that below). LA Cellular has a wider coverage area -- though the expanded coverage is further west (in the ocean -- when yer boating I guess) and further east (in the mountains -- when yer skiing I guess). LA Cellular also has a roaming agreement for Ventura and San Diego counties (more below). The phone bundled is the AT&T 3810. It came with 2 batteries, a charger stand, and a car charger. Oh, they also had a special where you get 240 "free" weekend minutes. The sales experience was fairly novel since I did not let on I knew anything about cell phones until the last minute. The lady stressed how lucky I was to be getting a "free" phone and how they only started doing so in the last year -- she did not mention that it was *illegal* to do so in CA in the past. She stressed how LA Cellular has a pro-rated contract termination policy. If you cancel in your last months, you don't have to pay the full $100 termination fee. She neglected to mention that you *do* have to pay the full price of the phone ($155) if you terminate early (even on the 11th month), I don't know if Airtouch has a similar policy with regards to the phone itself. LA Celluar does have a three day return policy -- wow! The booth for LA Cellular had TONs of documents touting their digital network and the advantages of digital. After probing deeper I find out that digital exists ONLY in congested areas of Los Angeles and I forget the other location. Also, the cheapest digital phone is $400 with signup (it is a Nokia, don't remember the model number). Digital does get a cheaper calling plan -- but ONLY in the very high volume (and expensive) plans. LA Cellular has a "HomeRoam" program where they let you call in Ventura and San Diego counties for less than Airtouch (where you have normal roaming there). Basically, the minutes in the HomeRoam areas do not count to your bundled "free" minutes. They are charged at either your current plan's rates or the rates of the cell provider in the area -- whichever is cheaper. LA Celluar does have a "Fraud Protection Feature". I was given no option to decline -- not that I planned on doing so. Before you can dial a number, you must first send a *56 and then a 4 digit PIN. You can then make any calls you want without having to append a PIN to the number. After 15min of no outgoing calls, you are again locked and the above sequence must be resent. You can immediately lock your outgoing calls by dialing *560 and then the 4 digit PIN. While locked, you can still dial 911 and 611 as well as receive calls. When I purchased the phone, they programmed the code and PIN to the two speed dial buttons on the phone (one to lock and the other to unlock). Finally rate plans. I can't fit the plans in 80cols and keep it in an easy to compare form. Instead I'll list 'em one by one. Plan: Night Owl Monthly Charge Analog: $33.99 Digital: $33.99 Minutes Included: 50 Off-Peak Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.90 Off-Peak: $.18 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Economy Monthly Charge Analog: $34.99 Digital: $34.99 Minutes Included: 20 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.79 Off-Peak: $.26 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Convenience Monthly Charge Analog: $69.99 Digital: $62.99 Minutes Included: 80 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.41 Off-Peak: $.24 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Standard Monthly Charge Analog: $99.99 Digital: $89.99 Minutes Included: 170 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.39 Off-Peak: $.23 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $150.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Advantage Monthly Charge Analog: $149.99 Digital: $134.99 Minutes Included: 320 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.38 Off-Peak: $.22 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $175.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: High Monthly Charge Analog: $199.99 Digital: $179.99 Minutes Included: 475 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.38 Off-Peak: $.21 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $175.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Premium Monthly Charge Analog: $239.99 Digital: $214.99 Minutes Included: 600 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.37 Off-Peak: $.21 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $200.00 Productivity Package:(**) No Charge == Plan: Executive Monthly Charge Analog: $329.99 Digital: $304.99 Minutes Included: 900 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.36 Off-Peak: $.20 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $200.00 Productivity Package:(**) No Charge == (*) One time fee (**) Productivity Package includes: Voice Mail, PageALERT! (sm) with free Motorola pager rental, Call Forwarding, Call Waiting and 3-Way Conference Calling. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:36:38 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services > Actually, that is not entirely accurate. It is MCI who has the $.40 > per-call surcharge. AT&T's is $.80. I am unaware of Sprint having a > surcharge for using casual 10333 access. They have definately upped I only found about the MCI surcharge _yesterday_ and only upon reading DLD, NOT upon hearing about it from MCI, or in a tariff notice published in the Atlanta paper, or anything else. Clearly the "Big 3" LD carriers are doing what banks are doing -- nickel-and-diming to death, upping rates, and relying on the public's ignorance of the telecommunications industry (I know people who think AT&T is their LOCAL telco -- who live in a _GTE_ area!! and such) and people's willingness to pay whatever they're "told" to pay not knowing the alternatives (leasing phones from -- guess who? AT&T -- comes to mind.) Why else do AT&T, MCI, and Sprint STILL command such a lock on the LD market? They're playing on IGNORANCE, FEAR (of bad service from resellers -- in fact, since many resellers use WILTEL/WORLDCOM's network, many are BETTER than the big three!), and nothing else. Banks quietly introduced "ATM Access surcharges", charged by the owner of the ATM for using their ATM, IN ADDITION to what "your" bank charges for "foreign" ATM withdrawals. AT&T, and now MCI, quietly sneak these surcharges in "under the back door," so to speak. VarTec's "Dime Line" "offer" is even more egregious. Sprint, WorldCom, and LCI haven't started surcharging yet, but who knows what they will do?! Clearly there will eventually be a _big_ gap between the rates charged by resellers, LCI, WorldCom, and the smaller carriers, and the "Big Three" carriers. And the days of "PIC dialing" are numbered (lest you get overbilled or surcharged or ripped off -- at first PICs were introduced to AVOID [AOS] surcharges and now they HARBOR them) -- I had to change banks to help avoid ATM surcharges, and now I'm forced to call BellSouth and block PIC dialing permanently on my several lines. (I already blocked collect calls, third number calls, and changing of LD carrier without written permission.) > "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". Unless this man is making his > phone call from someplace where is is very sunny outside after 7 p.m., I guess he was in Alaska in the middle of the summer ... up here in Tennessee it is pretty light at 7 pm ... the further north the later the days during the dog days. > he will obviously NOT be charged $.10 a minute (of course he'll also > pay an $.80 surcharge for using his Sprint Calling Card!). The entire Another example of ignorance comes to mind: A coworker of mine has a Sprint calling card that is only 9c (yes, NINE CENTS) per minute late nights (their college "Midnight Madness"(?) offer) But she's still paying an 80c surcharge on the call -- and using it from home! I asked her, "Why not change LD carriers, to LCI or Frontier or someone halfway reasonable?" Her response: "I can't do better than this, I can get only AT&T." (She lives in an area not equal access yet -- but that area converted to a DMS100 earlier this week FINALLY!!!, so MAYBE she can switch soon enough.) In her case, the per-minute rate seemed to bear out the calling-card surcharge, even though a one-minute call on ATT would be nearly 70c less than the same call on Sprint. > I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to > con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing > methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. IGNORANCE and FEAR. That's what the big three LD carriers prey on. I have LCI now and am still looking for someone cheaper. (Some resellers, such as Deltacom, can't beat SOME of LCI's rates. What am I doing wrong?) :-( 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: gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number Date: 3 Apr 1996 23:26:27 GMT An article in the {Dallas Morning News} describes how Diane Hackett would like to euthanize her telephone. Her home phone number used to be the number of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He used to have his number publicized in all the Detroit-area directories. Eventually he got an unlisted number, and his old number was eventually recycled and issued to the Hackett family. (The article did not say how long it took the number to be recycled except for a reference to his move "a few years ago".) They are getting calls for Dr. Kevorkian at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes it's the old and infirm or anxious or desparate and suicidal. Sometimes it's reporters. Nobody mentioned the possibility of changing her number. Now, do any of you wise guys who like to take reservations for wrong numbers destined for hotels have any good responses? Warning: if you say "go jump in a lake", they'll probably do it, and you might be up on charges for assisting a suicide. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lerctr.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #157 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 21:07:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA04540; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:07:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:07:58 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040207.VAA04540@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #158 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 21:07:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. (Mike King) Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (Stanley Cline) How Long Do Modems Check For Dialtone? (Michael S. Craig) Seeking Sales/Sales Management Opportunity (Gene Price) Need List of Current NXX's in RI (401) (Tony Pelliccio) Ameritech Announces 810 Split (John Cropper) Wanted: Used 3x8 Norstar Keyline System (D.K. Wong) Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Peter Hoeve) Employment Opportunity: Internal Telecom Analyst (Jason Fetterolf) Want to Buy: 30-50 Station KSU Plus Phones (Mark Miller) Seeking Reference For WAN Costs (Kerrie A. Exely) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) For Sale - IMTS Radio Telephone Gear (Chris D. Johnston) 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 mirror.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 King Subject: BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:25:26 PST Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:33:23 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc., New Internet Services and Electronic Commerce Unit ATLANTA, April 3, 1996 -- BellSouth announced today it has formed a new business unit, BellSouth.net Inc., which will assist BellSouth affiliates in providing Internet services and electronic commerce capabilities for customers' growing computer networking needs. The company also announced that John Robinson has been named president of BellSouth.net. Robinson was executive director of Strategic Management for BellSouth Telecommunications before his new assignment. BellSouth.net is wholly owned by BellSouth EC Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of BellSouth Corporation, and will be managed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BST). "We will bring to the Internet and electronic commerce the same reliability and high quality of service that customers have come to expect from BellSouth's voice telephone service," according to Robinson. "Our computer networking services are another example of how BellSouth will be a one-stop provider of communications, including Internet connection and electronic commerce capabilities, local telephone service, wireless and long distance services as well as video and information services," said Jere Drummond, president and chief executive officer of BellSouth Telecommunications. BellSouth.net will deploy and manage the company's Internet Protocol (IP) networks across its nine-state region. The unit will also work with BST's customer service and marketing units and other BellSouth affiliates to develop new services and applications. BellSouth will offer Internet connection to residential and business customers in many major markets in its region by mid-summer, 1996. The company will also provide customers with a variety of public-switched and dedicated IP networking capabilities to meet customers' data communications and electronic commerce needs. In the future, BellSouth will also add to its capabilities web hosting and customer network management. "BellSouth is pursuing a multifaceted electronic commerce strategy that includes forging agreements with key alliance partners both locally and nationally to provide useful content and applications," Robinson said. "The foundation of our service, however, is an open, easy-to-use and widely available IP network that will link customers together, allowing them to communicate whatever they want, whenever they want." BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, and information services to more than 25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. # # # For Information Contact: Ted Creech Ph: 404-330-0550 email: john.creech@bridge.bst.bls.com ------------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:53:02 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Pat Townson wrote (note to my post): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well it all sounds pretty messy. Vistors > roaming in some of those areas must get awfully confused about who > they are doing business with as they drive down the interstate highway. The A carriers surrounding Georgia RSA 1 (Dalton) have gotten agreements with BellSouth because of USCC's stupidity and arrogance with roaming rates. So going between Atlanta and Chattanooga, an A-side roamer must switch from A to B around Adairsville, and back to A near Ringgold. Very few people, especially on the Chattanooga side, know that -- GTE doesn't want people to know about that, lest they switch to BellSouth for local cell service! > which is about seventy miles or so to the south! I do not know who > the B carrier is in Tulsa, but I was amazed their signal was that Guess -- US CELLULAR! (They're B systems in just a few places -- Tulsa, Knoxville and middle Tennessee, Asheville NC, and Fort Pierce, FL.) > west between St. Louis and Kansas City the roaming indicator would > come on for no apparent reason in the middle of an otherwise 'no > service' area; and there are plenty of them in the rural areas of the Between Jasper and Chattanooga, TN in eastern Marion County, BellSouth's Chattanooga system has no tower YET (they serve areas to the west, north and east of that "hole") -- occasionally I will get fairly strong "roaming" service (4 or 5 bars on a Moto flip) from the Huntsville, Alabama BellSouth system; the nearest "HUN" system tower is ~17 miles WSW of where I tried this; the nearest Chattanooga system tower is only five miles away, but is blocked by a ridge. In one case I got the Fort Payne, AL system which is about 40 miles due south of Jasper. I have gotten the *Knoxville* US Cellular system (tower ~45 miles NE of where I was) on TN Highway 111 northwest of Chattanooga, where it crosses a mountain and BellSouth has no coverage. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 21:14:07 -0400 From: Craig, Michael S. Organization: Maritime Tel & Tel Subject: How Long do Modems Check For Dialtone? Is anyone aware of a standard period of time modems will attempt to detect dial tone before returning an error message such as dialtone not detected? I'm looking for the *standard* default setting, not the range of time-out settings which are generally supported by current generation (14.4 or better) modems. In the service area of the telco for which I work, the frequency of conflict between modem usage and voice messaging services that provide message waiting indication via interrupted dial tone (100 ms on, 100 ms off) is increasing. I am considering Nortel's DMS-100 *variable interrupted dial tone* feature on DMS-100s as a means of overcoming this conflict -- the feature presents interrupted dialtone for 1-7 seconds and then reverts to standard dialtone. However, in order to forecast how many customers with modems this may benefit, I need to have a rough idea of how long *most* (75%?) current generation modems will check for dialtone before returning an error message. I'd appreciate any information on the subject. E-mail direct to me ... msc1@mtt.ca ------------------------------ From: gprice@erc.cat.syr.edu (Gene Price) Subject: Seeking Sales/Sales Management Opportunity Date: 2 Apr 1996 20:55:46 GMT Organization: CASE Center at Syracuse University. I have over 19 years of sales and sales management experience in a technical environment. I have designed and sold the following: PBX - Northern Telecom, NEC NEAX 2400, Hitachi HCX 5000 Data - Cisco Fibermux, and BayNetworks routers and hubs, NEC ATM FDDI, Ethernet, Fast Ethernet Video - NEC TCX 5000 Video Conference unit, Pro Share Desk Top Video CATV - Direct Bradcast Delivery, Satellite Delivery, Video Retrieval Fiber - Hardware I have designed National Accounts programs for Fortune 500 companies. I have sold in several vertical markets including Healthcare, Education, Government, Banking, Legal. I am currently located in upstate NY and would like to stay here or relocate to Southwest Virginia. I will travel anywhere including overseas. Education - BBA - Averett College, Danville, Va currently completing MBA. Please e-mail response to gprice@erc.cat.syr.edu I have also worked as a Product Manager, Project Manager, Network Manager Sales Manager, Natinal Account Manager. ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Need list of current NXX's in RI (401) Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:25:07 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. Reply-To: Anthony.Pelliccio@ey.com We're having problems with our AT&T Definity G3v4i switch and routing. Seems that AT&T isn't keeping up with current NXX codes in RI and as a result we have problems dialing wireless services such as paging and cellular. Does anyone know where (other than my inaccurate telephone book) I can get an accurate listing of all dialable NXX codes in RI? Thanks, Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Ameritech Announces 810 Split Date: 3 Apr 1996 11:43:19 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Forwarded from Ameritech: AMERITECH RELEASE: Friday, March 22, 1996 For further information, contact: Jonathan James, Ameritech, 313/223-7194 Sara Snyder, Ameritech, 313/223-7192 Joe O'Connor, Consumer Market Analysts, 810/637-1400 New Area Code Plan Selected for 810 Area New area code to take effect in 1997; rates and phone numbers will stay the same. SOUTHFIELD, Mich. -- Oakland County will receive its own area code in 1997, according to a plan announced today by the Citizens' Advisory Committee. This plan calls for Oakland County to receive a distinct area code in spring 1997. Customers in Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac, Lapeer, Genesee, and the affected parts of Livingston County will use the current area code. There are 895,000 telephone lines in use in Oakland County. The rest of the 810 area has 833,000 active telephone lines. The results of the Citizens' Advisory Committee market research found that 58 percent of customers surveyed throughout the 810 area code preferred the Oakland County area code plan over two other proposed plans. Customers said boundaries for an Oakland County area code plan would be easily recognizable and the change would split the fewest communities. The research illustrated that almost nine out of ten resident and business customers found the new boundary "easy" to recognize. The Citizens' Advisory Committee evaluated more than 20 area code plans for the 810 and 313 areas. The Citizens' Advisory Committee then oversaw an extensive customer research effort to gauge preferences for the various plans. A team consisting of several telecommunications industry members (local telephone companies, long distance companies, cellular carriers, paging companies and alarm companies) received the Citizens' Advisory Committee final recommendation on Wednesday and concurred with it. The new area code will take effect in spring 1997 with an optional dialing period (during which customers can use either the new or 810 area code to complete calls) before the mandatory dialing starts in fall 1997. A massive customer education program will get under way in the near future. The plan for 810 will now be submitted to the North American Numbering Plan administrators in New Jersey. They will review the plan and assign the actual area code to be used. This part of the process should be completed by the end of April, 1996. Then, the plan is turned over to the telecommunications carriers to implement for resident and business customers. The Citizens' Advisory Committee was assembled last November to explore options, conduct customer research and meet with members of the telecommunications industry. The nine committee members, appointed by their local government officials or organizations, represent Wayne County, Macomb County, Oakland County, the City of Detroit, SEMCOG, Ameritech, Detroit Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Public Service Commission. It was announced last October that southeastern Michigan would need two new area codes in the 810 and 313 areas to meet rapidly growing demand for telecommunications services. Work by the committees is still under way on the 313 plan. The new code joining 313 will go into effect in 1998. The Citizens' Advisory Committee plans to make its final recommendation on the 313 plan in the next few weeks. Customers that have any questions related to area codes can get information by calling 800-831-8989. News & Information | Ameritech Home -------------------- John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: D.K. Wong Subject: Wanted: Used 3x8 Norstar Keyline System Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 12:46:34 +0800 I am intrested in purchasing a USED Norstar 3 CO line and 8 extension phone system for my residence. Also, I would like some M7310 and M7208 phones (USED). Can anybody give me a quote on the system? I am willing to spend from $0.00 to $1,900.00 I live in Canada, and prefer to have rates in Canadian dollars. Since I am only a 15 year old kid who has tremendous interest in (very different, weird kid huh?) telecommunications, I wondering if I can get a system for free. (My mum complains that I play with the phone.) I have intrest in PABX, CENTREX, Voicemail, and Keyline phone systems. I just want a system to play with. Is anybody willing to give me a system for free? If so, let me know. My interest started when I was playing around with an IVR (Interactive Voice response system, a 1-900 number that is. My mum almost killed me.) I always wondered how they know my ANI to bill the call. My mum always complains that I tie up the phone line when I use the internet, and sometimes disrupts my connection when she picks up the phone. With a Keyine or PABX I can call the internet service provider with a modem without being disrupted. If my mum wants to make an outside call and presses "9" she would hear a busy tone telling her that I am using the outside line. Because my mum always complains that she gets a sore throat when she yells at my sibblings to come to the kitchen for dinner, she can simply just call them in their rooms with the intercom function of the Keyline system. Please send any replies to: a15283@mindlink.bc.ca http://mindlink.net/a15283/ "When I grow up, I want to be involved in the telecommunications, and broadcasting industry." I have a 3.5 G.P.A. at school and I specialize in Math and Sciences (especially physics). I hate P.E. and art ! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't like gym class? I never did like gym class either. Often I managed to get out of it by forgetting to bring my gym shoes, and since no one was allowed on the gym floor without them I had to sit on the sidelines, which I really hated. :) I also hated climbing that rope and I always got chosen last on any teams they had. Suffice to say I *hated* gym class. Let's see if anyone reading TELECOM Digest might have some old equipment they will sell you cheap or give for free. Good luck with your interest in telecom, and stay in touch. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Hoeve Subject: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 14:27:11 -0500 Organization: Secon Group Inc. I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will ring busy. I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and forward concurrent calls. Thanks for your help, Peter Hoeve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:10:18 -0500 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Internal Analyst Excellent Employment opportunity available for a telecommunications specialist/internal analyst. Location: Horsham, PA (near Philadelphia.) Focus of work: Billing analysis, with national firm possessing 29 branch locations across US. Applicant must have multi-site experience, and be experienced in dealing with various RBOCs on company's communication needs. Four years experience desired. Hiring will occur ASAP. Please inquire for more information to: Paul Lopuski, Director of MIS email your responses to him at: lopuskip@msn.com ------------------------------ From: markm@tutsys.com (Mark Miller) Subject: Wanted to Buy: 30-50 Station KSU Plus Phones Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:16:28 GMT Organization: Tut Systems, Inc. Hi. I am looking to buy a small-medium sized KSU and phones for a school -- around ten phones for admin and 25 for classrooms, plus a bit of growth room in the switch. Any good deals out there? Used/refurb preferred, voice mail a valuable plus. Thanks in advance, Mark Miller markm@tutsys.com ------------------------------ From: Kerrie A. Exely Subject: Seeking Reference For WAN Costs Organization: University of Virginia Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 15:09:29 GMT I am working on a project where we must gather information about the connection costs for DS-0, DS-3, ATM, and satellite. The phone companies have thus far managed only to put us on hold indefinitely, and we have not yet gotten the information over the phone. Is there an WWW site to get information on connection and/or monthly costs? Or a list of resources to contact? Or documenation I could obtain? This is a teleradiology project that would link two community hospitals to an academic hospital. We must estimate the cost of operating two systems, one using land digital services, and another using satellite services. Thanks in advance for your help. Kerrie A. Exely kae4z@Virginia.EDU Medical Imaging Program Radiology Dept., MR4 Box 1138 Office Phone: (804) 982-2585/4326 ---> http://artifact.med.Virginia.EDU:8001/kae4z/home.html <--- ** Please be sure to watch the show on PACS and Teleradiology! For ** more info, see http://artifact.med.Virginia.EDU:8001/kae4z/pacs.html ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 3 Apr 1996 18:18:33 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your > name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone > number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should > theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it > also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number > you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if > a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted > in their records? PAT] The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (subsequent to a recent FCC clarification) requires only that the consumer give a phone number to a telemarketing firm. The reason is that, the more information the junk caller has, the more likely it is that their will be a mis-match during a purge. (e.g. Is it: Robert Stuart Bulmash or R S Bulmash or Bob Bulmash 33 S 462 Gray Mill Drive, or 462 Graymill Dr Ste 33 The easiest and most effective way to not dial a phone number is to not dial it. The TCPA was created (ostesibly) to protect privacy; not to allow telemarketers to call under certain circumstances. As for the length of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- it's ten years. If someone moves, and the telco gives that `do-not-call' number to a subsequent person, what a blessing for the recipient. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period who may very well not mind those calls at all. Some people don't mind them. In any event *they* should have right to tell that to the telemarketer rather than me. And to make matters worse, my original intention which was to not be bothered on the phone is now useless since there is no way for the telemarketer to know about my new number until I tell him about that one also; ergo, still a few more unwanted calls as I notify them all of my new number. If the law does not require something a bit more positively identify- ing of the *persons* who are offended by these calls than a single phone number which can and does frequently change, then telemarketers are being treated unfairly, IMO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris D. Johnston Subject: For Sale - IMTS Radio Telephone Gear Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:22:49 -0800 Organization: NETUS Greetings! Well, the telecom group looks like a great place to post this. Hopefully some amateur radio ops will appreciate this. I have a fully functional Glenaire 2000 control head with an Aerotron 600TT-60 transmitter available. This IMTS telephone set sports 12 channels -- VHF High Band. It has been tweaked to go to 70 watts instead of the factory 60 watts. Oh, full duplex is a given. It is also terrific for lighting up flourescent tubes at up to three feet away and causing RF burns if you grab the wrong end of the antenna while keyed. :-) Of course, since it is IMTS-able, you can do pulse-dial only from the GL2000 head. Oh, the carbon button microphone is matched to the Xmitter. Comes with documentation and schematics -- and a service area map set for the state of California. Any takers? I want $50. You pay shipping. Call me, Chris Johnston at 714-289-8543 (days). Best Regards, Chris@netus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #158 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 22:16:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA12826; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040316.WAA12826@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #159 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 22:16:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (Jack Decker) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (R.J. Welsh) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (R.J. Welsh) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (James Van Meggelen) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Vance Shipley) Bell Canada Uses Improved Phone Jack (Nigel Allen) Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? (Paul Chehowski) Does Anyone Know About Cryptall? (Doctor Who) Correction: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards (Rick Duggan) Excellent FAQ About (What Used to be) Telco's Video/Broadband (d3smith@aol) Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (Chris J. Cartwright) Re: Wrong 800 Numbers (Bill Cavanaugh) 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 mirror.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: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:06:07 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net John Higdon wrote (in regard to the ACTA complaint): > But the crux of the matter is that what they propose is impossible: >> Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the >> public interest. Therefore, ACTA urges the Federal Communications >> Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its jurisdiction in this >> matter and: issue a declaratory ruling establishing its authority over >> interstate and international telecommuni- cations services using the >> Internet; grant special relief to maintain the status quo by >> immediately stop the sale of this software; and institute rulemaking >> proceedings defining permissible communications over the Internet. > Nice try, but there is no "Internet". There is no main office; there > are no branch offices. It is impossible to "monitor" the Internet. It > would be impossible to define "permissible communications over the > Internet" simply because 1) new types of services are coming forth > daily; and 2) such regulations would be unenforcable. Since data can > be scrambled and encrypted in an infinite number of ways, even packet > sniffing on randomly selected routes would yield an empty hand. I agree with John on this. I have said in other forums that if the FCC ever actually went along with the ACTA request, hackers would have a field day writing software that disguised the fact that voice data was being sent. I could easily forsee the day when you have what appears to be an FTP client and server exchanging binary files, but only the users know that they are really exchanging voice in real time. And that's just one possible way to do it! > What do we have here? We have a software company distributing software > that provides for utilization of a common technology: conversion of > voice to data; data to voice. Nothing illegal about that. And then we > have users installing that software on systems that have links to the > Internet. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. > But ACTA thinks "there oughtta be a law ...". Let's see ... "Federal > Law prohibits the installation of this software on any computer that > has a connection to the Internet. Violation of the law may cause > damage to ACTA-members' Cash Cow." And here's the one thing that no one seems to have mentioned yet: The FCC's jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States. As much as they might like to do it, they are not going to be able to stop VocalTec (an Isreali company) from manufacturing IPhone. At best, they might keep it from being sold legally in the United States, but then they run into another problem -- the software can be both sold and delivered via the Internet, without ever physically mailing anything into the United States, so in order to implement this they'd basically have to isolate the U.S. portion of the Internet from the rest of the world. All that such an order would really accomplish would be to move the manufacture and sale of such products offshore, cutting U.S. vendors out of any profits from the sale of such products (not that this is really a big deal, because many of these products currently can be obtained for free!). I know (from previous postings) that there are a few people, obviously including some folks at ACTA, that naively believe that the F.C.C. actually has the ability to stop the sale and use of the products in the United States. I believe this is one prohibition that would be even less successful than the prohibition of alcohol was, simply because the no federal agency has the manpower and ability to enforce this, UNLESS they cut off the Internet links at the borders of the country. One other point to keep in mind is that what we know as the Internet is only one possible use of these products. In a way, this brings us back to the time when extension telephones could be legally sold for use "on private networks only" -- of course, most of them wound up connected to the public telephone network anyway. Well, there is absolutely no reason that the FCC should have any say about what software is used on a private company data network. If you want to use an Internet telephone product to communicate between the 4th floor and the 40th floor of your company's headquarters via your corporate intranet, it's none of the FCC's business. But like the surplus telephones of old, that could be used equally well on a private or public phone system, the exact same Internet telephone products can be used on a private corporate network or on the Internet as a whole. Now, is the FCC really going to tell us that we cannot send voice over our own private networks just because we MIGHT use the same software over the Internet? Even during the heyday of the Bell System, AT&T could not halt the sale of surplus telephones to individuals (admittedly, I don't know if they ever tried) so I think there is precedent for not halting the sale of a product that can be used on a private network, even if it can also be used on a public one. > I predict that our currect method for handling long distance (time and > distance charging) will eventually go by the wayside. I also do not > believe that "Internet Phone" is the vehicle that will cause that to > come about. But it has served one purpose: we now know that ACTA is > not interested in ANY technological advances that threaten its status > quo. That is good information to have in the future. Actually, what I see the Internet doing is fulfilling all the promises that the phone companies were making back in the 50's and 60's. They used to come to schools and tell the kids that "someday you'll be able to talk to anyone, anywhere in the country for a nickle!" and then later on they spoke of the day we'd be able to see the person we're talking to. They never delivered on the first promise, and for all intents and purposes they haven't yet delivered on the second (unless you can afford over a grand for a standalone video phone at each end of the conversation). But the Internet is delivering all that and more, today -- perhaps not perfectly yet, but it's much further along than the phone companies are! Jack ------------------------------ From: rj_welsh@ix.netcom.com (RJ WELSH) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:18:51 GMT Organization: Netcom In Mark Smith writes: > In Article , net> writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the >> carriers do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. >> Voiceprints are supposed to be unique. > Voiceprints are a good idea if the phone has a single user. However, > my wife and I until recently shared a phone (the person driving > furthest away took the phone). Also, we now each have a phone, but if > we are travelling together we take one phone. This means that either > of us may be using the phone at any given time. Voiceprints would > make this difficult. Multiple prints are no problem; simply longer matching delays. Consider, instead, the extreme ease of tape recording a voice, digitizing the audio and editing (perhaps even without digitization) the voice to produce the required results. DSP is now a common hacker's tool. After all, it's next to impossible to match "voice prints" for an entire conversation; would you shut it off if the other end didn't "match"...? Regardless of the resolution of the pattern matching software, telephone line bandpass limitations make forgery extremely easy. The same could be said of the once "leading edge" technology of transmitter pattern matching; changes in temperature alone produce L/C variations that are enough to throw any pattern matching algorithm into digital lunacy. If that were not enough, forgery at RF frequencies is only a matter of shifting transfer functions via vvc's and variable semiconductor inductor simulation. grendal ------------------------------ From: rj_welsh@ix.netcom.com (RJ WELSH) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:23:17 GMT Organization: Netcom In cassuto@bnr.ca writes: > In article is written: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... >> A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He >> dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the >> number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has >> to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It >> seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being >> sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that >> his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this >> be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an >> analog set. > I don't think there is a problem with the number of digits being sent > by the M2616; once he's connected to the Unitel server, he's not in a > dialing phase anymore, the calling card and PIN are sent over the > voice channel as DTMF tones, just like normal speech, so there is no > limit. I cannot think of what the problem might be in this case; > sorry. ALL switches have limits to the number of dialed digits. Some of these limits have to do with trunking to other switching systems. The set itself (assuming its not some proprietary "smart" set with inherent limitations) does not govern these. Check the switch. I just remembered that NORTEL is known for a specific problem: Digital sets rely on the switch to repeat digits over outgoing trunks. Analog sets may be "cutthrough" allowing the keypad to send digits after the switch gives up control. This may be the problem; the digit outpulsing (sending) limitation in the NORTEL trunk protocol. I taught them cutthrough operation (allowing sets to control outpulsed digits by "cutting" the set through the trunk path while the distant receiver was attached) in 1982; maybe their learning curve is steeper than I thought. grendal ------------------------------ From: James Van Meggelen Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:01:51 -0800 Organization: ionsys.com Gerry Walsh wrote: > Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed > from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... If you're using analog trunks, it might be the end-of-dial timer. Try dialling "#" after entering the telephone number. This will override the end-of-dial timers and enable end-to-end signalling (DTMF). ------------------------------ From: news@xenitec.on.ca (xenitec.on.ca News Administrator) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 22:03:05 GMT From: vances@xenitec.xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Organization: Telco Consulting Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:03:00 GMT In article , Gerry Walsh wrote: > A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He > dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the > number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has > to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It > seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being > sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that > his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this > be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an > analog set. You probably don't have "end to end signalling" set up for your system. This is a programming option. To check just call someone (be sure you are on the same trunk group which would be used for the Unitel call) and ask them whether they hear tones when you dial digits on your keypad. If they don't hear anything then the pbx isn't sending them! Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:51:07 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Bell Canada Uses Improved Phone Jack Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Bell Canada has traditionally used RJ-11 phone jacks designed to take the plug in the side of the jack. I have seen some newly-installed Bell Canada phone jacks that take the plug in the middle of the jack. As well, these new jacks incorporate a sliding panel that covers the hole when a phone cord isn't plugged in, thereby reducing the risk of dust and moisture causing wiring problems. The new jacks also seem sturdier than anything from Radio Shack. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) Subject: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 05:54:56 GMT Organization: Bell Global Solutions I'm looking at writing some code to convert data recorded from a Rockwell chip based modem, using the AT+V commands. These data transmitted from the modem is specified as being in Rockwell ADPCM format, but I have been unable to find a written specification of what that format is. I have visited Rockwell's web site and found some utilities and sample code (unfortunately in Microsoft Assembler), but would prefer a simple formula that would allow me to code my own conversion program. I have found tons of descriptions of the IMA ADPCM format, but nothing on Rockwell's format. Anyone know where I could find any more information? Paul ------------------------------ From: Doctor Who Subject: Does Anyone Know About Cryptall? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:11:03 -0500 Organization: Sinister Networks I was going through a telephony junkpile and found three cards, Labeled "CRYPTALL COMMUNICATION CORP. 2/14/90 REV 1.1" and I am intrigued ... has anyone heard of this company? And have any idea what these boards may be? Dr. Who ------------------------------ From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Subject: Correction: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:26:19 -0500 Organization: College of Computing In article , Steve Bunning wrote: > Some of the files you mentioned came from a compact disk (CD) sold by > InfoMagic. InfoMagic sells a CD titled "STANDARDS, CCITT/ITU Blue > Book, Windows Sockets, RFC's & IEN's." You can request information on > InfoMagic and its products through their email address, info@infomagic.com. > You can pursue ITU/CCITT information via their web page at www.itu.com. I think two slight corrections are in order here. First, according to the InfoMagic web site (http://www.infomagic.com/infomagic/2standards.html) they no longer sell the ITU standards CD. Second, the ITU WWW site is at www.itu.ch, not www.itu.com. Rick Duggan - duggan@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: d3smith@aol.com (D3SMITH) Subject: Excellent FAQ About (What Used to be) Teleco's Video/Broadband Date: 03 Apr 1996 20:04:47 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: d3smith@aol.com (D3SMITH) An excellent FAQ which covers telephone company video/braodband strategies is available on the web at: http://www.vipconsult.com/~ipi/vipc/tlvidFAQ.html P.S. It's a pretty big file (~130k), so it may take a while to load. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 11:17:08 EST From: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF Subject: Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) FWIW, I looked up the 703-455-0341 fax number and it seems to be in Engleside, VA. The fax comes back with the header: FreedomStarr Communications, Inc. 16200 SW Pacific Hwy. H152 Tigard, OR 97244 503-321-5180 503-691-6494 fax 800-299-6232 x2000 (24 hour information and registration) This is signed (well his name is on the bottom) by Michael Reed, President. The fax states that their long distance carrier is WilTel and goes on with lots of verbage about, phenominal growth, couldn't be easier, global axcess (sic), tremendous savings, and what seem to me to be average rates. It looks to me to be just a horse of a different color on the same MLM scheme that most of the others we've heard about are using. Although they do say that "Our ... MLM tracking software is the finest of its kind", that alone should make it worth it . It is my assumtion that this spam just came from some overzealous "downline" member who is going to be rich because they have a dream and cheap internet access. Christopher Cartwright, Tech. Engineer Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: wilec@buttercup.cybernex.net (Bill Cavanaugh) Subject: Re: Wrong 800 Numbers Organization: Acme Explosives, Inc. Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:54:59 GMT In article , Greg Eaton wrote: > In message <199603210357.WAA25037@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, "Patrick A. > Townson" writes >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to agree that sometimes in >> desparation it is fun to play those games on wrong number callers. >> Quite a few years ago I had a number which had previously been >> assigned to the janitor for an apartment building. The real estate >> company owners had never updated their list of numbers they gave >> to tenants in their buildings. Furthermore, they ignored my several >> requests that they do so. I finally got to the point I started >> taking calls for the janitor and giving the tenants a hard time. >> A caller says, 'there is no hot water in my apartment'. My answer >> would be that at the rent they paid, we did not provide hot water >> or heat in the winter. Another caller asks, 'when is the garbage >> going to be collected from the hallways?' and my answer would be >> not until all the filthy pigs who lived in that building moved out >> which probably would not be anytime soon. Still a third called to >> report that her neighbors had loud, noisy parties night after night >> and my response was to suggest she either get ear plugs or perhaps >> just go join the drunken orgy with them. After a couple weeks of >> that, the tenant's list of management telephone numbers was updated >> with (I presume) correct information. PAT] That reminds me of a phone number I had in a small town in NJ. The local high school called to inquire about the health of one of the children, since they hadn't seen him in a while. I told them that I had just received the number from the phone company. They asked me for the new number of the people they were trying to reach (how in the world would I have known?), and I told them I didn't have it. Two months later I received an identical call. I referred to the earlier call and suggested that someone update their phone list, and also that if they hadn't seen a student in four months they weren't likely to see her again. That was on a beautiful June day. On a stormy September day, I received another call. I angrily suggested that they fix their records and hung up. Flash forward to October. Another call, this time from an angry drone who started the conversation by telling me that I was violating the law by not having my kid in school. Fed up, I started yelling at him, "I don't know who you are, but you've got some nerve! If you were really the school you wouldn't be calling me, because they know that the car accident was fatal! (at this point I let a sob choke me up) How could you do this to me??" They were very apologetic, and I never heard from them again. Bill // That's one of the tragedies of this life -- that the men // who are most in need of a beating are always enormous. // From "The Palm Beach Story" wilec@haven.ios.com http://haven.ios.com/~wilec -- Martial Arts Links ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #159 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 13:45:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA25706; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:45:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:45:31 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604041845.NAA25706@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #160 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 13:45:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash (Van Hefner) MCI and a Bright Bulb Strategy (Wall St. Journal via pushpendra@aol.com) Why the NetPC Will Fail (Kevin Kadow) More Cellular Anomalies (Stan Schwartz) New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs (Mark W. Schumann) Suing Sprint? Riiiiiight (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Christopher Ambler) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Tom Olin) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Seymour Dupa) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Steve Chilinski) 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 mirror.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, 4 Apr 1996 03:47:49 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash New York, NY, April 4, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- AT&T has received confirmation that Walter J. Murphy, 52, vice president of global sales, AT&T Submarine Systems, was on the plane carrying Commerce Secretary Brown and others that crashed today in the Balkans. AT&T Chairman Robert E. Allen has issued the following statement: NEW YORK -- While we continue to hold out hope, all indications are that AT&T has lost a valued executive and a good man in Walter Murphy. Speaking for all the people of AT&T, I am deeply saddened by the terrible loss that has apparently occurred today. Walter Murphy was on that trip today because of his knowledge of what it takes to help rebuild a telecommunications infrastructure like the one so badly damaged by years of war in Bosnia. He had only recently taken his current job and in his typical pattern, was enthusiastic about the challenge. He looked forward to learning how his business, AT&T Submarine Systems, could help improve communications in a part of the world that needs this help so desperately. The United States today has also apparently lost one of its most effective and energetic advocates for U.S. business in Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. The secretary worked tirelessly to find opportunities for U.S. businesses abroad. I have accompanied Ron on trade missions overseas and I know first hand how much he helped open doors for the business community in countries all around the world. He will be missed not only for his warmth, but for his dedication to helping U.S. business. It's a truly tragic day for AT&T and for the nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Walter Murphy, Ron Brown and the others lost in the crash. ====================== Personal Note: Also among those lost in yesterday's crash was Kathy Kellogg, a Commerce Department official whom I used to attend Sunday school with. She was a native of Eureka, CA, and was a year older than myself. She will be missed by her friends, family and the people she appareantly gave her life to serve. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ From: Pushpendra@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:37:24 -0500 Subject: MCI and a Bright Bulb Strategy MCI Makes Less-Than-Graceful Exit After Being Dumped From IBM Contract By JOHN J. KELLER Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal The telecom battle doesn't get much nastier than this. When International Business Machines Corp. notified MCI Communications Corp. that it had decided to go with AT&T Corp., the incumbent provider began cutting off service to IBM's global network -- before the old contract had expired. That move last week forced AT&T to scramble to keep Big Blue on line, according to people close to both companies. AT&T marshaled 1,000 employees over the weekend to provide IBM with service. The battle over the $3 billion contract to provide voice and data transmission services -- and MCI's retaliation -- underscores the accelerating telecom war. With a battery of newcomers ready to enter the newly deregulated market long dominated by AT&T, the fight to hold on to corporate accounts and win new ones will intensify. For MCI, the latest counterpunch could mar its record as a service provider and threaten to expose it to other losses of major corporate accounts. Currently, corporate communications accounts for more than $2 billion of MCI's $15.3 billion in annual revenue. "Imagine [IBM Chairman] Lou Gerstner telling his other CEO buddies about how MCI almost shut his company down over the weekend because he wanted to switch to AT&T," says one industry executive who asked that his name not be used. "We're still in discussions with IBM," said Frank Walter, an MCI spokesman. He wouldn't go further except to add, "We did not cut off service over the weekend." He wouldn't say whether his company issued a threat to cut off service. AT&T and IBM would not comment. As telecom customers go, IBM is one of the biggest targets in corporate America and wields enormous influence among other companies. The company uses numerous carriers world-wide to transmit its communications traffic around the globe. With a work force nearing 250,000 people, and thousands of customers who rely on IBM's global network, the computer giant is a huge generator of voice and data traffic. "It's the biggest if not one of the top five companies in the world to land as a customer," said one telecom executive. IBM was also said to be MCI's biggest customer, going back to the 1980s when IBM sold its satellite communications business to MCI and bought a 16% stake in the nation's second-largest long-distance company. IBM sold its stake a few years later. IBM notified MCI last week of its decision to switch to AT&T. "That started a torrent of threats," recounts one executive familiar with the IBM-MCI talks. "It got pretty tense." IBM made it clear to MCI that the cutoff would disadvantage not only Big Blue but also thousands of customers who tap into the IBM Global Network daily. But over the weekend, MCI made good on its threat and "started to rip out IBM equipment from its facilities," another executive says. Alarmed, IBM turned to AT&T -- even though the two hadn't yet signed a formal contract -- to plead for help in taking things over. "IBM went nuts and called AT&T, saying MCI was cutting off service," the executive notes. AT&T sent technicians to connect IBM lines to the AT&T system, transfer connections from its network to local Bell company facilities and reprogram switches and signaling systems to handle the mammoth traffic. AT&T, struggling to keep the IBM network up, notified IBM that it wouldn't be able to complete the job over the weekend. IBM lawyers called MCI and threatened to seek an injunction, ordering the contractor to keep the lines up, according to people close with the situation. MCI relented and gave IBM an extra week before it completely cut off service. The spat raises significant possibilities about shifts in competitive alliances. For AT&T and MCI -- which are in talks to cooperate on building local phone networks to challenge the local monopolies of the Baby Bells -- the question is whether this brouhaha will chill their new relationship. For IBM and AT&T, the proposed contract marks a new level of cooperation and interdependence between two titans. Their relationship was dealt a setback last month when AT&T pulled the plug on a project to let users of IBM's Notes software use the AT&T network. AT&T tried to ease the snub by later saying it would pursue lesser efforts involving Notes. The new telecom contract, which is to cover seven years, will have AT&T provide IBM's switching, transmission and signaling for handling millions of voice and data calls annually. Such pacts are especially coveted because they come up for renewal only once every few years and carry high profit margins and can lead to additional business down the road. Normally the loser of such a contract bows out and works hard to get the business back. "You try to be as helpful and gracious as you can," said one telecom executive. "How you exit is very important, almost more important than how you went in, in the first place." ------------------------------ From: kadokev@rci.ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Subject: Why the NetPC Will Fail Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:06:37 CST In-reply-to: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay > Echoing Medin and Corrigan, McNealy evoked the future of the > teleputer: "Put a touch screen on it and make it a kiosk, put a large > screen on it and make it a workstation, put in an infrared detector > and make it a set-top box, put a joystick on it and make a game > machine, put a cable modem or an ISDN port[1] on it and make it a PC or a > digital phone. So far this vision of a "Teleputer" is not much more than a current X-terminal with extra interfaces. NCD has a complete X-server and window manager built into the current generation of terminals, I hope they've already explored the possibility of running Netscape or Mosaic locally on the terminal. Adding cable modem or ISDN support may not be in their immediate plans, but they do have serial and parallel ports, a PPP stack, and better access control than a Macintosh. > You never run out of disk space[2]; you never have to back it up; > it's mirrored so you never lose your files.[3] You have an uninterruptible > power supply. Your phone or cable line is much more reliable than > your hard drive on your PC.[1] You get used to the security of the > system with no disks to corrupt and with Java programs that execute[4] > only in a virtual machine and cannot invade your system.[5]" McNealy > might have added, in ecumenical concern for Larry Ellison's mother, > "Put in some Oracle code and you have a terrific, cheap database > client in an emerging world of far-flung databases."[6] There are so many fallacies and pitfalls in the above statements that I had to number them for reference. 1. My local hard drives have MTBF's of 200,000-500,000 hours, I've been involved with nearly 100 ISDN installations in the Chicago area, and would give them a MTBF of closer to 10,000 hours, and I can keep a spare drive handy. 2. The provider has some limit on disk space, must charge you more than the going price per megabyte for the space you use to cover the cost of backups and extra space, and cannot obtain disk space for much of a discount over what you pay for a local drive without using offline storage (e.g. archiving seldom used files to tape). 3. It's mirrored and backed up so you never lose you files, and any government agency with a warrant can inspect them at any time without your knowledge or consent, as can any hacker or curious employee. 4. Java programs are, by design interpreted, lacking in 'power' and limited in functionality. Security holes related to Java are still being discovered. 5. You don't have a 'personal' system to be corrupted or catch a virus -- instead, the entire server may be violated, affecting not only you but hundreds of other users as well. 6. This makes the "owners" of the data very happy since without a local computer, you cannot mirror the data you receive for subsequent retrieval, and will have to pay everytime you access the data, instead of making a local copy of your query results. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: More Cellular Anomalies Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:25:25 -0500 When I moved from NY to Charlotte, I was able to transfer my cellular service from BellAtlanticNYNEX Mobile NY/NJ to Charlotte without penalty. When visiting NY with my Charlotte-based phone, however, the "fun" begins. First of all, BANM is the "A" carrier in Charlotte, and the "B" carrier in the northeast. If I am in the NY/NJ system, I can roam on BOTH systems. If I leave my phone on the "A" side, I end up roaming on AT&T Wireless (00025) and get charged $.99/minute. If I switch the phone to the "B" side and roam on the BANM NY/NJ system, I pay $.49/minute. Note that NO pin number is needed, even though both NY-area systems require it for their home users. Last time I traveled to NY, I was late for my flight and didn't turn off my call forwarding. Well once I got to NY I paged someone and they returned my call only to find that my Charlotte number was still being forward to the last place I set it. Of course, I wasn't able to reset it myself (the systems aren't compatible), and BANM's Greenville, SC customer service office closed at 9:00pm that night. I dealt with it until the next morning, where a call to *BAM in NY got me forwarded to Greenville, where they *73'd for me. Today, in Uptown Charlotte, when trying to make a call I got a "Your call did not go through" message (which is weird, usually you just get the tones on cellular). I finally got through to repair, who told me that there was a "fiber cut that knocked out at least eight towers for most of the day". He said the towers tried to log back on, but they apparently couldn't log themselves on and each site had to be manually re-booted. Something more troubling is that when making a call from the cell or calling the phone from a land line, there are a series of "clicks" while I assume the phone is being located. I didn't experience this anomaly when I lived in the NY area. Is this normal? Further updates as events warrant. Stan ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs Date: 4 Apr 1996 08:20:57 -0500 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site The {Cleveland Plain Dealer} announced today that the remainder of NPA 216 (which was just last month split by NPA 330) will be split again in 1997. 216 will retain almost all of the city of Cleveland except for a very small cluster at the very end of what looks like Lorain Avenue on the low-res map. 216 will also retain part or all of: Parma, Lakewood, East Cleveland, Linndale, Brooklyn, Cleveland Heights and a few other close suburbs. A couple of suburbs will be split between 440 and 330. I can't wait. :-) Regards, Mark, who will still be in 216 tyvm. Mark W. Schumann ------------------------------ From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Suing Sprint? Riiiiiight. (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 4 Apr 1996 03:43:42 GMT Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...and when they complain, Sprint says >> 'tough luck, sucker! Your weekday calls were not balancing out with >> your Friday calls so we reneged on our contract. We gave you 26 >> minutes notice to get the required documentation to our office. Now >> you can sue us if you like but we know you won't since it is a long >> involved procedure you cannot afford. PAT] > Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've > stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South > Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough > to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from > AT&T and switch. Ah yes, what happens when you want to sue Sprint ... like the notes I got from various legals at Sprint, and how I was advised that the moment it got to small claims, it [could|might|would] be changed to a court where I'd have to get a real lawyer and all of a sudden a COULDN'T afford it. Does anyone want to buy 20 2400-baud internal faxmodems? :-) (C) Copyright, 1996 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative, San Luis Obispo, California - Zen Room Presents the RHPS.ORG web site! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:54:53 -0500 From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Reply-To: tro@partech.com In article prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) writes: > As for the length of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- > it's ten years. If someone moves, and the telco gives that > `do-not-call' number to a subsequent person, what a blessing for > the recipient. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. Excuse me? Since when do telemarketers have a "right" to bother anybody at home who has not specifically requested not to be so bothered? I don't receive all that many sales calls at home; should I feel deprived? If there are people as desperate to receive telemarketing calls as you seem to think, perhaps the telemarketing industry should set up an 800 number that people can call to explicitly request receipt of sales calls. Or how about Dial-a-Sales-Call, where you choose from a menu of calls you'd like to listen to? Instant gratification! In the meantime, ten years seems like a reasonable time limit. Tom Olin Telephone: +1 315 738 0600 ext. 638 PAR Government Systems Corporation FAX: +1 315 738 8304 8383 Seneca Turnpike E-mail: tom_olin@partech.com New Hartford, NY 13413-4991 WWW: http://www.partech.com ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 04:30:18 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. Pat, You are laboring under the misconception the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is effective in stopping junk calls. First of all, do-not-call requests made pursuant to the TCPA, are company specific. If you tell `AAA Company' not to call again, that request will not affect any other junk calling firm (AAB through ZZZ Company). Furthermore, AAA Company will still be able to flaunt the law, and call you every year in violation of the TCPA for the rest of your life: while it strips you of any right to sue for that call. If they call a second time in (within a 12 month period) in violation violation of the law / your do-not-call request, then you can sue for $500. But if you do sue for that second call, the TCPA grants the telemarketer an `affirmative defense'. That is to say, "Your honor, we have established and implimented with due care, appropriate procedures to prevent our violating the law." In reality, the TCPA protects telemarketers from you if you sue them for violating the TCPA under the above circumstance. > Some people don't mind them. That `some' is about 17%. Indeed, the majority of citizens prefer not to be telemarketed, and according to one survey 86% consider such call to be VERY annoying. > In any event *they* should have right to tell that to the telemarketer > rather than me. Perhaps I can give my view of residential junk calls in the following comparison: Most people do not mind getting wet in the shower. Most people do not mind interupting their activities to answer the call of a friend. Most people do not want to get wet due to someone spitting up on them. Most people do not want to interupt their activities to answer a junk call. The result is the same. You get wet - you get a phone call. The difference is the sense of pleasure / insult: to your person -- to your privacy. I should not have to tell everyone who approaches, not to spit up on me. I should not have to tell everyone who does telemarketing, not to junk call me. Yet the TCPA requires that I tell each junk caller not to call me. > And to make matters worse, my original intention which was to not be > bothered on the phone is now useless since there is no way for the > telemarketer to know about my new number until I tell him about that one > also; ergo, still a few more unwanted calls as I notify them all of > my new number. The TCPA does not require telemarketers to track you based on your address. Furthermore, if you have an unlisted number, (as 25% of the nation's resident's have) such tracking is impossible. > If the law does not require something a bit more positively identify- > ing of the *persons* who are offended by these calls than a single > phone number which can and does frequently change, then telemarketers > are being treated unfairly, IMO. PAT] The TCPA treats telemarketers much better than it treats our fundamental right to be left alone by those we seek to not associate with in our homes. I am not so much concerned for the rights of the four million or so junk callers in the nation. Rather I'm concerned for the rights of the 200 million private citizens who do not want to be bothered by junk callers. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:52:48 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. tom zinn (zinnt@ncr.disa.mil) wrote: > Any chance you have the 800 numbers for ATT, MCI and US Sprint to get > put on their "do not hassle" list? I'm tired of hearing from them. You don't have to call *them*. They called you -- remember? When you get a call, sound cheery and ask for the callers, name, company, telephone number and city. Then request that you be placed on the 'do not call' list. If it's a big company, request confirmation by letter. If the caller doesn't know what you'r talking about, tell them as far as you're concerned, as an agent for the company, the company has been notified. You need the letter in case you get called again and they say, "We have no record of your request". PS. I know; I got mine from: MCI Telecommunications Corporation Consumer Markets National Escalation Center 9001 N. Interregional Hwy. Austin, TX 78753 800-925-8872 ------------------------------ From: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 09:09:42 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your > name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone > number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should > theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it > also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number > you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if > a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted > in their records? PAT] Pat- You are correct. Now that do-not-call rules are ACTUALLY being enforced (finally), the person being called needs to cooperate with governmental guidelines in order to ensure that they will not be called again. If people don't want to be bothered, they should take a breath between their rants and supply the company with complete information ... meaning name and address. As you notes, this is truly a double-safety assurance that you can't be bothered again (in any way, including direct mail). Also, full name and address disclosure is one of the FTC requirements in their 12/31/95 ruling, in the do-not-call provisions. If that's too much for someone to give, then they can expect to be called, and have no one but themselves to blame. If, in fact, you do supply your name, address, and telephone number, and the same company does call you again, you have complete legal recourse to sue that company for $500, as part of the new ruling. Lastly, yes, if one moves, you can plainly understand why a telemarketing agency will call you again. There is no way to follow you around. Just provide the information one more time. And if we bother you again, stick it to us! Steve [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where my disagreement with Bob Bulmash is on this is I think he is taking kind of a hard-nosed approach which is allowable -- apparently -- under the law, but as he himself points out, the court is not going to punish the telemarketer if they can show they have a plan in place to comply with the law and that somehow their paperwork got messed up ... accidents will happen! Everything I know about the law says that victims are required to mitigate the damage to themselves as best they can. There cannot be an incident of some kind and then the victim starts stirring up the pot even more. I've been on CTA busses for example where there was the slightest accident -- a 'fender bender' between the bus and another vehicle. What do people on the bus do? Invariably someone lays down in the aisle and starts moaning about 'whiplash' or their aching back. All I can say to those people is 'my aching ass!' The court is not going to serve as your personal collection agency. You have to make a reasonable effort to cut your losses. In the case under discussion, if you want to just go into court and make noise and wind up -- as Bulmash points out -- collecting nothing, then fine. It would seem a system of just providing a phone number is not very effective. It is true that the more data you have to put together the more there is a likelyhood of error, but at the same time if all you have to go by is a phone number, let one or more digits get transposed by accident and then you have no record at all. Unless you can show deliberate and wilfull violations of the law, the court will rule in favor of the bureaucracy and droids every time. That is why it seems to me that despite the obvious problem of possible errors in the data, it makes better sense to 'over-identify' the persons who wish to be left alone rather than 'under-identify' them. Then in the event of repeated, unwanted contacts being made, you have a case. ------------------ Despite this however, I would like to point out in closing that Bob Bulmash has for years operated the highly successful 'Private Citizen' organization. He has been quite successful in helping the members of his organization cut down on the number of telemarketing calls they receive, and he has been successful in a few cases in helping his members collect damages from telemarketers. Telemarketing organizations know him quite well, and they hate him ... that should be plenty of references for you. . His annual membership fee is quite low and at the very least you owe it to yourself to look into the program and services of 'Private Citizen' if you value your privacy and want to be left alone. For information please write him at: prvtctzn@aol.com or visit his web site at: http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home He has been a long time resident here in the Chicago area and the papers have written about his work on several occassions. If you choose to make inquiries or join his organization, you can let him know you read about it here in the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #160 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 21:15:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05684; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604050215.VAA05684@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #161 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 21:15:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling (TELECOM Digest Editor) The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So (TELECOM Digest Editor) Beepers, $1.99/month? (Gary Novosielski) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Stan Brown) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Steve Bagdon) Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Privacy Debate) (Lynne Gregg) Season's Greetings (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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, 4 Apr 1996 17:50:24 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling Ameritech, the telco serving Chicago and much of the five states surrounding it got slammed Wednesday in a ruling by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Ameritech has been barred from offering 'anit-slamming protection' to consumers following a complaint about same filed by MCI. The commission voted 3-2 that information Ameritech mailed to its customers about how to protect their phone lines from being 'slammed' between carriers was misleading and anti-competitive. The commission ruled that Ameritech cannot promote anti-slamming protection to what is termed intra-MSA service -- local calls which exceed fifteen miles -- until October 7, or until a customer has chosen an intra-MSA service provider. Customers are still free to ask Ameritech for the service in which their lines are locked against unauthorized changes in their carrier, but Ameritech can no longer -- until October 7 -- publicize the service. Starting Sunday, April 7, intra-MSA service becomes available to competitors in Illinois. Any carrier, including the Big Three are now invited to compete with Ameritech for handling those calls. It will all be transparent to the customers, who will simply continue to dial their calls in the usual way. What will happen is that when the customer dials a call into a 'Band C' or 'Band D' location -- a place more than fifteen miles from where they are located, the call will be processed by the carrier chosen by the customer. This will continue to be Ameritech by default unless the customer has chosen some other carrier. No special access codes will be required by the customer to route the call, however the customer will be able to use the established 10xxx codes to reach the carrier of his choice if desired. Previously, 10xxx had no effect on any calls within this LATA. That is, you could dial those codes or not as you saw fit; unless you were making a long distance call, Ameritech simply chose to ignore them, as was its right. Now, starting April 7, 10xxx will be in effect for calls as close as merely fifteen miles away. The vote by the Illinois Commerce Commission came after several hours of contentious debate among members of the five-person board and a review of the arguments presented both by Ameritech and MCI. The essence of MCI's argument was that a recent mailing by Ameritech to its customers was 'conveniently timed and worded' in such a way to effectively make competition that much harder on intra-MSA calls. MCI contends that Ameritech 'tried to make it appear' in their mailing that they were interested in protecting consumers against slamming by long distance carriers (which Ameritech presently is not) while not stressing that consumers now do have a limited choice in local service arrangements. Ameritech argued that the commission's ruling would be a disaster for consumers. He said Ameritech was only trying to protect people by not allowing their carrier to be changed without their permission or knowledge. MCI rebutted that the result of Ameritech's approach would be that consumers wishing to use MCI on intra-MSA calls would 'need to go to Ameritech and let them know of their plans ahead of time; this would allow Ameritech time to respond and try to change the customer's mind ...' The Commission ordered Ameritech to not publicize its 'anti-slam protection feature' until six months following the start of competition, to make it easier for the new competitors to sign up customers. It can still offer the service to those customers who know about it and specifically request it. Of course, one could say this also makes it easier for the new competitors to slam existing customers as well ... but the commission apparently felt the risks involved with slamming were less important than the risk a customer who might want to switch to a competitor might be 'hassled' or otherwise discouraged from making the change once Ameritech found out about it. It is unclear at this point if the competitors will do the billing themselves or if they will bill via Ameritech. It is also unclear how pay telephones will be distributed; most likely Ameritech will continue to handle all calls made with coins and persons making non-coin calls will be able to bill them to carrier credit cards or Ameritech cards, etc as they do now. Or perhaps some pay phones will 'default' on intra-MSA to a competitor with Ameritech handling the coin collection/remittances as agent for the other carrier. This is still pretty new and uncharted territory here. Regardless of the method by which the carriers bill, the same rules as apply to long distance service will be in effect; that is, among other things the carriers will be entitled to information about your account from Ameritech -- regardless of its published or non-published status -- for *billing purposes only*. They cannot take information obtained from Ameritech records and use it for marketing purposes or for resale to telemarketers, etc; a practice that Ameritech itself has always repudiated. Ameritech is angry that their 'anti-slam protection service' was put on hold by the commission and calls it a serious loss to the customers. Ameritech claims this is a violation of their First Amendment rights of speech, i.e. the freedom to discuss their services and offerings with their customers. The competitors say things could not have worked out nicer for them. Time will tell, as 'semi-local' competition in telephone service gets underway in the Chicago area this weekend. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:39:25 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So So ... the newspapers and television have been full of it all day on Wednesday. I've received several items in email on the topic as well. Theodore John Kaczynski, 53, formerly of Evergreen Park, Illinois and later Lombard, Illinois and for many years a resident of the tiny remote town of Lincoln, Montana was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday. Investigators stressed there was no connection to the events in Jordon, Montana on the other side of the state. If you check the 'profile' which has been circulating for a long time versus the real description of the person they arrested, the differences are amazing. The sketch of the person wearing the sun glasses with the hood was a composite made from the account of the one witness who claims to have seen Unabomber in person. Kaczynski looks nothing like it. The profile says Unabomber is a white male, mid thirties to early forties. Kaczynski is a white male 53 years old. The profile says 'probably spent formative years in Chicago area, high school educated with some college or trade school education. Kaczynski grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago (Evergreen Park area) and spent some time in Lombard, a northwest suburb of Chicago. Because of his superior intellect, he graduated from high school in three years. He was permitted to skip his third, or 'junior' year. He went directly to Harvard from high school, then earned his masters and doctorate from the University of Michigan. At that point he was offered a teaching position at Berkeley teaching classes in advanced mathematics. He was in his late twenties at this point. Some 'trade school education' huh? ============================= Ted Kaczynski did not have terribly good relationships with his family and chose to generally not be in contact with them. The family was unhappy that for whatever reason, Ted chose to resign his position at Berkeley and go live in the wilderness of Montana. In particular, Ted's brother David, age 45 has long held grudges toward Ted for one reason or another. Maybe he dislikes people who are a lot smarter than he is, who knows ... David is the executive director of Equinox, a substance abuse social services agency in Schenectady, NY. According to the FBI, David first contacted them 'a long time ago' trying to get them interested in his brother. The FBI says since that point in time, David has 'struggled to get our attention repeatedly'. David had gone out to Montana with his father to visit Ted several years ago and reportedly was 'appalled' that Ted had chosen to live in a tiny hut with no running water, no electricity or telephone. Relations between the two apparently just got worse from that time onward. David and his father could not deal with Ted's lifestyle. So when old Mrs. Kaczynski, mother of Ted and David was moved out of her home in Lombard and off to a nursing home in Albany, New York recently, David went over to clean out the house in Lombard which had been put up for sale. There he just happened to find some 'old papers' written by Ted which 'made him think' Ted must be Unabomber. Naturally he did his Good Citizen's duty and called the FBI once again to get them to investigate his brother. This time, the FBI took the bait and came over for a full scale investigation including searching the entire house in Lombard. By now of course, such a long time had passed without any real leads on Unabomber that the FBI was beginning to get pretty antsy about this whole thing. It is easy to see they felt they would need to solve the case soon. After reviewing the 'old papers' that David gave to them allegedly written by his brother Ted, the FBI agreed that this must be our man, and off they went to Montana to capture him. Now don't be concerned that so much of this is still a lot of loose ends with no logic; your FBI will fit all the pieces together one way or another. How do we get from graduating from Harvard in 1962 via the University of Michigan in 1963-65 to Berkeley in 1967-69 (he resigned his teaching position there May 31, 1969) and back to Northwestern University in the Chicago area in 1978 nine years later? He never worked for Northwestern; was never a student there. Why would he pick on Northwestern and the Tech Institute there twice in a row, a year apart (May, 1978 and May, 1979)? The bomb was in a package found at the University of Illinois as you will recall, and sent back to Northwestern. Why almost ten years after he left Berkeley before there is even the first incident and then, why Northwestern? If he had grudges with people at Berkeley, why wait thirteen years (July 2, 1982) and fifteen years (May 15, 1985) to express himself? Why bombs to all these relatively obscure people all over the USA including a computer store owner in Sacramento, CA and an employee of a computer store in Salt Lake City, UT? None of it makes any sense; the time line is totally crazy where Ted Kaczynski is concerned. Of course if you were an FBI agent and under a lot of pressure from your superiors -- especially after the newspapers had been talking about it incessantly ever since the Manifesto was published -- you would want to solve the case also. You would make things work one way or another. When Kaczynski was arrested Wednesday, the FBI agents took him all the way to Helena, MT some distance away. Agents were blunt in saying they wanted Kaczynski 'out of the way while we search his hut ...' Hey FBI guys, are you sure you don't mean you want him out of the way so he won't see you plant the evidence you need to insure you get a conviction? If the entire size of his 'home' -- his little hut -- is merely ten feet by twelve feet as the FBI itself has stated, then exactly how complicated should it be to search it *in his presence* as every other American is entitled to have done. Does something smell a little bad here, when FBI agents need to have the subject of their search warrant a couple hundred miles away so he 'will not interfere with the search' ...? Hey guys, be sure to 'find' the typewriter he used to write the Manifesto ... and be sure to find 'components for making bombs'. Whatever you do though, be sure first thing to issue some 'deep back- ground' to the know-nothings at the newspapers so they will all start cackling and carrying on and convict your man for you in the papers. Make sure you release all sorts of personal information so the media can go around interviewing all his schoolmates from 35 years ago and people who knew him at Berkeley 30 years ago. I mean, what is he going to do later, sue you? Whatever you do, always use the papers and the television to help convict your man; that is a smart ploy which has always been used by sophisticated law enforcement officers who were on otherwise shaky ground with little or nothing to go on and an urgent desire to find someone ... anyone. FBI officials said Wednesday that this fellow will be taken before the federal court in Helena, MT 'soon', although they have not yet charged him with anything. They say 'it looks promising, but there is still a lot more work to be done ...' There sure is; like 'finding' the typewriter and the materials used to make the bombs; placing him on location in the one instance where he was 'seen'; demonstrating some kind of connection between writing he did years ago and the present circumstances. Oh well, I guess they could have chosen to just burn him out, like in Waco, or shot him and any other people in the vicinity. All they'd have had to do is just lie about it and say he attacked them first and the last thing he did before dying was confess to it all. What the heck, the newspapers and television would have accepted that story since everyone knows that police can be trusted to tell the truth and not have any personal axes to grind or agendas. You see what you get when you choose to be a recluse or hermit and drop out of society to do your own thing? It helps if you have family members who hate you also. So let's conform to social norms everyone. Don't be too smart for your own good or choose to live 'different' than others. If Theodore Kaczynski is Unabomber, I'll be very surprised. PAT ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 14:39:38 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Beepers, $1.99/month? I saw a TV spot for a company called Smart-Beep, showing two identical pagers side-by-side, both of them doing the same things as we watch them, beeping, humming, lighting up with the same numbers, time stamps, etc. Okay, we've got the point; now a voice-over tells us the difference: Pager # 1 costs nine bucks (or whatever) per month. Pager # 2 costs $1.99. No catches, they claim. I thought I had just witnessed the arrival of "buzzers" (caller-pays beepers) to the New York City market, with two bucks tacked on for the privilege, but a call to the company (1-800-BEEP-199, of course) told me I was wrong, and left me scratching my head. It's *not* caller pays, after all. They say they'll give me real live seven-digit local beeper number in my 201 NPA, and up to 300 pages/month for an annual invoice of $23.88 (or $1.99/month, with ten cents each for extra pages, if any). They also guaranteed no price increase in year two, and implied it would not go up thereafter. I questioned them about coverage (pretty typical tri-state metropolitan area), and about activation fees (one-time $25) and pager prices (comparable to local mega-office-store franchise prices) and didn't find any catches, except that *they* want to sell me the pager. Still, the prices seemed okay, and they offered a "liberal" trade-in on any current pager I might have (which I don't, so I didn't ask "how liberal?"). They'll also tack on optional voice-mail free for six months, with 1.99/month rate after that. I'm still wary, though. For comparable service, with no voice mail, the next best price I've seen around here is about *four times* what these people want. I'm not *that* savvy about beepers, and I wonder if there is a hidden cost staring me in the face, or are these people just playing a hot game of cut-throat, signaling an impending crash in pager pricing? Is the up-front fee in line with other vendors? Is there something I else should have asked? The sales rep couldn't send me any written material, but gave me the address of a local dealer, so I may have to get in the car. I'll fill you in if I find any asterisks lurking about. I have no idea if they're a nation-wide outfit, or only in this area, either. Meanwhile, if anyone knows what the story is on "Smart Beep" (horror or otherwise), I'd like to hear about it. Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 17:07:38 -0500 From: Stan Brown Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Prvt Ctzn wrote: > The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (subsequent to a recent > FCC clarification) requires only that the consumer give a phone number > to a telemarketing firm. The reason is that, the more information the > junk caller has, the more likely it is that their will be a mis-match > during a purge. [...] As for the length > of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- it's ten years. If > someone moves, and the telco gives that `do-not-call' number to a > subsequent person, what a blessing for the recipient. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. There's a difference between the length of time you stay on the do-not-call list and the length of time you cannot (legally) be subjected to junk calls from the company. According to the _1994 Consumer's Resource Handbook_, published by the U.S. Department of Consumer Affairs, even if you're on their do-not-call list the company can legally call you once in each twelve-month period. (It's actually a seldom-call list, I guess, not a do-not-call list.) So, PAT, your concern is answered: if you move, the new occupants of your home will have the "benefit" of the junk calls within twelve months, even if they do nothing. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA +1 216 371-0043 email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/ Can't find FAQ lists? See my Web page for instructions, or email me. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 19:04:58 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Steve wrote: > As you notes, this is truly a double-safety assurance that you can't > be bothered again (in any way, including direct mail). Also, full > name and address disclosure is one of the FTC requirements in their > 12/31/95 ruling, in the do-not-call provisions. If that's too much > for someone to give, then they can expect to be called, and have no > one but themselves to blame. > If, in fact, you do supply your name, address, and telephone number, > and the same company does call you again, you have complete legal > recourse to sue that company for $500, as part of the new ruling. I am afraid you are confusing the: FTC's `Telemarketing Sales Rule' which went into effect on 12/31/95 and the FCC's `Telephone Consumer Protection Act which went into effect on 12/20/92. The FTC rule may require more than a phone number to be given to junk callers, but it does not allow you to sue unless you have been damaged in an amount of over $50,000. Otherwise, it is up to the FTC to take action, and you get nothing but junk calls. The problem is that the FTC will not act unless they get multiple complaint from consumers, and you have no control over that. The FCC rule, on the other hand, allows you to sue for $500 after a second violation within 12 months. (That does not mean it is legal to call you once a year against your wishes.... what it means is that the FCC law strips from you, any chance to do anything about a single annual violation of the law.) Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:31:38 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN In a previous message I made the blanket statement that, to the best of my knowledge, *no* SID uses the control channels to transmit your PIN -- as the included text below indicates, my knowledge has been expanded! Some systems *do* use the RECC to transmit the PIN. And, after some reading in my most favorite cellular 'bible' (ISBN 0-8306-1682-9, for those who care), I believe that I have been able to deduce how Ameritech has implemented their PIN system. Basically, I believe that the PIN is being transmitted over the REVC data stream, as a 'number dialed' - the same way that the phone number for a 3rd party call (initiated from the cellular phone) is transmitted to the cellular switch. The pin is transmitted over the REVC data stream as a dialed phone number. But beware! This simply illustrates the fact that the esn/min are transmited over one open freq, and your PIN is transmitted over another open freq. Yes, they are different freqs, but this system is far from unbreakable. I hope this hasn't caused any problems -- I don't have full access to the cellular switch, and the Ameritech customer service crew hasn't been too helpful in explaining their PIN implementation! >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to think PINs would not be much >> good, but I have changed my thinking somewhat. The reason is that the >> ESN is transmitted on a control channel and your PIN is transmitted on >> a different channel a few seconds later. I believe correct -- the esn/min plus the number you are calling goes out over the RECC, and the pin goes out as a 'dialed number' on the REVC data stream. Different freqs, but still trackable, to the motivated individual. > To turn off anti-fraud (and thus enable the phone for its intended user) > we actually >place a call to the PIN. That is, we enter the PIN and press > SEND. The phone acts as if >it is calling that number. It transmits an > ACCESS message containing its ESN, its MIN, >and the PIN (which occupies > the dialed number field of the ACCESS message). The >cellular And that was my statment about there *are* some systems, after all, that send PINS over the control channels -- in this case the data stream of the RECC. But ouch -- the esn/min *and* PIN over the same block of control words on the RECC - TROUBLE. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Privacy debate) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 11:02:00 PST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of > people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for > example, why they should be required to provide a social security > number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or > the right to cash a check in a store. The nice thing about Caller ID is that if everyone discloses their phone numbers, the service itself can be used to screen calls. It's akin to what happened to us last evening. A father and son rang our doorbell at 8:30pm. My husband answered and the father started a schpiel, selling beauty bark (apparently a Boy Scout project). While still in mid-sentence, explaining the bark, my husband interrupted and asked, "who are you?". See, we require that if you ring our doorbell or call us on the phone, you must identify yourself immediately. Before Caller ID came along, we were a couple of those folks who used the answering machine to screen calls. Caller ID allows us to decide on-the-spot whether to answer or not. Regarding those Usenet readers (and posters) who are intensely private, let me give you a word of caution by way of an experience that I had. If you use the net extensively, you have no privacy. Not long ago, I was paging through topics on one Newsgroup and was astounded to see one of MY email addresses attached to a post. The amazing thing was that I hadn't posted this message. I was shocked at the content which contained some pretty offensive words that I don't use. It's a fact of life today. Despite what you want to believe, you have little privacy. Well, maybe if you live in a tent in the North Woods. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Season's Greetings Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 19:00:00 EST Whether this weekend constitutes Easter for you, or is in the middle of Passover, or simply marks the first weekend in April and hopefully the beginning of spring weather, my greetings go out to all of you. I hope we celebrate many more such seasons together. Don't forget that over the weekend (officially Sunday morning at 2:00 AM) most people in the USA will switch to 'daylight time' meaning clocks must be moved foward one hour, in accordance with the old saying, 'spring ahead and fall behind'. Anyway, have a great holiday weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #161 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 23:33:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA08270; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:33:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604050433.XAA08270@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #162 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 23:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Steve Fraser) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (John Rice) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Henry Wysmulek) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (lr@access2.digex.net) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Mark Fletcher) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Walter Lee Davidson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gerry Moersdorf) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Smith) Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments (Chris Jones) Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Robert McMillin) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Stan Schwartz) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (James E. Bellaire) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Why the NetPC Will Fail (Hovig Heghinian) Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Tom Watson) Pizza From a Payphone (was Caller ID Comes to CA) (Eric Friedebach) Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks (Steve Uhrig) 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 mirror.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 Fraser Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:10:14 -0600 Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone I received a copy through the /dev/null list that Keith Bostic runs. I read the thing. IMO, it should be denied, on the basis of paragraph (51). In it, the definition of Telecommunications Service is to offer telecommunications _for a fee_. Clearly, the software providers are not offering a service, since they are simply licensing software. Additionally, they are not using 'public' resources, such as limited bandwith, as broadcasters do, or installing physical networks by digging into communities back yards. Cable and TV companies do those things. Thanks for the posting. D. Steven Fraser Vice President of Technical Services Healthcare Communications, Inc. Dallas, Texas. stevef@healthcare.com ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 4 Apr 96 13:05:34 CDT Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division > John Higdon said: >> And I must say, this is the most pathetic filing to come across my >> desk in many years. Out of the box, let me say that I feel that >> Internet voice communication is a substantial misuse of packet >> technology. And I agree that it is an inefficient use of network >> bandwidth. So's HTML and the World Wide Web WWW (probably more so than IPHONE). What's your point ? John Rice __|__ K9IJ ________(*)________ o/ \o rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:57:26 -0600 (CST) From: Henry Wysmulek Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question I ran into this problem trying to access my answering machine from a Nortel set, where I had to repeat my code several times before my machine received the code. The Nortel set can be programmed to send a longer dtmf signal length. I do not have my manual at hand, but this is a program feature of Nortel sets. H. WYSMULEK xhp195@freenet.mb.ca BLUE SKY FREENET ------------------------------ From: lr@access2.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 16:16:00 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank James Van Meggelen (jimvanm@ionsys.com) wrote: > Gerry Walsh wrote: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... > If you're using analog trunks, it might be the end-of-dial timer. Try > dialling "#" after entering the telephone number. This will override > the end-of-dial timers and enable end-to-end signalling (DTMF). The other problem is the tones are frequently only sent as bursts rather than held as long as the button is depressed. I had the same problem dialing my answering machine from a cell phone. At least some nortel units can be told to send long tones. It's Feature 808 on my little ksu. on ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:10:55 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Gerry Walsh wrote: > Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed > from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... > A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He > dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the > number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has > to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It > seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being > sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that > his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this > be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an > analog set. Have him hit the pound sign (#) after dialing the 800 number. This signifies to the Meridian that no more digits willbe dialed in the number string,and it may now process the number through the restrictions parameters and pass the number to the outside world. This may help. Mark Fletcher Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Adv. System Technician Parsippany, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 23:40:11 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio Peter Hoeve wrote: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. Are you forwarding to a single line number or a line hunting number? If you are forwarding to a single line number then the forwarded call gets the busy from the line you forwarded to. I don't know about other switches but the GTD-5 can be programmed to allow as many calls to forward at the same time as you like. But if you forward to a single line you still can only get one call at a time. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: eruwld@exu.ericsson.se (Walter Lee Davidson) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 4 Apr 1996 15:00:50 GMT Organization: Ericsson North America Inc. Reply-To: eruwld@exu.ericsson.se In article 8@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Peter Hoeve writes: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. > I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual > number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and > forward concurrent calls. Your observation about CF is correct, at least in some implementations. The main practical reason for allowing only one forwarding at a time is to prevent forwarding loops between switches, which use up all the trunks between them. Yes, people do this for "fun". Remote call forwarding allows up to some fixed number of simultaneous forwardings, say 64, before returning busy. BellSouth may want you to use a new number as the forwarding number, though, and often RCF forwards to a "fixed" number, one that the subscriber cannot change. Check it out. Lee ------------------------------ From: Gerry Moersdorf Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 12:19:06 -0500 Organization: Applied Innovation Inc. Christopher L. Davis writes: > Ahhh, sounds like AmeriWreck up here in Chicago. A few weeks ago, I > began have troubles with my home mailman, so I started switching all > my mail over to a PO box I have. Ameritech for my home use said "sure > no problem...". AmeriWreck cellular however gave me some song and > dance routine about not allowing that to be done because of the > potential for fraud. I ended up arguing with the fool for about 30 > minutes until he agreed to put it in the system. Then I called the > business office back the next day to make sure it went thru -- it did. > We'll see at the end of the month ... > The other wonderful thing AmeriWreck has been touting is the PIN. The > PIN is 'free', confidential, blahblahblah ... yeah right. How many I just asked to have my AmeriSmurf cellphone changed over to the PIN system. I didn't want to do it but the phone is blocked in all major citys and is just unusable without this PIN crap. Does the non wireline carrier (cellular one) use this mechanism also??? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 17:08 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: > Or even better, write your congressbeing and tell it you think that > cellular carriers should be required to implement /real/ security > within the next five years, or lose their licenses. ... > and a lot of "law enforcement" types are unhappy about the prospect > of people being able to have private conversations.) Of course, the security of the call setup and the privacy of the voice communication are two independent issues. While I personally want both, it's certainly in the carrier's interest to improve the former. While the phone and the service provider have to have some kind of shared secret (i.e., the ESN/MIN pair) for authentication, there is no reason why they have to be transmitted in the clear. A simple protocol such as having the cell site tranmit a random number to the phone, and the phone encrypts the random number using the shared secret as a key, and transmits the resulting ciphertext to the cell site would work quite nicely. The main drawback is that insecurity is inherent in the AMPS system. Retrofitting decent security onto it would cost carriers a lot of money, and render existing phones useless. The carriers prefer to pursue legal remedies. Since the carriers were grossly negligent in designing and/or using a system with such weak security, they should be required to pay all the law enforcement and court costs incurred to fight the cellular fraud. After all, if you or I owned a jewelry store and didn't bother to put locks on the door, and got robbed every night as a result, we wouldn't get much satisfaction from police (or insurance companies). Property owners are expected to exercise at least some minimum level of due diligence to protect their property, and cellular carriers have not done so. One would hope that the TDMA and CDMA phone standards have fixed this, but knowing the way that standards organizations work, I wouldn't bet on it. Eric ------------------------------ From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments Date: 04 Apr 1996 08:05:17 -0500 Organization: BBN Corp. Systems and Technologies Mark J. Cuccia's interesting message showed a first cut at NPA assignments, never adopted. My provincial reaction was to look for my state, Massachusetts, in the list. Well! There are 47 states listed (out of 48 in the union as of 1947), and Massachusetts, the site of the first phone call, is missing. Was it missing from the list he transcribed, or was this a transmission error? Chris Jones clj@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 04:47:43 GMT I wanted to respond to several points about the issues raised by widespread use of CNID. First of all, I'm not a privacy freak. I think CNID is a Good Thing, just like the header on this message that tells you who I am is a Good Thing. Just because the system is designed a certain way doesn't mean that it should stay that way forever. That said, I have the following quibbles with Pat's response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of > people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for > example, why they should be required to provide a social security > number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or > the right to cash a check in a store. I can certainly understand not wanting my SSID disseminated widely. This number is a key to getting all kinds of useful personal information. Here in California, they are making it mandatory to hand over an SSID before you get a driver's license. This is causing all kinds of a ruckus. In the case of Amex, CNID isn't all that it's cracked up to be here, either. What if you live with several roommates, all of whom share a phone line but have independent Amex cards? Who, then, does the Amex customer service operator think the caller is? The one with the oldest account? CNID is a good idea, generally, but what you do with it is another matter. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So how many people live with 'several roomates, each with their own Amex card and only one phone line between them?' I see the basic problem being that many privacy advocates feel merchants and others are going to rip them off or harm them based on the aquisition of their personal information. On the other hand, the merchants and others in the community with who they interact see the 'privacy freaks' as the ones with something to hide, or some mis- chief in mind. Perhaps more trust others is what is needed. Perhaps we need to assume that most people are decent with good motives rather than diobolical and looking for ways to rip others off. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:10:38 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V16 #150, edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) wrote: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! This is probably a mis-interpretation of the old agreement between MS and IBM that said in part that no matter which version of DOS the PC was shipped with (IBM PCDOS or otherwise), that a small license fee was paid to Microsoft. As far as I know, this no longer applies. Stan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 03:08:47 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) wrote: > Guess -- US CELLULAR! (They're B systems in just a few places -- > Tulsa, Knoxville and middle Tennessee, Asheville NC, and Fort Pierce, > FL.) US Cellular is also 'B' in Central Indiana: SID 01200 Logansport/Peru/Franklin/Rochester/Flora SID 01202 Crawfordsville/Greencastle/Boswell/Fowler US Cellular is the 'A' carrier in Northeast Indiana in area's ajoining the 01200 SID, as well as Northwest Ohio and Southern Indiana. They probably have more coverage than I mention, but this is the area I usually travel in, so I know it best. BTW: I wish they would sell the 'B' areas to GTE Mobilnet. Their service areas puts big roaming holes in the center of GTE's Indiana map. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com WebPage at http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 21:36 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article you write: > The A carriers surrounding Georgia RSA 1 (Dalton) have gotten > agreements with BellSouth because of USCC's stupidity and arrogance > with roaming rates. So going between Atlanta and Chattanooga, an > A-side roamer must switch from A to B around Adairsville, and back to > A near Ringgold. Very few people, especially on the Chattanooga side, > know that -- GTE doesn't want people to know about that, lest they > switch to BellSouth for local cell service! A naive question: What do the A and B mean in A and B-side roaming. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the time cellular service was first getting started in 1982-83 the regulators thought it was very import- and to have at least some modicum of competition in each market. They knew that the local traditional or 'wireline' telco would grab up the cellular service, and they wanted to allow other companies to get into the market as well on an equal footing with the local telco. The decision was to allow two carriers in each market. Carrier 'A' would be the newcomer or 'competitor', while Carrier 'B' would be the traditional telco in the commmunity. That is the only difference. We sometimes say the B carrier is the 'wireline' carrier while the A carrier is the 'non-wireline carrier'. In actual practice, cellular service is not a simple business to get into, and it requires a lot of cash and personnel to start. Not many firms could manage it but another telco would be quite suitable. Consequently, the B carrier in one community is often as not the A carrier in another community. Basically, the telcos are B carriers in their own market and A carriers when they operate the cell system in some other telco's market. Many of the A carriers choose to use the banner 'Cellular One' although that may change with all the mergers going on. The A carriers tend to stick together and share customers among themselves for roaming purposes and the B carriers do the same as the 'traditional phone company'. Now, is that all clear as mud? In the next decade, I think the distinction will become even more blurred as TPC grows back all the parts which were chopped off in divestiture and becomes one big octopus again. By the way, I guess you heard AT&T and MCI were cutting a deal to go into local service together in a couple places where they both consider the existing telco to be a tough competitor. Mercy! PAT] ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: Why the NetPC Will Fail Date: 4 Apr 1996 19:23:48 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hheghini@telesciences.com George Gilder's Latest Essay, saying that the "teleputer" -- which he correctly compared to "a current X-terminal with extra interfaces" -- will not succeed, for many valid technical reasons. He is wrong. I'll admit that the current, over-excited proponents of the system -- and I've been waiting for this day since my undergraduate days of the 1980s -- have not thought all issues through, and that there will continute to be much nonsense spewed over the course of the next year or two, but, with all due respect for a well-explained and largely correct opinion, Kevin still misses a Really Big Point. Imagine Michael Andretti, the racecar driver, telling Honda in the 1970s or 80s that "no one will ever buy a 90-horsepower car, with no power options, that values fuel economy over performance." True enough that Andretti and his automotive professions probably won't, but 99.9% of the world is not as automotively sophisticated as that. So, too, for 'teleputing'. Don't forget that Java was invented for set-top boxes(!), and that people still get to use `VCRs' ... Hovig Heghinian Securicor Telesciences Inc 351 New Albany Road Tel: +1.609.866.1000 x315 Moorestown, NJ 08057-1177 Fax: +1.609.866.0185 ------------------------------ From: tom@ubacomm.comm.uab.edu (Tom Watson) Subject: Caller I.D. Blocking Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 14:38:14 GMT Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham Please excuse me if this has been discussed before. I have recently seen in several mail order catalogs, a device that allows a caller to block his number from the called party's call I.D. unit. The picture in the ad shows a unit that attaches to the caller's line that is supposed to keep that persons line from being identified by anyone called who has caller I.D. service. The device sells for around $30. My question is, if the caller I.D. information is generated by the switch of the calling party to the called party, how can this unit located on the caller's premise, generate caller I.D. blocking? Just curious if anyone has any insight. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, you are excused. It has been discussed before here a few times but comes up often enough to warrant letting newcomers know about it. All Caller-ID functions are handled in the central office. All the device you are talking about does is automatically prepend *67 to the start of each dialing string. The box is plugged in series between the phone and the modular jack. It just sits there, and it senses a change in current because you took your receiver off hook, it immediatly tones out *67, typically before you even get the phone up to your ear. The purpose of the box is to make sure that you do not forget to dial the *67 yourself. If you happen to be making a call in which you do *not* want to withhold your ID then all you need to do is go off hook for a second or two, and flash the hook. This will get you a fresh dial tone and the box will stay out of it. Radio Shack also sells these for about the same price. You can do the same thing yourself if you have speed dial buttons on your phone by just adding *67 to the start of whatever you store in the memory or speed dial position. By the way, you can use both the *67 privacy code and the *70 suspend call waiting code on the same call, but it is a good idea to use the privacy code first, i.e. *67*70555-1212. In some places, *67 will not 'stick' unless it is the very first thing dialed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:15:49 EST Subject: Pizza From a Payphone (Was Caller ID Comes to CA) dapet@aol.com (Dapet) wrote, in Re: Caller ID Comes to California: > But if your local pizza store has computerized their caller ID to pull > up your favorite order, the ordering process is much faster, and the > pizza store can cut down on the number of fraudulant (prank) orders > they receive. I can order a pizza from my local pizza store in under > 15 seconds because they use this technology. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. > They are certain that being required to provide some personal inform- > ation about themselves as a condition of doing business with some > merchants, is nothing but an evil plot by the company to get something > over on them. PAT: I agree, but in some instances this can be a nuisance. A few months ago, I checked into a hotel and asked the front desk for a phone number for a pizza place that will deliver. To avoid the 75 cent surcharge on a local call some hotels charge, I placed my order from a payphone in the lobby. Sure enough, they wanted to know the _real_ number of the hotel I was at. I asked the girl to hold on a moment while I fumbled around for for the folio with the hotel phone number printed on it. She hung up on me after about 15 seconds. I called back with all the good information they would need to process my order, even mentioned that I had been hung up on. It was suggested that I place the order from the phone in my room. No dice, I tell them; what would have been a 25 cent phone call originally would have escalated to a $1.25 call. They finally relented when I mentioned that instead of placing a surcharged call from my room, I would just call a low-tech mom and pop pizza joint and use the money I would save to order an extra topping. Eric Friedebach [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There obviously needs to be a bit of flexibility present which seems to be missing in that company. But so often younger people today who work in public service or public accomodations are afraid to use their own brains or make their own decisions. In all honesty, there is no room in larger companies such as McDonalds for younger, beginning workers to think about any- thing. It is discouraged to have any independent ideas. In smaller businesses though which rely heavily on computers, workers need to know the purpose of the computer is to make their repetitive tasks easier, not to do all their thinking for them as well. We need to listen when others are speaking to us, and try to understand what they are saying, not just how to force what they say to fit into a computer script. But in some companies, the deck is stacked against customer service reps for example who try to really serve the customers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:14:41 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) wrote: > I'm posting this for a friend who has some interesting questions > about Caller-ID, Call Blocking, and Related Services in Ameritech > Land (Ohio). [They have a legitimate well documented need for this > service.] > He is responsible for several PBX systems (ROLM), which use DID > (Wink Start) Trunks and Regular Central Office PBX (Ground Start) > trunks for outbound calls. At least two of the PBXs are fed using > T1 from the central office. > Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... > "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this > system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to > effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). I can't speak for Ameritech switches, but I know of no way of providing CID on a DID trunk group on a GTE switch. CID is sent after the first ring on a normal line and a DID trunk does not ring and uses completely different equipment. The DOD lines can be optioned to block CID delivery, if that is what they want. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #162 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 5 12:22:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA22039; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:22:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:22:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604051722.MAA22039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #163 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 96 12:22:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Long Distance Solitations (Stan Schwartz) Unfair to Telemarketers? (Larry Mayhew) Re: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Various Thoughts About Teleco Things (Mike P. Storke) 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Bruce Crawford) Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) (David W. Crawford) Re: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling (John Cropper) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Brett Frankenberger) Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (David Jensen) Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Andy Yee) Re: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Steve Brack) Re: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash (Mark Boolootian) 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 mirror.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: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 10:49:52 EST From: Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL Subject: Long Distance Solitations Given the recent discussions about the ethics of cashing those $50 checks and subsequently cancelling service with a particular long distance company, I thought that it was interesting that I received this phone call last night. Background: My primary phone line is pre-subscribed to AT&T. I am currently receiving a 30% discount over standard AT&T calling rates, and given my calling patterns, that works out just fine for me. I also like the TRUE 500 service that AT&T offers, so I'm not about to change carriers. I also have two distinctive-ring numbers on that line. All 3 numbers are non-published/unlisted. The phone rings on one of the distinctive ring numbers. CID says "OUT OF AREA". I answer. Caller: "May I speak with the person responsible for making decisions about long distance calling in your household?" Me: (Sigh) "Speaking." Caller: "Hi, this is (I forgot his name) from AT&T. I'd like to offer you 6 months of calling at a 35% discount off of standard AT&T rates." (continued speil about AT&T quality) Me: "Sounds interesting." Caller: "Is your main billing number 704-NXX-XXXX ?" (He gave the number that he called). Me: "No, my main billing number is 704-NXX-YYYY." (I gave him the actual billing number." Caller: "So, may I switch you to AT&T?" Me: "Isn't there usually some monetary inducement?" Caller: "I'm glad you asked that. I'm able to offer you either a $50 check or $50 in AT&T Long Distance gift certificates. Which would you prefer?" You can guess how the call went from there. I had to give my name and address (which they didn't have) and speak with a "verifier" who asked me three or four times if I understood that I was agreeing to the fact that all of my long distance calls will be carried by AT&T. Essentially, they are paying me $50 and increasing my discount by 5% in order to stay with the same company that I was using. So ... what are the ethical problems (if any) with this? Stan (stan@vnet.net) ------------------------------ From: mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 01:47:37 CST Subject: Unfair to Telemarketers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period The problem with talking about what's "fair" or "unfair" is that it triggers our feeling that even a little unfairness is unfair, and to have a good system we have to eliminate all unfairness. I think a _truly_ fair system would put a "fry-the-***" button on my phone so I could electrocute the 5-15 unsolicited salespeople who call me every day. :-) But a reasonable person recognizes that there are a variety of legitimate, conflicting interests, and that a system that does a reasonable job of balancing those interests need not, and usually won't, be perfect. The charge of "unfair" can almost always be made (legitimately), but so what? Yes, the phone-number-only solution isn't completely fair to every imaginable interest. But it does a good job of balancing the more important interests. Here are the interests you apparently think are threatened by the system, and why I don't think we should be worried about them: (a) The telemarketers, are losing access to some phone numbers. ANSWER: Telemarketers are interested in the greatest possible return for their time. What they have is a list of numbers that, for the most part, it's a waste of their time and money to call. They increase their "hit rate" by screening against the "do-not-call" list, even if it's not perfect. Your complaint boils down to this: Even though we've already helped the telemarketers by giving them a "better" list, we ought to do more for them, spend more of our time (spelling names/addresses), yield more of our privacy, assume a greater risk of nonmatch, to give them a "perfect" list. Yes, I can see why a telemarketer would want a perfect list, but then I want a "fry-the-salesperson" button. Live with some imperfection and let live, I say. :-) (b) The people who love to be called by telemarketers lose out if they inherit a listed number. ANSWER: Here we need to distinguish two sets of interests: (1) The people who never buy anything but are lonely and love to talk to anyone. ANSWER: The telemarketers have no interest in reaching these people, so here you would have to assert a right-to-be-called on behalf of lonely people. If you insist on the quest for the perfect system that satisfies all interests, don't forget my "fry them" button. :-) (2) The people who love to buy from strangers who call them on the phone. ANSWER: A list of such people would be a dream-come-true for telemarketers. So why don't you suggest that telemarketers maintain a separate list for the "please call me, I love to buy from you" people? That list, and the "don't call me" list, can be date stamped, with the later request being honored. I doubt many people will put their name on such a list, in which case you're arguing against peoples' real interests. If most people would just as soon have telemarketing "turned off," then they're getting a service by inheriting a "don't call me" number. And for the few who feel differently, well we have to call to turn off the sales calls, let them call to turn 'em back on. Not a perfect system, but balanced. (c) You say my interests are harmed because I can't turn off the calls for a lifetime with one phone call. I agree the system isn't perfect, but neither is your "name and address" system. I've moved twice locally, keeping the same phone number each time; your method would require me to call every time I move. And then there's the problem that there's no standard format for names/addresses. Regards, Larry Mayhew mayhew@wkuvx1.wku.edu ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? Date: 5 Apr 1996 02:00:27 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) In article telecom16.159.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu, paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) said: > I'm looking at writing some code to convert data recorded from a > Rockwell chip based modem, using the AT+V commands. These data > transmitted from the modem is specified as being in Rockwell ADPCM > format, but I have been unable to find a written specification of > what that format is. I have visited Rockwell's web site and found some > utilities and sample code (unfortunately in Microsoft Assembler), > but would prefer a simple formula that would allow me to code my own > conversion program. I have found tons of descriptions of the IMA ADPCM > format, but nothing on Rockwell's format. From what I understand, the Rockwell ADPCM format is proprietary, so the only way you could get it is by licensing it from Rockwell themselves. I've done a fair amount of work with various audio file formats and Rockwells is the only one I haven't found documented anywhere ... Bruce ------------------------------ From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Various Thoughts About Telecom Things Date: 5 Apr 1996 02:00:37 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV Just a few things I wanted to ask you all: 1. What are your opinions as to what will happen with the SBC/Pac Tel merger when complete? I live in Pac Tel territory (Nevada Bell), so it will most definitely affect me. They're saying here that it might actually increase jobs if it goes through; however, corporate history (and my retching gut feeling) say otherwise. 2. I want to get cheap long distance to Canada, and Sprint seems to be the best way to go that I've seen. However, with everything going on with them, I just don't know anymore. I use a reseller (CRC, who does Frontier, WCT, MCI, and Sprint) for both of my phones; Sprint has already told me they won't give me Sprint Sense without re-PICing my line. I want that 10 cent rate to Canada (it's 36 cents with CRC 24/7), but don't want to put up with screwwy service, and I really would like it if I didn't have to re-pic one of my lines. I'm also open to other resellers/carriers as well if any of you know any. 3. Just a comment, the thing I saw about MCI's free 800 number and what a FUBAR job they're doing deserves the Sprint award, don't you all think? I mean, this is something I would expect more from Sprint than anyone else ... or am I wrong here? *Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 *Windoze: NEVER!!* *Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512 *Linux FOREVER!!!* ------------------------------ From: bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) Subject: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: 4 Apr 1996 22:44:03 -0500 Organization: OPENIX - OPEN Internet eXchange I've been reading about area code splits happening afar, but now they're hitting close to home. New Jersey papers reported on Wednesday (April 3) that Bell Atlantic is poised to add new area codes, one each in the current 201 and 908 areas, effective in 1998. BA wants a geographic split (putting me in a new area code); potential future competitors for local service want an overlay. What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other special services. That way, the current area codes could have been kept intact for at least a few more years. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Why hasn't a special services code been used more (it seems to be just 917 and maybe one out in LA). Admittedly, it's probably fast getting too late for this option in New Jersey; it might have been viable had it been done when the area code supply first increased. I'm not sure what's worse; having to change my area code, which I would have to do if the 201 split goes through as BA wants, or having to dial 11 digits. If I'm going to have to change, I don't want to have to do it again in, say, five years. Maybe we need more three-way splits now to avert such a situation. Bruce A. Crawford | bac@openix.com Parsippany, N.J. | http://www.openix.com/~bac ------------------------------ From: David W. Crawford Subject: Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) Date: 05 Apr 1996 05:28:31 -0500 Organization: Woo Studios Ltd. In article scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) writes: > I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to > con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing > methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. IGNORANCE and FEAR. That's what the big three LD carriers prey on. I have LCI now and am still looking for someone cheaper. (Some resellers, such as Deltacom, can't beat SOME of LCI's rates. What am I doing wrong?) :-( ------------------ I'd like to offer my experience with Sprint's College Madness. Sprint offers calling cards, and perhaps other deals, to college students. When one signs up, one gets a gift (coffee cup, tshirt, etc) and a customized (unique serial/account number) non-personalized instant card good for 30 free minutes. After the application has been processed, the customer receives a personalized phone card. Then occasionally a postcard is sent to the customer, announcing something like 'free call to anywhere in America, 9pm to 9:30pm on Saturday night'. I have a few of these cards, since I applied every time I saw a free tshirt, and used my 30 free minutes for each card. I didn't use my Sprint cards after the initial 30 free minutes, and suppose these accounts became dormant; I haven't verified their status with Sprint. What is notable is that during these occasional promotions "30 min free" to established card holders, I was unable to obtain service. The 1-800 number was either busy, or answered by a 'all circuits are busy' recording. I don't know what obligation Sprint has to make enough circuits available to support all their customers who call in simultaneously. What this leads me to wonder is if the Sprint (Business) Free Friday promotion customers might be routed into some exchange system which may declare itself congested and not complete the attempted calls. David W. Crawford (c) 1996 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:49:58 GMT Subject: Re: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) On Apr 04, 1996 17.50.24 in , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > Ameritech is angry that their 'anti-slam protection service' was put > on hold by the commission and calls it a serious loss to the > customers. Ameritech claims this is a violation of their First > Amendment rights of speech, i.e. the freedom to discuss their services > and offerings with their customers. The competitors say things could > not have worked out nicer for them. I would concur with the courts, given the track record of Ameritech. > Time will tell, as 'semi-local' competition in telephone service > gets underway in the Chicago area this weekend. Just out of curiosity, how many *more* local exchanges are being chewed up in anticipation of competitors, and will this tend to accelerate the need for more NPA splits/overlays in the Chicagoland area? John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: With the three way split of 708 into 630/708/847 and the split of 312 into 312/773, making five area codes out of what was two, I do not think -- cannot imagine -- the need for more areas anytime soon here. I guess people in the Los Angeles/southern California area felt that way also a few years ago. I hope what we have now meets our needs for several years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:24:32 GMT In article , Walter Lee Davidson wrote: > Your observation about CF is correct, at least in some implementations. > The main practical reason for allowing only one forwarding at a time > is to prevent forwarding loops between switches, which use up all the > trunks between them. Yes, people do this for "fun". Reminds me of an old story (which may or may not be true) about a college campus that had a PBX serving the dorm rooms ... some students figured out that if they forwarded extension A to extension B, and extension B to extension A, the switch would immediatly hang (or appear to hang -- actually, it was devoting 100% of its realtime to forwarding the call) and have to be restarted if anyone called A or B. Anyway, call forwarding can prevent loops without limiting the number of simultaneous calls per number, by limiting the number of unsupervised calls per number. This is how at least some telcos implement it (they allow unlimited simultaneous calls, but only one unsupervised call at a time -- when the "first" call gets forwarded, all other callers get busy until the first call supervises (or is terminated)). Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:15:42 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty On Thursday in federal court, 'Internet Kidnap' suspect Richard Romero was arraigned. He appeared in court without an attorney and stated simply his intention to remain silent, neither entering any sort of plea or speaking in his behalf. Romero, 35, of Jacksonville, FL is accused in the case involving the thirteen year old boy from the north suburbs of Chicago who ran away from home with Romero after meeting the older man through email and interactive chat programs on the Internet in March. Romero appeared before Judge Charles Korcoran. Since he had no attorney and apparently canot afford one the judge appointed an attorney to represent Romero. He stated to Romero that due to his decision to remain silent the court was required to make a total presumption of innocence at this point and enter a plea of not guilty in his behalf. Romero will remain in custody pending further legal action during May and June. PAT ------------------------------ From: David Jensen Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Date: 5 Apr 1996 16:15:46 GMT Organization: Telephone & Data Systems James E. Bellaire wrote: > US Cellular is also 'B' in Central Indiana: > SID 01200 Logansport/Peru/Franklin/Rochester/Flora > SID 01202 Crawfordsville/Greencastle/Boswell/Fowler > US Cellular is the 'A' carrier in Northeast Indiana in area's ajoining > the 01200 SID, as well as Northwest Ohio and Southern Indiana. > BTW: I wish they would sell the 'B' areas to GTE Mobilnet. Their service > areas puts big roaming holes in the center of GTE's Indiana map. US Cellular's operations map is available at: http://www.teldta.com/tds/cellular/opermap.html Sorry, this doesn't have A or B side information. Dave Jensen ------------------------------ From: andy@winternet.com (Andy Yee) Subject: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 15:29:58 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications I've looked at various resources about area code changes. But I can't find any information on what islands/countries retain the 809 area code. Anyone know? Andy Yee, Senior Software Engineer Emerson EMC Chanhassen, MN http://www.winternet.com/~nde ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack) Subject: Re: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 5 Apr 1996 03:41:25 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. keith@tcs.com wrote: > BTW, has anyone faxed back to Sprint that: > 1) they do not have a business at home, > 2) they never claimed to have a business, and > 3) they expect Sprint to honor its freely entered agreement? > If so, what was the result? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I imagine the result would be that > Sprint would claim in reference to (3) that the representative had > no authority to enter into such an agreement and that the tariff > flatly prohibits it and therefore they are cancelling it. Now what > happens after that if someone chooses to push further, I do not know > at this point. This is still a fairly new problem. PAT] Well, legally, with the usual disclaimers about legal advice applying, it could go to court for declaratory relief, on the basis that the Sprint rep was an "apparent agent" of the corporation, by virtue of his/her position with the company. In reality, I think Sprint would settle, rather than fight the action in your county courthouse. ------------------------------ From: booloo@cats.ucsc.edu (Mark Boolootian) Subject: Re: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:18:04 PST > Personal Note: Also among those lost in yesterday's crash was Kathy > Kellogg, a Commerce Department official whom I used to attend Sunday > school with. She was a native of Eureka, CA, and was a year older than > myself. She will be missed by her friends, family and the people she > appareantly gave her life to serve. I just learned that the 29 year old son of the folks who own the Darling House (a Bed & Breakfast sitting on West Cliff Drive overlooking the Monterey Bay which my wife and children pass by regularly) here in Santa Cruz was also killed on that plane. He was apparently quite an energetic young fellow working his way into politics, and was absolutely ecstatic when he was contacted by Commerce officials and told he would be accompanying Brown, among others, on this trip. A sad day indeed. mb [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And particularly sad at this time of year as we otherwise celebrate Passover, Easter and the beginning of spring. A most happy weekend to all, and do not forget that on Saturday night/Sunday morning most of us in the United States must re-adjust our clocks to 'daylight savings time', meaning move them forward one hour. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #163 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 8 11:51:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA23570; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604081551.LAA23570@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #164 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Apr 96 11:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TAPI Bakeoff Registration (Toby Nixon) Ameritech 800 Number Problems (John N. Dreystadt) Test-Marketing the New Phone Services in 1984-85 (Larry Appleman) AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude (Jaleel Ihsan) Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation (Robert Bulmash) AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-id and PIN's (Jack Hamilton) IVR/CTI Recommendations Wanted (Mason Hale) FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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: Toby Nixon Subject: TAPI Bakeoff Registration Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:11:14 GMT The fourth Windows Telephony Interoperability Testing Event ("TAPI Bakeoff") will be held May 6-10, 1996, in Honolulu, Hawaii, hosted by GTE Hawaiian Tel and Microsoft. If your company is interested in participating, please complete the following information and email to "bakeoff@microsoft.com" as soon as possible. Space is limited and will be assigned on a first come, first serve basis, except for balancing of applications and service providers (we try to have equal numbers of each). We will inform you by email when your space is reserved; that email will include information on hotels, shipping, etc., and ask additional questions on your requirements for phone lines, power, etc. * Registration Form * TAPI BakeOff - Honolulu, Hawaii - May 6-10, 1996 Setup: May 6 Interoperability Testing: May 7-9 Tear down: May 10 PRIMARY CONTACT --------------- Name: Title: Company: Address: City: State/Province: Zip: Phone (include country code if outside US or Canada): Fax (include country code if outside US or Canada): Email Address: Would you like to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff? ( ) Yes ( ) No If you do NOT wish to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff, please let us know why: (e.g.: TAPI product not far enough along, timing doesn't work, location is bad, etc ...) If you do desire to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff, please respond to the following questions: I will bring a TAPI application to be tested: ( ) Yes ( ) No I will bring a TAPI service provider to be tested: ( ) Yes ( ) No Does your application and/or service provider support: Audio play, record, etc.? ( ) Yes ( ) No Datamodem? ( ) Yes ( ) No ISDN data transfer? ( ) Yes ( ) No PBX features (park, transfer, conference, etc.)? ( ) Yes ( ) No Caller ID or ANI? ( ) Yes ( ) No Distinctive ringing or DID? ( ) Yes ( ) No Description of the TAPI application or service provider product(s) you will be bringing to test: Is your site using Microsoft Exchange? (Can we send you messages in Microsoft Exchange rich-text format?) ( ) Yes ( ) No Thank you for providing the above information. We will be sending BakeOff participation confirmation and further details shortly. ------------------------------ From: johnd@mail.ic.net (John N. Dreystadt) Subject: Ameritech 800 Number Problems Date: 6 Apr 1996 00:48:15 GMT Organization: Software Services My company (who will go un-named) has 800 service from MCI and Ameritech. This is not the high end T1 based service but just a simple mapping of an 800 number to our main business number in 313 (S.E. Michigan). We just moved and had to change central offices and therefore had to change main numbers. We call Ameritech and had them put "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD" on the old main number. Then we realize about our 800 service and try it. Dial 800-OUR-NUMBER and you get "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD", which is humorous because you did not dial 313-AAA-BBBB. We call MCI and explain. They ask for a fax on letterhead of what we want changed. We send them a request to change the 800 number to point to the new main number. They say it will take about 30 minutes; actual elapsed time was longer but still it only took one try. We call Ameritech and explain. We get transferred. Explain, get transferred. Get to department who says they can do it and to check in about an hour. Try an hour later and get "The number you have dialed, 800-OUR-NUMBER, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD". Oops. Call Ameritech and get transferred several times. New person says they know what to do. We try line late in the day, new message is "The number you have dialed, 800-OUR-NUMBER, has been disconnected". It is getting worse. Call Ameritech, wind up on hold for an hour, (Saturday but still!) decide to call next day. Get new person and explain problem. Get told to try later. Try later and get "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD" which is what we started with. Try again on Monday. Get new person, explain problem, and get problem resolved Monday afternoon. I wonder what corporate strategy Ameritech is planning on to keep business customers like my company? If they expect to have a good retention rate, they need to entirely revamp their customer service departments. To begin with, a good service department could have told us that the main number we were switching away from had an 800 reference. The rest of this fiasco is just outrageous. John Dreystadt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you saying that your company has two 800 numbers, one each issued by MCI and Ameritech? If your 800 number is only from MCI, then there was no real reason to get Ameritech involved in it; just tell MCI to change where it points to. As you point out, they got it done eventually. I had a time once when I wanted to change an 800 number of mine to point to a new number. It is an 800 number I got from Call Home America, which is a division of Allnet/Frontier. When I called, the rep did it as we were chatting. Within a couple minutes after I finished speaking to her, the changeover had been completed correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Test-Marketing the New Phone Services in 1984-85 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:48:02 GMT This might be of historical interest. I found a copy of a direct- marketing letter (reproduced below) that was used in an early market trial of new phone services. Some highlights: The new services were packaged under the name "TouchStar," while (at least in NYNEX territory) they are now packaged as "PhoneSmart." A couple of the services seem a little different than their current incarnation. And some of the services apparently never made it beyond the marketing test. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [I'm not sure of the date of this letter, but it appears to be 1984 or 1985.] Dear Orlando Customer: For the past few weeks, we've been giving you hints about some amazing new services coming to Orlando through the little * button on your Touch-Tone phone. Well now they're here -- yours to enjoy for an extended market trial! At this very moment, your phone line is already programmed to deliver remarkable new Touchstar services. And most are yours to enjoy absolutely free from now through August 8. It's our way of encourag- ing you to try out Touchstar services. Learn how to use them, and how they can be useful to you. These services will include: Call Return -- automatically redials the last number that called you, even if it stopped ringing before you could answer and find out who it was! Repeat Dialing -- automatically redials a number every 40 seconds if it's busy when you try -- and leaves your phone "open" for incoming calls! Call Selector -- lets you program your phone so that it gives a distinctive ring when one of your list of "special people" calls you! Call Block -- blocks calls from people you don't want to talk to, even if you don't know who they are! Call Tracing -- automatically traces obscene or abusive phone calls and forwards the information to Southern Bell authorities! Preferred Call Forwarding -- lets you program you phone so that only calls from your selected 'special people' are forwarded to you! You'll find simple how-to-use-it instructions for all Touchstar services in this package, along with an abbreviated 'prompter' that you can keep next to an extension phone. You'll want to look over the package, then go to your phone and try Touchstar. But first, here's news of an opportunity related to Touchstar that you don't want to overlook: If you act before August 30, we will waive the usual $12.50 service connection charge for Custom Calling Services and Touch-Tone Service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember when Illinois Bell first began offering those services and it was the same kind of deal. No installation charge, and we go to use them free for a month, about the same time as your brochure in 1985. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ihsan@nmti.com (jaleel ihsan) Subject: AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude Date: 7 Apr 1996 20:44:39 GMT Organization: Bailey Network Management AT&T increased my international residential tariff (from 1.33 to 1.50) without giving me "an adequate prior notice". I had already made $400+ worth of calls at the new rate by the time I could do any thing about it. I called up AT&T and the manager said that the tariff increase was advertised in mass media. I hold her that I had not come across any such ad. She said that calling up each customer was an unreasonable expectation. To which I responded that they could have put a message on the bill they send me directly (which contains all kinds of other information) indicating that I should call a certain number to find out if I was affected. Her response was that it is a nice idea which she will pass to marketing but by law they are only required to inform the public through mass media and that I will HAVE TO pay just like others HAVE TO pay !!! (Actually she tried to get out of it by claiming that they cannot put such a message as I was being billed through local telco -- which I was not -- just shows how sneaky they are! And stupid as well -- not recognizing good customer relations in a competitive market are more important that just meeting some minimum legal requirement of yesteryears' non-competitive market place. She also said that they still have to get approval from FCC for international tariffs -- I wonder how true that is?) I had filed an informal complaint with the FCC but have not heard from them for a long time now. The disputed amount is only around $50. Paying it is not going to push me below the poverty line, but I just can't bring myself to accept such an attitude from AT&T in today's competitive market and just take it lying down! Moreover it is bad president to set as AT&T may do this sort of a thing again. The question I have for y'all is what is the best way of handling this? First I though that I should not pay any of the $400+ amount until AT&T bills me at the old rate. The amount will give them some incentive to address the issue instead of ignoring it, but than it would also give them the incentive to get an independent collection agency to harrass me (which AT&T internal collectors have threatened me with!) But now I am thinking of paying the non-disputed amount and let AT&T either accept the fact that it cannot increase the tariff in the manner it did or spend its resources trying to collect the disputed $50. The $50 will show up month after month on the bill as unpaid. If AT&T decides to cut off my service -- no problem, I can get more or less the same tariff from MCI AND Sprint that AT&T is giving me now and they are more or less as good/bad as AT&T. What do the gurus think? Any advice will be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation Date: 7 Apr 1996 14:15:45 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) From: Private Citizen, Inc.http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home Here's what you've been waiting for! A chance to get a law that would significantly reduce the number of junk telenuisance-sales calls you receive at home. State Senator Charles Calderon has proposed such a bill, SB 1512, and the junk call industry has gone ballistic, pulling out all the stops in an effort to defeat it .If it is going to pass, it needs your support! The bill would let you put your telephone number on a "do-not-call" list that telephone sales solicitors would be prohibited from calling (whether calling from in-state or out-of-state). It would allow Californians, whose number is on that list, to sue a telemarketer for $500 for calling. We at Private Citizen, Inc. endorse this bill and ask that you support to it also by copying the letter below (or writnig your own) and mailing it to both Senator Dan Bostwright (who chairs the committee that will hear it) and Senator Charles Calderon (who proposed it). You've heard enough from junk callers. NOW let junk callers hear from you, through the law. Bob Bulmash - Private Citizen, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your Name Address City State Zip Senator Dan Bostwright Chair, Senate Business and Proffessional Committee State Capitol, Room 2053 Sacramento, CA 95814, Dear Senator Bostwright, I am writing in support of SB 1512. As you know, this bill is scheduled to be heard by the Business and Professional Committee on April 22, 1996. SB 1512 would allow private citizens to have their names placed on a "do-not-call" list maintained by California's Department of Justice. Telemarketers would be prohibited from making sales calls to anyone on this list. For many Californians, sales solicitation calls are an unwelcome intrusion into the privacy of our homes. Consumers who pay for phone service should be able to control how the serviceis used. This bill will allow Californians to restore peace to their homes by stopping "junk calls". Think you for your consinderation in this matter. Sincerely, ________________ cc: Senator Charles Calderon (State Capitol, Rm 4039 Sacramento, CA 95814) ------------------------- Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-ID and PIN's Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 02:56:06 GMT Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access I called AT&T Wireless today and asked them about two topics which have been discussed here: 1) Q: Will my cellular phone provide caller-id blocking on outgoing calls? A: Yes. When caller-id starts in California, the default will be blocking for cellular phones, exactly the opposite of land-line phones. 2) Q: Some people have to use PIN's when travelling. Since I don't have a PIN, what will happen to me? A: Since I have not requested fraud protection, I will not need a PIN, even in areas where a PIN is normally required. I guess I'll find out for sure if I visit New York. I asked two other questions which haven't been discussed here: 3) Q: My contract gives me 120 minutes a month. When do months start and end for billing purposes? A: In my case, on the 27th of the month. It is not possible to have the counter reset on the 1st instead (which would be much easier to keep track of, I think). 4) Q: Can I can a written description of what my plan (the "Casual Caller" plan) includes? All I've gotten is verbal descriptions. A: No. AT&T Wireless does not have a written description of this plan. That surprises me. Perhaps I could get one from the PUC. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: mason@webedge.com (Mason Hale) Subject: IVR/CTI Recommendations Wanted Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 09:11:31 -0500 Organization: WebEdge Inc. I'm working on a project where we have a database of plant growers and the plants they carry searchable over the web. We would like to add inventory information to the database, but we would have great difficulty keeping that information current, considering the low percentage of growers that currently have computers, much less access to the web. So we want to have a "low-tech" option where a grower can update their inventory information via a touch-tone phone. This requires a "Interactive Voice Response" (IVR) application, which is a new area for me. At this point the database is served out of a Macintosh BulterSQL database. But we are willing to move it to NT if needed (either Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server). Does anyone have any recommendations of products that can do some or all of the following: 1. Search a SQL or ODBC database via a telephone interface 2. Update / Delete records in a SQL or ODBC database 3. Read the results (plant names) via some sort of text-to-speech ability (we have about 5,000 distinct plants in the database right now). Please copy any suggestions to email since I don't frequent this newsgroup too often (but I will for the next week or so). Thanks, Mason Hale Director, Internet Services WebEdge, Inc. ------------------------------ From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:58:32 EST Subject: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case The other day this interesting item was heard on CNN (4-4-96): "...found with electronic (electrical?) detonating device(s)..." If what I know about this guy is true, he would _never_ use an electronic device as a detonator. The Unabomber has been described as a person who carefully constructs casings made out of wood in some cases. I have no idea what it would take to make a detonator, but if he is so afraid of technology, and has made some of his sick devices low-tech, why were some so-called electronic materials found found in Ted Kacynski's place? Did CNN make a mistake? I would guess that Mr. Sicko Luddite is still out there. Shame on our system if we make an example out of Mr. Kacynski while the real nut case carries on. The trouble is, he promised not to do it anymore if his manifesto was published, and it was. So now if he does not do any more bombs, everyone will be convinced Ted is the guy. If he does do it again -- and I sincerely hope he does not; his actions thus far have been horrible to contemplate -- then I would not be surprised to have the government say something like it is not a true Unabomber device, this must be a sick copycat at work, etc. The government is not going to give up easily and admit they are wrong on this guy. In other words, if he does not do it again, then fine; if he does do it again the FBI will deny it is really Unabomber's work, since they have Unabomber in custody. I really am not convinced this is the guy. As with McVey, the amount of pre-trial publicity will insure that a fair trial is all but impossible. Something is really wrong when they come up with all this stuff they are finding in a little 10x12 foot hut where he lived, and they refused to allow him to be present or observe -- even from a safe, but close distance -- their execution of the 'search'. Also, isn't there something wrong when they hold someone incognito for a couple days, not even allowing him to get an attorney or contact anyone at all while in the meantime they are pouring a huge amount of 'information' out to the media? Most people are not aware of it, but a search warrant allowing the *government* to search your property does *not* include the right for the government to invite others to join them on your property. That is is to say, TK could refuse the media the right to be on his property, but by now they have invaded his personal space also. Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #164 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 8 12:36:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA24746; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:36:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604081636.MAA24746@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #165 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Apr 96 12:36:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mysterious Jail Phone Charges (Larry Mayhew) Social Insecurity (Monty Solomon) I-Phone Tidbits (Edward A. Kleinhample) Ameritech Voice Mail Problems (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Bruce Crawford) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Joseph Singer) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Steve Forrette) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Hendrik Rood) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Ron Kritzman) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Brian Kantor) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? (smithlr99@worldnet.net) Re: Caller ID and DID Trunks (Steve Forrette) 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 mirror.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: mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 01:18:38 CST Subject: Mysterious Jail Phone Charges The Bowling Green, Ky, {Daily News} reports that BellSouth customers have been receiving bills with bogus charges for collect calls from the local county jail. The $1.75 charges are billed through BellSouth by a long-distance company named Invision. The BellSouth district manager is quoted: "There is some kind of trick going on here." One of his employees had $30 in such charges, but she could prove she was talking to someone else when a call was supposedly made. They don't yet know whether it's [billing?] fraud or a person at the jail with a special gift for reaching out and touching someone. Larry Mayhew mayhew@wkuvx1.wku.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 05:07:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Social Insecurity Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI. Excerpt from Edupage, 7 April 1996. SOCIAL INSECURITY Several employees of the Social Security Administration are accused of using access to the agency's computerized database to obtain private information on 11,000 individuals and pass the information (such as the person's mother maiden name) to a credit card fraud ring, which was able to activate cards it had stolen. (New York Times 6 Apr 96 p6) ------------------------------ From: EDWARD.A.KLEINHAMPLE@gte.sprint.com Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 07:59:12 -0400 Subject: I-Phone Tidbits I came across the following in the 4/5 issue of {Investors Business Daily} ... MORE TECH, TELECOM FIRMS EMBRACE INTERNET PHONE IDEA Investor's Business Daily - 4/5 Pg. A8 The Internet this year could do much to transform the long-distance telephone business. And with new companies entering the market, and Internet telephony companies working together to develop standards, long-distance companies are paying attention. "Obviously, we're in the telephone business, but we're also in the Internet business," said an AT&T spokesman. "We view telephone services on the Internet as a potentially large business, and we're looking into it." He said AT&T may use technology developed at Bell Labs to offer Internet phone software of its own. With such software, users can place phone calls over the Internet and avoid ordinary phone rates. Internet telephony as yet, though, is rudimentary, offering fuzzy pictures and transmission delays. ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Ameritech Voice Mail Problems Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:54:05 GMT About ten days ago a glitch appeared in my voicemail. Now, even when I don't have any messages, I get a boop-boop-boop signal, which normally indicates I have a new message, even though there are no new messages. In addition to being troublesome when I need to connect with my modem or modem-fax, it means I have to shell out five cents for a phone call to access my voice mail even though there might not be anything there. I know that's not a lot, but its the principle of the thing. Anyhow, I thought it was just me (an Ameritech rep said they were working on it ...) but then I worked the box office at the theatre company I'm with last night, and the phone *there* (on the other side of town) has the same problem with *its* Ameritech voice mail. How widespread is this problem? How much money is Ameritech raking in from people making needless calls into their voice mail? Is this a Chicago thing or is it going on thru-out the Midwest? Is there an Ameritech rep out there that can tell us when this will be fixed? I swear, once competition comes to local phone markets, I'm jumping. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some limited competition did come to Ameritech territory over the weekend regarding 'local toll' calls of more than fifteen miles away, or what would be considered 'C Zone' calling. You will now be able to have those calls handled by the carrier of your choice without needing to dial 10xxx to reach the carrier. Expect the telemarketing flood to begin soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: 7 Apr 1996 13:55:30 -0500 Organization: OPENIX Bruce Crawford (bac@openix.com) wrote: > I've been reading about area code splits happening afar, but now > they're hitting close to home. New Jersey papers reported on Wednesday > (April 3) that Bell Atlantic is poised to add new area codes, one each > in the current 201 and 908 areas, effective in 1998. BA wants a > geographic split (putting me in a new area code); potential future > competitors for local service want an overlay. I stand corrected, thanks to Linc Madison: Bell Atlantic prefers an *overlay*. It may have offered the splits as an alternative, but that's unclear in the newspaper article I read. Bruce A. Crawford | bac@openix.com Parsippany, N.J. | http://www.openix.com/~bac ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:21:24 -0800 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) recently wrote: > What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was > increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the > middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York > City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other > special services. That way, the current area codes could have been > kept intact for at least a few more years. My understanding is that the wireless providers felt that this putting them in a separate 'ghetto' was somehow unfair. > I'm not sure what's worse; having to change my area code, which I > would have to do if the 201 split goes through as BA wants, or having > to dial 11 digits. If I'm going to have to change, I don't want to > have to do it again in, say, five years. Maybe we need more three-way > splits now to avert such a situation. I don't know how many people share my feelings, but the way I look at it is this: Because we're using more and more NPAs eventually everyone will have to dial more than seven digits for a local call if only because a local area will be served by more than one NPA. This is why I think that overlays are really a better long-term solution to numbering crunches in that if a numbering plan area runs out of numbers all that is necessary is to pancake another overlay NPA over the one that's presently there. The present system requires that people change their area code and in some cases they have to change them in as little as a five year time. On a different tag I don't understand about the metro areas that are multi-area such as NYC. In NYC to dial between the burroughs you dial 11 digits. Why not just 10 digits? I realize that the area has never used 1+ as a toll delimiter, but is reserving a few prefixes rather than having to dial an extra digit necessary. I could never understand why there was no uniformity in the North American Numbering plan area. JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 8 Apr 1996 05:01:25 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , peter@secon.com says: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. > I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual > number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and > forward concurrent calls. The answer with most switches is that this is completely configurable at the telco's discretion. The telco (or their tariffs) may or may not allow the customer to request a change in the current setting. With US West, the rule with Remote Call Forwarding (which is a "virtual number" with no physical loop) is that the monthly fee is for one concurrent call. If you want to support five concurrent forwarded calls, then they will be glad to sell you this service for five times the regular RCF rate. To add insult to injury, all RCF lines are measured rate, so if you are forwarding to a local number, you have to pay for the additional message units for the concurrent calls as well. For regular lines, regular call forwarding (i.e. the kind the customer can change from the line itself) may have a different concurrent-call limit depending on the class of service. I think that US West limits residential lines to 1 concurrent call, but a business line that I had a couple of years ago had a limit of 20 calls. There was no formal option to have these limits adjusted, but I suppose if you talked nicely to the right person, that it could be done. Busy and no-answer forwarding typically will allow multiple concurrent calls, since their primary use is to provide the telco's voice mail service (and of course their voice mail customers would complain if their callers got busies when the voice mail service is supposed to answer busy calls). But, subscribers can take advantage of this situation and use busy and no-answer forwarding with multiple call capacity for their own uses. As is usually the case with features like this, your mileage is likely to vary greatly depending on your telco, and it will be next to impossible to talk to anyone at the telco who understands the issue, let alone is able to give you an accurate answer or change anything. My experience is that the only way to know for sure is to order the service and try it yourself. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Sun, 07 Apr 96 02:57:52 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis In article , suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) wrote: > Peter Hoeve wrote: >> I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to wherever >> I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at >> a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". >> It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call >> will ring busy. > I don't know about other switches but the GTD-5 can be programmed to > allow as many calls to forward at the same time as you like. But if > you forward to a single line you still can only get one call at a > time. The same applies to the last 5ESS switch release I have worked with (6.2 International release). The maximum amount of concurrent forwarded calls is a database-field programmable in the switch. When only one call can be forwarded it is a decision of your phone company. 5ESS generic 6 admitted at most 99 concurrent calls. As far as my knowledge of AXE10 goes about the same applies there, but this switch has a different type of traffic control. The point is, when I have only one telephone line, but I forward this line to a huntgroup or PABX with 100 lines, I can cause congestion on smaller switches because you create both inbound and outbound traffic, sometimes even on a national base. I do know some phone companies sell special "disaster recovery" packages to business where the forwarding maximum is lifted and a destination number is registered in a special recovery contract. Such packages are then implemented as scripts installed on the harddisk of the exchanges and loaded by the switch maintenance department in case of problems (fire, electric breakdown etc.). 