From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 29 16:11:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA00160; Wed, 29 May 1996 16:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:11:22 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605292011.QAA00160@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #251 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 May 96 16:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISDN News From NM (Roy A. McCrory) New Area Codes in California, etc. (Linc Madison) Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Collect Telephone Sleaze (Edward Connors) Loop-Around Pairs (Martin McCormick) Re: AT&T 8130 Protocol Request (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (Larry Lee) Re: MCI Cellular (Chris Wysocki) Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: More CID Frolics! (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: More CID Frolics! (Linc Madison) Telecom Archives CDROM Ordering Details (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: ISDN News From NM Date: 29 May 1996 15:50:38 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory US West Appeals ISDN Prices, the headline in this morning's paper. Looks like US West wants to do us a favor. All typos are mine. -Roy By Maggi Seiger, Journal Staff Writer US West asked the State Corporation Commission (our 'PUC' -Roy) on Tuesday to allow it to begin offering ISDN service immediately -- at higher rates than previously approved by the commission. The telephone company filed a motion Tuesday appealing the lower rates set by the corporation commission. The commission on May 13 ordered US West to offer residential Integrated Services Digital Network lines for a flat rate of $40.86 a month. The commission set a separate rate of $75.97 a month for business customers. But US West wants to begin service now, charging $75-a-month for both business and residential service for unlimited access, or $50 a month for up to 40 hours of service. US West, New Mexico's largest telephone company, fears it would be unable to recover the $1 billion investment necessary to to make New Mexico ISDN-ready under the commission's proposed rates, said Mack Haley, spokesman for the company. The company has found that less than one-tenth of a percent of customers have subscribed to the service in other states served by US West, he said. "We know there obviously are are segments of New Mexico that are very interested in (ISDN service)," Haley said. "Our concern is that our data shows the widespread interest needed to recover our investment is not there." US West said in a news release that allowing it offer service now would prevent further delays for customers who want ISDN. ISDN stands for ... Using ordinary copper phone lines, it offers a computer connection four times faster than a 28,800 bit-per-second modem. Gloria Tristani, chairwoman for the corporation commission, called US West's motion "unusual." "I don't know what rationale there would be to accept their prices over the prices we ordered," she said. "If they want to start offering (ISDN) service immediately, I'd think tyey'd use our prices and if we rehear the case and decide to change, then they could change the prices." End of quoted article. It's very hard to keep a straight face while typing this! Regards, Roy McCrory ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: New Area Codes in California, etc. Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:22:29 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications I just realized something about the new area code for southern California and the eastern Sierras. The new NPA is 760, but for many years (when I still kept track of such things), 760 was a test prefix, at least in 415 and 510. In some CO's, dialing 760 would immediately give you voice ANI readback; in others, you had to dial 760-xxxx, where the last four digits were changed from time to time and from CO to CO. Whenever a sales clerk asked for my phone number in a situation where I felt there was no need for it, I would rattle off 760-xxxx and make up a four-digit number. Give the telemarketers a little fun. As for the Bay Area, I did a little looking at prefix assignments and the "master list" of NPA assignments, and peered into my crystal ball. I'm guessing that the new NPA for the 415 split will be 870, and the new NPA for the 510 split will be 350. My guess is based on frequency of use as a prefix in other California NPA's, weighted by proximity. I emphasize that it's only a guess -- don't print your new stationery yet! Incidentally, I spoke with Bruce Bennett about Pacific Bell's lagging in activating new area codes in their switches, and his assistant got back to me, reporting that the word has been sent out, but it will take up to three weeks to update all the switches. I *still* cannot dial either area code 268 for Antigua and Barbuda or area code 561 for West Palm Beach, Florida, although those area codes have been in permissive dialing since 4/1/96 and 5/13/96, respectively. Interestingly, though, since I spoke to Bruce Bennett's office, the point at which calls to 561 get intercepted changed. I used to get intercepted immediately at 1-561, but I now have to dial 1-561-xxx-x before I get an intercept telling me that it is not necessary to dial a '1' before this number -- an invalid intercept message, since the switch should no longer ever assume that I could be trying to dial 1-NXX-XXXX without the NPA. The 415-561 prefix is also right here in the same rate center, San Francisco 1. The test numbers are 1-268-268-4482 (1-ANT-ANTIGUA) and 1-561-615-8484. I was assured that word would go out well in advance for the next round of NPAs -- four of them going into effect on 7/1/96 (three in small Caribbean territories and one in Virginia). Lastly, I finally resolved some of my confusion about the revised 713/281 split plan. The summaries I had heard referred to splitting along the "beltway" around Houston, which I had assumed referred to Interstate 610, "The Loop." It turns out that the "beltway" referred to is much farther out from town, the Loop 8 beltway including the West Sam Houston Tollway. The new boundary approximates the freeway, to the extent possible with existing exchange boundaries. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:56:57 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You DuPage County, Illinois police can now make hundreds of telephone calls an hour to residents in an area where a crime has taken place or a suspect is on the loose. The DuPage County Sheriff last week inaugurated the 'Reverse-911' community communications system. It transmitted a recorded message to one thousand homes in an unincorporated area of Lombard, Illinois to warn residents about two suspected burglars driving in a Ford Taurus, Chief Deputy Sheriff Robert Soucek said. "For the first time, we are able to saturate an area with hundreds of phone calls an hour, and advise citizens of burglaries, a missing child, suspicious activities and any other circumstances where we could utilize our citizens to help us solve a crime," Soucek said. Using several telephone lines, the $30,000 system can quickly call, for examples, all homes on a certain street, or all day-care centers in the county. Some people who have information about a crime do not call the police and wait for police to question them according to Soucek. That problem might be solved by a phone canvass asking residents who have witnessed a crime to call investigators. The DuPage Sheriff is the first law enforcement agency in Illinois to use the system according to Jackie Bianchi of Sigma Micro of Indianapolis, Indiana, the company that designed the system. Nationwide, eight police departments are using Reverse-911, Bianchi said. In Portsmouth, VA, tips from businesses alerted by the Reverse-911 system led to the arrest of a man charged with passing counterfeit checks and the filing of charges against another man for passing bad checks Portsmouth police Sergeant John Holloway said. In addition, after police made calls about a rash of burglaries in one area and a string of car burglaries in another, both crime waves dropped to almost zero as neighbors became more watchful. A burglary suspect was later arrested. The Village of Vernon Hills, Illinois purchased the service and plans to begin using it in July according to Vernon Hills Police Chief Gary Kupsak. The system has been used for three years in Merrillville, Indiana and Police Chief Lance Huish said, "our citizens really like having this information come to them." The data base in each Reverse-911 system can be constructed from the existing 911 data base, except it is set by default to exclude unlisted or non-published phone numbers. Citizens who specifically want to be added or deleted can request this from the police. According to Soucek, citizens are demanding more and more of police and the answer seems to be in community policing. He said, "it is very simple to encourage citizen involvement. Law enforcement agencies must do all they can to enlist the help of citizens they serve. Most citizens would be willing to help if only they knew how." In addition to warnings to the community from police, the system can also be used to communicate with residents about other emergecies in the town such as a pending storm, a gas leak or a fire. System messages that are not answered or are met with a busy signal are called several additional times in an attempt to deliver the message which can be of varying lengths. If the caller hangs up the phone then the system also disconnects. As noted above, making entries in the data base is quite easy, and citizens can opt to be included or not following the initial default loading and installation. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 13:09:08 EDT From: Edward Connors Subject: Re: Collect Telephone Sleaze In the TELECOM Digest Volume 16 Issue 246 message 6 of 11 perry@netplaza.com wrote about billing by Telephone Billing Service ("TBS,Inc.") in behalf of Goldphone (Miami, Florida). Today 5-28-96 I telephoned to the customer service number 1-800-798-4309 and spoke to "Shirley" at TBS, Inc. She stated that this 800 number is intended for billing inquiries by customers who have accounts at TBS,Inc. and not for public use otherwise. She stated that I have no account with TBS, Inc. and that TBS,Inc. will not "block" charges for third-party or collect calls to me, because although TBS Inc. does process bills for Goldphone, she says TBS Inc. does not block calls to certain phone numbers. Shirley said she has no capability to log when an individual who is not a TBS customer has called to TBS Inc. Customer Service seeking to forbid all toll calls that might be claimed by Goldphone thru TBS Inc. in the future. (There is a technical name for a computerized process used by some carriers which, analogous to a credit authorization, will prevent toll calls from being connected if a customer's account has been flagged for possible fraud. I think Shirley is saying TBS Inc. does not have this kind of remote data base administration online, i.e., TBS Inc. has no information that a toll call is about to be made, TBS only sees the toll charges claimed after a call occurred.) The TELECOM Digest message cited above did indicate that TBS Inc. may "block" third-party or collect calls, but this is not so, according to Shirley. Shirley asked where did I read the misleading information about TBS Inc., and where did I get their 800 number. econnors@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Shirley may have not been correctly informed. Other representatives there might possibly have a different answer; you know how that goes in telco customer service deparments. None the less, you will want to keep Shirley's 800 number handy so that in the event you are incorrectly billed by TBS you can call to get the neccessary adjustment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin McCormick Subject: Loop-Around Pairs Date: 29 May 1996 15:36:57 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK What exactly are loop-arounds anyway? I have heard about them for many years. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Loop-arounds are phone lines which, when you dial into them you are immediatly connected to another pair going right back out to new dial tone in the location where the loop is located. For example, for many years , dialing various Chicago numbers of the form 312-any exchange-9909 got you fresh Chicago dial tone via same-exchange-9910. What you then *did* with that new dial tone was where the problems arose. Whatever you did, it appeared that the new call originated from 9910 (which is correct) rather than from wherever you actually were. Consider loop arounds much like anonymous email re-forwarding services on the net. Loop-arounds were never intended for public use. They are not a public service provided by telco for people who need to make anonymous and hard to trace calls. . They are intended for telco testing purposes in most cases. In the case of 9909/9910 cited above, if you waited a few seconds after dialing 9909 and hearing the new dial tone issued to 9910, a dialer would come on the line and send out '611'. That went back to the days when a telephone repairman might be working in some territory other than his own, but he needed to contact his own office. Dialing 611 would get him the office in the territory where he was at that time. To get 'his own 611' he would dial exchange-9909 in his own territory and let it give him a jump to the 611 where he worked out of. That was the idea behind that one. What the phreaks disovered however was that when they heard that dial tone offered to 9910 (which had gone off hook which 9909 latched it) they had about five seconds to dial *whatever they pleased* before the dialer would wake up and do its thing. And by the time it did wake up and give out '611' it was too late: the network had already heard seven or ten or eleven digits from the phreak and was processing that call, not listening any longer to the poor dialer box. And what it pleased them to dial were all sorts of long distance and international calls; calls to 900/976 numbers, etc. Had the phreaks limited themselves to local area unmeasured, untimed calls and used those loop-arounds for the purpose of concealing themselves or confusing the issue when someone down the line started looking for them, all would have been well and fine. But in their greed, they started making five hour long distance calls, etc. Now even the Telephone Company gets phone bills. Department managers at telco get bills for the phone calls made in their office which they have to approve for 'payment', i.e. being charged against their budget, etc. Supervisors in Repair -- in the frames, etc -- started getting bills for all these calls being billed to whatever-9910; phones they had probably long forgotten even existed in the spaghetti-bowl of central office wiring, etc. Most loop-arounds are there for legitimate technical reasons: telco needs to test line conditions from some remote location but actually use a line in the desired place, etc. Some loop-arounds are owned by private companies too lazy or ignorant to know how very important it is to protect themselves against phreaks and hackers. As an example, for many years there was a local seven digit number here in the north suburbs of Chicago which which dialed gave the caller a hook right into the United Air Lines (Unitel) phone network. Just sitting there wide open so anyone calling that number got in response a Unitel dial tone. It was *intended* for executives of United Air Lines working at home to enable them to call directly to the desired centrex extension of UAL at the airline headquarters here. What they seemed to have forgotten -- but the phreaks knew quite well -- was that there were all these nifty three-digit tie line codes which in turn connected the caller to UAL facilties and associated centrexes all over the USA, each of them with in turn their own tie lines to wherever and nine-level outgoing local calls (in those respective communities, etc). And it sat there wide open for years. One three-digit code connected to outgoing WATS lines; another connected to outgoing Canadian WATS; still another connected to the centrex at Boeing Aircraft since UAL is or was about the largest customer of that Seattle firm. Loop-arounds now days are usually passcoded. Now and then one will show up where the owner forgot to properly lockdown his voicemail system against people calling in and getting a dialtone back out or he forgot about or never was told of the remote access port on his PBX which allows the company which installed it to repair it from off site. Maybe he knew about the DISA, but never bothered to change the default passcode which every phreak knows. When the Dimension PBX was a big thing back in the 1970's from AT&T, the passcode to the remote access port was always defaulted to '0000'. No one ever told the customers, and most people at AT&T did not know it either, but you can bet all the phreaks knew it. The Chicago and Northwestern Railroad had to learn it the hard way to the tune of about a hundred thousand dollars in one of the first major loop-around fraud scandals around 1975. Illinois Bell ate the loss, but not before they had security guys traveling far and wide talking to recipients of some of the long distance calls. General Motors had the same thing happen to them about 1975 or so, but it was closer to a million dollars before they finally locked out all the loop-arounds completely. Loop-arounds are still available, and phreaks still discover the passcodes for them. They are still used to 'anonymize' calls to places where the caller would rather not be personally associated. I hope this answers your question. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re:AT&T 8130 Protocol Request Date: 29 May 1996 12:43:20 GMT Organization: Stylus Products Group, Artisoft Inc. In article telecom16.246.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu, tony@ics.com (Tony Aiuto) said: > Does anyone know the protocol spoken by the AT&T 8130 telephone? It > has a little serial port out the back which passes caller id > information out to a computer. It works fine with the provided > Windows software, but I want to make it talk to my own applications. > I have been trying to decipher it, but still can't make sense of > their caller id info. It is NOT the standard ascii stream, but some > binary protocol. I'm not sure about the actual protocol, but the AT&T 8130 did at one point have a TAPI service provider (driver) available for it. I'm not sure if you can still obtain it since the phone itself was discontin- ued by AT&T shortly after it hit the store shelves (a terrible shame, IMHO). If you can track down the TAPI service provider then it's pretty straightforward to communicate with the phone via the serial port. FYI, I might be able to track down a copy of the service provider here. We got one of those phones for testing our TAPI software but never actually used it since it got discontinued. Bruce Pennypacker | Stylus Products Group | Phone: +1 617 621 9545 Software Engineer | Artisoft, Inc. | Fax: +1 617 621 7862 Resident TAPI guru | 201 Broadway | http://www.stylus.com brucep@stylus.com | Cambridge, MA 02139 | sales: sales@stylus.com ------------------------------ From: lclee@primenet.com (Larry Lee) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Delay in California Date: 29 May 1996 06:10:02 -0700 Organization: Primenet In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) who had written about a delay in implementing Caller ID in California: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it just incredible that you seem > to have so many people in California on this kick. What is with all > these people who seem to feel they have this right to hide themselves > when they make calls no matter whose time they waste or whatever fool- > ish calls they originate? I'll be glad to see 'blocked number blocking' > (where recipients have the right to block calls from persons who hide > their phone numbers) become universal. I am going to encourage everyone > to sign up for it. PAT] If you had any idea of the amount of negative ads that the phone companies have run and are continuing to run on radio and TV, you wouldn't find it incredible. I have not heard one positive or encouraging statement about caller id. It's my understanding that we can buy 'blocked number blocking' from Radio Shack and don't need to bother the phone companies! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 09:56:06 -0400 From: Chris Wysocki Subject: Re: MCI Cellular > I just received a soliciation to join MCI's cellular service and receive > a Nokia 100 phone for free (golly!!!). > Here in NYC, we already have an "A" and "B" system provider. Where > does MCI fit into this system? Can there be multiple "A" system > providers in the same market? I thought not ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is just one A/B in each area. > What MCI is doing is reselling either A or B, depending on whatever > was the best deal they could cut for themselves with one of the two. MCI bought Nationwide Cellular Service which is a reseller of both the A (AT&T Wireless) and B (Bell Atlantic / Nynex) carriers in the New York metro area. They run specials on one or the other carrier depending on which one is currently offering them the best deal. I have their service (with Bell Atlantic / Nynex as the underlying carrier) and have been generally pleased with it. Roaming has been relatively painless and auto call delivery works. They did insist that I get a PIN code though. Christopher Wysocki | chris@datalife.com | +1 201 239 7500 x232 Data Life Associates | 500 Bloomfield Ave | Verona, NJ 07044 USA URL: http://wyvax.datalife.com/chris | +1 201 239 0943 Fax ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:04:17 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Here's an update from a reader: I think this system is probably connected to an ISDN line because I have never heard a ring. He appears to have the ability to lock out "problem" numbers because one can call the 800 number from some anonymous place and pester him for a while and then you notice that calls from that number no longer do anything but disconnect immediately. Going to another payphone gives one a whole new lease on life in making Jeffy understand what harrassment is all about. If you send any tones during the announcement, it stops abruptly and a female voice tells you to leave a recording. I am not sure of the upper limit on time, but it is pretty long. I am not sure if the recording time you get this way goes to the same mailbox as what you get if you just let the geek's message run its obnoxious course. I sure hope he's having a fun time listening to all the interesting program material that folks are probably leaving. It takes a whole village to razz a cad. :) ------------------ Another reader wrote to say he had already made Slaton's hit list and sent a copy of the letter Slaton wrote him as proof: Date: 29 May 96 14:07:50 EDT From: "Clifford D. McGlamry" <102073.1425@CompuServe.COM> Pat, I got a nastygram from Jeff Slaton. It is attached. All I did was asked him to remove me from his spam mail list. As you can see, his address is on the mail. I've already sent a notice to abuse@interamp.com for them to deal with him, but don't know what good it will do. Has anyone possibly checked with the State of New Mexico to see if this corporation exists and who/where the registered agent is? > Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 10:41:55 +0130 > To: 102073.1425@CompuServe.COM > From: exd917635@interramp.com (LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0) > Subject: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY Congratulations! > CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY Congratulations! > You have been listed as an INTERNET HARASSER. > Those who call to harrass will have their names, addresses and phone > numbers posted in alt 2600, phrack,crack and hack for ALL to have fun. > Have a nice day;) WANK! > PS > We will be adding your SSN in the very near future so that there is a > complete file on you. > Best Regards, > Eunuchs, Etc. ------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Cliff, from all us here at the Digest, our heartiest congratulations on this award from Jeff boy. As far as I know, you are the first in what may be a large number of netizens to receive this badge of accomplishment, and I hope you display it proudly. News from other places on the net is that a community goal for June is to cause Jeff boy to have a phone bill of at least one-hundred thousand dollars via his 800 number. I'm told the goal is to raise at least one-hundred thousand dollars monthly for the coffers of whatever telco Jeff boy chooses as his 800 carrier. Of course, this is a big project, and it is hoped everyone in the community will participate. It is *not* harrassment to call 800*351*8085 and ask to be removed from any and all mailing lists or data bases the company maintains, although Jeff boy may choose to award you the honor anyway as he did for Cliff as noted above. If it is harrassment you have planned, then I cannot help you with that; you are on your own, but bear in mind he is collecting ANI and issuing 'awards' to phone callers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:43:28 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: More CID Frolics! On Wed, 29 May 1996, Stan Schwartz wrote: > Today, I received another "interesting" call. There was no message on > the machine, but all of my CID devices have the name "WASHINGTON" (for > the state, I assume), and a number 206-959-0525. This number is not > only not dialable, but 959 does not exist in either the 206, 360, or 509 > NPA's. > Can anyone help me with TODAY'S mystery??? The NPA-959 prefix, at least in *geographic/POTS* NPA's (i.e. those NPA's *not* of the N00 form, 888, 456, 710?, etc), has for *decades* been reserved by AT&T Long-Lines ("The Bell System"), now Bellcore for test functions. 959 'itself' usually doesn't show up in numerical listings of NXX's by NPA in most Bellcore and other numbering/routing documents. In Bellcore (and other) materials, 959 will usually be indicated in a section of "special" or "universal" central office codes (such as 950, 976, 555, etc). Historically the 55X, 95X, 97X and 57X couldn't be used for EXchange names, as there are no vowels on the 5, 7 and 9. It was difficult to compose a name for these four 'NN' numerical combinations. Notice how many "special" central office codes and test codes (ANAC, Ring-Back, Test Board) have been used in many places using such codes. Personally, I really don't think that a US West, AT&T or GTE test center in Washington state was calling you. A few months back, a friend of mine in the New Orleans area received several calls over a week's time where the CID box displayed a number 407-511-0000, and the word "FLORIDA". Now 407 *is* an area code in Florida. BellSouth serves New Orleans and many exchanges in the 407 Florida NPA. If a CID number transmits via a toll carrier and both the originating and receiving exchanges are both BellSouth, then the receiving end BellSouth switch does a database lookup in the BellSouth LIDB (Line Information DataBase) to get a "name" for the number. If the calling number is not in BellSouth's LIDB, then the receiving end switch gets a City/Ratecenter name and the two-letter abbreviation of the state, from the NPA-NXX of the calling number. On calls I've received from Canada, it seems that the lookup doesn't go down as far as the central office NXX code. It only gets the (primary) province name of the originating NPA. So on calls from Yukon (Area Code 403) or the 403 portion of the Northwest Territories, I get "ALBERTA" spelled out, as the primary province that 403 (presently) covers is Alberta. On calls to me from Prince Edward Island (902) where CID is carried, I also get "NOVA SCOTIA" spelled out, as 902's primary province is Nova Scotia. Well, in my friend's situation where he got "FLORIDA" and the number 407-511-0000, we know that N11 codes are *not* used as regular POTS central office codes -- they are *three-digit local service or special codes*, although I think that Pac*Bell has used local area only seven-digit numbers of the form 611-xxxx or 811-xxxx to reach their telco business office and repair service specialized departments. But you weren't able to dial a Pac*Bell NPA plus the N11-xxxx numbers from outside of Pac*Bell territory. Since the receiving end switch couldn't determine the City/Ratecenter name from 407-511, it simply 'defaulted' the name display to show "FLORIDA" as Area Code 407 is one of Florida's NPA's. It turned out that my friend was at home on one occasion when this 407-511-0000 call rang in. He has a close relative who is frequently in and out of local area hospitals, 'half-way' houses and 'care centers' due to an emotional condition. His close relative wouldn't really have much money, sometimes not even pocket change, when from time-to-time has 'slipped-out' of the care center, unauthorized. It turned out that the relative was *calling collect, locally*, from within the New Orleans area, from a *private payphone* (COCOT) which diverted the call to and through some *AOSlime private operator*, apparantly located in the Orlando FL area! This AOSlime somehow 'identified' its ANI or 'line' number (via SS7?) to/through itself (if the AOSlime company was 'carrying' the call itself) or whatever IXC *actually* carried the call back to the New Orleans BellSouth LATA as 407-511-0000. My friend doesn't remember which AOSlime verbally identified itself (if it even did) that there was a 'collect' call. He refused the charges, as the relative *knows* that they had better return to the care center, pronto! He *still got charged* by AOSlime, via the AOSlime or OAN pages which came with the BellSouth monthly bill, some *three months later*, but after one single call to BellSouth (and explaining to Bell that he would also be complaining to the La. Public Service Commission and the FCC), the charges were removed by Bell! 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: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: More CID Frolics! Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:04:31 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: > Last week, we heard about the calls I'm receiving where my CID displays > show the first 10 digits of my account number with a regional bank. > Today, I received another "interesting" call. There was no message on > the machine, but all of my CID devices have the name "WASHINGTON" (for > the state, I assume), and a number 206-959-0525. This number is not > only not dialable, but 959 does not exist in either the 206, 360, or 509 > NPA's. 959 has (or at least had) the singular distinction of being the least-used prefix in the NANP. Only in Hawaii (808) is it in use as a regular prefix. Some telcos, I am told, use it for various test numbers and such. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Subject: Telecom Archives CDROM Ordering Details Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:42:16 -0700 From: TELECOM Digest Editor People have been asking how to order the Telecom Archives CDROM by mail order. Not everyone has been able to find it in a store as of yet. If you can find it in a store, you will save on the shipping charges, however it might simply be easier for you to order it direct from the publisher, so details are given below. The Telecom Archives is a fifteen year collection of the stuff which has appeared in TELECOM Digest since 1981 along with a few hundred other files of telecom related material. There are a lot of technical files, historical files, etc. Everything that was there through the end of 1995 is included. The cost is $39.95. Please buy a copy, as the royalties will help me a lot. Also, if sales are good, there will be an update with the 1996 material on it at some future point. ============================================================================ shipping information: ============================================================================ Shipping is $5 in the USA, Canada, and Mexico for First Class. Overseas is $9 PER ORDER. There is an additional $3 COD charge (USA Only). UPS Blue Label (2nd day) [USA Only] is $10 PER ORDER, UPS Red Label (next day) [USA Only] is $15 PER ORDER. Federal Express (next day) [USA Only] is $20 PER ORDER. For overseas courier rates, please email us. Ordering Information: You can order by sending a check or money order to Walnut Creek CDROM Suite E 4041 Pike Lane Concord CA 94520 USA 1 800 786-9907 (Toll Free Sales) [open 24HRS] +1 510 674-0783 (Sales-International) +1 510 603-1234 (tech support) [M-F 9AM - 5PM, PST] +1 510 674-0821 (FAX) orders@cdrom.com (For placing an order) info@cdrom.com (For requesting more information or for customer service questions) support@cdrom.com (For technical questions and technical support) majordomo@cdrom.com (Info Robot-automated product information and support) We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and Diner's Club. ALL credit card orders MUST include a phone or fax number. COD shipping is available for $8.00 in the US only, NO COD shipping to P O Boxes. Checks and Money Orders payable in US funds, can be sent along with ordering information to our normal business address. California residents please add sales tax. Shipping and handling is $5 (per ORDER, not per disc) for US, Canada, and Mexico, and $9 for overseas (AIRMAIL) shipping. Please allow 14 working days ( 3 weeks ) for overseas orders to arrive. Most orders arrive in 1-2 weeks. -------------------- Therefore, unless you want next day delivery by FedEx which would make it quite expensive you would send $39.95 plus $5 to Walnut Creek at thier address above, or authorize them to charge your credit card, etc. As noted also, customers outside the USA need to pay additional shipping costs. Write to Walnut Creek at the addresses above. If you can find it in a retail outlet then you save shipping and handling charges. In any event, please buy one today! PAT -------------------- The Telecom Archives remains a free resource for the Internet and is available using anonymous ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu. ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #251 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 29 17:07:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA06871; Wed, 29 May 1996 17:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:07:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605292107.RAA06871@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #252 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 May 96 16:32:48 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Video Compression, Aug.5-8, Portland (Fu Li) Re: Unbundling Local Loop Access (Yves Blondeel) Ameritech/MFS Interconnect Agreement (Yves Blondeel) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Lynne Gregg) Still Seeking Corporate Sponsorship (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fli@ee.pdx.edu (Fu Li) Subject: Video Compression, Aug.5-8, Portland Date: 29 May 1996 13:02:34 -0700 Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR Image and Video Compression: Fundamentals, Applications, and Standards A 4-Day Intensive Course For more information, please see our WWW homepage at http://www.ee.pdx.edu/short_courses/image_compression/ Seats are very limited, early registration is encouraged! About the course: Recent years have witnessed a surge in the need for storage and transmission of digital images and video. Digital cameras and scanners have proliferated the use of digital images in various consumer and commercial applications. Digital broadcast systems and digital video on CD-ROM, which can be played back by affordable multimedia-enabled PC's, have made digital video part of everyday life. Despite the increases in storage and transmission capacities, efficient storage and transmission of images and video is still the foremost challenge. Thus, image and video compression plays a key enabling role for almost all consumer, commercial, and scientific applications. Digital image and video compression is a current focus of research and international standardization. Recent standards such as JPEG, JBIG, H.261, H.263, MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, and the emerging standards such as MPEG-4, reflect the state-of-the-art algorithms, and are important in facilitating interoperability among various imaging systems and wide-spread, cost-effective deployment of the technology. Emerging technologies such as wavelets have shown promise in replacing some of the current standards as they might provide more functionality than is available from today's standards. The course provides a detailed description of the fundamentals, a working knowledge of the various image and video compression standards, and a technical description of the emerging technologies. Upon completion of the course, students will be equipped with the background in information theory that will help them understand the performance limitations of various compression solutions. Further, they will gain a solid understanding of the basic principles and standards of digital image and video compression in such a way as to optimize their use for a particular application. Finally, they will gain a technical understanding of the emerging technologies, such as wavelets and fractals, that will enable them to assess their value in serving niche markets not addressed by the current standards, as well as their impact on the development of future standards. The course starts on the first day with a broad set of product and application examples that establish the need for compression. This is followed by a brief description of the existing and emerging image and video compression standardization activities, their scope and their functionalities. Next, the three main components of compression systems, representation, quantization, and symbol modeling and encoding are discussed. The topic of symbol modeling and encoding is studied in detail where fundamental concepts, such as Markov models, entropy, and Shannon's noiseless coding theorem, are discussed. A working knowledge of various encoding strategies, such as Huffman coding, arithmetic coding, LZW coding, and Rice coding, is presented and their relative merits and shortcomings are compared. Finally, lossless encoding algorithms, such as the current and emerging JPEG lossless standard and bit plane/JBIG coding, are explained. The second day focuses on lossy image compression and the JPEG standard. It also builds the foundation for video compression schemes such as the MPEG and the H.26x family of standards. First, a brief review of various quantization strategies, such as scalar, vector, and trellis-coded quantization, is provided and their performance merits are compared. This is followed by a detailed description of transform coding with particular emphasis on the discrete cosine transform (DCT), the fundamental building block of all image and video compression standards. Next, the JPEG international standard for the compression of continuous-tone color still images is studied and its baseline, extended, and enhanced modes of operation are described in detail. Various issues regarding the implementation of JPEG in practical systems, such as the design of Q tables, the effect of multiple coding and software and hardware speed, are discussed. Numerous image examples supplement the technical descriptions. The third day deals with emerging technologies and video compression. Wavelet and sub-band encoding schemes and their performance merits relative to DCT are studied both analytically and by subjective evaluation of many image examples. The basics of fractal image compression are reviewed. Video compression, and the major components of a video compression system, pre-processing, encoding, decoding, and post-processing, are discussed. Fundamental principles of motion estimation and an overview of widely used motion estimation algorithms, such as block matching and hierarchical block matching, are presented. Motion estimation utilizes the temporal redundancies in video sequences to increase compression efficiency. It also facilitates the development of multi-frame pre- and post-processing algorithms that are more powerful than their single-frame counterparts. Principles and algorithms of motion-compensated noise suppression and defect removal are presented as examples of pre-processing. Pre-processing is often among the differentiating factors used in evaluation of an entire video compression system due to its significant impact on the resulting compression efficiency. Video format standards conversion is an important post-processing step, especially in multimedia applications where the decoded video may have to be displayed by a system adhering to a different video format standard. Techniques for interlace-to-progressive scan conversion and frame rate conversion are discussed and the importance of motion information in standards conversion is demonstrated. Finally, a detailed discussion of the fundamentals and the working principles of the MPEG1 video compression standard is provided. The final day is devoted to MPEG2, MPEG4, H.261 and H.263 standards. The MPEG2 video compression standard is presented with emphasis on its differences from MPEG1. Its applications in digital video disk (DVD) and Advanced TV (ATV) standardization are also discussed. An overview of the emerging MPEG4 standard is presented which targets new application areas with increased interactivity and extendibility. The second half of this day is devoted to video conferencing standards beginning with H.261 which targets ISDN at data rates of multiples of 64 k-bits/sec. The newly developed standard, H.263, incorporates several recent innovations over H.261 and targets data rates less than 64 k-bits/sec. It has demonstrated acceptable quality over PST-N networks using 28.8 k-bit/sec modems and promises to bring video conferencing to the mass consumer market. Details of H.261 and H.263 will be presented, followed by demonstrations of video quality using simulations and product demos. Instructors: Majid Rabbani, Eastman Kodak Company M. Ibrahim Sezan, Sharp Laboratories of America Thomas Gardos, Intel Corporation Organizers: Fu Li Rolf Schaumann Portland State University Course Outline: Introduction: -- Need for compression (application and product examples.) -- Statistical redundancy and perceptual irrelevancy, examples -- Compression building blocks transformation, quantization, symbol modeling and encoding -- Brief overview of lossless and lossy compression standards Symbol Modeling and Encoding: -- Markov modeling and entropy -- Huffman coding -- Arithmetic coding -- Rice coding -- LZW coding Lossless Compression Techniques: -- Differential Pulse Code Modulation (DPCM) -- Bit plane encoding and JBIG -- Current and emerging JPEG lossless standards Quantization Strategies: -- Uniform scalar -- Nonuniform MM-SE scalar (Lloyd-Max) -- Entropy constrained quantization (ECQ) -- Vector quantization (VQ) -- Trellis-coded quantization (TCQ) The JPEG International Standard: -- Discrete cosine transform (DCT) -- Baseline JPEG -- Extended JPEG features -- Enhancements to JPEG (adaptive quantization for fixed-rate JPEG, etc.) -- JPEG implementation issues (fast DCT's, effect of multiple coding, design of quantization tables, etc.) Emerging Technologies: -- Wavelets (analysis and synthesis filter design, quantization and coding strategies, comparisons to JPEG, etc.) -- Fractals (Jacquin's technique, weighted finite automata (WFA)) Motion Estimation: -- Overview of widely used algorithms (block matching, hierarchical block matching) Pre-and Post-Processing: -- Motion-compensated noise filtering as pre-processing -- Video format conversion: interlace to proscan and frame rate conversion. Video Compression Standards: -- The MPEG1 standard -- The MPEG2 standard (including discussions on rate control, bit-stream syntax and utilization in Digital Video Disk and Advanced TV standardization). -- The H.261 and H.263 standards. Examples of silicon and board-level implementations of standards. -- Actual product demonstrations About the Instructors: MAJID RABBANI - received his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the UW-Madison in 1983. He is currently a Research Associate and the head of the image compression and video processing group in the Imaging Science Division of Eastman Kodak Research Laboratories. He is also involved in many educational activities among which are teaching graduate courses at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), satellite courses for NTU (National Technological University), and short course for SPIE, IS&T, SID, and other technical Societies. He is the recipient of the 1988 C. E. K. Mees Award (Kodak's highest award for for excellence in research) and the co-recipient of the 1990 Emmy Engineering Award in recognition of the Kodak Still-Video Transceiver System. He represents Kodak at the International JPEG and MPEG organizations. Dr. Rabbani has testified as an expert witness for the digital processing of images and video in several court cases, including the digital enhancement of the Rodney King beating videotape in 1993. His current research interests span the various aspects of digital signal and image processing where he has published over 40 technical articles and holds 11 patents. He is a fellow of SPIE and a senior member of IEEE. He also was the general Symposium Chair for the 1996 SPIE/IS&T co-sponsored Electronic Imaging Symposium in San Jose. He is the coauthor of the book "Digital Image Compression Techniques" published in 1991, the editor of the SPIE Milestone Series on "Image Coding and Compression", published in 1992. IBRAHIM SEZAN - received his Ph.D degree in Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1984. He is currently the Senior Manager of Digital Video Processing at Sharp Laboratories of America, Camas, Washington. He also holds an adjunct Associate Professor position at the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Rochester. From 1984 to 1996, he worked at Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York, where he headed the Motion and Video Technology Area in the Imaging Research and Advanced Development Laboratories from 1992 to 1996. Dr. Sezan was the co-recipient of the A. B. Du Mont award at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1984. During 1988-1992, he served as an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. From 1992 to 1994, he was an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. He contributed to the books Image Recovery: Theory and Application (Academic Press, 1987), Mathematics in Signal Processing (Oxford, 1987), Handbook of Signal Processing (Marcell Dekker, 1988), Digital Image Restoration (Springer Verlag, 1991), Real-Time Optical Information Processing (Academic Press, 1994), and edited Selected Papers in Digital Image Restoration (SPIE Milestone Series, 1992). He is the co-editor of the book Motion Analysis and Image Sequence Processing, published by Kluwer in 1993. His current research interests include video modeling, analysis and processing, and their applications to video compression and digital video databases. Dr. Sezan is a participant in the MPEG standards; he actively publishes and teaches in the area of image and video processing. THOMAS GARDOS - received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia in 1993. He is currently senior engineer in the Intel Architecture Labs of Intel Corporation where he is technical lead on development of standards-based and propriety video compression algorithms for video conferencing applications. He represents Intel at the ITU H.263 standards group and is principal representative to ISO's MPEG4 group. He chairs the audio/video compression subcommittee of the Intel Research Council which is the formal channel of interaction to academia at Intel. He also is an adjunct instructor at Portland State University and Oregon State University where he teaches courses on digital image and video processing. He has served as Image Processing conference and session chairs at the SPIE Electronic Imaging Symposia in San Jose. He won the Best Student Paper award at SPIE's 1992 Visual Communications Conference and was awarded an NSF Fellowship in the 1991 Japan Summer Institute. His current interests are in image and video compression as well as multidimensional signal processing where he has authored numerous articles and patent applications. Registration Information: Dates: Monday, August 5 - Thursday, August 8, 1996 Times: Regular sessions will begin at 8:30 AM and end at 5:00 PM. Refreshments will be served at 8:00 AM daily and at breaks. Lunch periods will be from 12:00 to 1:30. Location: Classes will be held at Portland State University, (PSU), located in downtown Portland. Detailed information will be sent to registrants. For further information: Phone: (503) 725-3806 or 1-800-547-8887 ext. 3806 Email: laura@ee.pdx.edu WWW: http://www.ee.pdx.edu/short.course/image_compression/ Early Registration: $1195. Registration form and payment must be postmarked JULY 10, 1996. Late Registration: $1295. Registration form and payment postmarked AFTER JULY 10, 1996. All registration materials must be received JULY 25, 1996. Fees include lecture, course materials, refreshments and a Certificate of Completion. A 15% discount will be granted when 6 or more people from the same company location register for the course. Refund: A full refund will be given for cancelations received at PSU by mail, phone, or e.mail, prior to July 25, 1996. NO REFUND will be made for a cancelation notice received after July 25, 1996, or for no attendance. A substitute may attend in place of the registered participant. Accommodations: For reservations made by July 15, 1996, special rates for participants have been arranged with: Airline-Carlson Travel: 1-800-634-2306, 5% Airline discount (Credit Cards Only). Ask for Catherine. Days Inn City Center: 1-800-899-0248, $64 single and double occupancy Red Lion Inn, Portland Center: (503) 221-0450, $105 single, $120 double Mention Video and Image Compression when making reservations. Both hotels are a pleasant 10 minute walk to PSU. Buses and MAX trains in the downtown area are free, so it should not be necessary to rent a car. Other nearby hotels: The Benson:(503)228-2000 Heathman Hotel:(503)241-4100 Hilton Hotel:(503)226-1611 Mallory Hotel:(503)223-6311 Marriott Hotel:(503)226-7600 Excursions: Spousal/Companion activities will be arranged depending on interest. Intensive Course Registration Image and Video Compression: Fundamentals, Applications, and Standards August 5 - 8, 1996 Portland State University, Portland, Oregon Name_____________________________________________ Company__________________________________________ Address__________________________________________ City/State/Zip___________________________________ Work Phone_____________________Email address_____________________________ Payment Options: $1195 if postmarked BY July 10, 1996 $1015 per person for six or more registrations from one company location. $1295 if postmarked AFTER July 10, 1996 $1100 per person for six or more registrations from one company location. Enclosed is a check made payable to Portland State University - Electrical Engineering Department Please charge the registration fee to my credit card: Visa __________ MasterCard __________ ____________________________________________ Account Number, Expiration Date ____________________________________________ Signature I would like to receive information on the Spousal/Companion activities. MAIL OR FAX FORM TO: Portland State University Department of Electrical Engineering Image and Video Compression P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 Phone: (503) 725-3806 Fax: (503) 725-3807 Email: laura@ee.pdx.edu All registration materials must be received by July 25, 1996 For more information, please see our WWW homepage at http://www.ee.pdx.edu/short_courses/image_compression/ ------------------------------ From: Yves Blondeel Subject: Re: Unbundling Local Loop Access Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:09:46 +0200 Organization: Brussels Free Universities VUB/ULB Reply-To: yblondee@vnet3.vub.ac.be Hello Andrew, and greetings to Stefan Stanislawski, Your question: > Does anybody know of the practical experience of unbundling of access > to the local loop (ie interconnecting at the line side of the central > office)? I am a regulatory affairs specialist rather than a technical expert, but I believe that relevant information (conceptual rather than technical) should be (or should soon become) available based on important interconnection agreements reached between Ameritech and MFS and between Frontier Telecom (RochesterTel) and Time Warner Cable. In both these cases, I understand that line-side access is explicitly included in the agreement and that the agreements are filed with the State regulatory authorities. I don't have the filed documents. In fact, I would be most interested in obtaining them. Do note that MFS and Time Warner Cable are local (access) network operators. Also, they both run advanced access networks rather than traditional twisted-pair networks. For your information, in the next message is a press release on the Ameritech-MFS interconnect agreement (MFS press release) and an extract from the Frontier Open Market Plan which can be found on their Web page: http://www.frontiercorp.com/corporate/open_market_plan.html Yves Blondeel, T-REGS yblondee@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Stefan may recall that I contributed to the ONP Local Loop Study). ------------------------------ From: Yves Blondeel Subject: Ameritech/MFS Interconnection Agreement Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 20:09:46 +0200 Organization: Brussels Free Universities VUB/ULB Reply-To: yblondee@vnet3.vub.ac.be MFS COMPLETES LANDMARK REGIONAL CO-CARRIER INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH AMERITECH First Such Agreement Since Telecommunications Act of 1996 Passed OMAHA, NEB., May 22, 1996 -- MFS Communications Company, Inc. (MFS) announced today that -- in line with the pro-competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- it has entered into a comprehensive co-carrier interconnection agreement with Ameritech, covering Ameritech's entire marketing region, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. This is the first agreement between a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) and a facilities-based competitor, which seeks to satisfy specific requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "Ameritech is to be commended for its quick action and efforts to meet its obligations under the new law," said James Q. Crowe, chairman and chief executive officer of MFS. "Ameritech understands our commitment to offer high quality local switched services and that this agreement, coupled with effective implementation by both companies, is key to accomplishing our goal." Under the new law, many of the new rights enjoyed by the RBOCs are contingent upon their ability to foster competition in their local markets. The Act mandates a specific 14 point co-carrier "check list" that defines various pro-competitive actions that RBOCs must take before being allowed to provide interLATA long-distance service within their own service territories. Under the sweeping agreement, MFS will be able to begin implementing broad based local exchange services throughout Ameritech's service territory. The agreement is designed to allow the prompt development of local competition in an economically efficient and technically feasible basis. In 1995, MFS reached a more limited interim interconnection agreement with Ameritech and is currently offering competitive local switched services in Chicago and Detroit markets. "For the first time in Ameritech's entire five-state region, a competitive carrier is in position to efficiently and cost-effectively offer customers a meaningful choice for local telephone service over its own fiber optic networks, augmented by unbundled leased local phone lines from Ameritech," said Crowe. "We entered this agreement because MFS is committed to offering extensive local switched services in the Ameritech region. This agreement provides us the specific tools to do so and accelerates our provision of competitive local services in this region. "This agreement is state-of-the-art in terms of promoting effective local telephone competition and establishes a benchmark for negotiations with other RBOCs," said Crowe. Agreement Provides Blueprint For Provision of Competitive Services The MFS-Ameritech agreement provides a detailed and comprehensive blueprint for the provision of competitive local services. It builds on MFS' practical experience of providing local services in other markets and addresses the myriad complex procedures necessary to effect local competition and the interconnection of the two companies' networks. Included in the agreement are provisions providing for: Interconnection at any technically feasible point within Ameritech's network, equal in quality to what it provides itself or to affiliates, including via a dual fiber optic SONET network connection. Access to the poles, ducts, conduits and right-of-way owned or controlled by Ameritech at just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates. Unbundled and reasonably priced network elements including local loop transmission from Ameritech's central offices to the customer's premises, distinct from local switching or other services. Exchange of all local traffic at a fully reciprocal and identical $.009 rate per minute, regardless of the point of interconnection. Receipt by MFS of terminating access charges for long-distance calls made to its customers. Nondiscriminatory access to 911 and emergency 911 services; directory assistance services to allow MFS customers to obtain telephone numbers; operator call completion services and white pages directory listings for MFS' customers. The agreement specifies the procedures for Ameritech to provision and implement these activities on a detailed, technical and practical basis. under the agreement, will subject Ameritech to damages and other penalties. The agreement will be submitted for approval to the individual state regulatory agencies and ultimately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). MFS Quick To Initiate Telco Act Implementation On February 8, 1996 -- the same day President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 into law -- MFS contacted Ameritech and all the other RBOCs and independent telephone companies active in its markets to initiate co-carrier interconnection negotiations. Teams of regulatory, operational and technical experts from the two companies began almost immediately negotiating the terms of this agreement. MFS is also engaged in interconnection discussions with other RBOCs and independents. Crowe credits the President and Congress for having created the progressive telecommunications environment making this agreement possible. "This agreement underscores the effectiveness of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which clearly encourages the RBOCs to cooperate and reach mutually acceptable agreements with competitive carriers," said Crowe. MFS is a leading provider of communication services for business and government. Through its operating company subsidiaries, MFS provides one-stop shopping for integrated local and long distance services as well as a wide range of high-quality voice, data and other enhanced services and systems specifically designed to meet the requirements of business and government customers. MFS' common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol MFST. MFS is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. ***** ***** From: http://www.frontiercorp.com/corporate/open_market_plan.html Competitor Benefits Complete access to Rochester Telephone's existing, fully digital network Full interconnection of competing local networks Reciprocal compensation for network usage Equal access to network databases Equal access to local telephone numbers Convenient telephone number portability "We applaud the move. We are fast approaching the day when all services will be competitive."