TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Oct 96 12:20:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 551 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Type Specifications (Russell Hammond) AT&T's Navy to Go on the Block (Robert McMillin) Anyone Know About MediaPhonics TAPI Board? (menon1@ixc.net) Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Jon Solomon) International Dialing Excess Charges (jnorton@alltel.net) Re: "Just Say Yes" (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Matthew D. Porter) Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? (Lionel Ancelet) Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (hisys@rmi.net) Re: Cellular Phones In Aircraft (Barry Ornitz) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell Hammond Subject: Phone Type Specifications Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:03:48 -0500 I got your email address off of a newsgroup posting (which was at http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/uk.telecom/archive/caller-id-specs.bellcore). I'm looking for a document explaining the differences in phone types. I've read through several specifications, including BS6305, ANSI T1.401, and EIA-470-A; all in the effort to get a nailed down specification of the requirements of a POTS line card (in terms of alerting signaling, analog transmission, etc.). One thing that I'd like to get more info on in particular is a definition of what the phone types A thru Q are, and which are most prevelent. If you know any info about this, or can refer me to someone who might, I'd appreciate a reply. Thanks much, Russell Hammond email: Russell_Hammond@dgii.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:48:23 -0700 From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: AT&T's Navy to Go on the Block According to an article in the October 17, 1996 issue of the {Wall Street Journal}, AT&T is looking to sell its $850M submarine cable-ship business. According to the article, "AT&T Submarine Systems operates seven cable ships and assorted underwater gear to install and maintain undersea communications lines. The unit, which laid the first underseas phone line in 1956, has 1,000 workers." Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Menon Subject: Anyone Know About MediaPhonics TAPI Board? Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:02:17 -0400 Organization: South Carolina SuperNet, Inc. Reply-To: menon1@ixc.net I read a rave mention about a MediaPhonics TAPI board in the 'Computer Telephony' magazine. Apparently, this board is highly recommended by Com2001 guys. I am interested in this board ... its a two-line ISA board that will do TAPI etc and has full SoundBlaster and MIDI support. The company (MediaPhonics) is based in Switzerland ... so I cannot quite reach them ... unless someone has their e-mail address. Please e-mail a cc. of your response. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) Subject: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 12:45:45 GMT I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided. This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having to use ten digits to place local calls. I expect there to be replies to this message, please send them to the Digest (which I read daily). --jsol ------------------------------ From: jnorton@alltel.net Subject: International Dialing Excess Charges Date: 18 Oct 1996 03:56:59 GMT Organization: ALLTEL InterNet Customer (http://www.alltel.net) I also heard about the 809 phone scam. According to the Netcom message of the day, some callers to the 809 number could be charged $25 (twenty-five dollars) per minute. Don't know whether this is true, and am not about to call the 809 number in question to find out. This leads me to another question. I talked to AT&T about this, and they told me that several numbers can be called that are dialed as international (011+) calls that can result in extremely high per-minute rates. AT&T says that they classify these calls as "adult entertainment". What happens if someone calls these numbers as wrong numbers not knowing what they are? AT&T says that they can credit 50% of the charge, but, that seems to be the only recourse. They also say that these numbers are charged based upon a contract that the service provider has with the LEC. At any rate, is there a place or article someone can refer me to so I can get more information on these practices? Going to check the Telecom Archives when I get a chance, but, any other information might be helpful for the list also. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well we have covered it in great length here on several occassions, so the archives might be the best place for you to begin. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: "Just Say Yes" Date: 17 Oct 1996 17:46:18 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Jean-Francois Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote: > I am trying to figure out why the telcos felt it so important to charge > so much money on top of the already expensive 4-1-1 charges for such > a function. Is it because when one does use this feature, his original > connection to a 4-1-1 line continues to be tied up, or are the switches > smart enough to *really* transfer the call to the desired number? Because they can. This is called a "revenue enhancement feature" in the feature documentation that switch makers use to sell the features to telcos. They charge the LEC extra for the feature package, so the telco, unsurprisingly, charges whatever the traffic will bear for the feature. Very few such feature charges have _any_ relation to the incremental charges you pay for them, and in those rare cases where there -is- a relationship, the telcos rarely tell you what's _actually_ going on. Case in point: have you ever wondered why you pay for "airtime" twice on a forwarded cellular call, when you're not using _any_ airtime? (This is called the "How can you be in two places at once when you're not really anywhere at all?" syndrome.) The reason is that they're not charging you for _airtime_ at all. What they're charging you for is the thing they pay an incremental charge for: trunk minutes to the LEC. When a call forwards, the forwarding is done in the Mobile Telephone Switching Office, and therefore ties up two trunks for the duration of the call. Airtime is an (effectively) unlimited resource, trunk minutes aren't. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333* Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To Ameritech's credit here in the Chicago area, they do not engage in the practice of billing for 'double air' or 'non-existant air'. They have something called telephone company pass along charge for call forwarding, however in the case of three-way calling or call-waiting on cellular phones, they only charge for one actual use of air time for the whole thing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: porter@neta.com (Matthew D. Porter) Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? Date: 17 Oct 1996 18:49:47 GMT Organization: Internet Access, Chandler Arizona Tony Toews (ttoews@agt.net) wrote: > Here in Canada, or at least in Alberta and all the payphones I can > recall noticing on my travels throughout Canada, have never allowed > incoming phone calls. > Why is this allowed in the States? Historical purposes? Surely this > would help cut down a lot of the convenience of drug trafficing? As I > understand it you a customer go to a payphone, not near your residence > or place of business, dial the beeper of your drug dealer of choice > with your pay phone number and said pusher calls you back. This just > can't happen up here. This isn't permitted in some locations in the States. However, it is a real shame because a lot of honest people desire to get callbacks from pager holders on payphones. Remember that every time you cut down the convenience of a "drug trafficker's" use of a payphone you also hurt the legit users. In all practicality, the legit user will be hurt by inconvenience for good whereas the drug abusers and suppliers, due to high demand, will still find a way to rendezvous for their transactions. Matt Porter KB8UVI Hoplophobia is a social disease that kills porter@neta.com Finger for PGP key ------------------------------ From: la@well.com (Lionel Ancelet) Subject: Re: Why are Incoming Calls Allowed at US Payphones? Reply-To: la@well.com Organization: The WeLL Date: Thu, 18 Oct 1996 19:00:41 GMT On 11 Oct 1996 01:42:21 GMT, hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote: > that way by accident. Perhaps people's anger at finding so many pay- > phones virtually useless for their needs is why the rest of us find > so many payphones vandalized and defaced. PAT] Another reason why payphones are vandalized is that they are coin-operated. In France, when payphones became pre-paid cards operated, the vandalizing rate dropped dramatically. Lionel Ancelet http://www.well.com/~la/ ------------------------------ From: hisys@rmi.net Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email) Date: 17 Oct 1996 19:10:19 GMT Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet In article , steven r kleinedler wrote: > In article , Jay Harrell > wrote: >> But at least Canada rates are reasonable. We really do need to get the >> expensive calls out of the NANP. > Or we could educate people about what area codes aren't US codes. > Or is that assuming that people take too much personal responsibility > to determine where an area code's at before the call? With the proliferation of area codes, it's not exactly trivial. Most phone books are out of date by the time they are printed, much less by the time the next once comes out. Relatively few people are going to follow the TELECOM Digest and write down all the splits. I don't think it is an abrogation of responsibility for people to demand a less tedious way of knowing whether a call is premium charged or not, rather than expecting them to match every unrecognized area code (which is most of them now) against a frequently changing list. What point is there to having a NANP anyway? We could educate people to any numbering plan, no matter how confusing or convoluted, no? If we agree that having a consistent system is justified by the convenience, then that same rationale could justify limiting the plan to countries which conform to some standards. Within most of North America, we have a set of conventions that everybody can learn: 800/888 number are toll free (unless crossing borders, special arrangements); directory assistence is at NPA 555 1212 (as well as maybe elsewhere); 911 is often the emergency number the 900 NPA and the 976 NXX calls charge extra and pay the recipient. By avoiding (or blocking) 900/976 services, we can avoid the charges. Why are some Carribean countries jumping into this? It's not because they are providing a special service. The SOLE reason is that phone services operations can be stealth; there is no NPA or NXX convention to allow consumers to know that they are being charged extra, nor is there any regulation requiring them to publish the charges or announce them on the phone giving people a chance to hang up without being charged. That is, the whole point of moving to the Carribean is deception by avoiding recognizable special prefixes, or avoiding consumer protection laws. I see zero point in *legitimate* services moving there -- after all, we hear that they get a smaller portion of the total charges paid to the operators, than with domestic 900/976 services (for long distance charges), so there wouldn't be many repeat customers. (If you are selling services at $2.99 per minute, would you rather the telco's took $2.00 for internaltional long distance, or $.35 for domestic?) Given that context, I would suggest that either: 1. Any Carribean country wishing to remain in the NANP pass and enforce anti-fraud laws compatible with those in the US/Canada, and restrict "kickback" numbers to, say, the 976 NXX within their NPAs, or 2. The NANP be restricted to countries which will so cooperate. The others can still be reached via + (011). Nobody will be confused that 011 results in possibly large charges, and runs by different rules; they will be on guard to check first. My prediction is that the service bureaus would pull out as soon as they lose the ability to deceive people (unless cheap labor there more than compensated for the increased overhead $$ on the calls -- but I doubt labor is THAT much cheaper, like $1 per minute). Zhahai ------------------------------ From: ornitz@eastman.com (Barry Ornitz) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones In Aircraft Date: 17 Oct 1996 18:31:17 -0400 Organization: Eastman Chemical Company Research In article Bob Keller writes: > Interestingly, the FCC regulation has nothing to do > with interference to aircraft navigation equipment. Rather, the > concern was that a cellphone used at even a modest altitude might > create havoc by accessing more than one cellular system at a time. This is fairly obvious. You do not want one cell phone "hogging the channel" over hundreds of miles locking out other users. > Also, > unless my memory is failing me (and it often does these days), I think > the FAA regulation was broader in scope than just cellphones, and > included any sort of electronic device -- computers, electronic games, > tape recorders, etc. This regulation falls under the FAR's or Federal Airline Regulations. > I've always been skeptical of the cited concern for navigation > interference. If the aircraft navigational equipment is so vulnerable > that we have to be concerned about a cellphone being "on", much less > actually being "used," (yes, I know it can and often does transmit > even in stanby mode, but obviously not to the same degree as if I'm > yakking away), then should I not also feel unsafe on a flight with 28 > businessmen tip tapping and mouse (or alternative travel pointing > device) clicking away at notebooks (some of them with internal CD-ROM > drives also whirring) and maybe half a dozen or more kids playing > their portable Nintendo's or Sega's or whatever? The other devices you mention generate RF as an incidental function of their operation. All of these devices MUST meet FCC standards for incidental radiation. Your cellular phone, on the other hand, is DESIGNED to be a transmitter and radiate energy. It must meet standards for spectral purity too but these are generally less restrictive than for other consumer electronics. > Also, if there is any > legitimacy to the concern for cellular interfering with navigation, is > this unique to the precise cellular bands? The frequencies used in > those SkyPhone's on some airlines are not all that distant from the > cellular band? The SkyPhones have external antennas such that the aircraft's body acts as a Faraday shield preventing most of the radiation from entering the plane and interfering with internal equipment. The cellular frequencies (900 MHz band) are not particularly close to air navigation bands or air communication bands. The new PCS bands, however, are much closer to some air navigation frequencies. However there are two additional problems with cellular phones. The first is that their spectral purity is not particularly good. This is not because it cannot be; it is merely because it costs much more to make it so. Cellular telephones generate wideband noise and spurious signals outside their working spectrum. These unwanted signals are weak compared to the cellphone's desired output, but they can be a problem with nearby sensitive receivers such as those on aircraft. The second problem is known as fundamental overload. Even though not on the same frequency as a nearby receiver, a local transmitter can decrease the sensitivity of a receiver by overloading the first amplifier stages in a receiver. This can be largely corrected with better selectivity in the receiver and better shielding between the transmitter and the receiver. Since all sorts of wiring runs throughout an aircraft, it can act to carry unwanted signals to other portions of the aircraft. One approach would be to shield all these wires or run them in metal conduit. This works - but it adds considerable weight to the aircraft, which is already using plastics and composite materials for weight savings. > I suppose the answer might be that for some strange reason they are > only concerned about interference while the aircraft is sitting on the > tarmac. That could explain why I can't use *anything* on the ground, > but once airborne I can use my computer, but not my cellphone -- because > the *FCC* prohibits the use of the cellphone once in the air. But why > is the interference potential greater sitting at the airport? Are we > talking about interference to the air traffic controller station > itself rather than to the aircraft? If that's the problem, why should > I not also be prohibited from using my cellphone in the terminal or > the airport parking lot? Something just does not make sense to me. I agree with you here. This makes little sense. One possible solution to the problem of using cellular telephones on an aircraft would be to design special cellphones with the added shielding and spectral purity. They would be bigger, heavier, and cost much more. This approach already exists with Intrinsically Safe cellphones. These are cellphones that may be used around flammable and hazardous materials without causing an ignition -- even if the phone is dropped or mishandled, etc. All walkie-talkies in our plant, for example, must be intrinsically safe -- a feature that costs quite a bit more. I believe we allow I-S cellphones too, but we constantly have hassles from contractors that want to use their own cellphones on our site. The problem here is that these phones are not rated as I-S, and insurance restrictions REQUIRE a Factory Mutual Intrinsically Safe rating. Most of the contractors know nothing about this so the simplest approach is to ban them from using cellphones in the plant...period! The same problem would likely occur with special aircraft-approved cellphones. ========== | | Dr. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ | | Online Instrumentation for Automatic Process Control | | / ###### \ Process Analytical & Optical Spectroscopy Research / # \ / ##### \ Eastman Chemical Company / # \ Research Laboratories / ###### \ P.O. Box 1972, Eastman Road / Eastman Chemical \ Kingsport, TN 37662 - 5150 / Company \ 423/229-4904, FAX 423/229-0637 |Research Laboratories| ornitz@eastman.com \____________________/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #551 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Oct 19 00:01:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA01641; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 00:01:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 00:01:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610190401.AAA01641@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #552 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Oct 96 00:01:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 552 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room (Peter Marshall) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (John R. Levine) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Phillip Ritter) IEEE EMC/ACES Sponsored Survey - Computational Electromagetics (igssurvey) Re: International Dialing Excess Charges (Linc Madison) Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy (Linc Madison) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter Marshall Subject: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:40:39 -0700 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: techdiff@ix.netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A very interesting report forwarded to the Digest on Friday ... about the organization which once or twice led me to declare in this same journal that I was glad I was not Socially Responsible. I believe that the Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility has taken some very irresponsible positions at one time or another in the past, but my personal opinions notwith- standing, this latest very controversial report deserves your careful review and response. PAT] ------------------- "Meanwhile, Back In the CPSR Board Room: Past as Prologue" Aki Namioka is from Seattle. She works for IBM. She's also the still-new President of CPSR; before that, a member of their board and chair of the org.'s personnel committee. Interesting things have happened on Ms. Namioka's watch, and on occasion, she goes through the motions of responding to them. Case-in-point: an item captioned "CPSR & Backroom Deals of the Infobahn" that appeared online about a month ago both in plain view and in a newsletter. Ms. Namioka's purported "response" was not only a few weeks in coming, but struck several observers as off-point, vacuous and generally lame. Said Namioka in an 8/29 msg to "CPSR Supporters" on the "cpsr-cyber-rights"mail-list: "I have been reluctant to respond.... I was shocked and hurt.... I...didn't anticipate that friends and supporters would question the ethics of the board members...." This particular dog wouldn't hunt. Now, on the cusp of CPSR's current"Communications Unleashed" Conference in D.C., in terms of what Namioka called "the ethics of the board members," it seems from materials that became available in the interim, that the "past" Namioka wanted to be seen as dealing with, is apparently "but prologue." The contrast between the note struck by the conference description and its high moral ground, on the one hand, and what these sources say, on the other, is itself attention-grabbing. From the conference description: In today's world of corporate mergers and the mega-packaging of services, what's at stake for consumers and who will represent their views? What is the meaning of public interest in the new digital environment? Who and what, indeed? In the meantime, not only do recently available records contrast with the tone of the current conference and with Namioka's letter; but so do a number of communications from involved CPSR members themselves. Item: Brennon Martin, in "CPSR: From the Outside Looking In:" ...the vision is...in the members and not so much in the organization itself.... I had expected an organization driven by the vision of its members.... the organization lacks vision, purpose, and an ability to get things (anything) done. Item: Craig Johnson, from "Position Paper on CPSR:" ...I...have..seen a lot of obfuscation and denial.... There is a widespread perception that the board lacks transparency, responsiveness and accountability. Item: Eva Waskell The soul of the organization is in disarray.... There appear to be internal, fundamental differences [between board and membership] about the future direction of the organization. Item: Audrie Krause, CPSR's recent Exec. Director, 6/23, on "Leadership Transition for CPSR:" ... significant and apparently irreconcilable differences over the way in which CPSR should be governed and managed. It is my understanding that the board hired me in order to provide leadership and vision for CPSR as it moves beyond the vision of its founders and begins to address new issues. In the context of issues about CPSR's leadership, such an increasingly apparent disjunction between the adopted public face and the not-in-plain-view face of some of the org.'s leadership itself also didn't seem to be at bottom merely the usual, garden variety NPO stuff. It was also recently evidenced by CPSR's President, Aki Namioka, and by Doug Schuler, who chaired the org.'s board until this summer. Item: In an 10/6 request to provide her own statements and comments on a number of topics, the CPSR President was asked, among other things, to respond to member concerns that the board had been out of touch and unresponsive.; was "dysfunctional," and that the group's future had been endangered and was uncertain. She was also asked to comment on an apparent pattern of self-interest and conflict of interest or appearance of such on the part of board members during her "watch" in various internal leadership positions. Namioka was asked for statements pegged to specific examples involving Schuler and for statements on two examples of so-called "pass-through" grants. She simply supplied copies of a PR-ish 9/9 letter she'd sent to members and of her purported response to the earlier "Backroom Deals" item noted above; neither responsive to anything she had been asked about. The first, she stated, "answers the questions that I feel like I can answer." What she called "concerns about Doug," said Namioka, "should be discussed with Doug directly." Item: Doug Schuler, who had recently chaired the CPSR board, and who, like Namioka, had previously functioned as a board member, had been asked in similar fashion not only about the two occasions involving "pass- through" funds, but also about two examples of payments to him with apparent board approval; about his attempt to have the org. hire him as an organizer, and about his role in a foundation grant proposal that would have meant not-insignificant personal financial benefit. Asked like Namioka, to provide statements or comments, Schuler has yet to be heard from. However, the meat of the matter is a matter of record, and that speaks for itself. Made up of both electronic correspondence and other materials, this is a "follow-the-money" record. It represents a pattern involving members of the CPSR leadership. It is also not without precedent among similar advocacy groups--previous questioning about EFF and its funding sources comes to mind, for example. The litany presented by these materials, while standing on its own, also rounds out and reinforces the theme of disjunctions concerning CPSR leadership. Color this component private v. public benefit, private v. public interest, in-house v. out- house.... Item: CPSR is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization, apparently with about 1500 members and five active chapters of a total 22. Backed up by e-mail correspondence, sources indicate that in 1993, CPSR accepted for a small percentage of total dollar value, a pass-through grant in the amount of $3000. In such transactions, the tax-exempt org. is merely a vehicle, and sources indicate this transaction was apparently midwifed by Terry Winograd, a CPSR founder and computer scientist. Apparently a friend of his wanted a tax deduction as a "charitable contribution" for funds he wanted to provide to help update and edit a 1986 book called "Reinventing Technology," by a third friend. An evidently willing CPSR leadership, sources say, provided the org. as a conduit for the so-called "charitable contribution," a transaction one source preferred to label "tax-laundering." Tax-exempt CPSR apparently did not retain any copyright in the publication. By way of background, An 4/94 article in "The Exempt Organization Tax Review" refers to "the use of charitable funds to provide unwarranted enrichment to individuals" and notes that "the penalty for a mistake by a charitable organization is dire--loss of exempt status." Explaining that such organizations "must...be organized and operated exclusively for certain specified *exempt purposes,* the article notes that "no part of its net earnings may *inure to the benefit* of a private...individual." A 6/13/96 msg to Winograd cites this book's author asserting "that he knew you," and that "he has made similar arrangements in the past." Winograd's reply on the same date has him admitting "I know Michael [the book's author] well;" and, referring to the 1993 transaction, "I think we sponsored part of the work on the basis of outside funding which he identified." The same day, CPSR's Exec. Director confirmed to Winograd that "Our files show that in 1993 Oppenheimer gave us $3000, all but $150 of which was passed through to Goldhaber to help him update his book." Item: Both sources and records document a similar, although attempted, pass- through involving the same principals this year, apparently intended to update and edit the same book. However, under the heading "Charity as Conduit," in a 6/24 letter, a San Francisco attorney specializing in non-profit tax law advised CPSR: ...I assume...the reason the prospective donor needs the cooperation of CPSR is to obtain an income tax deduction for the funds paid to the author. The principal problem with the arrangement is that CPSR, by approving of this project, is essentially "selling" its status as a qualified donee of charitable contributions for a price of 150.... In the situation posed..., unless the author is willing to assign his interest in the copyright to CPSR, the use of charitable funds to further the creation of the book is not permitted. But it apparently was not this legal advice or any decision by CPSR leadership that kept this transaction from being consummated like the 1993 pass-through. According to other available documents, the non-CPSR principals in this affair simply lost patience. Notably, however, Aki Namioka had written deferentially on 6/16 that "Terry has been on the CPSR Board since the birth of the organization and I don't think he would have suggested something unless he thought it were appropriate.... Terry comes across as very reasonable...." The next day, Terry Winograd wrote that the "funding sponsor has grown impatient with the problems with CPSR...." Item: Following the money in the context of the org.'s leadership also appears to manifest a different sort of face, an apparent pattern formed by a series of examples more directly involving the board's former NW Regional Director and Chair, Doug Schuler. Asked to delineate examples of attempts to realize personal financial gain through CPSR, a source described then board chair Schuler, along with two other board members, "all saying they would like a piece of any funding we could get from the Markle Foundation to do a post- telecom bill policy paper on NII issues;" in addition to--again, while he was board chair-- three attempts by Doug to be paid: ...an Independent Project Fund grant proposal, which was referred to the Executive Committee and resulted in his being paid $2000 to organize five working group within one year.... applying for the full-time organizing position.... Third, asking to paid to organize the DIAC, while activist members were not paid to organize other conferences. This source added to the mix Schuler's requesting that his then- recent book be promoted through CPSR channels, noting also that the organizer staff job paid about $30,000 and that Schuler's payment for the upcoming DIAC conference was apparently worth about $2000-$2500. Schuler's involvement in the ultimately unsuccessful Markle Foundation funding proposal also seems to have been worth a sizable chunk of change. From a 3/21/96 letter to Markle signed by Schuler and board member Steve Miller: We are writing at this time to inquire whether The Markle Foundation would consider a proposal from CPSR for a grant of $50,000.... Our plan is to complete the white paper in time to release it at our Annual Meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for late October in Washington, D.C. .... Both of us, as well as a third member of the CPSR Board, Hans Klein, are available to provide technical and policy expertise on a paid consulting basis. In the face of recent and growing questioning and criticism from some activist CPSR members and others, the litany of apparent self-dealing recited here also appears notable because even when, as in the pattern demonstrated by Doug Schuler, one responsible individual's apparent financial self-interest is at play, the other iterations indicating disjunctions implicating the org.'s leadership occurred "on the watch" of board members and officers including, but obviously not limited to, Schuler and Namioka. Unsurprisingly, activist members and others have concerned themselves with questions of where the buck stops and who is minding the store. Backbone for much of these themes is a record that largely stands on its own, enabling what amounts to a "follow the money" treatment and a picture of disjunctions and of contrasts--public interest and private gain, a public face and an in-house face--the appearance of a comprimisable, shell-like organizational leadership with apparently ample evidence of its own inner "cognitive dissonance." ------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone authorized to do so by CPSR would care to respond to this article. It will will recieve a priority place in the first issue of the Digest available following its receipt. The charges alleged by Peter Marshall seem rather serious, particularly those pertaining to misuse of CPSR's tax exempt status. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 21:03 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers > required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code > in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. Too bad the FCC said they couldn't do that. (917 was grandfathered from before this rule.) The rationale was that a separate area code for non-wireline ghetto-izes them and inhibits competition. Also, one area code per state could have toll rating problems -- 917 is easy enough to handle because all calls within NYC are local to each other. But what about cell phones and beepers here in upstate N.Y.? You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the subscriber lives, so you'd have some extremely bizarre "local" calling rules, e.g. you can make local calls from here in Trumansburg to 607-387, our prefix, 607-253 through 607-259 and 607-279, neighboring Ithaca, but you'd have to add something like, 980-666, Ithaca's new cellular prefix! Huh? (In fact there are few enough cellular numbers here that the cellular carriers use blocks of numbers from wireline prefixes, e.g., my number is 607-279-XXXX, so assigning a whole prefix for cellular would be wasteful. This is common in less dense areas). Finally, remember the big unheralded culprit in area code depletion: competitive carriers grabbing huge piles of prefixes to hold in reserve against the day they might start serving an area. At this point, every carrier that might serve an area needs a unique NXX-NXX for each billing point, even if they're unlikely ever to have more than a few hundred numbers there. The reason is that billing software all depends on NXX-NXX, so you can't share prefixes among different billing points, even if they are in fact in the same switch, while call routing routes by prefix, so you can't share prefixes among carriers. I believe it was Fred Goldstein who proposed here that it wouldn't be all that hard to share a prefix for a given city among different carriers and route on the thousands digit of the number, e.g. 666-1XXX might be MFS, 666-2XXX AT&T, 666-3XXX MCI, and so forth. This would only require software changes to routing software in switches close enough that they'd route calls to that prefix differently to the different local carriers, and no changes at all to billing software since regardless of carrier it's the same city so the rates would be the same. Do that and you can reclaim thousands of reserved but unused prefixes in "full" area codes. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - MIT econ prof ------------------------------ From: Phillip Ritter Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:41:28 -0700 > In TELECOM Digest V16 #551 jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) writes: > I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers > required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area > code in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. > In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for > NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand > for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for > the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of > numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided. > This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having > to use ten digits to place local calls. This is an interesting idea. It has been proposed in at least three jurisdictions that I am aware of (Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles) and has been the subject of litigation in all three cities. Both the State PUCs and FCC have been involved, with strong arguments presented on both sides of the issue. The current state of affairs is that the FCC has ruled that there can not be a "service specific overlay" of NPAs within the US portion of the NANP. What effect this will have on the New York situation is unclear at this point, but there cannot be a new overlay specific to a given service (e.g., a "wireless only" overlay). The reasoning is, basically, that over time the FCC desires that all providers of telecommunications service will be allowed to compete "head to head". This means that the IXCs and CAPs are getting ready for competitive local exchange service, the LECs are getting ready to provide inter-exchange service, and the CMRS carriers (wireless) will be allowed to provide "fixed wireless local loop" services. Forcing the CMRS providers into an overlay NPA is seen as anti-competitive when these carriers try to compete with traditionally "wired" services. Whether you agree or not, it is currently the "law of the land" (well, actually, the R&O that finalized this ruling is the subject of a "stay" until January for other reasons, but I don't think that this part is currently in hot dispute. Service specific overlays do not solve the NPA split problem without adding new significant number administration problems. Phil Ritter RitterP@coxpcs.com ------------------------------ From: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey) Subject: IEEE EMC/ACES Sponsored Survey on Computational Electromagetics Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:51:28 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: isgsurvey@aol.com (ISGsurvey) The IEEE/EMC Society and ACES are co-sponsoring a technical survey to establish the state-of-the-art in the application of advanced Computational Electromagnetics (CEM) tools by commercial industry. The survey is being conducted by the ICEMES Development Team in conjunction with research funded by the US Air Force s Rome Laboratories. By exploring the needs and wants of potential users of advanced CEM analysis tools, we intend to compile information about: The rate of adoption of advanced CEM analysis tools by different segments of commercial industry; External trends and influences that will accelerate/retard the adoption of CEM analysis; Suitability of currently available CEM software to the needs of commercial industry; Directions of improvement in CEM tools. By taking 10-15 minutes to complete our survey, you will benefit in two ways. First, we will report a summary of the survey results back to you, giving you important information about industry trends in the use of advanced CEM tools. Second, your feedback will help to create better CEM tools, which will help you to do your work better, faster, and more easily. All survey responses will be kept entirely confidential. Your individual response will be merged into an anonymous responses database. We will not attribute any published responses to you, or to your company. We also will keep your identity strictly confidential, will NOT provide any information to be used for telemarketing, or sold or rented to junk-mail list compilers. You can find the survey at the ICEMES homepage, http://www.auragen.com/icemes. Also posted is a technical paper describing ICEMES, a sophisticated software pre-processor being designed with funding by the US Air Force s Rome labs. If you have any difficulties with the survey, comments you d like to make that don t fit in the survey format, or other questions about any of this, please e-mail them to ISGSurvey@AOL.com. Many thanks for your help and input. See you on the web! ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: International Dialing Excess Charges Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:45:26 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , jnorton@alltel.net wrote: > I also heard about the 809 phone scam. According to the Netcom > message of the day, some callers to the 809 number could be charged > $25 (twenty-five dollars) per minute. Don't know whether this is > true, and am not about to call the 809 number in question to find out. I think this falls into the category of urban legend. I don't believe that any of the long distance companies has a tariff on file that would permit this. If they charge $25/minute to that particular number in the British Virgin Islands, they have to charge the same for all other numbers in the B.V.I. > This leads me to another question. I talked to AT&T about this, > and they told me that several numbers can be called that are dialed as > international (011+) calls that can result in extremely high > per-minute rates. AT&T says that they classify these calls as "adult > entertainment". ... They also say that these numbers are charged based > upon a contract that the service provider has with the LEC. Can anyone give me one single example of an international call from the U.S. that is billed at higher rates than other calls to the same location, based on some sort of "premium" surcharge? (By the way, the term "LEC" as used above may be a bit confusing; it is referring to the foreign telco, not the U.S. caller's local telco.) We have indeed discussed this issue before, but no one has ever given me a concrete example of an international number -- either Caribbean 1+ or otherwise 011+ -- that is billed with a surcharge when called from the U.S. I submit that no such numbers actually exist. In all cases, U.S. international call rates are based exclusively on: * selected long-distance company and any optional "savings plan"; * country of destination; * class of call (direct-dial, collect, person-to-person, etc.); * time of day/day of week (possibly); * distance between city of origin and city of destination (possibly). If anyone has a counterexample, please provide all the specific details -- the LD company, the country, the city routing code or other prefix, and the surcharge. As an example, I just checked with Sprint, and on the rate plan I am on, calls to the British Virgin Islands, 1-809-494 are billed at $1.45/minute peak, $1.15/minute off-peak (5pm to 8am, plus Sat/Sun). The rates for 1-809-496 (the prefix where the "past due account" scam is located) are PRECISELY THE SAME. There is NO surcharge. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:35:06 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , tweek@netcom.com (Mike Maxfield) wrote: > [Contra Costa News article quote:] >> The other plan, which uses a north-south split, would bring a new area >> code to Contra Costa and the Alameda County suburbs of Pleasanton, >> Livermore and Dublin. The more established cities of Albany, Oakland, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Berkeley, Hayward and Fremont would retain the current 510 number >> designation, according to the plans released by the California Code >> Administrator. > Huh? "The more established cities..."? Oakland has been a major metropolitan center much longer than Walnut Creek. What's mysterious about that? It doesn't say "the communities that have had the 510 area code longer," it simply says the more-established cities. Indeed, one of the questions about this split is what city on the east side will be the "standard bearer" for the new area code. (Another point to clarify: it sounds to me from the description that Richmond and El Cerrito will move to the new area code in either of the proposed plans. Is that correct?) > FWIW, At the time of the '89 Quake, the 510 AC was laying on top of > the 415 AC, and reportedly, one way for someone to dial into the > area in the early hours after the quake (including into the current > 415 AC as well, if I recall) was to use the 510 AC which had not had > the indial limits placed on it as the 415 system did. If this worked, it was a fluke caused by people doing a little bit of work far in advance -- the 510 area code did not even start PERMISSIVE dialing until almost two years after the earthquake (9/2/91). Perhaps you are thinking of the Oakland Hills firestorm in October 1991. The 510 area code may have been temporarily implemented as an overlay on 415 in some switches as an interim measure in preparation for programming in the actual area code split, but it was never a legitimate part of the numbering plan. In particular, it should never have been possible to dial a number in San Francisco using 510. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #552 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Oct 20 09:10:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA29593; Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 09:10:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610201310.JAA29593@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #553 TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Oct 96 09:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 553 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell/Proposed FCC Competition Rules (Mike King) Re: The Birth of Cable TV (Neal McLain) BellSouth and ACSI Reach Settlement on Key Issues (Mike King) Book Review: "Educators' Essential Internet Training System" (Rob Slade) Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback (David W. Vaughan) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell/Proposed FCC Competition Rules Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 22:06:04 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:48:24 -0700 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: Pacific Bell Executive Calls Proposed FCC Competition Rules Unfair and Counter-Productive FOR MORE INFORMATION: John E. Lucas (415) 394-3892 Pacific Bell Executive Calls Proposed FCC Competition Rules Unfair and Counter-Productive Says Will Hurt Entire U. S. Telecom Industry London -- October 18, 1996 The president of Pacific Bell's Industry Markets unit today told an international forum of telecommunications executives that rules proposed by the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would retard innovation by "robbing us of the very margins that encourage research and development." Speaking before systems interconnection managers at the IIR Telecoms & Technology Global Perspectives Forum on Interconnection in A Changing Regulatory Environment, Fetter said "the FCC is essentially confiscating our assets and usurping the authority of state commissions..." Under newly proposed rules, Fetter said Pacific Bell, as well as the other Bell operating companies would have to provide their reseller customers with 17-25% discounts, allowing those other companies the unfair advantage of undercutting local operating companies steeply on price. In California, she said, Pacific Bell now has thousands of wholesale customers who use its network to provide services to others. In 1984, it had three. Fetter, the event keynote speaker, said that, instead of helping to assure competitors of a level playing field, the rules would discourage innovation, with a major ripple effect throughout the American telecommunications industry. Calling them misguided and counter-productive, Fetter said the rules are being vigorously appealed by telephone operating companies and state commissions. Regulation is supposed to serve as a surrogate for competition, but these rules would pose heavy regulatory burdens on existing operating companies while purportedly opening local U. S. telephone markets to fair, market-based competition, she noted. Fetter said the long-anticipated U. S. Telecom Reform Act of 1996 has already turned the U. S. telecommunications industry in a completely new direction, adding that it has been the biggest single reason for the huge growth in wholesale customers that the company has experienced. Under terms of that sweeping law, the interconnection process is already working well, she noted. Fetter pointed out that Pacific Bell has completed interconnection agreements with 15 carriers under state regulations, several of which now also meet federal requirements. Another 60 are well underway. Her parent company, Pacific Telesis, like several other phone companies, had little choice but to appeal the FCC decision, she said. The appeal is pending hearings in the U. S. Circuit Court that are scheduled to begin in January. "Our vision is to keep and grow customers on the Pacific Bell network, under terms that do not prescribe a suicide mission," she stated. "Why should Pacific Bell (or any other local operating company) invest capital only to face substantial unnecessary risk in recovering that capital?" Fetter was skeptical of wording in the proposed rules that says operating companies like Pacific and Nevada Bell are entitled to a reasonable profit, because "reasonable" was not defined. "This creates a scenario whereby we could develop the latest and greatest telecommunications service, be forced to make it immediately available to wholesale customers who can then use their discount to substantially undercut us on price, robbing us of the very margins that encourage research and development, and creating a disincentive for us to explore and progress as an industry," Fetter said. She went on to say that while local phone service in California is $4 billion strong, her company cannot "give away the store" to be allowed into the long distance market. Calling its network the most efficient of the major local phone companies in the United States, Fetter told the executives that Pacific Telesis is committed to continuing to increase the number of carriers that it serves. And, she predicted strong rates of growth: Internet providers will provide the greatest percentage of growth for Pacific's wholesale operations -- 200% over the next three years. The company's wireless customers base will also jump sharply at least doubling in size, she said, and the number of local service providers will continue to steadily rise. "It simply does not make good economic sense for several carriers to build redundant networks when we are perfectly willing to sell components or full service deals on ours." Fetter said the Pacific Bell network is one of the most modern in the world with an investment of about $30 billion to date. She said Pacific Bell is now investing even more for increased network security to provide added assurances that no carrier ever has access to the records of another. Embracing her unit's dubious task of striving to efficiently equip her company's competitors, she cautioned that Pacific Bell and other local phone companies must be allowed to make a fair rate of return on all fronts in the process. She informed conference attendees that, in addition to the local exchange market, the long distance (or interLATA) market is thriving, though Pacific Bell and the other former Bell operating companies are still prevented from entering it. She estimated that consumers in California and Nevada are spending $7.5 billion annually for long distance voice traffic alone -- 73% of which originates in areas served by Pacific Bell or Nevada Bell. She added that California, which by itself has the seventh largest economy in the world, accounts for 40% of all United States Internet traffic and 50% of the American cellular phone market. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of the Pacific Telesis Group (NYSE: PAC), a diversified telecommunications company headquartered in San Francisco, California, U. S. A. ------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 96 03:43:09 EDT From: Neal McLain <103210.3011@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Birth of Cable TV My post in DIGEST V16 #519 about the article THE BIRTH OF CABLE TV (published in the Fall, 1996 issue of AMERICAN HERITAGE OF INVENTION & TECHNOLOGY) elicited comments from several readers. I reproduce some of them below, along with my responses. On 10/1/06, John R. Grout wrote: > I appreciate your article, but, technologically, do you know > what distinguished Astoria's system from, say, CATV within a > single apartment complex (which is not considered "cable TV")? > Was it only that a charge was made? Did it use equipment > (e.g., amplifiers) which smaller, single-premises CATV systems > didn't? I'd rephrase this question as follows: what is the difference between a "Master Antenna TV (MATV) System" which serves only one building (or a small group of buildings) and a "Cable Television (CATV) System" which serves a larger urbanized area? Under current FCC regulations, this distinction is purely a matter of legal definition. This definition hinges on one question: whether or not any physical part of the system (e.g., cable, amplifier, or even just part of the supporting strand) occupies public "right-of-way". If any part of the system encroaches on public right-of-way (i.e., a city street), the system is legally deemed to be a "cable television" system, and all sorts of legal requirements kick in. I would assume that Parsons' system crossed public right-of-way, so he probably needed permission from the City of Astoria. Therefore, under modern law, his system would be classified as a CATV system. But, of course, in Parsons' day, this distinction didn't exist. In fact, even the term "cable television" didn't exist. When the term CATV was first coined, it was an abbreviation for "community antenna television." The presence or absence of amplifiers does not distinguish an MATV system from a CATV system. Virtually all MATV systems employ at least one amplifier; even a small MATV system in a four-unit building usually has some sort of amplifier buried in the attic. Large apartment and condo complexes often have elaborate distribution systems constructed with equipment identical to that used by CATV systems. Many such systems also include satellite-delivered programming; for this reason, they are sometimes called "Satellite Master Antenna TV (SMATV) Systems." The Astoria system certainly must have used amplifiers. However, back in 1948, what we now know as cable-TV amplifiers didn't exist, so Parsons must have either built his own amplifiers, or adapted/modified some sort of commercial broadband amplifier for outdoor use. The I&T article does not address this question. The picture on pages 42 and 43 shows a cylindrical device which looks like an amplifier; however, it has a distinct home-brew appearance. The presence or absence of a monthly charge does not distinguish an MATV system from a CATV system. Most large MATV/SMATV systems impose a monthly charge, although it may be buried in the rent bill. Parsons did charge for his service; indeed, I've heard this fact cited as a factor that substantiates Astoria's claim to having been the first cable system. On 10/1/96, R. Thomas Benner wrote: > A friend forwarded this to me. The inventor of CATV is in > dispute. In fact, it supposedly began in Pennsylvania in the > Anthracite regions where I grew up (but I claim no credit). > A colleague of mine, coincidentally named Parsons, is writing > a history of cable. > I recall that he said CATV could have also begun in Wisconsin. > I'll share your posting with me. I agree that the inventor of CATV is in dispute. I have frequently heard the claim that the first system was in Pennsylvania; however, as noted in my response to the previous post, Astoria is generally credited as the first system to impose a monthly charge. I've spent most of my 20 years in the cable industry right here in Wisconsin, and I've never heard a claim that first system was here. But I suppose it's possible: there are many cities in the northern part of the state which didn't have access to over-the- air television until well into the 60s. On 10/1/96, Bob Johnson wrote: > You might or might not know that there is a cable tv museum > of some kind on the campus of Penn State University. I wasn't > aware that Oregon had the first system, but PA towns were very > early cable users -- because so many towns there are located in > narrow valleys with no hope of receiving signals from outside > without going to the top of the nearest ridge or mountain. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to visit the cable museum at Penn State, but I'm told that it includes lots of early equipment including home-brew amplifiers. Within the past year or so, this museum has been closed. Portions of the collection owned by the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) are now in display at the society's headquarters building in Exton, PA. The rest of the collection is now in storage in the Denver area, awaiting the completion of new museum space. On 10/5/96, Brent Graham wrote: > I enjoyed your note re; Astoria & cablevision. My wife & I go > to Oregon often to visit her sister and I'll make sure next > time we too stop at the Astoria column. Enjoy! In TELECOM Digest V16 #537 (10/9/96), Andrew Emmerson wrote: > This sounds good but as is so often the case, it is wrong. > There were commercial community antenna (cable) television > installations in London as early as 1936 [K.J. Easton: THIRTY > YEARS IN CABLE TV. 1980: Pioneer Publications, Mississauga, > Ontario] and also during the second world war in Berlin and > Hamburg. According to Easton's book, the first cable TV system > in the USA was established by John Walson in Mahanoy City, > Pennsylvania in 1948, although he did not start charging > for service until the following year. > All credit to the good folk of Astoria for celebrating their > pioneering work but it's certainly not the first, even in the > USA. The inventor of CATV is indeed in dispute! ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth and ACSI Reach Settlement on Key Issues Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 22:03:45 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 13:13:41 -0400 (EDT) From: BellSouth Subject: BELLSOUTH AND ACSI REACH SETTLEMENT ON KEY ISSUES BellSouth .......................................October 18, 1996 BELLSOUTH AND ACSI REACH SETTLEMENT ON KEY ISSUES Need for Arbitration Hearings Removed (Atlanta, GA)--October 18, 1996--BellSouth (NYSE: BLS) announced today it reached an agreement with American Communications Services, Inc. (ACSI) that addresses key remaining issues between the companies on local competition interconnection. The agreement will allow ACSI to get into business in the BellSouth region immediately after the appropriate state commissions approve the agreement. This settlement comes on the heels of the partial stay of the FCC's interconnection order which was granted in part because of the restrictive nature of the FCC's rules on the pricing of BellSouth's services for resale and unbundled network elements. The two companies signed a partial interconnection agreement in July and had continued negotiations which resulted with this pact. This settlement allows the two companies to terminate the arbitration process which was scheduled to begin yesterday in Alabama, and later in the fall in other BellSouth states. "This type of settlement is exactly what the national legislation intended, and what the Appeals Court has now allowed by granting a stay of parts of the FCC order. The court has removed the barriers to free and open negotiations between competitors in the local telephone market that the FCC order had erected," stated Roger Flynt, Group President - Regulatory and External Affairs. "This full settlement agreement with ACSI is another demonstration that we are committed to bringing competition to our markets. To this end, we have been aggressively negotiating with our competitors to assure that the competition intended by the national legislation develops. Also, with each agreement we sign, we move closer to being allowed into the long distance business," stated Flynt. This settlement covers BellSouth's nine states and addresses the prices of BellSouth's unbundled loops, loop channelizations, and cross connects in BellSouth's switching facilities. The companies have incorporated a true-up process in order to adjust these prices after six months, if necessary, or if different rates are approved or required. In addition to this settlement, BellSouth has signed agreements with 25 regional and national competitors including: Time Warner, Intermedia, Teleport Communications Group, Hart Communications, The Telephone Company of Central Florida, Southeast Telephone Company, American MetroComm, Payphone Consultants, Georgia Comm South, MediaOne (US West Subsidiary), National Tel, Business Telecom Inc. of Georgia, Intetech, WinStar Wireless, MFS Communications, Brooks Fiber, Preferred Long Distance, Tie Communications, Annox, Inc., Competitive Communications and Communications Brokerage Services. The company is also expected to sign additional agreements with competitors in the near future. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing and other information services to more than 25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. Its telephone operations provide service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world for approximately 22 million telephone lines in a nine-state region that includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Chandler BellSouth Telecommunications (404) 529-6235 Bill Todd BellSouth Telecommunications (205) 972-2984 ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 12:37:32 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Educators' Essential Internet Training System" BKEDESIN.RVW 960627 "Educators' Essential Internet Training System", Tim McLain/Vince DiStefano, 1996, , U$249.00 %A Tim McLain %A Vince DiStefano %C 1866 Colonial Village Lane, PO Box 10488, Landcaster, PA 17605-0488 %D 1996 %E Chris Noonan Sturm %I Wentworth Worldwide Media %O U$249.00 800-638-1639 fax 717-393-5752 connect@wentworth.com %P ~350 pages, 85 min. video %T "Educators' Essential Internet Training System" This package contains a complete set of materials for a basic Internet training seminar. There is a curriculum, a set of "slides" in both softcopy (PowerPoint format, with a viewer) and black and white printed format, a set of (twenty) student workbooks, and even an introductory video. Further sets of student workbooks can be purchased separately for U$50.00. The "Trainer's Guide" also gives suggestions on seminar setup and presentation, as well as minimal information on related Internet topics. The material is rather short. A run through the whole set would take about three hours. This could, of course, be extended with ancillary material from the instructor, depending upon expertise. The use of exercises from the student workbook could also be used to extend the session. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKEDESIN.RVW 960627. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: david_vaughan@ibm.net (David W. Vaughan) Subject: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:08:04 GMT Hi folks! Has anyone else had problems with Callwise Distribution Company (Joel Kaye and Roderick Jones) of the UK and Advance Audio-Com of Encino, CA's offering of callback services? [Update: I just called my CC company now and it gave me the merchant's name as Cross Communications not Advance Audio-Com. Has there been a merger/buy-out or something?] In summary, I signed up for callback telephone service (with pyt via my CC) after online solicitations in public CompuServe fora (Italian forum) by Callwise offering no monthly fee/no minimums callback service and after initial problems getting the service to work, I made a single test call - at a total cost of $0.94, to check on the accuracy and timeliness of billing. Well, after repeated requests to Callwise I finally got the itemized billing some two months later but in the meantime Advance Audio-Com billed my credit card three different occasions for a total of approximately $75, so I promptly advised Callwise of the problem and had my CC company reverse/dispute the charges! Well, after returning from a long overseas trip I discovered that not only had Callwise not resolved the situation correctly but that Advance Audio-Com had recharged my CC, this time for a total of $80!!! So, I have again pointed out the erronous charges to Callwise and had my CC company again contest the charges but Callwise is refusing to get involved saying that my problem is with the principal (Advance Audio-Com), whom I've never dealt with and for whom I do not even have a contact name and/or address. Indeed, it is Callwise that publicly solicited my business (I retain copies of all its messages on file) and advised me of rates and charges and Callwise also receives billing details from Advance Audio-Com, for dispatch to its clients. As an ex-pat New Yorker I have some ideas as to whom I need to approach (e.g., BBB, CC company, CA Attorney General) and the types of pressure I need to bring to get Advance Audio-Com's attention (as a US company), though any contact address for AAC and any suggestions on who else I might contact, the pressure I might bring and any other user experiences with Advance Audio-Com would be very welcome. However, my real question is what authorities I should approach - presumably i n the UK, though I'm sure CI$ would like to know if one of its subscribers is engaging in illegal activities in public fora on its service - to bring pressure to bear on Callwise in the UK. For example, is there the UK equivalent of BBBs, Attorney Generals, mail fraud laws etc? TIA for any help and based on my experience DO NOT RISK YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER DEALING WITH CALLWISE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (principals Joel Kaye and Roderick Jones) of the UK and ADVANCE AUDIO-COM of the US. Best! /dwv PS. As background, I've enclosed the text of my letter to my CC company, with apologies for the length: October 2, 1996 [CC company address] Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Billing Dispute with The Callwise Distribution Company and Advance Audio-Com (Case No-###) On the basis of a public promotion (of which I hold a copy on file) dated October 4, 1995 for a telephone callback service by Mr. Joel Kaye of The Callwise Distribution Company (Sandor Lodge, 56 Castlenau, London SW13 9EX, UK, Tel: +44-181-749-4024, Fax: +44-181-741-0387 or 749-4024, E. mail: 00417.1561@compuserve.com; "Callwise") as representative of Advance Audio-Com, Encino, CA; S/E #: 5047000419) in which it was clearly stated: "There is no monthly subscription, no minimum monthly usage, no joining fees. You only pay for the calls that you make." I applied for this service per my letter and completed application form of November 16, 1995 to Callwise, with billing to be to my credit card. Upon advice by Callwise in late November, 1995 that my new service had been activated I attempted to make a single test call, to ensure that the service and the associated billing worked correctly. After I experienced a number of technical difficulties which I communicated to Mr. Joel Kaye and Mr. Roderick Jones of Callwise and following their advice that my original personal account number (xxx) had been changed (to yyy) to overcome these problems, I finally managed to make ONE and ONLY ONE test call on the service, using the new personal account number, on December 8, 1995. I then waited for the associated billing to arrive, to check its timeliness and accuracy. No such billing arrived for a long period, during which I contacted Callwise several times to register my dissatisfaction and to request that the billing be sent immediately. In the meantime, Callwise and Advance Audio-Com made three different unauthorized charges to my credit card, each for an amount of $25 and on three different dates: November 22, 1995, December 1, 1995 and December 4, 1995. As soon as I discovered these three unauthorized charges, I notified Callwise of the problem and also requested [my credit card company] to credit back 2 of the 3 charges (which occurred on January 15, 1996), leaving the balance of the third charge to be credited back later, less the cost of the one call I made and for which I still did not have billing, as of mid-January 1996. Then, in a communication dated January 29, 1996 (a copy of which I hold on file), Joel Kaye of Callwise advised that: "Effective the 1st February 1996, our service provider is instituting a new charging structure and this will have an effect on the amount that you are charged to use our service. Our