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 ------------------------------ From: Ron Kritzman Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 21:33:18 -0800 Organization: Kritzman Communications Walter Lee Davidson wrote: > In article 8@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Peter Hoeve writes: >> I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever >> I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at >> a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". >> It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will >> ring busy. This is often the case when forwarding to a location outside your own C.O. Tell the local telco that you want the (often unpblicized and unnoticed) "multipath call forwarding" option on your line. (This tidbit from my many years in the Answering Service biz.) ------------------------------ From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 7 Apr 1996 21:24:06 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > Reminds me of an old story (which may or may not be true) about a > college campus that had a PBX serving the dorm rooms ... some students > figured out that if they forwarded extension A to extension B, and > extension B to extension A, the switch would immediatly hang (or > appear to hang -- actually, it was devoting 100% of its realtime to > forwarding the call) and have to be restarted if anyone called A or B. In 1986 it was an Ericsson MD110, and it was here at UCSD. But it was more complex than that: the switch properly handled reflexive A<->B forwarding correctly. However, if you did A->B->C->A and dialed A, the switch would go away. No dial tone, no display updates, nothing. They fixed it by setting the forwarding limit to once -- i.e, if you dialed A above, you'd forward to B but not to C, even though B was set to forward further. As far as I know, ten years later, that restriction is still in effect. I don't know if it's still needed. I rather think the switch software would be smarter than that nowadays. The first day of operation for a new phone switch is always lots of fun! Brian [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the very early days of ESS here in Chicago back in 1973-74 they had Call Forwarding set up the same way here. If A forwarded to B and B forwarded to C, then anyone who dialed in to A stopped at B. Anyone who dialed B went on to C. The way it was explained then was that A obviously wanted his calls to reach him at B; he did not necessarily want C to be receiving his calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:25:11 GMT Eric Smith wrote: > The main drawback is that insecurity is inherent in the AMPS system. > Retrofitting decent security onto it would cost carriers a lot of > money, and render existing phones useless. Yes, AMPS is pretty weak WRT security. But what about the hardware itself? Most of today's cellular phones have "soft" ESNs; whose brainstorm was _that_?! Dallas Semiconductor makes a serialized ROM with a one-wire interface; they sell for less than twenty-five cents. If the cellphone used one of these (in a SOT-23 package) for its ESN then cloning a phone would involve SMT soldering. How many dope dealers do you think are going to buy a Pace kit and take up soldering? (Yes, you'd only have to modify a phone once, but you'd have to modify _each_ phone.) Actually, I can envision lasering an ESN into an internal layer of a multilayer PCB, and routing the PCB traces in such a way that it would be very difficult to alter those connections ... Unfortunately, with so many soft ESNs out there today it would take a while before any effect would be seen from switching to "hard" ESNs. But please keep in mind that Motorola et al bear a substantial amount of the blame for the cloning debacle; building phones with reprogrammable ESNs reduces their manufacturing costs. Cellular One in Chicago tells me they have no current plans to require PINs, and while I am currently an Ameritech subscriber I'm not under contract, so ... Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:11:01 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments Chris Jones (clj@bbn.com) said: > Mark J. Cuccia's interesting message showed a first cut at NPA > assignments, never adopted. My provincial reaction was to look for my > state, Massachusetts, in the list. Well! There are 47 states listed > (out of 48 in the union as of 1947), and Massachusetts, the site of > the first phone call, is missing. > Was it missing from the list he transcribed, or was this a trans- > mission error? In my copy of the recent issue of the Digest with my submission, MA had both 515 and 516. 512 CA (S.F.) 513 CA (L.A.) 514 CA (north) 515 MA (eastern "half") 516 MA (western "half") 517 IA (eastern "third") 518 IA (central "third") 519 IA (western "third") Please remember that these 1946/47 area codes were *proposed* but this particular plan wasn't the one actually adopted in October 1947! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: Big_Bob Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? Date: 8 Apr 1996 01:18:46 GMT Organization: DataNet Communications Company - Olympia,WA Could be because they have over 900 people working for them, and most all of them are contractors. I've heard they are looking to do a lot more in-house. But then what do I know ...? Bob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did anyone watch the {Sixty Minutes} program on CBS on Sunday night? One of the topics was the very high pay of CEO's versus the pay of workers. One 'featured guest' -- although I am sure he would have prefered not to be included -- was Robert Allen of AT&T. It seems Mr. Allen got *millions* of dollars in salary, bonuses and miscellaneous compensation last year while at the same time laying off 40,000 employees. The show was rather critical of AT&T, although they did not single them out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID Trunks Date: 8 Apr 1996 04:24:11 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , lynne.gregg@attws.com says: > glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) posted: >> Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... >> "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this >> system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to >> effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). > Not necessarily true. The ability to receive inbound Caller ID in an > office (PBX) environment depends on a number of factors: > * Connects to the PSTN must be ISDN so CPN may be passed (in both > directions). This is not entirely true. While it is true that most PBX's that are receiving Caller ID information are doing so via ISDN PRI, there is also a little-known service called Bulk Caller ID (this is Bellcore's name; your telco's name for it may vary). Bulk Caller ID can be used to provide calling party information in conjunction with inbound calls to regular DID trunks. The operation of the DID trunks is unchanged. Bulk Caller ID adds additional trunks over which the CO sends Caller ID data out-of-band. For example, you could have 50 DID trunks coming into your PBX, and two Bulk Caller ID lines. When a call arrives on any of the DID trunks, a message comes down one of the Bulk Caller ID lines that says in essence: "The call coming in right now on trunk 21 is from xxx number." You can have multiple Bulk Caller ID lines per DID trunk group, both for load sharing and redundancy. This service may not be tariffed in all areas, and may not be supported by your PBX. But, if you are planning to use the Caller ID information for a CTI application, then the Bulk Caller ID information could go directly into your CTI server, with the PBX happily receiving its calls just as it always has. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #165 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 9 21:46:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA26028; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:46:13 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604100146.VAA26028@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #166 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Apr 96 21:45:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets (Bill Halverson) Intelligent Networks (Srikantha Nadarajah) Long Distance Resale Questions (Joseph Kim) Payment Processing Problem (Carl Moore) ICCCN '96 Call For Papers (rakesh@asu.edu) Employment Opportunity - Computer Telephone Tech Manager (Brian Wilcox) Employment Opportunities - Booz-Allen & Hamilton (Eric Smokler) Seeking Cheyenne Bitware (Jan Ceuleers) 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 mirror.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: Bill Halverson Subject: How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 19:09:49 +0000 Organization: Network Associates While on vacation, burglers tried to break into her home. Fortunately, a double keyed deadbolt stopped them. But in checking with her neighbors, ALL OF THEM told me they were getting calls at odd hours of the day and night, and when they answered the phone, nobody said anything to them at all. Now I see CDROM phone lists claining "88 million residential listings, over 90% accurate", for sale for less than $150. The lists are packaged with mapping software that lets one find the relationship between numbers and addresses. Now, any crook with a $1000 PC can get a list of residential numbers, sorted by street and block, that they can use to find out when the home owners ARE NOT HOME!!! I would like this group to think about the implications of this ... and use its collective wisdom to explore ways that politicians and police can be induced to pressure phone companies to make it easier to track down the numbers from which these 'casing-calls' originate. Thanks in advance. Bill Halverson William@Netpros.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chances are likely the guy stole the PC on which he operates the CDROM which he shoplifted. :) If you are going to try and stop the publication of such CDROMs then you also need to stop publishing the printed 'criss-cross' directories which provide the very same information. It might not hurt to stop publishing phone directories period, since a person with a reasonable degree of knowledge about which prefixes 'belong' to which neighborhoods can review a regular directory and over a period of time come to some reasonably accurate conclusions. Instead, why not just encourage people to use *57 to trace calls which they feel are inappropriate for whatever reason. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sn03@uow.edu.au (Srikantha Nadarajah) Subject: Intelligent Networks Date: 9 Apr 1996 08:47:03 +1000 Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Hi, Can someone tell me "The true definition of Intelligent Network in Telecommunications" and what are he currently used or popular networks in that catagory? (any PSTN anywhere is OK.) Nada ------------------------------ From: jokim@johnfk.CS.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Long Distance Resale Questions Date: 8 Apr 1996 23:07:50 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew how long distance resale works. Any pointers to information would really be appreciated. Specifically, however, I presume that AT&T owns most of the infrastructure and so companies like MCI, Sprint, and those five-digit companies would buy some capacity from them. Does that mean that AT&T handles all of the accounting and split up the money accordingly? My guess as to how the system works is that Sprint, MCI, and AT&T have tables corresponding to customers and that when someone tries to make a phone call AT&T's accounting computer system looks in these tables and credits the respective company. Further, the five-digit companies use the five-digit number as a way to tell AT&T's accounting system to bypass the normal accounting by tables and instead credit the respective five-digit company. Is this how it works, or is accounting done separately by each long distance reseller? My thanks to anyone who can clear this mystery for me and point me to any type of reference containing further/related information. joseph [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, not quite. It is true that many years ago -- in the early days of the OCC's, or 'other common carriers' as they were known -- most everything was done over AT&T circuits, no matter which carrier you actually selected. I am referring now to the days when the Big Three were the Only Three. But since then, many of the carriers have built infrastructure of their own. They still continue to route calls back and forth over the circuits of the other carriers when they wish to do so, however they try to keep things on their own lines as much as possible. The five digit codes first and foremost are used to tell the local telco which carrier is to be selected for the call. How the billing gets done after that is a rather technical and detailed -- outrageously boring! -- process. If the selected carrier for a call has circuits in place to handle it, then the carrier does so. The carrier may or may not have billing apparatus in place to handle it. For a long time after divestiture, Ameritech not only did the billing for AT&T, but they 'created' the billing. That is, they calculated the costs, did the billing, collected the money and then 'credited' AT&T on their books. Some telcos 'create' the billing for the carriers, then bill it, collect it and 'credit' it to the carriers while other carriers do their own billing. Some then collect on their own billings while others 'charge' the originating telco and have the telco collect for them. If the carrier does not have circuits in place to handle the call or for whatever reason is unable to handle the call then it goes over the circuits of some other carrier which then bills the carrier which originated the call who in turn either bills the customer or 'charges' the originating telco who in turn bills and collects from the customer. Telcos and long distance carriers very seldom actually give each other any *cash money*. They just keep charging and crediting each other with each telco in a position to collect money from customers doing so and keeping the actual cash. In many years past when AT&T was the only company handling long distance, a 'clearing house' type function within AT&T was called 'Separations and Settlements'. Merely a couple thousand clerks worked in that department, the objective being to hand millions of scraps of paper back and forth among themselves all the time. Each clerk would add his/her own indicia to the scraps after calculations of one sort or another. Bushel baskets and shopping carts full of toll tickets came in one door constantly; worked their way through the maze and out the other door a few days later. You owe me two cents for this call and I owe you three cents for that call. Once a year more or less someone would draw the bottom line and there would be a payout in actual money to bring everything in balance. A million dollars for you, two million for the other telco, etc., all from the daily accumulation of pennies and nickles the telcos owed each other. Whichever telco actually 'owned' the customer -- that is, the subscriber who placed the call, and who paid the money -- kept that money, only settling with the other telcos involved in bulk now and then. Now in more modern times, there are still clearing house type functions and the routine is a lot the same, but the players are different. You have Integratel for example, and another one called US Billing, Inc. The local telcos have to bill each other rather than go through the AT&T 'Separations and Settlements' as they used to do. They have become a lot more sophisticated in handling *billions* of billing records each year on computer -- although in manual days they handled many millions of records with a high degree of accuracy -- without losing as many or misbilling them, etc. There are still mixups which would stand your hair on end if you were privy to them such as thousands of payments on one day getting credited to customers of *another telco* in error. I recall one instance when Illinois Bell had thousands of those 'Pay to the Order of the Telephone Company' things which AT&T issues; they microfilmed the lot of them and then mailed them off to *MCI*, while issuing the corresponding charge to *Sprint*. After several months, which is about the normal time it takes for inter-telco accounting disputes to work their way through the maze, Sprint disputes the charge, not saying *this belongs to AT&T* but saying *we never got the documentation*. MCI in the meantime got all the paperwork -- cartons and cartons of these gift certificates -- and promptly assumes they must have also been charged for them and they mail it all on to AT&T, issuing a charge to AT&T and taking the corresponding credit for themselves. AT&T sees no problem with this and accepts the chargeback from MCI. Illinois Bell and Sprint meanwhile continue bickering between themselves and finally some clerk somewhere notices this is really all AT&T stuff, we must have sent them the documents already so let's now issue the charge to go with it. Pull microfilm for the whole load, tell them we cannot provide the actual documents since they were mailed earlier, etc. Sprint reverses the chargeback to Illinois Bell, Illinois Bell clears it with a chargeback to AT&T and takes the credit. A month or two goes past, and AT&T finally scratches its corporate head and says, hey, we paid twice for these gift certificates. All the indicia on the back side shows Illinois Bell but the indicia from MCI has been overstamped and made most of the back side illegible. AT&T finally goes to MCI and screams about getting their money back; MCI's answer of course was they could never find where AT&T had paid in the first place. AT&T produces a copy of the chargeback which originally applied and MCI tries to push that off on Illinois Bell. Approximatly a year after the original billings to the customers and the customers' payments with the 'Pay to the Order of the Telephone Company' scrips, the scrips find their way to their issuer, following numerous chargebacks and reversals of chargebacks between the telcos. Along with the credit card billing/processing centers, which hire *weird* people to push papers back and forth at each other all day, the telco settlement/clearing house operations are pretty strange places. Years ago it was said AT&T's Separations and Settlements was an absolute hellhole to work in, second only to Social Security's back offices or Postal Service sorting rooms as snakepits. It requires a certain mentality to deal with all that paper and accounting all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 17:57:59 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Processing Problem I have received a letter from Bell Atlantic, PO Box 964, Johnson City, TN 37605, at the regular (non-presorted) rate of 32 cents, which has on the envelope "Thank you for your order! Your important Customer Instructions are in this envelope." ("this envelope" underscored) Notice the Tennessee address despite Bell Atlantic, and the letter (typed in line by line exactly as it was received) referred to a phone bill in Maryland. DEAR CARL G MOORE JR, Recently, we at Bell Atlantic experienced a computer processing problem which caused payments we received on February 13th to not be applied to customers' accounts promptly. The problem was resolved and these payments have now been applied correctly. Your payment was one of those affected. We would like to sincerely apologize for this error, and to assure you that we value you as a customer and are working diligently to ensure that the problem does not recur. As a result of this error, you may have been billed a late payment charge on your most recent bill. If this occurred, we will automatically credit your April bill with the amount which was erroneously billed. You do not need to call us since we have already ensured that the credit will be issued on your account. ["out" on the next line is as it appeared; should be "our"] Again, please accept out [sic] most heartfelt apology for this error, and our assurance that we will do everything possible to prevent such occurrences in the future. If you have questions and would like to discuss the matter further, please [call] 1-800-829-5029 and we will arrange for someone to call you. Sincerely, BELL ATLANTIC THE HEART OF COMMUNICATION [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the time quite a few years ago when the Amoco credit card office got about ten thousand inovices all encoded with the wrong amounts. The encoding operators were supposed to type in the data from the card *to the left* in their field of view; not the card directly in front of them as the little cardboard invoices passed by on the conveyor belt. Some of the discrepancies were outrageous, but the overages and underages netted each other out so that the entire batch of ten thousand invoices was only out by a few dollars, i.e. the total supplied when the batch was started and what the encoding operator got when the batch was finished. Well you know for a few dollars they wrote it off and released the batch to the next phase of billing. Sure enough, beginning about a month later as the invoices are mailed out to customers, the customers begin calling customer service in droves asking, 'how could you take an invoice for three dollars and charge me nineteen dollars, etc ...' Customer service is making all these write offs in reverse since there is no apparent reason for the way the card was encoded, etc. Finally the customer service reps all start comparing notes and someone orders the microfilm for the whole batch. They see that every single card is encoded with the amount of the invoice immediatly in front of it, and the supervisor had released it that way. Illinois Bell did the same thing one time: everyone's payment was given to the *next person* who paid. The cashier's totals for the day were 'within tolerance' so that was that. Naturally the customers who got shorted were the first to complain; the ones who got credited with too much said little or nothing. One subscriber got credited a thousand dollars on her ten dollar phone bill. I am sure they thought they hit the golden jackpot when their account still had a large credit balance three months later but eventually the inevitable came in the form of a letter to those folks: "During a recent routine audit of our customer accounts, an error was discovered on your account, where you were given credit for a payment made by another customer. We have removed the credit and this now places your account two months in arrears, past due in the amount of $______. Since this was not your fault, we have credited you with any past due charges you will be accessed, and this credit will appear on your next bill or the one following, however we do require payment of your past due balance immediatly." Ooooh, that stung! Naturally quite a few people had asssumed they would just get away with the credit they were not entitled to. And then there was the time that several thousand checks from customers in a given days's work had all been microfilmed but not yet sent to the bank. The air conditioning was out of order and several windows were open. Hurricane like winds all of a sudden blew thousands of checks out the window and off down Randolph Street. Several clerks are out in the street looking for the checks and they recovered quite a few, but I would say about two thousand could not be found. Undaunted, they went back to the microfilms and pulled all the missing ones off film, sent the *film* to the bank and said 'pay it anyway!' ... seriously. And to the customers, a note saying 'sorry your payment was damaged in processing rendering it unusable, but we know what you meant so we went to the bank and got the money anyway.' You don't think they were going to write it off, do you? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 09:46:17 -0700 From: rakesh@asu.edu Subject: ICCCN '96 CALL FOR PAPERS. Organization: Arizona State University This Call For PAPERS Also appeared in the IEEE COMPUTER MAGAZINE (January 1996 issue) and The Communication of the ACM (January 1996 issue) ICCCN'96 CALL FOR PAPERS FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS October 16 - 19, 1996 Double Tree Hotel, Rockville, Washington D. C., USA Sponsored* by DataTech and NASA. In cooperation* with NSF, NIST, USL, USC Communication, IEEE Computer Society, ACM, and IEEE Communication Society. The objective of this conference is to provide an effective forum for original and fundamental advances in Computer Communications and Networks and to foster communication among researchers and practitioners working in a wide variety of scientific areas with a common interest in improving Computer Communications and Networks. SCOPE: The primary focus of the conference is on new and original research results in the areas of design, implementation and applications of Computer Communications and Networks. We solicit the submission of papers that address novel, challenging and innovative results. Therefore the topics that will be addressed include, but are not limited to: ATM Networking Internet Services/Applications Distributed Multimedia Applications Real Time Communications Quality of Services (QoS) Issues LAN/WAN Internetworking Interoperability Personal Communication Services Network Management Wireless Networks Intelligent Networks Multicast Protocols Network Security Optical Networks Reliable Networks High Speed Network OAM/Protocols Video-on-Demand Traffic Management Multimedia Human-Machine Interface Performance Modeling/Analysis Communication Software Protocol Verification/Validation/Test SUBMISSION: Authors are invited to submit complete and original papers. Papers that may be submitted for consideration include those that have not previously been published in another forum, or are not currently being published or reviewed by another journal or conference. All submitted papers will be refereed for quality, correctness, originality and relevance. The program committee reserves the right to accept a submission as long, short or poster presentation. Of particular interest are papers which address experiences with concrete Computer Communications and applications. All accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Authors will be interested to know that special issues of journals containing outstanding papers from the conference are being planned. Manuscripts should include an abstract and be limited to 5000 words. Submissions should include the title, author(s), author's affiliation, e-mail address, fax number and postal address. In case of multiple authors, an indication of which author is responsible for correspondence and preparing the camera ready paper for the proceedings should also be included. Six copies of the manuscript should be submitted by Monday, April 22, 1996 to Program Co-Chair: Dr. David Lee AT&T Bell Laboratories 600 Mountain Avenue, RM 2C-423 Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974, USA lee@research.att.com Tel: (908) 582-5872; Fax:(908) 582-5857 For more information about the conference (as opposed to paper submissions) please send e-mail to ic3n@cacs.usl.edu. IMPORTANT DATES: Paper submission deadline: April 22, 1996 Notification of acceptance: May 30, 1996 Camera ready papers due: July 1, 1996 WORKSHOPS AND TUTORIALS: Proposals are solicited for tutorials and workshops. Please send your proposal by March 22, 1996 to Professor M. Singhal, the Tutorial Chair, Department of Computer and Information Science, The Ohio State University, 2015 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA, singhal@cis.ohio-state.edu, Tel: (614) 292-5839, Fax: (614) 292-2911. To Professor K. Efe, the Workshop Chair, The Center for Advanced Computer Studies, The University of SW Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504, efe@cacs.usl.edu, Tel: (702) 482-6876, Fax: (702) 482-5791. Steering Committee: I. Chlamtac-U. Mass, V. Li (chair) - USC, K. Makki - UNLV, J.S. Meditch - U. Wash, E. K. Park - USNA, R. Pickholtz - GWU, N. Pissinou - CACS/ USL, T. Suda - UC Irvine, J.W. Wong - U. Waterloo General Co-Chairs: K. Makki - UNLV and N. Pissinou - CACS/USL Program Committee: S. Aggarwal-SUNY/Binghamton, C. Alaettinoglu-USC/ISI, M. H. Ammar-GA/Tech, H. Arabnia-U. Georgia, M. Bayoumi-USL, K. Bhat-AT&T, A. Bush-NSF, K. Calvert-GA/Tech, S. T. Chanson-UBC, D. Cohen-Bellcore, T. S. Dillon-LaTrobe U., T. Y. Feng-NSF, O. Frieder (Co-Chair)-GMU, . Geraniotis-DEEI, F. Golshani-ASU, M. G. Gouda-UT/Austin, Z. Haas-Cornell, M. Halem-NASA, J. Harms-U. Alberta, E. Hahne-AT&T, C.-S. Kang-Hannam U., I. Khan-Qualcomm, J. B. Kim-CSUN, D. Lee (Co-Chair)-AT&T, Y.-H. Lee-U. Florida, . J. Leon-CACS/USL, F. J. Lin-Bellcore, M. T. Liu-OSU, W. Liu-BellSouth, W. M. Moh-SJSU, R. Miller-UMD, M. S. Obaidat-CUNY, S. Olariu-ODU, M. T. Ozsu- U. Alberta, W. Peng-SWTSU, S. Sahni-U. Florida, H. Saito-NTT, M.-C. Shan-HP, U. Shankar-UMD, H. Sharif-UNL, A. Silberschatz-AT&T, V. Srinivasan-IBM, D. Su-NIST, Y. Zhang-Hughes Conference Coordinators: C. Fayet-INT/France, A. Gaivoronski-ITALTEL/Italy, C.-S. Kang-Hannam U./Korea, U. Krieger-DBP/Germany, H. Saito-NTT/Japan Publicity Co-Chairs: S. Bhattacharya-Honeywell, Mallikarjun Tatipamula-BNR} Local Arrangements: D. Su-NIST Treasurer: E. K. Park-USNA * pending approval ------------------------------ From: bwilcox@ix.netcom.com (Brian Wilcox) Subject: Employment Opportunity - Computer Telephony Tech Manager Date: 9 Apr 1996 00:06:10 GMT Organization: Netcom Technical Manager - Computer Telephony A leading international audiotext service bureau with operations worldwide is seeking a Technical Manager to oversee its technical and programming projects. Position will require a temporary relocation to Hong Kong for three to six months, followed by a posting in either London or the Northeast US. Because of the diversity of installations, extensive travel is required. Key attributes: A lead role in the design, development and delivery of audiotext software products. Must be able to clearly articulate the overall project requirements and responsibilities within the product development cycle to management and support staff. Ability to be flexible and take on various roles throughout the development process. Experience with C++ and object-oriented design and development. Experience with Dialogic-based firmware. Familiarity with T1, E1 and SS#7 signaling. Knowledge of PTT operations. Commitment to quality. Good verbal and written skills. Salary: US$65,000 - 80,000 per annum. Contact: Brian R. Wilcox, Technical Director New Media Corporation Limited b_wilcox@msn.com Recruitment agencies welcome. Technical Manager - Computer Telephony A leading international audiotext service bureau with operations worldwide is seeking a Technical Manager to oversee its technical and programming projects. Position will require a temporary relocation to Hong Kong for three to six months, followed by a posting in either London or the Northeast US. Because of the diversity of installations, extensive travel is required. Key attributes: A lead role in the design, development and delivery of audiotext software products. Must be able to clearly articulate the overall project requirements and responsibilities within the product development cycle to management and support staff. Ability to be flexible. Recruitment agencies welcome. ------------------------------ From: smoklere@bah.com (Smokey) Subject: Employment Opportunities - Booz-Allen & Hamilton Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 16:55:42 GMT Organization: Booz-Allen & Hamilton The group I work has opportunities for people with experience in: 1. Digital Loop Carriers (DLCs) 2. Computer Telephony Integration 3. General Systems Engineering 4. Entry Level Market Systems Analysis Feel free to send resume to: Eric Smokler Booz-Allen & Hamilton 14800 Conference Center Drive Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-3810 Or E-Mail SmoklerE@bah.com ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 18:49:55 +0200 Subject: Seeking Cheyenne Bitware --> Note: Reply to a message in COMP.DCOM.TELECOM. I quote Erik Wust: EW> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone will kindly EW> translate this for me and other readers. PAT] Sure. My mother tongue is Dutch so I'll have a go. erik.wust@easy.nl wrote: EW> Onlangs zag ik een demonstratie van Cheyenne Bitware, een EW> mooi telecom programma voor computer assisted telefoon EW> beantwoorden. Het programma was vrij meegeleverd bij een EW> gekocht modem .... ik kan de bron verder niet achterhalen... EW> kan iemand mij helpen aan een adres waar ik deze software EW> kan downloaden / kopen ? ==== Beginning of translation ==== Recently I saw a demonstration of Cheyenne Bitware, a nice telecom program for computer-assisted telephone answering. The program came for free with a modem ... I have no further information as to its source ... Can anyone tell me where I could buy or download this software? ==== End of translation ==== I don't know the answer though. Please remember that I just translated Mr. Wust's question; replies --> erik.wust@easy.nl. Jan Ceuleers ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #166 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 9 22:21:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26829; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:21:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604100221.WAA26829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #167 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and New NPAs) (Stanley Cline) Call For Papers, MOBICOM 96 (B.R. Badrinath) Indiana: 317 to Split (John Cropper) Summary: Advertisement of 900 Numbers (Jan Ceuleers) Invitation to Policy Workshop (Jongwon Park) Ameritech Billing Not Handling 708/847 Split Well (Earl Hall) New Web-Based Moderated Telecom Newsgroup (bes@brill.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and new NPAs) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:43:16 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services While listening to the radio at work today, I heard two ads (in a row!) that made me take notice, not because of the ad itself, but because of some of the stupid mistakes announcers made with phone numbers. Those got me thinking of even more area code screw-ups. 1) Ad for Primestar DBS dishes; phone number given in the ad is 1-888-200-xxxx, the announcer says "remember, the call is toll-free." In a voiceover at the end of the prerecorded ad, a second announcer advises to call 1-*800*-200-xxxx. Evidently the radio station running the ad doesn't know about 888 yet. I think they screwed up another 888 number a few weeks ago. Then ... 2) Ad for BellSouth Mobility; their local (Chattanooga) number is 423-894-xxxx. The announcer gave that number as, again, *1-800*-894-xxxx. (Other recent mistakes in BellSouth Mobility ads: stating that they uses a Motorola switch, when in fact they converted to a Hughes GMH2000 -- with much fanfare -- nearly six weeks ago [that ad ran last week.] Also, they used to give the wrong area code in print ads that ran near the cutoff date for permissive dialing.) Neither 800 version of the numbers is valid; 1-800-200-xxxx yields an AT&T announcement stating the number is not valid from my calling area (NPA 423); 1-800-894-xxxx is not in service (goes to LEC intercept, as number apparently isn't registered with a RespOrg.) Our local newspaper still lists its phone number as NPA 615 in its masthead. One of my prescriptions, from a pharmacy in north Georgia, listed their number as area code *404* -- for a number that's been in NPA *706* since *1992.