- Ameritech spokesperson By the end of the first quarter of 1995, the following companies had begun to offer or announced their intention to offer various telecommunications services in Rochester, New York. Many of them are using the Rochester Telephone local network as their platform for customer service: ACC AT&T Citizens Telecom Frontier Communications of Rochester ICS/Executone Telecom, Inc. MFS (Metropolitan Fiber Systems) TeleChoice Network Time Warner ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Wed, 29 May 96 11:11:00 PDT doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) wrote: > I am not a paranoid regarding caller ID, but I am rather upset about > this. Since cellular users must pay for incoming calls, this seems a > valid reason to not have to pass around my cellular number via caller > ID. Additionally, since cellular phones do not offer caller ID, we > do not have the option not to answer the phone either. As Product Manager for AT&T Wireless' Caller ID service, let me assure you that we completely understand your position. When AT&T Wireless originally launched Caller ID on its cellular network in early 1995, I personally felt that the majority of consumers might feel just as you do. Therefore in the first few markets that offered service, Per Line Blocking was offered as a DEFAULT. We sent notices to customers offering to remove Line Blocking at no charge. We also explained the use of *67 and *82. However, during 1995, the FCC Order on Calling Number Services kicked in. This Order states that all phone companies -- including cellular companies -- MUST pass CPN (Calling Party Number in this case is your cellular number). They further cited an example similar to what we had been doing (defaulting to Line Blocking) and stated that this could no longer occur. So, to comply with the FCC Order, AT&T Wireless no longer offers Per Line Blocking as a default. We do send notices to all active customers (by way of Bill Letter -- so watch your invoices) prior to launch of Caller ID. This notice now offers Per Line Blocking at no charge (one or two States do not allow Line Blocking, so we have a couple of exceptions). If you call Customer Care or mail in your request on the Bill Letter, we will act on your order. I am pleasantly surprised to find that the majority of our customers DO want to send their cellular numbers (especially those calling wired users who have Anonymous Call Rejection). We have received numerous requests to remove Line Blocking in those markets where we applied a default (prior to FCC Order). In markets that offered Per Line Blocking, far less than expected numbers of customers are opting for the service (it *is* free). I believe that Caller ID is more valuable for cellular users. Since they do pay for incoming calls, knowing who's calling is clearly more valuable. also understand the flip side of this, which is of concern to you. By disclosing your cellular number, you may increase the incidence of unwanted inbound calls which result in a charge. By all means, order Per Line Blocking or use *67. Regarding the transmission of "other" numbers. The FCC is very clear that no substitutions occur. CPN is CPN. Despite numerous petitions, the FCC is standing firm on their Order. I believe that they are attempting to strike a balance among consumers. I also believe the primary concern is with the consumers who PAY for Caller ID. This issue came before the FCC because consumers who paid for Caller ID infrequently saw numbers appearing on their displays. In a nutshell, consumers were not getting what they were paying for. Also, there were inconsistencies among telephone companies in terms of passing and blocking CPN. So the FCC Order goes a long way to address these issues. Finally, AT&T Wireless WILL offer Caller ID to digital cellular subscribers in all cities by Fall, 1997. Please feel free to post to me directly if you have comments or questions. I'm glad to help. Regards, Lynne Gregg lynne.gregg@attws.com ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Still Seeking Corporate Sponsorship Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:00:00 EDT This is just a note to remind Digest readers that corporate sponsorship of the Digest effective July 1 is still urgently needed. The grant given by Microsoft to me last year expires at the end of June. If there is any way your company can be of assistance, please do so. PAT ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #252 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 14:19:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA15517; Thu, 30 May 1996 14:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:19:20 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605301819.OAA15517@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #253 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 14:19:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Simplifies Richmond, VA Dialing (Tad Cook) Security Alert (kellyb@pipeline.com) "Thank You For Choosing Bell South!" (Chris Telesca) AT&T Movie Placement (Judith Oppenheimer) International Conference on Spoken Language 96 Update (Jim Polikoff) Information Wanted on Athena International (Carter Thomasson) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Mark Gabriele) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Andrew C. Green) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Boyd Roberts) AIN/SS7 Question (Adam H. Hersh) I Hate Hayes (Dennis Toeppen) Last Laugh! It Makes a Young Girl Cry (Kevin Tieskeotter via Kelly Breit) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Bell Atlantic Simplifies Richmond, VA Dialing Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:23:56 PDT Bell Atlantic Simplifying Local Calls Between Richmond, Va., and Tri-Cities By Michael Martz, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 30--"Seven digits, not 11," is the new rule for Bell Atlantic- Virginia customers to remember when calling between the Richmond and Tri-Cities areas. Don't dial 1 or 0, and don't dial the area code. Just call the seven-digit local number. Beginning Saturday, calls between the Richmond and the Petersburg- Colonial Heights-Hopewell areas no longer will be subjected to long-distance tolls. The same applies to calls between parts of the Richmond area and Cartersville, Cumberland, Fife and West Point, and between Chester and the Dinwiddie, McKenney, and Waverly exchanges. But consumers beware: Seven-digit dialing comes at a price. Bell Atlantic's Community Choice local calling plan, already implemented among exchanges on the Eastern Shore, replaces long-distance tolls with three optional rates. All of them are much cheaper than Bell Atlantic's current long-distance tolls, but they're more expensive than a local telephone call. And, by the way, monthly local telephone rates will increase in all of the affected exchanges except for those in the Richmond area. The monthly increases range from $1.69 in Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell and Waverly to $3.44 in Cartersville, Fife and West Point. The rate will rise by $2.42 a month in McKenney and $2.76 in Cumberland. In return, customers in those exchanges will be able to call the Richmond area at reduced rates. Currently, for example, a four-minute call from Petersburg to Richmond costs 83 cents -- 32 cents for the first minute and 17 cents for each additional minute. Beginning Saturday, customers will have these choices for paying to make the same call: -- By the minute, the call would cost 22 cents (7.9 cents for the first minute and 4.5 cents for each additional minute); -- By five-minute blocks, the call would cost 20 cents; -- By flat rate, a residential customer would pay $15 a month to make unlimited calls. Anyone who doesn't choose will pay by the minute. Customers can change options without charge for six months, but then the company will make them pay to switch ($9 for residences, $17 for businesses). Some people will be able to get a jump on seven-digit dialing because the company has been carrying out the plan gradually. "For a number of phones right now, you can dial it locally," said spokesman Paul T. Miller Jr. But until Saturday, they'll be billed at the old toll rates. The State Corporation Commission approved the Community Choice plan in December. One commissioner, Hullihen W. Moore, dissented because he believed state regulation requires a public hearing that never was held. The plan represents the third part of Bell Atlantic's 1993 strategy of expanding local calling areas and options, both in response to customer demand and in preparation for competition in so-called short-haul longdistance markets. The company expanded calling in the Richmond area and eliminated tolls on calls between contiguous areas, including those separated by water, such as Newport News and Norfolk. Bell Atlantic estimates that it will lose about $27 million a year in revenue for the three initiatives, but the company avoids having to compete with long-distance carriers to serve the affected routes. ----- FOR ONLINE SERVICES: Visit Gateway Virginia, the online edition of the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch. On Prodigy, jump: Gateway Virginia. On the World Wide Web, point your browser to http://www.gateway-va.com ------------------------------ From: kellyb@pipeline.com Subject: Security Alert Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:34:42 GMT Organization: PSINet/Pipeline USA <<<<<<>>>>>>> Visit The SPYZONE for your Agency, Company or Personal Security Needs. Target your Web Browser to: http://www.spyzone.com Our products can capture spies, stop competitors, provide competitive edges and secure you from all sorts of harm. We've given you many good reasons to call us or stop by. But we haven't yet revealed who's doing what to whom and how they do it. You want additional information about this fascinating category. You want to speak with real live SPIES. You can look forward to these SPYZONE features by month's end. Meanwhile take a look at BEST SOURCES, check out the most comprehensive LINKS to other security sites in our RESOURCES section or for more complete information regarding security solutions and services please contact us online, FAX (USA) 212-983-1278 or call 212-557-3040. If you need solutions for actual problems you're facing send us an E mail or give us a call. For every monitoring system there is a counter measure to defeat it. Each threat to personal protection can be met with an equally effective solution. Body armor, bullet proof vehicles and kidnap protection defend against extreme threats to personal safety. Secure radio, telephone and fax as well as voice and data encryption carry communications safely from point to point. Recording nullifiers render tape recorders useless. Access controls and sophisticated airport security guard against unwanted and dangerous intrusions. BODY ARMOR: Armored Jacket-A weatherproof sporting jacket designed to protect you during outdoor surveillance operations. Protection between Full front side and rear coverage. Available as vest and as full length coats. All sizes and styles. For complete product line and pricing, contact us. BULLET PROOF VEHICLES: CCS has been armoring cars for over 40 years and in that time we have accumulated many demo models which are completely fitted with fully functional armor. Most vehicles are in excellent condition with about 1,200 to 10,000 miles on them. These vehicles are reduced in price and ready for immediate delivery. KIDNAP PROTECTION: "We want $400,000 in cash or your chief executive dies". Be prepared for the real possibility of kidnap. The AJ1800 PKR transmitter is specifically designed to alert security personnel of kidnap and to track the victim thus facilitating rescue. Track contraband, find stolen vehicles, protect VIPs, rescue kidnap victims. PERSONAL SAFETY "Theft Proof Briefcases": A thief grabs your briefcase full of valuables, cash and important papers. You press a remote button which you carry on your key chain. Instantly 35,000 volts of electric power sizzle through the stolen briefcase handle. The thief drops the case and runs. The Security Blanket AL-22: Completely immobilize any attacker with a blinding burst of light. This safe and proven "flashlight type" device is a must for any home or office. For complete product line and prices contact us online at ; Our Web Page http://www.spyzone.com Our Email spyzone@webscope.com Phone/East Coast-USA 1-800-722-4490 Phone/West Coast-USA 1-800-779-7055 Overseas please Phone 1-212-688-8500 FAX Number 1-212-983-1278 For many more info on our products or great links to related Security objectives. ------------------------------ From: Chris Telesca Subject: "Thank You For Choosing Bell South!" Date: 30 May 1996 04:10:04 GMT Organization: CampusMCI What's the deal with that recorded message thanking me for choosing Bell South for my local home telephone service. I don't have any freaking choice what company I get my local service from -- at least not yet. If given the choice, I will not choose the company that nickle and dimes me with all these local calling area options. I'm tired of all this crap, and with AT&T's Long-Distance calling plan. Just give me the lowest flat-rate for long-distance calls, and extend the local calling area. When I used to live in Hershey and Mechanicsburg, PA, I used to be able to call friends in the other communities as local calls -- even though they were in different counties and were probably 30 to 40 miles apart. Stop screwing around making us think that were getting a "special deal". and just lower the prices, like you assured us would happen with the new Telecommunications Bill. Chris Telesca PO Box 98102 / Raleigh, NC 27624-8102 Voice/Fax (call first for fax): (919)676-2597 Check out the NOREDNC web page at - http://www.angelfire.com/pages0/norednc ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: AT&T Movie Placement Date: 29 May 1996 21:44:25 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Anyone know how much AT&T paid for placement in the movie, "The Truth About Cats & Dogs"? Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: polikoff@asel.udel.edu (Jim Polikoff) Subject: International Conference on Spoken Language 96 Update Date: 29 May 1996 19:21:45 -0400 Organization: AI duPont Institute ====================================================================== ICSLP 96 -- Update and Reminder ====================================================================== Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing ****** October 3-6, 1996 Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel Philadelphia, PA, USA ****** We would like to announce the availability of the preliminary program for ICSLP 96 on our WWW site at http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp. This site will provide up-to-date listings of the full contents of the preliminary program and allow authors and prospective attendees to search the ICSLP 96 abstract database by content. Visitors may use this web site to locate the session assignments of papers and to read abstracts of papers accepted for presentation (if available in machine readable form). Please note that the deadline for early registration is July 1, 1996. The registration form and hotel accommodation information are available at the ICSLP 96 web site. The registration form (in postscript) can be copied, printed and returned by post with payment enclosed. If fees are to be paid by credit card, the form may also be returned by FAX. ___________________Registration Information______________________________ Full registration includes: Admission to technical sessions, Reception, Banquet, Proceedings (printed & CD-ROM) Limited registration includes: Admission to technical sessions, Reception, Proceedings on CD-ROM Early Registration fees: Member* Non-Member Student Full $425 $525 $250 Limited $300 $400 $150 Late registration: After July 1, add $60 After August 9, add $100 Additional Tickets: Banquet $60 Reception $50 Additional Proceedings: Printed $125 CD-ROM $15 * Sponsoring and Cooperating Organizations: The Acoustical Society of America The Acoustical Society of Japan American Speech and Hearing Association Australian Speech Science and Technology Association European Speech Communication Association IEEE Signal Processing Society Incorporated Canadian Acoustical Association International Phonetic Association Linguistic Society of America ICSLP 96 A.I. duPont Institute P.O. Box 269 Wilmington, DE 19899 E-mail: ICSLP96@asel.udel.edu URL: http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp Phone: +1-302-651-6830 Fax: +1-302-651-6895 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:23:07 EDT From: CThomasson@ASSOCDATA.COM (Carter Thomasson) Subject: Information Wanted on Athena International Looking for information on Athena Intenational. They offer international call back, smart card and other services. The services they offer seem to be good and well priced. Has anyone used them or compared them to others in this crowded field? Thanks, Carter Thomasson (CThomasson@assocdata.com) Associated Data Services ------------------------------ From: gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:59:01 -0700 Organization: RAND In article , Lynne Gregg wrote: > As Product Manager for AT&T Wireless' Caller ID service, let me assure > you that we completely understand your position. When AT&T Wireless > originally launched Caller ID on its cellular network in early 1995, I > personally felt that the majority of consumers might feel just as you > do. Therefore in the first few markets that offered service, Per Line > Blocking was offered as a DEFAULT. [snip]... > So, to comply with the FCC Order, AT&T > Wireless no longer offers Per Line Blocking as a default. This raises a problem that is particularly irritating in some circumstances with which I am familiar. I post it only to ask if this type of situation is being given proper consideration. I can fully understand people setting "anonymous caller rejection" on their home phone lines. However, there are times when it is problematic. For example: A person calls a physician's office (after hours) with a medical emergency. The person's call results in the physician being paged to call the patient. The physician calls the patient from their phone (home or cellular), with blocking set ON. The physician's call is rejected because the patient has the "anonymous call rejection" set ON. Ooops. Now, in order to perform their ethical duty, the physician has to send caller ID to the patient in order for the patient to receive the call. Now, the patient can jot down the physician's home or cellular phone number and call at their convenience (such as the next time little Johnny is throwing up at 3:00 am, or when Sally suffers a mental health crisis because her beaux dumped her). This is not a desirable circumstance for the physician. What I would propose is that CID should be capable of sending a *different* number registered to the same person (or a corporate number, with the permission of the corporation or on a business line). This provides protection for people who for legitimate professional reasons may wish to retain their personal privacy. Unfortunately, I have not heard of any such capability in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar. I'm curious about why this seems to have escaped consideration, and what, if anything, ought to be done about it. Thanks, Mark Gabriele (PGP public key available upon request) gabriele@rand.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This has been discussed here in the past and I think that some people are annoyed with the idea that a professional person with whom they are dealing thinks their time or privacy is more important than the person they are dealing with. They do not feel that the 'professional' should be able to call them at home at their leisure (for example) and yet they are not able to do the same in return. Some people are annoyed for example by lawyers who always want to have your home number to reach you but refuse to give you their home number in return. I think that is where the problem arises here. I am not taking sides on it either way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:51:58 -0500 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) wrote: > I am not a paranoid regarding caller ID, but I am rather upset about > this. Since cellular users must pay for incoming calls, this seems a > valid reason to not have to pass around my cellular number via caller > ID. On a related note, I was wondering whether, in the three years or so that I've had my cellular phone(s), the fact that I've had not one single unwanted call (read: telemarketer) was simply dumb luck, or due to my phone's exchange being earmarked somewhere as a cellular prefix. While I myself would never give out the number, phone numbers in general do have a way of, shall we say, propagating to certain undesirables after a certain amount of time; indeed, I was amazed at how fast we started getting junk calls following our new home number some years back. Obviously a telemarketer calling a list of cellular numbers is likely to get primarily hostile (make that _very_ hostile) responses. While I'd like to think that no one in their right mind would want to call only cellular phones to give a sales pitch, is there some more-official reason why this doesn't occur more often? And has anyone out there had a call from a telemarketer intentionally going after cellphone users? Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: boyd@france3.fr (Boyd Roberts) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: 30 May 1996 12:03:24 GMT Organization: France 3 In article , lynne.gregg@attws.com says: > doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) wrote: > As Product Manager for AT&T Wireless' Caller ID service, let me assure > you that we completely understand your position. ... Per Line > Blocking was offered as a DEFAULT. Caller ID should be mandatory. If you're not prepared to identify youself you shouldn't make the call. If you want to make an 'anonymous' call use a phone booth. Boyd Roberts ------------------------------ From: ahhersh@newstand.syr.edu (Adam H Hersh) Subject: AIN/SS7 Question Date: 30 May 1996 11:56:04 GMT Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY (USA) Reply-To: ahhersh@mailbox.syr.edu I understand that it is possible to set up b/c of AIN the ability to type #lotto on the local phone and have a call routed to your phone bank with todays lotto numbers. But how do I explain what I want to do to Ameritech, TCG, or MFS? Adam Hersh ------------------------------ From: dennis@net66.com (Dennis Toeppen) Subject: I Hate Hayes Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:57:53 -0600 Organization: Net66 Over the past five months or so, I have purchased nine Hayes Century-8 rack modems. They suffer from the following problems: * Individual modem cards often hang, which requires power-cycling to restore modem operation. * When a modem is power-cycled, multiple modems in a rack of 8 often reset, even though the product is advertised as hot-swappable. * The power supply connector on the back of the Century-8 is extremely prone to disconnecting. All of these problems result in significant inconvenience to users, and waste a large amount of sysop time. Hayes advertises that they will advance ship replacement modems when a unit fails, so that the user does not experience any downtime. When we requested this service, we were told that they didn't have any available to ship out, so we'd have to wait until our modems were repaired. Not until I had threatened to sue Hayes for non-performance did they offer to make good on their warranty. Hayes provided four advance-shipped replacement (of the nine we requested!). When the four replacements were recieved, only *ONE* of them worked properly. Today, I spent nearly an hour waiting on hold, trying to reach Hayes customer service. I finally gave up and sent an email to support indicating my dissatisfaction. Here is the reply I got: > Dennis, > Firstly, the following email addresses: > legal@hayes.com > dennis@hayes.com > sales@hayes.com > do not exist. > Secondly, this address (support@hayes.com) is set up to give tech support > only; I am not authorized to handle refund requests. If you wish to pursue > this matter, you will need to contact our customer service department at > (770) 441-1617. > Glenn -- Hayes Online Services And thus begins yet another HAYES RUNAROUND! Anybody had similar experiences? Any advice on dealing with these people? Anybody had favorable experiences with another modem vendor (a vendor who manufactures rack-mount modems)? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 08:19:43 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Last Laugh! It Makes a Young Girl Cry Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:58:57 -0400 From: MacWay@aol.com To: macway@solutions.apple.com Subject: It Makes a Young Girl Cry This tidbit is from: (Kevin Tieskoetter) This is a letter that was apparently sent to Apple, was posted on the Always Apple web site, was retrieved by a friend of mine, sent over a small mailing list, and has now wound up on your computer. My apologies if you've already seen it a thousand times. The author of this letter is unknown. Dear Apple, My daughter didn't want to go to kindergarten this morning and when I asked why she sort of shuffled before coming up with the infamous "throw-up and maybe a headache" excuse. After a little chat, during which she admitted she wasn't sick, she began to cry. When I asked what was wrong she said that today was computer-lab day and she didn't like it because it was too hard. It was as if she had admitted a sin. She cried some more while I explained that making mistakes and learning from them was what school was all about. Besides, she was a pro on her computer at home (Performa 6200) so I knew she would get the hang of it. At that point she sat back, let out a big wailing sob and said, "But Daddy, these aren't Macintoshes and it's no fun." What's important about this story is that she thought computers were fun because she had learned on a Macintosh. ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #253 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 15:38:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA24736; Thu, 30 May 1996 15:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 15:38:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605301938.PAA24736@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #254 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 15:38:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FTC Halts Internet Pyramid Scam (Tad Cook) 415 NPA Relief Options (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Celebrities on the Internet" by Berry (Rob Slade) Seeking T-1 Vendors (Themos Pentakalos) Siemens Rolm - Northern Telecom Switch Combinations (David Payne) New URL for ICB - FYI (Judith Oppenheimer) Nortel Power Touch 350 Telephone - Serial Cable (Justin Hamilton) Thoughts About Spam and the Net (Lisa Hancock) Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You (Peter Laws) Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You (Dr. Robert Jacobson) Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You (Boyd Roberts) Good Bye Ma Bell (Harry Lynn Beck) Help Needed Developing CTI System (S. Santosh) Re: Banned by Motorola - They Don't Like My Homepage (Steve Bagdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: FTC Halts Internet Pyramid Scam Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:03:50 PDT FTC halts Net pyramid scheme WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Federal Trade Commission said Wednesday it halted an illegal pyramid scheme advertised on the Internet that bilked thousands of investors for more than $6 million. The FTC said the case was its largest to date involving fraud on the worldwide computer network. The agency obtained a federal court order temporarily halting the scheme, carried out by a company called Fortuna Alliance of Bellingham, Wash. The temporary restraining order freezes the company's assets and appoints a receiver to manage the company. The FTC also asked the court to issue a permanent injunction that would provide remedies for consumers hurt by the alleged scam. "Behind all the techno-jargon and the mathematical mumbo jumbo, this is just an elaborate, electronic version of a chain letter," said Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection. "People are told that if they sign up and send money, they'll eventually end up at the top of the pyramid, collecting from those at the bottom. But most people never make it to the top." She added that while early entrants to the scheme may make some money, "eventually the pyramids collapse and most of the 'members' are left holding the bag." The FTC charged that Fortuna Alliance L.L.C. and five officers marketed the pyramid scheme through a home page on the World Wide Web, the multimedia portion of the Internet. The agency said the scheme's promise of huge investment returns spurred thousands of investors to plunk down anywhere from $250 to $1,750 to join. The company claimed that members would receive more than $5,000 a month in "profits" as others were induced to "enroll," the FTC said. It also charged that Fortuna and its officers provided advice and promotional materials for members to set up their own Web sites on the Internet to recuit new members. Officials at the company were not immediately available for comment. In papers filed with the court, the FTC contended that Fortuna already has taken in more than $6 million from consumers and transferred at least $3.5 million of that money to a bank in Antigua, West Indies. The FTC is seeking to have the money returned. The agency was tipped off to the scheme by police in Bellingham, who were flooded with consumer complaints, as well as by the Better Business Bureau serving northwest Washington. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: 415 NPA Relief Options Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:27:48 PDT 415 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled Publicly; For The First Time Customers Will Get Chance To Comment On Plans At Three Public Meetings In June SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 29, 1996--Bay Area residents will have an opportunity to comment on plans for adding a new area code in the 415 region at a series of public meetings in June. Bruce Bennett, California area code relief coordinator, said a new area code is needed as early as December 1997 to keep up with the increasing demand for new telephone numbers, which is being spurred by the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers and cellular phones as well as competition in the local telephone industry. The 415 area code currently serves San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties, the northern portion of Santa Clara County and a small portion of Santa Cruz County. Dates and locations of the meetings are: Monday, June 24 San Francisco California Public Utilities Commission Auditorium 505 Van Ness Avenue Noon to 2 p.m. San Rafael Marin County Civic Center Board of Supervisors Chambers, Rm. 322 3501 Civic Center Drive, Third Floor 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday, June 25 San Mateo City Council Chambers 330 West 20th Avenue Noon to 2 p.m. During the meeting, two and possibly three plans will be presented to the public for comment. Three plans were proposed for 415 by the telecommunications industry -- two adding the area code through a geographic split, the other using the overlay method. However, an administrative law judge with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ruled earlier this month that the number of 415 geographic split options should be narrowed to one. The judge ordered telecommunications industry representatives to meet with local government officials before June 19 to seek consensus on one of the geographic splits. The judge's ruling does not affect the presentation of the overlay option at the public meetings. If consensus is reached at the industry-local government meeting, scheduled for June 17, Bennett said one geographic split and the overlay option will be presented to the public for comment. If consensus is not reached, public comment will be taken on the overlay option and both split plans. In a geographic split, the area served by the existing area code is divided with roughly half the customers being required to change the area code portion of their phone number and the remaining customers keeping the old area code. In an overlay, the new area code is placed over the existing area code. Both have the same geographic boundaries. The new area code would be given to people who request a new phone number. Existing customers would keep their present area code. None of the plans would impact the price of calls. Call distance determines call price and is not impacted by the creation of a new area code. Currently, the options under consideration for the 415 area code are: + Geographic Split -- Option 1. In this option, the city and county of San Francisco, the northern portion of San Mateo County including the cities of Brisbane, South San Francisco, the eastern portion of Daly City, the northern half of Millbrae and most of the city of San Bruno (including the San Francisco International Airport) would stay in the 415 area code. The remaining 415 area including Marin County, the rest of San Mateo County, the northern part of Santa Clara County and a small portion of Santa Cruz County would receive a new area code. This would create a non-contigious area code, with Marin County and most of San Mateo County in the new area code, but separated by the city and county of San Francisco which would stay in the 415 area code. + Geographic Split -- Option 2. This option is identical to Option 1, with the exception that Marin County would also stay in the 415 area code. While fewer customers would change to the new area code in this option, the reconstituted 415 area code would run out of telephone numbers again in less than four years. + Overlay -- In the overlay option proposed for 415, the new area code would be placed over the existing 415 area code. The two codes would have the same geographic boundaries. The new area code would be given to people requesting a new phone number. Existing 415 customers would keep their area code. If an overlay is chosen, the CPUC has determined that 1 + 10-digit dialing (1+the area code and the seven-digit telephone number) will be required for all calls within and between the new and old area codes. At the meetings, to be moderated by representatives of the CPUC's Consumer Advisory and Compliance Division, details of the plans will be outlined followed by a public comment period. Under state law, the telecommunications industry is required to meet with customers and consider their input before a final area code relief plan is filed with the Commission. The Commission makes the final decision on area code relief. Customers unable to attend a meeting can send written comments to: Bruce Bennett California Area Code Relief Coordinator 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S900V San Ramon, CA 94583 For information on the 415 area code public meetings and any other updates, customers may call 1-800-544-0355. http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:57:24 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Celebrities on the Internet" by Berry BKCELINT.RVW 960514 "Celebrities on the Internet", Colin Berry, 1996, 0-7821-1811-9, U$12.99 %A Colin Berry cpberry@aol.com %C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1996 %G 0-7821-1811-9 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$12.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 jjigarjian@sybex.com %P 191 %S Pocket Tour %T "Celebrities on the Internet" In "E-Mail Addresses of the Rich and Famous", (cf. BKEMALRF.RVW) Godin provided a poorly researched, error prone, and generally misleading list of celebrity contacts. Berry has compiled a much more realistic resource. Drawing primarily from Web sites, newsgroups, and mailing lists, this work is a quick guide to online promotion, fandom, and gossip about the notorious. Although most of the entries arise from Hollywood, TV, and sports, there is also a section on politics and a welcome inclusion of the fine arts. Each entry is annotated, and the author is quite ready to explain the reasons for choosing this particular site over possible alternatives. Although I'm still not fully convinced of any *need* for this type of book (but then, what would you expect from an AOLer? :-), Berry has compiled a good quality handbook for the star-struck. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCELINT.RVW 960514. Distrobution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: themos@umbc.edu (Mr. Themos Pentakalos) Subject: Seeking T-1 Vendors Date: 30 May 1996 14:12:24 -0400 Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Hello, We need to establish a frac-T-1 between Atlanta and Chicago. Can someone point me to some reliable and not overpriced vendors? Thanks. Please email, Themos ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:02:59 -0500 From: DAVID PAYNE Subject: Siemens Rolm - Northern Telecom Switch Combinations The London Health Sciences Centre (950 bed Teaching Hospital in London, Ontario) is interested in establishing contacts with any organization that has or knows of a established Rolm - SL-1 network configuration. Presently we have two SL-1 Option 71 (release 20) switches and we would like to network them to either a Rolm 9751 or a Rolm 9000 switch. Other SL-1 or Rolm switches may be added later. Our goal is to establish: - a coordinated dialing plan; - a common switchboard with CAS and maybe NAS; - a common voice mail system or networked voice mail system; - trunking consolidation. A external consultant led us to believe there were less than five already networked Rolm - SL-1 combinations in North America. Is this true? This seems a pretty small number to me! Your readers comments and thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, David Payne Technical Analyst, Telecom London Health Sciences Centre dpayne@lhsc.on.ca ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: New URL For ICB - FYI Date: 30 May 1996 14:44:53 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) My home page is now located at http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~producer/, and includes current industry comments regarding 800 portability and replication. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: Justin.Hamilton1@Bridge.BellSouth.Com (Justin Hamilton) Subject: Nortel Power Touch 350 Telephone - Serial Cable Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 11:10:15 GMT Organization: BellSouth ATG lab Having just got my PowerTouch 350 phone all hooked up to the telephone network, I am now looking to connect my PC via the port on the back of the 350 Module. Called BellSouth, whom I bought it through, told me to call Nortel. Called Nortel, they want $50 (FIFTY BUCKS !!) for the cable. So I decided I would rather build one myself. If anyone has details of the pinouts then it would be much appreciated if you could post or email them to me. If not, then I shall do some experimenting and let y'all know the results. Thanks, Justin Hamilton http://www.mindspring.com/~tmenet JHamilton@mindspring.com Justin.Hamilton1@Bridge.BellSouth.Com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Thoughts About Spam and the Net Date: 29 May 1996 23:06:10 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net I received one sales pitch with an 800 number, for which I was tempted to call from a pay phone, and let them know I didn't appreciate their pitching unsolicited over email. But then I thought the whole thing may be a joke or harassment -- that is, the 800 number might be for a legitimate business who's been targeted for harassment. I decided to ignore it. My employer (a large organization) gave us a lecture on their new web page and how enthused they are about the Internet. In my opinion, I think we have a while to WAIT before the Internet truly kicks off because of security problems. Until forged e-mail, unauthorized Usenet postings/forgeries and the like are stopped dead, the Internet is simply not secure to conduct business over. Sadly, there are some sick people out there, and some of them are very good with a computer and not at all hesitant to be malicious. ------------------------------ From: plaws@comp.uark.edu (Peter Laws) Subject: Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You Date: 30 May 1996 15:17:41 GMT Organization: University of Arkansas ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > DuPage County, Illinois police can now make hundreds of telephone > calls an hour to residents in an area where a crime has taken place or > a suspect is on the loose. Great. Police phone spam. How nice. I'll stick with my scanner ... Peter Laws Desktop Unix Support Team Academic, Research and Client Services Computing Services, University of Arkansas +1 501 575-2905 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a couple scanners also but folks like you and I -- and many readers here -- are in the minority. Most people don't own one. Plus, the information heard on the scanner is not going to be presented in the same way it will be presented to the general public via telephone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dr. Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:52:15 -0700 Organization: Worldesign Inc. Seattle-Information Design [www.worldesign.com] TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > DuPage County, Illinois police can now make hundreds of telephone > calls an hour to residents in an area where a crime has taken place or > a suspect is on the loose. > The DuPage County Sheriff last week inaugurated the 'Reverse-911' > community communications system. It transmitted a recorded message to > one thousand homes in an unincorporated area of Lombard, Illinois to > warn residents about two suspected burglars driving in a Ford Taurus, > Chief Deputy Sheriff Robert Soucek said. > "For the first time, we are able to saturate an area with hundreds of > phone calls an hour, and advise citizens of burglaries, a missing > child, suspicious activities and any other circumstances where we > could utilize our citizens to help us solve a crime," Soucek said. > Using several telephone lines, the $30,000 system can quickly call, > for examples, all homes on a certain street, or all day-care centers > in the county. [Stuff deleted] Similar systems have been in operation in California for over a decade, for use by emergency services in the event of natural disasters and, more sinisterly, nuclear plant meltdowns. In case Diablo Canyon reactor went critical, San Luis Obispo had a system in place to get people out of the plume-affected regions. Bop ------------------------------ From: boyd@france3.fr (Boyd Roberts) Subject: Re: Reverse-911: Now Police Can Contact You Date: 30 May 1996 11:59:51 GMT Organization: France 3 In article , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu says: > DuPage County, Illinois police can now make hundreds of telephone > calls an hour to residents in an area where a crime has taken place or > a suspect is on the loose. Trivial to do with GSM cell broadcasts, which all the phones in a cell receive, if they've subscribed to cell broadcasts and the particular message type. Vodafone UK uses them to indicate your current cell(s) and area code, which is kinda neat. Boyd Roberts ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:00:22 -0800 From: Harry Lynn Beck, P.E. Organization: HLB Engineering Subject: Good Bye Ma Bell Do you have any information/opinions about the integration of voice telephony with LAN technology, not in the current contexts, but in the context of completely eliminating the POTS (plain old telephone system). I'm working on just such an application here in Alaska. I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Harry Lynn Beck, P.E. HLB Engineering P.O. Box 210606 Anchorage Alaska 99521 By the way, I am electric power consulting engineer and journalist. ------------------------------ From: santosh@ece.iisc.ernet.in (Santosh S) Subject: Help Needed Developing CTI System Date: Thu, 30 May 96 12:15:56 GMT Hello, I'm working on a project at Indian Institute of Science, India for developing a CTI system to provide voice messaging, fax-on-demand and other facilities.We plan to use a dual processor approach in which we are using a DSP for speech and tone (DTMF and call progress tones ) processing. Because of availability I have an option of using Analog Devices' (ADSP 2105, 2101) or TI's (TMS320CXX) DSPs only. I would like to know which would suit my application. I feel ADSP 2105 is inadequate for FAX. Thank you for any kind of info regarding the above. Regards, santosh e-mail- santosh@ece.iisc.ernet.in ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 19:02:49 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Banned by Motorola - They Don't Like my Homepage! > Motorola cellular does not like my homepage. They sent me a nasty > letter. Check it out on my homepage ... > http://www.trilli.com/users/jyee Welcome to the big leagues, Jeff. You published a web page, which makes you responsible for researching the *origin* of anything that you published. Big corporations can get *very* sensitive of how their products are displayed, and I put Motorola up there almost with Disney. They get even *more* sensitive when you display a *very* recognizable piece of artwork, and they go *ballistic* when you copy 'camera-ready' art. At once time in my sordid past, I worked at a newspaper -- the Editor recieved a nasty letter from JetSki(r), because they published a picture of a JetSki(r) on the 'Local' section front page (owner airborne off of a wave), stated that it was a JetSki(r) in the by-line/slug, but left out the 'registered' mark. A corporate lawyer actually took the time to write a letter, because the reference was lower case and not 'registered' properly. I am disappointed that your message to TELECOM Digest was so short -- you are almost attempting to curry favor, by just telling your side of the story. How about something along the line of 'Motorola lawyers sent me a letter requesting that I remove a copyrighted picture of theirs from my web page'. I'm sure they loved your web page -- free advertising. What they *didn't* like was your use of their copyrighted material. Did you *ask* before 'publishing' this material? I'm sure they would have given you carte-blance (almost), if you had run it by their advertising/legal department, and followed their requests (copyright notices, etc). Heck, you might even have been able to publish it *without* their approval, if you had referenced the material as 'Copyright Motorola, 1996' -- remember the 'fair-use' rule? People, didn't we learn anything from MoToRoLa's experiences? Steve B. bagdon@rust.net (h) USFMDDKT@ibmmail.com (w) http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve (KNS) ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #254 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 16:30:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA00953; Thu, 30 May 1996 16:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:30:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605302030.QAA00953@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #255 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 16:30:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Caller ID (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Chris Hudel) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (Dr. Robert Jacobson) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (Rich Greenberg) Re: Sprint Sends Caller ID Today! (Charles A. Cremer) Re: LD Carriers and CID -- 5/96 Results (Matthew Stone) Re: CID Question (Sy Weiss) Re: MCI Cellular (macaw@ix.netcom.com) Re: United States Cellular's Stupidity (Jeff Carroll) Re: ANSI Spec For T1 Signaling Bits (kenshalo@anc.ak.net) Re: Seeking NEBS Standards (kenshalo@anc.ak.net) 916 NPA Relief Options (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Thu, 30 May 96 10:13:37 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > On June 15, in Austin, Tx, AT&T Wireless Communications will begin > passing cellular subscriber numbers through to the caller ID system. > I am not a paranoid regarding caller ID, but I am rather upset about > this. Since cellular users must pay for incoming calls, this seems a > valid reason to not have to pass around my cellular number via caller > ID. Additionally, since cellular phones do not offer caller ID, we do > not have the option not to answer the phone either. It may be annoying but *67 prefix will always prevent display of your Mobile Identification Number (MIN) for calls created at AT&T Wireless systems. If any system does not recognize *67 then you can be sure that Caller ID has not been offered in that cellular carrier's market yet. (*67 may be recognized but that will not guarantee that the display will be "Private", it may be "Out-of-Area"; the display is guaranteed to NOT be the MIN after per-call blocking *67 prefix has been dialed per FCC order). It is good advice to always use *67 prefix when roaming. You never know what surprises can occur as a result of using your cellular phone in a non-home system. Carry your home system's Customer Care number with you when roaming to help recover from roamer-freezes and other anti-fraud protection policies. More comments follow: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that the number you are referring > to would be essentially worthless to the recipient of the Caller-ID > information, and lend itself to confusion if they tried to dial it back. > For example, that number you are referring to *is* in fact available > and given to customers who get ANI. Invariably on trying to dial in to > it the response is the number is for outgoing calls only or it may not > be dialable at all, etc. My cellular phone is 847-727-xxxx and yet > the ANI it shows when I dial an 800 number is 708-870-something; a > totally different thing. I personally would say send nothing at all > unless it can be a two-way thing with cellular customers able to get > the same information in return subject to the technical requirements > of their phone, etc. Will *67 (number blocking) be available on your > outgoing cellular calls? That might be one way to partly solve your > problem. PAT] Pat, I assure you that if you bring your cellular phone to Seattle and complete an 800 call on AT&T Wireless (Band A) that the ANI presented will be your MIN 847-727-xxxx. AT&T Wireless has Equal Access agreements with LD carriers that require the cooperation of the LEC's Equal Access Tandem switch to interconnect to all carriers. An cellular 800 call either routes on Type1 trunks without ANI and the LEC creates a new 800 call (like in your home system) using a fixed ANI for the Type1 trunk, or the 800 call routes on Type2 Feature Group D Equal Access trunks like it does here in US West and GTE-NW land passing the ANI (read MIN) to the 800 provider's carrier. FGD signaling can pass ANI (but not Caller ID information!). An 800 number belongs to a specific long distance carrier and the 800 owner pays for the long distances charges. FGD signaling provides Carrier Information Code (CIC) of 110 to indicate that the LEC's Equal Access Tandem must complete one-stage call completion rather than the normal two-stage which sends the dialer's Preferred Interexchange Carrier as the CIC (288 or 0288 for AT&T) in the first stage, allows the LEC to set-up to the indicated carrier, and then passes MF tones for ANI and dialed number in the second stage "cutting through" to the long distance carrier's switch (faster call setup with two-stage "cut-thru" compared to two one-stage sequences). Cellular ISUP signaling direct to long distance carriers has yet to happen to my knowledge. Bell South Cellular did an ISUP trial with Bell South LEC two years ago. Even when AT&T Wireless is able to offer ISUP direct connect to long distance carriers, the 800 call will probably be handled with non-SS7 FGD signaling on LEC Type2 trunks because all cellular switches currently lack the "intelligence" to look up the 10 digit carrier translation for portable 800 numbers. This would imply that it will be a couple of years before both the ANI and the Caller ID of a cellular MIN will be available to 800 owners, even though a cellular ANI for 800 calls is indirectly available currently here in the Northwest US. AT&T Wireless is pursuing Type2 FGD interconnect for 800 calls with all LECs but the LEC isn't forced to have to do this if they don't want. I think the LEC makes more money on Type1 800 calls. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: hudel@hppad.waterloo.hp.com (Chris Hudel) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: 30 May 1996 19:27:34 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard (Panacom Division) Sorry if this has been suggested already, but how about "Name only Caller-ID?" Afterall, don't you want to know *who* is calling more than you want to know *what phone number* they are calling from? ------------------------------ From: Dr. Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Caller-ID Delay in California Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:48:56 -0700 Organization: Worldesign Inc. Seattle-Information Design [www.worldesign.com] Larry Lee wrote: > In article TELECOM Digest Editor > noted in response to lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) who had > written about a delay in implementing Caller ID in California: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it just incredible that you seem > to have so many people in California on this kick. What is with all > these people who seem to feel they have this right to hide themselves > when they make calls no matter whose time they waste or whatever > foolish calls they originate? I'll be glad to see 'blocked number > blocking' (where recipients have the right to block calls from persons > who hide their phone numbers) become universal. I am going to encourage > everyone to sign up for it. PAT] My friend Pat sees the world from an entirely too egocentric position. I worked to help pass California's Caller ID law, which instructs the PUC on the implementation of Caller ID. There are good reasons for being cynical about Caller ID, whatever its limited merits as a way of screening one's home calls. First, the service was devised to collect information on callers to businesses. This was stated explicitly several times by telephone company advocates when the service was introduced. The idea was that a business could cue its internal records on incoming phone call num- bers, to serve you, the caller, faster and better -- but also, by using the phone number as a surrogate ID number, companies could trade data about their customers and build big dossiers. Better than with your Social Security number, as the HMOs do. That's why whenever line blocking was proposed or made law in some states, the telcos moaned, "but that will take the economic value out of the service." Second, as the many posts here continue to testify, there are a hundred ways around Caller ID, from using new phone numbers or public telephone booths to simply fooling the underlying SS7 switching service. The woman who championed the Caller ID law, by the way, was secretary to an Assembly member who actually carried the bill, Mr. Eaves (now a supervisor in San Bernardino or Riverside County, I believe). She was worried, as a single mother, that a molester or other heinous character might record _her_ phone number during a call and track it back to her house, to savage her or her child. It was a reasonable fear. Caller ID sucks on a number of levels. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Caller-ID Delay in California Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 22:32:09 GMT In article , Larry Lee wrote: [snip] > If you had any idea of the amount of negative ads that the phone > companies have run and are continuing to run on radio and TV, you > wouldn't find it incredible. I have not heard one positive or > encouraging statement about caller id. Very true. I was speaking to a PaBellDroid about an unrelated matter a few weeks ago and asked about that. She confirmed my suspicion that the wording of these ads was forced on Pa and GTE by the CPUC. Don't blame the LECs on this one. They don't like it either. Rich Greenberg N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 Pacific time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky) ------------------------------ From: ao474@yfn.ysu.edu (Charles A. Cremer) Subject: Re: Sprint Sends Caller ID Today! Date: 29 May 1996 23:36:49 GMT Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Reply-To: ao474@yfn.ysu.edu (Charles A. Cremer) In a previous article, bellaire@iquest.net (James Bellaire) says: > I just received a call from a relative who has been a long time Sprint > Business customer (he has been paying their business rates for at > least ten years, so I know he won't switch or 10xxx another service) ... > Usually his phone comes up 'OUT OF AREA' on caller id, but now he > shows up with a complete phone number and his business name. I've confirmed this also, from Austin, Texas to NYNEX near Boston. Will wonders never cease? Charlie ------------------------------ From: mstone@io.org (Matthew Stone) Subject: Re: LD Carriers and CID -- 5/96 Results Date: 29 May 1996 06:02:25 GMT Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Stanley Cline (scline@usit.net) wrote: > For the past several months, I've been periodically testing IXCs' > delivery of CID, using 1+, 0+ (calling card), and 800/calling-card > calling methods, as well as checking to see if the privacy flag (*67) > is recognized. > MCI: > 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" > 0+ = "Out of Area" > 800# calling card = Not tested > 1-800-Collect = Not tested My friends and I have used 1-800-Collect and this is the results. Las Vegas Nevada to Toronto, Ontario, Canada (905) area code ... a local 416 number shows up. When dialing the 416 number a Bell Canada message comes up saying there is "no service at that line". From Toronto, Ontario, Canada (905) area code to Lansing, Michigan (517) area code it shows up as "Out Of Area" on my friends CID. Dunno what to make of that ... Matthew Stone, 23 Roosevelt Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4C6V1 Pager (416)339-9052 ------------------------------ Date: 30 May 96 13:32:18 EDT From: Sy Weiss <72007.2462@CompuServe.COM> Subject: CID Question We have a request from a client (a large bank) to design and produce a product that will dial out to a central site when the device detects a failure condition. All the device will do is detect the failure, go off hook, dial a pre-set number, pause about ten seconds, and then go back on hook. About 250 locations will be equipped with this out-dialer. At the central location, the remote site calling will be identified and logged using a CID device. The call will not be answered, all that is required is to identify the calling site that has a failure. The product would have to be part 68 registered as a dial line interface. Question: Could CID be used in this manner? I have in mind the fact that information is transferred without the call being answered. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Sy Weiss 72007.2462@compuserve.com Dataprobe Inc. sweiss@dataprobe.com http://www.dataprobe.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What if for some reason the number being called is busy (another such device is ringing the line at the same time) or there is some other problem, i.e. network congestion 'call cannot be completed right now, please try again in a few minutes' and the calling line does not establish contact with the recipient; that is, is unable to get its ID displayed on the called line? If all you are going to do is go off hook for ten seconds and disconnect, what assurance to you have that the ID got delivered? How critical are these possible failures? What if one gets missed due to a condition like described above? Most alarm notification systems require the recipient of the call to at least do something such as press a button or two on the phone to acknowledge receipt. Of course if you are not paying for the call, you don't get that luxury. :) Have you thought about that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: macaw@ix.netcom.com (Macaw) Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: 30 May 1996 18:54:48 GMT Organization: Netcom In schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) writes: > I just received a soliciation to join MCI's cellular service and receive > a Nokia 100 phone for free (golly!!!). > Here in NYC, we already have an "A" and "B" system provider. Where > does MCI fit into this system? Can there be multiple "A" system > providers in the same market? I thought not ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is just one A/B in each area. > What MCI is doing is reselling either A or B, depending on whatever > was the best deal they could cut for themselves with one of the two. > Frontier is also a reseller of cellular; mostly the B side except they > resell A in some communities. You can get pretty good deals on prices > using the resellers I have found. PAT] In Boston there is Cellular One and Nynex now there are two other cell companies starting to put up their antennas. They are AT&T and Sprint. Cellular One is Southwestern Bell. I myself don't know how this will be done also. If anyone knows please let me know. The reason I know about the other two cellular companies is because Cellular One is renting from me. They have a cell site on my building and Sprint contacted me about setting up one of there cell sites on my building also. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When cellular phone service was being developed in the early 1980's -- it started as of 1983 I believe -- probably no one could ever imagine there would be a time when more than two carriers would ever be in existence in a given community and in most cases just one. Thus the A/B arrangement, with no real provision for a 'C' or 'D' carrier, or whatever they might be called. Does anyone know of any plans to open the market to a third or fourth (a 'C' or 'D' or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do not mean just as a reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine infrastructure for a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: United States Cellular's Stupidity Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 11:16:04 -0500 Organization: bigendian Reply-To: xfrosch@indy.net Stanley Cline wrote: > PS: Has anyone noticed that USCC's and 360 Communications' HQ are in > the same city, zip code, and even PHONE PREFIX (312-399)? These are > the very carriers that BellSouth and other carriers HATE (one much > more than the other, of course.) Weird coincidence ... They're practically sitting on a runway at O'Hare. Dunno if that has anything to do with it or not. jkc ------------------------------ From: kenshalo@anc.ak.net Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:57:56 -0800 Subject: Re: ANSI Spec For T1 Signaling Bits rich@netcommcorp.com (Rich Dodge) wrote: > Does anybody know which ANSI specification, if any, details the T1 > signaling bits as they relate to setting up a phone call? Your help > would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. You might try: ANSI T1.102, Digital Hierarchy - Electrical Interface Standard ANSI T1.107, Digital Hierarchy - Format Specifications AT&T TR 62415 - Access Specification for High Capacity (DS1/DS3) Dedicated Digital Services I only have the above AT&T TR, where reference is made to the above two ANSI specs, but gives no specific information about the uses of the signaling bits used with SF and ESF formats. If you find any concrete data, please let me know. Richard Kenshalo kenshalo@anc.ak.net Matanuska Telephone Association ------------------------------ From: kenshalo@anc.ak.net Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:02:59 -0800 Subject: Re: Seeking NEBS Standards > Can someone tell me where I can find the NEBS standards? Try: Bellcore TR-EOP-000063, Network Equipment-Building System (NEBS) Generic Equipment Requirements Bellcore TR-TSY-000487, Generic Requirements for Electronic Equipment Cabinets Richard Kenshalo kenshalo@anc.ak.net Matanuska Telephone Association ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: 916 NPA Relief Options Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:08:41 PDT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In an earlier issue of the Digest today an almost identical announcment was printed pertaining to 415. PAT] 916 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled Publicly For The First Time; Customers Will Get Chance To Comment On Plans At Three Public Meetings In June SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 30, 1996--Northern California residents will have an opportunity to comment on two plans for adding a new area code in the 916 region at a series of public meetings in June. Bruce Bennett, California area code relief coordinator, said a new area code is needed as early as December 1997 to keep up with the increasing demand for new telephone numbers, which is being spurred by the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers and cellular phones as well as competition in the local telephone industry. The 916 area code currently serves all or portions of 23 Northern California counties from Sacramento north to the Oregon border, and the Mono County community of Coleville. Dates and locations of the meetings are: Wednesday, June 26 South Lake Tahoe Tahoe Seasons Resort 3901 Saddle Road Noon to 2 p.m. Roseville Maidu Community Center Reception Hall 1550 Maidu Drive 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday, June 27 Chico City Hall City Council Chambers 421 Main Street 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Redding City Hall City Council Chambers 1313 California Street 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Two plans proposed by the telecommunications industry -- one adding the area code through a geographic split, the other using the overlay method -- will be presented at the meeting. In a geographic split, the area served by the existing area code is divided with roughly half the customers being required to change the area code portion of their phone number and the remaining customers keeping the old area code. In an overlay, the new area code is placed over the existing area code. Both have the same geographic boundaries. The new area code would be given to people who request a new phone number. Existing customers would keep their area code. Neither plan would impact the price of calls. Call distance determines call price and is not impacted by the creation of a new area code. The options under consideration for the 916 area code are: - Geographic Split -- In the proposed geographic split option, the 916 portion of Sacramento County, south Placer County including the cities of Roseville, Loomis and Rocklin and the city of West Sacramento in Yolo County would stay in the 916 area code. The remainder of the 916 region would receive a new area code. This includes the rest of Placer County, the majority of Yolo County (excluding West Sacramento), the 916 portion of El Dorado County, all of Nevada, Yuba, Sutter, Colusa, Sierra, Butte, Glenn, Plumas, Tehama, Lassen, Shasta, Trinity, Modoc and Siskiyou counties, the 916 portion of Alpine County and small portions of Solano, Mendocino, Lake and Humboldt counties as well as the Mono County community of Coleville. - Overlay -- In the overlay option proposed for 916, the new area code would be placed over the existing 916 area code. The two codes would have the same geographic boundaries. The new area code would be given to people requesting a new phone number. Existing 916 customers would keep their area code. If an overlay is chosen, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has determined that 1 + 10-digit dialing (1 plus the area code and the seven-digit telephone number) will be required for all calls within and between the new and old area codes. At the meetings, to be moderated by representatives of the CPUC's Consumer Advisory and Compliance Division, details of the plans will be outlined followed by a public comment period. Under state law, the telecommunications industry is required to meet with customers and consider their input before a final area code relief plan is filed with the Commission. The Commission makes the final decision on area code relief. Customers unable to attend a meeting can send written comments to: Bruce Bennett California Area Code Relief Coordinator 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S900V San Ramon, CA 94583 For information on the 916 area code public meetings and any other updates, customers may call 1-800-544-0355. CONTACT: Pacific Bell Dave Miller, (916) 972-2811 Bill Kenney, (916) 972-6604 http://www.businesswire.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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #255 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 20:12:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA21117; Thu, 30 May 1996 20:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 20:12:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605310012.UAA21117@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #256 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 20:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves (TELECOM Digest Editor) Cellular One Chicago Announces 'Freedom Plus' (TELECOM Digest Editor) Internet Spam From AOL (Joe A. Machado) Wireless Ethernet Transceivers (Thaddeus Cox) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Tony Harminc) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Lynne Gregg) Re: Network Outages (David Chessler) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Jeff Carroll) Re: Preventing Pickup on Busy Line (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:32:04 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves Forget about minor marketing skirmishes. Now Ameritech and AT&T are engaged in full battle -- and customers of both companies are left in the middle, especially those with a calling card issued by either company. On Wednesday, Ameritech said a federal judge had ordered AT&T to stop using shared information from the two companies calling cards to try to convince Ameritech customers to switch to AT&T calling cards. AT&T called Ameritech's characterization of the court ruling outrageous. Also: o Ameritech claims that as of Friday AT&T will bar its card holders from making local calls within Ameritech's calling area. o AT&T has offered Ameritech customers three months of free local toll calls -- local calls of 15 miles or more -- if they switch to AT&T before June 30. o AT&T has filed new local toll call rates with the Illinois Commerce Commission to be extremely competitive. The developments Wednesday are the latest in what has become a very nasty fight in the 'telephone war' between Ameritech and AT&T that started out more than a year ago when Ameritech launched its 'Customers First' plan, its strategy to enter the long distance market. In the latest skirmish over calling cards, Ameritech had accused AT&T of abusing an agreement that allows each company to handle traffic using the calling card of the other company. Under the agreement, neither company was allowed to use any customer data for the purpose of soliciting customers to switch companies. Ameritech Chairman Richard Notebaert said his company discovered AT&T was illegally targeting Ameritech customers when some 'names on the list' started getting mailings sent by AT&T. He said there was no way 'those names' would have gotten anything like that in the mail had not AT&T been abusing their access to the Amertech data base. The mailings from AT&T to Ameritech customers offered fifteen minutes of free calling time if Ameritech customers signed up for an AT&T card and promised to use it instead of their Ameritech card in the future. Notebaert said the only way AT&T could have found out which customers to make that offer to was by 'getting into the data base illegally'. AT&T responded late Wednesday by saying no evidence of this was ever presented in court and the only ruling the judge made was to grant the parties' request for a stay. "There was no ruling and there was no finding that AT&T did anything wrong," an AT&T spokesman said. The court "simply granted a request for a stay, which will allow the parties to resolve the matter through arbitration." Ameritech now contends that AT&T must give some free time to the customers who responded to the AT&T promotion. AT&T refused to say how they will deal with the customers 'left hanging' in the process. Some Ameritech customers had received a new AT&T card which they will now apparently not be able to use on the Ameritech network. As matters now stand, effective Friday, May 31, AT&T calling cards will not be accepted by Ameritech and Ameritech calling cards will not be accepted by AT&T. It is unclear at this point what results will occur if a person with an Ameritech card uses a payphone which was defaulted to AT&T to make a long distance call. Isn't this a shameful state of affairs when customers have to get caught up in the middle of the fight? PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:40:41 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Cellular One Chicago Announces 'Freedom Plus' Cellular One of Chicago announced Thursday a new system for Chicago area subscribers which will mimic the system which GTE has had available for some time. This new system called 'Freedom Plus' allows users to plug a phone base into a wall jack at home to use the same phone both there and on the road. The new system works like a cordless phone when at home and like a cellular phone as soon as you leave home. When the unit is in your home, the base 'senses' the portable is nearby and incoming cellular calls are automatically routed thorugh the normal land line system. Cellular One, which is a subsidiary of Southwestern Bell's SBC Commun- ications said the system including the base unit would retail for about $200. All current cellular customers would have to purchase the new phone if they wanted the new service. In addition, Cellular One will charge $4.95 per month for the service. The system is manufactured by Motorola. Cellular One said it should be available to customers later this summer. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 17:57:26 -0500 From: Joe A. Machado Subject: Internet Spam From AOL I have received over 35 mail messages from folks at AOL during the past few days. The mailing list is similar but the senders vary. Many of the messages contain words of frustration from other recipients and the content expressed variest. Responding to the messages with REMOVE or some statement to be taken off the mailing list at times causes repetition of the mailings, or the request being ignored. And many of the messages are the same but mailed several times -- three to five times at once! One mail message said that all complaints regarding these mailings should go to TOSEMAIL2@AOL.com but today I received another message stating that mailing to this person does not work. I have redirected all the junk mail to that ID but have as yet received a confirmation or had the mailings stop. Commenting on the wasted bandwidth, lack of following internet etiquette, or such arguments may be fruitless. The real issue is my belief that I have a right not to receive such mail. I wonder whether AOL has a duty to screen outgoing mass mailings or whether my ISP should consider complaints and initiate action on my behalf. In the non cyber world the U.S. Post Office delivers unwanted junk mail in order to gain the revenue from doing so. Is there a similar situation developing in cyberspace? Is there a benefit to censorship? By investigating user mailings are sender rights not being infringed? And do I care as long as the junk mail stops coming my way? With Universal Email a looming possibility is the public not to be protected from unwanted mail? Will the cost of junk mail not be a factor in the Universal Email debate? Should society tolerate Email entrepeneurship? Is there a benefit by not legislating E-Mail? There might be interest to some in how people try to entice others to participate in money making schemes via E-Mail. In the meantime I am looking for an email package that will allow me to screen mail from AOL and await any suggestions or comments from this group. Thanks, Joe A. Machado http://mweiser.bus.okstate.edu/students/jmachado/homepg.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:43:43 PDT From: Thaddeus Cox Subject: Wireless Ethernet Transceivers I am researching wireless ethernet transceivers and would like to tap the vast knowlege of the digest readership for suggestions. I'm a student at a smallish college and would like the dorms here to be wired for ethernet. This seems to be a very daunting task due to the composition of the building (concrete and steel) and the lack of any useful existing conduit for cabling. Wiring the building conventionally would require major renovation, drilling through structural members/concrete, etc. Currently we have small local networks established by running a single coax thinnet cable alongside heating pipes which run from room to room, spanning the length of each hall. This works fine for our local network. What we are looking for is a (pair of) devices which could be connected to one of these local networks and serve as a wireless connection between it and the campus-wide, internet-connected ethernet which appears in another part of the building, approximately 300-400' through concrete and steel construction. I don't know what kind of throughput these sort of devices offer, but I was thinking somewhere in the 1 to 2 megabit range. I'm interested in information on new or used equipment which would meet the requirements as I've laid them out, and any ideas about alternative solutions would also be gladly accepted. Email replies and I will forward them in condensed form to the digest if anyone is interested. Thaddeus Cox - coxt@mail.oit.osshe.edu Oregon Institute of Technology (541) 885-0212 voice (503) 497-7050 pgr/vm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 96 18:30:30 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele) wrote: > I can fully understand people setting "anonymous caller rejection" on > their home phone lines. However, there are times when it is problematic. > For example: > A person calls a physician's office (after hours) with a medical > emergency. The person's call results in the physician being paged to call > the patient. > The physician calls the patient from their phone (home or cellular), > with blocking set ON. The physician's call is rejected because the > patient has the "anonymous call rejection" set ON. Ooops. Now, in > order to perform their ethical duty, the physician has to send caller > ID to the patient in order for the patient to receive the call. Now, > the patient can jot down the physician's home or cellular phone number > and call at their convenience (such as the next time little Johnny is > throwing up at 3:00 am, or when Sally suffers a mental health crisis > because her beaux dumped her). > This is not a desirable circumstance for the physician. Or when the physician calls from another patient's home phone while making a housecall (no jokes please -- some still do make housecalls). Then the second patient calls the first one demanding to speak to the doctor. > What I would propose is that CID should be capable of sending a > *different* number registered to the same person (or a corporate > number, with the permission of the corporation or on a business line). > This provides protection for people who for legitimate professional > reasons may wish to retain their personal privacy. Unfortunately, I > have not heard of any such capability in any jurisdiction with which I > am familiar. > I'm curious about why this seems to have escaped consideration, and > what, if anything, ought to be done about it. Exactly this service is available in Bell Canada territory. You can have any number that is installed at the same premises and billed to the same subscriber set up as your call display number. I have even seen an 800 number used this way. There is no charge to set this up, but an admin charge to change it thereafter. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Thu, 30 May 96 14:23:00 PDT Andrew C. Green wrote: > I'd like to think that no one in their right mind would want to call > only cellular phones to give a sales pitch, is there some more-official > reason why this doesn't occur more often? NPA/NXX's of cellular phones are not published. hudel@hppad.waterloo.hp.com (Chris Hudel) wrote: > Sorry if this has been suggested already, but how about "Name only > Caller-ID?" Afterall, don't you want to know *who* is calling more > than you want to know *what phone number* they are calling from? The FCC Order on Calling Number Services is very clear on this: If the caller blocks his number, NAME cannot be presented -- even alone (with no accompanying number). The Order also states that auto-callback *69 cannot be used either, if the caller blocks his number. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Network Outages From: david.chessler@neteast.com (DAVID CHESSLER) Date: Thu, 30 May 96 14:56:00 -0400 Organization: Online Technologies, Inc. - Modem: 301-738-0000 Reply-To: david.chessler@neteast.com (DAVID CHESSLER) On 24 May 96, 03:26am, JONATHAN WELLS wrote to ALL on the subject of "Network Outages": > I am a student at the U of Penn, doing a graduate thesis. > I am trying to compile information about telco network outages. I > have searched all of the newsgroups hoping for a thread, but have not > found much. Could anyone help me? > If you have any information available about carrier network outages > which effected your business, or you know where I might find such > information, I would be very thankful.:) The FCC collects data on all outages affecting more than 50,000 phones. This is in the ARMIS series, available on the FCC Common Carrier "Statelink" BBS 202-418-0241 (it is not available on the Web Site, but you might be able to reach this BBS through fedworld.gov). ARMIS data is collected and maintained by the Accounting Division of the Common Carrier bureau. Someone from that division gave a presen- tation at the NARUC winter meetings. david.chessler@mix.cpcug.org david.chessler@neteast.com chessler@capaccess.org chessler@trinitydc.edu E-mail: ->132 1:109/459 david.chessler@mix.cpcug.org ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:17:30 -0500 Organization: bigendian Reply-To: xfrosch@indy.net Lisa wrote: > This kind of attitude will hurt the consumer. Despite massive > protest when the nuke plant was built, today its power is very much > needed in hot summers for air conditioning (and PCs, faxes, etc.) Had > that plant not been built, we'd have power shortages. (Some regions > face that on bad summer days.) The company would not have built the > plant, or not as big a plant if it felt the venture was too risky. As > a regulated monopoly, the power company had reduced risk. I agree with your position as it applies to nuclear plants. Obviously the construction of a nuclear power plant is something in which the community at large holds a huge stake, not just economically but in terms of public safety. Any locality which permitted wholesale, unregulated construction of nuclear plants would be begging for disaster. Another example which comes to mind is that of airline service. Clearly we have only one airspace to share, and that airspace MUST be managed as a public resource. In the days in which radio technology dictated narrowband channelized broadcast, it was necessary to regulate broadcasting since we have only one terrestrial electromagnetic spectrum. It used to be the case that construction of telecommunications networks was such a huge cost that society could only afford to bear it once. With the proliferation of cable TV, mobile phones, and (especially) digital wireless systems, this is clearly no longer so. Unless and until wireless communication is shown to be a hazard to public health (as I believe it never will), therefore, neither of the foregoing conditions mandating government regulation are satisfied. > Another benefit of regulation is lower rates. Because a service > territory is guaranteed, the government dictates a low rate of return. > Nobody gets rich on utility stocks. Further, the government dictates > service standards. This is a canard. Neither high standards of service nor low rates are guaranteed by utility regulation. The only conceivable explanation of why 2B+D ISDN is still $98/month in Indiana (as it was last time I checked) is the intransigence of the public utility commission and a cozy relationship with the telecom utilities. What government regulation really insures is that your technology will lag the state of the art by years if not decades. > But, like telephones, the electric company will lower its rates to > large users to meet competition, and raise rates to residences and small > businesses since nobody will want to serve them. In other words, they will rationalize their price structures. This would be a problem for customers of a power utility; in today's environment, however, the telecom consumer has an already broad (and still-expanding) range of local "loop" options; s/he will migrate toward the technology which serves him/her most effectively. > I'm a small potatoes consumer. Who's looking out for me? The > utility companies don't really want my $25/month account... My commercial bank really doesn't want my individual small potatoes account. My ISP really doesn't want to have to support my shell account; they'd rather make me use the same crippled winsock interface they give everyone else. My insurance company doesn't really want to carry my auto insurance policy; they'd rather focus on their main business, commercial liability. My local Chevrolet dealer would rather deal with fleet buyers than sell me one car. The airline I'm flying this weekend would rather serve me in my capacity as a corporate employee than as an individual consumer. My local supermarket would rather sell lots of groceries to rich people and corporations. Computer manufacturers prefer to build high-priced laptop models that are not affordable to most of us as individuals, because they can sell lots of them to large corporate customers. You don't have to look around America in 1996 for very long before this kind of argument starts to seem very silly. Regulated telecom was the only way to run a pair of copper wires to every residence back when that was the goal; today running a pair of copper wires to a residence is far from being a cost-effective solution in many cases. For those of us who essentially live out of automobiles, a pair of copper wires is completely unworkable. Prices ARE being kept artificially high and technology IS being restrained by government regulation. People have an amazing array of communications choices today, and, as long as antitrust legislation is properly enforced, the consumer has little if anything to fear from telecom deregulation save the mild stress of adapting to new technology. jkc ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Preventing Pickup on Busy Line Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:36:40 PDT A. Padgett Peterson wrote: > Pat, I have a real telco hardware question: I have been told that > there is a simple (e.g. one diode) circuit that can be used to prevent > a phone from picking up on a busy line. With FAX, modem, or other data > traffic picking up a handset can disrupt it. Proctor & Associates makes a variety of exclusion devices, either voltage operated or current operated, including current operated group exclusion modules that always give priority to one user. Contact Proctor at 206-881-7000, or via fax at 206-885-3282 or email at 3991080@mcimail.com. Ask for information on exclusion modules. > At the same time I need the phones to be able to pick up on either > line on request (push button?) when used for voice. Can you point me > to anything? With a two (or more) line phone this would be a function of the phone, not the exclusion module. The exclusion module would be wired ahead of the phone to prevent interruption. Tad Cook Seattle, WA tad@ssc.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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #256 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 21:52:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA29362; Thu, 30 May 1996 21:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:52:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605310152.VAA29362@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #257 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 21:52:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Nice Bit of Historical Trivia For You (TELECOM Digest Editor) London (Ontario) Yellow Pages on CD-ROM (Nigel Allen) Re: MCI Cellular (Lynne Gregg) Ericsson 337 Banned in USA? (mwong@mdsi.bc.ca) European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed (K. Walter) Re: University of Arizona Student Guards Internet Domain Names (M. Deignan) Updated GSM List 05/30/96 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight (Jean Mezei) Taking Care of Health Matters (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:20:03 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: A Nice Bit of Historical Trivia For You I have here about three dozen very old telephone bills from the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company in Boston, MA dated in the period September, 1932 through December, 1936. In addition, I have rent receipts for the same period of time. Two men were in business together, or at least they shared an office together at the time: Jacob Fisher & Samuel Steinberg Suite 718 - Providence Building 333 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts Oddly, the phone number was not shown on any of the phone bills, which appear to be for coin telephone service in their office. There is a reference to an account number which is given as 'P 7622 LAF'. That may have been some central office designation. The phone bills look like this: Bell in a circle Bell System logo New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. New England Telephone and Telegraph Company The address of our BUSINESS OFFICE is shown in the front part of your telephone directory. When paying in cash please present both bill and stub. September 20, 1932 Monthly charge not covered by coin deposits, one month ending date of bill ..............................$ 3.75 Toll Service and Telegrams (statement enclosed) ........... .25 Deficit and other charges and credits (statement enclosed) . .20 Directory Advertising one month ending date of bill ....... ---- Amount due from previous bill ............................. ---- Total Due ............. $4.20 Sometimes there is a second page with an itemization of toll and sometimes there is not. On the front of each of these over the four year period in question there appears a round rubber stamp indicia with the date, the words 'Paid, Teller # __' and the phrase 'Bell System - New England Telephone and Telegraph Company.' The envelope for each has the traditional circle with the bell and Bell System logo in the middle of the circle. The first several give a return address of 881 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston. The postage meter indicia says it was mailed in Boston, two cents postage and 'one cent additional postage paid'. Beginning in late 1933, the return address on the envelope changes and is given as 705 Mt. Auburn Street, Watertown, Massachusetts, with a postage meter indicia showing Watertown and two cents postage. Beginning in 1935 the envelopes show a return address of 'P.O. Box 2256' in Boston, but they continue to have postal indicia from Watertown, again with two cents postage. They are all in 'window envelopes' so the address on the bill itself shows through the window, however in every case the flap which you slice open is at the *bottom* of the envelope rather than at the top. ----------------------- The other item with these phone bills are the corresponding rent receipts for the same time period. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Steinberg paid the grand sum of $62.50 per month rent for their office in the Providence Building, and there is a $5 credit on many of the bills showing the actual amount due was $57.50. Their landlord was Geo. L. DeBlois & A.N. Maddison, Agents, at 11 Pemberton Square, Boston 1, Massachusetts. Each rent bill has a rubber stamp on the front showing paid and the date, with the signature of the person who took their money. These rent bills are typed out on a very old fashioned sort of typewriter. The phone bills appear to have been prepared on a comptometer machine. ----------------------- I think the main interest some people might have in these items are the postal indicias and the cashier's indicias as they appear on the envelopes and invoices, etc. They would probably be of some interest to people who have followed the history of Nynex over the years and/or possibly local history in Boston. ----------------------- Would you like one? If you have not yet sent in the suggested voluntary annual donation of twenty dollars as 'subscription' to TELECOM Digest and would like to do so at this time, please include with it a *long* self-addressed stamped envelope and request one. If you have already given your subscription for this year and would like one of these, just send the long self addressed envelope. If you want a specific month and year, indicate this and I will include it if possible. The dates range from September, 1932 through December, 1936 however not all are available. Write to: TELECOM Digest PO Box 4621 Skokie, IL 60076 My thanks to William Lee Roberts of the Arctos Group, Chestnut Hill, MA for passing these along to me with the suggestion that Digest readers might like to check them out. No favoritism shown; I'll just fill these orders as they come in from the top of the pile. Not only will you get a nice bit of history, but your money will help keep the Digest around for another year or so. Thanks! PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:14:18 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: London (Ontario) Yellow Pages on CD-ROM Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., the Yellow Pages subsidiary of Bell Canada, has announced plans to publish the London (Ontario) Yellow Pages on CD-ROM. Here is a press release from Tele-Direct, which I found on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://www.newswire.ca/ I don't work for Bell Canada or Tele-Direct. TELE-DIRECT (PUBLICATIONS) INC. - THE YELLOW PAGES(TM) DIRECTORY NOW AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM All the information you need at just a click of the mouse MONTREAL, 30 May /CNW/ - Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. announces the launch of a new initiative that could revolutionize the way consumers locate the products and services they seek. The Yellow Pages(TM) directory, for decades Canada's most widely used and most comprehensive listing of businesses and services, will now be available on CD-ROM. Initially, the Yellow Pages directory on CD-ROM will be available in London, Ontario. However, after the initial launch this November, consumers in seventeen communities in Quebec and Ontario will gradually have access to the Yellow Pages directory through this new and easy-to-use medium. ``The Yellow Pages directory will be made available on CD-ROM to these communities by the year 2000,'' says Claude Phaneuf, Manager, Product Development of Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. ``Many consumers will find this a very efficient and comprehensive way to locate both national and local advertisers.'' CITY MAP HELPS LOCATE ADVERTISERS Pop in your Yellow Pages directory on CD-ROM and the information you need is just a click of the mouse away. Businesses can be located by name or category with helpful information such as address and telephone number appearing right on the screen. In addition, with just one more click of the mouse, a city map appears showing you the way to the establishment of your choice. And for a select number of advtisers, a final click of the mouse brings to the screen more in-depth information in brochure format about the products they sell. With the CD-ROM version of the Yellow Pages directory, consumers can even create their own personal directory. Over time, as they locate the establishments they want, they can slowly put together a personal list of their favourite and most frequented businesses. In addition, Tele-Direct will put the residential directory in their communities on CD-ROM. Thus, their personal directory can include businesses as well as names of friends and family. ``We have put a lot of effort into the design of this software to make it as user friendly as possible while providing all the information people need,'' continues Phaneuf. ``Like the printed version, in London, we will offer the Yellow Pages directory on CD-ROM free of charge to consumers. Everybody wins, consumers and advertisers alike.'' A LOOK AHEAD Today, millions of Canadians turn to the Yellow Pages directory as their first and most credible choice when seeking an establishment that offers the product or service they need. By introducing the Yellow Pages directory on CD-ROM, Tele-Direct hopes to make access to this comprehensive directory even more widespread. ``We are the definite leaders in this field, and with the introduction of the Yellow Pages directory on CD-ROM in the months and years to come, we will be offering national advertisers the possibility of brand advertising linked to point of sales advertising, thus reaching the people who are ready to buy. Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. is one of the world's largest publishers of directories. As a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE, it sells advertising, compiles, publishes and delivers the alphabetical and Yellow Pages directories for communities in Ontario and Quebec served by Bell Canada. In addition, it publishes specialized neighbourhood directories within well-defined areas of larger cities, and provides similar services for other telephone companies both within Canada and internationally. For further information: Claude Phaneuf, Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., (514) 934-2603 forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: Thu, 30 May 96 15:47:00 PDT From: macaw@ix.netcom.com (Macaw) > In Boston there is Cellular One and Nynex now there are two other cell > companies starting to put up their antennas. They are AT&T and Sprint. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When cellular phone service was being > developed in the early 1980's -- it started as of 1983 I believe -- > probably no one could ever imagine there would be a time when more > than two carriers would ever be in existence in a given community and > in most cases just one. Thus the A/B arrangement, with no real provision > for a 'C' or 'D' carrier, or whatever they might be called. Does anyone > know of any plans to open the market to a third or fourth (a 'C' or 'D' > or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do not mean just as a > reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine infrastructure for > a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? PAT] Actually, the new carriers in the area hold PCS licenses. The major technical difference in service is that they will operate on different spectrum bands (than existing cellular carriers). They are officially designated "PCS 'a' and 'b'" operators. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: mwong@mdsi.bc.ca (mwong) Subject: Ericsson 337 Banned in USA? Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 20:20:51 GMT Organization: mdsi Does anyone know if Ericsson 337 has been banned in US for too high radiation? Is it true or not? ------------------------------ From: K. Walter Subject: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed Date: 30 May 1996 22:48:47 GMT Organization: Global Access (USA), Inc. I am looking for general materials on several European CATV/telecom projects -- any suggestions on sources would be appreciated. 1. BT = (OTIAN) Optical Telecom in the Access Network. 2. Deutsche Telekom = (OPAL) Optical Access Line. 3. France Telecom = (DORA) Deploiement de l'Optique dans le Reseau d'Access 4. Italian PTT = any CATV projects. 5. Swiss PTT = any FITL projects. 6. Telefonica de Espana = PLAN FOTON and any CATV projects. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: University of Arizona Student Guards His Internet Domain Names Date: 29 May 1996 22:49:55 -0400 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Tad Cook wrote: > While Grossman ended his pursuit for trophies when claims started to > cost, others have continued to grab. David Graves, business manager > for Internic, says 364,000 domain names have already been registered, > and 10,000 are being processed weekly. Let's run the numbers, shall we? 364,000 x $50/year = $18,200,000 per year in renewals. 10,000 x $100 = $1,000,00 per week in additional revenue. Looks like running an InterNic is a very profitable decision. I guess I know where the rationale for these fees came from. Anyone know any venture-capital firms out there where I can get a couple million to start my own Internic too? > peta.com : Two groups are battling for ownership of this name -- > People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a small group called > People Eating Tasty Animals. Actually, I thought it was peta.org. Oh well. MD ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:27:29 +0200 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM List 05/30/96 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. And if you're already on the Web, take a look at my commercial site: http://www.pobox.com/~globaltel. I really would appreciate your business! (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 05-30-1996. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Australia * Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 415 7236 Austria * Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 1 79701 Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Belgium Belgacom 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4000 Mobistar Brunei 536 ?? Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Cameroon Chile * China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Guangxi PTB 460 01 Liaoning PPTA 460 ?? Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Denmark * Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 9936 7196 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 Egypt Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 * Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 7000 France France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Ghana * Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain * Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 * Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 * Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2803 8450 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland * Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 India PT SATELINDO Airtel 404 10 Int + 98 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 98 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 RPG MAA 404 41 Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 778 455 455 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 Excelcom 510 11 Iraq 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. Int + 98 2 18706341 Ireland * Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone Italy * Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Ivory Coast* Japan Jordan 416 ?? Kenya * Kuwait MTC 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 Laos 458 ?? Latvia * LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Cellis 415 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 * Mobilos Telkom 246 02 Int + 370 2 232929 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Malawi 650 ?? Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Binariang 502 12 Malta Advanced 278 ?? Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Monaco France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Mongolia * Mozambique * Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 * Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 New Caledonia * New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 * TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman 422 ?? Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Poland 260 ?? Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 * TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int + 974 325 000 Rumania 226 ?? Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow =20 NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 SaudiArabia Saudi Telecom=20 Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 Slovenia South Africa*MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 445 6001 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain * Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 07 123000 * Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 09 100909 Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan * LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 2 321 1962=20 Tanzania Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Tunisia * Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 * UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 Zaire * Zimbabwe 648 ?? Many Thanks to Kimmo Ketolainen, Robert Lindh and Alex van Es for their precious help. ------------------------------ From: Jean-Fran=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E7ois Mezei ?