terms and conditions will change and this will affect the charges that we levy. We are now required to impose a monthly fee of 89 cents per line and there is also a requirement to charge a minimum $25 per month per line, - this is a credit towards call charges, and is not refundable. (It is a minimum usage requirement. If you make more than $25 of calls in one month, then there is no additional charge apart from the $0.89c. If however you make less than $25 in one month then you will be charged $25 instead of the lesser amount of calls that you actually made.) It would seem from the our past usage of our system over the past few months that you will not be making more than $25 per month of phone calls, and therefore we have taken the step to deactivate your account before the 1st February, in order to avoid you having to pay this new charge un-necessarily." Then finally, again per copy which I am holding on file, I was advised on February 2, 1996 in a communication from Mr. Roderick Jones of Callwise that: "A clerical error led to the incorrect rates being loaded into the system and I have not sent out any bills until this has been corrected" and that: "Your call to New York on December 8 was timed at 1.7 minutes and, at a rate of 55 cents, has been charged to your account at 94 cents." I also hold on file a copy of the "Call Detail Summary" sent by Callwise detailing the billing of $0.94 to my Callwise account (#yyy). I then left on a long overseas trip, during which time, not only did Callwise and Advance Audio-Com not credit back the remaining $24.06 balance from the final errant $25 charge still outstanding but they also made two new unauthorized charges to my credit card, in the amounts of $30.09 on February 26, 1996 and $25.50 on March 3, 1996. Again, on discovering this problem I notified Callwise and requested my credit card company to credit back the 3 errant charges - being the two new unauthorized charges just detailed above along with the $24.06 balance due to me from the third original errant charge dating back to November-December, 1995. To conclude I look forward to your prompt resolution of this matter. To put it mildly, my patience is wearing very thin and I have now prepared this letter in support of [my credit card company's] investigations on my behalf into this matter. Please feel free to contact me for any additional clarification etc. (and please send me Advance Audio-Com's postal address so that I may send a copy of this communication directly to it). I continue to want to believe that this is a case of gross bureaucratic incompetence by Callwise and Advance Audio-Com. However, their continued delays in promptly refunding what are clearly unauthorized charges to my [credit card] Account may indicate that this is a case of clear and outright fraud by Callwise and Advance Audio-Com. Should this prove to be the case, I look forward to [my credit card company] taking legal action against Callwise and Advance Audio-Com. I will also bring this matter to the attention of State and Federal authorities in the US and to the anti-fraud authorities in the UK. I will also go online to warn other unsuspecting consumers of the fraudulent actions carried out by Callwise and Advance Audio-Com in respect of my [credit card] Account. Yours sincerely, David W. VAUGHAN CC: Mr. Joel Kaye The Callwise Distribution Company Sandor Lodge 56 Castlenau London SW13 9EX United Kingdom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #553 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 11:08:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA17378; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:08:46 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610211508.LAA17378@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #554 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 554 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke (TELECOM Digest Editor) D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (Jeffrey Rhodes) Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (cats8@erols.com) Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Linc Madison) Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response (Hank Nussbacher) GTE Says Competition Into Local Markets Will Not be Delayed (Marcel White) Re: Second Line Installation Problems (Leonard Erickson) Re: The Truth About 809 Area Code Scams (Leonard Erickson) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (James W. Anderson) Re: PacBell Stalling on Caller ID For ISDN (J. DeBert) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:27:39 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke It appears that Sunday and Monday someone known as TipToe0001@aol.com and also as R9ch@aol.com has been busy spamming and junk-emailing the net with an advertisement for the sale and trade of child pornography. He has been attaching the name of -- I believe -- an unwitting person in Jackson Heights, NY and claiming the order should be placed through that person. It is my recommendation that the mail be forwarded to the address assigned at AOL to investigate and deal with these things. It is 'abuse@aol.com'. I say that I think the person in Jackson Heights, NY -- if the address and person even exist -- is unwitting and not part of the scam/spam because I cannot imagine any person actually involved in such an activity giving out a real name and street address. There would be a post office box and some bogus name at the very least. Please do not contact the poor guy in Jackson Heights with any sort of correspondence, phone calls, etc unless at some later point it is actually found out that he is involved; again IMO this is doubtful. I also would not waste even five minutes corresponding with postal inspectors or other law enforcement people on this. The subscriber at AOL who did this is just a sick and stupid person. The one problem I see with AOL is their total lack of any security in cases like this. Screen names are made up one minute for use in some prank and then deleted the next minute. I venture to say if you wrote to the sender of the message, the screen name has already been deleted. By the way, I *personally* got a copy of it in my mail as well. According to the introduction, I was on a mailing list they had chosen because of the likelyhood of interest in the material being sent out. Please forward this message around, with my strong recommendation that the person in Jackson Heights, NY *not* be contacted. Give him his privacy and don't help perpetuate the sick scam any further. It is also my belief that the poor victim of this 'joke' in New York has a **very good claim** against America OnLine if he wishes to pursue it, and I am hopeful an attorney will contact him and assist him with doing just that. AOL can claim no responsibility if they want, but the fact is that the lack of security on their system and their 'attractive nuisance' nature to every crackpot and criminal in America makes this sort of thing possible. Don't *you* be further victimized by getting all involved in scolding or harassing letter-writing. PAT ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:10:00 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have a suggestion that would change the fundamental existing problem that LECs face in that the ISP only gets calls and never makes them. In other words, existing tariffs cause LECs to lose money to supply the ISPs' feed. If the LEC could refuse this business, they would, but they have an obligation to the public to NOT refuse service. This is an imbalance, the LECs' tariffs are based on models of hold time that do not match the ISP feed. BA and PB are attempting to change that. If successful and the ISPs are treated like long distance companies such that the ISPs will need to pay access charges to receive their access feed, then the Internet will eventually adopt per-usage charges anyway. I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel can be used for downlink, too. The call from ISP to user, instead of user to ISP, would save login and authentication time for each call, and the B-ch(s) can be dropped when idle. Now ISPs would look more like PBXes to the LEC and the LECs' tariffs would cover their costs. As it stands now, the long hold time for the ISPs' feed is requiring the LECs to expand switch fabric, not an easy or inexpensive task! I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage sensitive, no matter what. There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs. Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is imbalanced) and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public switched network has adopted. Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more like $100-200 a month for this. Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were making any money? Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:45:02 -0400 From: Joann Reply-To: cats8@erols.com Subject: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number Recently, I had a phone installed in Silver Spring, MD, which is in Bell Atlantic territory. When he was checking to make sure he had the right `line (there are six pairs coming into the house, and currently only two are in use), the lineman dialed a number for the DNIC recording to tell from which phone number he was calling. What I saw was that he dialed only a three-digit number to obtain the phone number of the line, and that the number ended in 1-1. This meant, with 411, 611, and 911 in use, that left essentially 2,3,5,7 or 8. I discovered it was the last. I found out that 811 works for returning the calling party's telephone number on private lines in both Maryland and Virginia, and also works from Bell Atlantic pay phones in Virginia. (Although I have not tested it, I presume it would also work from Washington, DC as well.) The other day I had to take a trip out to a veterinarian in Manassas, VA which, as it turns out, is not only outside of the Washington DC metro local calling area, it is serviced by GTE of Virginia. I asked for permission to make a local call while I was there. As it turns out, they have a "metro" line so people can call them without paying a toll, and this metro line isn't merely a call-forwarded number,it has an actual dial tone. Well, 811 works from the Metro number, but does not work from the GTE lines. However, I remember that GTE lines to use 211 for the same thing, and as it turns out, that's what they use there. I also note that 811 DOES NOT WORK from COCOTS (Private Pay Telephones). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:08:44 -0700 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" I got my phone bill today, and it had one item that caught my eye. I have a friend in Texas who has actually replaced his POTS line with a cellphone, for various reasons having mostly to do with local calling areas. He actually lives in Denton, but the cellphone number is in the 214-507 prefix, which is rated as "Grand Prairie" (GRANDPRARI, in telco abbrevspeak). This caught my eye, because I had earlier verified that the 214-507 prefix will not be moving to the new 972 area code; I had assumed that this meant that it was designated a "Dallas" exchange. I thus did a little digging, and of the 179 exchanges I found that are designated "Grand Prairie," 43 are moving into 972, but the other 136 are staying in 214. The division does not seem to be geographic -- as far as I know, Grand Prairie is not subdivided (a la San Francisco 1, 2, and 3), but is only a single rate center. It seems that most of the 135 exchanges that get to keep the existing area code are cellphone prefixes, although a few cellphone prefixes are moving (e.g., 457) and a few non-cellphone prefixes are not moving (e.g., 332). However, the great majority of the wireless prefixes get to keep the 214 area code and the great majority of landline prefixes have to change. That sounds to me a whole heck of a lot like "discrimination on class of service" in favor of the wireless carriers. They scream bloody murder at the notion that cellphones should be "unduly burdened" with the new area codes, but they have no problem at all with placing an "undue burden" on landline customers. Of course, saying that these cellular prefixes are "located" in Grand Prairie is purely a convenient fiction, since only a small fraction of the billing addresses for those cellphones are in Grand Prairie. For your reference, here is my list (with some guesswork, since my list of cellular/landline prefixes doesn't include all of these): GRAND PRAIRIE CELLULAR PREFIXES REMAINING IN 214: 202 207 212 213 215 232 236 244 246 249 268 322 344 354 356 359 362 364 384 408 410 415 439 460 478 502 505 507 510 512 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 543 546 549 577 581 582 588 595 597 598 616 632 639 649 656 657 668 673 674 675 676 679 683 693 695 697 704 707 725 728 729 737 755 759 762 763 769 781 785 786 793 794 795 796 797 798 801 802 803 804 805 808 813 814 816 822 825 829 832 833 834 835 836 839 847 848 850 852 859 862 865 877 885 892 895 896 897 898 899 908 910 925 926 957 961 963 967 983 984 992 993 GRAND PRAIRIE LANDLINE PREFIXES REMAINING IN 214: 314 332 730 807 906 912 913 914 GRAND PRAIRIE CELLULAR PREFIXES MOVING FROM 214 TO 972: 297 457 622 667 873 GRAND PRAIRIE LANDLINE PREFIXES MOVING FROM 214 TO 972: 204 206 209 229 237 260 262 263 264 266 269 282 305 336 397 451 504 558 561 601 602 603 606 609 614 623 641 642 647 660 799 809 901 909 933 949 975 988 So, pretty much, if you're a cellular user, you get to keep 214, but if you're a landline user, you have to switch. Hrumph. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: hank@ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Subject: Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:33:35 GMT Organization: IBM Israel In article , Niall Rudd wrote: > herrera@athena.mit.edu (Ramon F Herrera) wrote: >> I have been collecting ICMP ECHO data (i.e., pings) for several months >> now, for comparison purposes. By just using pings there must be some I have a table collected over many years for lines from 9.6kb up to 10Mb/sec. Send email to hank@vm.tau.ac.il if you want a copy. >> precise way to find out if the link in question goes through undersea >> fiberoptic cable or via satellite. I was very surprised when I saw >> the short responses from a site in Australia; the only possible >> explanation being that there is already a fiber link with the land >> down under. Now, given that we know the great circle distance from a >> city in the USA to the country in question, and we of course know the >> altitude of geostationary satellites, we should be able to know the >> media used, but I will need some empirical formulae which takes into >> account the router delays, which are probably the main factor. It >> would also help if I knew the precise path taken by the fiber in >> question (the Americas II). > I also did some experiments on this: from London to Antartica. The > results were interesting as the delay was always over 900ms. > I am not sure if you have done this calculation, but the delay > incurred by a signal making the 72,000km round trip to and from a > Geostationary satellite is around 500ms (twice the one way delay). On any sat circuit I have tested the delay is about 580ms. That always includes the local loop at both ends connecting to Cisco routers. The extra 400ms you are seeing to Antartica has to do with the added delay from UK to USA. Do a traceroute to the site in question and see the first 4-5 lines and you will be able to see the times for each hop. At one hop you should see a jump of around 600ms which is the sat link. > What realy interests me is the reason why my delay was loads longer > than just 500ms. Any ideas? See above. > I could not tell either if you knew this, but it reflects on the > second aspect of your inquiry. The implications of a delay over > satellite are being argued about right now. Any TCP/IP signal crossing > a GEO satellite is likley to be bandwidth restricted as a result. But, > for a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite, (of which there are none in the > business right now!) at perhaps an altitude of less than 1,000km, the > distance delay is negligable and hence the bandwidth is unaffected > (seamless with fibre). I have been using sat links (128kb, 256kb, T1) for the past five years and there is NO effect on bandwidth. The protocols that will suffer are telnet and audio (like Vocaltec). Streaming audio will probably compensate for that problem. The way TCP/IP works with a sliding window on ACKs negates any sort of delay of a sat link. A small 1K file will take longer, but a 1MB file will see NO difference between an unsaturated T1 fibe line and an unsaturated T1 sat line. Once TCP starts its window going, the packets start streaming in and the extra 580ms delay is of no consequence. > This is one of the major issues that the proposed multi-media > satellite systems (Gates/McCaw Teledesic - LEO and Hughes Spaceway - > GEO et al.) are mulling over. The LEO guy's claim the impact of this > delay on standard protocols: TCP/IP, is to reduce bandwidth -- the > bits per second. To quote a Teledesic paper, (as I would mess up the > theory) ... > "Since the packet may be lost in transmission, a copy of it must be > kept in a buffer on the 'home' computer until an acknowledgement > that the packet arrived succesfully is received from the 'destination' > computer." (My quotes.) > Thus they argue that a GEO slows things down -- effectively restricting > bandwidth, although it only realy kicks in at data rates above 1.5Mbps. Bull. LEO may be faster for voice but then again FR is faster than LEO. Protocols that are "chatty" will go slower via GEO/LEO. But once you hit files of over 50KB the IP protocol kicks in and there is NO difference. Hank Nussbacher Manager, Internet Technology Programs Telephone: +972 3 6978852 Vnet: HANK at TELVM1 Fax: +972 3 6978115 Internet: hank@ibm.net.il ------------------------------ From: Marcel White Subject: GTE Says Competition Into Local Markets Will Not be Delayed Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:03:57 -0700 Organization: GTEDS CSTI/CBSS BI&I GTE SAYS COMPETITION INTO LOCAL TELEPHONE MARKETS WILL NOT BE DELAYED AS A RESULT OF STAY BY U.S. COURT OF APPEALS The following is attributed to GTE Senior Vice President and General Counsel William C. Barr: "Contrary to what some have said, the introduction of competition in the local telephone market will not be delayed one second by the stay order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed by Congress in February is the law of the land and sets forth a timetable for the introduction of competition. This statutory timetable is unaffected by the Eighth Circuit's stay of the FCC's pricing rules. "In the Act, Congress carefully crafted a fast-track process to set the terms of local competition -- a nine-month process consisting of private negotiations backed up by arbitrations conducted by state commissions. This process is proceeding on track. Currently, many states are conducting arbitration proceedings and these proceedings will be completed on schedule. The sole effect of the stay is to ensure that these proceedings comply with the Act's pricing provisions, not with the FCC's unauthorized pricing rules. "The Court in its ruling rejected arguments that a stay would slow down the introduction of competition in local markets. The Court said, 'Presently, we have no reason to doubt the ability of the state commissions to fulfill their duty to promote competition in the local telephone service markets and thus conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a stay.' "In addition, a number of new entrants into the local phone market have issued statements since the ruling which confirm that the Act provides the necessary framework for them to move forward to provide local service." ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Second Line Installation Problems Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 16:06:46 PST Organization: Shadownet jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) writes: > *NOW* I'm told! Silly me, I bought the simple phone wire at Home > Depot. Do they sell the CAT-3? Look for Graybar in the phone book. If there's a local one, they'll cheerfully sell you whatever sort of twisted pair you want. But only by the box (1000 feet?) Current recommendations are for 4-pair (8 wires total) cat-3 to cat-5. I think that runs around $60-70. >> One technique to specifically avoid is to wire from the NIJ to one jack, >> from that jack to the next, etc etc. More junctions to fail, harder to >> isolate when it fails, and a failure knocks out all jacks further down >> the line. AKA "Daisy-Chaining". > Guilty as charged, but no failures yet. If I had a failure, I'd use a > binary serach (try middlemost jack and go right or left until fault is > pinpointed). > Perhaps that is what I had in mind when I did my best to not cut the > wires but to slit them open and wind once around the screws. That way > screws coming loose or corroding won't damage the 'downstream' jacks. A *much* more common problem in my experience is a *shorted* jack. If sufficiently abused (say, by kids stick things into it) the little wire "fingers" will get bent out of line and touch. That makes every phone in the house useless. Then once you isolate the "bus" that has the problem, you get to go hunting all over to find the specific jack with the problem. In my case, it was the (unused!) jack for a wall mount phone next to the front door. :-( Seems that if you (or the wind) slammed the door, the "fingers" in the jack would "bounce", and have a good chance of landing shorted. I had to disassemble the jack and re-bend some wires to fix it. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: The Truth About 809 Area Code Scams Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:25:11 PST Organization: Shadownet s9607948@westgate.vut.edu.au (Michael Ellis) writes: > You know what I think is stupid? The fact that you can just dial 809 > like any other area code. If you want to dial ANYWHERE in another > country in Australia you need to use 0011. > I think that a similar code should be needed to dial 809 in the US (I > think your equivalent is 011?) > Just not well planned in the first place. The problem is that the "country code" boundaries and the "national borders" don't match up many places. The most noticeable are country code 1 (US, Canada, parts of the Caribbean, and soon places like Guam!) and country code 7 (large parts of the former USSR). But there are other places where things get rather strange. 011 (in the US) or 0011 (in Australia) indicates that what follows is a *country code*. Since 809 is part of country code 1, we *can't* use that prefix. This grew out of the planning that made direct dialing of all these points possible *before* international direct dialing was otherwise possible. So one could agrue that we planned *too* well. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: James W. Anderson Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: 20 Oct 96 17:29:03 GMT Organization: B.Y.U. jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) wrote: > I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers > required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code > in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. > In NYC there already is one, 917. I pr opose another two or three for > NY state, and some for California and Texas, to cover increased demand > for these numbers. All other states get one area code per state for > the increasing demand for these numbers, and as the state runs out of > numbers for these services, additional area codes can be provided. > This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having > to use ten digits to place local calls. Actually, a lot has been said in the Digest about overlays and there has been a whole lot of government action regarding them. First, a little history. After the NYC 917 overlay there was no more done until 713/281 in March of 1995. However, the FCC had by then ruled wireless-only overlays to be discriminatory and the 630 overlay was in place but only temporarily to cover demand for numbers in the Chicago suburbs until 630 could be split off from 708, which it since has. In Dallas, the 972 code was supposed to be an overlay as well but that was denied at the same time the 713/281 overlay was ordered to be a split. Now the overlays will be splits in both 713/281 (effective 11/3/96) and 214/972 (effective 9/14/96). On 214/972, there was such a demand for numbers that some 972 numbers were assigned as far back as 8/96! The Maryland overlays effective 6/1/97 will be of the type the FCC agrees with, and that is all new numbers assigned after that date will be in the new codes. In that case, 301 will be overlaid with 240 and 410 will be overlaid with 443. In Pittsburgh, 412 will be overlaid with 724 and should take effect in early 1997 barring any court challenges, etc. by the Allegheny County commission. et. al. Florida: Have heard no history on 305/954 but understood that to have originally been planned to be a wireless only overlay which was shot down on sight by the PUC there. California: Thumbs down on overlays there until the number portability issue can be resolved. Wireless only overlays tossed out as well. ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: Re: PacBell Stalling on Caller ID For ISDN Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:52:28 GMT Organization: Hooked Online Services (Due to the temperamental nature of this Windoze machine and all the not-so-compatible-software-after-all stuff on it, I lost the thread, as well as all the replies to it.) I did receive mail on the subject, though (thanks, all) and one message from someone in PacBell did provide the info that the PacBell CS reps failed to provide: PacBell has a tariff pending that covers caller id for ISDN, amongst other things. Well, golly gee! Why couldn't the CS reps just __say so__?!? Even with this info, I'm not letting PacBell off the hook. Their CS reps either need more training or someone upstairs needs a swift kick in the derrier. There's no excuse for this and this is not the first time they have failed to be helpful or even useful. It reflects badly on PacBell as an organization and goes a long way toward customer estrangement. (I remember some old take-offs on telco ads before the breakup. One in particular has alleged telco employees singing "We Don't Know ... What We're Doing". It is beginning to appear that CS reps, at least are going back to the good old days of not knowing nothing.) I've changed my mind about contacting the PUC but I am going to contact the head office in San Francisco -- and then call the PUC if they behave the same way. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #554 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 13:25:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA02247; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610211725.NAA02247@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #555 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 13:25:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 555 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line? (Joel M. Hoffman) Callback Software in Unix or NT 4.0? (antilles@antelink.com) Own Your Own Undersea Cable-Laying Business (Greg Monti) Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response (Derek Elder) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Linc Madison) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Jon Solomon) Re: Cellphone Theft Escalates (Lisa Hancock) Re: Sprint Can't Handle Area Code 773 (Tim Crowley) Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Kevin Kadow) Re: Inter@ctive Magazine Article: FCC Contemplates Access Fees (L. Poulsen) Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 (Linc Madison) Re: Reinventing ISDN For Internet (Ben Parker) USPS Getting Into Spam? (Robert A. Virzi) AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs (Richard J. Kinch) Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Tom Beckman) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Joe Schumacher) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 10:59 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Maximum Theoretical Bandwidth of Voice Line? Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article is written: >> I am writing an article for SCO World Magazine. I remember learning >> how to caluculate the theorretical maximum throughput (in bits per >> second) of a phone line. As with all things I don't use regularly, I > [...] > The last time I measured it, I got about 200 - 3700 Hz on a PacBell > [...] > Using that 3600 Hz bandwidth, the maximum number of signalling events > would also be 3600 (i.e. 3600 baud). The actual bit rate limitation > would depend on how good an encoder you can make (V.34 goes up to > around 9 bits per baud). V.34 also uses up 3430 Hz, so it's pretty > close to using the full capacity of a voice line. But bits per second doesn't really tell you very much, because you can convey an arbitrarily high amount of information in a bit. The original question specificaly asked for bits per second, which is an interesting engineering question, but the question of how much information can be conveyed is still open. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:49:22 -0400 From: Antel, Inc. Subject: Callback Software in Unix or NT 4.0? Dear Tele-aficionados, Don't know why I didn't think of contacting the list first, rather than calling sales people at 800 numbers (who rarely get back to you.) We're looking for a callback application written in SCO Open Server Enterprise System Ver. 3.0 or (awk!) in NT 4.0. We're a small engineering company with engineers worldwide and since 1993, we're had our own "in-house" callback platform running on a single T-1. (Oddly enough, we hold a section 214!). The software we presently have was put together by a firm who now seems destined to go belly-up and we're looking for replacement software that has already been developed for international callback and which would have to be "tweaked" only a bit. We have few "special needs" other than the fact that when our switch dials a number, our software listens for a 400 hz tone from the carrier, then fires four digits that correspond to the account code of the individual placing that call. We than take the carrier's billing from magnetic media and "sort" it by these same account codes to identify each user's share of billing. If someone or some firm on the list can meet these needs at a reasonable price with software that has already been developed, we'd like to hear from you at the above email address. Please include available features, hardware necessary to run the app., and base cost of software prior to "tweaking." Doug Antel, Inc., tel: (802) 496-3812 fax: (802) 496-3814 snail: PO Box 318 Warren, VT 05674 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:41:17 GMT From: cc004056@interramp.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Own Your Own Undersea Cable-Laying Business A short item in _The Wall Street Journal_ (I think October 16, 1996) notes that AT&T is looking for a buyer for its cable-ship business. The business unit, known as "AT&T Submarine Systems" employs 1,000 people and takes in $850 million a year. It's based in Morristown, NJ, and owns seven cable ships which can either lay new cable or fish up old ones for repair. At least one ship dock and supply warehouse are in Baltimore, MD (visible from Interstate 95 just south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel). It's been in business since 1956. An AT&T spokeswoman interviewed for the article said the unit was, "not strategically central to our core services strategy." If you buy the business, you'll have a built-in customer. AT&T will continue to buy cable-laying services from the successor firm. Morgan Stanley & Co. is handling the sale. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@interramp.com ------------------------------ From: djelder@accessus.net (Derek Elder) Subject: Re: Satellite Internet Issues Response Date: 19 Oct 1996 21:43:29 GMT Organization: accessU.S. Niall Rudd (niall@comsys.co.uk) wrote: > I also did some experiments on this: from London to Antartica. The > results were interesting as the delay was always over 900ms. > I am not sure if you have done this calculation, but the delay > incurred by a signal making the 72,000km round trip to and from a > Geostationary satellite is around 500ms (twice the one way delay). > What really interests me is the reason why my delay was loads longer > than just 500ms. Any ideas? This is because the links are typically saturated. The ICMP packets are just hanging around waiting their turn to get into the circuit. > I could not tell either if you knew this, but it reflects on the > second aspect of your inquiry. The implications of a delay over > satellite are being argued about right now. Any TCP/IP signal crossing > a GEO satellite is likley to be bandwidth restricted as a result. But, > for a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite, (of which there are none in the > business right now!) at perhaps an altitude of less than 1,000km, the > distance delay is negligable and hence the bandwidth is unaffected > (seamless with fibre). The key to successfully working with satellites in the near future will be some sort of traffic specific routing. Terminal sessions such as telnet are inherently realtime and more affected by time delay. Transfer sessions such as FTP don't really have that problem and are prime candidates for satellite transport. I am not positive about this but I believe in IPv6, you will have the ability to transmit packets without getting NAK'd on the prior ones. This will help to keep the per packet latency lower. Unfortunatly, for now satellite isn't the ticket. I have heard a rumor that someone has ATM over satellite functional though ... anyone know more about this? That would be an intersting twist :) Derek Elder V.P., Network Operations djelder@accessus.net 888-637-3638 Ext. 21 ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:01:05 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) wrote: > I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers > required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area code > in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. Wake up, John, you haven't been paying attention in class! ;-) The FCC has consistently, in fact vehemently, ruled that your plan is unfairly discriminatory against the wireless companies, who would be put at an unfair competitive disadvantage. 