* Wake up, media and drugstores: NPA 888 exists, local numbers are not 800 numbers, area codes have changed...GET IT RIGHT! Stanley Cline ** Roamer1 on IRC (see why?) mailto:scline@usit.net or mailto:scline@chattanooga.net CIS 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ ------------------------------ From: badri@cs.rutgers.edu (Br Badrinath) Subject: Call For Papers, MOBICOM-96 Date: 9 Apr 1996 18:31:33 -0400 Organization: Rutgers University LCSR MOBILE COMPUTING AND NETWORKING CONFERENCE 1996 (ACM/IEEE MobiCom'96) November 11-12, 1996 (Tutorials on Sunday, November 10, 1996 Rye Hilton, Rye, New York, USA Sponsored by: ACM CESDIS NASA IEEE Sigmobile, Sigcomm, Sigmetrics, ComSoc Sigops, Sigact The wireless communication revolution is bringing fundamental changes to telecommunication and computing. Wide-area cellular systems and wireless LANs promise to make integrated networks a reality and provide fully distributed and ubiquitous mobile computing and communications, thus bringing an end to the tyranny of geography. Furthermore, services for the mobile user are maturing and are poised to change the nature and scope of communication. This conference, the second of an annual series, serves as the premier international forum addressing networks, systems, algorithms, and applications that support the symbiosis of portable computers and wireless networks. PAPERS Technical papers describing previously unpublished, original, completed, and not currently under review by another conference or journal are solicited on topics at the link layer and above. Topics will include, but are not limited to: * Applications and computing services supporting the mobile user. * Network architectures, protocols or service algorithms to cope with mobility, limited bandwidth, or intermittent connectivity. * Design and analysis of algorithms for online and mobile environments. * Mobile network protocols * Performance characterization of mobile/wireless networks and systems. * Network management for mobile and wireless networks. * Data management in mobile computing * Service integration and interworking of wired and wireless networks. * Characterization of the influence of lower layers on the design and performance of higher layers. * Security, scalability and reliability issues for mobile/wireless systems * Mobile computing * Mobile agents * Power management * Wireless multimedia systems * Satellite communication * Location-dependent applications * Distributed system aspects of mobile systems * Adaptive applications interfaces suitable for mobile systems * Architectures of wireless and mobile networks and systems * Traffic integration for mobile applications All papers will be refereed by the program committee. Accepted papers will be published in conference proceedings. Papers of particular merit will be selected for publication in the ACM/Baltzer Journal on Wireless Networks and the ACM/Baltzer Mobile Networks & Nomadic Applications Journal. HOW TO SUBMIT Paper submission will be handled electronically. Authors should Email a PostScript version of their full paper to: mobicom96@gucci.mirc.gatech.edu In order to print the PS versions of the papers, authors should ensure that their papers meet these restrictions: - PostScript version 2 or later - no longer than 15 pages - fits properly on "US Letter" size paper (8.5x11 inches) - reference only Computer Modern or standard Adobe fonts (i.e., Courier, Times Roman, or Helvetica); other fonts may be used but must be included in the PostScript file In addition, authors should separately Email the title, author names, full address and abstract of their paper to the program chairs. All submitted papers will be judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors' names should not appear on the paper or in the postscript file. TUTORIALS Proposals for tutorials are solicited. Evaluation of the proposals will be based on expertise and experience of instructors, and the relevance of the subject matter. Potential instructors are requested to submit at most 5 pages, including a biographical sketch to Arvind Krishna (krishna@watson.ibm.com). PANELS Panels are solicited that examine innovative, controversial, or otherwise provocative issues of interest. Panel proposals should not exceed more than 3 pages, including biographical sketches of the panelist. Potential panel organizers should contact Tom LaPorta (tlp@boole.att.com). STUDENT PARTICIPATION Papers with a student as a primary author will enter a student paper award competition. The student will receive a cash award of $500,- US Dollars. A cover letter must identify the paper as a candidate for the student paper competition. IMPORTANT DATES Submissions due: May 1, 1996 Notification of acceptance: July 15, 1996 Camera-ready version due: August 31, 1996 For More Information: Please contact Ian F. Akyildiz (ian@ee.gatech.edu) or Zygmunt J. Haas (zjh1@cornell.edu), the Program Co-Chairs. WWW/GOPHER INFORMATION This CFP and other ACM related activities may be found in http://info.acm.org/sigcomm/mobicom96 (for WWW browsers) GENERAL CO-CHAIRS: HAMID AHMADI RANDY KATZ IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Computer Science Division Room H3-C04 EECS Department P. O. Box 704 University of California Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Berkeley, CA 94720-1776 Tel: 914-784-7219 Tel.: 510-642-8778 Fax: 914-784-6205 Fax.: 510-642-5775 Email: hamid@watson.ibm.com Email: randy@cs.Berkeley.edu PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS IAN F. AKYILDIZ ZYGMUNT J. HAAS School of ECE School of Electrical Engineering Georgia Tech Cornell University Atlanta, GA, 30332 Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 Tel.: 404-894-5141 Tel.: 607-255-3454 Fax.: 404-894-5028 Fax.: 607-255-9072 Email: ian@ee.gatech.edu Email: zjh1@cornell.edu TUTORIAL CHAIR LOCAL CHAIR ARVIND KRISHNA BOB FLYNN, Polytechnic University IBM T.J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704, H3-D32 VICE CHAIR Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 TOM LaPORTA, AT&T Bell Labs Tel.: (914) 784-7965 Fax.: (914) 784-6205 PUBLICITY CHAIR Email: krishna@watson.ibm.com B.R. BADRINATH, Rutgers Univ. TREASURER STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR RAJIV JAIN, Bellcore IMRICH CHLAMTAC, Boston Univ. PROGRAM COMMITTEE Rafael Alonso, Matsushita Labs Victor Bahl, DEC Brian Bershad, U. of Washington Ramon Caceres, AT&T Imrich Chlamtac, Boston U. Tony Dahbura, Motorola John Daigle, U. of Mississippi Maurizio Decina, CEFRIEL JJ Garcia Luna, UC Santa Cruz Mario Gerla, UCLA Peter Honeyman, U. of Michigan Pierre Humblet, Eurecom Tom Imilienski, Rutgers U. David Johnson, CMU Phil Karn, Qualcomm Mark Karol, AT&T Jay Kistler, DEC Barry Leiner, ARPA Jason Ying Bin Lin, NCTU Teresa Meng, Stanford U. Mahmoud Naghshineh, IBM TJ Peter O'Reilly, GTE Labs Charlie Perkins, IBM TJ Ray Pickholtz, GWU Dhiraj Pradhan, Texas A&M Chris Rose, Rutgers U. Krishan Sabnani, AT&T Mischa Schwartz, Columbia U. Martha Steenstrup, BBN Gordon Stuber, GaTech David Tennenhouse, MIT Marvin Theimer, XEROX Mehmet Ulema, Bellcore Newman Wilson, D. Sarnoff RC Parviz Yegani, Qualcomm ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Indiana: 317 to Split Date: 9 Apr 1996 20:35:50 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA From Ameritech (also available on their web site): 317 Area Code Will Run Out of Numbers By 1997 Because of an ever-increasing demand for telecommunications services -- cellular phones, pagers, computer modems, fax machines and additional lines -- it's projected that the 317 area code will run out of telephone numbers by mid 1997. A telecommunications industry team has been convened to analyze the situation and provide a workable solution. The team is composed of companies that provide telecommunications services in the 317 area code. This group plans to seek input from community leaders and the public regarding how best to establish relief for the new area code. The team met for the first time December 12, 1995, and it's expected it will finalize an area code relief plan by mid 1996. The 317 area code serves central Indiana, including the city of Indianapolis. Indiana's other two area codes -- 219 in the north and 812 in the south -- are projected to have numbers available to supply demand for at least the next five years (based on current demand). See our press releases for more information. (JC Note: Ameritech has expanded their area code split info significantly on their web site; it can be accessed at www.ameritech.com/areacode) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 15:10:44 +0200 Subject: Advertisement of 900 Numbers A few weeks ago (OK, about a month) I requested information on the rules applicable to the advertisement of telephone numbers that, when called, carry a surcharge for the caller, part of which is paid by the telco to the called party. In many countries, including Belgium, these are called 900 numbers. I've received a number of excellent responses, but haven't had time to explore some of the leads they contained. However, since I had promised a summary, I suppose I'd better make some time for that first ... Here's my original question: Jan Ceuleers wrote: > 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? A summary of the responses follows: David E A Wilson wrote: > Here in Australia our latest phone book says the following: > How are InfoCall calls charged? > Calls are either charged on a Timed Fee basis or a Fixed Fee > basis. Timed Fee tariffs consist of an initial Message > Introduction fee plus a per second charge for the duration of the > call. Fixed Fee tariffs consist of a set charge, including > Message Introduction fee, irrespective of the call duration. The > same tariffs apply Australia wide, irrespective of time of day or > day of week. > What do InfoCall calls cost? > The Service Provider sets the price they want to charge for their > InfoCall services. Callers will pay a minimum of 15 cents for the > message introduction. Calls that proceed beyond the Message > Introduction will be charged in accordance with the tariff for > the service called. > + Timed Fee call costs range between an average rate per minute > of $0.35 and $5.00, depending on the service called. Fixed Fee > calls have set charges between $0.35 and $30.00. (more information on access to InfoCall from payphones etc. deleted for brevity). This response, although very interesting, does not mention how the caller is informed of the actual cost of the call when it lasts beyond the Message Introduction period, short of consulting the tarriff beforehand. david.quinton@almac.co.uk (DAVID QUINTON) wrote: > Hi Jan, we run "0891" numbers, here in the UK and we are VERY > strictly regulated. > For a copy of the Code of Practice under which we operate see:- > As I said earlier, I haven't yet had time to look into these leads. FOURNOLS Romain COM/MKT wrote: [Extensive editing was required to compensate for a character translator gone haywire somewhere along the line. I apologize for any errors that may have been introduced in Mr. Fournols' post as a result, JCE]. > Jan Ceuleers asked in TD > V16#114 about "premium numbers" outside Belgium. > Here it is a list of those numbers in France and their leguals > requirements : (currency : 1 US$ = 5.04 FF) > 36.60.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.61.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.62.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.63.XX.XX, local call rate, the company paid the difference > 36.64.XX.XX 0.74 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.65.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.66.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.67.XX.XX 1.48 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.68.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.69.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.70.XX.XX 8.90 FF/call + 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, > mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, > radio, ...) in French francs per minute VAT included, and mention > of price of the call during the first 12 seconds of the > conversation, giving the caller time to hang up if he does not > agree with the charges. France Telecom adds an information > message BEFORE the connection and during its establishment, > including the price of the call. > Note : > - after 18 October 1996, add 08 prefix before the eight digits > number, 36.64.XX.XX to 36.70.XX.XX changes to 08.36.64.XX.XX > to 08.36.70.XX.XX. > - the 05.XX.XX.XX toll free numbers (called "Numero Vert") > changes to 0800.XX.XX.XX > - the 36.63.XX.XX (called "Numero Azur") changes to > 0801.63.XX.XX This seems to be an excellently organized system, where a lot seems to have been done to protect the innocent caller from surprises in his phone bill. Kenneth R. Wells suggested the following URL: http://www.tccg.com/scoop.html Judging from the instances where I've seen 900-numbers advertized in Belgium, it would seem that no requirement exists here to inform the caller of the cost of such calls, although the more responsable advertizers make an effort to. It's not always easy, particularly on a television commercial, to mention the peak and off-peak cost of a call and still get the rest of your message across. There have however been some echoes in the local press about prizes being given away "for free" to people who can answer some question or other by calling the number 0900 . These press articles claimed that the prizes were actually being more than paid for by the income generated by the 900 number, so that these games were in effect lotteries, and calling the 900 number was equivalent to buying a lottery ticket. Jan Ceuleers Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org AKA ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:49:37 +0600 From: JONGWON PARK Subject: Invitation to Policy Workshop We are a graduate student organization named "Science Policy Dicussion Group" at Virginia Tech. We would like to invite everybody on the list to our workshop. The registration is free, but you need to register so that we can prepare your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Send e-mail to: jongwonp@vt.edu or acrumpto@vt.edu. Yours, Jongwon Park Science Policy Discussion Group ----------------------- Dear Colleagues: The Science Policy Discussion Group is sponsoring a policy workshop on April 27. Below is more detailed information. We would enthusiastically welcome your participation! Practicing Policy Workshop: Exploring Tensions Between Democracy and Technocracy in Policy Making for the Environment, Health and Safety, Information and Urban Renewal Saturday, April 27, 1996 9:00 am - 5:30 pm Squires Brush Mountain Room A The Science Policy Discussion Group is hosting the Practicing Policy Workshop to critically explore the techniques and implications of public policy making for issues involving the environment, health and safety, information and urban renewal. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together academics, community organizers, government officials, business representatives, and interested others to discuss tensions between technocratic and democratic views on making public policy in these areas. The goal is to better understand how policies are made in a variety of social settings through the involvement of a number of different participants. Particular attention will be given to discussion of the roles of expert and lay knowledge, the meanings of democracy for a technoscientific society, and strategies for building new alliances among participants. The workshop format is intended to encourage an informative and creative exchange of ideas among participants with diverse backgrounds and interests. Four working groups will be set up to discuss the specific policy areas -- environment, health and safety, information and urban renewal -- around broad thematic questions. Participants will be assigned to begin discussions in one of the four groups based on their preference, as well as a need for balance/diversity of backgrounds in the groups. Group members will be rotated throughout the day so that participants may engage in at least three of the four topic areas and interact with participants from other groups. Facilitators and voluntary spokespeople will pull together reports from the groups to be presented at the ending plenary wrap-up session. The workshop is open to the public, with no registration fee. Pre-registration by April 25 is encouraged. Please call Amy Crumpton at 951-52554 (e-mail: acrumpto@vt.edu) or jongwonp@vt.edu to register or for further information. Schedule for Saturday, April 27: 9:00 - 9:30 Welcome - Squires Brush Mountain Room A 9:30 - 10:45 What are the roles of expert and lay knowledge in policy? Environment - Brush Mountain Room A Health & Safety - Brush Mountain Room A Telecommunication- Squires Room 302 Urban Renewal - Squires Room 217 10:45 - 12:00 What does democracy mean in a technoscientific society ? Rotate Working Groups 12:00 - 1:30 Lunch 1:30 - 3:00 Strategies for Forging New Alliances Rotate Working Groups 3:00 - 3:30 Break 3:30 - 5:30 Plenary Session and Group Reports Sponsored by the Science Policy Discussion Group and the Center for the Study of Science in Society. ------------------------ Registration template for science policy discussion group's _Practicing Policy Workshop._ Saturday, April 27, 1996 Name: Affiliation: Address: Telephone: E-mail: Please rank order (1-4) the following working grops according to your interests: Environment: ( ) Information/telecommunication: ( ) Health and Safety:( ) Urban renewal: ( ) Return form by April 25, 1996 to Amy Crumpton, CSSS (0247) 335 Lane Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247, 540-951-5254: acrumpto@vt.edu Science Policy Discussion Group Formed in Fall 1991 by Dr. Doris Zallen (Virginia Tech Center for Interdisciplinary Studies), the Science Policy Discussion Group provides an informal setting for students, faculty and community members to explore science and technology policy issues, both regional and global, and to examine the institutional frameworks within which science and technology policy decisions are made. In 1993, the Group registered as a student sponsored organization at Virginia Tech. On-going projects of the organization are a speaker series and an annual conference or workshop. In April of 1995, the organization sponsored a three-day conference entitled, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Nature," which included a wide variety of participants from various universities, the local community, activist organizations and policy makers. ------------------------------ Subject: Ameritech Billing Not Handling 708/847 Split Well Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 05:15:50 GMT From: ehall@wwa.com (Earl Hall) I received my latest home phone bill from Ameritech today, which contains the following charges under the heading "Long Distance": No. Date Time Place Called Number Code Min Amount 1 3-13 1234P ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 2 3-13 1235P ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 3 3-21 1110A ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 4 3-25 907A ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn D 1 .14 Trouble is, these calls are not "Long Distance" calls from my home in Skokie, Illinois. These are calls to the place I work, not more than 12 miles away -- well within "Band B" of our 3-band Market Service Area. I think the problem is thus (any other theories welcome): The 708-718 exchange (soon to be 847-718) was recently created and part of it assigned to our DID lines at work when we finally upgraded to a modern PBX and management allowed us humble employees to have individual Direct Dial numbers to our desk. I think a billing system table somewhere is missing that 708-718 exchange, but might have one for 847-718. My billing number for my home is already listed for the new area code: 847-933-nnnn. But we are still in the Permissive Period for the 708/847 split, so my local switch still assumes the 708 area code for 7-digit numbers. The billing program probably can't find the 708-718 exchange in its tables and assumes it to be a Long Distance call. One question: Can Ameritech now handle "Long Distance" calls? (I haven't received any offers from them to become my LD carrier.) If not, how can their system bill for Long Distance calls? Earl Hall Unix Administrator AAR Corp +1-847-718-6077 Elk Grove Village IL ehall@wwa.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Billing for long distance (via other carriers) is not the same as 'handling' long distance calls. Ameritech is officially in competition for intra-MSA calls as of April 7 but I think they had some of that during March. Do you think the calls you mentioned above were possibly made through some other carrier which is using Ameritech -- technically their competitor! -- as the billing agent? You did not mention there being any reference to the name of a company at the top of the page. Any possibility that in dialing those calls some five digit carrier code was used? PAT] ------------------------------ From: bes@brill.com (BES, Inc.) Subject: New Web-Based Moderated Telecom Newsgroup Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:20:06 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Brill Editorial Services, Inc., creator of the popular Mutual Funds Home Page(sm) [http://www.brill.com/] and Intranet Journal(sm) [http://www.brill.com/intranet/], has now created a new, Web-based and moderated newsgroup for postings relating to telecommunications issues. The service is free, and can be accessed by pointing your Web browser to http://www.brill.com/telboard/ Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck with your new feature! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #167 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 11:49:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA18203; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101549.LAA18203@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #168 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:49:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell Modifies ISDN Rate Request (Robert Deward) "Important" Notice From Sears (Chris J. Cartwright) Cellphone Security (Florida Times-Union via Tad Cook) Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski (Tad Cook) BellCore Updates Web Page (John Cropper) New Dutch Number Plan Now Final (Jan Joris Vereijken) The Right to Television Signals (Debbie MCDowell) NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Monty Solomon) Cellular Roaming Guides (Stanley Cline) Expiring Old Numbers (Michael J. Wengler) Sprint Fridays: Business or Residence? (WSJ via Michael J. Wengler) CDA vs ACTA and Other Interesting Questions (Terry J. Walters ) 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 mirror.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: bobd@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Deward) Subject: Pacific Bell Modifies ISDN Rate Request Date: 10 Apr 1996 13:06:08 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Pacific Bell has modified the ISDN rate request it filed last December with the California Public Utilities Commission. The following statement is attributable to Tom Bayless, Director, Switched Digital Services for Pacific Bell: As a result of the California Public Utilities Commission March 13 order and related pricing rules that provide guidelines on how Pacific Bell will resell its products and services, we have modified our December filing on ISDN pricing. Under the amendment, we will raise the monthly fee for ISDN by $8, rather than increasing the per-minute usage charge. The CPUC order moved ISDN into a competitive product category. In this category, the rules for how the product should be priced require that each component of ISDN (i.e., usage, monthly fee and installation) be priced separately, and that each component be priced to enable us to recover our costs. As a result, the various components can no longer subsidize each other. Under this scenario, our December request proposing an increase in usage to help us cover our cost of providing the service is no longer viable. Our amended proposal will enable us to provide the service at a monthly rate that is still among the lowest in the nation, and with usage charges that are among the most reasonable in the U.S. It also reflects concerns weUve heard that raising the per-minute charges would have a significant impact on our heavy ISDN users. For further information, please check the public policy section of the Pacific Telesis Home Page on the World Wide Web. The Web siteUs URL is http://www.pactel.com. ********************************************** Bob Deward, Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:48:20 EDT From: Chris J. Cartwright Subject: "Important" Notice From Sears Yesterday I received my Sears bill. While I usually just pitch all the flotsam and jetsam that they stuff in with the actual bill, there was one insert that I thought I should hold onto. It was titled "Ammendment to Account and Security Agreement". So I scanned it to see what new horror they were going to inflict on me for the *honor* of carrying their card, when I came across this tidbit in the neatly numbered twenty-five paragraphs that outlined the rules to my account; 19. PHONES CALLS: Sears may call me by telephone regarding this account. I agree that Sears may place such phone calls using an automatic dialing-announcing device. Sears' managers may listen to and record phone conversations between Sears' associates and me for training purposes or to evaluate the quality of Sears' service. As I have no objection to them calling me, or recording what goes on during that call, I *assume* they will have no objection if I use an "automatic answering-announcing caller-id'ing device" and choose not to answer the phone. But seriously, has someone complained so vigorously about getting a "machanized" call from Sears that they thought they actually had to write this thing in to the credit card agreement? Like Pat I generally hang up when I get the calls that say, "We have and important call for you, please hold the line". Yeah, so important that you can't have someone there when I say hello. I guess we aren't all that far away from having your machine call my machine, and my machine "saying" it's OK (or any other vaguely affirmative response) to start my four year subscription to "Roach Rancher's Quarterly", and while you're at it PLEASE bill my credit card in advance. But until then I'll hide behind my caller-id and IVR systems, so if you really want to talk to me leave a messaege at the tone. Christopher Cartwright, Tech. Engineer Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, people have complained vigorously thinking that people were spying on them when a supervisor at a company listened in on a call between a representative and a customer. It sounds silly, but some people have made an issue out of that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Cellphone Security Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:02:29 PDT Seminar Focuses on Security for Cellular Phones By Simon Barker-Benfield, The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 10--If you have a cellular phone, be careful - you are vulnerable to the rapidly growing, $500 million-a-year cellular fraud industry. But help from technology is on the way, said Mary B. Anderson, director of security for the cellular division of AT&T Wireless Services. Anderson was in Jacksonville yesterday for a day-long technical seminar for about 80 law enforcement officials. Stealing cellular service is an easy business to get into, said Anderson, and the most common technique used today is "cloning." "Cloning is where the real customer's telephone number and electronic number is stolen and programmed into another phone," Anderson said. "You can go into the cloning business for anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000," she said. What makes it particularly easy to steal cellular ID numbers is that the phones broadcast them the moment they are switched on, making them vulnerable to cloners armed with with electronic scanning equipment. One popular location for cloners is outside the stores where the phones are sold, Anderson said. Customers buy the phones, turn them on as they leave the store, and the signal is grabbed by the cloner, Anderson said. And the cloning business is booming. Two years ago, stolen cellular phone codes were being sold for $10 each. Today, the street price is 50 cents to $1, reflecting the huge increase in the availability of stolen cellular IDs. One cloner recently arrested in Miami had 22,000 stolen numbers, Anderson said. The stolen codes make it hard to trace phone calls, which appeals to drug dealers and other criminals, Anderson said. But the growing use of digital cellular phones is bad news for cell-phone con artists, Anderson said. Digital phones can include technology that automatically sends hard-to-crack authentication codes. Cellular phones with the authentication feature -- which will not cost extra -- should be available within six months, said Jim Lipsit, an AT&T Wireless project manager working with Anderson. "When we turn authentication on and it's running on your phone, you won't have to worry about turning your phone off," Lipsit said, referring to the telltale signal from cellular phones. In the meantime, there are things that cellular phone owners can do to protect themselves. "Be alert if you start to receive a lot of what appears to be either equipment problems or systems problems like fast-busy," Anderson said. And watch out for a lot of incoming wrong numbers, such as, "if people call and ask for Joe," she said. "Or if friends call you on your number and get someone else," said Anderson. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:17:26 PDT Unabomber Suspect Had Trouble Working Pay Phone By BOB ANEZ Associated Press Writer HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- The former math professor suspected of building sophisticated bombs in an 18-year campaign against technology couldn't figure out how to use a pay telephone, a phone company official said Tuesday. In a 1991 letter to the state Commerce Department, Theodore Kaczynski complained that a pair of phones in the small town of Lincoln sometimes took his money without allowing him to make a call. "He didn't understand how the pay phones worked," said Bob Orr, general manager of Lincoln Telephone Co. He said Kaczynski frequently complained about the two public phones along the highway that runs through Lincoln. Kaczynski did not understand he had to wait for someone to answer before he deposited his coins, Orr recalled. "The instructions were right on the phone," he said. "All he had to do was read them." Kaczynski, who lived a pauper's life in a 10-by-12 foot plywood shack with no water, phone, plumbing or electricity, often stopped by the phone company office to complain. "He came to the office and we gave him his dime back," Orr said. Kaczynski, suspected of being the mastermind behind the Unabomber bombings, was arrested last week at his home and charged with possessing bomb-making materials. He has not yet been charged with any of the Unabomber explosions that killed three and injured 23 people. Kaczynski, who holds a doctorate in mathematics and taught at the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1960s, complained to the state Commerce Department that the company wasn't acting on his complaints. "Clearly the phone company has an obligation either to replace defective pay phones or to repair them effectively and permanently, or to remove them altogether," he wrote. The phones are "still robbing the public of quarters" and the phone company is aware of the problem, he said. "Thus, they are consciously defrauding the public." Orr pointed out that the phones required only dimes to make a call. The letter was forwarded to the state Public Service Commission, which regulates phone companies. The commission staff referred it to the telephone company, which wrote a reply to Kaczynski. The response pointed out when coins must be deposited in order to make a call and that calls can be placed without putting in any money. Kate Whitney, who handles consumer complaints for the commission, said she found the letter, typed on a manual typewriter, in her files Monday and notified the sheriff's office, which in turn notified the FBI. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the subject of TK and the Unabomber case, readers will recall that on the day TK was originally arrested I published here my own belief that the FBI had the wrong person; a belief I still espouse. I've promised a few people I would print some rebuttals and the only problem I am running into now are that there are *so many* rebuttals and other commentaries. In the pending queue I have 79 articles in basic disagreement with me and 60 articles in partial or complete agreement with me. I don't know where to begin in sorting it all out. This item brought more response to me than any article I can recall in the past. I'll see what I can do with it all a bit later today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: BellCore Updates Web Page Date: 10 Apr 1996 09:32:34 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Welp, Bellcore *finally* updated their NANP web page (www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html). New additions include: 809/664 Montserrat, effective 96/07/01, mandatory 97/06/01. Test #: 664-491-0025 809/868 Trinidad & Tobago, no date or test number announced 216/440 Cleveland, effective 97/07/05, mandatory 98/01/03. No test # available. (This was mistyped on the page itself as 513/440) Also added were the already-known info (216/440 was "known"), including 513/937. *Not* addressed: 508/978 and 617/781 for Massachusetts (and NYNEX's press release web page hasn't shown any new material since December 1995!) Well, they're getting there ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: janjoris@win.tue.nl (Jan Joris Vereijken) Subject: New Dutch Number Plan Now Final Date: 10 Apr 1996 11:44:14 +0200 Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands Reply-To: janjoris@ACM.ORG (Jan Joris Vereijken) Hi, For those of you that occasionally call to The Netherlands, please note that as of today the new dutch number plan has entered it's final phase. So as of today THE OLD NUMBERS IN THE NETHERLANDS DON'T WORK ANYMORE. This affects about 80% of all numbers in The Netherlands. If you have any "old" numbers you haven't renumbered yet, you'll find a renumbering table at: http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/janjoris/decibel.html At that URL you'll also find a little information about the new numberplan in general. If you have any questions left, you can call: +31 6 0096 to reach a real human person at the helpdesk of the number-plan people, or, +31 6 0520 to get lost in voice-mail hell ("please press 0 for yet another random stupid menu"). Within The Netherlands, these are toll-free calls. From outside the Netherlands, you probably pay the normal international rate. Kind regards, Jan Joris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:39:22 EDT From: Debbie MCDowell Subject: The Right to Television Signals I live in N. Va., directly under the air traffic routes using Dulles International Airport. With no cable or satellite, we would have 'zip' television reception. (We rent a dish from Time Warner (Primestar). Recently we recieved notice from the satellite carrier that a local television channel was challenging the carrier's right to furnish a network channel. (With our dish, we recieve NBC from a New England station. The local NBC station, WBC, is claiming it's right to be the only ones who furnish the NBC signal in this area. Therefore our signal that we purchase from Time-Warner is scheduled to be deleted.) If WBC is successful in their bid to cut the signal, our home will no longer be able to view the NBC signal ... due to the air traffic. While viewing the WBC channel without a paid provider, every time a plane flies over our house, (dozens of daily flights) our television signal cuts out. The notice we recieved refers to Satellite Home Viewer Act as the explaiation for the move. Even with an antenna, we still get unviewable reception. I am hoping someone can advise me how to stop this. Does a local station have the right to a monopoly, based on the location? Does the law allow that competition has the right to govern a paid service? If the local company is not able to furnish a product, how can it object to another company who can and is providing the service? Has anyone out there had this experience? Or heard of it? Another "control" issue ... Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:27:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? Thanks, Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 monty@roscom.