= Subject: Re: Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 19:04:21 GMT Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@istar.ca Ian Angus wrote: > Are Canada's telephone companies out to crush independent Internet > Service Providers? Are they engaged in a campaign to take over the > Internet and drive out all competitors? No, but they may buy out some of these ISPs to gain market share. This is what will happen in Australia with Telstra agumenting its presence in the ISP scene by buying out smaller ISPs in regions where it has no presence. In the end, you may end up with 2 large national independant ISP, the telcos, the cable companies and a couple of small ISPs who resist the tide of the big guys. In the case of Australia, this is even more imminent since the cable industry has just started and they are starting off with bi-directional cable plants whereas in North America, cable companies are stuck with older uni-directional plants for the most part. > Telecom Canada. In March 1992, Telecom Canada reorganized, and changed > its name to Stentor. That was more than a name change. I beleive that with Stentor, telcos's votes are weighted instead of being equal. This gives Bell a greater control of the orgaisation from what I was told. > THE NET >> "Bell Canada even tried to claim 'The Net' as its >> registered trademark. They prepared to sue Canadian >> ISPs who used 'The Net' in their advertising. But >> the trademark was challenged by small ISPs and Bell >> backed down. Instead, they called their service >> 'Sympatico.'" I beleive that Bell/Stentor (either directly or through their Mediatel division/entity) wanted to designate their Envoy 100 and Inet services on which are based their e-mail and EDI services as "THE NET" which, at the time, were not even connected to the real NET (the internet). I know that I saw some ads for some of their ENVOY and EDI services with the use of "THE NET" and I thought it was silly because it was pretentious for Bell/Stentor to think that their services were important enough to be considered *THE* net. At that time, even Bell Canada was confused about who was actually providing these services. Invoices were partly by Telecom Canada, partly by Stentor and partly by Bell Canada, and when you called for support, it was a company called Mediatel that answered the phone. (All of which were either the telco association (Telecom Canada or Stentor) or subsidiaries of Bell Canada. Since the "NET" is now an obvious reference to the Internet and since Bell's services which were encompassed in "THE NET" had nothing to do with the Internet (althought Envoy now has a connection to the internet), it was only normal that Bell/Stentor stop using that designation. > Not so. Bell Canada filed its trademark claim in 1992, before the term > "The Net" was widely used as a synonym for the Internet. May have been unknown to the Bell folks and the general public, but back in 1992, the internet was already being refered to as "the net" inside the information systems industry. As a customer of ENVOY, by the time I saw "The NET" in advertising, the Internet was already very public. I have never seen "the NET" in invoices sent to me. The service is still called ENVOY 100. I considered "THE NET" as yet more vapourware. > And so far as I am aware, there was never any plan to use The Net as a > name for Bell's Internet access service. I agree, but that is because Bell, until last year, still thought that the term "Information Super Highway" meant 500 TV channels and that the general public would not be interested in having a computer at home and never expected the Internet would grow out of its community. > So any ISP which was "sent scrambling" by Sympatico's rates was > probably in pretty bad shape to begin with. I beleive that small ISPs must still fear Bell/Stentor's very powerful marketing/advertising locomotives even if Bell's rates are not the best. Bell can push its way into the market with a massive advertising campaign that small ISPs could not match. If not, they will end up buying their way into the market by buying the smaller ISPs. And ISPs are aware of this, this is why they are NOW advertising before BELL gets its act together and launches its locomotive that will crush other advertising. The bigger the customer base an ISP now has, the more chances of survival it has and/or the more attractive it will be to a potential buy-out by one of the big guys. > ** Most small and medium-sized ISPs in Bell Canada's > territory use low-priced Centrex telephone lines for > customer access. In November, Bell informed them that > this use was contrary to regulations, and that they > should be using higher priced Information System > Access Lines. (ISALs) Interesting. When I called Bell in Montr=E9al for a quote for a similar setup (for a private network, not internet) the solution given was Centrex and no mention was made of ISALs). > And how can we square this story of monopoly power and market > dominance with the fact that the fearsome Sympatico service is still > an also-ran in the fight for market leadership, with fewer customers > than iSTN, HookUp, ID Internet Direct, CyberSurf, Internet Canada, and > others? If Bell does it right and provides state of the art access points and does not underestimate the intelligence of its customers (in other words, if Bell has learned from its Alex experience) and IF Bell puts its advertising power to work, it might becomes a very fiercesome force in the ISP market in Canada. Cogeco has already begun ISP services over cable in Quebec, and Videotron will begin its equivalent service in a few weeks. If Bell cannot keep up, its current dominance in the telecommunications industry will be eroded as fast as the cable companies can convert their network to bi-directional. Bell's services such as Datapac and Envoy just have not kept up and their rate structures still discourage private use. The large guys always seem to take longer to wake up to technological advances in the public. IBM was an "also ran" when it introduced its PC, well after APPLE and Commodore had their consumer products out. Microsoft was late in its entry in the software industry compared to companies/products such as Visicalc. But in the end, these guys used their marketing force to win their way to marklet dominance rather quickly. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Taking Care of Health Matters Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:45:00 EDT Just a note to let everyone know I have to go back to the doctor for a bit more testing and treatment. It'll only be a day or two and I should be back here Monday or Tuesday at latest in case you don't see anything here for a few days and actually miss me! :) May I suggest you hold off on sending in submissions to the Digest at least until Monday, June 3 or Tuesday, June 4 since there is still plenty of backlogged stuff to get out when I am back at my post. Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #257 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 30 22:34:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA03021; Thu, 30 May 1996 22:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 22:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605310234.WAA03021@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #258 TELECOM Digest Thu, 30 May 96 22:34:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 800/888 and COCOTS (Van Heffner) Re: 800/888 and COCOTS (Dave Levenson) Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (J Rhodes) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Henry Baker) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Dave Levenson) Re: Graybar Electric (Stan Schwartz) Re: Great Circle Mileage Equations (John Mayson) Re: Bell Atlantic Proposes 412 Overlay (Daniel Greenfield) Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Dave Close) Satellite Phone on Mt. Everest (A.E. Siegman) I'll be away about three days with the doctor; look for more here about Tuesday! Please order a CD ROM of the Archives today! PAT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:31:39 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: 800/888 and COCOTS > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not let something as silly as > that stop me from visiting Texas, which is a wonderful place with some > very fine people. The theory behind charging for calls to 800/888 from > a COCOT is that the COCOT owner has no way to be compensated for the > call otherwise, and it is felt he is entitled to compensation on all > calls, the same as any telco. Like any other long distance call, part > of the charge (usually collected from the recipient in the case of > 'toll free' calls) goes back to the originating telco. In other words, > the revenue from those calls is divided among the carriers involved > the same as on regular long distance calls. On regular long distance > calls, the COCOT operator has you put the money in the box, therefore > he gets his portion after paying the telco whose line he is on. In > the case of 800/888, there is no money to put in the box, but he still > wants his portion. A point could be made perhaps that telco should be > required to pay commissions on long distance traffic handled by COCOTs > which would take care of that problem, but that is not how it is done > at this time. That is why the COCOT user has to pay. PAT] My big problem with this is that the fee effectively puts a $.25 surcharge on each of my calling card calls. Most LD carriers now have 800 access numbers to use their calling cards. Part of the convenience of having a calling card is not having to carry around a bunch of loose change. That's no longer possible in Texas. The only way to make a "changeless" call from these phones will now be the LEC's prepaid "smart cards". What a great way to promote the use of their own (overpriced) cards ... place a $.25 surcharge on other company's calling card calls! I guess that if you don't have a "smart card", you will need to use their AOSlime to make a call (without change). This puts LD (card) competitors (and consumers) at a real disadvantage. Keep in mind that the LEC's (SW Bell and GTE) are already making money on other company's calling card calls by charging access fees to the carrier. This $.25 fee just adds insult to injury for those wishing to use a competitor's services. After all, it's not like you can "shop around" for other payphones, in most locations. It was GTE and SW Bell who pushed for these new fees, NOT so much the COCOT's (they have far less phones there anyway). This is one case where the LEC payphone operators are being even greedier than the COCOT's! The two above LEC's threatened to pull many of their public payphones out of a huge number of installations in Texas, unless this legislation was passed. Part of the reason for passing the legislation was the fact that the state felt that it would be very inconvenient (and perhaps even a threat to public safety) to let the two companies remove their payphones from many rural (many nonprofitable) locations throughout the state. IOW, the state more or less had the thing shoved down their throats. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 800/888 and COCOTS Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:22:18 GMT Mike Seebeck (seebeck@lace.colorado.edu) writes: > It is a poor solution to a payphone company wanting to collect revenue > to require users of 800 calling cards to carry change with them in > order to use their calling cards. I travel often and use real money > as little as possible (it is soooo messy). I do not care to carry a > role of quarters so I can use my calling card from airports. I agree completely. I believe that help is on the way. One tiny article within the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 states that payphone operators should be compensated for the use of their equipment. The FCC is required by the act to impose regulations to effect this compensation. The FCC is moving toward requiring the carrier (who bills the called party for an 800 call) to share the revenue in some way with the owner of the payphone from which the call originated. This is likely to happen around the end of 1996. The state of Texas, in trying to accomplish the same thing before the Act was passed, and unable to exert its influence over 800 service providers outside of Texas, permitted payphone operators in the state to collect a per-call `set-use fee' in coin. When the public phone compensation part of the Act takes effect, it is likely that Texas will no-longer permit the per-call coin deposit on 800 and 888 calls. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Date: 30 May 1996 14:46:01 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I'll venture a guess. The calling party number must be delivered for the *69 call back CLASS feature to work. Some XXX carriers have been given a waiver from FCC Docket 91-281 which requires long distance carriers to pass the CPN when received. The FCC order became official on December 1, 1995 but some long distance carriers' switches (not AT&T) were unable to comply. The waiver is up on June 1, 1996. Maybe the XXX carrier has finally got switch software to pass the CPN! When you dial 10XXX for intra-LATA, the call goes out to a long distance carrier and loops back to the LEC to complete the call within the LATA. When *69 returns the call,the long distance carrier is not involved. Another guess is that the carrier has upgraded to SS7 signaling to the LEC and previously used Feature Group D (FGD) signaling which passes ANI, not CPN. Incidentally, there is another CLASS feature to connect a call to a busy line when the line becomes unbusy. Global Title Translation of your received CPN allows the LEC to contact your switch to retry the call when the called line is unbusy (your switch first calls you, you answer and then the call is placed). I wonder if this will work when you first dial 10XXX? I think *67 before the 10XXX will prevent a callback by *69. Your calling number is still delivered to the called switch, it won't be available for display (a court order can obtain it, though, when the called party dials *56 immediately after the call), but the LEC would have to show the number dialed on the customer's invoice which would defeat the privacy of *67. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 04:53:06 GMT In article , hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote: > This kind of attitude will hurt the consumer. Despite massive > protest when the nuke plant was built, today its power is very much > needed in hot summers for air conditioning (and PCs, faxes, etc.) Had > that plant not been built, we'd have power shortages. (Some regions > face that on bad summer days.) The company would not have built the > plant, or not as big a plant if it felt the venture was too risky. As > a regulated monopoly, the power company had reduced risk. > Another benefit of regulation is lower rates. Because a service > territory is guaranteed, the government dictates a low rate of return. > Nobody gets rich on utility stocks. Further, the government dictates > service standards. > I'm a small potatoes consumer. Who's looking out for me? The > utility companies don't really want my $25/month account -- they're > looking to widen their territories and grab big industrial users. The > so-called "consumer advocates" on PUCs care only about the very poor > users, not the middle class. Boy, have you been taken in by the well-oiled utility PR folks! For an historical perspective, you might look at: Nye, David E. "Electrifying America". MIT Press, 1990, ISBN 0-262-64030-9. Electrical power plants were originally built and paid for by industrial users. Then they noticed that they had all this expensive capital equipment sitting idle _during the evening after the workers went home and the plants were idle_, so they began offering electrical power to consumers at _extremely attractive rates_ -- in some cases _flat_ rates! In other words, for X dollars per month, they would hook you up and you could use as much electricity _as you could get through your circuit breaker_. So long as your subscription fee paid for the capital costs of the wires/pipes/etc. and maintenance, the power plant was way ahead of the game. The city utility plants, on the other hand, were typically built for street lighting, and therefore could not offer low rates to consumers since they needed the electricity themselves at the same time. Oh, by the way, many cities had three or more power companies, and they began to compete with one another. So you can now guess what havoc was then wreaked by 'regulation'. Technical progress sloowweedd wwaayy dddooowwwnnn, because slow depreciation made investments in new technology impossible, and cheap rates were replaced by 'rational' (but much higher) rates. Although no one was making 'obscene' profits, everyone was being screwed by the lack of any technical progress in the industry. So the law of unintended consequences (the one law that politicians can't understand) guaranteed that costs and prices would remain high because no one had any incentive to lower them. Obscene profits in a highly competitive industry have a tendency to be relatively short-lived, unless the profiteer is extraordinarily nimble, and is working as hard or harder than others to bring costs down. In this case, he is doing as much for you as he is for himself, and you should thank him profusely for improving your productivity for you, rather than begrudging him rewards for a job well done. So you as a consumer have much more to gain from utility competition than big industrial customers, who already have the option of building their own power plants. www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:38:57 GMT Lisa (hancock4@cpcn.com) writes: > When the phone company broke, what consumer expected higher prices > for COCOT phones and long distance? Long distance is far less expensive today than it was pre-competition. Many COCOT phones charge less than utility-owned payphones (even though the utility-owned payphones are subsidized by ratepayers). While competition is not the answer to every problem, it does offer us alternatives. If we make informed decisions, we benefit. What we lose with competition is subsidies. (If one group of customers subsidizes another, a competitor will offer the customers who pay the subsidy an opportunity to avoid paying it.) If you have been paying these subsidies, you benefit. If you have been receiving them, perhaps you don't ... but ask yourself why you deserved to be subsidized in the first place! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:36:53 EDT From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: Graybar Electric In Mark J. Cuccia's very informative article in TD #234 "WUTCO, WECO, Graybar", there was some doubt as to the current existence of Graybar. Fear not, as I stumbled upon a booth that they had set up at the ITEC Expo in Charlotte, NC last week. I asked the reps there if they were the "same" Graybar, and sure enough they are. I don't know how many offices they still have in the states, but a packet of info that they mailed to me had the logo "Everything Electrical - Graybar Electric Company - Since 1869" on the mailing label. They still have catalogs (which are on their way), and their address here is: Graybar Electric Company, Inc. 1451 Bryant Street Charlotte, NC 28208 (704) 375-9831 Once I get the catalog(s), if there's a toll-free number and/or e-mail address, I'll post it. Stan (stan@vnet.net) ------------------------------ From: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Re: Great Circle Mileage Equations Date: Thu, 30 May 96 12:30:18 EDT I derived this formula to calculate great circle mileage equations. I don't know if this is the best way to do it, but it works. Define NORTH latitudes as POSITIVE, SOUTH latitudes as NEGATIVE. Define EAST longitudes as POSITIVE, WEST longitudes as NEGATIVE. Convert the coordinates of both points to Cartesian. x=RHO * sin(PHI) * cos(THETA) y=RHO * sin(PHI) * sin(THETA) z=RHO * cos(THETA) However note that PHI is defined as being 0 degrees at the North Pole and 180 and the South Pole. It is necessary to let PHI=(90 - LON). THETA simply equals LAT. RHO is the radius of the earth. Assume the circumference is 25,000 miles. Divide by 2*PI to get RHO. So we now have these equations: x=RHO * sin(90 - LON) * cos(LAT) y=RHO * sin(90 - LON) * sin(LAT) z=RHO * cos(LAT) To find the linear distance between the two points use: d = SQRT[ (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 + (z2-z1)^2 ] This is the distance if you're a groundhog and care to burrow through the earth. However you can easily calculate the arc length from this. 2*RHO*arccos[d/(2*RHO)] where arccos is in RADIANS!! Also note you can factor RHO out of the equation for d. I'll call this d'. In that case your equation is simply: 2*RHO*arccos(d'/2) Now here's my question for you. How would I find the azimuth (direction) of one point on earth wrt to another? John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 96 13:03 EST From: Daniel Greenfield <0007129704@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Proposes 412 Overlay Continuing the discussion raised by John Cropper's submissions on Bell Atlantic Proposes 412 Overlay in Vol 16, Issue 240 -- This may be of interest to your readers. A coalition of telecommuncations service providers and Pittsburgh region-based independent telephone companies issued the following in reponse to the 412 area code exhaust issue. Dan Greenfield MCI 712-9704@mcimail.com COALITION FORMS TO SUPPORT GEOGRAPHIC SPLIT FOR NEW AREA CODE IN PITTSBURGH Pittsburgh, Pa., May 10,1996 - Five of Pennsylvania's largest communications companies today announced they have formed a coalition to support the geographic split as the most proconsumer and procompetitive method of implementing new area codes for the Pittsburgh area. The coalition asserts that Bell Atlantic's plan, which overlays the new code in the existing 412 area, is anticompetitive and would force consumers and businesses to dial 10 digits for every call they place, , including local calls. The "Pennsylvania Coalition for Area Code Relief," comprised of AT&T, MCI, MFS Communications Co., Inc., Sprint and Teleport Communications Group, supports a geographic area code split plan in which part of the Pittsburgh region would keep the 412 area code and part would adopt a "new" area code. The new code is necessary because growth in the use of fax machines, computer modems, cellular phones, pagers and the use of second (or third) telephone lines in many households is rapidly depleting the available pool of telephone numbers. As a result, the Pittsburgh region faces the prospect that phone number reserves in the 412 area code will be exhausted next year. The coalition supports the geographic split because it minimizes customer confusion, minimizes inconvenience, maintains a community's identity with a specific area code and helps promote the development of telecommunications competition. It also enables the majority of residents to continue dialing seven digits for their local calls. "If Bell Atlantic has its way, neighbors will have different area codes, and, in cases where consumers add fax or additional telephone lines, there would be two different area codes in the same house," said Joe Karas, AT&T president in Pennsylvania. "In addition, consumers would have to dial the full 10 digits for all their local calls. You shouldn't have to dial extra digits to place a local call -- or dial a different area code to call your teenager down for dinner," he said. "It's obvious that Bell Atlantic's approach is not consumer friendly." Chip Casteel, MCI regional executive of public policy, agrees. "The coalition is sending a wake-up call to Pittsburgh consumers -- Bell Atlantic's proposal would confuse consumers and delay the benefits of local telephone competition in Pennsylvania," he said. "The traditional geographic split has been used almost universally for nearly 50 years to solve area code exhaust. In fact, California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Missouri and Illinois recently favored a split, determining it to be in line with the development of competition and better for consumers." The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is currently receiving comments on this issue and will soon consider the best way to implement the new Pittsburgh region area code. ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Date: 30 May 1996 06:56:40 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) writes: > Well, in New York, all intra-NPA calls are dialed as seven digits. > There were all sorts of complaints about having to do this. Folks > would have prefered to dial "1+" 7 digits so they would understand > that they were placing a toll call. Calling a particular number may be a toll call if placed over one network and not a toll call if placed over a different network. It may be a toll call if placed from a phone with one class of service (business, say) and not a toll call if placed from a phone with a different class of service (residence, say, or coin). It may be a toll call if placed from a line with measured service or "life-line" service and not a toll call if placed from a line with unmeasured service. A call which involves an additional charge may still not be a toll call if the carrier chooses to name it a "message unit" call. A call placed with 10XXX access may be charged a toll when the same call placed without the prefix would not be so charged, even if the default carrier is the same as the 10XXX carrier. The above are only some of the variables which exist today. In the near future, we will have other variables to contend with, including caller-pays PCS or cellular service. Those who dream of 1+ being required to place a "toll" call are only dreaming. The technical effort to evaluate all the variables in real-time would be uneconomic. But the consumer backlash may have the desirable effect to inducing carriers to offer more flat-rate service. Competition may push in the same direction. Just as there are COCOTs today with flat-rate nationwide calling (usually at 25c/min), I expect one of the cable companies will offer nationwide unlimited calling for a fixed monthly rate within three years. I only hope the rate will be attractive. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Satellite Phone on Mt. Everest Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:43:00 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Surely one of the more bizarre and thought-provoking telecom stories during the past month must have been the climber trapped a few thousand feet below the summit of Everest by a suddenly emerging storm, telephoning his seven-months pregnant wife from his emergency snow cave via satellite phone to tell her he's OK and will soon be rescued, despite having no tent, minimal supplies, unable to move further because of frostbite in his legs, and with absolutely zero hope of rescue. One thinks on the one hand of trapped polar explorers of the past, leaving behind diaries with entries written as they and their comrades slowly die of cold or starvation, with these diaries to be found in some cases not until decades later. And on the other hand, despite the grim reality of the situation one can't help having visions of dialogs like, "I have a collect call for anyone from Annapurna; will you accept the charges?"; "Anna WHO..?". ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #258 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 3 18:45:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA01824; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:45:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606032245.SAA01824@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #259 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Jun 96 18:45:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Arrogant Internet Providers (Tad Cook) Telecom and Disability Conference (Jim Tobias) Intelligent Networks For Mobile Users? (Eric Tholome) Excel Goes Head to Head With Sprint - Offers .09/min (Tom Zinn) Digital Communications Action Group (Monty Solomon) Help with Draconian Contract (Romesh C.D. Singh@spider) UNIX DTMF-Decoding "Voicemail" Software? (Jeremy Elson) "Historic Telephony" Webpage (Mark J. Cuccia) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Arrogant Internet Providers Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:17:49 GMT Arrogant Internet providers tell customers to get lost By Peter H. Lewis {New York Times} In Moscow, desperate people must sometimes wait years, or pay exorbitant bribes, to get telephone service that is expensive and unreliable. By those standards, Internet access in the United States is pretty good. But recent events and trends in the on-line access business have led some Internet customers to reassess their service providers and begin shopping around for new homes in cyberspace. Many people, perhaps most, are happy with their Internet service. Many others are not. The complaints often arise from general overcrowding on the Internet and the World Wide Web, but they also come from what seems to be a new arrogance on the part of Internet access providers who only a year or two ago were begging for customers. For example, Netcom On-Line Communications Inc. of San Jose has informed some of its customers that they are no longer wanted. Sophisticated users are being shown the door. "Frankly, it's not profitable to service your account anymore," a technical support representative told me. It seems the company regrets that it offered me a so-called Unix shell account several years ago and now wishes me to cancel it and sign up for the more profitable (to them) Netcruiser service. To drive the point home, the Netcom technician informed me that the company no longer accepts telephone calls from shell account customers who need technical support. Rather, all questions have to be submitted by electronic mail. When I explained that my problem involved Netcom's locking my electronic mail account, the technician was unmoved. "You'll have to send us e-mail," he said. So I did as I was told. A month later, I got a response that had nothing to do with my shell account. The average response time for this electronic support is measured in weeks, which makes the 20-minute hold times for telephone support seem like a fond memory. Meanwhile, at the other end of the country and of the Internet service spectrum, the Internet service Pipeline in New York City recently announced that it was no longer interested in serving Internet beginners. Internet newcomers require too much hand-holding and technical assistance, it seems, making them more trouble than they are worth. According to William L. Schrader, chief executive of Psinet Inc., the national Internet service company that bought Pipeline more than a year ago, the company's new strategy is to let AT&T, America Online Inc. and other larger companies recruit and train the beginners. Then, once these on-line ragamuffins are properly schooled and polished, Pipeline will be happy to have them back, at higher fees. "We will build a billion-dollar business from AT&T's crumbs," Schrader said, borrowing an image from the novel "Bonfire of the Vanities." Mysterious swelling And then there is the IDT Corp. of Hackensack, N.J., which is one of the nation's fastest-growing Internet service companies. IDT, whose advertisements are inescapable in some parts of the country, used to offer "unlimited and "uncensored" Internet and World Wide Web access for $15 a month. That would be quite a bargain, many former customers say, except that it was often impossible to get connected to the Internet through IDT because of incessant busy signals, and that the software provided by IDT did not allow Web access and that the expected $15 bill often mysteriously swelled. IDT officials say the critics are being unfair, and that any misunderstandings about service and billing have been rectified. Long-term commitment Internet customers, whether novices or sophisticates, ought to keep these unsettling situations in mind when shopping for a service provider. It pays to do a lot of homework before choosing a provider, because changing services, which means changing e-mail addresses, business cards and the like, is far more annoying and expensive than signing up in the first place. As always, the best resource for anyone looking for a reliable Internet connection is a friend who already has service. Beyond the obvious questions about price, ask the friend: Are busy signals ever a problem? Is telephone support readily available at convenient times? Is the help desk helpful when there are problems? One can ask the same questions of the provider, of course, but candid answers are less likely. No response My search for a new provider has been unsettling. To get a list of providers in my area code, I visited The List on the World Wide Web (address: http:// www. thelist.com) and started calling. (For beginners, the search will probably start with the Yellow Pages or advertisements in newspapers and magazines.) If the office phones are representative of the modem lines, I reasoned, my first calls would be a gauge of future service. Of the six local providers I dialed, not one answered the phone directly. Some lines were constantly busy. Others were answered by answering machines. Only one provider called back by the end of the day. My friends in Moscow write that the telephone service there is slowly getting better. I am not sure I can say the same about Internet access here. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I will tell you one *excellent* source here in the Chicago area: RIPCO Communications. Their dialup for information online is 312-665-0065. They charge me $35 for three months of unlimited shell access. Bruce and his associate Dave Richards have always been prompt to respond to my concerns and wishes. There is also a voice number which unfortunatly is answered a great deal of the time by a machine at least during the day, but that may be because the guys have to work elsewhere or have other places to be much of the time which would be understandable if it is the case. I've been by their site which is centrally located on the north side of Chicago at Western and Belmont Avenues. They have a *large* number of dialups (about a hundred) so I have never gotten a busy signal when dialing in. I'd recommend them to Chicago/north suburban users. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Tobias Subject: Telecom and Disability Conference Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 14:05:11 -0400 Organization: Inclusive Technologies Reply-To: tobias@inclusive.com INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ARE ENTERING A NEW ERA... ... SO SHOULD YOU! INFORAMPS 96 New Markets and Inclusive Communications A National Conference on Designing and Using an Accessible Information Infrastructure July 11 & 12, 1996 Kellogg Conference Center Gallaudet University, Washington, DC *Get an edge on the future!* Hear industry leaders describe how user-friendly universal design of telecommunications technology gives them a competitive advantage. *Do Business Inclusively!* Learn how to increase your potential market size by opening up your products and business practices to new users. *Create better products and services for everyone!* Designing information technology, products and services that can be used by people with disabilities results in innovations that help everyone! *INFORAMPS 96* Will celebrate the work and knowledge already gained regarding the design of a user-friendly electronic environment; recognize pioneering efforts within the industry; showcase exhibits of new developments and breakthroughs; bring together professionals and consumers with common interests; and add to the growing momentum toward universal design. *Interactive Virtual Conference* A parallel, virtual conference will be accessible from any home or office computer for participants who are unable to come to the site at Gallaudet University. Join INFORAMPS 96 via audio conference, download real-time transcripts and ask questions and give comments via fax and E-mail. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AGENDA July 11, 1996 9:00 - 9:15 Welcoming Remarks *I. King Jordan, President, Gallaudet University *Deborah Kaplan, Issue Dynamics, Inc. 9:15 - 10:00 Keynote Address *Vice President Al Gore (Invited) 10:00 - 10:30 Technology Demonstration *John Gage, Chief Scientist, Sun Microsystems 10:30 - 12:00 Roundtable Discussion: Creating a New Paradigm of Universal Design Within the Industry *Moderator, Steven Miller, Author, Civilizing Cyberspace *Esther Dyson, EDventure Holdings, Electronic Frontier Foundation *Tom Wheeler, Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association 12:00 - 2:00 Luncheon and Exhibits 2:00 - 2:30 Technology Demonstrations and Remarks about the Value of Universal Design to the Disability Community *Moderator, George Covington 3:45 - 5:00 Roundtable Discussion: Universal Design: Markets or Mandates/What are the Incentives? *Larry Roffee, Access Board *Karen Krueger, Motion Picture Association of America 5:00 - 6:30 Evening Reception and tour of INFORAMPS 96 exhibits *remarks from Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration July 12, 1996 9:30 - 5:00 CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS - July 12 Choose from four tracks focusing on specific case studies: POLICY *The Telecommunications Act of 1996 *PCS Summit Process - Solving Hearing Aid Incompatibility and Interference Problems TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT *Accessible Information Kiosks *Multimedia and World Wide Web Access PUBLIC SECTOR *Texas Electronic Textbook Accessibility *State Purchasing Strategies: Incorporating Accessibility into Contracts BUSINESS PRACTICES (For information industry representatives only) *Market Research and Analysis: Demographics, Research Tools *Operational Issues: Customer Service, Dealer/Supplier Relations *CONFERENCE REGISTRATION* (Lodging Deadline June 17) Please return the following information to: INFORAMPS 96 World Institute on Disability 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94612-1500 Name: Organization/Affiliation: Address: City: State: ZIP: Phone (voice): (TTY): FAX: E-mail: One Day Attendance fee (circle one): Non-Profit/Government @ $75.00 Foundations/Corporations @ $150.00 or Two Day Attendance fee (circle one): Non-Profit/Government @ $125.00 Foundations/Corporations @ $275.00 (Make checks payable to the World Institute on Disability) Please circle which workshop track you will attend on July 12: Policy Technical/R&D Public Sector Business* *For information industry representatives only Virtual Conference Registration @ $75.00 (circle if desired) Please indicate any accommodations you need to participate in the conference (circle any which apply) ASL interpreter CART (Computer Assisted Real Time) Sighted Guide Assistive listening device Other (specify) In what format would you like to receive INFORAMPS 96 materials? Regular print Braille Computer disk (specify) LODGING: Fully Accessible rooms are available at Kellogg Conference Center on first come, first served basis at a cost of $99/night (single). Reserve by June 17 by calling (202) 651- 6002. Reference INFORAMPS 96. For those wishing to stay off campus, non-wheelchair accessible rooms are available at the Bellevue Hotel, near Union Station, (202) 638-0900. CONFERENCE SPONSORS *American Express Foundation *AT&T Foundation *Bellcore *Citibank *The Dole Foundation for Employment of People with Disabilities *Florida Endowment Foundation for Vocational Rehabilitation *NEC Foundation of America *NYNEX *The JM Foundation *The David and Lucile Packard Foundation CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS *World Institute on Disability *CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media *Trace Research & Development Center, University of Wisconsin *Alliance for Public Technology *Information and Technology Accessibility Advisory Group *Inclusive Technologies For further information on INFORAMPS 96 please contact Clay Carter at the World Institute on Disability: Phone (Voice or TTY) 510-763-4100 FAX 510-763-4109 E-mail: clay@wid.org Jim Tobias Inclusive Technologies tobias@inclusive.com 908.441.0831 v/tty 908.441.0832 fax ------------------------------ From: tholome@francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Intelligent Networks For Mobile Users? Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:58:27 +0200 Hi all, I am currently doing some research on the subject of Intelligent Networks applied to mobile networks. More specifically, I am looking for data concerning either existing IN services (what type of service, how much it costs, how popular it is, etc.) or projected use in the mobile environment. If you are aware of any report on the subject (ideally a study by an independent consulting company) or know of existing services, I would appreciate if you could let me know, preferably by email, and I will summarize if other people show some interest. Thanks in advance, Eric Tholome private account 23, avenue du Centre tholome@francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 16:50:43 EST From: Tom Zinn Subject: Excel Goes Head to Head With Sprint - Offers .09/min Excel Telecommunications, Inc (ECI - NYSE) has announced that as of June 1st it will offer .09 cents per minute on calls to anyone in the lower 48 and Hawaii. The rate is offered from 7 pm to 7 am and weekends. Existing Excel customers can get the service by calling 1-800-4EXCEL-9. For more information about Excel discount Long Distance and Pager Service contact Tom Zinn at ExcelTZ@aol.com Tom Zinn 703-352-5290 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 04:36:32 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Communications Action Group Reply-To: monty@roscom.com Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:52:50 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Digital Communications Action Group There is an interest in forming a focused advocacy group, perhaps named the Digital Communications Action Group (DCAG), which would participate in state PUC proceedings and FCC proceedings, focusing on three issues: 1. Pricing of BRI ISDN service. (Seeking lower rates in markets where the LEC does not face competition). 2. Rules for interconnection and unbundling, focusing on rules that will make it easier for new entrants to lease the local loop to provide new digital services, such as ISDN, ASDL, HDSL, etc... 3. Reform of long distance network access fee structure, with a special effort to prevent the incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) from imposing per minute fees or other usage charges on Internet Service Providers. The membership of the DCAG would include technology firms (ISPs, software and computer hardware manufactures), content providers (newspapers, database companies), non-profits (consumer, library and education groups) and others. Right now I need to know the names of firms or groups that would be interested in participating. I'm not too concerned about funding, at this point, but mostly about who may be willing to allow their company or organization to be publicly identified with advocacy on these issues. On this score, its worth noting that several large fortune 500 firms have been lobbied against active participation on these issues by LECs (certainly by PacBell, Bell Atlantic and US West, for example). I would like to hear from persons who might be interested in this effort. Please contact me directly: James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ------------------------------ From: Romesh.C.D.Singh@spider.rmplc.co.uk Subject: Help With Draconian Contract Date: 3 Jun 1996 22:09:15 GMT Organization: TRD Inc. Reply-To: rsingh@rmplc.co.uk I am looking for some help in the interpretation of a Licence agreement signed by the previous Government of a less developed country and a Public Company for the sale of that country's telephone network. I am interested in providing voice /data communications, Internet and payphone services throughout the country. How can I provide these services without getting into legal battles with the new owners. Is there some different interpretation of the proposed services so that it doesnt breach the agreement? What about providing these services for members of a cooperative society, or company providing services to private customers? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Romesh LICENCE AGREEMENT The Government covenants and undertakes as follows- LICENCES-The Government will grant subject to the provisions of this agreement,to XXX Company licences under the Post and Telegraph Act of the laws of YY Country,or any legislation enacted to replace it,to carry on,operations to provide the following services: (a) Public telephones,radio telephones (except private radio telephones systems which do not interconnect with XX Company network) and paystation telephone services,national and international voice and data transmission; (b) Sale of advertising in any directories of telephone subscribers; (c) Switched or non switched private line service supported by facilities constructed over public rights of way; (d) Terminal and customer premises equipment; (e) Telefax,telex and telegraph services and telefax network services, excluding the following operations: (i) sales of telefax or teleprinter machines; (ii) maintenance of telefax or teleprinter equipment; and (iii) operation of any facility for sending and receiving of telefax- copies or teleprinter messages, and (f) cellular radio telephones service. TERMS OF LICENCES - The licence granted to XXXCompany in respect of services referred to in sub paragraphs(a),(b) and (c) of SectionXX will be exclusive licence for a period of twenty years and shall be renewable at the option of XXX Company for a further period of twenty years. During that period of the exclusive licence, no other company, nor government, shall provide any services to which the licence relates. The licence granted to XXX Company with respect to the services referred to in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section .. shall be exclusive for a period of ten years,and shall be renewable at the options of XXX Company on a non exclusive basis. Cellular Radio Telephone Licence - The Government shall Grant to XXX Company a non exclusive licence to provide cellular radio telephone services anywhere within the country The licence shall be for a period of twenty years and shall be renewable at the option of XXX Company for a further period of twenty years. ------------------------------ From: jelson@condor.cs.jhu.edu (Jeremy Elson) Subject: UNIX DTMF-Decoding "Voicemail" Software? Date: 3 Jun 1996 15:08:07 -0400 Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department Hi, I am interested in setting up an interactive telephone service which will allow customers to get information on my company and, more importantly, check on the status of their orders by dialing their account number on a touch-tone phone. This will be similar to the system that credit-card companies have for checking on your account. In other words, I want to be able to do something like this: "Hello, Welcome to Acme Widgets. Press 1 for general information. Press 2 to check on the status of an existing order. Press 3 to.." <2> "Please dial your 5-digit account number now." <1-4-2-4-2> "Please wait while we check on the status of your order..." "Your order was shipped on February Twenty Three." Now, my major constraint is that I have relatively little money to spend on this system (say, $500 or so). I've found a number of consultants who would be more than happy to sell me a system to do this but they are far out of my price range. I currently have a UNIX system which will have a database (updated in realtime) with the status of all orders. This voicemail should be able to run side-by-side in the same system. So, I have two questions. First, what kind of hardware do I need to put in my UNIX box (a PC running Linux) to get this to work? And, second, what I'd like to find is if there are any public domain (freeware, GPL, or whatever) software packages that will let me do this, or even software libraries that will let me write my own software to do this under UNIX. Am I going to be able to do this "on the cheap" or do I have to spend big bucks to get this to work? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Jeremy Elson :: jelson@jhu.edu :: N3UUO :: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jelson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:38:41 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: "Historic Telephony" Webpage Pat: I found an *EXCELLENT* webpage regarding historical aspects of telephony, http://www.cybercomm.net/~chuck/phones.html produced by Chuck Eby (chuck@cybercomm.net). There are links to the Antique Telephone Collector's Association, the Museum of Independent Telephony, various telecom websites which have historical pages, various associations and individuals which have websites which have telecom history, etc. Chuck also has a growing list of 'sub' directory pages which have photos of old WECO/NECO equipment and a description of these old phones. There are also links to webpages of other collectors and dealers in antique telephones. This (IMO) is probably the BEST *webpage* which tries to collect and consolidate telecom history, as a webpage. Of course, Pat has the best *newsgroup* and *ftp archive site* regarding all aspects of telephony, present and future, as well as historical! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #259 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 3 20:47:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA11850; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:47:57 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606040047.UAA11850@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #260 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Jun 96 19:04:06 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More on Trinidad's 868 NPA (Mark J. Cuccia) Northern Telecom "Services" Menu (Paul Cook) Northern Electric - as Was (Steve Hayes) Nevada Attorney General Investigates Excel (Tad Cook) What Does A/B Carrier Mean? (Alexander Cerna) BellSouth Ordered to Provide Wholesale Margin (Clifford D. McGlamry) Telco Leveling Laws Can't Crumble Central Office (Jorene Downs) Positions Available: Cambridge, MA (Bruce A. Pennypacker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 12:57:12 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: More on Trinidad's 868 NPA Well, for some weeks now, Bellcore NANPA *has* publically/officially identified (via its webpage, http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html) that Trinidad and Tobago is to have 868 as its new NPA code, to split from 809, as every NANP Caribbean location is eventually to have its own NPA code (area code). However, the dates, test numbers, trouble contact numbers were 'to-be-determined'. Update as of 31 May 1996, Bellcore has now mentioned 264 for Anguilla on its webpage. And they have announced the dates, test numbers and trouble contact numbers for 868 Trinidad. Trinidad begins using 868 (or 809 as permissive dialing) on 1 June 1997, one year from now. Last date of 809 as permissive is 31 May 1998 (new 868 *MUST* be used after that date) -- TWO years from now. The test number for 868 Trinidad and Tobago will be 868-809-8378. (TEST) Trouble contact numbers for Trinidad and Tobago are to be: 809-625-3202 (Tel) 809-627-0859 (Fax) And here is my latest recompilation of the NANP Caribbean: NANP Caribbean recompilation (as of Saturday 1 June 1996) N Begin Begin O New PERMISSIVE MANDATORY T NPA Location Dialing Dialing E S (BHA) 242 Bahamas ..................... 01 OCT 96 31 MAR 97 --- 246 Barbados .................... 01 JUL 96 15 JAN 97 (ANG) 264 Anguilla .................... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED a (ANT) 268 Antigua & Barbuda ........... 01 APR 96 31 MAR 97 (BVI) 284 British Virgin Islands ...... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED a --- 340 US Virgin Islands ........... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b --- 345 Cayman Islands .............. DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b --- 441 Bermuda ..................... 01 OCT 95 30 SEP 96 (GRE) 473 Grenada & Carricou .......... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED a,d (946 reversed) 649 Turks & Caicos Islands . DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b,c (MNI) 664 Montserrat Island ........... 01 JUL 96 01 JUN 97 (SLU) 758 St.Lucia .................... 01 JUL 96 01 JAN 97 (ROS) 767 Dominica .................... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b,c (SVG/SVI) 784 St.Vincent & the Grenadines . DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b,d (PUR/PTR) 787 Puerto Rico ................. 01 MAR 96 31 JAN 97 (TNT) 868 Trinidad & Tobago ........... 01 JUN 97 31 MAY 98 --- 869 St.Kitts & Nevis ............ DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED a --- 876 Jamaica ..................... DATES-TO-BE-ANNOUNCED b 809 should remain The Dominican Republic (NOTE: The Dominican Republic is *NOT* the same as "Dominica") ADDITIONAL NOTES: a) "Officially" announced by Bellcore, via IL or on its Webpage, but effective dates are still TBA: 264 Anguilla 284 British Virgin Islands 473 Grenada & Carricou 869 St.Kitts & Nevis b) These codes are noted by Bellcore as "reserved" for the Caribbean, but they have not yet "officially" announced *which specific* island locations they are for. However, I have been able to determine the specific locations after telephone and email inquiries directly from the various Caribbean local telcos: 340 US Virgin Islands 345 Cayman Islands 649 Turks & Caicos Islands 767 Dominica 784 St.Vincent & the Grenadines 876 Jamaica c) 649 (946 reversed) Turks & Caicos Islands, since for *years*, 809-946 was the *ONLY* 809-NNX code for Turks & Caicos); 767 = ROS Dominica-- ROS probably because 'Roseau' is the capital city d) The Grenadines is a series of several *VERY* small islands between St.Vincent and Grenada. While still quite small, the larger islands of the Grenadines from North to South are: Bequia, Mustique, Palm Island, Union Island, Carricou Geographically, politically and telephonically: Carricou is associated with Grenada (473) Bequia-Mustique-Palm-Union are all associated with St.Vincent (784) NEW Caribbean NPA's, *alphabetically by location*: Anguilla ............................................. 264 Antigua & Barbuda .................................... 268 Bahamas .............................................. 242 Barbados ............................................. 246 Barbuda ........................... (see Antigua & Barbuda) Bequia - GRENADINES ..... (see St.Vincent & the Grenadines) Bermuda .............................................. 441 British Virgin Islands ............................... 284 Caicos Islands .................... (see Turks & Caicos Is) Carricou ......................... (see Grenada & Carricou) Cayman Islands ....................................... 345 Dominica ............................................. 767 Dominican Republic ................................... 809 Grenada & Carricou ................................... 473 Grenadines .............. (see St.Vincent & the Grenadines) Jamaica .............................................. 876 Montserrat Island .................................... 664 Mustique - GRENADINES ... (see St.Vincent & the Grenadines) Nevis .............................. (see St.Kitts & Nevis) Palm Island - GRENADINES (see St.Vincent & the Grenadines) Puerto Rico .......................................... 787 St.Kitts & Nevis ..................................... 869 St.Lucia ............................................. 758 St.Vincent & the Grenadines .......................... 784 Tobago ............................ (see Trinidad & Tobago) Trinidad & Tobago .................................... 868 Turks & Caicos Islands ............................... 649 Union Island - GRENADINES (see St.Vincent & the Grenadines) US Virgin Islands .................................... 340 Virgin Islands: British .................. (see British Virgin Islands) U.S. .......................... (see US Virgin Islands) MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 17:39 EST From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Northern Telecom "Services" Menu I've been playing around with a slick little Northern Telecom PowerTouch 350 phone. It has all kinds of neat features, such as the ability to move Caller ID info into your dialing database. One feature I don't quite fathom is connected with something called "Services." Under Services, the manual says: "The large display on your telephone offers you the advantages of full screen services, much like an automatic banking machine. You can subscribe to enhanced telephone company features and services such as home banking, catalog shopping, movie libraries, and restaurant guides. You can also subscribe to telephone network services such as network voice mail." The manual then gives instructions for getting the phone to download a list of subscriber services from the telco. There is no information on how the data is transferred, protocols, or anything. Has anyone heard of this? Is "Services" a feature only available on lines served by Northern Telecom DMS central offices? What signal does the telephone send out when you punch the Services button? Paul Cook 3991080@mcimail.com Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jun 96 01:15:04 EDT From: Steve Hayes <100112.606@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Northern Electric - as Was In "Stentor, Bell Canada, Independents - Some History", Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > In years past, Northern Electric also had a licensing arrangement with > Western Electric. For a while, WECO owned as much as 44% of NECO. As a > collector of nostalgic mid-20th Century telephones, I know that NECO > equipment was *virtually identical* to that of WECO. Both used the > same model numbers for telephones and parts. Even NECO's old three-slot > payphones looked *just like* WECO's. This reminded me of when I worked for Northern Electric back in the mid 70's. The licensing agreements with Western Electric had ended not long before and co-workers used to reminisce about the old days. Apparently, the engineering department consisted mainly of people with red and yellow pencils. Their jobs had involved going through documents, crossing out the word "Western" with the yellow pencil and writing "Northern" in in red, before sending them to drafting. The other task was adding a "Q" to every part number. If things had been computerized in those days, find and replace could have done the whole job! The speculation always was that Western Electric had expected Northern to roll over and die when the agreements ended. Instead, as we could see at the time(and even more so since) they unleashed a pretty fearsome competitor. Steve Hayes, Swansea, UK ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Nevada Attorney General Investigates Excel Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 00:05:46 PDT Nevada Attorney General's Office Investigates Long-Distance Company By MICHELLE DeARMOND Associated Press Writer LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A long-distance marketer that employs Las Vegans is being studied by the attorney general's office, although officials are quick to note the investigation is common and does not imply any wrongdoing. Shares in Excel Communications, a Dallas-based company, have yielded hyperfast growth and controversy in the past. The multi-level marketing network buys long-distance minutes from Frontier Communications in Rochester, N.Y., and resells them through direct marketing representatives across the country. Margaret Stanish, senior deputy attorney general of Nevada's telemarketing and consumer fraud unit, confirmed Thursday her office is looking at the business, but denied reports that Excel may be a pyramid scheme. "This office commonly reviews the practices of businesses that come to our attention," Stanish said. "Our office is here to protect both the marketplace and the consumer." Stanish refused to say what prompted the study, but said investigations come about through a variety of ways. "We work with the consumer affairs division. Sometimes we get information from law enforcement agencies. ... Sometimes I'm watching T.V. and see an advertisement that catches my attention," she said. Excel recruits people to sell the long-distance time as well as recruit other sellers, a tactic known as multi-level marketing that is also used by companies like Mary Kay Cosmetics or Amway. Stanish said it requires complex economic analysis to determine if a multi-level marketer is an illegal pyramid scheme, and she was not prepared to say whether "Excel is good or bad." Amway was found by the courts to not be a pyramid scheme. "Something like Amway is an acceptable practice ... because there are internal safeguards to prevent the building of a pyramid," she said. Excel has raised eyebrows on Wall Street, where analysts have questioned the way Excel defers expenses, which makes earnings look better than they are. The company last year reported a profit of $44.5 million, but it deferred expenses of $85 million in the first two months of this year. The representatives earn money from the sale of long-distance service plus bonuses for the performance of the people they recruit. The company also has acknowledged that claims by some of its representatives have prompted consumer complaints to attorneys general in some states. An Excel employee was charged in a Federal Trade Commission investigation earlier this year for allegedly making unsubstantiated claims about earnings for work-at-home businesses. Robert Serviss of Stamford, Conn., was accused of offering no proof that consumers would earn up to $4,000 or more each month, as they were told. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think when all is said and done, the facts will emerge that Excel is *NOT* illegal in any way, shape or form. I had someone write me the other day to complain that I was very prejudiced against multi-level marketing; and the truth is I do not really care for that business practice, however it is legal as long as it does not become a 'pyramid scheme', and in Amway's case at least, it has been ruled legal. I feel pretty sure that Excel is following the law closely. One thing I do feel merits a close look is Excel's new pricing of nine cents per minute at night, putting them in direct and very close competition with Sprint. If you have a high volume of traffic at night, it may well be that at this time Excel is the best bargain around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cerna@ntep0403.ntep.tmg.nec.co.jp Reply-To: Alexander Cerna Subject: What Does A/B Carrier Mean? Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 09:34:33 +0900 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is just one A/B in each area. > What MCI is doing is reselling either A or B, depending on whatever > was the best deal they could cut for themselves with one of the two. I'm sorry if I'm totally ignorant, but what does it mean to be an A or B carrier? And why can there be only one in each area? Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Alexander Cerna cerna@ntep.tmg.nec.co.jp NEC Tech Phils, Inc VOX: +63 (32) 340-0451 PEZA, Lapulapu 6015 FAX: +63 (32) 340-0457 Philippines VOX: +63 (915) 207-1167 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We have to go back to the early 1980's when cellular service was first getting underway. The rulings of the Federal Communications Commission provided that in each market there should be two carriers, mainly so that the local telco -- who it was assumed would get into cellular ASAP -- would not have a monopoly position. The ruling was that the traditional telephone company of record in the community would be granted one of the two cellular radio licenses if they wanted it -- of course, they all did -- and the second license would be granted to a competitor. The competitor would receive the 'A' license and the landline telco would receive the 'B' license. The assumption was further made that the various 'B' carriers (or existing telephone companies) would probably band together and work in each other's best interest through roaming agreements, etc. The new competition in each community (the 'A' license holders) were likewise expected to 'stick together' and help each other compete against the telcos who held the 'B' licenses. Well, what actually happened is a bit different. It turned out the only people really in a position with the technical knowledge and financial ability to start a cellular company in competition to the local telco were other telephone companies. So it came down to the local telephone company having the 'B' license as planned, but a phone company in some other distant community operating under some other name holding the 'A' license. For example, here in the Chicago area we have Ameritech (the 'traditional' telephone company of record) holding the 'B' license while Southwestern Bell, d/b/a/ Cellular One has the 'A' license. In St. Louis the exact opposite is the case where Southwestern Bell is the 'telco of record' and they operate the 'B' side as Southwestern Bell Mobility and Ameritech is the 'A' carrier there under some other name. Throughout the USA that is largely the case: telcos run the cellular service; the 'out of town' telco intrud- ing on the scene as the 'competitor' operates under a different name as the 'A' carrier. The 'A' carriers for many years generally used the trade name 'Cellular One' for brand identity purposes. That is changing now somewhat. They all stick together, theoretically at least to provide 'competition' to the 'B' or traditional telco side. I am reminded of the divestiture of Standard Oil a hundred years ago. Each of the 'Standard Oil Companies' created as a result of divestiture had to go into competition with each other; but even today they still respect each other's territories. The old Standard Oil of Indiana still does business as Standard Oil here in the midwest, but when they do business on the east or west coast they are known as Amoco. Standard Oil of New Jersey comes over to this part of the country and does business as Exxon. Standard Oil of California goes over to the east coast and I forget what name they use there, but it is not Standard Oil. Well, ditto the telcos in the cellular business. In their home towns they use their name; when they move into a competitor's territory as the 'A' carrier they use some other name. Is that all clear as mud? To add to the confusion, now there are lots of cellular resellers around which is something the regulators never considered at all back in 1983. According to Lynn Gregg, some of the newcomers with their own infrastructure won't be A or B ... they will be on their own radio frequencies with a totally different thing altogether. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jun 96 11:00:48 EDT From: Clifford D. McGlamry <102073.1425@CompuServe.COM> Subject: BellSouth Ordered to Provide Wholesale Margin It was announced last week that the Georgia Public Service commission has ordered BellSouth to give discounts to AT&T and all potential competitors who want to use the BellSouth lines as part of their own local service offerings. This order has reportedly left both AT&T and BellSouth unhappy. BellSouth had proposed discounts of 11% for residential and 9.5% for business users. The commission ordered in a unanimous 5-0 decision margins of 20.3% and 17.3% respectively. AT&T had previously indicated that they needed 35 to 40% margins to operate. BellSouth has taken its usual tact of whining and complaining about the order and indicated that it intends to possibly ignore the order or sue. This should not surprise industry observers who have watched BellSouth's profits rise to the highest levels of the industry. BellSouth has historically resisted any attempts to force it to leave its monopoly position in the marketplace. As usual, BellSouth is indicating the residential customers will suffer increased rates due to the loss of business customer subsidies. In Atlanta, BellSouth charges approximately $16 per month for flat rate residential users and $55 per month for flat rate business customers. ------------------------------ From: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com (Jorene Downs) Subject: Telco Leveling Laws Can't Crumble Central Office Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:11:52 GMT Organization: Strategic Vision Reply-To: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com C-bw@clari.net (The Insight Research) wrote: LIVINGSTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 30, 1996--The telephone company central office, the center of telecom deregulation efforts, remains local telephone services' unique asset despite attempts at legislative leveling, says a new report from Insight Research. Even after the FCC announces its new rules for hooking into local phone networks, removing the artificial distinction between local and long-distance phone services, the CO will continue as the preeminent center of all telecommunications traffic. Moreover, a technology overhaul now under way ensures its longevity. According to "Telecommunications in the 21st Century: Change and the Central Office," the unassailable value of the CO lies in its function -- as an access line concentration point. The overriding design consideration behind the CO was to physically locate it near the geographic center of a cluster of subscribers. With only modest changes in population demographics over the last twenty years, the number and locations of COs has changed little, so it remains the tangible point of contact to nearly all telecom users. "Right now we've got a new law on the books that is going to try to level the playing field for competing local and long-distance carriers," explains Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "And it may well work from the pricing point of view, but the central office remains a unique asset that can't be duplicated overnight by AT&T, MCI, or Sprint." Indeed, with the size of investment they represent, COs won't be duplicated at all; in the densest urban areas, they concentrate as many as 300,000 access lines under one roof and across multiple switches. Even in small towns, COs serve business areas where density is 5,000 access lines per square mile. To get to their customers, the long-distance providers all have to pass through those offices. Their pass-through rights are now legislated. As part of the technology overhaul, the switching function traditionally taking place within the walls of the central office is being pushed closer to the end user, in the form of small, remote switches and digital loop carrier systems that increase the carrying capacity of subscriber lines. The net effect of this trend paradoxically increases the importance of the CO's concentration function, since increasingly larger circuit groups terminate there. Further projections and analyses are published in "Telecommunications in the 21st Century: Change and the Central Office," now available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecommunications market research and analysis. Insight can be reached via the World Wide Web at http://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html. For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, N.J. 07039-1023, phone: (201) 605-1400, fax: (201) 605-1440, Internet: tara@insight-corp.com. ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Positions Available: Cambridge, MA Date: 3 Jun 1996 13:34:15 GMT Organization: Stylus Products Group, Artisoft Inc. The Stylus Product Group of Artisoft, Inc. is the industry leader in Windows based computer telephony software. Their flagship products Visual Voice and Visual Fax have won numerous awards, most recently including PC Magazine Editors' Choice for 1996. Our Cambridge, MA office is located in Kendall Square, the heart of Cambridge's high-tech startups, close to the Charles River and the Cambridge Brewery. Stylus maintains a fast paced, casual work environment. Employees are empowered to do whatever they feel is necessary to get the job done. Please send resume to: Stylus Product Group, Artisoft, Inc. Attn: Human Resources 201 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 or e-mail them directly to brucep@stylus.com as a Word document or plain text file. ================================ Available positions as of May 30, 1996: Q.A. Software Engineer: (5 openings) Responsibilities include developing and implementing test/integration plans for our telephony product line, designing and maintaining diagnostic tools and installation procedures as well as coordinating product release cycles and beta tests. Successful candidates should have a working knowledge of Visual Basic (or similar language) and strong organizational skills. Windows experience required. Windows NT, OLE Controls are pluses. Product Manager: (1 opening) Position requires strong Visual Basic applications development skills, strong project management skills, and experience in telephony and fax applications development is preferred. Software Engineers: (2 openings) This position requires a strong background with Windows Visual C++, development and one or more of the following: WIN32, MFC, MAPI, OLE, TCP/IP, Winsock, Netbios, GUI design/implementation. Visual Basic Developer: (1 opening) Will architect and implement new additions to our telephony product line. Applications include telephony/ network communications development and GUI design. Requires expertise with VB4.0, and solid experience with OOD, WIN32 and databases. C++ a plus. Sales Engineer: (4 openings) Responsible for speaking to prospects about the technical aspects of our products and their application requirements, much of which is done by telephone. Position calls for 1-2 yrs. of previous sales experience and a background in software application development is preferred. Technical Support: (1 opening) Responsible for providing detailed telephone support for customers. Requires expertise with Visual Basic and Windows 95. Experience with WIN32, hardware installation, telephony and fax applications all a plus. Requires 1-2 years of previous technical support experience. Jr. Marketing Representative: (1 opening) Strong technical background. Excellent oral and written communication and strong presentation skills. Ability to learn quickly in a fast paced environment. 2-4 years previous experience. BSCS or related discipline. Bruce Pennypacker | Stylus Products Group | Phone: +1 617 621 9545 Software Engineer | Artisoft, Inc. | Fax: +1 617 621 7862 Resident TAPI guru | 201 Broadway | http://www.stylus.com brucep@stylus.com | Cambridge, MA 02139 | sales: sales@stylus.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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #260 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 3 21:25:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA15610; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:25:47 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606040125.VAA15610@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #261 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Jun 96 21:26:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CPT on FCC Interconnection Proceeding (James Love/TAP via Monty Solomon) Digital Cellular in North America Question (jfmezei@istar.ca) Problems with Raj Telecom (srb@t10.lanl.gov) What Really Happens: Get Rich Quick on the Net! (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 04:35:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CPT on FCC Interconnection Proceeding Reply-To: monty@roscom.com Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 13:10:03 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: CPT on FCC Interconnection Proceeding ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION POLICY NOTE May 31, 1996 - FCC Interconnection Proceeding There were the CPT reply comments in the FCC "Interconnection" proceeding. We wrote these in support of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) comments on Interconnection and Unbundling of the local loop. We focus on the need to set rules which allow competitors to use the copper wire "local loop" for ISDN, ADSL, HDSL and other higher speed digital technologies. The incumbent local exchange carriers (companies like Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, US West, etc.), who own the local loop, want to limit the network unbundling to "Plain Old Telephone Service" (POTS). The Interconnection and unbundling proceeding is one of the most important of the more than 80 FCC rulemaking that are now underway to implement the new telecommunications act. Here are the comments. Jamie (love@tap.org, 202/387-8030) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) In the Matter of Implementation of ) the Local Competition Provisions in ) the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ) CC Docket No. 96-98 Act of 1996 ) May 30, 1996 REPLY COMMENTS OF CONSUMER PROJECT ON TECHNOLOGY ON INTERCONNECTION AND UNBUNDLING A. Introduction 1. The Consumer Project on Technology offers reply comments on the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on the above captioned proceeding addressing the interconnection and unbundling provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"). Our comments are supportive of those filed earlier in this docket by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). ITI urged the Commission to take steps to facilitate deployment of bandwidth services by providing national uniform parameters that encourage new competition for services such as ISDN, ADSL or HDSL. We agree with ITI that there is significant unmet demand for the provision of high bandwidth services for the residential market, and that national uniform parameters for interconnection, collocation and pricing are important. 2. The Consumer Project on Technology is a non-profit organization which was started by Ralph Nader to promote the consumer interest in matters concerning the development of new technologies, including information technologies. For additional information about CPT see our Web page at http://www.essential.org/cpt. B. Unmet Demand for High Bandwidth Services for Residential Market. 3. According to the ITI pleadings, more than one third of all U.S. homes have one or more personal computers, and most new computers sold today are equipped with analog modems. Analog modems are a very inefficient device for network connections. Not only are analog modems relatively slow when compared to off-the-shelf digital technology (28.8 Kbps for analog modems versus 128 Kbps for BRI ISDN), but the analog connections are less reliable, and suffer from a much more time consuming launch and connect (and disconnect) times than ISDN or other digital technologies. High quality audio, usable video conferencing, and even browsing on graphic intensive Internet Web pages requires faster network connections that can be delivered over Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). End-to-end digital lines can also support JAVA and other new methods of pushing network intelligence out to a decentralized base of users. 4. The most likely new technologies for delivering higher bandwidth connections to the home market are cable modems or a variety of digital services delivered over the copper wire infrastructure. Early optimism about deployment of cable modems has given way to more realistic mid-term pessimism. Less than 10 percent of cable systems currently support any type of interactive communications. Even under optimistic scenarios for deployment, it is very unlikely that a majority of homes would be passed by cable systems that can offer cable modem technology within a period of five to seven years. 5. The only ubiquitous high speed digital network connection for the residential market today is BRI ISDN, but the incumbent local exchange carriers (iLECs) are reluctant to deploy the technology, or price it reasonably. Companies like Bell South, Bell Atlantic, US West, NYNEX and SBC are pricing residential ISDN service between five and twenty times the cost of POTS (in packages likely to satisfy most residential ISDN users), too high for all but a handful of residential consumers. The premiums charged for ISDN service are far in excess of the company's long run incremental costs (LRIC) for upgrading POTS to ISDN. 6. For example, in a recent Commission proceeding, U.S. West estimated that the monthly non-traffic sensitive cost of its BRI ISDN lines was only $1.18 per month more than the cost of its POTS lines. (U.S. West, "Comments: in the Matter of End User Common Line Charges," FCC CC Docket No. 95-72, June 29, 1995, Appendix A.). However, US West tariffs for BRI lines are several multiples of its POTS charges. For example, in Utah a residential ISDN users would pay from $39 to $149 per month for BRI ISDN (plus a $6 SLC), with $74 per month the most likely tariff (based upon the US West pre- paid usage options and the $6 SLC). As a result, very few Utah consumers have BRI ISDN service. Indeed, US West reported that as of March 1996, it had only installed 53 BRI ISDN lines. 7. In some states, residential ISDN tariffs are even higher. We have heard from a consumer in Delaware (Bell Atantic) who was billed more than $1,000 for a month of local calls for BRI service, and a consumer in Massachusetts (NYNEX) received a bill for more than $700 for local calls. These higher tariffs have hurt ISDN deployment. Earlier this year Bell Atlantic said it had less than 300 residential consumers for BRI ISDN service in Maryland, a state with a huge interest in modern telecommunications. PacBell recently sought large increases in its residential ISDN tariff, and eliminated commissions on residential ISDN BRI connections to its sales force. 8. ISDN tariffs are highly varied from state to state, and residential consumers are completely dependent upon pricing strategies of local iLECs and state regulators. For example, the Northern Arkansas Telephone Company (NATCO) charges only $17.90 per month, flat rate, for residential ISDN service. The Roseville Telephone Company, the 23rd largest telephone company in the US, which serves California's southern Placer County and northern Sacramento County, sells residential ISDN at $29.50 for unlimited usage. Four of the five Midwest states served by Ameritech (Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin) have flat rate residential ISDN for $28 to $35 per month. But in Indiana, Ameritech charges residential consumers $100 to $1,829 for ISDN service. BellSouth charges less than $30, flat rate, for ISDN in Tennessee (a state where a key regulator was an ISDN user), and $57 to $75 per month elsewhere. Bell Atlantic's unlimited usage option for residential users runs from $249 to $1,200 per month, depending upon the state. In the US West service area, the unlimited usage options are all over the map: $40 in New Mexico, $63 in Washington State, $149 in Utah (the proposed tariff), and $2,309.64 in Oregon (a state without a flat rate option). 9. When the iLEC charges ISDN usage fees, prices are also highly arbitrary, providing striking evidence of monopoly power. For example, Bell Atlantic (BA) basic proposed usage charge for residential ISDN is $1.20 to $2.40 per hour, for a 2B ISDN connection. However, under its new "call pack" options, which is only available in some states, BA charges $.75 to $.30 per hour for ISDN (2B) usage. In recent rate cases for ISDN Centrex, BA said that its usage costs for ISDN voice service (the same technology as is used for data) were less than $1 per month. In Delaware, the PSC staff said that the residential ISDN tariff should include a $1.60 per month flat rate option, which is a little more than a nickel per day for 2B service. Consumers (and implicitly, the value added content providers) who pay hefty usage fees are being ripped off. 10. US West usage rates are also highly varied. Last fall, US West tried to get $12 per hour for a local ISDN call in Utah. The current standard US West usage charge is $3.60 per hour (for 2B). In the newly proposed (but not yet implemented) Utah tariffs, some usage packages are priced at $.90 to $.22 per hour for 2B service. Cost studies in the Utah proceeding show that even the $.22 per hour charges are far above cost. These high usage charges are efforts by the iLECs to "tax" value added services provided by unaffiliated companies. With iLEC entry into value added services, this will lead to anticompetitive business practices, since the iLECs can offer value added services at lower rates, since the usage charges at only transfer payments within the company. 11. In a competitive market consumers would not see such huge differences in residential ISDN tariffs. It is essential to adopt interconnect and unbundling rules which allow new entrants to use the local loop to provide ISDN and other newer digital services. C. Explanations for iLEC's failure to deploy ISDN 12. There are a number of theories as to why iLECs don't want to market ISDN as a mass market residential service. Here are some of the most popular: i) iLECs want to sell second POTS lines. (A BRI ISDN service provides the functionality of two POTS lines, including separate telephone numbers). For example, in Utah the best usage option for BRI ISDN service is priced approximately $10 above the cost of two business POTS line. ii) iLECs hope to offer high speed Internet services, bundled with ISDN or ADSL services, and they do not want to provide a low cost alternative over a common carrier platform. iii) iLECs are concerned about cross-elasticities between BRI ISDN and other business services (such as US West's expensive commitment to frame relay ), or to expensive residential mulitmedia networks (most of which are still on the drawing boards). iv) iLECs are concerned about high quality Internet telephony delivered over ISDN or other digital home connections. v) In Utah, Scott Rafferty raised the general issue of centralization of network intelligence, and the fact that high quality end to end digital network connections allow this intelligence to be decentralized, much of it into the highly competitive market for customer premise equipment. This issue is analogous to the PBX/Centrex issue. Of course, incompetence is also possible. D. New Digital Technologies. 13. BRI ISDN is a digital technology that can be delivered today to the residential market. Newer technologies that may be available in 5 to 7 years in some communities include ADSL or HDSL. There is considerable interest in ADSL as a platform for Internet connections. While ADSL is more costly to deploy than ISDN, it may offer higher bandwidth connections over the existing copper wire infrastructure. However, ADSL and other xDSL (the family of DSL services) services require special equipment and connections to information service providers. It is essential that iLEC competitors are able to receive services on a non-discriminatory basis, or the iLECs will monopolize services that are delivered over xDSL services. The rules for interconnection and unbundling should focus on how competition can develop for xDSL services. 14. ITI asked the Commission to adopt rules which require carriers to: i) unbundle local loops, ii) condition (when necessary) local loops to carry digital signals, iii) lease "dry copper" pair at reasonable prices (no greater than for POTS), iv) remove load coils at reasonable costs, v) cooperate in testing of xDSL services, and vi) otherwise make it possible and feasible to promote entry into advanced transport services delivered to the home. These suggestions are very important. The FCC should not set rules with POTS only in mind. E. Collocation is Required and Needed for More than Basic Transmission Equipment. 15. The Commission should reject the iLEC's efforts to limit the types of equipment that may be collocated on their premises. Collation obligations of iLECs under the 1996 Act are not simply limited to "basic transmission equipment." Indeed, the Congress added language during its Conference committee which has expanded collocation obligations beyond those originally adopted in the Commission's Expanded Interconnection proceeding. While the versions of the bill which passed both the Senate and the House only required collocation consistent with it's proceeding on interconnection [See, for example, H.R. Report No. 104-204, 104th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, at 73 (1995), which mentions the need to clarify the Commission's authority due to court challenges to the Commission's rules], the Conference Committee expanded the iLEC's duties, to require them to provide for "physical collocation of equipment necessary to interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier." By adding the additional phrase, "or access to unbundled network elements," Congress expanded the scope of collocation. The collocation equipment should not be restricted to traditional telephony. It should include equipment that may be needed for ISDN, ADSL, HDSL and other new technologies. This is also required by Section 706(a), which states that the Commission should "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.by utilizing.methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." As noted earlier, it is not appropriate to adopt rules for collocation which apply to POTS only service. G. The Commission Should Avoid Usage Based Fees for Unbundled Services. 16. One of the principal sins of the iLECs has been repeated efforts to impose usage based fees for fixed cost services. These usage based fees are largely designed as mechanisms for price discrimination, based upon expected differences in willingness to pay. This is possible because of the monopoly power of the iLECs. Any new unbundling requirements that are based upon usage charges for fixed cost services will further institutionalize a highly inefficient and socially undesirable pricing systems for the fixed cost aspects of the network. H. Unbundling Can Provide Important Yardstick Measurements. 17. Unbundling is important, even if it isn't widely employed, because it will provide an important yardstick of true economic costs for the deployment of new services. Thus, for example, if new digital technologies are provided at much lower costs in some markets where collocation and unbundling occur, this will help regulators in other markets determine reasonable prices for new advanced network services, even when economic barriers to entry as so great that monopoly power remains. Indeed, we expect that competition for local residential services will be very limited over the next decade, and this yardstick benefit will be very important for those consumers who do not benefit directly from competition. May 30, 1996 Sincerely, /s/ James Love, Director Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.essential.org/cpt 202/387-8030; fax 202/234-5176 INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of TAP-INFO are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/ TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages. http://www.tap.org http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ From: jfmezei@istar.ca Subject: Digital Cellular in North America Question Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 03:09:37 +0000 Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@istar.ca In a recent trip to Australia, I met a lot of overseas travelers who had brought their GSM phone and were using it in Australia. Being from Canada, I could not do that if I had had a digital telephone. In Europe, manufacturers of personal organisers such as PSION have already developped SMS applications for GSM phones such as NOKIA etc. In North America, it *seems* that the push for digital cellular phones is not very strong. (At least Cantel no longer pushes digital phones). Are digital telephone more popular in GSM countries compared to those few who resisted GMS to go with the USA standard ? Are applications such as SMS available for North American cellullar systems? Or do they lag behind? (I assume that the USA dig system does have the same functionality as SMS?) Is there any chance that GSM would eventually be supported in North America by some operators (operating both GSM and the USA system). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 16:29:10 MDT From: srb@t10.Lanl.GOV (srb) Subject: Problems With Raj Telecom Article: 43107 of soc.culture.indian.telugu From: gt5686b@prism.gatech.edu (Sujatha Ramprakash Krishnaswamy) Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu,alt.consumers.experiences Subject: Raj Telekom reported to Better Business Bureau Date: 24 May 1996 08:00:22 -0400 Last week I had posted to numerous newsgroups about how Raj Telekom (Transasian Communications) ripped us off $100. Listening to the advice given by my friends, I have reported the company to the Better Business Bureau. I did this online. BBB's URL is http://www.bbb.org. If you were unable to get a refund or had problems with Raj Telekom, please do report this to the BBB. Maybe they can settle the dispute. I have also faxed the posting(given below) to Raj Telekom for whatever its worth. Following is the article which I posted, in case you did not see it before. --------------------------------- I just want to share my bitter experience with RAJ TELEKOM, a.k.a. Transasian Communications. I urge you to please read the whole message and pass it on to your friends and family ... so that no one goes through the ordeal again!!! Trust me, no one deserves to! Like several others hunting for cheap telephone rates to India, I made the mistake of choosing Raj Telekom. The huge ads in {India Abroad} prompted me to choose them over the numerous others in the same business. To cut a long story short, this is the synopsis of the fiasco - * Paid $100 by check around April 10. Was informed that we would be contacted by the concerned person about the authorization code. * Waited for two weeks. Called to find out myself -- took over an hour to get through their numerous telephone numbers -- was asked to call between 6-9 pm. * Religiously tried every day, until I got the number a week later. * The authorization code did not work. So I couldn't use it to call India. Since then (3rd week of April), have been wasting an hour each evening calling them about my problem. No solution in sight yet! * Their most heartwarming messages : - "Call back at 8 p.m." - "Mr. RAJ is not in the office. He is the only one who can give authorization codes. Call at 9.30 p.m." - "Call during the day and speak to the supervisor Mona Kotish". - "There is no supervisor. Mona Kotish is not the supervisor" - "Just hold". (Never mind that you are promptly disconnected) - "Mr. Raj is on an emergency" - "Send a fax about your complaint" ... and many more, that I have even lost count! * Spoken to practically every customer service (???????) reps - Natasha, Kajol, Michelle, Sheetal ... * Since Mr. RAJ seems to be a terribly busy man, always on an emergency, sent him a fax about my problems. I knew even while sending the fax that it is not going to improve the situation. But it is my $100 and I have worked for it! * Operators have no authority except saying "hello" and listening/putting on hold your complaint. I cannot imagine how Mr. Raj can answer each phone to give the authorization codes, when he is never there! However, the operators keep asking everyone to keep calling - almost as if all of us have nothing better in life to take up our time! * I am sure the operators have never seen Mr. Raj and how he looks. They might not recognize him if he walks into the office! Is he a fictional character? To me, the whole situation resembles a money lender desperately trying to get his 50-year old loan back from an insolvent borrower! WHAT DO I WANT FROM THIS? * NOBODY SHOULD REPEAT MY MISTAKE. * PASS ON THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. * READ SIMILAR VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT - VISIT MAHESH'S WEB PAGE (http://www.jagunet.com/~mahesh) * I WANT RAJ (IF HE IS NOT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER) TO PERSONALLY APOLOGIZE TO ME FOR THE GREAT INCONVENIENCE & WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Any suggestions to get the money back greatly appreciated. Sujatha (gt5686b@prism.gatech.edu) ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: How it Really Works: Get Rich Quick on the Net! Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:24:21 PDT I've seen and heard their ads, and wondered if they were teaching people how to spam the net. Here is an article that reveals what goes on at one of those "get rich on the net" seminars Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Utah's Profit Education Systems Markets Internet 'Storefront' Home Pages By George Hesselberg, {The Wisconsin State Journal} Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 1--A $125-a-month electronic storefront in the mall along the superhighway, and a $3,000 plan to build it, that's what those "road to riches" advertisements and seminars at a local hotel were all about Friday. Profit Education Systems, of Provo, Utah, which set up three workshops -- including one this morning (June 1) -- at the Sheraton Madison Hotel on John Nolen Drive, is actually selling "home pages," which they call storefronts, on the Internet. A university telecommunications expert and training competitor, however, pooh-poohed the operation as a "typical get-rich-quick plan." A home page is a space on a vast computer network. A person or business fills in the information, and computer travelers on the world of Internet can visit those pages, of which there are hundreds of thousands. The newspaper advertisements, with teasers to "Learn the Secrets," and "Want a Second Paycheck (Thousands of Dollars/Month) Without Getting a Second Job?" invited Madison area residents to the hotel for a $15 workshop. The fee was waived if a person called ahead of time. The presentation was actually a pitch to buy in to a later two-day workshop in Milwaukee costing $2,995. Madison is the last stop in a tour of Wisconsin cities to sign up people interested in attending an "Internet Marketing Workshop" in Milwaukee at a cost of $2,995 (including hotel), said Dahlen Downing, a workshop presenter. He estimated about 60 people attended the Madison warmup. The Milwaukee workshop will teach attendees how to create a home page and will set up a storefront in the "Galaxy Mall," a "mall" on the Internet that includes the home pages created at the workshop. Barry Orton, a UW-Madison telecommunications professor, attended the first workshop Friday. He said the attendees were asked if they wanted to get rich on the "information superhighway." The workshop operators then showed examples of businesses selling products on the Internet through home pages, and the final pitch was to attend the workshop at the Marriott in Milwaukee June 21 and 22. There were "scholarships" available to that seminar for $1,500 if payment was made at once, cutting the cost in half. Literature distributed at the first workshop in Madison placed the value of this training session at $16,000. Downing, of Profit Education Systems, said the traveling seminars attract people who already have home pages and people who are starting from scratch. "We give you the storefronts and the programming know-how to be able to promote your storefronts," he said. Those storefronts, however, are in the Galaxy Mall, which charges $450 every three months for maintenance, according to information on the mall's home page. (http://www.galaxymall.com) The workshop literature, however, said the maintenance cost is $125 per month. Downing said someone who pays for the training gets four storefronts and additional listings in the mall's classified ads, which can be resold. (The literature notes, however, that the maintenance fee is $375 every three months per storefront.) For comparison, Orton said the University Extension operates home page training sessions costing from $100 to $250 per day. He added that commercial on-line computer services, such as American On Line and CompuServe, provide free basic home page training and a home page for as little as $20 a month. "I don't see that these people were offering anything that is near worth the amount of money they are charging for their workshop," said Orton. Downing said his workshop is different because "a lot of others will give you a home page for an inexpensive fee, but that doesn't do you much good if you have no good product or way to promote it out there," he said. Orton urged consumers to look carefully at the literature provided by the training company and to check the Galaxy Mall address on the Internet to see if their business is compatible. "I didn't see anything that was illegal here," Orton said, "but what initially bothered me was the overuse of the words 'information superhighway.' Generally if anyone is selling anything to you with these words, you should run the other way." ON THE INTERNET: Visit the Wisconsin State Journal on the World Wide Web. Point your browser to http://www.infi.net/madison/news/wsj.shtml ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #261 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 3 22:01:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA19546; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:01:02 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606040201.WAA19546@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #262 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Jun 96 22:01:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson User Needs Help Creating Newsgroup (Patrick A. Townson) FCC To Re-auction 18 Defaulted PCS Licenses (Jorene Downs) Re: University of Arizona Student Guards Domain Names (Christopher Ambler) Re: 415 NPA Relief Options (Linc Madison) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Eric A. Carr) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Hank Karl) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Dr. Robert Jacobson) Re: Internet Spam From AOL (E. Devinney) Re: Internet Spam From AOL (Robert McMillin) Re: Internet Spam From AOL (Jeff Carroll) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 21:34:49 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: User Needs Help Creating Newsgroup I am in a conversation with a fellow who wants very much to create a new newsgroup called 'alt.fan.uma-thurman'. I have no idea who uma-thurman is or what the group would be about. He is looking for news admins who might be willing to carry the group and help him get it started. He says he has read various documents sent to him about creating a alt newsgroup and still is having problems doing it the right way. Would any news admins be willing to assist this fellow? I'll pass along his name and the letter he sent me to any of you who respond favorably. Thanks for your help. PAT ------------------------------ From: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com (Jorene Downs) Subject: FCC To Re-auction 18 Defaulted PCS Licenses Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 02:40:32 GMT Organization: Strategic Vision Reply-To: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com In clari.tw.telecom, newsbytes@clari.net (NB / WAS) wrote: WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1996 MAY 31 (NB) -- Looking for one more chance to get into the personal communications services (PCS) business? The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will re-auction 18 broadband PCS entrepreneurs' block licenses which defaulted on their required down payments. The required down payments were not received from the winning bidders by the May 15 deadline, FCC spokesperson Kara Palamaras told Newsbytes, "and have been deemed to be in default by the Bureau." The Commission's rules provide that if a winning bidder fails to remit the required down payment, the FCC may either re-auction the license or offer it to other highest bidders, Palamaras said. "In this situation, it has been decided that a re-auction would rapidly and efficiently assign the licenses," Palamaras told Newsbytes. On May 15, BDPCS Inc., a unit of QuestCom Inc., Portola Valley, California, and National Telecom PCS Inc., Stamford, Connecticut, failed to make the required down payment on the licenses for which they were the high bidders in the recently completed Entrepreneurs' Block auction. BDPCS failed to make the required down payment on 17 licenses and National Telecom failed to make its down payment on one license. In an order adopted May 17, Palamaras said, the Bureau denied a waiver request by BDPCS seeking additional time to tender its five percent down payment and declared the company in default. The Bureau yesterday denied BDPCS' petition for reconsideration of the May 17 order, as well as National Telecom's request for a waiver of the bid withdrawal payment, Palamaras said. The licenses will be re-auctioned in a simultaneous multiple round auction tentatively scheduled to begin on July 3, 1996. Palamaras said that FCC Form 175 applications for participation in this auction and upfront payments are due June 14. The Bureau will announce further details regarding filing dates and requirements, bidding procedures and other information for the C Block re-auction in a public notice to be released June 3, Palamaras said. Markets for which licenses are to be re-auctioned include: Minneapolis and St. Cloud, Minnesota; Denver, Colorado Springs and Fort Collins, Colorado; Seattle, Olympia, Bremerton and Bellingham and Longview, Washington; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Portland, Salem and Eugene, Oregon; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico; and American Samoa. For further information, contact Louis Sigalos or Jason Guesman, Auctions Division, FCC, tel 202-418-0660. (Bill Pietrucha/19960531/Press Contact: Kara Palamaras, Federal Communications Commission, tel 202-418-0600) ------------------------------ From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: University of Arizona Student Guards His Internet Domain Names Date: 3 Jun 1996 06:14:06 GMT Organization: Punknet Secret Headquarters and Day Care Centre kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) says: > Let's run the numbers, shall we? > 364,000 x $50/year = $18,200,000 per year in renewals. > 10,000 x $100 = $1,000,00 per week in additional revenue. > Looks like running an InterNic is a very profitable decision. I guess > I know where the rationale for these fees came from. Now, let's talk service. I run a web service company, and we register on the average of three or four domains a week. Recently, the Internic sent us a bill for these domains, lumped into one bill, with one fee due. I called them and politely told them that these domains were for seperate clients, and for $100 a pop, I'd like seperate bills to submit. Their answer? "Tough. We can't change it." When they told me to use seperate billing addresses, I remarked that initially I did, but each time they "automatically" changed the address associated with my NIC handle. New domain, new address change. They then sent a 15-day notice on three of the domains. The notice was mailed on the 8th, and arrived on or around (within two days of) the 19th. Even if I decided to pay, there wasn't enough time to get a check in the mail. Their billing department refuses to do anything about it. Promises of a call-back from a supervisor on FIVE occassions have gone unfufilled. Requests to not change the address on my NIC handle when I submit separate billing addresses have been refused. Is this a way to run a business? If there were competition, I would go elsewhere. Obviously, I don't have that option. If I had half-a-million sitting around, I'd start my own Internic service. dot-corp or dot-bus anyone? chris@punk.net http://www.punk.net/~chris http://www.rhps.org ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 415 NPA Relief Options Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:45:12 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Tad Cook wrote: > Currently, the options under consideration for the 415 area code are: > + Geographic Split -- Option 1. [edited for verbosity] > In this option, San Francisco and the northern portion of San Mateo County > including Brisbane, South San Francisco, the eastern portion of Daly City, > the northern half of Millbrae and most of San Bruno (including SFO Airport) > would stay in the 415 area code. The remaining 415 area including Marin > County, the rest of San Mateo County, northern Santa Clara Co. and a small > [tiny] portion of Santa Cruz County would receive a new area code. > This would create a non-contiguous area code, with Marin County and most > of San Mateo County in the new area code, but separated by San Francisco > which would stay in the 415 area code. A couple things here: the part about "the eastern portion of Daly City" is thoroughly bogus, because the only exchange boundary in Daly City is the line between the northern portion (in San Francisco 3 rate center) and the southern portion (in South San Francisco/San Bruno rate center). The SF3 exchange area extends from one side of the peninsula to the other. Also, the geographic discontinuity of the new area code is quite severe. > + Geographic Split -- Option 2. > This option is identical to Option 1, with the exception that Marin > County would also stay in the 415 area code. > While fewer customers would change to the new area code in this > option, the reconstituted 415 area code would run out of telephone > numbers again in less than four years. Why not have San Francisco and Marin keep 415 and move San Mateo County, *including* the airport, into the new area code? (Of course, 415 would still include some of San Mateo County, because of exchange boundaries.) Either that or do a three-way split, with Marin County getting its own area code. With a little bit of careful planning, we could have just done a realignment of the 415/707 line, moving Marin into 707, but there are a number of duplicated prefixes, mostly in San Rafael. 707 has only about 200 prefixes, so this clearly could have been avoided. Marin County has about 50 prefixes, while the South S.F./San Bruno exchange has about half that many. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: C10973@email.mot.com (Eric A. Carr) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:11:15 -0800 Organization: Motorola SmartNet Trunked Systems In article , gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele) wrote: > This raises a problem that is particularly irritating in some > circumstances with which I am familiar. I post it only to ask if this > type of situation is being given proper consideration. > I can fully understand people setting "anonymous caller rejection" on > their home phone lines. However, there are times when it is problematic. > For example: > A person calls a physician's office (after hours) with a medical > emergency. The person's call results in the physician being paged to call > the patient. > The physician calls the patient from their phone (home or cellular), > with blocking set ON. The physician's call is rejected because the > patient has the "anonymous call rejection" set ON. Ooops. Now, in > order to perform their ethical duty, the physician has to send caller > ID to the patient in order for the patient to receive the call. Now, > the patient can jot down the physician's home or cellular phone number > and call at their convenience (such as the next time little Johnny is > throwing up at 3:00 am, or when Sally suffers a mental health crisis > because her beaux dumped her). > This is not a desirable circumstance for the physician. > What I would propose is that CID should be capable of sending a > *different* number registered to the same person (or a corporate > number, with the permission of the corporation or on a business line). > This provides protection for people who for legitimate professional > reasons may wish to retain their personal privacy. Unfortunately, I > have not heard of any such capability in any jurisdiction with which I > am familiar. Mark makes some good points (IMHO) regarding anonymous call rejection. It seems to me it is sort of false advertising to call this service "caller ID" -- it is more accurate to call it "ANI-for-subscribers", but I guess it doesn't sound as good ;-) I personally choose not to answer calls marked as "ANONYMOUS" from experience of being harassed previously by someone using per call blocking; this is on top of the fact that whoever is calling doesn't want me to know ahead of time for some reason. This does have drawbacks, though. In Chicago, calls originated by a cellular subscriber on the "A" band (Cellular One) show up as "ANONYMOUS" on an ANI display box. Calls marked as such cause a LED to flash in cadence with the ring cycle on my ANI box, so if I see this while the phone is ringing I will not answer the call. I do have friends and some family members who have service on Cellular One and I have missed calls from them on occasion because of this. Calls originated by someone on the "B" band (Ameritech) show up as "UNAVAILABLE", which I'm more likely to answer*. * sidenote - a double edged sword. Telanoyance marketing droids are notorious for having their calls show up as "UNAVAILABLE" on an ANI display box. It is more the norm that I come home with three to six calls on my ANI display marked as "UNAVAILABLE" with no message left on the answering machine. More often than not, calls I answer marked as "UNAVAILBLE" start out with "Hello, this is XYZ Useless Widgets and associates, may I speak to Mr. or Mrs. ... ". Here's a novel idea; basic ANI display service (number only) from Ameritech is something like $6. To get the number _and_ name is an extra $2.50, which implies that ANI information passed to your display unit can be somewhat selective. Why not implement ANI service that just shows the name? Currently before dialing, *67 blocks everything. Make it so some combination of *XX blocks only your number. That way just your name shows up on ANI boxes that are so equipped while number-only displays show "NO INFORMATION SENT" as it is when no data is transmitted between ring cycles. Eric Carr c10973@email.mot.com ------------------------------ From: hankkarl@ix.netcom.com (Hank Karl) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 15:49:13 GMT Organization: Telenetworks Reply-To: hk@tn.com On Thu, 30 May 96 18:30:30 EDT, in comp.dcom.telecom Tony Harminc wrote: > You can have any number that is installed at the same premises and > billed to the same subscriber set up as your call display number. I > have even seen an 800 number used this way. How about a 900 number? :-) Hank Karl ------------------------------ From: Dr. Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 01:01:32 -0700 Organization: Worldesign Inc. Seattle-Information Design [www.worldesign.com] Dave Levenson wrote: > Lisa (hancock4@cpcn.com) writes: >> When the phone company broke, what consumer expected higher prices >> for COCOT phones and long distance? > Long distance is far less expensive today than it was pre-competition. > Many COCOT phones charge less than utility-owned payphones (even > though the utility-owned payphones are subsidized by ratepayers). It's also true that most long distance calls by far are made by corporations and agencies of government. The cost savings, which surely have been magnificent, have disproportionately favored those already in privileged positions. The cost for residential customers and small businesses has been higher prices for the mostly local calls these customers make. The redistribution of wealth from individuals and small businesses to large corporations and agencies has been truly staggering, in the tens of billions of dollars since Divestiture. I doubt that a day of searching will produce a COCOT phone with lower costs than regulated telco-provided public phones. Of course, there are fewer and fewer of the latter available, now that service provision of this type is no longer a condition of holding a franchise. > While competition is not the answer to every problem, it does offer us > alternatives. If we make informed decisions, we benefit. What we > lose with competition is subsidies. (If one group of customers > subsidizes another, a competitor will offer the customers who pay the > subsidy an opportunity to avoid paying it.) Yeah. Law of the jungle. Works every time. If you're an individual or small business customer, your choices are few and far between. I don't see alternative local carriers rushing to sign up households or small businesses. Do you? > If you have been paying these subsidies, you benefit. If you have > been receiving them, perhaps you don't ... but ask yourself why you > deserved to be subsidized in the first place! Bogus argument. Subsidies are never deserved, they result from political power. Fairness is a chimera. Corporate income taxes are well below what they "fairly" might be. Do you renounce these subsidies? Well, what are you going to do about it? Or rather, _try_ to do about it: not a chance will you succeed. Small telecom customers are much easier marks, and so they pay. Without choice. Bob ------------------------------ From: edevinney@aol.com (EDevinney) Subject: Re: Internet Spam From AOL Date: 3 Jun 1996 11:58:19 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: edevinney@aol.com (EDevinney) Check the headers -- as often as not the spam I've seen directed at mailing lists is from an ISP different from AOL, but with worked-over headers ... Cheers, Ed Devinney edevinney@aol.com(w),Devinney_E@mediasoft.net(h) ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Internet Spam From AOL Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 07:54:06 GMT On 30 May 1996 15:57:26 PDT, Joe A. Machado said: > I have received over 35 mail messages from folks at AOL during the > past few days. The mailing list is similar but the senders vary. Many > of the messages contain words of frustration from other recipients and > the content expressed variest. Responding to the messages with REMOVE > or some statement to be taken off the mailing list at times causes > repetition of the mailings, or the request being ignored. And many of > the messages are the same but mailed several times -- three to five > times at once! [deletia] It's an easy thing to write off Usenet's decline to simple numbers of idiots. AOL was the worst thing to happen to the Net, so the wags told us. Not really so: what was bad was unleashing them on the Net with second-rate software and no guidance. The fact that AOL can *still* get away without killfiles and decent quoting on their newsreader is pretty astonishing. Every popular Unix-based newsreader (aside from trivial hacks) has these features, but as a percentage of the newsreaders out there, they're a small and declining number. Likewise, procmail, Stephen R. van den Berg's wonderful hack to bozofilter incoming e-mail, is available only to Unix users. (Maybe the folks at Qualcomm making Eudora, or Microsoft making Exchange, will read this and do something and/or correct me.) What I'm getting at is the tools necessary to cope with the Net's monstrous volume are now pretty rare. This is one reason we're hearing so many calls for net.censorship of one species or another: people can no longer filter out the Bob Allisats of the world. On the Net, everyone can hear you scream, and the 7/Eleven's don't stock earplugs. But even when you CAN do something about it, sometimes it's just not enough. Perhaps the best recent example of this problem is the Scientology-driven spam on alt.religion.scientology. The Curse, er, Church has decided that, if they can't destroy Usenet and everyone associated with it, their Ministry of Truth will spew happyspeak until the Enemy gets terminally bored. They couldn't have been more obvious if they'd rented a broom to skywrite "Surrender, Dorothy". What to do? Federal policing of the Net won't stop people from behaving boorishly. What we *do* need is better filtering. How that's going to be achieved remains to be seen, but I do know I smell a business opportunity. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Internet Spam From AOL Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:59:26 -0500 Organization: bigendian Reply-To: xfrosch@indy.net Joe A. Machado wrote: > With Universal Email a looming possibility is the public not to be > protected from unwanted mail? Will the cost of junk mail not be a > factor in the Universal Email debate? Should society tolerate Email > entrepeneurship? Is there a benefit by not legislating E-Mail? Get real. The USPS delivers junk mail, the telco delivers junk calls, and AOL delivers spam. In fact AOL spams customers pretty hard themselves ... except that they don't fool around with email, using an even more insidious interface to do it. If you haven't read William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, I suggest that you go find a copy and take a look. Three years ago I thought this book was malinformed nonsense; now I see that Gibson's ideas (or the ones he picked up and recycled) are serving as a paradigm guiding technology development. Not only is the net not going to be regulated (or regulatable), it's not necessarily even going to be civilized. The Exons and the Coatses who think that they can protect the electorate from those devastating little blips of electricity are either going to have to insulate themselves ever farther from reality, or stage a coup d'etat and cut the cables. The net, like the market, is a stateless entity, and the greatest irony of the twentieth century will no doubt be that such an entity was created by the United States Department of Defense. Governmental attempts at control merely drive the offending activity underground, and the only sure way to control the net, in a very close analogy with "markets" in centrally planned economies, is to destroy it. In fact, the fundamental issue was rather conclusively dealt with by most jurisdictions when caller ID became available. The force of law, more often than not, acts on the behalf of the spammers rather than in the interest of individual liberty. Many (if not most) states, in making up CID blocking schemes, legislated enactments of the principle that you do NOT have the unrestricted right to refuse delivery of unwanted messages. There ARE laws against wire fraud and mail fraud. That is the practical limit of your recourse under the law (but I'm not a lawyer, so if you REALLY care about this issue, go hire one). As far as the content of your email; there are sophisticated tools for de-spamming newsfeeds. The techniques are general and could easily be applied to the email protocols - but don't hold your breath waiting for AOL to do it for you. jkc ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #262 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 3 23:28:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA28273; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:28:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606040328.XAA28273@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #263 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Jun 96 23:28:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Cellular (Mike Fox) Re: MCI Cellular (Russell E. Sorber) Re: MCI Cellular (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves (Wendy Rensik) Re: Interesting New Spam Twist (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy (North Coast Communications) Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy (Frank Pizer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Fox Date: 3 Jun 96 15:59:50 GMT Subject: Re: MCI Cellular > In Boston there is Cellular One and Nynex now there are two other cell > companies starting to put up their antennas. They are AT&T and Sprint. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When cellular phone service was being > developed in the early 1980's -- it started as of 1983 I believe -- > probably no one could ever imagine there would be a time when more > than two carriers would ever be in existence in a given community and > in most cases just one. Thus the A/B arrangement, with no real provision > for a 'C' or 'D' carrier, or whatever they might be called. Does anyone > know of any plans to open the market to a third or fourth (a 'C' or 'D' > or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do not mean just as a > reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine infrastructure for > a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? PAT] I don't think they are really bringing in two new *cellular* carriers. I think they are setting up two *PCS* services. The fact that he called it "Sprint" instead of "360 Degree Communications" confirms that IMO, as Sprint spun off their cellular business into 360 Degree so they can concentrate on PCS. Later, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:47:45 -0500 From: Russell E. Sorber Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group In article Pat writes: > Does anyone know of any plans to open the market to a third or > fourth (a 'C' or 'D' or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do > not mean just as a reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine > infrastructure for a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? Pat, Yes. New infrastructure is being installed by the PCS operators in many US cellular markets. The FCC auctioned off these PCS frequencies several months ago. In the Chicago area, PCS Primeco (An Airtouch, USWest New Vector, NYNEX, BellAtlantic Mobile consortium) and AT&T Wireless are the two additional providers but they are not in commercial service yet. Somewhere on the WWW I've seen a page which lists which operators won the rights to which city. Every major US city will be getting at least two new wireless operators. Russ Sorber Software Contractor - Opinions are mine, Not Motorolas! Motorola, Cellular Division Arlington Hts., IL (847) 632-4047 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: 3 Jun 1996 18:26:00 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Macaw (macaw@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > In schuster@panix.com (Michael > Schuster) writes: >> I just received a soliciation to join MCI's cellular service and receive >> a Nokia 100 phone for free (golly!!!). > In Boston there is Cellular One and Nynex now there are two other cell > companies starting to put up their antennas. They are AT&T and Sprint. > Cellular One is Southwestern Bell. I myself don't know how this will > be done also. If anyone knows please let me know. The reason I know > about the other two cellular companies is because Cellular One is > renting from me. They have a cell site on my building and Sprint > contacted me about setting up one of there cell sites on my building > also. AT&T Wireless bought McCaw Communications, the operator of Cellular One. I'd suspect Sprint might possibly have gotten into some deal with Nynex; that, or what _they_ want is a site for a PCS cell, instead. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When cellular phone service was being > developed in the early 1980's -- it started as of 1983 I believe -- > probably no one could ever imagine there would be a time when more > than two carriers would ever be in existence in a given community and > in most cases just one. Thus the A/B arrangement, with no real provision > for a 'C' or 'D' carrier, or whatever they might be called. Does anyone > know of any plans to open the market to a third or fourth (a 'C' or 'D' > or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do not mean just as a > reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine infrastructure for > a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? PAT] From my understanding of the cellular protocols, it's not technically feasible, Pat. The A and B carriers (competitive and wireline) are using two actually different sets of frequencies for their calls. The band only has room, as currently bandplanned, for those two chunks, and certainly that's all the phones know how to do. No, I suspect that any further company expansion in the wireless voice market will be strictly PCS based stuff. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet "The world will remain dangerously unstable Tampa Bay, Florida as long as it is populated." --me +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves Date: 3 Jun 1996 19:12:30 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I don't speak for AT&T on this subject but I certainly understand why AT&T characterizes the Ameritech legal action as outrageous. I disagree with the poster that consumers are caught in the middle. ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: >o Ameritech claims that as of Friday AT&T will bar its card holders > from making local calls within Ameritech's calling area. Really? When the Illinois consumer with both an AT&T calling card and an Ameritech calling card dials 102880 + ten digits for a call that completes in Illinois, AT&T won't let that call be billed to an AT&T calling card? I would guess that AT&T won't let an AT&T calling card be used for 0+seven or 0+ten digit intra-Ameritech calls because AT&T's network will not be used for this call. >o AT&T has offered Ameritech customers three months of free local > toll calls -- local calls of 15 miles or more -- if they switch to > AT&T before June 30. Were only Ameritech calling card consumers targeted? I would think AT&T would target all Ameritech consumers. There are any number of ways to obtain Ameritech consumer billing addresses without using LIDB database information or information obtained from LIDB database real-time access. For instance, AT&T Worldnet Directory Search has a very impressive engine that can focus on a state, a region or the entire country, to obtain mailing addresses and telephone numbers. >o AT&T has filed new local toll call rates with the Illinois Commerce > Commission to be extremely competitive. My local AT&T TV advertising is concentrating on 9 cents a minute plus quantity discounts for monthly bills over $25 dollars. Then Sprint has the dime lady and MCI has an X-generation Valley Person to put in writing MCI discounts compared to non-discounted AT&T plans. The long distance pricing wars have begun and this will only benefit consumers. > The developments Wednesday are the latest in what has become a very > nasty fight in the 'telephone war' between Ameritech and AT&T that > started out more than a year ago when Ameritech launched its 'Customers > First' plan, its strategy to enter the long distance market. > In the latest skirmish over calling cards, Ameritech had accused AT&T > of abusing an agreement that allows each company to handle traffic > using the calling card of the other company. Under the agreement, > neither company was allowed to use any customer data for the purpose > of soliciting customers to switch companies. > Ameritech Chairman Richard Notebaert said his company discovered AT&T > was illegally targeting Ameritech customers when some 'names on the > list' started getting mailings sent by AT&T. He said there was no way > 'those names' would have gotten anything like that in the mail had not > AT&T been abusing their access to the Ameritech data base. "Those names" are not available by other reverse white pages databases? Richard Notebaert has to know that Ameritech would gain more from raiding the LIDB database than AT&T. > As matters now stand, effective Friday, May 31, AT&T calling cards > will not be accepted by Ameritech and Ameritech calling cards will not > be accepted by AT&T. Ameritech consumers aren't able to use their MCI or Sprint calling cards when using AT&T's toll network, either. Is that any surprise? I'm pretty sure that AT&T toll operators are required to give the access codes for calling card verifcation failures and probably vice versa for other long distance toll operators. > It is unclear at this point what results will occur if a person with > an Ameritech card uses a payphone which was defaulted to AT&T to make > a long distance call. I would think not. This may imply that Ameritech payphones may require the non-Ameritech calling card consumer to dial 10XXX0+ or 101XXXX0+ to reach any other long distance carriers' LIDB calling card billing verification services. > Isn't this a shameful state of affairs when customers have to get > caught up in the middle of the fight? Customer dialing habits may need to change but the entire telephone system is changing to allow LECs like Ameritech become long distance providers and long distance providers like AT&T become local line service providers like Ameritech. This will provide more competition for both services, though I have to notice how the LECs are currently more inclined to merge than to compete in each other's territory. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Wendy Rensik Subject: Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 17:33:36 -0700 Organization: Exec-PC BBS - Milwaukee, WI You're right about the fact that the heat has been turned up between AT&T and Ameritech. However, AT&T is the company that is disadvan- taging its own customers in the process. The AT&T calling card has had one unique advantage over the other ld cards for years -- it provided 0+ calling over all the RBOC networks. Not anymore. > o Ameritech claims that as of Friday AT&T will bar its card holders > from making local calls within Ameritech's calling area. This is true, and Ameritech is not the only RBOC. AT&T already cancelled the Mutual Card Holding Agreement (MCHA) with Nynex on April 30 and will cancel all MCHA's with RBOC's as the contracts expire. Interestingly, AT&T has refused to publicly admit to taking this action. In fact, in Nynex territory, they sent deliberately misleading information to their customers which implied that Nynex was responsible for blocking AT&T card holder calls. > As matters now stand, effective Friday, May 31, AT&T calling cards > will not be accepted by Ameritech and Ameritech calling cards will not > be accepted by AT&T. Not quite true. Ameritech calling cards will still work on AT&T's network. With an Ameritech card, you can dial 0+ and get through whether it's local or long distance. With an AT&T card, you have to dial 1800CallATT or 10288 when placing a local call. > It is unclear at this point what results will occur if a person with > an Ameritech card uses a payphone which was defaulted to AT&T to make > a long distance call. The call will go through! (So which card would you rather have in your pocket??) > Isn't this a shameful state of affairs when customers have to get > caught up in the middle of the fight? What's shameful is that AT&T is cancelling the MCHA's with the RBOC's (and refuses to come clean about it with the press or their own customers.) The reason is simple ... they want to divert calling revenue from the Bell networks to the AT&T network. And they're doing it on the backs of their own customers. Wendy Resnik ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Interesting New Spam Twist Date: 3 Jun 1996 06:03:59 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Ron Mackey (rem@dsiinc.com) wrote: > Okay, this guy thinks it's okay to spam 10,000 newgroups with his > garbage, but doesn't want to be bothered with junk calls himself. > What I really would like to know is the legality of threatening to > bill for an 800 call. Does this guy really have any legal recourse > to stop offending junk calls to his 800 number or are we all free > to spam his 800-number the same way he's been spamming us? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It probably is not legal and he may be > able to do it somehow if he has a contract with some sleazy telco > billing agency. I'd say handle calls to 800-555-8655 with the same > discretion as calls to Slaton: see to it whatever ANI they pick up > is essentially worthless. Everyone passes several payphones in a day's > time or knows of some trusty looparound. PAT] Actually, as I noted in an earlier posting, it _is_ illegal, although I'd have to dig out the rulemaking that says so. It's been cited here in the past month, I think ... Worse, though, the 800 number is likely bogus anyway. The 800-555 exchange, to the best of my knowledge, belongs to Bellcore themselves, and I don't think they've let it out to anyone. As opposed to 900-555, which is another matter, entirely. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff The Suncoast Freenet Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 22:36:00 EDT From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy FYI: According to the Automated RespOrg Lookup Service that I have access to, 800.351.8085, uses LCI International. So I guess they would be the "beneficiary" of the net community's worthy goal. Wonder what the "per minute" rate is on this number? I am also curious why Mr. Jeff picked such a strange name for his operation (Eunuchs?). Perhaps it is self-descriptive in his case? So many pay phones, so little time! ;+) Kristen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, spam will cease when spam is unprofitable. It is only profitable when customers can reach the spammer. You (a generic you, meaning the net community) essentially wasted all the email addresses those birds were using; note how they now want a phone call. The quandry is if it were a regular phone number not many people would call, yet if it is an 800 number then everyone calls. Pass the word: a goal for the community during June and subsequent months is to generate about a hundred thousand dollars per month in billings to our favorite spammers. Do not call it harassment, because it is not. You want to learn more about the product; you want to call and let them know you decided not to order it; you want to call and let them know to quit sending you mail, etc. Just because it is more convenient for you to call from a payphone at the corner store does not make it harassment either. If it is harassment you are into, then I cannot help you because harassment is illegal. A hundred thousand dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is if you have to pay the phone bill but if there are even the same number of netizens interested in the cause and each makes three or four calls to a spammer then between us all we can make short work of it. I feel there should be a 'spammer of the month' who receives the community's blessings that month. For example, this time around make it Jeff Boy, then next month maybe the hair thinner people, etc. Now you know if Jeff gets hit with a huge bill like that from LCI he is probably not going to be able to pay; sure as I am sitting here LCI will cut him and place him with an agency or else take it legal right away. If he goes with another carrier, the community will find out soon enough. After all, he has to spam the net with his new number doesn't he if he wants to promote whatever he has to sell that time. Remember, a hundred thousand dollars. Let's do this like Pledge Week on National Public Radio. You can 'phone in' your pledges; we can have a big graph where we show the progress being made toward reaching the goal, etc. :) If you send me mail with the subject line 'My Pledge to Jeff' I won't run those messages but I will summarize the totals each day or two. Do not exagerate; make it realistic. And I repeat: no harassment! Don't be like that guy in Georgia who personally ran up the 800 bill on Jerry Falwell a quarter-million dollars over two months by having his modem redial over and over all day and all night. Just make a few calls to ask a few questions or make a few comments. Spam will quit when there no further place for the spammers to go to get customer responses. Pass the word. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bidscan@mail.saix.net Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 09:49:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Around and Around With Jeff Boy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Frank wrote me last week but his original message went astray; it is repeated below. In the repeat transmission to me, he added a few new comments. PAT] I haven't received anything further, so possibly mail to postmaster@interramp.com helped. I've also taken a look at interramp.com, and they look like a respectable enough setup, so perhaps they're victims of this "lightning bolt" crap themselves. Cheers, Frank R Pizer bidscan@mail.saix.net ------------------- Subject: Caller-ID/ISP abuse, plus unwanted, unsolicited sleaze e-mail Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:09:24 -0700 From: bidscan@mail.saix.net Pat, I'm none too sure if you are the right one to turn to, but with the undertones of caller-id and ISP abuse, I feel that even if you can't help with my problem, you would at least be able to sound some sort of warning in the right places. After the "Are you a displaced AT&T etc" message of yesterday, of which I sent you a copy, and having sent back a polite "Kindly remove from your mailing list" reply to it, (which, btw, bounced as undeliverable, bounce message attached below), I have now today received something even LESS wanted, from the same source. (also attached below). I have as a first resort, mailed to postmaster@interramp.com, asking for help, but for all I know, that is the sender of the sleaze. Is there anything you or your readers can suggest to halt what looks like becoming a stream of unwanted, unsolicited, crud. The sad part of it all is that they probably don't realise that I'm not in the USA, and am unable to reply via their 0800 number which they insist on as the only means of making contact, thereby making the whole thing pointless in the first place .... Cheers, Frank R Pizer Bidscan@mail.saix.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From now on, forget the postmasters and system admins. Don't bother them any longer with mail on spammers. Now that the spammers have invited phone calls let's deal with it that way. See my earlier message in this issue. Let's give the postmasters and admins some relief on this for a change. I also got mail from someone who pointed out that cellular phones are unlikely as presently configured to produce any worthwhile ANI to the spammers. That is a good point, and I would say as long as you don't have to spend in total more than a dollar or so to do your part for the community this month, go ahead and use your cellular phone for it. If you are not sure of the results in your case, then best stick with the payphone. Remember, no harassment! Just interested customers who want more information, or to comment on the situation. And if Jeff Boy presents any of you with his 'net harasser recognition award' be sure to let us all know. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #263 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jun 4 11:50:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA14302; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606041550.LAA14302@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #264 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Jun 96 11:50:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help Needed Building Step-by-Step Switches (Mike G. Zaiontz) What the Government Pays For Long Distance (Roy A. McCrory) Bouygues New Phone Network in France (Jean-Bernard Condat) FTC Warns of Internet Scams (Tad Cook) Play Modem and PC Speakers Thru Sound Card: Possible? (domo@xs4all.nl) Re: More CID Frolics! (Vance Shipley) Re: More CID Frolics - One Problem Solved! (Stan Schwartz) Re: Nevada Attorney General Investigates Excel (Van Hefner) Re: Northern Telecom "Services" Menu (Tim Jenkins) Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question (Guy St-Pierre) Photos from Telephone Pioneer Museum (Bob Baxter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike G. Zaiontz Subject: Help Needed Building Step-by-Step Switches Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 08:04:31 -0500 Organization: MEPTEC - Mobil Oil Corporation In reading the TELECOM Digest, I've noticed an interest in older telephone systems. I am not a telecom professional, but a collector of old telephone equipment. Someone in this group may be able to assist me. I am attempting to assemble a very small step-by-step switch. This switch has four linefinders, first selectors, final selectors and connectors. Most of what I need I have been able to locate, but need help in locating some shelves, trunk switches and other parts. This switch will tie into my WE-555 and WE-557 cord switchboards and 1A2 key system (37 extensions). Any info or comments would be appreciated. You can e-mail me directly at mgzaiont@nol.mobil.com or call 504-566-6090. Thanks in advance, Mike ------------------------------ From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: What the Government Pays For Long Distance Date: 4 Jun 1996 13:41:22 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Article entitled "Sprint to cut its rates (FTS 2000)" in the 27 May issue of FEDERAL Computer Week, Vol 10, Number 12. Apparently the government is conducting some kind of Chinese auction between ATT and Sprint on its FTS 2000 internal long distance network. Article reports that "Sprint will drop its rates from 8 cents per minute to 5.9...." "... the agreement almost completely eliminates the price difference between ATT and Sprint." Roy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:37:59 +0100 From: Jean-Bernard Condat Subject: Bouygues New Phone Network in France Paris (France), Juny 4th, 1996--All over the streets of the French capitale, you can look at some pictures on the walls giving information on the new telecommunications network born May 30th: Bouygues Telecom's one. For 240 FF (including taxes),you can freely phone in Paris and in a 30-km circle near the capitale. After, you must paid 2 FF in business time and 1 FF in home time. Four terminal DCS 1800 are now available between 550 to 990 FF. If you leave Paris you can forward your calls by the command to a no-portable phone number! The phone number of Bouygues' products are 8-digit numbers beginning by 02 (normally 09 for SFR and 07 for Itineris). Bouygues Telecom has awarded Nortel a two-year contract extension estimated at $US50 million for expansion of its national personal communications network (PCN). This increases the total value of Bouygues Telecom's PCN radio infrastructure supply agreement with Nortel (announced in December 1994) to over $US100 million. Nortel will supply, install and commission several hundred DCS 1800 base transceiver stations, based on the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard, for the new coverage in the d'Azur and Lyon regions, and for expansion of existing coverage in the Ile de France area. Service is scheduled to begin in these areas at the start of 1997. "We are very pleased to see our relationship with Bouygues Telecom developing," said Pascal Debon, vice president and general manager, GSM Wireless Networks, Nortel. "This new contract underlines the performance of the GSM technology developed by our teams. Equally, while we have won many GSM contracts in other parts of the world, this contract proves our ability to compete and win in Europe." According to Yves Francois, director of information technology at Bouygues Telecom, "we chose Digital because of their complete understanding of our business needs, and their superior telecomm- unications technology and solutions capability to manage a vast and complex radiotelephone network from a single point." Jean-Claude Sainctavit, Digital's worldwide vice president for the telecomm- unications industry, said that "Digital's industry-leading Alpha technology, along with our clustering, solutions and support capabilities will provide Bouygues Telecom with a lower cost of operations and an almost immediate network problem solution capability with scalable advanced technology." He added that "our partnership with co-contractor SEMA Group, the use of our TeMip (Telecommunications Management Information Platform) platform, and the experience gained from managing similar telecom projects worldwide, most recently, for example, in Germany and Malaysia, were the final determining factors in our selection by Bouygues Telecom." Bouygues Telecom is a company controlled by Bouygues (a major multi-trade group). Bouygues Telecom brings together the principal operators of DCS 1800 networks in Europe, Cable & Wireless (United Kingdom), Veba (Germany), and US West (United States), along with the Jean-Claude Decaux Group, Banque Nationale de Paris, and Compagnie Financiere de Parisbas. Bouygues officials noted that the technical performance, high-capacity and attractive price of this new generation of easy-to-use mobile phones will meet the expectations of a wide public. Bouygues Telecom plans to gain a significant share of a market estimated at more than 10 million customers over the next 10 years. The company will base its development on the quality of its customer service. The arrival of Bouygues Telecom as the third licensed mobile operator in France is expected to further stimulate the development of mobile phones, and help France catch up with the other main European countries in this field. Personal telephony is a major line of development for Bouygues already present in the telecommunications sector since 1987 (3RP Public Access Mobile Radio, ERMES paging network). Jean-bernard Condat, Senior Consultant, Smart Card Business Unit | Informix, La Grande Arche, 92044 La Defense Cedex, France | Phone: +33 1 46963770, fax: +33 1 46963765, portable: +33 07238628 | Private: +33 1 41238807, e-mail: jeanbc@informix.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: FTC Warns of Internet Scams Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:57:23 PDT FTC warns of Internet scams Reuters WASHINGTON -- Hordes of scam artists -- already skilled at ripping off consumers through telephone fraud -- may soon stalk new victims over the Internet, the Federal Trade Commission warned Monday. The worldwide computer network offers crooks advantages such as anonymity and cheap startup costs, making it tougher for law enforcement officials to track down con artists in cyberspace, the FTC said. "Fraudulent marketers will continue to use the telephone, but they soon may gravitate to the Internet in large numbers," the agency said in a report titled "Consumer Protection Policy in the New High-Tech, Global Marketplace." In general, the report added, new technologies involving telephones, television and computers will give consumers access to unlimited amounts of information and other benefits. But they also offer fertile ground for old-fashioned scams. "There is no sign that low-tech scams will go away and strong evidence that `next-tech' scams will increase and be more difficult to detect and track across international borders," the report said. "Law enforcement agencies must work harder, smarter and in concert to maximize the impact of their limited resources." The report is part of a two-volume study the FTC issued after hearings last year into how growing global competition and new technologies affect businesses and consumers. The FTC said it is reviewing its regulations "to assure that they are well-suited to the new global marketplace." The agency is prepared to change outdated rules. The report said the multimedia portion of the Internet known as the World Wide Web offers crooks cheap opportunities to rip off consumers. "Indeed, for $30 a month or less and the cost of a computer and modem, scam artists can be in business on the World Wide Web, taking orders from anywhere in the world," it said. Just last week, the FTC said it halted an illegal pyramid scheme on the Internet that bilked thousands of investors out of more than than $6 million. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am beginning to think that about ninety percent of the commercial stuff on the World Wide Web is just fraud. I may be overestimating the percentage a little. I thought a good companion piece to this message is a posting I found in misc.rural telling how YOU can make **big $$** working at home posting messages on the net. It seems a very ominous sign of things to come. Read on and see what you think. Subject: Rural Folks Needed to Work as Newsgroup Posters Date: 4 Jun 96 12:03:32 -0700 From: webhost@msn.com (D.J Hamilton) Organization: The Microsoft Network (msn.com) Newsgroups: misc.rural Newgroup Marketing Representatives Needed Worldwide. Come Joing our team of Newsgroup marketers who are earning an average of $5000 per month. Job Number: 5000 Job Category: Marketing Company Name: Net Marketing & Multimedia Address1: 1602 Alton Road Suite 442 City/State/Zip: Miami Beach County: Florida Country: USA Contact Name: Darryl Hamilton Contact Title: Recruiting Coordinator Phone: 305-460-2257 Fax: 352-378-9939 E-mail: webhost@msn.com Always better to contact via e-mail Status: Part-Time / Full-Time Salary/Benefits: Initially, Compensation will only include commission, and after a 120 day evaluation period, employee will receive a weekly salary in adjunct to commissions. The salary will equal $1200/month + commissions. Commission and salary payments will be made in the form of a check or direct bank deposit for employees living outsite of the United States. Other payment arrangements can be made if the listed above are not satisfactory. Location1: Worldwide Description: Join Net Marketing & Multimedia, one of the nation's largest Web marketing Firms. Our marketing representatives are trained to handle a full range of products and services and deal in both the individual as well as business markets. Job Duties: Individual will post messages throughout certain newsgroups, and on the world wide web, indicating the availability and location of a new product. on the web. Simply put, you will point users to the location of web pages that display a product. You will receive a commision for every product that is sold as a result of your efforts. Send E-mail if interested in positions ... Posted by: Net Publications: http://nminc.com/jobs mediaworld@msn.com ---------------------------- [Me again: Well, at least they did not spam. I cannot see any evidence where they posted this in six hundred different newsgroups all at the same time. Still, I don't like this. It seems like these outside commercial organizations are detirmined to take over the Usenet newsgoups doesn't it? My solution here is I generally am going to stop posting messages from people saying 'look at my web page' unless it has something specific to do with telecom. I may not hold to that rule absolutely. I get quite a few 'look at my web page' messages each day. You don't really want to see all those do you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: domo@xs4all.nl (domo) Subject: Play Modem and PC Speakers Thru Sound Card: Possible? Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:23:00 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Reply-To: domo@xs4all.nl Does anyone know if and how I can re-route the sounds of my modem speaker and system speaker through my soundcard to my speakers? Is there a software solution is it a hardware thing? I did find a program that can send the sound of normal telephone conversations to my modem speaker: (folis20, at ftp://ftp.omen.com.au/pub/files_3/comms/folis20.arj) but the sound is horrible and this is only part of what I would like to have. Actually this is a limited version of a question that seems to be more complicated than I thought (I get no answers). If you can answer that one I would really be grateful. Here is my original question: Here's a question that looks simple in my non-technical mind. I want to do handsfree telephoning from the desk where I have my computer. I could buy a handsfree telephone, but it seems to me I already have the equipment. I have a computer with a 14k4 modem, an AWE32 soundcard, a microphone and speakers. I don't know if my modem has voice capabilities; probably not. As I see it a telephone is nothing more than a serial device with a microphone, a speaker, a bell and some buttons that make beeps. All this can be done with a soundcard, with the modem just as a way to plug in the telephone connector. Is there more to it than this? What (shareware) software do I need? I have seen this question posted elsewhere but haven't seen answers other than "I know you can but I don't know how". Please reply by email also. Thanks, Max domo@xs4all.nl ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: More CID Frolics! Organization: Telco Consulting Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:30:13 GMT In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: > For the last few weeks, I've been puzzled by a number that had been > appearing on my all of my CID devices (I'm up to 5 in the house). It > wasn't any valid NPA or NNX and the name showed up as "--------------". > Last night, it clicked. The number displayed is the first ten digits > of an account number that I have with a bank in the northeast. This > doesn't seem like mere coincidence to me. What piece of software is > able to manipulate CID, and does the FCC know about this? This has > the potential of rendering CID data useless. Over the years I have insisted on referring to ANI when appropriate and CLID when that term applied instead. Many people like to call the CLID information they receive ANI but it is not. ANI cannot be misrepresented by a customer, at least through any means I am aware of. CLID however is often controlled by the customer explicitly. The case of a University would be an example. A typical university might have several directly dialable numbers or even a whole NXX range. For example let's say UofX, a small university, has (XXX)555-1000 through 1999. Calling any of the numbers 555-1000 through 555-1999 will result in the call being sent to the UofX PBX (over a few ISDN Primary Rate trunks) which will in turn ring the appropriate extension. The callee at the UofX will have the callers number and name if available displayed on her telephone. The CO sent the information to the PBX. Now consider the case where a caller from the UofX places an outside call. If the callee is to have an accurate call display information set it will have to come from the PBX at the UofX. The CO could display only the main listed directory number of the UofX (555-1000) and the name of the university but that would not be very usefull when the caller is directly reachable and ISDN connected as well. When placing the call the UofX PBX will send to the CO the originating number to be used for the call as well as the name to be displayed if that service is available. In this way the most usefull service is provided. When a callee receives a call from the UofX extension phone the display will show the DID number and current name of the caller. The local CO should have filters in place which will ensure that the Uof;X PBX only sends valid CLIDs on outgoing calls. It should only allow the range of numbers assigned to the UofX (555-1000 to 555-1999). In reality most CO equipment is incapable of doing this filtering. In most cases the PBX could have sent any string of digits that was ten digits in length (some restrictions will apply). The name information is of course very dynamic, extensions can be reassigned at any time and the names of employees or students will change often. The originating name information can be anything. In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: > Last week, we heard about the calls I'm receiving where my CID displays > show the first 10 digits of my account number with a regional bank. > Today, I received another "interesting" call. There was no message on > the machine, but all of my CID devices have the name "WASHINGTON" (for > the state, I assume), and a number 206-959-0525. This number is not > only not dialable, but 959 does not exist in either the 206, 360, or 509 > NPA's. > Can anyone help me with TODAY'S mystery??? The trend toward computer controlled telephony has produced a wealth of products to enable organizations to take advantage of ISDN in their unique applications. An organization may create their own "PBX" today and may do as they wish with the CLID and name information. Vance Shipley +1 519 579 5816 (tel) Telco Consulting +1 519 579 5136 (fax) vances@telco.on.ca http://www.telco.on.ca ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: More CID Frolics - One Problem Solved! Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 17:13:13 -0400 First, I'd like to thank everyone for their quick response on my Caller ID predicament. The responses I received led me to call AT&T, USWest, and GTE Northwest and they all pointed fingers (which ever one they chose) at each other. The answer I received from USWest and GTE was, "Maybe it's a cellular number and we don't have those in our database." I couldn't convince them that even cellular numbers are assigned to a central office SOMEWHERE and would be in a searchable database. The mystery was partially solved when the caller finally left a message on my voice mail. I cross-checked the timestamp on that and my CID box(es) and Viola! The call originated from somewhere in the Bill Gates empire. NOW I have to wonder if this has a connection with my other CID mystery. Does Microsoft have the same CID-masking software that the bank had? Is this a Microsoft product? WinFake '95? BTW, the USWest rep told me that the 959 exchange is in general use in some of their other territories (Colorado, for example). Stan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:08:06 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Nevada Attorney General Investigates Excel > Nevada Attorney General's Office Investigates Long-Distance Company > By MICHELLE DeARMOND > An Excel employee was charged in a Federal Trade Commission > investigation earlier this year for allegedly making unsubstantiated > claims about earnings for work-at-home businesses. Robert Serviss of > Stamford, Conn., was accused of offering no proof that consumers would > earn up to $4,000 or more each. I am constanly amazed at how some reporters will publish "facts" without even attempting to validate them whatsoever. This Robert Serviss character has/had absolutely NOTHING to to with Excel Communications (NYSE: ECI) of Dallas, TX. He ran a completely different company, which just happened to call itself by the same name. He did not sell long distance. He sold some type of "Get Rich Quick" manual by mail-order that had nothing to do with long distance. Before I wrote an article on the subject, I actually bothered to pick-up the phone and ask the FTC about the case. It took me all of five minutes. I have no connection whatsoever to Excel, but I really hate to see their name dragged through the mud (further) by such incompetent journalism as that practiced by the above writer. I find it a bit ironic that there is apparently a higher degree of professionalsm and journalistic competence on internet mailing lists than there is at the Associated Press. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to think there is a bit more journalistic competence on many on the mailing lists. I got notes also from a couple of Excel people who complained about the way Excel got attached to the article in question. I personally do not like the sort of sales approach Excel uses but like yourself I see no reason to besmirch their character even further when there is little or no truth to something which appears in the papers. So thanks very much for your response, Van. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:41:17 +0000 From: tim jenkins Subject: Re: Northern Telecom "Services" Menu Organization: Bell-Northern Research In article , Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> wrote: > I've been playing around with a slick little Northern Telecom > PowerTouch 350 phone. It has all kinds of neat features, such as the > ability to move Caller ID info into your dialing database. > One feature I don't quite fathom is connected with something called > "Services." Under Services, the manual says: > "The large display on your telephone offers you the > advantages of full screen services, much like an > automatic banking machine. You can subscribe to > enhanced telephone company features and services > such as home banking, catalog shopping, movie > libraries, and restaurant guides. You can also > subscribe to telephone network services such as > network voice mail." > The manual then gives instructions for getting the phone to download a > list of subscriber services from the telco. > There is no information on how the data is transferred, protocols, or > anything. > Has anyone heard of this? Is "Services" a feature only available on > lines served by Northern Telecom DMS central offices? What signal > does the telephone send out when you punch the Services button? This is ADSI, which stands for Analog Display Services Interface. It's an open standard currently defined by Bellcore specs, if my memory serves me correctly. Nortel was heavily involved in the definition of the specifications. Basically, it operates this way: Somewhere on the network (and it could be the CO) there exists an ADSI server. This server sends information to your phone either as voice, but preferably as data in the form of modem signalling. Your phone can tell which is being sent, so the modem data goes to your screen and the voice to your handset/speaker/etc. The display can include menus, so selection of menus (for example) can be done by softkeys. The softkey pressed is sent back to the server by your phone using DTMF. Bank of Boston did a trial using ADSI some time ago. I don't know if they're still using it. There were numerous other trials as well. Other applications include advanced services from the CO such as directed call waiting, etc. etc. And no, it doesn't need to have anything to do with Nortel COs. Tim Jenkins tjj@nortel.ca ------------------------------ From: Guy St-Pierre Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:33:30 -0400 Subject: Re:Digital Cellular in North America Question About digital phones in North America, jfmezei@istar.ca wrote: > In North America, it *seems* that the push for digital cellular phones > is not very strong. (At least Cantel no longer pushes digital phones). > Are digital telephone more popular in GSM countries compared to those > few who resisted GMS to go with the USA standard ? It is true that the GSM has slightly better voice quality than the D-AMPS digital in North America. But improvements in D-AMPS digital are coming up soon. The performance of digital has a lot do with cell planning and network performance. BTW, GSM is digital only (control and voice channels). > Are applications such as SMS available for North American cellullar > systems? Or do they lag behind? (I assume that the USA dig system does > have the same functionality as SMS?) The North American market will start promotion of SMS (short message services) in a very near future. Same goes for Canada. Note that you will need a DCC phone (digital control channel, IS-136 standard) to use this feature. Regards, Guy St-Pierre Montreal ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:58:53 EDT From: Bob Baxter Subject: Photos From Telephone Pioneer Museum In April, 1996 I visited the Telephone Pioneer Museum, located in Commack, Long Island, New York. A one hour guided tour was given. In the course of the tour, I took a dozen pictures of the equipment and exhibits. The pictures have been put up for viewing. The URL is: http://www.panix.com/~bobbles/telpio.htm If visitors can ID the pieces of equipment shown, I will update the picture descriptions. Regards, Bob Baxter (bobbles@panix.