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Cellular Roaming Guides Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:43:11 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services For all those that are interested ... Cellular Directions no longer publishes its "Official Roaming Handbook". They have apparently decided to focus on their (expensive) Cellmaps series, which is distributed on CD-ROM. (The CDs start at around $350.) Also, they have moved down the Florida coast; their new number is 941-514-3998. HOWEVER ... "The Cellular Travel Guide," published by Communications Publishing of Seattle, is still available; a new edition is planned for August (according to their voice-mail message.) They can be reached at 1-800-927-8800. (I ordered one of the latter today.) Stanley Cline ** Roamer1 on IRC (see why?) mailto:scline@usit.net or mailto:scline@chattanooga.net CIS 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:12:49 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Expiring Old Numbers gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote: > Subject: Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number > Date: 3 Apr 1996 23:26:27 GMT > An article in the {Dallas Morning News} describes how Diane Hackett > would like to euthanize her telephone. > Her home phone number used to be the number of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He > used to have his number publicized in all the Detroit-area > directories. Eventually he got an unlisted number, and his old number > was eventually recycled and issued to the Hackett family. (The > article did not say how long it took the number to be recycled except > for a reference to his move "a few years ago".) They are getting calls > for Dr. Kevorkian at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes it's > the old and infirm or anxious or desparate and suicidal. Sometimes > it's reporters. What with the widespread prevalence of software and algorithms these days, may I make a suggestion to the phone companies out there? Record rate of hits on unused phone numbers. That is, record number of times each number is attempted, perhaps on a month by month basis. Then your list of unused numbers can be rank ordered from least-called to most-called. Or even simpler, numbers can be made available when they fall below some threshold level of 'wrong-number' dialing. That threshold could be as simple as the average hit rate on these unused numbers. In this way, Gramma's old phone number can get recycled almost as soon as she is, because she just never really took to the phone that much anyway. On the other hand, Kervorkian's number, old pizza parlor numbers, etc, will live on unused for as long as is needed for the system to wring out its continued incessant ringing of these numbers. Sponsored by "Alogorithms 'R Us", a non-existent organization. Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:02:46 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Sprint Fridays: Business or Residence? I found this article today 4/9/96 in the {San Diego Union Tribune}. The author is Guatam Naik with byline of {The Wall Street Journal}. Some of the claims in the article: In January, Sprint launced *Fridays Free* "giving small businesses a year of free long-distance calls every Friday." "But some Sprint representatives let some residential cusotomers sign up as well." "It apparently didn't take long for Sprint to realize it might lose tens of thousands of dollars in annual revenue from otherwise low-volume residential customers who insisted they signed up legitimately. "Sprint says these customers numbered 'in the hundreds,' but ... may have feared that droves of other residential customers also would demand the service." "At the end of last month, it sent Mailgrams to the Fridays Free residential customers seeking proof of their 'business status.' "In the message, Sprint said it had 'tried without success' to reach the customer, who would be switched to the standard Sprint Sense discount plan unless the proof was submitted soon." ... The article mentions a customer who was cut off March 28, and who called to get reconnected. "He says a Sprint representative told him he was among 8,000 residential customers who lost service." "Robin Lloyd, Sprint's small-business marketing chief, concedes: 'It was our fault: we do regret the confusion.' But the company hasn't formally apologized to its customers." ****** Business vs. residence status is not one of the protected distinctions over which you cannot discriminate in business, so presumably Sprint is within its legal rights to do this. But what is 'proof' of business status, I wonder? Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reporter based his story on the series of articles which appeared in this Digest. In addition, he interviewed me by telephone a couple days before the story ran. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:19:12 -0700 From: tjwalt@ix.netcom.com (TJ & Peggy Walters ) Subject: CDA vs ACTA and Other Interesting Questions Pat, I recently read the filing by ACTA concerning the unfairness of "free" LD service by Internet Phone, Webphone, and others. Upon reading some of the replies by other Digest readers, I realized that no-one made the connection with the Communications Decency Act. So here are my two cents. Consider this (to the sound of the Twilight Zone theme) ... 1) If ACTA gets it's way and imposes FCC tariffs and rules on the Internet Service Providers, that will make them "Common Carriers" (this language was used in the filing). Common Carrier status means that a carrier is *not* responsible for content in the legal (lawsuit, big bucks) sense. This would cripple the CDA or save ISPs depending on your viewpoint. 2) If CDA wins the regulatory battle, then ISP's do *not* become common carriers because they would be publishers -- responsible for content and access. As such, they wouldn't be subject to tariffs (get over it LD companies, welcome to the competitive world). Other questions: Assuming the CDA resists the court challenges, ISP's would be responsible for preventing "indecent" content getting into the hands of kids. How would the sysops control "indecent" I-Phone and CU-SEE-ME data from traveling over the net? Before the reader answers, please remember, we'd be talking Federal wiretap laws now ... "CDA criminals" who are subject to jail time and big fines, are those who knowingly expose kids to "indecent" material. Does this include the parent who wants to show his 17 year old some sex education ... oops I mean porn ... er, indecent ... material that's on the net such as the "How to put on a condom" or birth control webpages? On the LD issue, I pay a tariff (local phone call) to call the ISP's POP, the ISP pays LD charges for a T1 line from the POP to their facility then additional charges to connect to the Internet backbone. Although the LD companies aren't getting nearly the same fees as private LD phone calls, the I-Phone option doesn't exactly leave them without an income. Regards, Terry Walters Serendipity Labs (619)695-8792 Where Creative Minds = Innovative Products ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #168 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 13:11:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA23896; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101711.NAA23896@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #169 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 13:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (David Sternlight) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Paul Robinson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Jonathan Cohen) Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions (Paul Robinson) Re: Velocity of Propagation Values (Dave Fuller) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Mark Fletcher) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Paul Robinson) Re: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay (Frank Pitt) Re: Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet (P Robinson) Re: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty (Andrew Laska) References Wanted For ARETE TELECOM, INC. (kerux@anet-dfw.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 05:26:00 GMT Dave O'Shea (dos@panix.com) spaketh thusly: > I'll be amused to see the first case where a carrier is named as > co-defendant after a particularly horrid car accident attributed to > someone being inattentive while dialing that second string of digits. Bob Goudreau wrote: > People need to be responsible for their own actions instead of > always looking for some other party to blame. The fact is, if using > your cellular phone (whether listening, talking, dialing a PIN or > dialing some other number) diverts so much of your attention that you > are no longer able to drive well, then you have no business trying to > do these two things simultaneously. True. But my phone has one-touch dialing. Most of the numbers I call I can dial without taking my eyes off the road. I paid (well, a lot) extra for the genuine Motorola hands-free kit so I could dial, talk and hang up without taking my eyes off the road. Ameritech has decided to change that, in order to benefit themselves. The good news (I guess) is that Cell One tells me they currently have no plans to make PINs mandatory in Chicago. And I'm not under contract to Ameritech ... Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:39:00 GMT In article , C. Wheeler wrote: > While it maybe a slight pain in the ass, it does reduce the > probability of fraud a great deal. Consider that -- a hacker would > have to intercept your log in to get your PIN. Entirely possible, but > he only gets the chance to do that once when you first turn on your > phone. In other words the phone company is shifting the cost of combating fraud from where it belongs, on them, to the honest customer. And do you think for a moment they'll lower their exorbitant and collusive rates (can you say "Duopoly"?) because of the fraud costs avoided through all those customers dialing all those PINs? David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:42:10 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by (sic) the > carriers do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. What I think you mean is 'why don't they use voice recognition'? A similar answer I've quoted before explains: "Mom, why are the [video telephones] here in Kansas City all flatties? The ones back in Dallas are all [stereoscopic/3D]." "Donald, whenever someone asks, 'Why don't they?', the answer is almost always 'money'." - Maureen Johnson in Robert A. Heinlein's "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" Doing verification by PIN is cheap to do. Verifying by voice is bound to be expensive and require new hardware. The celluar switch already has Touch-Tone(R) (DTMF) decoders and reprogramming the switch to look for a DTMF-entered pin number is not that difficult, nor expensive _for the carrier_. Pushing the problem onto the customer is one of the great labor saving (and cost cutting) devices for businesses. That's why phone company employees no longer dial telephone calls. Soneone once said with the number of calls that were going out (in the late 1930s) eventually the telephone companies would need almost everyone in the country to be a telephone operator. And they were right! Now, everyone does what the operators did: places the call for the customer. In this case, it saved money for the company, and, not having to wait for an operator was a much greater convenience which well exceeded the minor inconvenience of the customer having to dial the call themselves. > Voiceprints are supposed to be unique. Yes, but the equipment to distinguish them requires lots of hardware to do it in real time and isn't cheap. Now, expand that by having it constantly available for every incoming channel that calls are dialed on, plus redundant circuitry for when some parts fail, and you are talking about a major expense. > The voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the > switch would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. If there are multiple people (such as members of a family) using it on rare occasions, then you have to remember to register everyone. If you have a group of phones assigned to say, an organization where different people sign out for them because they are going somewhere and use one as needed, then everyone who uses a phone has to be registered for every single phone. For phones with the owner being the sole user this might not be a bad idea, however. > You would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five > five one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the > tower and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Voiceprint recognition and speech recognition are two different things, and speech recognition is even more complicated (and thus more expensive). How someone says a number with a cold, or in noisy conditions, is a different sound than when they say it under other conditions, and may cause such problems as non-recognition or misdialing errors. Has anyone noticed anything about our good friends over at the company with a wonderful attitude toward customers and sterling customer service, i.e. Sprint, and its voice-operated calling card? Are they still offering that service? Or did they find too many complaints (not that it would phase them) over problems of speech recognition and false dialing? > Using a combination of voiceprint and what has been termed the > 'RF print' unique to each phone -- in combination of course with > the ESN -- should help cut down on fraud. If you have the RF print of the phone and the ESN, if the theory of different machines giving off different RF signatures is true, then the only means of committing fraud in such cases is to steal the original telephone, which I believe is not a significant issue. If you're doing that, then you don't need voiceprints. Further, if you use voiceprints, then you don't even need to check the serial number of the phone, because whoever says the phone number and 'send' is already registered to the system, they can simply be charged to their account no matter what phone they are using! Interesting idea, indeed. Probably too expensive to implement now, but perhaps in a few years, maybe not. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ From: parrot@spuddy.mew.co.uk (Jonathan Cohen) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Spuddy, UK. - Call +44 1268 515441 for free mail & news! Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:13:30 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is Pat. It amazes me that after thirteen or so years of service the US cellular carriers haven't added more in-built security to their networks! Over here in the UK we have two main types of phones, the digital GSM phones where security and cloning are not currently an issue, and the older TACS phones where cloning is as much an issue as in the US I believe. (TACS is the UK analogue standard very heavily based on AMPS). Of our two analogue TACS networks Vodafone and Cellnet, Vodafone have just introduced what they refer to as "Authentication". This requires a long PIN type number to be entered (once) into the phone which is then used to encrypt the ESN/MIN combination. I believe some sort of "rolling code" is used to prevent eavesdroppers from decrypting the codes. All this occurs on the control channels meaning the user is unaware or affected by the improved security. I believe current subscribers with compatible phones (most made in the last three years) are being mailed advice on how to enable the extra security features. I have also heard reports that our analogue cellular networks are to be closed within the next ten years. Jonathan Cohen, parrot@spuddy.mew.co.uk. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:12:34 EDT From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions Linc Madison writes in Telecom Digest: > First off, I had always thought that the current area code 714 snuck > across the border into Los Angeles County, but in fact it's the other > way around -- a small slice of Orange County is actually in the > 310/562 area, the towns of La Habra and Alamitos. When I lived in Long Beach, California (LA County), it was then in area code 213, and the local telephone company was GTE. They were also the local company for the next city over, which was Seal Beach in Orange County, and also GTE. Seal Beach and Long Beach were part of the same "service area" meaning that Long Beach covered Seal Beach as well. For that part of the 213 (now 310) area code, GTE was using all of 420-429, 430-439, and 590-599. Some of those exchanges were reserved specifically for Seal Beach, Leisure World (in Orange County) and so on. If you lived east of Cherry Avenue in Long Beach -- which would include Seal Beach and the lower half of the portion of Orange County in the Long Beach service area - you got free calling as far as Huntington Beach, which was in the 714 area code. It was a local call, but you still had to dial 1+714. I note that Huntington Beach is ALSO served by GTE. If you lived east of Cherry Avenue but also north of Willow Street, in addition to free calling to Huntington Beach, you also got free calling as far as some exchanges in Anaheim, which I believe included the exchange Disneyland was on. Those exchanges were also in the 714 area code. (Disneyland, however, I remember is served by Pacific Bell; I remember their pay phones there.) Now, if you lived WEST of Cherry Avenue (and it did not matter which side of Willow Street you were on), all of the 714 area code was a toll call. In fact, you could tell approximately what part of town someone lived in by their exchange. As it turned out, Los Angeles county has some very strange rate structures that are not symetrical. For example, in some places it was a local call from point A to point B, but a toll call from B to A! ------------------------------ From: dave fuller Subject: Re: Velocity of Propagation Values Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:24:31 -0700 Organization: PCSlink Michael R. Neal wrote: > Does anyone know of a reference work that provides Velocity of > Propagation (Vp) values for most of the widly used cable types and mfg > brands used in telecommunications today. Andrew has that information in their catalog. ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:40:24 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Bruce Crawford wrote: > What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was > increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the > middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York > City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other > special services. That way, the current area codes could have been > kept intact for at least a few more years. I wish I could take credit for this idea, but I can't. It was one of the best ides I saw on the subject. Look at the number of *wasted* numbers sitting there as "roll-over" or hunt numbers at small to medium sized companies. For example, your main number is 201-555-2000, you have 29 additional POTS lines that complement your "hunt group" of 30 lines with 2000 as the pilot number. These 29 numbers, 555-1485, 555-2947, etc. are *wasted* 201-555-XXXX numbers! Why not convert the "rollover" lines to the new NPA overlay? No one EVER dials these numbers, except maybe for testing. It seems to me that overlays NPA's are inevitable, there are just too many of us out there with multiple lines, and the supply is short. But I can't see forcing 11 digit dialing across the street when there are so many wasted numbers out there. IMHO the pecking order for overlay NPA's should be: 1. Rollover numbers; 2. Voluntary second lines (I never call my data line at the house); 3. Pagers; 4. Cell Phones; 5. Fax/Data lines. Maybe fax and data should be number 3. After all these are more likely to be speed dialed than manually dialed. Just my $3.48 worth ... Mark Fletcher Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Adv. System Technician Parsippany, New Jersey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 07:18:29 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere On 26 Mar 1996 14:57:26 GMT, Joel M. Hoffman , writes in TELECOM Digest: > in the New York area, cellular rates run roughly $0.65/min., > not counting the "free minutes"... in TX, $0.20/min. is closer > to average... three cellular carriers... but the rates are all > higher than elsewhere... population density ought to make > lower rates possible. Things are *always* more expensive in the New York City area. Not counting the fact that there is a heavy CITY income tax on top of state and federal taxes, and that the costs for everything there are higher than other places, not to mention the anti-business attitude of the City Government which requires mountains of paperwork to do anything (not to mention how much has to be paid in bribes and "squeeze"), the simple fact is places there charge more because they can get it. New York City is a "premium" place to be, and thus is more "deirable" for some people to be there, thus those who operate businesses there can charge more for the privelege. As a result, NYC is a "high-overhead" environment; and let's not forget the significance of what a cellular phone is: a non-essential item. That makes it an excellent target for discriminitory pricing and extra taxes. Think about it: people who get cellular phones are paying for what is, in effect, a luxury item. Cellular phone service is not something one "has" to have; one can always use other options. Luxuries are always much more expensive. Especially in New York. But it's not just there. Any place that is a "premium" area is more expensive to be in, and even in the surrounding areas. Let me use my own situation to give an example. Where I live in Silver Spring, MD, I live in a multi-floor two bedroom single-family house on about 1/4 acre of land with a nice back yard and very large front lawn. This house rents for $200 a month _less_ than what a smaller apartment (town house) with no yard was costing only eight miles away. Of course, that apartment which was 8 miles away was in Southwest Washington, DC. It is considered a "premium" city, has many of the disincentives New York has, and thus many things there are more expensive. If I were to move, say, to the upper Midwest, to some of the medium-sized towns that are large enough to have sufficient businesses to be able to find work there, I could probably rent a house there of the same size I am living in now, for about half of what this place costs. Wages are very similar, too. I spoke to the owner of where I am living now, and asked if he'd be interested in selling if I decided to do so. He said that he would, and this house was appraised at around $125,000. In that fairly good sized town in a midwest state, a similar house would *sell* for around $35,000. I would guess that the rent in that town for a house similar to this one would be about 1/2 of what we are paying, and probably 1/3 of what our place in DC cost us. Yet you don't have to travel all the way to the midwest to notice a difference in costs. There are people who commute to Washington, DC some 90 min. by train from Martinsburg, West Virginia,because the income here is much higher but the cost of living there is much lower. In the movie, "The Taking of Beverly Hills," the person narrating a voice over at the opening mentions that the entire City Police Department -- even the executives -- all live outside of town because on their salaries, of course, none of them can afford to live in Beverly Hills! Places considered "premium" places to be in are more expensive. Everything costs more, so everything costs more to cover the costs from everyone else increasing their prices to cover the overhead and the "premium" of being in a "desirable" area. > Further, Nynex charges "roaming" rates inside it's own > network. I don't know if the other carriers do, too. It depends on the area. I suppose, if they think the market will pay it, they will charge whatever they think they can get away with. > Is this a matter of price-colusion, or is cellular service > really that much more expensvie to operate in NY? I am not sure what you mean by "price colusion" but if you mean are they charging a lot more because they can get away with it, I'm sure they are. But let's not forget expenses, too; I'm sure there is more cellular fraud there than other places. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:... surprised... how expensive > cellular service was in New York.... cell phones are > *really* outrageous in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. PAT] "Premium" places, Pat, so they can get premium prices, and cell phones are "luxury" items, so the price goes up. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:57:58 +1200 From: Frank Pitt Organization: Munden's Bar Reply-To: "Frank Pitt" Subject: Re: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay In article <04.01.96.7669gheq1@massis.lcs.mit.edu> you write: > I am always please when I can tell you another one is here, by George! > And that is the case again today. The attached was received over the > weekend, and as usual, Gordon Jacobson will introduce the article. Just a note to say thanks for propagating George's work. An extremely interesting article. And he writes so well, I couldn't tear myself away from it ! Had to read it _all_ on one sittng and then sit back and breathe again. Thanks again. Frankie [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of good comments come in to me regarding George Gilder's work. Like yourself, I always read his articles in one sitting, and often times go back and read them again a second time to fully understand what he is saying. I'm glad to have him as part of the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:14:33 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet On 27 Mar 96 17:53:18 GMT, mark@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (Mark Inaba) writes: > I'm having problems ...Transfering a file using xmodem/ymodem/zmodem/ > kermit in the following manner: > the termserver executes a telnet: telnet 4446) Stop right there. Except for Kermit, X/Y/Z modem all want 8-bit transfer paths. Telnet is a 7-bit service, from the days of dumb terminals and 7 bit with parity transmissions. > Everything seems to work fine as far as menus and commands, > but when I tested various flavors of xyzmodem for file > transfers, I get only errors (nothing gets transfered at all, > usually. These protocols demand and require end-to-end 8-bit data channel service. Telnet changes this to 7 bit. Did you actually use Kermit? As woefully deficient in transfer throughput as that protocol is, it should be able to transfer 8-bit material over 7-bit lines, although you might have to set some parameters. > 1) Do I need to look into specifying telnet 8bit? Yes, if you can. > when I do it on the command line it only seems to screw up a > login You may have to set some things there; the system may be expecting only 7-bit connections, you come along with an (unannounced) 8-bit connection and the other side is confused. > ... but I've tried setting my pc modem to 7bit and nothing > was different. Setting your modem to 7 bits with parity is doing the same thing that telnet is doing, i.e. preventing you from using a full 8-bit channel for data. When data communications first got started, there was a big problem with noisy phone lines and how to use them adequately. The idea was to use 7 bits, with the highest bit as an indicator that the byte was valid. This highest bit, or "parity" bit, is discarded by the hardware so the transmitting programs never see it. With todays error correcting modems parity is unnecessary, so 8-bit-service can and should be used. But telnet is an old protocol, it has remained the same because some places still need 7-bit data service, especially very poor countries where old equipment has to remain in service due to cost concerns. > What is this 8 bit telnet and why does it exist? It exists for the same reason you are having a problem: to allow a continuous 8-bit data channel from end to end. You may want to see if other options such as rlogin are available, or talk to the administrator of your site and see what can be done to allow you 8-bit end-to-end transmission. > If my paths are going from 7 to 8 and back again, wouldn't > ALL my data get screwed up, including character? No. Look at it this way. The character upper-case 'B', is expressed in ASCII as 65, or binary 0100 0001. 7 bit transfers mean the leftmost bit is always clear, as far as your program is concerned. Since, in this case, it's already a zero, clearing it doesn't do anything. Therefore plain text having ascii values below 128 are unaffected by whether the data stream is 7-bit or 8-bit. What gets damaged are binary files containing character values above 127, which is archive files, executable files, and many kinds of data files such as word processor documents, graphic images, etc. You need 8-bit capability, so you need to find out how to get it on your system. Or find out how to get Kermit to work there, although the abysmally low throughput it gives, I'd recommend if at all possible, to try to ask your administrator there how to get 8-bit capability if you can. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Among Other things, we sell and service ideas. Call 1-800-TDARCOS from anywhere in North America if you are interested in buying an idea to solve one of your problems. ------------------------------ From: laska@netcom.com (Andrew Laska) Subject: Re: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty Reply-To: alaska@wallstreet.net Organization: Bogus, Inc. Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:28:19 GMT In article , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu says: > On Thursday in federal court, 'Internet Kidnap' suspect Richard Romero > was arraigned. He appeared in court without an attorney and stated > simply his intention to remain silent, neither entering any sort of > plea or speaking in his behalf. > Romero, 35, of Jacksonville, FL is accused in the case involving the > thirteen year old boy from the north suburbs of Chicago who ran away > from home with Romero after meeting the older man through email and > interactive chat programs on the Internet in March. > Romero appeared before Judge Charles Korcoran. Since he had no attorney > and apparently canot afford one the judge appointed an attorney to > represent Romero. He stated to Romero that due to his decision to > remain silent the court was required to make a total presumption of > innocence at this point and enter a plea of not guilty in his behalf. > Romero will remain in custody pending further legal action during May > and June. Thanks for posting this Pat. To the geenral populus" Why is this treated as "the internet kidnapping story." Why is it not treated as what it is? "A kidnapping story." The fact that this guy was successful via the internet is a trivial fact. and in fact he was not successful via the internet. He got caught. If he had decided to randomly prey on children, as opposed to using a data service, it is very possible that he could have gotten away free and would have never left the electronic trail that he did. Andrew Laska [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess the adjective 'internet' is in the title because it is the word which makes the story different than your 'typical' kidnap report. I do not think it is all that 'trivial' that he was successful via the internet. After all, the internet chat programs make it much easier to form new friendships and remove much of the initial taboo involved in 'talking with strangers'. Now I will agree that much of the initial friendship formed is based on fraud and deceit in many cases, but none the less it gets formed and many of the early barriers get removed which would otherwise prevent 'things' from happening. Where children might not stop in the park to sit and converse with an older person, they are much more likely to sit on a chat program and talk with someone they *think, and have been lead to beleive* is another child their own age. A teenage boy is unlikely to hang around with an older guy or discuss much of his personal life with such a person but he is not reluctant to do so in a chat program with someone he has been *deceived into thinking* is a teenage girl. So contrary to what you say, the internet does not play a 'trivial' role. It removes the need to disguise one's appearance in terms of age and beauty, and it removes the need to disguise one's voice on the telephone for the purpose of gender identification. Then once the friendship has been formed -- admittedly based on fraud and deceit -- it becomes a 'trivial' matter to create a few more lies in the process of meeting the child, i.e. 'when you come to visit is it okay if my father picks you up at the bus station and brings you to our house?' I mean, do any of those guys go hang around school playgrounds any longer? If so, why? Now, more than ever, kids need to be told to *talk freely* with their parents about their friendships and the people they meet. The old safeguards won't always work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kerux@anet-dfw.com Subject: References Wanted For ARETE TELECOM, INC. Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:46:21 GMT Organization: Anet I've been approached by a representative from ARETE TELECOM reselling long distance service thru Pioneer Telecommunications ... anyone heard of these companies? Do they have a track record? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #169 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 15:08:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA03501; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101908.PAA03501@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #170 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Latest NANP Information, Including Caribbean (Mark J. Cuccia) Can Cellular Phones Access Fonorola? (Patrick Coghlan) Re: Separating Fact From Fiction in the Movies (Gary Novosielski) Re: Social Insecurity (Steve Bagdon) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Martin Baines) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Jawaid Bazyar) The Cost of LD (Paul Robinson) Last Laugh! IVRU Greeting (Mark Tenenbaum) 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 mirror.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, 10 Apr 1996 11:17:33 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Latest NANP Info, Including Caribbean Bellcore NANPA updated their webpages on Tuesday 9 April 1996. The two most recently announced area codes for Ohio (announced in this forum by other participants) are on the website now: 440 OH splits from 216, permissive dialing begins 7-5-97, ends 1-3-98 (Cleveland metro will remain 216) 937 OH splits from 513, permissive dialing begins 9-28-96, ends 6-14-97 (Cincinnati metro will remain 513) And there are *several* updates on splits from 809, most of the Caribbean. 809 is becoming less and less of the Caribbean these days, and it is expected to be *exclusively* for the Dominican Republic, as each island territory or country requests their own new NPA. The Dominican Republic has been the only Caribbean entity which has *not* requested their own *new* NPA, so be "default" it could be that 809 will be their *own* NPA. 664 is listed as Montserrat Island, permissive dialing begins 7-1-96, ends 6-1-97. 868 is listed as Trinidad & Tobago, effective dates TBA. The proper effective dates for 268 Antigua/Barbuda and 758 St. Lucia are now indicated on the webpages. Incidently, over the past week, Bell South *has* added 268 as a valid (new) NPA in most of its ESS local switches throughout the metro New Orleans area, and I've been told by others that US West has been adding the 268 NPA into its switches in the Minneapolis area as well! I spoke with the Area Code administrator of Bellcore NANPA this morning, and was told that "ILs" (Information Letters) are being mailed out regarding the latest new area codes announced yesterday on their webpage. Please note, however, that there *are* some text and html formating errors in Bellcore's webpage, and even some minor factual errors. Hopefully, Bellcore will correct them. And now, here is a compilation of the NANP Caribbean: Begin End New permissive permissive NPA Location ("letters") dialing dialing 242 Bahamas (BHA) - - - - - - - - - 01 OCT 96 31 MAR 97 246 Barbados - - - - - - - - - - - 01 JUL 96 15 JAN 97 268 Antigua/Barbuda (ANT) - - - - - 01 APR 96 31 MAR 97 284 British Virgin Is. (BVI) - - (dates to be announced) 340 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 345 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 441 Bermuda - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 OCT 95 30 SEP 96 473 Grenada/Carricou (GRE) - - - (dates to be announced) 649 *** reserved *** (locati