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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #264 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jun 4 14:42:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA02322; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:42:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606041842.OAA02322@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #265 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:42:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Supreme Court Backs Long Distance Companies (TELECOM Digest Editor) Third Wireless Carrier in a Market (Greg Monti) Pac Bell *69 (Return Call) (Zev Rubenstein) Name-Only Caller-ID (was Re: Cellular Caller ID (Mike Fox) Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed (Robert Bononno) Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed (Stefano Cazzani) Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed (David Larsen) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Jeff Carroll) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Ronell Elkayam) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (JSeder@syntel.com) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (mwcoen@hooked.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:51:50 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Supreme Court Backs Long Distance Companies On Monday the Supreme Court let stand an order requiring local telcos to repay millions of dollars in what the court termed 'excessive earnings' to long distance carriers that buy access to local lines. Without comment, the court turned down the local telcos' argument that they were wrongly ordered to pay damages because there was no finding that any specific rates were unreasonable. The telcos' appeal said a Federal Communications Commission order would require 49 local phone companies to pay more than $83 million plus interest to long-distance carriers. Chicago-based Ameritech said it could not be detirmined at this time how much each specific company would owe in the process, however the impact on Ameritech itself would be 'minimal'. The long distance companies -- including AT&T, MCI and Sprint -- sought damages on a claim that the local companies exceeded their maximum rate of return on investment set by the FCC. The challenge involved rates charged for long-distance access to local lines between 1985 and 1990. In 1990, the FCC adopted a new ratemaking method for the largest local companies which serve 90 percent of all phone subscribers in the USA. The government now sets maximum rates for those companies, but it allows smaller companies to set their own rates as long as they stay under a maximum rate of return. The FCC ruled for the long-distance companies. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed, ordering the local telcos to refund the excess earnings. In the appeal resolved by the Supreme Court on Monday, the local telcos argued that they should not be forced to pay damages without a specific finding that their rates were too high and that the long distance carriers suffered injury as a result. The appeal also contended that the local companies should not be penalized retroactively because they could not predict whether their rates would lead to earnings above the maximum rate of return. Justice Department lawyers and attornies for the long-distance companies said in response that the FCC reasonably could decide that rates yielding excessive earnings are unlawful. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:37:31 -0400 From: cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Third Wireless Carrier in a Market Patrick Townson wrote: > [Regarding number of cellular carriers in a market]: Thus the A/B > arrangement, with no real provision > for a 'C' or 'D' carrier, or whatever they might be called. Does anyone > know of any plans to open the market to a third or fourth (a 'C' or 'D' > or whatever you would call them) carrier? I do not mean just as a > reseller of A/B as happens now, I mean genuine infrastructure for > a third or fourth cellular company in some markets? PAT Yes, there are now other wireless carriers popping up, although they don't go under the name "cellular" and don't use the same frequency band nor the same analog protocols. In Washington-Baltimore, a Personal Communications Service carrier called Sprint Spectrum has been in commercial service since December, 1995. They don't (yet) provide the same level of service breadth and roaming as the A and B cellular carriers do, but they are a viable wireless service with their own switches and their own antennas and base stations. In effect, they are the 'C' carrier in Washington-Baltimore. Sprint Spectrum is substantially owned by American Personal Communications, which is substantially held by the Washington Post Company. They are one of the PCS carriers who performed market and technical research on the viability of PCS. They (and two other companies) were given 'pioneer's preference' PCS licenses before the PCS spectrum auctions heated up. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@interramp.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 14:33:49 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Pac Bell *69 (Return Call) I recently discovered that Pac Bell charges for CLASS services that do not complete calls. For example (my case), they charge for *69 (return call) even if the service can't complete the call due to the returned number being cellular or out of area. Just the use of the service was enough to be charged. It's not just for no call completion due to Busy/Ring no Answer, but even if you get a recording saying that the service won't work to the number attempted (which happens on cell/out of area) there is a charge. I find this state of affairs hard to swallow. The rep and supervisor at P*B both said that if you "activate" the service, you are charged. The fact that you get a recording indicates that "the service works". I countered that by that logic, if I make any call and I get a busy signal I should be charged, since the fact that I get a busy signal means "the service works". In addition, the service guide in the white pages gives no indication that the user will be charged just for activating the feature, even if no calls are completed due to the lack of support for certain calls. When I lived in NY, call return usage was charged ONLY if a call completed. Finally, I did not use call return at all this past month, so I presume the charges were just delayed-billing for attempts in prior months. The bill has no call detail (no date, time or calling number), just a line with the total number of attempts. I didn't even press the issue, since I knew what the answer would be. When asked for call detail, the rep said that they can't provide call detail if the call was local - since it's on the same switch - and for calls where it could not complete (cell/out of area) the switch has no number. Again, I didn't press the issue: if the FBI wanted the local number, I'm sure P*B has a way to get it. The P*B supervisor took off the charges after our debate. She also offered to block call return on that line, which I accepted. Does anyone know what other LECs do regarding these services? Are there others that charge for attempts that are not possible? I plan to write to the California PUC about this - anyone have a useful name to write to? Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 4 Jun 96 16:29:40 GMT Subject: Name-Only Caller ID (was Re: Cellular Caller ID > Sorry if this has been suggested already, but how about "Name only > Caller-ID?" Afterall, don't you want to know *who* is calling more > than you want to know *what phone number* they are calling from? I haven't seen it discussed in TELECOM Digest, but it has come up on alt.dcom.telecom. I think this concept is an interesting litmus test for people's REAL views on caller-id. After all, name-only caller-id should satisfy all the people who say that caller-id is their god-given right to know who is calling them before they pick up, and it should also satisfy all the people who say that it is their god-given right to keep their actual phone numbers a secret. IMO, this is the solution that could solve the caller-id dilemma. Except it doesn't ... Because many of the caller-id advocates are using "I want to know who's calling me" as a smoke screen when they really want to collect phone numbers. These are the ones who say that name-only caller-id is completely unacceptable, only the number will do or the name-and-number will do (when I pressed them on alt.dcom.telecom on why they absolutely HAD to get a number, they always disappeared from the debate rather than answer). Many of the caller-id haters are using the "I want to keep my phone number away from databases, etc" as a smoke screen when they really want to be able to call anonymously to solicit or annoy or whatever. These people would HATE it if "ANNOYING MKTG CORP" or "MCI LD MKTG" could appear on your box when the phone rings at dinnertime. These are the ones who completely reject any kind of caller-id, including name-only. Some interesting arguments against name-only caller-id came up, but they all looked like excuses not to accept it to me. The most common excuse was that the technology and programming is not available for it. To that I say BS. I remember when caller id was first coming out a few years ago, the phone companies claimed that the technology and programming was not available for per-call or per-line blocking. But once these capabilities became requirements for the phone companies to be able to offer and make money from this service, they magically appeared. I contend the same is true for name-only. Hell, name-only is even easier to do. Just implement name-and-number caller-id, and if the caller has name-only, have the originating switch send blanks or dashes or zeroes in place of the number. The next most common excuse was "what happens if roomates share a phone line or if someone uses a line that belongs to someone else." Basically, the name doesn't definitively identify the caller. But that is no different from the situation with today's number-only or name-and-number caller id, and could be rectified by allowing the subscriber to customize the string that gets sent (could say SMITH/JONES, or JOE OR MARK for example). Or, I bet if this service were offered, phone companies would offer a version that's like "reverse ringmaster": have several strings saved at the phone company database, press a *xx combination to decide which one gets sent. There's just as much room for creativity here as there is for creativity in finding excuses to not accept the name-only idea. Until I heard of name-only caller id, I thought that caller id was a bad thing. I have per-line blocking at home (and have never had anyone use "block the blocker" on me either, so there :). But if name-only were available, I would enthusiastically embrace it, and I think many others who want to exploit this cool technology but don't want to give out their numbers would too. I bet if name-only were available, a LOT of people who currently block caller id or plan to would opt for name-only. I know I would. I just wish this had been thought of earlier. Or maybe it has been and never caught on because those selling caller-id know that its real economic value is in the business of number collecting. Later, Mike ------------------------------ From: bononno@acf2.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:50:09 -0400 Organization: New York University In article , K. Walter wrote: > I am looking for general materials on several European CATV/telecom > projects -- any suggestions on sources would be appreciated. > 1. BT = (OTIAN) Optical Telecom in the Access Network. > 2. Deutsche Telekom = (OPAL) Optical Access Line. > 3. France Telecom = (DORA) Deploiement de l'Optique dans le Reseau > d'Access France Telecom has an office for North America in New York City. They're at 1270 Avenue of the Americas. They should have some information about fiber-optic deployment. Robert Bononno ++++ bononno@acf2.nyu.edu ++++ Techline ------------------------------ Date: 04 Jun 96 12:56:27 EDT From: Stefano Cazzani <100010.3371@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed > I am looking for general materials on several European CATV/telecom > projects -- any suggestions on sources would be appreciated. You can very often find information about the many European CATV projects on Communications International, a monthly magazine published by Emap Computing and widely circulated free of charge to qualified professionals everywhere except in the USA. Stefano Cazzani Communications International's Italy correspondent ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:38:35 -0400 From: larsendg@mcgraw-hill.com (David Larsen) Subject: Re: European CATV/Telecom Info -- Sources Needed Comprehensive coverage of European CATV/telecom market and technology issues can be found in Convergence Strategies & Technologies, a service from Datapro Information Services Group based in Delran, NJ. Datapro can be contacted on 1 800 328 2776 toll free or 609 764 0100. A useful contact there is Tim McElgunn. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:31:00 -0500 Organization: bigendian Reply-To: xfrosch@indy.net Chris Hudel wrote: > Sorry if this has been suggested already, but how about "Name only > Caller-ID?" Afterall, don't you want to know *who* is calling more > than you want to know *what phone number* they are calling from? There's no way to authenticate that until we barcode your forehead and install a SIR port. jkc ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ronell Elkayam) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: 3 Jun 1996 19:37:44 GMT Organization: Florida International University On Thu, 30 May 1996 09:59:01 -0700, Mark Gabriele (email: gabriele@rand.org) posted: [Talking about when a physician has to call back a patient at home while being forced to give his home number (due to Anonymous Call Rejection.] > Unfortunately, I have not heard of any such capability in any > jurisdiction with which I am familiar. You've heard wrong. ;) There are plenty of ways anyone could protect their identity calling FROM HOME while preserving privacy. For one, get a second line. Use it for outgoing calls only, or use it for incoming calls only. Cost -- $12-$20/mo (depending on whether you'll make outgoing calls). Or alternatively, you could do something funky like order RingMaster (AKA Distinctive Ringing) and Call Forwarding Main Number. Cost -- $7/mo combined. What good does that do? Well, when you call anyone, the number that'll show up on their CID display will be the main number. When they try to call back that number -- oops, they're being forwarded to an answering service/the office number/whatever. The only way to make your phone ring is to call the unlisted RingMaster number. Or you could use a calling card to place that call ... Or push 0 and talk to the operator ... Or set-up a three-way hop-off device to complete the call from the office line ... Certainly you don't expect the solution to be free. Or else, what's the point in having Anonymous Call Rejection when it can be bypassed at any time. A telemarketer wouldn't want to spend much money to reach you, a crank caller wouldn't either. In an emergency situation, you're still always available. Ron Miami, FL ------------------------------ From: JSeder@syntel.com Subject: Re: Caller-ID Delay in California Date: 03 Jun 1996 23:58:29 GMT Organization: BRAINSTORM Networks Reply-To: JSeder@syntel.com In , Dr. Robert Jacobson writes: > I worked to help pass California's Caller ID law, which instructs the > PUC on the implementation of Caller ID. Shame on you. > First, the service was devised to collect information on callers to > businesses... The idea was that > a business could cue its internal records on incoming phone call num- > bers, to serve you, the caller, faster and better -- but also, by > using the phone number as a surrogate ID number, companies could trade > data about their customers and build big dossiers. Better than with > your Social Security number, as the HMOs do. Well, so what? They do this anyway. Do you hesitate to use an 800 number because the company you're calling will add some information (like what you are ordering, your address, your credit card number) to your dossier? No one has ever tried to eliminate per-call blocking, which isn't even an option on 800 calls, and which could be used for this purpose if you are really worried about these "dossiers". Frankly, I find these dossiers make my life more convenient -- I don't have to keep spelling my name or providing my address. > That's why whenever line blocking was proposed or made law in some > states, the telcos moaned, "but that will take the economic value out > of the service." Since everyone I have talked to plans to opt for per-line blocking (as the PUC has demanded that Pac Bell practically require), I don't expect to get much for the $6.50/month I will pay for Caller ID. > Second, as the many posts here continue to testify, there are a > hundred ways around Caller ID, from using new phone numbers or public > telephone booths to simply fooling the underlying SS7 switching > service. Right. But Caller ID could effectively put an end to harrassing telephone calls and other abuses. I firmly believe that the right to know who is ringing a bell in your house is more important than the "right" to ring that bell anonymously. That is, I believe recipients of telephone calls have rights which dominate any historical "right" to make anonymous telephone calls. > The woman who championed the Caller ID law... was > worried, as a single mother, that a molester or other heinous > character might record _her_ phone number during a call and track it > back to her house, to savage her or her child. It was a reasonable > fear. Well, if she's afraid that the number she's calling belongs to a "molester or other heinous character", she can use per-line blocking or go to a pay phone. Everyone agrees that halfway-houses, physicians, and other special cases should get per-line blocking. This not a good argument that Caller ID is bad. You possibly live in Massachusetts, which took a more practical approach to Caller ID. Tell me, have there been complaints about how Caller ID cost people their anonymity? Did it make Big Brother a reality in the Bay State? What Caller ID does is make a caller think twice before making harrassing, unkind, childish, or prank calls. It lets someone decide whether to respond to an insistent bell in their home. It corrects a historical accident that twisted the rights and responsibilities of telephone users. It is important and it should not be delayed or weakened. JDS ------------------------------ From: mwcoen@hooked.net Subject: Re: Caller-ID Delay in California Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 04:03:48 GMT Organization: Hooked Online Services Dr. Robert Jacobson wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it just incredible that you seem >> to have so many people in California on this kick. What is with all >> these people who seem to feel they have this right to hide themselves >> when they make calls no matter whose time they waste or whatever >> foolish calls they originate? I'll be glad to see 'blocked number >> blocking' (where recipients have the right to block calls from persons >> who hide their phone numbers) become universal. I am going to encourage >> everyone to sign up for it. PAT] > My friend Pat sees the world from an entirely too egocentric position. > I worked to help pass California's Caller ID law, which instructs the > PUC on the implementation of Caller ID. There are good reasons for > being cynical about Caller ID, whatever its limited merits as a way of > screening one's home calls. > First, the service was devised to collect information on callers to > businesses. This was stated explicitly several times by telephone > company advocates when the service was introduced. The idea was that > a business could cue its internal records on incoming phone call num- > bers, to serve you, the caller, faster and better -- but also, by > using the phone number as a surrogate ID number, companies could trade > data about their customers and build big dossiers. Better than with > your Social Security number, as the HMOs do. > That's why whenever line blocking was proposed or made law in some > states, the telcos moaned, "but that will take the economic value out > of the service." > Second, as the many posts here continue to testify, there are a > hundred ways around Caller ID, from using new phone numbers or public > telephone booths to simply fooling the underlying SS7 switching > service. Thank you Bob. Californians are known for our leading edge reputation when it comes to legislation and ballot issues. I wrote to the CA PUC years ago asking for caller ID (CID) in the very form it now appears. That is, line blocking with per call enabling. I wrote that I believe the telco's are solely in this to deliver the residential customer to the business customer. We have not heard a word about costs yet. About $5-8/month for the *service*. At that price, most residents can't afford it or won't be willing to spend that much each month to see who is calling them. However, businesses can afford that. I would like the option to block all blocked calls. In a subsequent letter to the CA PUC I asked that CID be offered as part of basic phone service. Someday it will. Mike mwcoen@hooked.net ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #265 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jun 4 15:27:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA07265; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:27:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606041927.PAA07265@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #266 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Jun 96 15:27:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Cellular (Lynne Gregg) Re: What Does A/B Carrier Mean? (Lynne Gregg) Re: What Does A/B Carrier Mean? (Robert McMillin) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Mike Fox) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Lynne Gregg) Re: Cellular Caller ID (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question (Lynne Gregg) Ninety Day Right of Recission on Term Contracts? (Mark S. Halperin) Telecom Positions Open (Harris Kern) Now Who Needs Whom? (was Re: Fight Turns Nasty (William J. Halverson) Re: Graybar Electric (Dave Levenson) Re: Graybar Electric (John Agosta) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Henry Baker) Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Ira Sutton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 11:11:00 PDT > From my understanding of the cellular protocols, it's not technically > feasible, Pat. The A and B carriers (competitive and wireline) are > using two actually different sets of frequencies for their calls. This is not correct. A and B cellular carriers in the U.S. all operate at 850 mhz radio frequency. The new PCS entrants will operate at 1900 and others. Mike Fox wrote: > I don't think they are really bringing in two new *cellular* carriers. > I think they are setting up two *PCS* services. The fact that he > called it "Sprint" instead of "360 Degree Communications" confirms > that IMO, as Sprint spun off their cellular business into 360 Degree > so they can concentrate on PCS. Technically speaking, there is *no* difference between PCS and cellular systems in the U.S. aside from those systems operating on different radio frequencies. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: What Does A/B Carrier Mean? Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 10:44:00 PDT In response to the original post from Alexander Cerna , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > According to Lynn Gregg, some of the newcomers with their own > infrastructure won't be A or B ... they will be on their own radio > frequencies with a totally different thing altogether. PAT] Just to clarify, the new entrants offering wireless services are now referred to as "PCS a,b, and c" carriers (with probably more to follow, i.e., d, e...). They will operate on different radio frequencies than the embedded cellular carriers. All are using existing cellular technologies (TDMA, CDMA, or GSM) tuned to 1900 mhz frequencies. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:50:32 -0700 From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: What Does A/B Carrier Mean? On 02 Jun 1996 17:34:33 PDT, PAT said: > I am reminded of the divestiture of Standard Oil a hundred years ago. > Each of the 'Standard Oil Companies' created as a result of divestiture > had to go into competition with each other; but even today they still > respect each other's territories. The old Standard Oil of Indiana > still does business as Standard Oil here in the midwest, but when they > do business on the east or west coast they are known as Amoco. Standard > Oil of New Jersey comes over to this part of the country and does > business as Exxon. Standard Oil of California goes over to the east > coast and I forget what name they use there, but it is not Standard > Oil. It's no longer Standard Oil of California, but Chevron, after their familiar (to Californians, at least) gas station logo. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've noticed around here they are also getting away from what for years had been the 'Standard Oil Division of Amoco Oil' and are going with Amoco everywhere. But many years ago when the west coast bunch was known as Chevron around here (although we never did have many of them) it was d/b/a/ Standard Oil there in California. The trouble was, none of the 'Standard Oil' companies were allowed to use that name once they got outside their own immediate territory, thus the use of Chevron, Amoco, Exxon, Sohio, Boron, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 3 Jun 96 11:13:19 GMT Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID In , Lynne Gregg writes: > The FCC Order on Calling Number Services is very clear on this: > If the caller blocks his number, NAME cannot be presented -- even > alone (with no accompanying number). The Order also states that > auto-callback *69 cannot be used either, if the caller blocks his > number. Hmmm, that's interesting. Here in Bell South territory, I have had calls I've made returned with *69, and I have blocking. It was to my brother's phone. He said that normally when he does *69, a recording gives him the number and then calls it. In the case of my number, the recording states that it cannot give him the number, then calls it. So he calls me and doesn't know who he's calling until I answer. That's too bad about the FCC order prohibiting name-only caller id. I wonder why they did that. Later, Mike ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 11:05:00 PDT C10973@email.mot.com (Eric A. Carr) wrote: > In Chicago, calls originated by a cellular subscriber on the "A" band > (Cellular One) show up as "ANONYMOUS" on an ANI display box. > Calls marked as such cause a LED to flash in cadence > with the ring cycle on my ANI box, so if I see this while the > phone is ringing I will not answer the call. There's an easy fix for your situation. Tell your cellular caller(s) to either ask the carrier to remove Per Line Blocking from their account or they may use *82 on a per call basis (prepended to the dialed number) when calling you or others who will need to see the number. According to the FCC, all carriers including cellular operators must support *67 and *82 for per call blocking options. Though it may seem a nit to some, Caller ID (calling party number) and ANI *are* not one in the same. The ANI reference here is technically incorrect. > Calls originated by someone on the "B" band (Ameritech) show up as > "UNAVAILABLE", which I'm more likely to answer*. This indicates that the carriers outbound trunks are still old MF and not yet upgraded to ISUP. As conversion occurs, this will change and you will either see the cellular callers number or "ANONYMOUS" if they block their number. > Why not implement ANI service that just shows the name? Because the FCC is very specific: if the caller blocks his number, NAME may not be shown either. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Cellular Caller ID Date: 4 Jun 1996 14:20:28 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Chris Hudel (hudel@hppad.waterloo.hp.com) wrote: > Sorry if this has been suggested already, but how about "Name only > Caller-ID?" Afterall, don't you want to know *who* is calling more > than you want to know *what phone number* they are calling from? Someone will get their button pushed on this one ... might as well be me. When are people going to learn that "Calling Name ID" is crap? For example, I've had roommates in the past, who've taken advantage of the fact that I maintain a spare DN on my voice line, courtesy of GTE's SmartRing distinctive ringing service. Even had it listed separately for one long time roomie. So, if he calls someone, _my_ name should show up? The _real_ problem is when people come to depend on technology, the operation of which they're being lied to about. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff The Suncoast Freenet Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 10:56:00 PDT jfmezei@istar.ca wrote: > In North America, it *seems* that the push for digital cellular phones > is not very strong. (At least Cantel no longer pushes digital phones). The reason that digital phones are "pushed" in Europe and other countries is that those systems were developed from the outset to be GSM. This differs from the cellular scene in the U.S., where mature cellular networks are analog networks. Most major cellular carriers (including Cantel in Canada) have built digital into the infrastruc- ture and are encouraging customers to choose digital phones. Though digital phones in the U.S. are generally more expensive than analog, the price differential is decreasing. Digital phones offer a raft of new features that can't be found on analog (Caller ID, Message Waiting Indicator, Short Messaging). > Are applications such as SMS available for North American cellular > systems? Or do they lag behind? (I assume that the USA dig system does > have the same functionality as SMS?) Yes. SMS services are beginning to be offered by several cellular operators including AT&T Wireless. > Is there any chance that GSM would eventually be supported in North > America by some operators (operating both GSM and the USA system). GSM systems are going into commercial operation in the U.S. by a number of PCS operators (as are other digital technologies). Although AT&T Wireless' U.S. network is not GSM, we do offer a seamless roaming service that allows our customers to roam on GSM networks in 37 countries. The service is called CellCard. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:13:45 -0400 From: msh@world.std.com (Mark S. Halperin) Subject: Ninety Day Right of Recission on Term Contracts? Industry lore (and it may only be just that) in the sales end of long distance states that a long distance customer can rescind a new term contract within the first 90 days. I have seen such a provision in many major carrier contracts and have always assumed that it was there because it was required by federal or state regulation. I have approached a number of people in the industry who say that the right is unequivocal but no one can cite any authority to that effect. Does anyone know the background on this lore? Mark Halperin TELECOM PARTNERS 92 Church Street, Winchester, MA 01890 Tel: 1-617-721-9720 Fax: 1-617-721-6749 "Fulfilling your communications needs with exemplary customer service" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:31:03 -0400 From: Harris Kern Subject: Telecom Positions Open WinStar Communications, Inc. leads the industry in the provision of wireless local telecommunications access services to users throughout the United States. With its array of local access services, competitive local exchange service, and comprehensive long distance services, WinStar is poised to put reliable, cost-effective communications within reach. WinStar occupies a unique position in the telecommunications industry. As Congress continues to knock down barriers between local and long distance telecommunications markets, WinStar is already aggressively staking a claim in both arenas. We have coupled our exclusive 38 GHz licenses with the latest technological advances in millimeter wave radio technology to provide high speed, high bandwidth local digital telecommunications services. With license authority in 41 of the 45 largest metropolitan areas in the United States, WinStar covers more than 100 cities with populations greater than 100,000 people. We currently have opening for Switch Operations Managers in the following cities: New York Los Angeles San Diego Chicago Boston San Francisco The Switch Operations Manager will manage the installation and operation of the WinStar telephone switch(s) in each city. They will oversee the performance of the Service Coordinators. (Service Coordinators provide technical support to sales during order taking, coordinate new service installation, and provide first line trouble resolution for in service customers.) Provide escalation point for technical issues concerning service, both pre and post installation. Notes: Ideal candidate should have first or second level experience as a switch foreperson for AT&T, NYNEX, etc., preferably in turning up a #5 ESS. Candidate should also have technical expertise in provisioning beyond the switch; i.e., access, CPE, all major brands of PBX and Key Equipment, digital and analog transmission and interface equipment. Please send resume to: Harris B. Kern Director, Switch Operations WinStar Telecommunications, Inc. 7799 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA. 22043 or e-mail direct to hkern@winstar.com ------------------------------ From: William J. Halverson Subject: Now Who Needs Whom? (was Re: Fight Turns Nasty) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 11:34:21 -0700 Organization: Pacific Bell's Healthcare Market Group It's interesting to contemplate the effects of the following two scenarios on people living in Ameritech's service territory: Scenario 1: All of Ameritech's employees go home tonight and turn off power to their switches. Scenario 2: All of AT&T's employees go home tonight and turn off power to their switches. Results? Pretty obvious to me. In Scenario 1, 95% of the phone users will not have service until somebody turns the power back on. In Scenario 2, 5% of the phone users [only those businesses with direct facility links to AT&T] are off line until the power comes back on. Moral of the story: The phone users in Ameritech territory need Ameritech much more than they need AT&T ... AT&T and Ameritech both know this. So I wonder what the _real_ reason behind this fight are ... Bill Halverson Pacific Bell PH 415 542 6564 wjhalv1@pacbell.com FAX 415 542 4744 PGP Key at http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Graybar Electric Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 03:06:02 GMT Stan Schwartz (usfunx2b@ibmmail.com) writes: > In Mark J. Cuccia's very informative article in TD #234 "WUTCO, WECO, > Graybar", there was some doubt as to the current existence of Graybar. >> I don't know how many offices they still have in the states, but a Here in New Jersey, you'll find local Graybar sales offices in Hackensack (a block North of US Route 46) and in North Brunswick on Livingston Avenue, a (few blocks north of US Route 1). We regularly call Graybar when we buy telephone cable, non-dial telephone sets, and a few other somewhat hard-to-locate telecom supplies. Why would we want non-dial telephone sets? (Everybody wants to know ... they're often more expensive than sets which include dials, as the Graybar rep keeps telling me.) We offer them as extension phones on our COCOT lines. The phones with dials built-in are often incapable of having the dial removed, either physically or electrically. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are many uses for telephone sets without dials. For example, many are used as 'ring-down' or leased line phones to specific businesses. If you go in a few places here in Skokie such as the hospital lobby or the lobby of the Northshore Hilton Hotel you will find phones like this: when the receiver is lifted they connect immediatly with the American Taxi Company. About twenty years ago when I was operating my telephone recorded information service, in addition to being able to dial direct into it, a few business places had a phone without a dial connected direct to my service. When someone lifted the receiver, the phone connected immediatly to the bank of answering machines on my end of the line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) Subject: Re: Graybar Electric Date: 4 Jun 1996 16:30:54 GMT Organization: Agosta and Associates In article , Stan Schwartz says: > In Mark J. Cuccia's very informative article in TD #234 "WUTCO, WECO, > Graybar", there was some doubt as to the current existence of Graybar. There is a Graybar franchise in Bloomingdale, Illinois. I go there often to buy widgets, do-dads, and thingamajigs ... 847 893 3600 is the phone number. ja ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:26:18 GMT In article , xfrosch@indy.net wrote: > It used to be the case that construction of telecommunications networks > was such a huge cost that society could only afford to bear it once. > With the proliferation of cable TV, mobile phones, and (especially) > digital wireless systems, this is clearly no longer so. I disagree with your premise that telecom networks cost so much that society could only afford to bear it once. I don't think that this was _ever_ true, except in the minds of certain politicians. In the early days of electrification, there were many competing companies. In the early days of telephony, there were many competing companies. Rather than encourage cooperation on standards, governments bought into specious arguments that you didn't want to have two sets of telephone poles, electric poles etc., and therefore a regulated monopoly would be optimum. The telcos and electric companies loved this argument, since they no longer had to compete. The reason this argument is specious is because it is based on the premise of _no technical progress_. And, of course, the argument is self-fullfilling, because with a monopoly there won't be any technical progress. Suppose I have two competitors providing service to the same customers in the same city, and suppose that they have to 'duplicate' the infrastructure. Even in the worst case, the total cost is only double that of the lowest cost single provider. But now consider the monopoly, and factor in the featherbedding of the monopoly service unions, the backdoor payments by the monopoly to the politicians (legal here in L.A.), the bloated tax payments on 'phantom profits' generated by unrealistic depreciation schedules, the continued use of completely obsolete 50-100 year old technology, and your 'infrastructure cost' balloons to at least 10X that of the lowest cost system. Thus, two _highly efficient_ competitors utilizing the best available technology may have a slight overlap in infrastructure, but this additional 'cost' is what we pay for continued innovation and competition to assure the lowest overall prices. It is therefore a screaming bargain. In biology, this 'duplication' is called 'diversity'. What of 'universal service'? The problem with 'universal service' is the endemic problem of bureaucracies that 'the minimum becomes the maximum'. Although laws and regulations are always written requiring 'minimum' standards, have you noticed that no one ever provides more than this 'minimum'? This is because all incentive to compete in this particular dimension is removed once the minimum standards have been set. Technical progress requires that a percentage of the customers be 'early adopters' to pay for and test out new equipment and services. But the moment someone tries to innovate, one hears idiotic statements from politicians about the technology 'haves' and 'have nots'. Since it makes no sense to foist untested ideas on 100% of the public at the same time (something that policitians love to do), there must always be some differences between customers in the technology they can afford. Furthermore, since customers have different needs and budgets, these differences allow customers to choose what makes the most sense to them. But politicians can't stand for their constituents to think for themselves, and continually offer up Procrustean beds for us to sleep in. [snip] > What government regulation really insures is that your technology will > lag the state of the art by years if not decades. You betcha. [snip] > Prices ARE being kept artificially high and technology IS being > restrained by government regulation. People have an amazing array of > communications choices today, and, as long as antitrust legislation is > properly enforced, the consumer has little if anything to fear from > telecom deregulation save the mild stress of adapting to new > technology. And the 'stress' of adapting to vastly lower prices. :-) www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ From: irasut@ro.com (Ira Sutton) Subject: Re: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 15:46:22 GMT Organization: RENAISSANCE INTERNET SERVICES Jeff Carroll wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> Another benefit of regulation is lower rates. Because a service >> territory is guaranteed, the government dictates a low rate of return. >> Nobody gets rich on utility stocks. Further, the government dictates >> service standards. > This is a canard. Neither high standards of service nor low rates are > guaranteed by utility regulation. The only conceivable explanation of > why 2B+D ISDN is still $98/month in Indiana (as it was last time I > checked) is the intransigence of the public utility commission and a > cozy relationship with the telecom utilities. > What government regulation really insures is that your technology will > lag the state of the art by years if not decades. > Prices ARE being kept artificially high and technology IS being > restrained by government regulation. People have an amazing array of > communications choices today, and, as long as antitrust legislation is > properly enforced, the consumer has little if anything to fear from > telecom deregulation save the mild stress of adapting to new > technology. Another case in point on how government is in bed with the regulated is here in Alabama. Rates for ISDN Bell South service have been "regulated" at $65 per month, In TN, Bell South is regulated at about $18 for the same ISDN service. How do the AL regulators justify the difference? In AL they run for office and are the lackies of the utility companies. Apparantly, we can't get someone elected that will look out for the people. But Lisa I know it is comfortable to think that the government is fair and is looking out for you and I. You must be very young, have your head in the sand, or be one on the inside trying to convince us that everything is all right. Regards, Ira >jkc ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #266 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jun 4 16:51:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA15886; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 16:51:17 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606042051.QAA15886@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #267 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Jun 96 16:50:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Followup on Sprint Fridays Free (Craig Richey) Help Needed With Diamond Tel Cellular Phone Problem (Ronny H. Angkasa) Re: Telco Voice Mail Signaling (Guy St-Pierre) Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves (Steven Lichter) Newsgroup alt.lang.intensional (R. Jagannathan) Re: Will Sprint Comply on June 1? (Paul L. Schmidt) Re: How Long Ago Was This Made? (Jay R. Ashworth) Home Phone Switch Needed (Willie Peloquin) Nokia 232 Questions (Bill Breckinridge) Re: Arrogant Internet Provider (Reverend Tweek) AT&T 9300 - Spread Spectrum "Technology"? (Doug Zipser) Overstock of Product - Disposal (Guy Lessard) Re: AT&T Movie Placement (Larry Appleman) Re: Line Monitor/Protocol Analyzer (John Skenesky) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 96 14:14 EST From: Craig Richey <0005221992@mcimail.com> Subject: Followup on Sprint Fridays Free Hello, I'm just wondering how you finally settled your Fridays Free issue with Sprint. My wife and I have a small Import/Export business that was on the program before the change. My in-laws also work with us and were on the program but they had to sign a contract first (I guess the sales rep heard the Indian voice and knew what was coming). When Sprint changed the rules I put in several calls to Mr Loyed's office (someone forwarded your mail message to me) but got no response. I also called the Sprint Custumer Service and told them I didn't intend to pay any charges until this was settled. Since India is the bulk of our calling my in-laws dropped Sprint. Sprint is now billing $200 for a contract break. I haven't dropped the service but have done all my calling on our other line (MCI). I am now being billed for the $50/mo service charge even though there is no usage. The whole thing is getting ridiculous. What do you suggest? Thanks in advance, Craig Richey (703) 415-6314 (703) 802-3020 fax 5221992@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been awhile since anything about this was dicussed here, so perhaps others who were victimized by this scam of Sprint have some comments to add. I have heard from a couple other people that Sprint is continuing to bill the service charge each month while ignoring any/all requests for explanations or an opportunity to speak with Robin Loyed, etc. I personally would not waste any more time speaking to their customer service representatives. Even if they are paying for the call via their 800 number it would still be a waste of your time which also has to be worth something. My suggestion at this point is take your last one or two bills from Sprint, clearly indicate on the face of the bill 'Payment is Refused; Refer to Robin Loyed for explanation.' Include a short note stating your belief that Sprint deliberatly engaged in a fraudulent act by entering into a contract with you which they knew at the time they had no intention of upholding. State that you require *in writing* an explanation from Robin Loyed along with a telephone number where he can be reached. Inform them that future billings will be regarded as continuing the fraud and that they are to make no further contact with you except as specified. Send this to them by registered/certified mail. Save the green card receipt you get in return. Wait for further response from them. Does anyone else have anything to add? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rhast4+@pitt.edu (Ronny H Angkasa) Subject: Help Needed With Diamond Tel Cellular Phone Problem Date: 4 Jun 1996 05:44:40 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh I have a Diamond Tel celullar phone, model DT 22X. I dropped it last month, and it has not been working since then. I brought it to AT&T Wireless near my place but they couldn't fix it after trying for a few minutes. They told me that it would cost too much to fix it; even if I tried to send it to Mitsubishi it would too much for labor etc. The phone itself I think cost about $200. The warranty has expired. If anyone have any suggestions how this phone can be put back to work, please let me know; I will appreciate it very, very much. Thanks, Ronny Angkasa email address : rhast4@pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~rhast4/index.html ------------------------------ From: Guy St-Pierre Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 06:26:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Telco Voice Mail Signaling Paul Chehowski (paulc@sulis.com) wrote: > Does anyone know how telco voice mail systems manage to signal a > subscriber's phone when they have voice mail waiting? The signaling > seems to be done without taking the phone off hook, and it seems to be > done on a regular basis to the phone (if you disconnected the phone > and plug it back in the light on the phone will come back eventually). > Could someone point me to a reference on this type of signaling? The type of signalling used by the Voice Mail manufacturer we are most familiar with (OCTEL) is R1 signalling (MF). They also support X.25, and SS7 through ISUP trunks. A typical scenario would go like this for an ERICSSON mobile switch-OCTEL combination, but can apply to most CLASS-5 exchanges: A message is deposited in the user's voice mail. The OCTEL machine then calls back the switch with a procedure call using MF codes, something like "7700 + subscriber number, meaning ALL MESSAGES RETRIEVED" or "7701 + subscriber number, meaning NEW MESSAGE DEPOSITED"... The switch analyses those digits through data translations and updates the subscriber record accordingly. Next time the mobile phone registers, the switch would then call the mobile, all of this, of course, assuming the subscriber has the Message Waiting Indicator feature active. The Switch will keep calling you every time you power on your phone until you clear your messages. The example above was with R1 (MF) signalling, but trunks using SS7 signalling as well as X.25 links can also be used. I guess you could contact OCTEL Corp. for more details. Regards, Guy St-Pierre ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves Date: 4 Jun 1996 04:15:12 -0700 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) writes: > Forget about minor marketing skirmishes. Now Ameritech and AT&T are > engaged in full battle -- and customers of both companies are left in > the middle, especially those with a calling card issued by either > company. > o Ameritech claims that as of Friday AT&T will bar its card holders > from making local calls within Ameritech's calling area. Last week AT&T notified GTE that it was cancelling the agreement to use the AT&T cards on GTE's network. It was stated that GTE's cards would still work on AT&T's Network. This seems to be happening all over the country, but does not effect Alaska or Hawaii. It seems like AT&T does not really care about its customers in local areas and is planning to offer local service and customers be damned and confused. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:53:29 GMT From: R. Jagannathan Organization: Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International Subject: Newsgroup alt.lang.intensional Reply-To: R. Jagannathan alt.lang.intensional is a newly formed newsgroup for discussions on intensional programming and related areas. If your news reader is unable to find such a group, contact your news sysadmin to create one per the control message (cmsg) sent all over the internet to do so. For the uninitiated, intensional programming means programming in a language or systembased on intensional (eg modal or temporal) logic and indexical (possible worlds) semantics. These languages/systems are usually implemented using eduction: tagged, demand-driven data flow - the tags represent indices/possible worlds. For further details on intensional programming, visit http://lucy.uvic.ca Here is the charter for alt.lang.intensional: Newsgroup devoted to discussion of the following: (1) Intensional languages such as Lucid, GLU, Chronolog, and visualJava. (2) Theory including intensional logic, dataflow, verification, non-determinism, extended Kahn principle, higher-order logic, termination. (3) Software including version control, visual programming, parallel programming, and Web programming. (4) Applications in areas such as image processing, real time computing, signal processing, graphics and animation, databases and hardware design. Look forward to your participation in this newsgroup. Regards, R Jagannathan, SRI, Menlo Park, California USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 11:42:07 -0500 From: Paul L. Schmidt Subject: Re: Will Sprint Comply on June 1? In article Magee@cris.com wrote: > I was wondering if Sprint will really comply this time to the FCC's > requirement to pass caller ID data along with LD calls? Caller-ID started working sometime early last week (must have been May 27 or 28) on my Sprint residential 800 number. Looks like they may have made it. And yes, there IS someone who reads this newsgroup who has Sprint and hasn't had any problems; I am a low-volume long distance user (about ten bucks a month for my LD bill, most of which has been the stupid per-call card fees and high per-minute credit-card rates) for short calls home generally around 8 PM. I just switched to Sprint Sense and residential 800 service because -- in my case -- it works out to my benefit: slightly less cost but a lot easier dialing and the shoulder-surfing risk is virtually gone. YMMV. Paul Schmidt Bloomfield, IN USA Amateur Radio K9PS Public PGP key available @ MIT server ARRL Life Member fingerprint: 24 9F D3 BD AE E3 50 72 QCWA Life Member 26711 23 AB A0 64 BB 9E 2B 8D ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: How Long Ago Was This Made? Date: 4 Jun 1996 06:00:01 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Dale Miller (domiller@ualr.edu) wrote: > While moving recently, I came across a very low-tech item I had all > but forgotten about. It's a yardstick. This particular one is > emblazoned with "Beard's Furniture Co. - Little Rock, Ark. - Phone No. > 7484". I know some SWBT folks read this group regularly, and I was > wondering if anyone might be able to shed some light on the age of > this item. Since I'm sure Little Rock wasn't in the forefront of > telephone installation, I can't imagine that they had four-digit numbers > for very long before moving to named exchanges. Old numbers are fun, aren't they? I have a customer who makes great hay in their marketing materials of an ad they placed in an early-1900's cookbook which lists them has having "Phone No. 1" in St Petersburg, Florida. Wonder when the first automatic switch actually went in, and what it was ... Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff The Suncoast Freenet Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: n8mdy@falcon.ic.net (n8mdy) Subject: Home Phone Switch Needed Date: 4 Jun 1996 17:01:38 GMT Organization: ICNet ... Your Link to the Internet ... 313-998-0090 Hello, I have a problem with telephone lines, long distance and abusive children. We recently received a $280 phone bill, all local long distance calls. My teenage son thinks it ok to talk to the next exchange for hours at a time. Well, I cut off long distance service on the family telephone; I have a separate line in my office for my own use. Is there a phone switch, which would cost $500 or less, available? I would like to assign access codes, call accounting and possibly an intercom or paging system. Thanks, Willie Peloquin wpeloqui@medar.com Software Engineer Medar, Inc. ------------------------------ From: WBRECK@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:07:11 -0400 Subject: Nokia 232 Questions Greetings to Editor Townson and all TD'ers! I have just purchased a new Nokia 232 cellular phone, and after a couple passes through the manual I still have a couple questions maybe someone out there can help with: 1) does this phone have a theft lock feature, where it is automatically locked at power up, and a code has to be entered before it can be used? 2) how does the "Call Barring" function (menu 14) work? I have selected "Allow National" (bars international calls), but the manual says something about the international prefix has to be programmed by the dealer in order for this to work? 3) the manual is rather vague on the "Keyguard" function (menu 16). My phone seems to always say "Keyguard Active" when I go into this menu, yet I can dial no problem! Can anyone explain how this works and what it's supposed to do? 4) I seem to have the one-touch emergency dialing with the 9 key setup and working OK (I keyed in 911 and the word emergency and saved to location 9...), even though the manual says it has to be programmed by the dealer??? Any other insights, hints, secrets, etc. into the efficient working and/or programming of this phone would be welcome! Best Regards, Bill Breckinridge wbreck@aol.com Plano, TX USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:17:00 -0700 From: Reverend Tweek Subject: Re: Arrogant Internet Providers Sender: tweek@moraga.ness.com (Reverend Tweek) Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:16:34 GMT In article , Tad Cook relays: > Arrogant Internet providers tell customers to get lost > By Peter H. Lewis > {New York Times} Ahhh, Yes ... been talking about this article ALL LAST WEEK over on netcom.general. Seems that Mr. Lewis is not being completely truthful. > For example, Netcom On-Line Communications Inc. of San Jose has > informed some of its customers that they are no longer wanted. > Sophisticated users are being shown the door. From what I understand, Mr. Lewis had a PNC account. PNC was Netcom's offering prior to Netcruiser, and hasn't been offered for almost two years. PNC accounts were (are) a PPP account. Netcruiser is a PPP/Cslip account. Existing PNC accounts were grandfathered in when Netcruiser came out, but no new PNC accounts were offered. > "Frankly, it's not profitable to service your account anymore," a > technical support representative told me. > It seems the company regrets that it offered me a so-called Unix shell > account several years ago and now wishes me to cancel it and sign up > for the more profitable (to them) Netcruiser service. Uh, Right ... Netcom STILL offers Shell accounts. I have a shell account, and Netcom still offers shell accounts to this day. Lets look at the last few days of No-New-Users at Netcom (from a Shell User's stats): i Dallman Ross 3 New Shell-User Report for 06/04/96 There were no new users. No accounts were removed. g Dallman Ross 3 New Shell-User Report for 06/03/96 Say "Yo!" to These 3 New Users: electra oracle q Say "Adieu" to These 3 Users: eataylor phfff sharaf f Dallman Ross 3 New Shell-User Report for 06/02/96 Say "Yo!" to These 29 New Users: a6 aldous archvile bmchenry dscomama eberman eknight geordan granite hilliker hmaster jchodoro jcoates jmstrang kbanjara koslow lleong mark52 mtramm mwanzi nikim ratnaker rbtn resist schui testing vilearch vodopis wannis No accounts were removed. > To drive the point home, the Netcom technician informed me that the > company no longer accepts telephone calls from shell account customers > who need technical support. Rather, all questions have to be submitted > by electronic mail. From the Very Begining, Netcom NEVER offered telephone support for PNC accounts, and if Mr. Lewis looks at the original materials from when he signed up for his PNC account, he would see that he is in error. Netcom DID give an accompanying Shell account to PNC users so that they could connect and send e-mail to the PNC support desk when they were having problems with their PNC account. So was Mr. Lewis having a problem with his Shell account, or with his PNC account? Must be his PNC account, as Mr. Lewis mentions that he was "locked out" of his mail. Mr Lewis "writes" about computers, and one would think that he would have the knowledge to check $HOME/.mailbox/ incoming (Yep, in his HOME directory) and be able to say "My mailbox is chown to root and I can't access it on the shell system". Of course, if he was using the POP3 access for his PNC account, he might not know what the problem is ... Reverend Tweek A Netcom User [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for setting the record straight on this. Honestly, I had never heard any complaints about Netcom before this and the newspaper article was a bit of a surprise. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doug Zipser Subject: AT&T 9300 - Spread Spectrum "Technology"? Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 07:41:24 -0700 Organization: Netcom The 9300 900MHz cordless phone is advertised as having spread spectrum technology. It also has "100 channels"; the two features seem to be contradictory because, as I understand it, spread sprectum operation connotes frequency hopping, within a band, to get around interference. I would really appreciate an explanation from someone who knows. The 9300, for what it's worth, is very pleasant to use. It's light, exceptionally clear, and has plenty of volume. ------------------------------ From: Enter.your.e-mail.address.here@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca Subject: Overstock of Product - Disposal Date: 4 Jun 1996 17:28:42 GMT Organization: University of Ottawa The University of Ottawa currently has the following items available for sale. BIX 1A4 - G Green stickers for BIX (5 per sheet) QTY 120 sheets BIX 1A4 - S Grey stickers for BIX (5 per sheet) QTY 300 sheets BIX 1A4 - W White stickers for BIX (5 per sheet) QTY 180 sheets QNE4PAIF4G Grey faceplates flush mount QTY 500 packaged in original boxes QCBIX 1A punch down blocks QTY 50 QMBIX31B (NTLQMBIX31B) Bix mounts 50 prs with cover QTY 30 Items are available on a first come first served basis. Offers will be accepted for all or part of the items. Shipping + Customs and brokerage fees if applicable would belong to the successful bidder. Guy Lessard Network Administrator Telecom (613) 562-5800 x 1425 fax: (613) 562-5998 ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Re: AT&T Movie Placement Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:43:27 GMT In article , CallBrand wrote: > Anyone know how much AT&T paid for placement in the movie, "The Truth > About Cats & Dogs"? I don't know how much they paid, but I was amused to hear the AT&T ad when I saw the movie at a free advance screening sponsored by MCI! Larry Appleman 31 Murray Hill Rd., Cambridge, Mass. 02140 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What was the general reaction of the audience or the MCI people present at the screening? PAT] ------------------------------ From: johns@rentelco.com (John Skenesky) Subject: Re: Line Monitor/Protocol Analyzer Date: 3 Jun 1996 20:42:33 GMT Organization: McGrath RenTelco Communications & Fiberoptic Test Eqpt Rentals In article , stevek@binc.net says: > Does anyone use or know of a line monitor/protocol analyzer that > can handle async speeds up to 115.2 kbps?? > We are implementing a BBS-based product and need the capability to > monitor the traffic. I have an HP J2301A protocol analyzer on the shelf that will work up to 256kBs. It includes RS232, RS449 and V.35 interfaces, it also has a T1 interface in it that will work at T1 Line speeds. This unit is available for rent. If your interested give me a call or E-mail John Skenesky www.rentelco.com Communications & Fiberoptic Test Equipment Rentals McGrath RenTelco 800-233-5807 1901 N. Glenville Dr. #401A 214-234-2422 Richardson, TX 75081 fax 214-680-0070 ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #267 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jun 5 13:25:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA10789; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:25:41 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606051725.NAA10789@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #268 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Jun 96 13:25:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Followup on Sprint Fridays Free (Poll Dubh) Re: AT&T 9300 - Spread Spectrum "Technology"? (Dave Gellerman) BRI Butt Set - Cheap ? (John Schmerold) CID Number and/or Name (Mark J. Cuccia) Old Phone Bills (Jim Jacobs) Sprint and CallerID (Richard Jefferson) Re: More CID Frolics! (David Hough) Test Your Telecom Knowledge (David Crowe) Re: Internet Domain Names (Robert Shaw) Re: Northern Telecom "Services" Menu (Christoph F. Strnadl) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: singular@oort.ap.sissa.it (Poll Dubh) Subject: Re: Followup on Sprint Fridays Free Date: 5 Jun 1996 14:49:41 GMT Organization: ICTP-Trieste-Italy > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has been awhile since anything about > this was dicussed here, so perhaps others who were victimized by this > scam of Sprint have some comments to add. I have heard from a couple > other people that Sprint is continuing to bill the service charge each > month while ignoring any/all requests for explanations or an opportunity > to speak with Robin Loyed, etc. I personally would not waste any more > time speaking to their customer service representatives. Even if they > are paying for the call via their 800 number it would still be a waste > of your time which also has to be worth something. PAT: one thing about all the informal advice/personal opinions you have expressed about this affair in your Digest is the insistence on the _person_ of Robin Loyed. In dealing with a business like Sprint, it is not the person but the office that counts. What I believe I would have done if I had been on Sprint's program is: -- call customer service _and ask for the mailing address to which billing complaints and queries should be sent_; nothing more. -- write (certified mail) asking for confirmation of the change in terms and conditions, and pointing out that I consider the service (and my liability for payment) suspended until an official answer is received, and terminated in the event the changes are confirmed. The name of Mr. Loyed could be mentioned in connection with the infamous telegram, but the letter would be addressed to Sprint as a corporation. The trouble with trying to resolve disputes like these over the phone is that, as one often reads on credit card statements in the US, "you may phone us but doing so will not preserve your rights [in the event of a billing dispute]". > My suggestion at this point is take your last one or two bills from > Sprint, clearly indicate on the face of the bill 'Payment is Refused; > Refer to Robin Loyed for explanation.' Include a short note stating your > belief that Sprint deliberatly engaged in a fraudulent act by entering > into a contract with you which they knew at the time they had no > intention of upholding. State that you require *in writing* an > explanation from Robin Loyed along with a telephone number where he > can be reached. Inform them that future billings will be regarded as > continuing the fraud and that they are to make no further contact with > you except as specified. Send this to them by registered/certified > mail. Save the green card receipt you get in return. Wait for further > response from them. Does anyone else have anything to add? PAT] Anger does not help. The letter should point out that you engaged in the service contract under certain terms, and that since Sprint changed the terms (it doesn't matter what their original intentions were) without your consent the contract has been voided (by them, not by you). That being the case, their billings are in error and you request that Sprint correct the error as soon as possible and send you a written explanation. Keep photocopies of any letter you send, or have your attorney write in your name. Do save the green card receipt as PAT suggested. Do not request Mr. Loyed's phone number: the dispute can be resolved without it. Besides, it's best to keep everything in writing; telephone contacts on the side would only muddle the issue and allow them to claim that you agreed to something different over the phone. Let's face it: Sprint made a mistake in launching this promotion, and they are trying to back out of it. Eventually they'll accept that it's best for them to drop the charges on your bill and put the whole thing behind them. It may also be best for you to let them do that without fuss. Do refuse payment, but stay cool. Oh, and do pay the part of the bill that is not under dispute. Your only excuses for not doing that would be that the math is too complicated for you to work out, or that essential information is missing; if that is the case, say so in your letter. Sergio Gelato (not a lawyer, no connection with Sprint, no US phone number) P.S. There must be a time limit for them to reply to you. (Something like 30 days for the initial response? Better check. Any failure to reply in time could be quite useful to you.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Excellent points. I like your ideas better than my own on this yesterday. I recommend people follow your advice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave_gellerman@newbridge.com (Dave Gellerman) Subject: Re: AT&T 9300 - Spread Spectrum "Technology"? Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 10:59:26 -0500 Organization: Newbridge Networks In article , Doug Zipser wrote: > The 9300 900MHz cordless phone is advertised as having spread spectrum > technology. It also has "100 channels"; the two features seem to be > contradictory because, as I understand it, spread sprectum operation > connotes frequency hopping, within a band, to get around interference. > I would really appreciate an explanation from someone who knows. The > 9300, for what it's worth, is very pleasant to use. It's light, > exceptionally clear, and has plenty of volume. Well in a direct sequence spread spectrum, a "chirp" ( psuedo-random bit stream) is used in the modulation process to scatter the signal over a very wide spectrum -- however, very fast frequency hopping systems also qualify as spread spectrum. In either case, you could call the chirp characteristics a "channel" (as the receiver must be using the same sequence to demod your signal) or you might call the hopping pattern a channel. DRG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 09:39:51 From: John Schmerold Subject: BRI Butt Set - Cheap ? Anyone know a source for BRI Butt set? John Schmerold Katy Computer Systems, Inc. 86 Meramec Valley Plaza Drive St. Louis, Missouri 63088 Internet Address: john@katy.com Telephone Number: 314/215-4070 Facsimile Number: 314/861-2222 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 10:33:25 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: CID Number and/or Name Regarding whether "name only" CID would be better than "number only" CID, the method used to display the name is determined by a LIDB (Line Information Data Base) lookup *based on the number* which is transmitted. The original standards were developed to transmit (via SS7) the number of the calling party (or trunk line) and to display (or not display, based on the use of *67/11-67 flagging by the called party or per-line default) that number. When they bagan to develop the "Name" with Caller-ID, the standards are *not* that the "Name" is transmitted from the originating switch. Only the number transmits. The receiving end switch then does a LIDB lookup based on that number (via SS-7) to get the "Name". If the number is not found, the receiving end switch will display either dashes, the city/state, province name, or some other indication that the name is unavailable, while still displaying the number. Recently, I received a call from a number I frequently get calls from. It also happened that the number was in *my own central office switch*, 504-24X. But I received "NEW ORLEANS, LA" in the name part of the CID box, when I usually get the calling party number "account" name. It could have been that the database lookup was slow, and the actual call was 'more important' than waiting for database (LIDB) lookup. And it has been reported here that *not* all LIDB's are yet interlinked for CID-Name when the call is between two different LEC's. That's why we are still getting city/state, or state (province) spelled out on long distance calls while still getting the full ten-digit number. As for blocking or allowing far-end display of name but not number or number but not name, instead of 'only' blocking both or allowing both, I think that in Canada they have that option. If I'm not mistaken, there are distinct Bellcore assigned *-XX (11-XX) codes to block *just* number but allow the name, or vise-versa, as well as block/allow both, regardless of the default status of your line regarding display on the far end. I don't know off-hand what each code is, other than *-67 (11-67) and *-82 (11-82), for blocking both and displaying both (respectively), regardless of the 'default' status of the calling line. Of course, this all depends on whether the long distance carrier or interoffice SS-7 trunks (or the originating switch itself) can even transmit the number, rather than doing an "out-of-area". BTW, as CID (number only at the time) was being introduced locally in individual areas, there were some areas where *-67 (11-67) 'toggled' the status of your line. You would have to know *in advance* that the line was 'default display' or 'default private' before deciding whether or not to use *-67 (11-67). Some locations used *-67 (11-67) to 'privatize' the number and *-67 (11-68) to 'display' the number, regardless of the default status. Then Bellcore changed the 'master' list of 'display' from *-68 (11-68) to *-82 (11-82) a few years ago. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 20:48:48 -0400 From: Jim Jacobs Subject: Old Phone Bills On Thu, 30 May 1996, Pat Townson wrote: > I have here about three dozen very old telephone bills from the > New England Telephone and Telegraph Company in Boston, MA dated > in the period September, 1932 through December, 1936. In addition, > I have rent receipts for the same period of time. > Two men were in business together, or at least they shared an office > together at the time: > Jacob Fisher & Samuel Steinberg > Suite 718 - Providence Building > 333 Washington Street > Boston, Massachusetts > Oddly, the phone number was not shown on any of the phone bills, which > appear to be for coin telephone service in their office. There is a > reference to an account number which is given as 'P 7622 LAF'. That > may have been some central office designation. The building at 333 Washington St. was primarily occupied by "wholesale jewelers" who, more often then not, sold to retail customers referred to them by friends, relatives, or other customers. The building (which I believe is still standing) is located in downtown Boston, a few steps away from what was the major department store area. The LAFayette telephone exchange served the area. It would be reasonable to conclude that the P stood for Pay Phone or Pay Station, LAF for Lafayette, and that 7622 were the remaining digits in the number. > Beginning in late 1933, the return address on the envelope changes and > is given as 705 Mt. Auburn Street, Watertown, Massachusetts, with a > postage meter indicia showing Watertown and two cents postage. There used to be a huge Western Electric manufacturing facility on Mt. Auburn St. Is it possible that New England telephone shared space with Western Electric? JIM JACOBS e-mail jjacobs@worldfax.com Tampa, Florida, USA Voice Mail +1 813 330 2500 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your followup. I know nothing at all, or very little about Boston, so I am glad someone who does know the area was able to contribute to this. What about the address of 881 Commonwealth Avenue, which is the return address on the envelopes during 1932 and much of 1933? Anyway, for readers who wish to send the annual voluntary subscription donation (suggested amount is twenty dollars), if you want one of these old phone bills include a long, self-addressed stamped envelope with your request to me at PO Box 4621, Skokie, IL 60077. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 10:46:00 -0400 From: richard jefferson Subject: Sprint and CallerID Well, it doesn't seem like Sprint is 100% there to me. I called my parents last night (04 June) and I still came up 'Unknown Number.' Anyone want to start a pool? Me- Located: Morrisville, NC (border of RTP) LEC BellSouth IEC: Sprint Them- Located: Beaufort, NC (on the coast) LEC: Sprint Carolina Telephone (formarlly CT&T), might matter IEC: AT&T, probably doesn't matter Oh well ... Richard Jefferson, Dept. 3S15 | (919) 991-8095 | Home: (919) 319-6994 Emergency Services Development | ESN: 294-8095 | mercury@vnet.net ------------------------------ From: David Hough Subject: Re: More CID Frolics! Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 10:04:50 GMT In article vances@xenitec.xenitec. on.ca (Vance Shipley) writes: > Now consider the case where a caller from the UofX places an outside > call. If the callee is to have an accurate call display information > set it will have to come from the PBX at the UofX. The CO could > display only the main listed directory number of the UofX (555-1000) > and the name of the university but that would not be very usefull when > the caller is directly reachable and ISDN connected as well. > When placing the call the UofX PBX will send to the CO the originating > number to be used for the call as well as the name to be displayed if > that service is available. In this way the most usefull service is > provided. When a callee receives a call from the UofX extension phone > the display will show the DID number and current name of the caller. In my experience of the UK telecom environment, there are few PBX systems which manage to correctly present valid information to the CO. The CO switch does its best to convert this information to something helpful, so it is possible to get something like '01285648550X2556', which is where the base number is 648550 and the extension concerned is 2556. In fact, for the example concerned, what you will see is '01285648X556', because the PBX on that number does its job properly and passes useful information. The 'X' is the telco's way of telling the callee that they don't guarantee the accuracy of any digits after the 'X'. I don't know if the 'X' appears for analogue CLI because all my tests have been done using ISDN. There is a reasonable degree of filtering at the CO -- if you send an incorrect number of digits (the example given assumes three digits) then the base+extension format is what usually results. If you send the correct number of digits but they are outside your allocated range, what appears at the far end is the base of your allocated range. This is further confused when trying to make use of the '1471' feature, which tells you the number of the last caller (unless CLI was withheld). When I originally did some tests, 1471 returned the base number. I commented on this in uk.telecom and the feature mysteriously started working correctly (big brother *does* read Usenet :) ), identifying the number required to call the originating phone. However, I think it is on an exchange-by-exchange basis, because a test originating at another exchange once again produced the base number. You don't get the 'X' indication with this service either. Lines which use Q.931 signalling instead of DASS2 signalling behave slightly differently again: for the example above I think you would see '01285648X' if the correct digits were not supplied, whereas DASS2 would produce '01285648550'. I haven't yet seen a call which I know came from a Q.931-based system with anything after the 'X', so either the protocol can't handle it or most PBX systems don't provide the digits. Dave djh@sectel.com Tel +44 1285 655 766 Fax +44 1285 655 595 ------------------------------ From: David Crowe Subject: Test Your Telecom Knowledge Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 16:02:10 +0000 Organization: Cellular Networking Perspectives Ltd. Reply-To: crowed@cadvision.com The monthly "Cellular Networking Perspectives" quiz has been updated. Test your telecom knowledge, and possibly win a prize! http://www.cnp-wireless.com/quiz.html David Crowe Editor, Cellular Networking Perspectives 71574.3157@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 09:22:10 +0100 From: shaw Subject: Re: Internet Domain Names chris@punk.net wrote > If I had half-a-million sitting around, I'd start my own Internic > service. dot-corp or dot-bus anyone? Please think very seriously about the implications. What you've mentioned is basically what's in an Internet draft proposed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) at: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-00.txt Personally I think the proposal is a very bad idea. It is a historical accident that the US (unlike every other country in the world) does not use ISO country codes (e.g., .fr, .uk) to manage their top level domain (TLD) registrations. Although there is a .US TLD (see RFC 1480), it is not widely used since "domain name envy" makes everyone want to be in .com, .net or .org (currently with around ~350,000 registrations). Since the relationship between trademarks and domain names is now very well established (there are hundreds of resultant disputes), creation of new non-ISO country code TLDs will only magnify what is basically a US mess (who account for about 93% of .com registrations) into a global one. This is because trademark law is fundamentally national law (there is no such thing as a widely recognized international trademark). By registering a domain name in an international TLD not associated with a country code like .com, you immediately put yourself in the position of having to defend your domain name against any national trademark. I'm sure there is some company, somewhere in the world, who has a federal trademark for the name "punk" (your domain name). According to current policy at NSI, who does registration for your TLD .net, they only have to produce this trademark to take this domain name away from you. If new "international" TLDs like .corp or .bus are created, it isn't going to solve the problem. It's clear that IBM or even much smaller companies (even from other countries) who think you are infringing their trademark are going to come down on you (e.g., there is no way that IBM will let you have IBM.CORP or IBM.BUS). This problem is going to take a lot more thought and debate. Cheers, Robert Shaw shaw@itu.ch International Telecommunication Union http://www.itu.ch Information Services Department Switzerland ------------------------------ From: cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com (Christoph F. Strnadl) Subject: Re: Northern Telecom "Services" Menu Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 11:16:53 GMT Organization: Philips C&P In article , Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> wrote: > I've been playing around with a slick little Northern Telecom > PowerTouch 350 phone. It has all kinds of neat features, such as the > ability to move Caller ID info into your dialing database. > One feature I don't quite fathom is connected with something called > "Services." Under Services, the manual says: > [some lines deleted, cfs] > The manual then gives instructions for getting the phone to download a > list of subscriber services from the telco. > [deletia, cfs] > Has anyone heard of this? Is "Services" a feature only available on > lines served by Northern Telecom DMS central offices? What signal > does the telephone send out when you punch the Services button? The "Services" Nortel speaks about are interactive information retrieval and transaction services based upon the Bellcore ADSI (Analog Display Services) Standard. The ADSI protocol, by providing bi-directional data communications over analog, voice-grade facilities between CPE and a local server, allows customers to access information and call management features via their CPE. Examples of such services are: * home banking - equiring your account balance - initiating transactions * directory services * home shopping * information retrieval services - airline arrival/departures * travel enquiry & reservation services The ADSI server handles the screen phones on the customer side via the ADSI protocol and the various different content providers (viz. banks, travel agencies) and their proprietary protocols (X.25,...) on the other side. The ADSI protocol uses: * binary FSK signaling (Bell 202) from the server to the CPE (1200 baud, though) * DTMF signaling from the CPE to the network/server. Its main features are: * virtual screen size up to 33 lines x 40 characters * 6 softkeys supported * allows concurrent (well, virtually ;-) transmission of data *and* voice from the server to the CPE * device independence (as long as CPE complies to ADSI standard) ADSI has been defined in 1993 in a set of Bellcore Technical Reports and Special Reports, the most important of which are: * TR-NWT-001273 Generic Requirements for an SPCS to Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface for Analog Display Services * SR-INS-002461 Customer Premises Equipment Compatibility Considerations for the Analog Display Services Interface, both of which can be ordered directly from Bellcore (www.bellcore.com). A complete set of all standards pertaining to ADSI and the connected enhanced telephony services (Caller-Id, Caller-Name- Delivery, CID on Call Waiting, Call Waiting Deluxe) are available as the Family Requirments FR-12 from Bellcore. BTW, the Nortel PowerTouch 350 is not the only ADSI capable (a so-called Type 3 CPE in Bellcore speak) device available: You may want to have a look at the Philips ScreenPhone P100 and the Alcatel A2xxx screen phones as well, amongst others. Please feel free to continue this thread, if interested! Christoph F. Strnadl | "What's a cynic?" Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services | "A man who knows the price of ORIGIN Information Technology / Austria| everything and the value of Tel +43 1 60101/1752 Fax +43 1 6023568 | nothing." (O.Wilde) cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com | #include ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #268 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jun 5 14:12:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA15350; Wed, 5 Jun 1996 14:12:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 14:12:09 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606051812.OAA15350@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #269 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Jun 96 14:12:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Calling Cards: AT&T vs. the LEC's (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves (Thomas Peters) Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question (Jean-Francois Mezei) Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question (Pat Cronin) Re: MCI Cellular (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: MCI Cellular (Henry Mensch) Re: MCI Cellular (Dave Levenson) Re: MCI Cellular (Bill Walker) AC 210 May be Split Into Four (Brian Purcell) Re: Nokia 232 Questions (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Nokia 232 Questions (Osman Rich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 09:50:29 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Calling Cards: AT&T vs. the LEC's Regarding the current feud between AT&T and the LEC's in the matter of calling card use, sometime aroung 1990, AT&T and the LEC's began using their own methods for assigning calling card numbers. Prior to that period, they shared the old Bell System's CCIS#6 interconnected billing validation database. After 1990, the LEC's began to start their own LIDB's, while AT&T maintained their own database system, and SS#7 began to be used for message signaling. Line-number-based cards became the "domain" of the LEC's, along with the original special and non-line-number based RAO-based calling cards. AT&T (and other participating carriers) began to use fourteen- digit cards of a CIID Bellcore format. Participating carriers which had operating and business arrangements would accept each others' issued cards, but bill them at their own rates. In AT&T's case of accepting LEC line-number-based cards, they were to be billed at basic AT&T rates, even if that customer had a calling-card discount plan. If you had a card discount plan with AT&T and wanted their discounted rates, you would have to use *their* issued card number of a CIID format, the cards beginning with AT&T's Bellcore-assigned CIID's NXX-0XX or NXX-1XX. A few years ago, AT&T began to come out with their "True-Choice" *proprietary* card number scheme. This is a "less-than-fourteen" digit card number. The 'base' part of the card can be anywhere from seven to nine digits followed by a four digit PIN number. The card *cannot* begin with the digits '0' or '1', as entering an initial '0' at the "bong" tone cuts through right away to the Operator, while an intial '1' at the "bong" tone is the first of a two (or future three) digit 1X(X) automated "special billing" service request code (i.e. 11 for Collect, 12 for Third Party, 13 for Person, 15 for "room-mate" billing accounts, 16 for Spanish prompts, 17 for French prompts, and 19 seems to be reserved for 19X future three-digit expansion). These card numbers *can* be used to place intra-LATA calls, but *only* using AT&T's OSPS system, accessed by 800-CALL-ATT, 800-321-0ATT or 10-288/101-0288-0+ten-digits. These "True Choice" card numbers are AT&T propreitary, and are *not* available in the LEC TOPS/OSPS systems. LEC assigned line-number-based and RAO-based fourteen-digit card numbers are stored in a network of SS#7 connected LIDB's. The LEC's must allow any participating carrier (with business arrangements) non-discriminatory access to their databases. For the time being, LEC cards will probably continue to be accepted by AT&T for both intra and inter LATA calls (as long as you reach AT&T's system with their 10-288/101-0288-0+ code where necessafy, or 800-CALL-ATT type numbers), and LEC cards will continue to be accepted by *other* carriers (such as MCI, Sprint, etc) on their networks, as well as AOSlime companies from private payphones and "hospitality" industry PBX systems. Many "other" common carriers (MCI, Sprint, etc), while holding Bellcore assigned CIID codes of the form NXX-0XX/1XX for 'interoperable' fourteen digit card numbers, have also been issuing their *own* proprietary cards for over a decade. Some of these cards are fourteen digit card numbers, based on the ten-digit POTS line number of the customer's account "contact" number. If you live at a relative's home where *they* pay the telephone bill in *their* name, you could get an MCI 'proprietary' card number actually based on your relative's telephone number, rather than an 'arbitrary' looking CIID-type card. Even the PIN number could begin with a '0' or '1' although Bellcore standards say that PINs on "standardized" card numbers should *never* begin with '0' or '1'. Of course, these are carrier issued proprietary cards. Sometimes, the fourteen digit carrier issued proprietary non-CIID card could be the carrier's assigned number beginning with '0' or '1'. This makes matters even more confusing if you attempt to use that card to place cards on another carrier or network! I don't know how things will evolve in the future when there is a developed competition in the LATA or even *local* areas. Presently in Louisiana, I use either BellSouth or AT&T for intra-LATA toll calls, as BellSouth has recently lowered their rates for intra-LATA toll. I have discount package plans with both my LEC *and* AT&T. For *local* area calls which I want to bill to my calling card (such as when at a private payphone which charges by the minute for local coin), I *try* to access BellSouth's TOPS since the BellSouth rate for a *local* call billed to a calling card placed via their TOPS is *ONE* dollar *FLAT* (untimed). Yes, its more than 25-cents, but it is better than feeding quarters into the COCOT on a single local call. The long distance carriers (even AT&T) charge by the minute even for a local call billed to a card or account number through *their* network or operator system. There is yet *another* standard for card numbers. It is the International standard which is administered by the ITU-T (formerly CCITT). This is the "89" card format. A card number in the interna- tional format can be twenty digits long and maybe even longer. It begins "89" followed by the country code, followed by an "IIN" (Issuer Identifier Number) of two or three digits. IIN's for carriers and networks in the NANP (Country Code +1) are all three digits long. Some carriers have two unique ITU-T assigned IIN's, used for different types of cards they issue. The remainder of the fourteen digits follow the IIN for NANP issued card numbers. Sometimes, there is an additional 'check' digit in a full international format card number. *In theory*, the "89" format would make *all* types of telephone billing cards issued by various carriers (worldwide), for calls routed over various networks, much more interoperable, *as long as* all companies involved arrange network operation and business arrangements. 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: tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) Subject: Re: Fight Turns Nasty: Ameritech/AT&T Take Off Gloves Date: 5 Jun 1996 16:57:33 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. >> Ameritech Chairman Richard Notebaert said his company discovered AT&T >> was illegally targeting Ameritech customers when some 'names on the >> list' started getting mailings sent by AT&T. He said there was no way >> 'those names' would have gotten anything like that in the mail had not >> AT&T been abusing their access to the Ameritech data base. > "Those names" are not available by other reverse white pages databases? Not necessarily. Map makers like to add imaginary cul-de-sacs to their products to make it easy to prove that a competing product has copied them. Databases are often seeded in a similar fashion. Ameritech may have such customers in their database with home addresses of company employees. I don't have any idea if AT&T is guilty. But if they are, don't assume that Ameritech can't prove it. Tom Peters [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is the way I heard it also, that Ameritech has their data base 'salted' or 'seeded' here and there with imaginary people and circumstances/calling patterns which exist only to catch others who should not be getting into places they do not belong. It is a simple enough technique. I even have a couple 'names' like that in the telecom mailing list. You want to rip the list off and you think you are smart by deliberatly excluding my name from any mailings so I won't find out what you did? I'll find out soon enough anyway. Almost all lists -- especially the big, huge commercial ones like {Reader's Digest} or Sears or Publisher's Clearing House do the same thing, to trace where things are going and who is doing what. There is no reason telcos would not employ that technique. Ameritech even keeps a few phony names in the telephone directory for the same reasons: you want to copy their work, go ahead and try it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jean-Francois Mezei Subject: Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 18:31:17 +0000 Organization: Vaxination Informatique Reply-To: jfmezei@istar.ca Lynne Gregg wrote: > Although AT&T Wireless' U.S. network is not GSM, we do offer a > seamless roaming service that allows our customers to roam on GSM > networks in 37 countries. The service is called CellCard. How do North American digital telephones operate when in GSM areas? Are there hybrid telephones that do both protocols or do these 37 countries also support the north american standard as a side bar to their GSM backbone? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jun 96 09:34:04 BST From: eeipcn@eei.ericsson.se (Pat Cronin) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular in North America Question jfmezei@istar.ca wrote: > Is there any chance that GSM would eventually be supported in North > America by some operators (operating both GSM and the USA system). In Europe, digital cellular systems that support both the GSM 900 and DCS 1800 band ranges are being rolled out. Multiband (GSM 900 and DCS 1800) phones are becoming available. Basically these systems support handover/handoff between GSM and DCS 1800 cells in the same system. In North America, in addition to the AMPS/D-AMPS standard, a GSM derivative, PCS 1900 is in use. The following would be possible where the PCS 1900 standard is planned to be used. I know of California and Washington, DC. It would be easy today to build a system that is largely PCS 1900 cells, with some GSM cells to support roamers, say for major events. I would think that the designed systems could handle this senario today, if '900 bandwidth' is available in conjunction with '1900 bandwidth'. It would be technically feasible to make a system that supported multiband operation (GSM 900 and PCS 1800) in exactly the same way that the systems in Europe do. The limiting factors would be availability of bandwidth, the economics of providing GSM 900 cells in a largely PCS 1900 market, the design and availability of muliband (GSM and PCS 1900) phones, and some small switch and base station redesign, perhaps. So, with a GSM based system, it is technically feasible to support the North American and European based standards in the same system. But perhaps, the business case is not so strong? Also there may be other solutions, using interworking register nodes, that allow a, say, PCS roamer access to a GSM system, but having temporary use of a GSM phone in that market. ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: 5 Jun 1996 00:36:00 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Lynne Gregg (lynne.gregg@attws.com) wrote: >> From my understanding of the cellular protocols, it's not technically >> feasible, Pat. The A and B carriers (competitive and wireline) are >> using two actually different sets of frequencies for their calls. > This is not correct. A and B cellular carriers in the U.S. all > operate at 850 mhz radio frequency. The new PCS entrants will operate > at 1900 and others. Hmmmm ... You're a McCaw person, right? Before calling you misinformed, I checked a couple references. They all list the Telco (or wireline carrier) and the RCC (Radio Common Carrier, or non-wireline carrier, i.e. you guys) as occupying _separate channels_ in the band to route their traffic over. This is, I believe, subsumed in the phrasing "different sets of frequencies". > Mike Fox wrote: >> I don't think they are really bringing in two new *cellular* carriers. >> I think they are setting up two *PCS* services. The fact that he >> called it "Sprint" instead of "360 Degree Communications" confirms >> that IMO, as Sprint spun off their cellular business into 360 Degree >> so they can concentrate on PCS. > Technically speaking, there is *no* difference between PCS and > cellular systems in the U.S. aside from those systems operating on > different radio frequencies. Actually, there is. PCS systems will be using, (and I believe it's already been decided, but I don't remember which way) the CDMA protocol designed by Qualcomm (IS-84?), which is also going into service with some cellular carriers to provide "digital service", or a protocol very silimar to, if not identical to the GSM (Groupe System Mobile, I believe is the French spelling) protocol used for all cellular service in Europe. Since most currently operating cellular telephony systems use either AMPS analog or TDMA digital, I think that saying that there's "no" difference, especially with emphasis ... and _especially_ since you post from a site that would tend to cause people to attribute more than casual weight to your remarks, is a bit rash. Cheers, -- jr 'check your facts, next time, please' Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff (Off Duty) The Suncoast Freenet Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:13:53 PDT From: henry mensch Subject: MCI Cellular Well, I called their number to inquire (the deal they seemed to offer which implied no long distance charges on long distance calls seemed too good to be true), and they do offer service in San Francisco. They offer a package with a Nokia 100 phone (you can't opt out of their phone). Their rates looked just like everyone else's rates, but with not so many features. The agent on the phone only knew about one plan, and couldn't provide details on any other rate plans. henry mensch / po box 14592; sf, ca 94114-0592 / http://www.q.com/henry/ ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 12:38:53 GMT Lynne Gregg (lynne.gregg@attws.com) writes: >> From my understanding of the cellular protocols, it's not technically >> feasible, Pat. The A and B carriers (competitive and wireline) are >> using two actually different sets of frequencies for their calls. > This is not correct. A and B cellular carriers in the U.S. all > operate at 850 mhz radio frequency. The new PCS entrants will operate > at 1900 and others. Both statements are correct; the A and B carriers are both at 850 MHz, and they use different frequencies. The A and B carriers each use half of the bandwidth allocated to cellular service in the 800 MHz band. That is, of the 860 channels, 430 belong to the A carrier and 430 belong to the B carrier. Each phone is configured to scan one or the other group of channels first when looking for a paging/access channel. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: MCI Cellular Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 14:39:22 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. In article , Lynne Gregg wrote: > Technically speaking, there is *no* difference between PCS and > cellular systems in the U.S. aside from those systems operating on > different radio frequencies. No, technically speaking, there are major differences between current and future U.S. cellular and PCS systems (analog vs. digital, GSM/DAMPS/CDMA protocols, etc.). But I'll agree that from the customer's point of view, with the services initially being offered, any differences are very minor. They both look like wireless telephone service to the customer. Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA WWalker@qualcomm.com ------------------------------ From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell) Subject: AC 210 May be Split Into Four Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 23:21:53 GMT Organization: Wide-Lite We may soon see the first (as far as I know) area code split that will result in multiple new codes carved out of a single exisiting area in an effort to give longer life to the newly assigned codes. Soutwestern Bell recently announced that AC 210 (San Antonio region), which was just created in 1992, will soon be split into as many as _four_ codes. SWB originally proposed two schemes for dividing 210 into just one new area- both variations on splitting metro San Antonio away from the existing 210. One plan was rejected outright because it put non-contiguous areas into the same AC. With the remaining plan, SWB estimated that metro SA would need another AC by the year 2002. So the PUC had SWB come up with three new options to provide longer life for the new codes. These plans are currently being reviewed: - Give metro SA one code and divide the remaining area into two codes. - Give metro SA two codes in an overlay and give the remaining area another code. - Give metro SA two codes in a "doughnut" and split the remaining area in half with two codes as well (total of four codes including original 210). Having observed how the PUC handled the recent Houston/Dallas AC case, I doubt they will go for the overlay. And, the PUC has indicated that they want new codes to last longer to minimize disruptions to the residents and businesses, so they will probably opt for the 4-from-1 scheme to provide a plethora of numbers (for a little while, anyway.) SWBell estimates 210 will be in jeopardy by the 2Q 1997, so I expect this change to be decided by the 3Q of 96 and implemented with a short permissive period early in 1997. Brian Purcell bpurcell@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ From: mds@access.digex.net Subject: Re: Nokia 232 Questions Date: 5 Jun 1996 02:37:47 GMT Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn Reply-To: mds@access.digex.net (Michael D. Sullivan) In , WBRECK@aol.com writes: > I have just purchased a new Nokia 232 cellular phone ... > 3) the manual is rather vague on the "Keyguard" function (menu 16). > My phone seems to always say "Keyguard Active" when I go into this > menu, yet I can dial no problem! Can anyone explain how this works > and what it's supposed to do? Keyguard prevents your phone from being accidentally dialed (e.g., phone is in briefcase or purse and bangs into stuff). It locks out the number pad entirely, except for the [Menu][Star] combo that unlocks it. Press anything else and it displays "Press Menu", and then after you do so, "Press *". Turn it on with [Menu][Star] or scrolling the menu to "Keyguard," press [Sto], and getting the "Keyguard active" message. > 4) I seem to have the one-touch emergency dialing with the 9 key setup > and working OK (I keyed in 911 and the word emergency and saved to > location 9...), even though the manual says it has to be programmed by > the dealer??? The one-touch emergency dialing uses a hidden, unnumbered memory location that must be programmed in via the setup mode the dealer uses to set your MIN (phone number) and options. It doesn't use location 9. Instead, if you simply press the "9" key and hold it down for 2 seconds or so, the contents of the hidden memory location are dialed, and "Send" is sent automatically. In the US, the dealer's instruction sheet directs the installer to set the hidden code to "911". Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, MD (USA) email: mds@access.digex.net Also online as avogadro@well.com and 71460.1134@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Osman Rich Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 08:59:00 PDT Subject: Re: Nokia 232 Questions > 1) does this phone have a theft lock feature, where it is automatically > locked at power up, and a code has to be entered before it can be used? I believe so,, there should be a menu selection for this > 2) how does the "Call Barring" function (menu 14) work? I have selected > "Allow National" (bars international calls), but the manual says something > about the international prefix has to be programmed by the dealer in order > for this to work? Yes, the "+" sign when you dial is the international access code. Your service provider needs to have programmed the international access code (011 in most cases) for this to work. > 3) the manual is rather vague on the "Keyguard" function (menu 16). > My phone seems to always say "Keyguard Active" when I go into this > menu, yet I can dial no problem! Can anyone explain how this works > and what it's supposed to do? Try pressing "Menu" and "*" in sequence. This locks the keyboard. The menu entry enables and disables the feature (so "Menu" and "*" in sequence work) > 4) I seem to have the one-touch emergency dialling with the 9 key set-up > and working OK (I keyed in 911 and the word emergency and saved to > location 9...), even though the manual says it has to be programmed by > the dealer??? There are several entries for emergency numbers. If they are programmed by the dealer correctly, any can be dialed with Keyguard enabled *or* the phone locked. "9" "SEND" will also call the first emergency number in the stored list even if keyguard is enabled. (I think.) Rich Osman (speaking for myself, not my employer) ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #269 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jun 6 13:03:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA22956; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:03:08 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199606061703.NAA22956@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #270 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Jun 96 13:03:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 800-555 (was Re: New Spam Twist) (Mark J. Cuccia) Cellular Caller ID Deadline? (Michael Israeli) Canadian ISDN and Inmarsat B (Chris Paulse) Distinctive Ring Support in Voice Mail (Miles B. Whitener) Re: Caller-ID Delay in California (Kevin R. Ray) Fax-On-Demand / Fax Back Help (Kevin Pan) Local Exchange Information (cannet.com@cannet.cannet.com) Re: Great Circle Mileage Equations (John Fricks) Bearing (was Re: Great Circle Mileage Equations) (Mark E. Kaminsky) Re: AT&T 9300 Spread Spectrum 'Technology' (Ralph Sprang) Voice Over Data? (Jim Murphy) Video Over 100Mbps Ethernet (Switched) (Anthony S. Chang) Wanted: Information on CID via CW (iceberg@indy.net) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 09:50:28 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 800-555 (was Re: New Spam Twist) In TELECOM Digest v.16 #263, jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) wrote: > Worse, though, the 800 number is likely bogus anyway. > The 800-555 exchange, to the best of my knowledge, belongs to Bellcore > themselves, and I don't think they've let it out to anyone. That was true prior to November 1994. At the time of divestiture, existing 800 services was turned over to AT&T in association with the Bell and independent LEC's. However, it was intended for toll-free inward WATS to also be offered by competitive Long Distance carriers. Around 1982, AT&T (The Bell System) began their own CCIS and database function for geographic portability of 800 numbers. Prior to 1982, 800-NNX codes had specific geographic termination or service function. All sixty-four 800-NN2 codes had been assigned (and 're-used') on a state-to-state basis for intra-state toll-free inward WATS. 800-555 was used for directory assistance and other special telco-provided services, (in both the US and Canada),such as the now discontinued "Bell Answer Line" at 800-555-5000, AT&T (WECO now Lucent) equipment customer service at 800-555-8111, etc. 800-855 was (and is) used for services for the "hearing impaired" via TDD/TTY terminals. Some 136 additional 800-NNX codes had been assigned to inter-state toll free services, assigned to specific terminating locations (NPA regions) in the US and Canada. When CCIS#6 (a predecessor to CCS7/SS7) and AT&T's nationwide database was introduced by 1982, the rigidity of assignments of these 800-NNX codes no longer applied, except, in Canada, although there were cross-border arrangements made between AT&T and the Telecom-Canada (now Stentor) telcos. However at that time, AT&T did *not* increase the number of possible 800-NNX (or 800-NXX) codes to include all possible 640 (or 792) theoretical codes. Shortly after divestiture, when other carriers wanted to provide toll-free 800 services, they wanted access to AT&T's 800 database. The courts turned them down, and recommended determination of carrier by 800-NXX code, as there were just under 600 possible NXX codes not being used at that time. Bell Communications Research's Numbering and Dialing Plan Group (now Bellcore's NANPA) developed assignment guidelines for assigning 800-NXX codes to specific applying carriers. AT&T (and Canada) would be "grandfathered" in with their existing 800-NNX codes (except 800-555 and 800-855). The 800-N11 codes would not be available so as not to cause customer confusion with three-digit N11 local service codes. The sixteen 800-N02 and N12 codes would be reserved for intrastate "RCC" paging and wireless services. 800-555 and 800-855 would not be assigned to any particular carrier. Bellcore would assign the last four digit line numbers within these two codes, but existing users would be "grandfathered" in. In Ca