917 in NYC is "grandfathered" for the time being, but may be dealt with later. Ameritech tried to do this with 630 for Chicagoland, and Texas tried to get wireless overlays for Houston and Dallas, but the FCC forbade them. Incidentally, I do now actually know someone who has *replaced* POTS service with a cellular phone. A friend of mine lives in Denton, Texas, but works in Dallas and spends most of his time in the Dallas area. On a POTS line, it is an expensive toll call from Denton <-> Dallas. However, by having a cellphone "homed" on Dallas, it is a local call for someone in Dallas to call the cellphone, Denton is within the local "airtime only" zone for a Dallas cellphone, and he popped for the "unlimited off-peak" option, so he actually comes out ahead. Of course, he has to deal with the inconvenience of battery life, plus the oddity that it is an expensive toll call for his next-door neighbor to call him, but on the other hand he doesn't have to deal with Denton's GTE POTS "service." There is also the irony that, with the 214/972 split, one of the three people I know whose home number is remaining in 214 lives in Denton, which is in area code 817. (Denton is just northwest of Dallas, where Interstates 35E and 35W rejoin to form I-35.) Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (Jon Solomon) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 09:48:14 EDT Well, considering that 860 has local and toll calls in its area code, I don't see why another area code couldn't do that. I mean dialing from Hartford (860) to New London (860) is a toll call, and calls from Hartford to Manchester (860) is local. You just have to keep a file in the phone book explaining the local calls and toll calls. I think the FCC is a loser in this case. I think a separate area code would be good. Also check out (609) which is in two latas, and uses a carrier to send calls through. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Cellphone Theft Escalates Date: 20 Oct 1996 21:00:39 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net Unfortunately, property crime is a fact of life today in the U.S.; not only in urban areas, but in "nice" suburban areas as well. For motorists driving _anywhere_, I would suggest not leaving _anything_ at all in your car. Even innocuous items might attract a thief to break your window. Break-ins to steal phones is very common in the Philadelphia suburbs. And of course, when using a calling credit card, always be certain no one is watching you key in your number. (This is one reason I wish they still had phone booths, since the phone was mounted at an angle and they offered a bit of privacy.) ------------------------------ From: turmoil@animal.blarg.net (Tim Crowley) Subject: Re: Sprint Can't Handle Area Code 773 Date: 20 Oct 1996 15:57:02 -0700 Organization: A Red Hat Commercial Linux Site Calling from Seattle (US West) over ATT -- can't place a call to either of those numbers. The recording says "you do not need to dial a 1 in front of this number". We get the same thing when we try 773/555-1212 My local US West operator tried it failed, she brought in an ATT operator, she also reported "my equiptment won't place the call." Both operators confirm that they show it should be a working area code. Tim (turmoil) Crowley turmoil@blarg.net 206-325-4964 turmoil's seattle music web ------------------- http://seattlemusicweb.com turmoil@blarg.net ------------------------------ From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 23:10:35 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Here's a thumbnail sketch of the 56K technology. Readers may find it > of value. > The propsed 56 kb/s techology is designed for ISPs or anyone who can > warrant a digital connection to the central office. The proposed scheme > calls for a standard V.34 modem connection upstream from the user to the > C.O., but the path to the ISP (or as Rockwell calls it,"central site") > must be a digital connection, typically a T1 line. Correct -- one 'local loop' _can_ be an analog circuit, the rest of the path must be 100% digital. This implies ISDN (BRI or PRI) or channelized T1. If the call was end-to-end digital, say if the customer had an ISDN BRI and the ISP had a channelized T1 (which normally cannot accept 'data' calls over ISDN), this would be even easier. I wonder if Motorola, Adtran or USR will add '56K analog' capability to their ISDN products? > The path from the "central site" through the C.O. and right up to the > line card must stay completely digital. The digital signal is then > sent out through the line card's codec, effectively modulating its > output a a rate equivalent to the codec's signalling rate which is 56 > kb/s here in North America. It would be 64 kb/s, except for the use > of "robbed bit signalling" in the T1 connections that allows the telco > to indicate the status of the call (dialing, answered, ringing, etc.). > The key to the technology is that only one hop is analog. If only one > codec is involved in the connection, the imperfections created by the > codec can be predicted and avoided. Unless the imperfections are intentionally manipulated by the Telco, in order to reduce the impact of this 'trick' on their ISDN revenues ... > It is for this reason that the > link must be digital from the central site to the C.O. In fact, > Rockwell's white paper states: "(The) 56 Kbps technology looks at the > PSTN as a digital network which just happens to have an impaired > section in the communications path. That impaired section is, of > course, the copper wire connection between the telephone central > office and the user's home, usually referred to as the analog local > loop. If you look at the math, the new 56Kbps analog modems are more accurately 'fake digital modems'. The switch digitally samples the line voltage 8,000 times per second -- the modem 'guesses' when the sample is going to be taken, and puts just the right voltage on the line to get the switch to come up with the binary value the modem wants it to see. Basically, this is equivalent to ISDN's 56K DOSBS, but with one end being analog and 'tricking' the switch into producing the right binary values. Because this is achieved by fooling the switch into sending binary-like data, there are quite a few ways the telephone company can throw a monkey wrench into the works, especially if they perceive this as cutting into their ISDN and 64K-leased circuit revenues. Yes, my company is one of the dozens of ISPs in and around Chicago who offer dialup via POTS lines (and several ISDN BRIs), but it's not _ALL_ sour grapes :-) ------------------------------ From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Inter@ctive Magazine Article: FCC Contemplates ISP Access Fees Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:47:18 GMT Organization: RNS / Meret Communications John Stahl (Aljon Enterprises) writes: > ... back in 1984 I used to pay about $12.00 per month for the same > service I pay over $23.00 per month for today. Where is the savings > that the break-up of the "Bell System" was supposed to generate? The savings are in the long-distance portion of the bill. In 1984, I am told that the local operating companies charged their subscribers almost twice what they had to pay the long lines division to carry the calls, (and long lines was still the most profitable division). The excess subsidized the local service, which made local regulators happy. With competition in long distance, this cross-subsidy had to end; in its place appeared (1) the "FCC mandated subscriber line access charge" which is included in the $23 you mention, and (2) a per-minute access fee that the long-distance company pays to the LEC at each end of the call. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > Regarding divestiture and how it would be so great for the average > person, I can tell you in the 1970's my monthly phone bill was eight > dollars per month on occassion, and rarely over ten or eleven dollars. > Now you do expect the cost of things to go up with inflation, but my > latest 'go to the nearest online agency and pay $200 by tomorrow or How much is your monthly telephone bill? How much of it is long-distance charges? How many minutes of long-distance calls did you have per month in the 1970's? In the 1970's, I lived in Europe, and a telephone call to the United States was an unthinkable luxury for ordinary people. People sent LETTERS to their family overseas. Today, I don't worry too much about spending an hour on the telephone with my parents in Denmark. Still my average telephone bill is less than $50/month, so the long-distance carriers don't bother me with offers of rebate checks. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM RNS / Meret Communications Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Internets: designed and built while you wait [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I published my phone bill here in detail last week but perhaps you did not get to read that issue yet. My bill for local service now exceeds my entire bill including long distance back in the 1960-70's. A big chuck of the local bill is for 'network access fees' (about $11 per month) and 'local access' of $5.60 per line/month. Over $20 per month goes merely for the right to be connected, before any usage charges come into the picture. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:54:39 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications I just made a curious discovery. Up until very recently, when I dialed *70 for cancel call waiting, I got stutter dialtone but could dial right through it without any problems. Just this week, though, I noticed that when I dial *70, I get two short bursts of what sounds like stutter BUSY tone, then return to steady dialtone. Furthermore, if I don't pause and wait for the regular dialtone, my call is not completed correctly. Specifically, I dialed *70-1-800, but the 1 and the 8 got lost, so I got my long-distance operator. If I dial other star codes, specifically *82 or *67, I get normal stutter dialtone and can dial right through. This is on a number in 415-255, in San Francisco 1. I don't know what central office or model of switch serves this line (shameful to admit, I know ;->). Does this reflect some recent "upgrade" on the telco switch? This is definitely something that falls into my idea of "misfeature." Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: bparker@interaccess.com (Ben Parker) Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 22:33:42 GMT Organization: Best Effort Co. Reply-To: bparker@interaccess.com On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 21:00:14 GMT, caf@omen.com (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) wrote: > The data channel(s) would only be brought up when > needed, and taken down after a few seconds of inactivity. Technical considerations aside there are also tarriff implications to this idea. Here in Ameritech land (Illinois) each time a B channel is opened a little cash register adds another $.05 to my bill. If it is a local (8 mile from CO) call, I can stay online for unlimited time. So I can browse the web for an hour, read email and newsgroups, and have long pauses where the circuit could be broken down and remade several times. Good idea! If I keep the line up the whole hour, it costs me $.05. If the connection is broken/remade say 10 times in the hour (a reasonable guess) it suddenly costs me $.50, not so good anymore. Ben Parker ............ (Oak Park IL) .......... bparker@interaccess.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:44:39 +0100 From: rvirzi@gte.com (Robert A. Virzi) Subject: USPS Getting Into Spam? I came across this blurb. One can read it as a move by the USPS to move its lucrative junk mail program to cyberspace. Note the wording, 'bulk mailers'. -Bob POSTAL SERVICE E-MAIL PLANS The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet. (Washington Post 17 Oct 96 A21) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting mail, etc.) So although you now can treat junk-email with the respect and priority handling it deserves ... if you are an ISP for example and some clown sends out fifty gazillion pieces of identical spam **via the postal disservice connection to the net** you WILL deliver that mail. If a spammer emails his stuff to five-thousand-newsgroups@uunet for another example, that spam will show up in all five thousand newsgroups and a federal-level felony conviction is in store for whoever chooses to tamper with the mail. To do otherwise would be the same as someone coming up to your mailbox and taking the stuff out and walking away with it or otherwise detroying it, etc. You didn't know that did you? When the US Postal Disservice becomes involved in the net, your mailbox will become their mailbox, just as now, the regulations state that no one can place anything in a mailbox which does not have the proper postage. Watch how when the post office becomes involved in the net and in email in a big way how they start to get very heavy-handed and breathe on you. The times, they are getting very tough for the government-owned monopoly mail service. So tough in fact, they are resorting to a lot of strong pressure tactics to maintain their control. As an example, about two years ago they decided to begin enforcing the law which says they have the exclusive right to handle first class mail **except if it is of an emergency 'must deliver same day/next day' nature**. So what they did was send auditors out to a few very large companies which had a reputation for using Federal Express/Airborne/United Parcel Service to deliver a great deal of business correspondence. Those companies were forced to produce all the records of every letter (as opposed to larger packages) they had sent by private courier service over the previous two or three year period. Any such correspondence which had not been clearly marked 'urgent' on the letter itself and on the front of the 'overnight letter' container they were mailed in (and most of them did not) were deemed to have been mail illegally diverted from the post office. The companies were forced to pay the prevailing postage rate for first class mail on each and every such item. I believe IBM as one example got a bill for 'postage due' for over a hundred thousand dollars. Several companies were squeezed in this way; all the courier services were screaming about it as well. The last people you want getting their hands on email is the post office. They'll have burdensome and oppressive regulations in place in no time at all; naturally you will all comply. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kinch@netline.net (Richard J. Kinch) Subject: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs Date: 21 Oct 1996 02:07:27 -0400 Organization: TrueTeX Software The recent thread on Lucent TV commercials reminded me of a peeve. The AT&T "Death Star" logo comes in two very different versions, one for light and one for dark backgrounds. The corporate trademark compliance document is very strict about using these properly. But you are forever seeing the opposite logo on banners, imprinted trinkets, broadcast TV, etc. Once as an AT&T computer reseller (another sad experience) I had a $1000 outdoor sign made with the logo. Yup, the sign maker got it reversed. I had him do it over. He did it again, wrong. Then he got mad and gave up and ate the loss. Richard Kinch Lake Worth, Florida ------------------------------ From: hrtmath@netcom.com (Tom Beckman) Subject: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 15:55:37 -0300 Organization: Institute of HeartMath I have an offer from a long distance carrier that offers .108 per minute with the 10th, 16th and 25th month free, based on the average calls in the previous two months. This comes to .095 per minute, with the free months included. Six second increments, etc. I'm paying .12 per minute now. The rates cannot go up. Seems like a very good deal for a call volume around $6K per month. My only concern is what is going to happen in the long distance industry in the next two years -- a long time for that business. Any opinions on how good a deal this is, and what the next couple of years holds for long distance rates. Thanks, Tom Beckman P.O. Box 1463 408-338-8700 Institute of HeartMath Boulder Creek, CA 95006 408-338-9861 fax A Nonprofit Corp. hrtmath@netcom.com http://www.webcom.com/hrtmath/IHM/AboutIHM.html ------------------------------ From: Joe Schumacher Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:26:17 -0500 Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group John R. Ruckstuhl wrote: > In recent months, Lucent (or is it AT&T?) has been running a series of > television commercials in which we have a narrow view of a computer > monitor, and we watch while the advertisement message is typed ... the > message goes by quickly, but I could swear I've seen punctuation > errors on more than one. > Today I saw one with "lets" instead of "let's", and during the Olympics, > I saw one with "your" instead of "you're". Maybe "lets" is acceptable > for meaning "let us" (I don't know), but I'm sure "your" is not > acceptable for "you are", which is how these words were used. > Anyone else notice this? Assuming I'm right, I wonder if this would be > a deliberate error to catch attention in some subliminal way, or, > could this be someone's goofup on a major ad campaign? Maybe their trying to make it look like Usenet %-] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now listen, that isn't funny. Very true perhaps, but not funny. I don't know whether your use of 'their' above (which is incorrect, it should be *they're*) was deliberate or if you are just as illiterate as a lot of other people around here. There are those people who say we should pay attention to the message itself and not the way it is delivered, and that we discourage people from presenting very valuable thoughts and ideas if we insist that they present them in a grammatically correct way with correct spelling and punctuation. I feel that the presentation is part of the package, and that a carefully presented (i.e. spell-checked and grammar-checked) message has some additional credibility to it. I only wish I could give as much attention to this Digest as it needs, but it has become almost an assembly-line process as the messages march past on my screen one after another. Quality and quantity battle one another again. By the way, a person last week said I must have had my statistics reversed on the status of the Chicago Public Schools and their policy of placing certain schools on academic probation. I did not have anything confused at all. Here is the rule once again: Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation; (essentially in recievership). Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success* rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable to reach the desired goals. They were going to set the level at twenty five percent success and seventy five percent failure, however then all but a dozen or so schools out of several hundred would have been placed on probation, and that was just too much of an embarassment. By setting the level at fifteen/eighty five, only a couple hundred schools had to be categorized in this way. Well, that's it for this issue, and don't forget to pick up a supply of free condoms from the box on the teacher's desk on the way out, and be sure to read the school's policy on sexual harrassment when you get home. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #555 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 15:39:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA17602; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610211939.PAA17602@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #556 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 15:39:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 556 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A New Attack on DES (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "The Internet Voyeur" by Howard (Rob Slade) Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating? (Brian Kantor) Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing Internet) (Garrett Wollman) NPA's 415 and 510 (was Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy) (Mark J. Cuccia) Volunteers Wanted For Focus Group Discussion (Ted J. Gaiser) One Sick Bastard! ('klaatu' via Matthew B. Landry) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 00:33:13 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A New Attack on DES Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: From: Shamir Adi Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:30:34 +0200 Subject: A new attack on DES Research announcement: A new cryptanalytic attack on DES Eli Biham Adi Shamir Computer Science Dept. Applied Math Dept. The Technion The Weizmann Institute Israel Israel October 18, 1996 (DRAFT) In September 96, Boneh Demillo and Lipton from Bellcore announced an ingenious new type of cryptanalytic attack which received widespread attention (see, e.g., John Markoff's 9/26/96 article in the New York Times). Their full paper had not been published so far, but Bellcore's press release and the authors' FAQ (available at http://www.bellcore.com/PRESS/ADVSRY96/medadv.html) specifically state that the attack is applicable only to public key cryptosystems such as RSA, and not to secret key algorithms such as the Data Encryption Standard (DES). According to Boneh, "The algorithm that we apply to the device's faulty computations works against the algebraic structure used in public key cryptography, and another algorithm will have to be devised to work against the nonalgebraic operations that are used in secret key techniques." In particular, the original Bellcore attack is based on specific algebraic properties of modular arithmetic, and cannot handle the complex bit manipulations which underly most secret key algorithms. In this research announcement, we describe a related attack (which we call Differential Fault Analysis, or DFA), and show that it is applicable to almost any secret key cryptosystem proposed so far in the open literature. In particular, we have actually implemented DFA in the case of DES, and demonstrated that under the same hardware fault model used by the Bellcore researchers, we can extract the full DES key from a sealed tamperproof DES encryptor by analysing fewer than 200 ciphertexts generated from unknown cleartexts. The power of Differential Fault Analysis is demonstrated by the fact that even if DES is replaced by triple DES (whose 168 bits of key were assumed to make it practically invulnerable), essentially the same attack can break it with essentially the same number of given ciphertexts. We would like to greatfully acknowledge the pioneering contribution of Boneh Demillo and Lipton, whose ideas were the starting point of our new attack. In the rest of this research announcement, we provide a short technical summary of our practical implementation of Differential Fault Analysis of DES. Similar attacks against a large number of other secret key cryptosystems will be described in the full version of our paper. TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE ATTACK The attack follows the Bellcore fundamental assumption that by exposing a sealed tamperproof device such as a smart card to certain physical effects (e.g., ionizing or microwave radiation), one can induce with reasonable probability a fault at a random bit location in one of the registers at some random intermediate stage in the cryptographic computation. Both the bit location and the round number are unknown to the attacker. We further assume that the attacker is in physical possesion of the tamperproof device, so that he can repeat the experiment with the same cleartext and key but without applying the external physical effects. As a result, he obtains two ciphertexts derived from the same (unknown) cleartext and key, where one of the ciphertexts is correct and the other is the result of a computation corrupted by a single bit error during the computation. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that one bit of the right half of the data in one of the 16 rounds of DES is flipped from 0 to 1 or vice versa, and that both the bit position and the round number are uniformly distributed. In the first step of the attack we identify the round in which the fault occurred. This identification is very simple and effective: If the fault occurred in the right half of round 16, then only one bit in the right half of the ciphertext (before the final permutation) differs between the two ciphertexts. The left half of the ciphertext can differ only in output bits of the S box (or two S boxes) to which this single bit enters, and the difference must be related to non-zero entries in the difference distribution tables of these S boxes. In such a case, we can guess the six key bit of each such S box in the last round, and discard any value which disagree with the expected differences of these S boxes (e.g., differential cryptanalysis). On average, about four possible 6-bit values of the key remain for each active S box. If the faults occur in round 15, we can gain information on the key bits entering more than two S boxes in the last round: the difference of the right half of the ciphertext equals the output difference of the F function of round 15. We guess the single bit fault in round 15, and verify whether it can cause the expected output difference, and also verify whether the difference of the right half of the ciphertext can cause the expected difference in the output of the F function in the last round (e.g., the difference of the left half of the ciphertext XOR the fault). If successful, we can discard possible key values in the last round, according to the expected differences. We can also analyse the faults in the 14'th round in a similar way. We use counting methods in order to find the key. In this case, we count for each S box separately, and increase the counter by one for any pair which suggest the six-bit key value by at least one of its possible faults in either the 14'th, 15'th, or 16'th round. We have implemented this attack on a personal computer. Our analysis program found the whole last subkey given less than 200 ciphertexts, with random single-faults in all the rounds. This attack finds the last subkey. Once this subkey is known, we can proceed in two ways: We can use the fact that this subkey contains 48 out of the 56 key bits in order to guess the missing 8 bits in all the possible 2^8=256 ways. Alternatively, we can use our knowledge of the last subkey to peel up the last round (and remove faults that we already identified), and analyse the preceding rounds with the same data using the same attack. This latter approach makes it possible to attack triple DES (with 168 bit keys), or DES with independent subkeys (with 768 bit keys). This attack still works even with more general assumptions on the fault locations, such as faults inside the function F, or even faults in the key scheduling algorithm. We also expect that faults in round 13 (or even prior to round 13) might be useful for the analysis, thus reducing the number of required ciphertext for the full analysis. OTHER VULNERABLE CIPHERS Differential Fault Analysis can break many additional secret key cryptosystems, including IDEA, RC5 and Feal. Some ciphers, such as Khufu, Khafre and Blowfish compute their S boxes from the key material. In such ciphers, it may be even possible to extract the S boxes themselves, and the keys, using the techniques of Differential Fault Analysis. Differential Fault Analysis can also be applied against stream ciphers, but the implementation might differ by some technical details from the implementation described above. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:16:01 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Voyeur" by Howard BKINTVOY.RVW 960625 "The Internet Voyeur", Jim Howard, 1995, 0-7821-1655-8, U$19.99 %A Jim Howard djhoward@aol.com %C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1995 %G 0-7821-1655-8 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$19.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com %P 388 %T "The Internet Voyeur" Oh, get your head out of the gutter and go and stand in the corner with Senator Exon. This book is about getting and processing graphics and multimedia files from the Internet. The author covers the difference between text and "binary" files, Usenet postings, encoding, ftp, archiving and compression, graphics, sources, animation, sound, viewers, and MIME (Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extensions). Oddly, it does *not* cover the World Wide Web. (It does cite a number of W3 sites.) Howard does a very serviceable job. (Except for the part on viruses.) While not as extensive as "Internet File Formats" (cf. BKINTFLF.RVW), his material covers the most common standards. The explanations are clear, and he is generous with the locations of decoding and other utility software (although his URLs are sometimes a little ragged). Two chapters list a wide variety of online sources of visual content. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTVOY.RVW 960625 Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Research into rslade@vcn.bc.ca User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:17:11 -0700 From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Pac Bell Repair Service Deteriorating? I sure would like to know what's happened to Pacific Bell's "priority business repair" service. Last month they fixed a ring-no-answer problem by moving a bad pair, on to a pair that was already in use. So the first number was now answered, but on the wrong equipment. And the pair they moved it to was just simply cut off, so it rang without answering. And it was the published access number of a hunt group, so the eight lines in the group were unreachable unless two or more customers just happened to call at the same time. It took them three days to get it right. Now it's Monday morning, and we're working on a new one. I've been waiting since 9:30 Friday for them to fix three problems: some busied out channels on a supertrunk, and 44 out-of-service channels on two ISDN PRIs. When I called back to check progress at 3:15pm Friday, the service rep told me that all three were "pending test" and that she'd expedite it. Over the weekend, a PacTel tech left me a voice mail telling me that he'd unbusied the two busied-out channels on the supertrunk. What he didn't mention is that in the process, he'd apparently managed to busy out EIGHTY-THREE other channels on the supertrunk, leaving me with just 13 working circuits in the group. I'm still waiting for a call back on that one. The two PRIs are a little different -- apparently ever since they were installed (a few weeks ago) as part of a group of 12 PRIs, two of them have had only one working channel -- the other 22 on each show OOS on our newly-installed equipment. Friday morning, I called in the trouble report, after spending a significant amount of time making sure it wasn't our stuff. I still haven't gotten a call back on these. The robot voice assures me that they're scheduled for repair by 11:30am today (Monday). Letssee, that's 77 hours -- yup, real priority service. The service rep I spoke to put me on hold whilst she transferred me to "the bureau that handles that service". 15 minutes later I hung up whilst still on hold. I'll guess I'll have to try again after they've had their morning coffee. Am I just having a run of bad luck? Brian Kantor Manager, Network Infrastructure and Services Academic Computing Network Operations 0124 University of California at San Diego (619) 534-6865 La Jolla, CA 92093-0124 USA fax: 619 534 1746 brian@ucsd.edu ucsd!brian ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:30:32 -0400 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: > to change that. If successful and the ISPs are treated like long > distance companies such that the ISPs will need to pay access charges > to receive their access feed, then the Internet will eventually adopt > per-usage charges anyway. "The Internet" will adopt usage-based charging? Unlikely. Certain providers who are locked into an obsolete access mechanism may well do so, particularly if they are charged on a time bases for use of that access mechanism. People need to look beyond the current ``call somebody's router up on the PSTN'' brain-damage to the inevitable evolution of general-public access to the network by way of telco, CAP, cable, electric utility fiber, and wireless dedicated access mechanisms. *What most people have now is only a transitory stage, and economically unsupportable in the long run.* (One local dial-up ISP is actively promoting the fact that they charge by the hour, which keeps hold times down and thus reduces the likelihood of receiving a busy signal.) > I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to > ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most > packets go towards the user, This assumes the continuation of more of the current brain-damage, where poor network access results in most users being unable to distribute their own content (or requiring them to pay others to do so, which is essentially the same thing). > I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load > the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video > conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage > sensitive, no matter what. Again, you seem to be missing the point. It is not meaningful to talk about `the Internet [becoming] usage sensitive'. Some providers may find it preferable to charge more to send certain packets. But a provider cannot long remain in a competitive business if he is selling a service far above marginal cost, and the marginal cost of forwarding one packet in a period of little congestion is zero. A number of people are doing research into the economic models which work (i.e., can be operated at a profit) in congested networks. The Senior Research Scientist in our group here at MIT, Dave Clark, is currently working on techno-economic mechanisms by which customers and providers can agree on what sort of service is provided when the network is congested, and provide measurement mechanisms to determine whether both parties are meeting the terms of that agreement. > switched network has adopted. Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat > that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with > Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone > and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more > like $100-200 a month for this. Indeed, it seems that a lot of dial-up providers minimize their financial exposure by underprovisioning their networks to discourage such usage. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:20:16 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NPA's 415 and 510 (was Re: NPA 510 Near Jeopardy) Mike Maxfield wrote: > FWIW, At the time of the '89 Quake, the 510 AC was laying on top of the > 415 AC, and reportedly, one way for someone to dial into the area in the > early hours after the quake (including into the current 415 AC as well, > if I recall) was to use the 510 AC which had not had the indial limits > placed on it as the 415 system did. The 1989 quake was in September or October of 1989 if I remember right. However, NPA 510's split from 415 wasn't even *announced* until sometime in 1990, to take effect (permissive dialing) in the latter part of 1991! BTW, NPA 510 was the first "geographic POTS" use of an 'N10' type of area code. NPA's (or more correctly at the time, SAC's = 'Special' Area Codes or Service Access Codes) of the N10 format (510, 610, 710, 810, 910) had been used for 4-row/ASCII/110-speed Dial-TWX (TeletypeWriter eXchange) service beginning in 1962. AT&T sold the US portion of TWX to Western Union Telegraph Company around 1970 or 71. However, TWX continued to be switched over the DDD *Telephone* network, as if it were still a Bell System Telephone service, until the early 1980's, when WUTCO finalized their 'removal' of (US) TWX (at that time it TWX was 'officially' known as "Telex-II") from the Bell System and onto WUTCO's *own* network, to operator alongside WUTCO's own/original Telex(I) service. As far as AT&T (and later Bellcore) were concerned, SAC's 510, 710, 810 and 910 were 'reclaimed' as then unassigned NANP Telephone area codes. (610 for TWX in Canada remained as such in Canada until 1 October 1993). AT&T/Bellcore's *first* assignment of an N10 format area code was of 710 to the US Federal Government in 1983, which since 1994 has been used for "GETS" (Government Emergency Telephone System). It wasn't until 1991 when the N10's began to be activated for geographic "POTS" regions, with 510 the split of 415 in San Francisco Bay area, 410 for the split of Maryland's until that time only area code (301), and 310 for the split of 213 in the Los Angeles area. 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: Ted J Gaiser Subject: Volunteers Wanted For Focus Group Discussion Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:36:18 -0500 I am looking for cyberfolk willing to make a short-term (one week) commitment to participate in a focus group discussion (on-line) about their experiences participating in "on-line groups" (MUDs, MOOs, IRC groups, newsgroups, discussion lists, etc.). Each focus group will consist of approximately twelve participants coming from diverse locations throughout the Net. If you are interested in participating or would like more information about the project, please contact me directly (gaiser@bcvms.bc.edu). Ted Gaiser ------------------------------ From: mbl@mail.msen.com (Matthew B Landry) Subject: One Sick Bastard! Date: 21 Oct 1996 16:43:38 GMT Organization: Flunkies for the Mike Conspiracy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: More news -- I use the word in a loose way -- regarding the latest pedophile threat to this fine wholesome community in which we live. Matthew passed this along from wherever he got it; apparently you can find it in most participating newsgroups on Monday. To make it somewhat easier to follow along, my own responses are interspersed with the forwarded message marked 'PAT'. PAT] ------------------- The original poster's sig is at the bottom. The perpetrator's snail address is in the message. Needless to say his email box was already full and bouncing at 3am. Matthew Landry --------------------- [ Article reposted from nyc.general,la.general,austin.general,dc.general,seattle.general,houston.general,news.admin.net-abuse.misc ] [ Author was klaatu ] [ Posted on Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:00:42 -0400 ] SICK BASTARD ALERT! Now this is one sick bastard. As a rule, I don't give a damn about ridiculous E-mail that comes to my mailbox, but this one, so far, takes the cake for being the most egregious violation. For one, the guy says my e-mail address was on a list that fits the category of someone who would buy child pornography. For one, who the hell maintains such a list? PAT> That is a standard message which goes out as part of the software PAT> used for collecting names, etc and mailing spam. There is no such PAT> 'list of people who fit the category'; they just do not want to say PAT> they collected names at random. They sort of make up the 'list' as PAT> they go along. Almost every piece of junk-email I receive -- and I PAT> even got a copy of this latest one -- begins with that same iden- PAT> tical paragraph. So don't worry about it. Such a list is clearly defamatory, and to have one's E-mail address on it could cause all sort of problems should the cops capture it, as I sadly hate to say they should. (mostly I don't think that the cops have a lot of business on the internet - or that's what I thought until I got this mail). PAT> Police still have no place on the internet snooping around in my PAT> opinion. But this 'list' consists of millions of names collected PAT> willy-nilly by software designed to crawl around over the net PAT> picking up whatever names and newsgroups it can find, etc. Even PAT> the police, as happy as they are to make criminals where none exist PAT> probably would not be decieved. I don't know if this guy is some bizarre troll out on a blackmailing binge or something - maybe trying to collect respondents for future shakedowns - , or if this is really an FBI sting or something, but this is amazing. PAT> What has been ascertained thus far with about ninety percent certainty PAT> is that 'Steve Barnard' had no part in this at all. No one is yet PAT> certain if 'Steve Barnard' even exists or not. There is no listing PAT> for 'Barnard' in the 718 area which includes Jackson Heights, NY. PAT> I'm sure I'll hear sooner or later from some one or more persons who PAT> either x-reffed the address or made visitation to check it out for PAT> themselves. PAT> Concurrently the FBI, the United States Postal Service and the PAT> United States Customs Service have operated and may still be PAT> operating 'stings' relating to kiddie porn. Rumor has it they are PAT> are so incompetent they were even mailing kiddie porn to each PAT> other at one point not realizing the names the others were using PAT> in their operations. So far as I know, Customs still has that PAT> big facility in South Florida where a number of people are employed PAT> sending out kiddie porn hoping some fool will take the bait and PAT> accept the package they send in the mail, etc. Wouldn't you love PAT> to be employed there? But even so, they are not quite as brazen PAT> as today's spam would seem to indicate. What you have been reading PAT> is not a sting operation or a blackmail thing. We beleive it is PAT> either a complete fabrication *or* there is such a person and the PAT> poster of the message (not one and the same) did this in an PAT> effort to humiliate, embarass or harass 'Steve Barnard'. I'm particularly freaked by the part where he offers to take a photo of you (which he asks you to supply) and he'll use digital editing to morph your face into an image of you buggering a child. If that's not a blatant request to get yourself blackmailed, I don't know what is... and another reason to not put your face on your homepage, I might add. Oh, he wants your creditcard numbers too. PAT> It all sounds pretty unreal doesn't it ... maybe because it is PAT> unreal. I would certainly doubt that any pedophile would want to PAT> have any identifiable part of himself in such a picture. I am PAT> certain most pedophiles understand the reasoning for that simple PAT> bit of wisdom. This seems to me to be further evidence that PAT> someone is not playing by the rules around here ... and PAT> that far from being a pedophile who posted that message on AOL to PAT> sell photos, etc, the person is someone with a grudge against PAT> 'Steve Barnard' who would like you to think there is some such PAT> thing going on. Maybe some of the NYC readers should promptly head down to their precinct house and raise hell or maybe just head on down to this guy's house and raise hell. See if maybe he's got dead missing children buried under the floor or something. PAT> And you see, even you fell for it. The person who posted that PAT> message *wants* attention drawn to that apartment and street PAT> address for some reason. It is doubtful any dead children will be PAT> found there; but I would not be surprised if the poster of the PAT> message is at least aquainted with the resident of that apartment PAT> in some way. Perhaps they were friends/lovers and now for some PAT> reason have broken their friendship and the one wants to get even PAT> with the other. Maybe the poster told the other one "I know how PAT> to use the Internet to make your life complete hell for awhile." PAT> Maybe it was an effort by someone who got fired to harass their PAT> their ex-employer. Maybe -- and this sort of nags at me and sticks PAT> in my craw a little -- it was done as a 'practical joke' by a PAT> young person wanting to 'get even' with an older adult in their PAT> neighborhood about whom they have some 'suspicions'. Teenagers PAT> who are insecure or uncertain about their own sexual feelings will PAT> sometimes act out in bizarre and hateful ways against an older PAT> person they suspect (or know for a fact) is gay. Lots of people, PAT> and particularly teenagers automatically make the 'gay=pedophile' PAT> assumption. Are any teenage guys susbcribers on AOL? -------------------- TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Below is the signature of the person whose message was forwarded by Matthew Landry. I call your attention to the Scriptures cited. -- Be kind to your | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/ they be transgenic | Now. chock full of uninteresting links. chimerae. |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- ---- INCOMING! http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/incoming.html --------- "Sarah Connor?" All UseNet and BitNet postings are copyrighted. --------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I encourage everyone in a position to do so to remove the message from their spools and let it go at that. If you wish, send a copy of it to 'abuse@aol.com'. Although 'klaatu' thoughtfully included the entire spam -- as if I have not already seen a dozen copies of it this morning since I woke up -- I choose not to print it here nor to give the street address mentioned in the posting. I am sure whoever lives in that place -- and there is no listing for 'Barnard with a first initial S in 718' as the operator told me -- has already received a lot of commotions and trouble. Don't add to the confusion. If someone wants to investigate the address further and try to find out what is going on -- ** in an unobtrusive way, which it is doubtful most in the media would do ** -- I'll consider printing a general summary. I am not so much interested in the occupants' names or their sexual predilictions as I am in how/why the message came to be posted in the first place. If the person named in the message is totally innocent of any of this, they may have very good grounds for a large lawsuit against America On Line. AOL may try to claim they have no responsibility in the matter, but the fact remains they know or should know how their total lack of system security can be and is abused on a regular basis. In summary, it is very doubtful that any sort of law-enforcement sting or blackmail is going on. People who do those things are much more sophisticated. They do not have the repeated references over and over in their message to 'little boys' using precisely that phrase. There would never be a situation where a pedophile would have his picture as part of it, nor his name included on any audio tapes, etc. It is also doubtful that 'Steven Barnard' exists or if he does that he anything but a victim himself. It appears this is just a prank played by some boor on a net which itself is becoming increasinly boorish. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #556 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 21 17:06:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA27085; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610212106.RAA27085@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #557 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Oct 96 17:06:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 557 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room (Bill Hofmann) Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily) (Keith Brown) Re: Reinventing ISDN For Internet (Hank Karl) Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (John Brothers) Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (F Goldstein) Re: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke (Sir Topham Hatt) The Steven Barnard Caper Updated (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Bob Goudreau) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 12:12:04 -0700 From: Bill Hofmann Subject: Re: Meanwhile, Back in the CPSR Board Room I should say as a prolog that I haven't got strong opinions about the state of CPSR, I stopped caring when they failed to take a position on the Gulf War (an application of technology if there ever was one), but this article reads like the standard "they wouldn't listen to my ideas, they must all be power-hungry conspirators" rant that is common among people who can't seem to figure out who their enemies are. > Backed up by e-mail correspondence, sources indicate that in 1993, > CPSR accepted for a small percentage of total dollar value, a > pass-through grant in the amount of $3000. In such transactions, the > tax-exempt org. is merely a vehicle... This is called "fiscal sponsorship," and there are pretty strict rules about how it's done, but fundamentally, in order for an organization to be a fiscal sponsor for some activity (organization, etc.), the goals of the activity have to align pretty closely with that of the organization, which it sounds like the book mentioned does. The reason this is legitimate is that getting a tax-exempt status takes time and brings with it a bunch of corporate responsibilities (tax filings, etc), which many small groups don't really have the people power to manage. Foundations *won't* in general grant to non-tax-exempt organizations for tax reasons, so if a small group or individual wants to apply for a grant, it needs a fiscal sponsor. And it's part of the standard rules of the game that the fiscal sponsor takes a small percentage for administrative overhead. (5% is low, 10% is more common.) Bill Hofmann wdh@fresh.com Fresh Software and Instructional Design voice: +1 510 486 8203 1408 Carleton Street, Berkeley CA 94702 USA fax: +1 510 486 8203 ------------------------------ From: Keith Brown Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Not Necessarily) Date: 21 Oct 1996 19:35:16 GMT Organization: CallCom International Tom Beckman wrote in article : > I have an offer from a long distance carrier that offers .108 per > minute with the 10th, 16th and 25th month free, based on the average > calls in the previous two months. This comes to .095 per minute, with > the free months included. Six second increments, etc. I'm paying .12 per > minute now. > The rates cannot go up. Seems like a very good deal for a call volume > around $6K per month. My only concern is what is going to happen in > the long distance industry in the next two years -- a long time for > that business. Tom: Judging from the rates you quoted, it looks like we are talking about Switched Service. If you are a switched customer billing about $6K a month, perhaps you should look at going to Dedicated T-1 Service! 1+ SWITCHED & 800 SERVICE Instate CA: $0.0625 Interstate: $0.11 (Peak), $0.102 (Off-Peak) T-1 DEDICATED & 800 SERVICE Instate CA: $0.0456 Interstate: $0.0675 *No minimums, No term contracts, No monthly fees on switched service! Hope this helps! Keith Brown CallCom International URL: http://www.callcom.com ------------------------------ From: hankkarl@ix.netcom.com (Hank Karl) Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:40:50 GMT Organization: Telenetworks Reply-To: hankkarl@ix.netcom.com Please see the "Always On/Dynamic ISDN" initiative of the VIA at http://www.via-isdn.org/init.htm. This is a proposal to use X.25 on the D channel for the home channel of BACP MP, and bring up B channels as needed. According to the VIA home page (http://www.via-isdn.org/), The Vendors' ISDN Association (VIA) is a non-profit corporation and open group chartered with the express purpose of accelerating the deployment of ISDN through rapid convergence of end user ISDN to public network interoperability specifications and industry-wide promotion of ISDN. Hank Karl Regional Manager Telenetworks Adaptable Data and Telecommunications Software hk@tn.com (203)791-3904 Telenetworks home page http://www.telenetworks.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US Date: 21 Oct 1996 17:47:06 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Bill McMullin (bill@interactive.ca) wrote: > We are trying to determine which RBOCs are currently delivering the > Original Called Number across their SS7 networks. In case you are not > clear the Original Called Number is the number first dialed in a call > which subsequently gets forwarded through Call Forwarding. I'm informed by my local advanced services rep that GTEFL can deliver _all_ DN's involved in a forwarded call over a PRI link to the final subscriber. This applies, she informs me, regardless of whether the final switch is GTD-5 custom or NI-2, or 5ESS custom, NI-1 or NI-2. Since they can deliver it, I'd have to assume that they can transport it. The thing that really frosts _me_ is that they apparently can't transport stutter dialtone control any other way than to backhaul SMDI to every switch. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333* Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:15:49 +0000 From: john brothers Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) Organization: Bell Northern Research, Inc., Norcross, GA In article , Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: > I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to > ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most > packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one > or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user > has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel > can be used for downlink, too. > Now ISPs would look more like PBXes to the LEC and the LECs' tariffs > would cover their costs. As it stands now, the long hold time for the > ISPs' feed is requiring the LECs to expand switch fabric, not an easy > or inexpensive task! Neither is redesigning ISDN and internet protocols to provide 'dynamic callback' as you describe. And there are already a number of products in development to address the ISPs, and remove them from the circuit network, to avoid having to increase switch fabric. > I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load > the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video > conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage > sensitive, no matter what. I predict that competition for the local loop, and demand for high bandwidth will cause equipment vendors to manufacture super-fast routers and networking systems, and bandwidth will become so cheap that charging per-hour would be a waste of money - (10 cents for 100 hours vs a 29 cent stamp). But then I'm just a net-head :) > There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs. > Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least > unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is > imbalanced) and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come > to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public > switched network has adopted. It has -- for local calls, its a flat, per-month fee, at least where I am. Besides, given that Bellsouth is getting into the flat-rate ISP biz, and various service providers lurches towards flat-rate billing, it appears that everyone loves flat rate. > Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat > that for $19.95 a month I can call Europe any time I want with > Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs can't support this for everyone > and make any money. I would think the flat rate would need to be more > like $100-200 a month for this. The ISPs can support this. Packets are far more efficient bandwidth-wise than circuits. In the same trunk that carries 24 phone lines, you can carry 600 Iphone conversations (2400 bps each) - It may not be quite the same Quality of Service, but given enough bandwidth, it will probably end up being close enough. And transport/data bandwidth has been quadrupling every 2 - 2.5 years. > Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does > investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the > early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were > making any money? Some do. Netcom probably does, considering how long it has been around. Dunno about others. It is a very tricky business to be in. John Brothers | Minds are just like parachutes. They... !nortel.opinion | well, actually they're not at all like parachutes. *SPLAT* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:33:51 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) Jeffrey Rhodes wrote, > I suggest that the D-channel be used for the up-link for user to > ISP. This access can remain unlimited for a low flat rate. Most > packets go towards the user, so the ISP can call the user back on one > or two B-channels for the downlink when needed but only if the user > has elected to pay for this usage sensitive time, else the D-channel > can be used for downlink, too. The call from ISP to user, instead of > user to ISP, would save login and authentication time for each call, > and the B-ch(s) can be dropped when idle. This has two fatal flaws. The big one is that it depends on ISDN. Something over 99% of dial-up Internet access in the United States uses modems, not ISDN. Most US telcos don't want resi subscribers to move to ISDN; it's only a Centrex option with state-forced availability to a small number of hardy subscribers who either are insensitive to price (in different ways, the Bell Atlantic, GTE, US West and Bell South models) or who can run a terrifying gauntlet of obstacles in the way of actually getting it installed (the NYNEX model). (FWIW, PacBell's "old" tariff -- the state decision on a new one is pending -- and Ameritech's are examples of attractive ones, while Southwestern Bell's is tolerable if you order "on sale" when they drop the $450-ish installation charges.) Perhaps telcos think that ISDN users spend more time connected, so they should be forced to use analog lines which (on average) have shorter holding times. Only the same *users* on analog lines end up with longer hold times because of the slower connections, but that tends to elude telcos! Problem two is that the D-channel packet-switching fabrics have bo diddley capacity. They were designed for call control signaling and *incidental* levels of traffic. Of course this is self-fulfilling -- since they couldn't carry much, they never got much use, so there was no reason to improve them. And in most states, D-channel packet traffic is VERY expensive. NYNEX here in MA wants 55c/kilosegment, where a segment is around a megabit. It's great for credit card transactions, meter reading, etc., but not heavy Internet use. Bell South, to its credit, doesn't seem to charge for D channel packets. > I predict that competition for the local loop and a need to off-load > the Internet backbone crunch for Internet Phone and Internet video > conferencing will eventually cause the Internet to become usage > sensitive, no matter what. While there are plenty of $20/month flat rate ISP accounts, even costlier "pay as you go" ISPs only cost a couple of bucks an hour, more or less. Yet the telcos want to reclassify ISPs as IXCs, who are charged around 3 cents/minute for incoming calls! That would *more than double* the rates of the *highest priced* ISPs. Let's get real folks; every telco cost study worth the disk space it's not printed on indicates that busy-hour local minutes have a fully-loaded cost under a penny a minute; most show much less. IXC treatment is a firing squad for a parking meter violation. (Well, I suppose it would fit in Singapore ;-( .) Many ISPs will probably end up capping their "free" hours, and telcos might end up capping their "free" hours, so the 100 hour/month guys might be okay but the 700 hour/month ("never give up and never hang up") guys won't. But PB and BA proposals have ISPs paying to *receive* calls at the same time callers are paying for flat-rate calling plans to *place* the calls, so it's double-dipping. Each of my NYNEX lines carries around a $20/month surcharge (over available measured rates) for "metropolitan" flat rate service, vs. measured. It's therefore not "free", just not billed by the minute or the call. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: lr@access4.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Latest Spam With Child Porn Just a Joke Date: 21 Oct 1996 18:24:30 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: > It is my recommendation that the mail be forwarded to the address > assigned at AOL to investigate and deal with these things. It is > 'abuse@aol.com'. > I say that I think the person in Jackson Heights, NY -- if the address > and person even exist -- is unwitting and not part of the scam/spam > because I cannot imagine any person actually involved in such an activity > giving out a real name and street address. There would be a post office > box and some bogus name at the very least. The first thing I did after forwarding the copy to AOL was to call the Jackson Heights (actually NYPD) Police. Evidentally, I wasn't the first person to call as they first thing they said was "If this is about the Internet child porn we have all the information we need on it already." > The one problem I see with AOL is their total lack of any security in > cases like this. Screen names are made up one minute for use in some prank > and then deleted the next minute. I venture to say if you wrote to the > sender of the message, the screen name has already been deleted. > By the way, I *personally* got a copy of it in my mail as well. According > to the introduction, I was on a mailing list they had chosen because > of the likelyhood of interest in the material being sent out. What's really amazing is that my copy was not sent to the address I read any of the alt.sex or even comp.dcom.telecom but that of the machine at work with a very limitted news feed (so the address was stripped out of comp.lang.* or comp.sys.*). As Pat says, complain first to the ISP and if criminal acts appear to be involved (as opposed to nuisance spams) call the police, but don't assume that the message was not a forgery. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:11:01 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: The Steven Barnard Caper Updated So, I just got off the phone with the New York Police Dpartment Vice Control Office. This followed a call to the 115th Precinct which serves Jackson Heights. The woman said to me they have received calls 'numbering in the thousands' as of 4:00 pm Eastern time from all over the world wanting to register a complaint about the allegations of pedophilia circulating on the net today. Calls have reached them from Germany, the UK, Australia, and elsewhere. The lady said to me, 'wait until the people in Hawaii wake up and start reading their email ... we will get a few more calls.' I told her when I woke up this morning I had my very own personal copy of the letter along with sixteen or so other copies from readers of this Digest who sent them to me to look at. No more calls are needed to the New York Police ... puh-leeze! She would not reveal what actions are underway at the present time, which is quite understandable, but she did say every officer in their unit as well as all the officers in the 115th Precinct were now quite aware of the incident. She would not say if it is unfounded, or if there is any credibility to the report. Printed copies of the message have reached them via fax, email and courier service. If its true -- that one can obtain that type of material from the occupant of that address -- Steve Barnard or whoever -- then this is certainly a novel way of getting a report to the police. And I still doubt that any attempt was being made to sell anything ... If it is false -- just someone being vicious -- then I hope Mr. Barnard gets an attorney who turns the screws ***so hard*** on American OnLine that they never forget they day they got sued. By now the persons at that address are being investigated and examined by every law enforcement agency in New York. Wouldn't it be something if it was all part of a lover's quarrel, or the result of someone's overactive imagination? More news when it becomes available. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:19:53 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials PAT writes: > By the way, a person last week said I must have had my statistics > reversed on the status of the Chicago Public Schools and their policy > of placing certain schools on academic probation. I did not have anything > confused at all. Here is the rule once again: > Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent > of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate > with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation; > (essentially in recievership [sic]). > > Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five > percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success* > rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable > to reach the desired goals. PAT, I think this proves that you are working too hard on the Digest (for which we thank you!) and need to get more sleep :-). Please re-read, slowly and carefully, the rule you quoted above. Now consider a school in which, say, 80 percent of the students pass the test. This means that 20 percent of them failed and are thus "unable to read and write at a level commensurate with their age and grade-level". Twenty percent certainly qualifies as a number that is "at least fifteen percent", so this school will be placed on probation *even though it has a literacy rate of 80 percent*! To end up with your interpretation would instead require a rule like the following: Any public school in Chicago in which fewer than fifteen percent of the students are able to read and write at a level commensurate with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation; (essentially in receivership). Regards, Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look for the last time already. Here is the definition of a successful public school in Chicago: School has 1000 students. 150 of them can read and write. The other 850 are illiterate. The school is a success. If in this school fewer than 150 of the 1000 students can read and write at the proper level for their grade/age, then the school needs remedial action taken. The rule was *going to be* that at least 250 students of the the 1000 had to be able to read and write at the proper level (leaving 'only' 750 who were illiterate) but this meant that all but six schools would have required such remedial action. By setting the standards 'a little lower' -- as if the standards are not horrifying enough as originally proposed -- the Board of Education was able to rig things so that 'only a few hundred schools need remedial action...' Am I making my point clear? Somewhere between 70-85 percent of the students who graduate from the Chicago Public Schools or who are enrolled therein are functionally illiterate at worst or not close to the level they should be at best. I agree my original wording was perhaps not the best. I sometimes think I need to work on improving my syntax. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #557 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 11:16:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA06071; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:16:27 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610221516.LAA06071@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #558 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 11:16:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 558 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Corporate Email Replies (Tad Cook) Deja News Research on Steven Barnard (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund (Mike King) New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (Monty Solomon) Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Richard Brody) Caribbean Phone "Scams" Needed (Van Hefner) Help Needed With Information on This KSU (MarkS10254@aol.com) The Bandwidth Brokers: How Does it Work? (Alan Ball) 800/888 Numbers That Charge? (Pete Ashdown) VTech Phones Information Wanted (Jerry W. Lee) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Corporate Email Replies Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 00:13:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Simplest e-mail queries confound companies BY THOMAS E. WEBER The Wall Street Journal Ever wonder whether Duracell batteries will last longer if stored in the fridge? Or how much corn it takes to make a single Frito? Or how McDonald's makes round bacon for its new Arch Deluxe sandwich? Asking the companies that make these products is easier than ever: Just leave a message at their sites on the World Wide Web. Getting an answer is another matter. Many big companies invite a dialogue with consumers at their Internet outposts but are ill-prepared to keep up their end of the conversation. Tony Pittarese tapped Coca-Cola Co.'s Web site to help him plan a visit to the Summer Olympic Games, typing his question on a screen that pledged, "We're all ears." All ears, but no mouth: The reply never came. He ended up dialing Coke's toll-free number. "If you're going to go onto the Web and you can't do it right, don't do it at all," says Mr. Pittarese, a college instructor in Pensacola, Fla. Coke says contritely that it had a big e-mail backlog around the time of Mr. Pittarese's query but has since improved its system. Web sites are set up in different ways. Some provide e-mail addresses; others provide no address but solicit electronic comment by asking visitors to the site to type in messages directly on a Web page; still others provide no means for electronic comments. One recent survey randomly checked Web sites of 100 of the 500 largest U.S. companies, and only 17 of them sent back electronic-mail replies; almost half of the sites didn't include any e-mail capability at all. In a similar effort, The Wall Street Journal zapped e-mail inquiries to two dozen major corporate Web sites with e-mail capabilities and found many of them decidedly speechless. Nine never responded. Two took three weeks to transmit a reply, while others sent stock responses that failed to address the query. Only three companies adequately answered within a day. "When someone comes to your Web site, a customer is seeking you out," says Elizabeth Stites, marketing director at Matrixx Marketing Inc., the Cincinnati Bell Inc. unit that surveyed the 100 big Web sites. "If you're not talking back to them, you're crazy." That argument may be self-serving for Matrixx, which runs toll-free consumer lines for marketers and now wants to handle their e-mail, but there is no denying its truth: Answering e-mail, after all, is simply an up-to-date way of maintaining the good customer relations every company presumably wants. Certainly, many companies are courting customers by computer. Corporate Web sites on the Internet, virtually unknown just two years ago, now number in the thousands. Among the 500 biggest companies, almost 80 percent will have Web pages up by year end, more than double the portion of a year ago, research company International Data Corp. forecasts. Why, then, the poor e-mail record? Some companies explain that full-scale electronic interaction is more hassle than they bargained for when they threw up a signpost in cyberspace. Internet users, they say, often make inordinate demands and hold unrealistic response expectations. That's why General Motors Corp.'s Saturn unit, among others, explicitly states on its Web site that it doesn't do e-mail. "You don't want to diminish the customer's passion by not responding when they take the time to contact you," says Greg Martin, a Saturn spokesman. Typical of corporate Web sites is that of McDonald's Corp. Replete with colorful animation, it offers information (nutritional data) and entertainment (a "coloring book") along with some merchandising (ads hawking T-shirts). It also has a "Feedback" section, which is where we clicked to ask about that round bacon. But it turns out "feedback" means your answers to their questions: McDonald's uses the Web to grill visitors on their eating habits, asking how many times they had visited the Golden Arches in the past month ("PLEASE ENTER AN EXACT NUMBER"). We entered our question in a box reserved for plaudits about the site. No answer came. "I don't think we've taken our Web site to a high level of interactivity at this point," admits McDonald's spokesman Chuck Ebeling. Replying to individual questions from users would require an "appropriate response system" that doesn't exist, he adds. As for our questions to Duracell International Inc. about batteries and to PepsiCo Inc.'s Frito-Lay division about corn chips, neither was answered. Duracell says it tries to answer e-mail within 24 to 48 hours, though some take longer; the company wasn't able to determine what happened to our response. Frito-Lay declined to comment. Even high-tech companies can falter at Web talk. International Business Machines Corp. answered a product inquiry with an e-mail message bucking the question to its toll-free number. When we quizzed Eastman Kodak Co. about storing film in a refrigerator, the company sent a technical brochure on the subject through the U.S. mail. Apple Computer Inc. lost a chance to proselytize to a follower whose faith was weakening. The query: "My wife is reluctant to purchase another Macintosh ... What should I tell her?" The response: "If you wrote to webmasterapple.com for help with a question about Apple's products or policies, we need to let you know that the webmaster can't answer these questions." Apple says it provides plenty of customer support on its toll-free hotline, which can route common inquiries to prerecorded answers. E-mail requires labor-intensive, personal follow-up, says interactive marketing vice president Steve Franzese. "Apple doesn't have a religious aversion to answering someone's question at a keyboard," Mr. Franzese says. "The issue is, how do you do it economically?" Some companies seem to manage. Whirlpool Corp. wrote back to us by e-mail within 24 hours (Q: Just how hot is the hottest setting on a clothes dryer? A: About 155 degrees), yet no one at the company is devoted to the task full time. Carol Sizer, the Whirlpool public-relations employee who oversaw the creation of the company's Web site, persuaded others to pitch in and answer the e-mail. "Reading the e-mail makes you feel connected with your customers," she says. Other marketers -- albeit only a few -- answered quickly, thoroughly and with a chatty tone mirroring the informality that pervades the Internet. L.L. Bean Inc. provided the requested tips for waterproofing a pair of hiking boots in a brief note signed by "Kate, Customer Satisfaction." After gently emphasizing that "it is virtually impossible to make your boots `waterproof' -- they would have to be Gore-Tex for that," Kate recommended a thorough cleaning and a silicone protectant. The reply popped up on the Internet just three hours after the question was sent. "When we got into this, there weren't any industry standards for turnaround time, or tone and so forth," explains Jeff Seger, the L.L. Bean analyst who set up the e-mail response center. He concluded that 24 hours was the longest an on-line customer should have to wait. Meeting that standard meant pulling nine employees from Bean's 800-number support center to peck away at keyboards in two different shifts, seven days a week. With e-mail sometimes topping 500 messages each week, the cataloger figures it soon will have to add a third shift. Mr. Seger warns Web marketers: "Don't underestimate customer expectations ... or how many are on the Web." More advice: "It's important to be fast. It's a fast medium," says Larry Dale, a marketing specialist on Ford Motor Co.'s Web site. "Some of these people might well be sitting at their PC, waiting for a return e-mail." We wrote the Ford site wondering "exactly what is a dual overhead cam," since the site touts that feature in Ford's Taurus SHO. The response came within a day, and though it had a few misspellings it thoroughly answered the question. (In 162 words, it basically said camshafts open and close valves; the more cams an engine has, the greater its horsepower.) For the time being, however, a more typical response to an e-mail inquiry is this reply received on the Mercedes-Benz Web site: "Thank you very much for your e-mail ... it would be helpful if you could give us your post address." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:19:15 GMT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Deja News Research on Steven Barnard Organization: TELECOM Digest After thinking a bit more about the now infamous spam which hit the net on Sunday and Monday and considering that it might be some sort of 'internet quarrel' I decided to see if deja news had anything on file about Barnard in the past; to see if he had any sort of net presence. Well, someone named Steve Barnard does post quite a bit and one post in particular: http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=4749355&server=dnserver.db96q4&CONTEXT=845957111.6605&hitnum=4 said this: (This is October 10, 1996.) Bill Miller wrote: > > In article <53h9ij$5gq@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bterr@aol.com (Bterr) wrote: > > > Cross gender assault exists in Western and non-Western cultures alike. > > However, any attempt to discuss sexual homicide would require a very > > precise definition of terms. All I can really say at this point is that > > it appears to be on the increase in contemporary America, at least as it > > is currently understood and defined by law enforcement authorities and the > > courts. > > I am specifically interested in whether it is only in Western civilization > that pedophilia exists and is such a problem. No way. In some traditional Islamic cultures (I'm thinking specifically of North Africa) adult men and young boys commonly have sexual relations, and no one thinks much of it. Steve Barnard -------------------- If you follow the thread (click on the subject at deja news) there's a fairly angry reply from some other (presumably Muslim) guy. It might be helpful to the people investigating this matter if they would look into the response given to Barnard's posting and others who participated in that thread. In other news, the New York Police Department says please do not call them any more on this. They are dealing with it. AOL has also issued a request for no more copies to be sent to their 'abuse' address. I've had correspondence from people who feel I was wrong in suggesting that Barnard -- assuming he is innocent -- has a good case against AOL in court. They feel that AOL should no more be held responsible than any common carrier. But AOL lost the common carrier argument when they started screening junk-email arriving at their site. Plus it is important to remember that they make absolutely no effort at all to screen new subscribers as to their identity. For example, I have five or six copies of their introductory diskette laying around here where you log in, give them some bogus banking or credit information, and as long as you are smart enough to get the algorythms and check digits right on the information you give them, then bingo! you get ten free hours to mess around, send out a little spam, etc. By the time they send the 'check free authorization' you agreed to on line or get around to actually putting through the credit card charge, you are long gone, having taken a dump and left the mess behind for someone else to clean up. There is no reason they cannot limit contact with the internet until they have verified the subscriber's identity. There is no reason they cannot limit mass mailings to the net at all times. I hope a good attorney helps Barnard prove that point to them. PAT ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell/Universal Service Fund Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:22:18 PDT ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 10:58:34 -0700 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal Service Fund for All Californians FOR MORE INFORMATION: Shelley Cullimore 415 394-3633 shelley.cullimore@pactel.com Pacific Bell Calls for a Fair & Equitable Universal Service Fund for All Californians SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Bell told the California Public Utilities Commission late Friday that the Commission's recent proposed decision on universal service still falls short of what's needed to keep basic telephone service affordable for all Californians. After 18 months of regulatory proceedings, the Commission's Administrative Law Judge recently proposed $352 million for a new universal service fund, a mere 28 percent of the subsidies that support universal service today. Pacific Bell's customers already contribute more than $1 billion in subsidies through higher prices they pay on toll and other services. Pacific filed its formal comments today disputing the proposed decision. "The ALJ's proposal ignores 72 percent of our customers," said Rex Mitchell, Pacific Bell vice president for regulatory. "Their cost of service is not covered by the price they pay nor by the fund. Moreover, the very source of today's $1.4 billion in subsidies will disappear with competition." The Commission's task has been to replace a 60-year old universal service program funded solely by local exchange companies, to one that is funded by all telecommunications providers, on the premise that all competitors should share equally in the responsibility to keep basic service affordable. A new surcharge on all customers bills will create the universal service fund. But new competitors have attempted to keep the fund small so that their customers have an advantage over Pacific's customers who will continue to pay the surcharge. "The Commission has taken a positive first step by covering nearly the full cost of providing service in the highest-cost areas. Now they need to take the next step for the rest of the state," Mitchell explained. "A universal service program that is properly funded, could create a hotbed of competition everywhere across the state. As it stands now, most people will be left out in the cold." Pacific Bell urges the full panel of Commissioners to increase the size of the fund in order to ensure that all Californians reap the dual benefits of affordable service and competitive choice. Pacific Bell is subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:30:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min 24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to $0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges. You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30 surcharge. If you want this rate, you will need to explicitly request the promotional rate and make sure they don't confuse your request with their other $.10/min off-peak plan (which competes with Sprint). Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01703-2486 monty@roscom.com ------------------------------ From: rabrody@earthlink.net (Richard Brody) Subject: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 07:14:37 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Hi. I'm having a COM ports conflict that I don't know how to resolve. Computer is Pentium 133 running Windows for Workgroups 3.11, not networked (sole user, no network card, etc.), MSDOS is 6.22. Modem is a bundled voice/fax/data modem, 33.6 Kbps. I can't find a brand name I'm familiar with, the cover of the scant User's Manual says RW-33600V Voice/Fax Internal Modem. A diagnostic program says the modem is a Sierra V.34 Voice Modem. The modem is factory configured to operate at COM2 using IRQ3. Prior to experiencing the problem (I'm about to describe), the modem has been working great, connecting and transferring either via DOS comm software (such as Telemate) or various PPP Winsock dialers and clients (to dialup ISPs, local BBSes, etc.). Transfer rates are typically indicated between 2.6K to 3K cps. Today I finally got around to installing the voice/fax software that came with the computer (it's a new computer, took delivery last week). The program is Cheyenne Communications' BitWare VFD for Windows. Installation went along without a hitch. All features work fine, connections, transfers, etc. The voice/fax/data/pager answering system works flawlessly. I was impressed. :-) And then came the problem. :-( When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually received this error from the dialer: "The com port is either being used by another application or is not supported." This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself. I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved: "Com port is busy." So I went back into my just-installed BitWare program and clicked a different com port in the Settings just to see what might happen. I clicked COM1 (instead of the COM2 setting created by the installation program). I went back to my Winsock dialer and clicked an ISP. The call went through fine, I was connected in seconds. I quit and tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and it too worked fine again, I was connected straightaway. I quit and tried the BitWare program, it wouldn't initialize the modem (wrong com port). That's the gist of the problem. If I connect the BitWare program to COM2 in its Settings menu, all of the BitWare for Windows modules work perfectly. But, my Winsock dialer won't engage, nor will my DOS comm programs. If I click a different com port in the BitWare Settings, just to get it off COM2, all of my Winsock and DOS comm stuff works again (but BitWare does not, of course). Do you have any thoughts on what I might do to resolve this conflict so that each of these programs can work? Thank you for your help. RB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 20:16:47 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (Van Hefner) Subject: Caribbean Phone "Scams" Needed I have been contcted by a network news reporter (working at a local affiliate) that is preparing a story on the Caribbean (area code 809, etc.) phone scams that have hit in recent months. If you have actually been ripped-off by one of these cons, please drop me a line via the internet with your name, location, a contact number the reporter can reach you at, and a -brief- explanation of the circumstances. All submissions will be held in the greatest confidence. Since this is TV, an affiliate of the network will probably do some actual video (and interviews) of a few of the people who have been ripped-off. If you are in the Northern California region, that's a plus, but not necessary. You can also FAX your tale of woe to the below FAX number (it's NOT in the Caribbean!), but the internet is the fastest way to do it. Thanks for your assistance. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry 326 Eye Street, Suite #148 Eureka, California U.S.A. 95501-0522 http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ E-mail: vantek@northcoast.com Phone: 1-707-444-6686 Fax: 707-445-4123 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think you will find many such reports here, Van ... the guys here are all too smart to fall for those things, especially as much as we talk about them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marks10254@aol.com Subject: Help Needed With Information on This KSU Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:08:12 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: marks10254@aol.com (MarkS10254) I need information on a NEC KSU; it is a Electra 616. I'm new to KSU/PBX's but I am familiar with telco wiring; is there anyplace on the net which may have information on this unit? The existing wiring is 4pr UTP, does this unit require UTP, or could I use reg. high count (50pr.) to extend these stations?. The current system has 8 ports, how difficult, and expensive is it to upgrade up to 10 ports, or the next available no. of ports?? Is is possible to configure the system so that the existing 8 ports work as normal, but with 2 additional stations, which would do NO outside calling i.e. just answer calls? Last but not least: I have never really charged on my own for a cabling job (I've always been the one sent out to do the work); so what type of a fee is appropriate for the following: extend 6 ksu lines 200' extend 3 dedicated lines 200' run 6-10 station cables avg. of 40' ea. to block (my choice of surface or flush mnt.) run 3 dedicated lines from dmarc to stations avg 40' ea. I will be supplying all materials There are station cables present for some of the locations, but I'm not yet sure if they are good, and they may be reg JK, I would like to use cat.3, if I must. I really appreciate any and all responses, Marks10254@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Alan Ball <106253.1305@compuserve.com> Subject: The Bandwidth Brokers: How Does it Work? Date: 22 Oct 1996 08:05:50 GMT Organization: Interpac Belgium SA/NV As an editor for a Belgian IT magazine, I'm trying to gather data on the way bandwith is managed between the owners of the cables/satellite connexions and the international providers and the relative importance of the various suppliers. Next to the "official" telcos here and the large contenders (BT, Global One, AT&T,...) "waiting" for the full 1998 liberalization, there is a mass of "grey" offerings for the management of international calls. Seems anyone can negotiate a "good deal" with quite a few very discreet companies (advertisement of these services is forbidden). Does anyone here know more or less what is really going on, who is selling what to whom and where? Thanks for any European oriented answers. Alan Ball Chief Editor BI Technology - Brussels. ------------------------------ From: pashdown@xmission.com (Pete Ashdown) Subject: 800/888 Numbers That Charge? Date: 21 Oct 1996 15:05:56 -0600 Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900) We're having a small debate amongst the staff here regarding whether or not there are 800/888 numbers that charge people who call them. Is it legal to forward these numbers to a 900? Pete Ashdown pashdown@xmission.com Salt Lake City, Utah XMission Internet Access - Data: 801 539 0900 - Voice: 801 539 0852 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not legal to do, but it is done sometimes. Getting the billing straightened out when it happens is a long, involved thing at times. There are also 800/888 numbers which do not transfer the call to a 900 number but none the less manage to send through a charge to the calling party. You cannot assume that 800/888 numbers in every single case are 'toll-free' to the caller. Over 99 percent of them are, but here ad there sleaze operators pull tricks on you. It is best when possible at your PBX to screen 800/888 to the full seven digits following, and when you get word of word of any particular 'toll free' number which is likely to generate a charge or other hassle for your phone system then block that particular number entirely. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrenstar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jerry W. Lee) Subject: VTech Phones Information Wanted Date: 21 Oct 1996 14:24:11 -0700 Organization: Where the Wild Things Are I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech 900 MHz digital cordless phones. I'm thinking of getting one through my company, but the only problem is that I more or less have to pay for it and won't get a chance to try it out before then. Any information is appreciated. Thanks, Jerry wrenstar@leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #558 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 21:11:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA08106; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610230111.VAA08106@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #559 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 21:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 559 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin) SS7 Signalling Links (Eoghan O'Suilleabhain) Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept (spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) A Cleanout and Articles Missed (TELECOM Digest Editor) Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider? (J Decker) Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (Jeremy Buhler) Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Jay Hennigan) Re: 214/972 Split Observations (John Cropper) Yummy Incentive to Switch LD Carrier (Alan Frisbie) Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet (Jeffrey Rhodes) NPA 250 (British Columbia) Just About Officially Started (David Leibold) FCC Listing of Carrier Code Assignments (Barry Mishkind) Re: Is This a First in Local Competition? (John R. Grout) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BGoodin@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (Bill Goodin) Organization: UCLA Extension - contact Postmaster@unex.ucla.edu for problems Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:40:18 -0700 Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" On January 28-31, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Commercial Satellite Communications: Systems and Applications" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, Hughes Space & Communications, David A. Baylor, DirecTV, and David Bell, Universal SpaceNet. Each participant receives the course textbook, "The Satellite Communication Applications Handbook", B. Elbert (Artech House, 1997), and extensive course notes. This course is intended for practicing telecommunications engineers, satellite and earth station designers and manufacturers, professionals in the satellite communications industry (technical, operations and marketing), and major private and governmental users of satellite and terrestrial telecommunications services, domestic and international. It covers all aspects of the design, operation and use of satellite networks, with a heavy emphasis on commercial applications. The latter include television transmission and broadcasting (distribution and direct-to-home), voice and data networks using Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), mobile satellite services, and advanced broadband capabilities of satellites under development. Each of the four days is broken down into a major segment to provide background in the engineering fundamentals, a detailed review of the current applications and implementations, and evolution of the technology and use of satellite systems in the coming millennium. Course topics include: Evolution of Satellite Technology and Applications Satellite Links and Access Methods Satellite System Implementation The Range of Television Applications Digital Video Compression Systems and Standards Direct-to-Home TV Broadcasting by Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Networks Telephone Services by Satellite Use of VSATs for Video Applications Mobile Satellite Communications--GEO and Non-GEO Advanced Mobile Satellites--Service to Handheld Terminals Digital Audio Broadcasting--A New Application on the Horizon Broadband and Multimedia Systems Evolution of the Satellite Business How to Stay Abreast and Valued in the Satcom Industry The course fee is $1295, which includes the course text and extensive course materials. For a more information and a detailed course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Eoghan Organization: Ericsson Systems Expertise, Dublin, Ireland Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:20 GMT Subject: SS7 Signalling Links Reply-To: eeieosn@eei.ericsson.se I have a question regarding the signalling links used between exchanges for SS7 signalling. In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between them. I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to connect the signalling terminals. Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Eoghan O'Suilleabhain Ericsson Systems Expertise Dun Laoghaire, Ireland ------------------------------ From: spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Permissive Anonymous Intercept Date: 22 Oct 1996 16:38:19 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas The *82 function temporarily turns off per-line blocking, which you (in Texas) have to write a letter to the PUC to get turned on and off. The -not available- on your CID unit means they are using a cheapo LD carrier that doesn't transmit their name and number to your phone company. This also happens if someone has just moved in to a house and has just gotten their phone set up. Shaver wrote: > I received a card from US West announcing that I had the ability to > not receive calls which did not transmit caller ID. It seemed to > work for both local and long distance, although a LD call with *82 no > longer gave "anonymous" but "not available". spinal@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:50:33 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: A Cleanout and Articles Missed Once again, unfortunatly, a clean out of the queue of waiting items for publication in the Digest resulted in 1374 items getting sent to the bit-bucket unpublished. First and foremost, I apologize to everyone who wrote to the Digest during September and October whose articles were not used. Were I to use them all, you would receive ten to twelve issues of the Digest daily for the indefinite future, As things now stand, when I send out more than three or four issues per day, I invariably get people who complain about the volume of stuff coming out. One thousand three hundred seventy four items unused! It is really sad to me. That's editorial submissions, not administrative mail. It has almost become an assembly line process, like Lucy and Ethel working in the candy factory. If your article was not published, believe me it was nothing personal. I try to help as many people as I can here, and there are times I feel so darn oppressed with how little I am able to do that I feel like junking the whole thing. Seriously. My network connectivity of late has much to be desired as well, and there have been hints that perhaps some friends of the Digest will soon supply a dedicated line, a decent machine and a name in the .org domain to help with such problems. Not to sound cynical, but I count on those things when they arrive. A contributor in September sent a check for five-hundred dollars to the Digest which I promptly spent paying a few bills ... and then his check bounced. He is unable to make it good. He meant well when he sent it, I feel certain of that. Helen, the branch manager at the bank I use has covered me for a long time and she did once again after that fiasco. I guess that's what I get for using the same bank for many years. Now that I have that off my chest let me tell you what you are getting in the rest of this issue in the final few messages which follow: A few articles were found that had 'fallen on the floor'; that is they had come in and gotten shoved aside into inappropriate categories and just recently re-located after having been presumed lost. They are dated in September and earlier in October. They've been redated so they will pass muster on Usenet spools which tend to throw old stuff away, but the original date has been inserted in the article itself. One I felt particularly bad about finding at this late date was sent in by Jack Decker telling how well GTE had responded to his complaint which originally appeared here. I like publishing articles like his. A few others found in the same obscure file are included to finish off this issue. PAT ------------------------------ From: jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) Subject: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider? Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:06:44 GMT Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS (Original date was Fri, 20 Sep 1996) Some of you may recall my post of about a week ago (Thursday, 12 Sep 1996) in which I discussed my problems in getting an "all circuits busy" recording while dialing into the Muskegon, Michigan modem pool of Novagate Communications Corporation (while at the same time, calls to other locations in the same phone exchange always went through). I had concluded my article by saying: > ... And if, by any odd chance, anyone from GTE happens to > read this, it would be much appreciated if you could find out why ONLY > calls to Novagate's Muskegon POP seem to encounter the "all circuits > busy" condition, when other calls to Muskegon virtually always seem to > go through without a hitch (and also, why have the GTE folks here been > unresponsive to this problem)? Well, I can tell you now that GTE does indeed read the TELECOM Digest! I got a call about half an hour ago from Peter Johnson at Novagate. He was calling about an unrelated matter, but mentioned during the conversation that someone at GTE had seen my message, and that they were working on the problem. Shortly after I hung up with him, the phone rang again and it was Nanci DeLong, an area manager with GTE. She mentioned that she had seen the message I posted here. She explained that calls to Novagate's POP go through a 5ESS switch, and that they had found that one card in the switch (affecting about ten of Novagate's lines) was sending an "all circuits busy" message out when it should have been sending a simple line busy. She said that this problem has now been corrected and if all of Novagate's lines are busy, people should receive an actual line busy signal and not an "all circuits busy" recording. What no one apparently seems to know is how this card (or whatever is causing the problem) got configured incorrectly in the first place, but I suppose there are a number of ways that could have happened. She indicated that their studies have shown that Novagate has 35 lines in this POP, but should really have 37 to handle all the traffic at peak periods. They are going to run another study over the weekend (or sometime in the next few days) to see if this is still the case. Peter had mentioned to me that they probably would be adding more lines once this problem was corrected (I think that the feeling originally was, "Why add new lines if users can't access the ones we already have?") I will mention that Novagate's lines are normal Centrex lines, which as far as I know are fed by plain old copper from the GTE central office to Novagate's POP, which is only a distance of about four blocks. I mention this only because some readers seemed to be of the opinion that there might be something special about the service provided to Novagate. Other than being Centrex (which was the case long before this particular problem started), these lines are plain vanilla, going into standard modems. In any case, I'm inclined to believe now that there was probably no real malice intended toward Novagate, it was just the all too common situation of an out-of-the-ordinary problem that no one really wanted to work on until something happened to elevate the priority of diagnosing and fixing it. In this case, it may have been the article I posted here that put the spark under them, or it may have been the calls from people at Novagate, or even the call from one other Novagate customer that was pretty irate about the situation. I don't care who gets the credit here, I'm just happy to see that the problem is being worked on, and I trust that GTE will follow through and make sure the problems are eliminated. I also want to thank Ms. DeLong for taking the time to call me and let me know what the situation was. Although she did not ask me to do it, I felt that it was only fair to post a followup to this group to let you know what GTE's response was. I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service). But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby Bells" as well. Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I am sorry this is a month later getting out that it should have been. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:15:32 -0700 From: Jeremy Buhler Reply-To: jbuhler@cs.washington.edu Organization: University of Washington Subject: Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (Original date was Fri, 20 Sep 1996) I saw your question in the TELECOM Digest about the ACTA petition. While you wait for your correspondents to make an official report, here is what I found with a little surfing: According to the FCC web site, the end of the public comment period for the ACTA petition was May 8, and the reply period ended June 8. The FCC's CCB homepage says that questions on the proceeding should be directed to Kevin Werbach, kwerbach@fcc.gov . I didn't see any announcements about the FCC's position on the matter, though. After striking out at fcc.gov, I went looking for comments from the participants in the action. Opposition to the petition appears to be united as the Voice on the Net Coalition (VON), which has a web at http://www.von.org/ . VON seems to be dealing with several telephony-related issues, but internet phone is the major one. Most of the ACTA-related stuff on the VON site is rather old, but there was one interesting item. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt composed an address which was delivered by FCC Chief of Staff Blair Levin at INET '96 in Montreal on June 28. The address was pretty unambigously in favor of internet telephony. See http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt for the complete speech, but here's the most relevant portion: ### BEGIN QUOTED TEXT ### The FCC has received a petition from the America's Carriers' Telecommunications Association asking that we restrict the sale of "Internet phone" software, because the providers of that software do not comply with the rules that apply to telecommunications carriers. Similar issues are being discussed in other countries, including Canada. We've just finished getting comments on that petition. We're in the process of reviewing those comments now, but I would just note that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Administration's telecommunications expert, has filed very thoughtful and well-reasoned comments with us asking us to reject this petition. I am also strongly inclined to believe that the right answer at this time is not to place restrictions on software providers, or to subject Internet telephony to the same rules that apply to conventional circuit-switched voice carriers. On the Internet, voice traffic is just a particular kind of data, and imposing traditional regulatory divisions on that data is both counterproductive and futile. Even if most of the FCC wasn't working around the clock on implementation of the Telecommunications Act, I can't imagine that we would have the time to keep track of all the bits passing over the Internet to separate the "acceptable" data packets from the "unacceptable" voice packets. More importantly, we shouldn't be looking for ways to subject new technologies to old rules. Instead, we should be trying to fix the old rules so that if those new technologies really are better, they will flourish in the marketplace. For years, some engineers have been telling us that voice over a packet switched network wasn't possible. The latency periods were too great, they said, and you'd never get acceptable quality. Well, it is going to be possible, and in the short period of time since the first commercial products became available, the quality has been rapidly improving. But the last thing we want to do is stop that improvement by thoughtless regulation. Internet telephony may well become, in time, a competitive alternative to traditional circuit-switched voice telephony. After all, as the growth of the cellular industry demonstrates, people are willing to give up a significant level of quality in exchange for other benefits. In the cellular case the benefit is the ability to make a call from virtually anywhere, in the case of Internet telephony the benefit is a vastly lower price. This is especially true, for example, for international telephone calls. ### END QUOTED TEXT ### It's been quite a while since the address was given, but there's no newer FCC-related info on the VON site, just some announcements about new iphone technologies and new coalition members. Incidentally, you may be pleased to know that the lead item on the VON page, "Bells Allege Internet Growth Clogging Network", is a copy of the August 22nd Digest posting on the same subject. Jeremy ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:19:14 -0700 Organization: West.Net Communications (Original date was 22 Sep 1996) Mark J Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote: > In Summer 1946, Philadelphia went from "3L-4N" local numbering to "2L-5N". > This wasn't simply a change of the third letter of the exchange name to a > digit. In Philadelphia in 1946, when the third "dialpull" changed from the > third letter of the exchange name to a numerical digit, the numerical was > *NOT* necessarily the corresponding number on the third letter. *MOST* of > Philadelphia's exchanges changed over using a *DIFFERENT* numerical for the > third dialpull. > There weren't many other cities in the US which had 3L-4N. Unlike > Philadelphia, most of those locations changed the third letter of most of > their exchange names to the directly corresponding numerical digit. [snip] > There is a {Bell Telephone Magazine} article documenting the changeover: > "Philadelphia Goes 2-5", by Harold S. Le Duc, volume 25 (1946), issue 3 > (Autumn '46). The article begins on page 175 of v.25 (1946). Was there any discussion in the atricle of why Philadelphia would have deliberately changed the third dial pull in the majority of exchanges? It would seem to me that this deliberately made things much more difficult for both the telco and for the subscribers. The same advertising campaign, phone books, etc. but translating the alpha to the corresponding numerical would have achieved the desired result of freeing up combinations unspellable with three consecutive letters and allowing 1 and 0 as a third dial-pull, as well as adopting a national standard. As new exchanges were created, they could have been introduced with a new name that deliberately did not match the third digit. For example, change BALdwin xxxx to BAldwin 5-xxxx (no equipment changes needed), and name the next 22x exchange CAstle. In the days of hand-soldered equipment of that vintage, the added costs and interruption in service to change the city's numbering over a brief period must have been substantial. FWIW, going to 2L-5N clearly was a move toward freeing additional number space, but even in large metro areas the use of 1 or 0 as a third dial pull didn't occur until much later than the 1940s time-frame. The justification of all-number calling on the basis of the "unspellable" 2-letter combinations, 55, 57, 95, and 97 has always been a challenge to me. KLondike is obvious and was used in 415-land for 55, and although KRemlin works for 57, it would have been politically incorrect during the cold war era. KRypton works as well. Many of the WR- words are OK for 97 but probably misspelled by a large segment of the population. One couldn't imagine the telco deliberately issuing "WRong" numbers. YPsilanti also works. The only one that is a real stumper is 95. Any takers? It was great fun to come up with outrageous but numerically equivalent "exchange names" when placing operator assisted calls in the good old days. Gone are the days of asking the operator to be connected to CHeeseburger 4-xxxx or STriptease 8-xxxx. -- Jay Hennigan jay@west.net -- WestNet: Internet service to Santa Barbara, Ventura and the world. 805-892-2133 805-289-1000 805-578-2121 "Witch parking only. Violators will be toad." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I recall, all the kids had an 'exchange name' for 382 also which was 'FU__ You-2' and although they dared not ask the operator for such a number, they would go to pay phones on the 382 exchange (which was EUclid-2 to the phone company) and carefully alter the inscription on the round number tag in the center of the rotary dial. If you recall, on the old rotary dial phones the number tag in the middle could be picked off with your fingers quite easily and then put back in place after changing the little round piece of carboard inside. Sometimes they cut a tiny 'postage stamp size' picture of a naked woman out of a sex magazine and stuck it under the clear plastic where the number of the phone would go and always with the 'number' of the phone being that outrageous 'FU__ You-2' (last four digits). The idea was that some dimwit would come along to use the pay phone and when asked by the operator 'what number are you calling from?' look up at the dial to see and blurt that out without thinking in which case the oper- ator would either hang up on him or most likely put the supervisor on the line to bawl him out for using profanity to the operator. The customer would try to explain, and the conversation would just go downhill from that point on. The kids knew every dirty word there is of course, and any pay phone with an exchange name which could be converted to something nasty matching the same letters/numbers was fair game. Eventually though, Illinois Bell began to notice a decline in the number of people who could correctly spell the more esoteric exchange names with a larger and larger volume of wrong numbers due to people who for example did not realize that EUclid was not 'UKelid' or 'YUklid'. The two-part exchange names were also a hassle as lots of people would dial 'HP' for Hyde Park instead of 'HY' or 'RP' for Rogers Park instead of 'RO'. Numbers made better sense and should have been used from the start. In 1965 my phone number was (formerly RAVenswood) 728-7425 which also spelled my first name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: 214/972 Split Observations Date: 22 Oct 1996 00:58:35 GMT Organization: Pipeline (original date was 28 Sep 1996) On Sep 26, 1996 10:24:47 in article <214/972 Split Observations>, 'Mark Tenenbaum ' wrote: > We're almost two weeks into the 214/972 split in the Dallas area and I > have a few very random PERSONAL (not company for as you can see I do > work for GTE) observations, questions and experiences to relate: > 1) As is human nature, though all media, telephone company correspondence, > etc. says to do so, I still have not re-programmed my speed dials either > at home or at work. You'll have two to three more weeks of freedom ... four at the outside, before you start running into more frequent problems. > 2) I think I recall that only new cellulars and pagers will have 972. > Now tell me this, in the future, if I am told to page someone at > XXX-XXXX, how in the heck am I going to know which area code to use? > I guess if I know the person has had the particular pager for a long > time, I'd try 214 first. I see frustration ahead ... Pagers issued from companies in downtown Dallas will still be 214. Suburban companies will be forced to use 972 for their wireless services. > 3) What are Caller ID boxes showing for cross area code calls: ten > digits with the new area code? Ten digits with the old area code? Only > seven digits? Does it even matter because you're getting the person's > name anyway? I would think that eventually CID would reflect ten digits, regardless of calling number. SBC can answer this question best ... > 4) Why is it that even though I have changed the appropriate 214s to > 972 on some fax lists that I use from my computer, I am getting the > faxes back undelivered? I changed those lists back to 214 and no > problem. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fax machines on > the other end needing to be re-programmed. Permissive dialing period lasts until the middle of next spring. While your clients might not be experiencing problems yet, by winter they'll be receiving redirection messages (maybe sooner, depending on whether or not your exchanges are among those to be duplicated). > 5) Because I am familiar with D/FW geography, I am not running into > much difficulty in knowing when to dial ten digits (in my case when I > call 214) or seven (in my case to any 972). Just in case, I have > posted a list of 214 exchanges on the bulletin board next to one of my > phones at home for possible reference. Haven't had to even look at it > yet. I can just imagine what difficulties the geographically > challenged D/FW tele-consumer is facing and certainly will face when > the permissive period ends. Not to mention the frustrations > out-of-towners will encounter. If it's a 214, and the address says "Dallas", there's an 85% chance it's staying 214 ... otherwise, it's 972. > 6) One of the most common arguments against geographic splits is that > businesses will have to have new stationery, business cards, etc. made. > Just driving around town, I've noticed that another major expense for > businesses will have to be re-painting their fleets to reflect correct > area codes on the phone number on the sides of their trucks/cars. This is being used in pro-overlay arguements nationwide. > 12) The world did not come to an end when the split occurred. Oh really? Pro-overlay people will be very upset about that rather unfortunate development ... :-) > Mark D. Tenenbaum > Plano, TX (972, at least til the next split!) Which (for 972), is not very far off ... 972 received the bulk of the exchanges as a result of the split, and will end up in jeopardy as soon as 1Q98. On Sep 27, 1996 11:21:52 in article , 'exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey)' wrote: > What is even more interesting about the 214/972 split is its apparent > lack of consistency among the two companies that serve the D/FW area > (GTE and Southwestern Bell (SBC)). Both my work and a friend's house > are in the new 972 area code. My home is in 214. If I call home from > my work (where both are SBC exchanges), I only have to dial 7 digits > (although 10 does work as well). If I call home from my friend's > house (which is a GTE exchange), I get a message informing me that > that number is no longer in service. Uneven switch reprogramming. As soon as everyone is in synch (or reprogrammed), this effect will disappear, and you will get uniform reactions when you dial from both locations. > I never really thought that the whole area-code split was going to be > too much of a problem -- but that was before I realized how much of a > mess the phone companies could make out of it. The phone companies are only *part* of the problem. This split was put off for almost EIGHTEEN monthes while SBC, local businesses, and the Texas PUC argued the issue of split versus overlay in court. Overlays won out at first (February 1996), but were almost immediately reversed by a Texas judge. The matter was finally settled by late spring, and dates set. The problems continue though, since 713 already had over 100,000 numbers assigned to 281, and Dallas' pool of available numbers had dwindled to bare minimum. If the relief had been definitively decided, and all parties had just shut up once the decision was made, it might not have been as much of a disaster as it's shaping up to be now. John Cropper, NiS / NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Inside NJ: 6o9.637.9434 Toll Free: 888.NPA.NFO2 (672.6362) Fax : 6o9.637.943o email : psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 15:23:15 PDT From: Alan Frisbie Subject: Yummy Incentive to Switch LD Carrier (original date was Fri, 11 Oct 1996) After getting the usual $50 and $100 checks for switching long distance carriers, I had to chuckle at the one I received today from Working Assets Long Distance. Their claim to fame is that they donate 1% of your charges to "socially progressive" non-profit groups. But the incentive is, in addition to 60 minutes free calling, a free pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream! It isn't much, compared to a $100 check, but it certainly got my attention. They really know one of my weak spots. :-) Alan E. Frisbie Frisbie@Flying-Disk.Com Flying Disk Systems, Inc. ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:41:11 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services (Original date was Thu, 17 Oct 1996) Bill Sohl wrote: > hh@pc012004.is.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) wrote: >> Interesting idea. Ascend and several other suppliers of ISDN equipment >> already implement something similar in their small and home office >> equipment. The devices have timeout parameters, and drop the >> connection when no traffic is passed for the specified length of >> time. ISDN connects so fast that there is no noticable delay when the >> connection is reestablihed by the user. The "D" channel is used in its >> normal fashion, with no special handling by the telco. It would be >> trival for USR, Moto, or any of the other ISDN "modem" manufacturers >> to implement this feature in their consumer products. > Remember, however, that upon reestablishing a B channel connection to > the ISP involves a new switched connection and a new login to the ISP > for that connection since there's no way the ISP can be sure that any > new switched connection being established is associated with the X25 > dialog being maintained from your ISDN station. Why not use the D-channel X.25 for user-to-internet processing and have the Internet Service Provider use the D-channel X.25 to bond with a call on the B-channel for internet-to-user? The call setup from the Internet Service Provider would not need to login, authenticate, etc, and could drop when the bits going towards the user are idle. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:01:20 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: NPA 250 (British Columbia) Just About Officially Started (Original date was Fri, 18 Oct 1996) Tomorrow (19 October 1996 as I write this) is listed as the official start date for NPA 250, which splits the British Columbia 604 code into Lower Mainland (Vancouver and area) and the rest of BC. Victoria, the provincial capital, will switch to 250, for instance. There were test numbers of (250) 372.0123 and 372.0124 listed, so I tried these last night (17th) on a few lines. Calls via the Fonorola long distance service completed to the test recording (something like "2-5-0 area code, thank you and goodbye"), but calls via AT&T Canada (ex-Unitel) met with a fast busy for either number. Hopefully my list of BC exchanges, with the new area code assignments, is still in the Archives somewhere, for those wanting to know what's going where. Other sites are available from BCTel, Rifton, Bellcore, etc. David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: FCC Listing of Carrier Code Assignments Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:22:46 -0800 Organization: The Eclectic Engineer (Original date was Fri, 18 Oct 1996) > From the FCC server: FCC RELEASES REPORT ON LONG DISTANCE CARRIER CODE ASSIGNMENTS. The FCC has released the latest available information on Carrier Identification Codes, 500 service, 555 line number assignments, toll-free 800 and 888 service, and 900 service as of June 30, 1996. CCB Contact: Katie Rangos at (202) 418-0940. Internet URL: /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/nrcc6075.txt Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry ------------------------------ From: grout@sp55.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Is This a First in Local Competition? Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:27:33 -0500 Organization: Center for Supercomputing R and D, UIUC In article jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) writes: > This is the first time I've actually heard of an existing local > telephone company reaching out to serve customers in adjacent > exchanges. I guess what particularly impressed me in this case was > this paragraph from the order: > "The Staff's comments identify this case as the first case in which a > licensed incumbent provider of basic local exchange service has filed > an application to provide service in another licensed incumbent > provider's territory. The Staff's comments also note the unique, > noncontigious configuration of the proposed Metro Exchange and the > proposed innovative rate structures." I believe there's an earlier case here in Illinois. Consolidated Communications, the incumbent LEC in the area around Mattoon, IL (its headquarters), has steadily built up a presence over a number of years here in Champaign and Urbana, IL (e.g., providing an alternative phone book to all local households, offering telephone services to business customers). This past spring, they took a next big step and began offering residential service in competition with Ameritech, our area's incumbent LEC. Since I have read that they offer better rates to residential customers who choose them as an IXC and are willing to change their phone number, it seems reasonably likely that they have actually installed switches here in town and are not just reselling local service provided by Ameritech equipment. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am surprised that Centel, which has been the local telco in Park Ridge and Des Plaines, Illinois for over a half-century (as well as having a couple of exchanges in one small area of Chicago on the northwest side of the city) has never made any plans to compete with Ameritech for local service in the majority of the Chicago area; nor has Ameritech ever made any effort that I am aware of to move into the Des Plaines/Park Ridge communities. Maybe they have a sweetheart deal with each other of some sort to not invade the other's territory. Nor has AT&T which has been busy trying to sign up Ameritech customers for their own 'local toll' service cut any deals with Centel that I am aware of. Speaking of local competition by AT&T, didn't I read in TELECOM Digest or one of those rags about a year ago that during 1996 AT&T was going to be turning up all these local switches they had ins- talled all over the USA and begin local competition *in earnest* with the local Bells? Has anyone yet seen any advertising or received any solicitation from AT&T to be their local telco other than a few of the 'intra-lata toll' things like they started in Chicago and promptly made a royal mess out of with billing, etc? Has AT&T maybe gotten less starry-eyed about local competition and decided it is not really a sure fire way to Make Money Fast? I'm just asking is all; no need for you to get touchy about it, AT&T ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #559 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Oct 22 23:57:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA24428; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:57:46 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610230357.XAA24428@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #560 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Oct 96 23:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 560 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NPA 530 Proposed Boundary Shift (John Cropper) FBI Investigating E-Mail Offers Of Child Pornography (Mike Pollock) Book Review: "Access the Internet" by Peal (Rob Slade) Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution (CIR Webmaster) FLEX Protocol Articles Needed For Research (Fred Atkinson) Material Wanted on 8th Circuit Stay of Interconnection Order (Ben Kuhn) Programming Fax/Modem (Denis Moreeuw) Questions About Spread Spectrum (mma@fox.nstn.ca) Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) (D. Richards) Re: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback (Al Niven) Re: Cable Modems (Will Kim) Re: Divestiture Not Good For Consumer? (was Re: ISP Fees) (Craig Fringer) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cropper Subject: NPA 530 Proposed Boundary Shift Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:20:43 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com From Pacific Bell FOR MORE INFORMATION: Dave Miller (916) 972-2811 dnmille@legal.pactel.com Plan Filed to Adjust New 530 Area Code Boundary Dixon, El Dorado Hills, Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant Grove Impacted San Francisco - Four communities in Northern California, previously scheduled to move into the new 530 area code next year, would remain in the 916 area code under a proposed modification plan filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. The plan, filed earlier this month by California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett on behalf of the telecommunications industry, also calls for moving the city of Dixon into the 707 area code, instead of the 530 area code as originally planned. The final decision on the proposal rests with the CPUC. Bennett said the modification plan was filed in response to concerns from residents and elected officials on the new 530 area code, which is being split off from the 916 area code on Nov. 1, 1997. None of the proposed changes would impact the price of calls, Bennett said. "Call prices are not affected by an area code change," he said. "What is a local call now would still be a local call with an area code change." Under the proposal, the following changes are requested: Dixon area residents and businesses served by prefixes 678 and 693 would move into the neighboring 707 area code on October 4, 1997. Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant Grove in Placer County and El Dorado Hills in El Dorado County would stay in the 916 area code, rather than move into the 530 area code. This modification would affect six prefixes which serve these areas: 434 and 645 (Lincoln), 663 (Newcastle), 655 (Pleasant Grove), and 933 and 939 (El Dorado Hills). Bennett, who coordinates area code relief for the California telecommunications industry, said letters requesting the Dixon move into 707 were received in August and September from Dixon Mayor Don Erickson and Skip Thompson, chairman of the Solano County Board of Supervisors. The proposal to keep Newcastle, Lincoln and Pleasant Grove in the 916 area code was supported by Lincoln Mayor Willie Preston, Lincoln City Manager Bill Malinen and Roseville Telephone Company, which serves several nearby communities. Bennett said these requests can be implemented without cutting short the life of the new 530 or 916 area codes. However, he added, not every request could be accommodated in the modification proposal. "The industry tried to balance all of the requested changes with the need to provide meaningful area code relief. Because of this, there were some areas that wanted to stay in 916, but which couldnmt be moved back in without diminishing the life of the 916 area code. As it is, the new 916 area code will only last about five years." Persons who wish to comment on the proposed changes can write to the: California Public Utilities Commission President P. Gregory Conlin 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 In his letter supporting the Dixon change, Mayor Don Erickson wrote: "It would be to the city of Dixonms advantage to be excluded from the new 530 area code and included into the existing 707 area code. We are currently the only city in Solano County that is not in area code 707. I feel this would be ideal timing for us to go to 707 since a change is imminent anyway." Bennett said the change can be made with no adverse impact to the 707 area code since Dixon has only two prefixes, 707 is not a crowded area code and the two Dixon prefixes are not currently being used in the 707 area code. On retaining Lincoln, Newcastle and Pleasant Grove in 916, Ron Miller, manager of rates and tariffs for Roseville Telephone Company, said the company filed a petition of support on Oct. 4 with the Public Utilities Commission. The three communities are a local call for much of the area served by Roseville Telephone. "The feedback wemve received indicates a strong community of interest between these areas and Roseville as well as the other south Placer County communities that will remain in the 916 area code," he said. Similar reasons were cited regarding El Dorado Hills. Although physically located in El Dorado County, El Dorado Hills has a strong community of interest with Sacramento County, Bennett said. The proposed modifications follow CPUC approval of the new 530 area code boundary in August. The new 530 area code will be created through a geographic split of the existing 916 area code and is needed to avoid running out of the phone numbers in the Northern California region currently served by the 916 area code. As planned, the new 530 area code will go into effect Nov. 1, 1997 and serve all or portions of 22 Northern California counties with more than 1 million residents and businesses. Meanwhile, 916 would be reconfigured to cover most of Sacramento County, south Placer County including the cities of Roseville, Loomis and Rocklin, and the city of West Sacramento in Yolo County. A telecommunications industry group representing more than 30 companies proposed the 916 geographic split. Residents were invited to comment at a series of public meetings in June before final CPUC approval of the new 530 area code boundary. John Cropper, NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Voice : 888.672.6362 Fax : 609.637.9430 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com URL : coming soon! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:44:34 -0700 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: FBI Investigating E-Mail Offers Of Child Pornography SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Authorities were trying Tuesday to determine whether a prankster distributed a child pornography e-mail ad to computer addresses around the world, including to San Francisco Bay area residents. The e-mail, sent Monday, apparently originated in the New York City borough of Queens from an America Online subscriber. Among the recipients were people who work for missing and abducted children's foundations and several newspaper offices. Some of the recipients were outraged. "Am I liable for prosecution?" one worried Internet newsgroup user wrote after publicly posting the letter and asking for mail from others who received the ad. San Francisco FBI spokesman Doug Perez said an arrest could be made as early as Wednesday, but he would not elaborate. FBI offices in New York, San Francisco and Baltimore were involved in the investigation. "I'm hoping this is somebody's sick idea of a prank," said New York City Officer Kevin Hui, who added that police were inundated with calls from people who received the ad. The e-mail letter asked recipients to send from $2.99 to $49.95 to "Child Fun" in exchange for child pornographic photos, videotapes and audio tapes. The letter also offered to trade or buy child pornography and emphasized "action shots" of adults having sex with young boys. Photos and tapes of girls as young as 4 and boys as young as 7 were listed. The ad also said recipients could have their faces "morphed" onto pornographic photos with children. "I am a fan of child pornography and for the past 4 years, I have been able to gather quite a collection of it. ... I send out these advertisements to this mailing list once a week," the e-mail letter said. Lee Altschuler, chief of the U.S. attorney's office in San Jose, said advertising child pornography for sale in interstate commerce is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The letter writer said the mailing list had been compiled from another list of e-mail addresses. America Online spokesman Andrew Graziani said that the fact that the e-mail had an AOL return address didn't necessarily mean it originated from AOL. ------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Poor Steve Barnard -- or whoever lives at that address -- must be completely mortified by all this. While one would expect the Usenet hen house to get in an uproar when a chicken hawk came prowling around, now even the FBI -- those damn fools! -- has been taken in by it. In their press release what they should have said was, "Attention all Usenetters! Quiet down and go back to your anarchy. Leave us alone!" Can you imagine all the police officers on Monday who were slobbering at the mouth at the very thought of breaking up this big child porn ring on the Internet? According to the NYPD, calls are still rolling in to the Vice Control section from people whose mail or news usually is slow in arriving and who just saw the item for the first time on Tuesday. This has all the potential of Make Money Fast and or Craig Shergold, where people who read the news for the first time over the next few weeks/months keep sending out flames about it and calling up their local police department, etc. And now a word for that fabulous America OnLine spokesman, Andrew Graziani quoted in the above report: Hey Andy, wake up and smell the coffee cooking. *Of course* the message originated at AOL. We are not talking about a simple 'From:' line that anyone could forge or a 'Path:' line that someone diddled with. Nor a 'Sent-By' nor the 'From ' at the very top which is hard to mess with unless you have root or trusted user status at your site. We are talking about the machine indicia in the middle of the envelope; you know, where it says received by one-machine.aol.com from another- machine.aol.com on the way out the door to whatever place handles the mail for AOL. Oh I know there are ways around that also, but that's not what happened. It was one of your Bozos alright. And Andy, hopefully the FBI/NYPD/Mothers Against Child Porn or whatever bunch of Good Citizens investigates this case will find at least some smidgen of porn at that address or reason to make a case -- you know how they hate to go away empty handed once their minds are made up -- and AOL will walk away free on the whole thing with Barnard sufficiently discredited so he has no viable claim against your employer. But Andy, we are told your employer has a fraud rate of about 20 percent on new subscribers; that he expects to get defrauded by one out of every five new members and that he factors that in to the budget. At the very least, Steve Case could deny off-site mail, Usenet news and other Internet privileges until the bank tells him the credit card or checking account used belongs to a real person who has confirmed their membership couldn't he? I mean, let them mess all over your chat rooms and forums unvalidated if you want, but please keep them away from the rest of us. Oh, and Andy, in case you were thinking the 'common carrier' argument would get AOL out of any responsibility for this -- in the event Barnard is as pure as the new fallen snow and the authorities are unable to make him a criminal no matter how hard they try -- in that event, if you think 'common carrier' is going to save you, then you best get a better attorney. As soon as you started tampering with the mail in that fight with Cyber Promotions you blew the common carrier thing right out of the water. In fact Andy, I'll bet Cyber Promotions is splitting their sides with laughter right now ... what do you think? If by some chance you do get out of this unscathed Andy, and the bad PR may be worse in the long run than any legal action against you, my recommendation is Steve Case had better start blowing his nose with a silk handkerchief. Best clean up that whole operation a lot. Your welcome. Well, now it is Wednesday, just about, so let's see if anyone gets arrested either as pornographer or messenger and bearer of false witness. We live in exciting times don't we! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:55:26 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Access the Internet" by Peal BKACCINT.RVW 960624 "Access the Internet", David Peal, 1995, 0-7821-1744-9, U$22.99 %A David Peal dpeal@ix.netcom.com %C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1995 %G 0-7821-1744-9 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$22.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com %P 349 %T "Access the Internet" This book is documentation for NetCruiser, the set of access tools for use with the Netcom Internet Service Provider. Third party docs are usually nothing to write home about, particularly when the product is ISP specific. Peal, though, has done a very good job of integrating the actual use of the net in with directions on what buttons to push. His explanations are thorough and useful, and he adds helpful tips on topics from uuencoding to netiquette, as well as interesting historical tidbits. For the majority of Internet users who *don't* use Netcom, this book will be of little interest. For those who are signed up with Netcom, you have a very handy guide specially built for you. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKACCINT.RVW 960624. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: CIR Webmaster Subject: Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution Date: 22 Oct 1996 09:31:02 -0400 Organization: Mail to Usenet Gateway [ News release reposted from http://www.cir-inc.com/news/broadbandAccess.html ] NEWS RELEASE Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. PO Box 5387 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Contact: Lawrence Gasman (804) 984-0245 (804) 984-0247 (fax) Phone: (804) 984 0245 x 11 http://www.cir-inc.com/ e-mail: ldg@cir-inc.com October 21, 1996 Narrowband Access Will Survive the Broadband Revolution Says Report $11.8 Billion in Narrowband Internet Access Forecast Charlottesville, VA--For more than a year, service providers and equipment vendors alike have been in a state of excitement about broadband access. xDSL, cable modems -- even ATM -- are said to promise a brave new world of high-speed Internet access, video-on-demand and much more. Some analysts believe that broadband access will lead content developers to build a new class of high-quality multimedia content products. But the market for narrowband access will continue to thrive according to a new report from Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. (CIR), a leading high-tech market research house based here. The new CIR report, Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis predicts that even by the year 2006, narrowband access revenues will be worth almost $80 billion. "We believe that high-speed network access is the wave of the future," says Lawrence D. Gasman, the project manager, "but don't expect the narrowband infrastructure to go away anytime soon." According to CIR, the reason for this is that there will be many applications for which narrowband access -- including POTS, ISDN, X.25 and frame relay -- will remain the most cost effective solution. For example, CIR expects the revenues from narrowband business video to grow from $1.4 billion today to $9.4 billion in 2006, while revenues from narrowband access to the Internet and online services will grow to $11.8 billion from $2.7 billion over the same period. Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis takes an applications-oriented look at the access issue. Examining both established and emerging communications markets, it analyzes where and when access technologies will be required and indicates where narrowband technologies will continue to make business sense. Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis takes a unique look at how different applications are shaping the access infrastructure of telephone companies, cable television companies and Internet service providers. It compares narrowband and broadband access technologies in both business and residential markets and examines the impact of emerging applications such as corporate intranets, the World Wide Web, videoconferencing, telemedicine and distance learning on access rates and technologies. The Table of Contents and Executive Summary for Who Needs Broadband Access? -- An Applications-Based Analysis are available at CIR's Web site (http://www.cir-inc.com). It is priced at $3,500 and provides detailed volume and value forecasts by applications and technology as well as complete descriptions of major application trends. Further details of these studies can be obtained from Robert Nolan at 617-484-2077. Communications Industry Researchers, Inc. has been in business since 1979 and publishes market studies and newsletters and carries out demanding custom market research assignments on the commercial aspects of new communications technologies. ------------------------------ From: Fred_Atkinson/SkyTel_at_SkyTelNotesPO@mtel.com Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 14:14:00 CST Subject: FLEX Protocol Articles Wanted For Research Does anyone know of any articles on FLEX (acronym for 'flexible wide area protocol') that have been printed within that last five months? I need at least two more for my term paper. The professor requires three articles that are less than six months old. FLEX is the newest protocol that is being adopted by the paging industry. Thanks for any information you can provide. Fred ------------------------------ From: Ben Kuhn Subject: Seeking Material on 8th Circuit Stay of Interconnection Order Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:54:41 -0400 Mr. Townson, The law firm I work for represents small rural telephone cooperatives. We are trying to get as much info on the recent stay handed down by the 8th Circuit. I found the article in your Telecom Digest very helpful. If you have further information regarding this issue, please forward same at your convenience to my address (bkuhn@jldavis.com). Especially helpful (since I have been unable to locate it), would be the text of the 8th Circuit' opinion. However, any other useful info would be extremely helpful, and much appreciated. Thanks, Ben Kuhn [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could some of you who have information on this forward your files to Ben? He thanks you; so do I. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:44:13 GMT From: Denis Moreeuw Subject: Programming Fax/Modem Dear Friends, I have a project in course and I need some information. I intend to program the bios of the fax/modem, not to communicate but only to capture the signals of the phone line and show on a video what is occuring. Must display all data, in and out between two machines. My idea is reprogramming the chip mounted on the board to do this task. I would like to know if it's possible and, in case of yes, how can I get the informations that I need. Must run under windows 3.xx. Any information to help me will be apreciated. Best Regards, Denis Moreeuw -----> Electronic Engineer Rio de Janeiro, Brazil denismor@mtec.com.br ------------------------------ From: mma@fox.nstn.ca Subject: Questions About Spread Spectrum Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 22:27:28 GMT Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network I am shopping around for a 900MHz cordless phone. One of the 900MHz cordless phone advertised it is using spread spectrum trchnologies. What is spread spectrum and what is its advantage over others without spread sprectrum? Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: D-Channel Access to ISP (was: Reinventing the Internet) Date: 22 Oct 1996 19:36:32 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service In article , Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: > There was a good article in the October Wired "Dataheads vs. > Bellheads". DHs believe the Internet should remain *free* or at least > unlimited (never mind that the call model that feeds the Internet is > imbalanced) The real difference is between a circuit-switched environment where you either get through or you don't, and the packet-switched internet where congestion means delays long before it results in denial of service. > and BHs like me believe the Internet will eventually come > to the same economic, usage sensitive solutions that the public > switched network has adopted. Personally, I see Internet connectivity being sold like Frame Relay service- 24x7 availability, no per-packet charge, but your monthly rate is based on both how 'wide' a pipe you have (burstable bandwidth) and the 'Committed Information Rate', or maximum guaranteed bandwidth. For example, you might have a 128Kbps link to an ISP, but you'd pay less per month if you were only 'guaranteed' 32Kbps- most of the time you'd still get the full bandwidth, but at periods of heavy load you'd run the risk of being throttled down to your CIR. > Don't get me wrong, I think it is neat that for $19.95 a month I can > call Europe any time I want with Internet Phone, I just know that ISPs > can't support this for everyone and make any money. I would think the > flat rate would need to be more like $100-200 a month for this. Actually, it's not quite that bad. We have a 'dedicated' analog account rate of $50/month, which some people say is too high, others ask us how we can offer it so cheap :-) > Do ISPs with low flat rate service make any money now, or does > investment pour in anyway based on "cash flow" like it did in the > early years of cellular when only equipment manufacturers were > making any money? There's a big difference between a 'low flat rate' on a personal account which on the average is used for a few minutes/day, and a real, dedicated account where the capacity exists to allow users to be on 24x7. The monthly recurring cost to your ISP for the phone line alone is greater than the $19.95 you're paying for 'unlimited' access ... David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased dr@ripco.com (312) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ From: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Re: Beware Callwise/Cross Coms-Advance Audio Com Callback Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:22:07 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Call Cross Communications in Encino, California and speak to Mike and he will credit your credit card. I was the Cross Com agent that signed up RJ and Joel Kaye and then all of us, our customers, the agents, etc. got SCREWED by Cross Com. They are not ugly and threatening and violent and unethical. But if you speak to Mike (an employee) and explain the situation, he might credit your card. We were promised no monthly minimums and then they changed the policy on us without warning, among other egregious problems. I don't have their phone number but you can look it up in Encino directory assistance. Good luck. ------------------------------ From: wkim@medialight.com (Will Kim) Subject: Re: Cable Modems Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 13:46:25 GMT Organization: MediaLight Inc. In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote: > ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard > copper phone lines. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something like that. :) Will Kim MediaLight Inc. wkim@medialight.com 20 Queen St W, Suite 208 416.598.3200 / 1.888.999.ADSL x222 Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 Canada World's First ADSL PC Card http://www.medialight.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In defense of Tad Cook, he is one of a couple 'press watchers' who contribute here on a regular basis with interesting items found in the print media. The item in question came from a newspaper in Florida, and I'll grant you the newspapers would do well to research things a bit better than they do. A letter to that newspaper might be in order. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer) Subject: Re: Divestiture Not Good For Consumer? (was Re: ISP Access Fees) Date: 22 Oct 1996 15:22:32 GMT Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD Having followed this thread a bit, I wanted to insert my two cents. In my mind the critical question concerning divestiture is; Public Utility or Competitive Service? I can fathom the competition in terminal equipment. Perhaps the customer's ability to choose equipment has caused innovation. The essential network, the service that the equipment attaches to, I believe, is utility. I do not look forward to competition for local dialtone. Who is going to fix the problems? Having worked in the telecommunications field, I am quite familiar with the finger pointing that already exists when a phone doesn't work. I feel it will only get worse. I have just concluded reading Peter Temin's "The Fall of the Bell System". As a result, it is my feeling that AT&T may have needed some constraint but the needs of the network and the customer were met. Now that we have a market driven service, I am not convinced that we are better off. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #560 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 11:46:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA08070; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610231546.LAA08070@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #561 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 11:46:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 561 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Matthew B. Landry) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Andrew C. Green) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Derek Balling) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Fred Farzanegan) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Mark Gabriele) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Hillary Gorman) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Craig Macbride) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Michael Ellis) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Martin Baines) Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Steve Forrette) Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US (Clarence Dold) Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (John Cropper) Re: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs (Bill Newkirk) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mbl@mail.msen.com (Matthew B. Landry) Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? Date: 22 Oct 1996 19:10:08 GMT Organization: Flunkies for the Mike Conspiracy Our Beloved Moderator wrote: > reputation for using Federal Express/Airborne/United Parcel Service to > deliver a great deal of business correspondence. Those companies were > forced to produce all the records of every letter (as opposed to larger I'd be interested to see what the warrant/subpoena for that looked like. Didn't civil liberties groups get upset at the idea that being a customer of a courier or express service gives the government the right to demand copies of all the mail you've sent? Can Americans ever FedEx safely again? Matthew Landry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone else has pointed out that the companies were tricked into producing their records with the USPS claiming they wanted to help the companies do better with mail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:00:35 -0500 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? rvirzi@gte.com (Robert A. Virzi) writes: > I came across this blurb. One can read it as a move by the USPS to move > its lucrative junk mail program to cyberspace. Note the wording, 'bulk > mailers'. -Bob Duly noted; comments below ... > The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California > companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its > expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide > a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun > and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk > mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet. Bulk mailers, not bulk emailers. I believe they're referring to a web page or some such USPS-supported service that will allow the mailer to enter specs on his proposed post office third- or fourth-class mailing such as ZIP codes to be sent to, weight per piece, etc., and get a quote in return for mailing expenses to be incurred. Nowhere does it indicate, IMHO, that the finished product, the mailing, is actually an email ad campaign. Perhaps rewording their last sentence to read "... will let bulk mailers calculate on the Internet the price of mail shipments" would have been better. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that > is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the > the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's > deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not > want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber > Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point > because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which > is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if > their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting > mail, etc.) But nothing relating to email falls under the purview of the United States Postal Service, even if we call it "mail" instead of "email". Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@dlogics.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, nothing does presently, but they know a good deal when they see one. They are going to get into delivering it also, although I doubt they would claim -- or be successful if they did claim -- to have any monopoly on it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:17:21 -0500 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? Pat wrote: > So although you now can treat junk-email with the respect and priority > handling it deserves ... if you are an ISP for example and some > clown sends out fifty gazillion pieces of identical spam **via the > postal disservice connection to the net** you WILL deliver that mail. > If a spammer emails his stuff to five-thousand-newsgroups@uunet for > another example, that spam will show up in all five thousand newsgroups > and a federal-level felony conviction is in store for whoever chooses > to tamper with the mail. To do otherwise would be the same as someone > coming up to your mailbox and taking the stuff out and walking away > with it or otherwise detroying it, etc. Here's the trick to that. You cannot just "bitbucket" the mail. What you CAN do is "Return to Sender - Not Being Reimbursed By USPS To Route" the mail. If you receive mail to someone other than yourself, your ONLY responsibility is to mark it "RTS". In fact, you can in turn say to the USPS that by not routing the mail directly to the recipient (ie. is the user joeblow@isp.com running their own SMTP server, or are they routing it through the ISP's server?) that the USPS is violating its own regulations (that they may not, knowingly, deliver mail to anyone other than the intended recipient). Just take the USPS right out of the equation. The only mail they can legally deliver to an ISP under their own charter is to the OWNER of the SMTP-server. Derek J. Balling dredd@megacity.org http://www.megacity.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:50:05 +0000 From: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. The USPS tried before in the electronic mail arena back in the late 80s. It flopped. I believe that PAT's response is a little hysterical -- the mail system that's covered by federal law is that of physical mail delivery. Electronic mail 'tampering' is not covered by any stretch of the imagination. The reason email spammers are hated is that they claim "free mailing". It is true that sending a 100K mailing list is essentially free for the sender, but costs each recipient the online time and fees associated with reading email. Junk snail mail is encouraged by the USPS (low rates), etc. because everything involved between the sender and receiver is paid for by the sender. The USPS _can't_ charge for email delivery unless they provide the email boxes as well. This may be their line of thinking as it was what they tried a decade ago. I support this kind of thing -- imagine an email account that doesn't cost you a penny to read your mail. But it costs some trivial amount to send mail. Advertisers would have to PAY to send you email which would certainly cut down on the crap. They'd also have to abide by the various mail fraud acts. It would legitimize electronic mail if they did it right. Email spammers may be prosecutable under U.S. code. If it costs the recipient money to read an ad (Fax machine), or is done by an electronic means (pre-recorded messages), it is illegal and is fined at $500 PER INSTANCE. It doesn't take a genius to see how it could apply to email. This code was written in the days of automated telephone spammers and FAX machine spammers- those demons have been slain. The next beast on the block are the e-spammers. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call; (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or ------------------------------ From: gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele) Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:59:47 GMT Organization: The RAND Corporation In article , rvirzi@gte.com (Robert A. Virzi) wrote: > POSTAL SERVICE E-MAIL PLANS > The U.S. Postal Service has signed agreements with three California > companies (Cylink, Sun and Enterprise Productivity) as part of its > expanding activities in electronic mail services. Cylink will provide > a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting messages; Sun > and Enterprise Productivity will provide software that will let bulk > mailers calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet. > (Washington Post 17 Oct 96 A21) [...long rant by moderator deleted...] No, I read this as saying that bulk mailers will be able to enter information about the type, weight, and destination of their *physical, paper mailing* into a fancy calculator that is available via the internet (probably a Web site). In another correction: The {New York Times} story on the courier vs. USPS scam that PAT cites described it somewhat differently: postal authorities contacted the companies under the guise of "can we observe your operations and help show you how the USPS can serve your needs better." The auditors showed up, watched how things worked, and reported back with an estimate of how much "first class" mail was sent by courier instead. The USPS billed the companies, who all called their congresspeople, and the charges were withdrawn. Not quite as malevolent, and thus lacking the theatrical quality of a really good urban legend, but I think it's probably a bit more accurate. Mark Gabriele / gabriele@rand.org ------------------------------ From: hillary@netaxs.com (hillary gorman) Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:48:45 -0400 Organization: Downtown branch of Dip'nStrip has moved TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > You didn't know that did you? When the US Postal Disservice becomes > involved in the net, your mailbox will become their mailbox, just as > now, the regulations state that no one can place anything in a mailbox > which does not have the proper postage. Watch how when the post office > becomes involved in the net and in email in a big way how they start > to get very heavy-handed and breathe on you. Excuse me, but that's a load of BS if you ask me (although, you weren't asking, were you? ). The mailbox we all know and love, that we all keep somewhere on our property, is property of the USPS, not private property. My network, on the other hand, is MINE. *NO ONE* can tell me that I have to recieve ANY unwanted traffic on my network. I don't think there's anything the USPS can do to change that, either. Unless my bandwidth and storage media is going to be subsidized by the USPS ... hillary http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except don't forget *who* bought that mailbox which sits in front of your house. You bought it, installed it, and then the under the law you gave it for free to the post office for the delivery of mail. USPS did not buy it and install it there or pay you to hang it on the front of your house. Neither do they pay you to walk out to the corner (or the street in front of your house, etc) to get your mail. If they don't pay for the little metal mailbox on the front of your house that they expect you to install for their exclusive use under penalty of law, what makes you think they are going to buy you a computer or pay for any bandwidth? I have always wondered about the situations where there is a slot in the front door or next to the front door and they shove the mail through that slot and it falls directly onto the floor in your home or office. I wonder if they claim exclusive rights to that little slot also? PAT] ------------------------------ From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: 22 Oct 1996 18:41:22 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes: > You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the > subscriber lives. Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on my cellular phone, that should be a local call, regardless of where either of our homes is. Given that model, it is extremely easy to allocate area codes. You just allocate a new one to a service provider when they need one, and it doesn't matter what the number is, because they are not used in any way for charging, which is according to the current location of the phone, wherever it may be. Craig Macbride URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm ------------------------------ From: s9607948@westgate.vut.edu.au (Michael Ellis) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Organization: Victoria University of Technology Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 04:52:44 GMT Phillip Ritter (RitterP@coxpcs.com) wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V16 #551 jsol@eddie.mit.edu (John Solomon) writes: >> I believe that the proper way to handle the increase in numbers >> required by Cellular Phones and Beepers is to allocate a new area >> code in each state to cover cell phones and beepers. >> This has the benefit areas who are running out of numbers, and having >> to use ten digits to place local calls. > The current state of affairs is that the FCC has ruled that there can > not be a "service specific overlay" of NPAs within the US portion of > the NANP. What effect this will have on the New York situation is > unclear at this point, but there cannot be a new overlay specific to a > given service (e.g., a "wireless only" overlay). > The reasoning is, basically, that over time the FCC desires that all > providers of telecommunications service will be allowed to compete > "head to head". This means that the IXCs and CAPs are getting ready > for competitive local exchange service, the LECs are getting ready to > provide inter-exchange service, and the CMRS carriers (wireless) will > be allowed to provide "fixed wireless local loop" services. Forcing > the CMRS providers into an overlay NPA is seen as anti-competitive > when these carriers try to compete with traditionally "wired" > services. > Whether you agree or not, it is currently the "law of the land" (well, > actually, the R&O that finalized this ruling is the subject of a > "stay" until January for other reasons, but I don't think that this > part is currently in hot dispute. Service specific overlays do not > solve the NPA split problem without adding new significant number > administration problems. Unfair unfair unfair? I don't believe it is so. We've got overlays for mobile phones in Australia and they work wonderfully. 014/015/017/018/019 are for analogue mobiles ... ie. 018 018 111. 0410/0411/0412/0414/0416/0418/0419 are for digital mobiles ... ie. 0419 588 262. Calls from mobiles are charged at off peak or peak rates, depending on the FlexiPlan, and they also have a distance component, under 175km or over 175km. Simple as that. Calls to mobiles are caller-pays (I insist it's logical), and because of the prefixes, no one get's confused. Your idea of assimilating mobiles into normal area codes etc. just doesn't work. The only way to get it to work is to charge the mobile customer airtime, and this is even more stupid. BeMike ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:11:36 +0100 Organization: Silicon Graphics Seeing this discussion regarding the idea of separating US mobile "area" codes from other codes I was surprised to see the FCC seem to be taking a very different line from the regulator here in the UK. Over here, mobiles have always been on different dialing codes and have had national coverage. This has also allowed them to always be charged differently from geographic calls -- hence charges for inbound calls on mobiles are non-existent (except when roaming outside the country). In the latest numbering proposals, OFTEL is suggesting placing mobile codes in similar number space to other non-geographic numbers, which to me seems pretty sensible. If anyone is interested, the proposals can be found at http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/num896.htm I'd be interest to hear view from people in the US. Martin Baines - Telecommunications Market Consultant Silicon Graphics, 1530 Arlington Business Park, Theale, Reading, UK, RG7 4SB email: martinb@reading.sgi.com phone: +44 118 925 7842 fax: +44 118 925 7606 vmail: +1 800 326 1020 (in USA), 0800 896020 (in UK), mailbox: 57940 URL: http://reality.sgi.com/martinb_reading/ Surf's Up at Silicon Graphics: http://www.sgi.com/International/UK/ ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:47:53 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us says: > The thing that really frosts _me_ is that they apparently can't > transport stutter dialtone control any other way than to backhaul SMDI > to every switch. Why would telco want to allow this to happen over SS7? If they did that, it might just open the doors up to a viable competitor to their unregulated voice mail offering. You see, the way it is now, having to have a leased facility to each switch for the SMDI connection, the only way to (profitably) offer voice mail with stutter dialtone is to have a substantial market penetration in the entire area, to allow you have enough customers on each switch to pay for the SMDI link. The current policy creates a convenient (for telco) "Catch-22", making it prohibitively expensive for a voice mail provider to offer stutter dialtone unless they have a large market penetration, which of course they will never get unless they already offer stutter dialtone. Another tariffing trick is the difference between "busy/no answer transfer" and "busy/no answer transfer extended." In Washington State, the first offering costs something like $.45/month for a residential line, but allows forwarding only within the same switch. The second offering does exactly the same thing, but allows forwarding outside of the switch, and costs $2.45/month for a residential line. What is the cost basis justification in the difference between these two services? None, really. In forwarded calls that leave the switch, the forwarding customer has to pay for the call, either as a toll call if it's long distance, or through message units (or higher monthly rates for unmeasured service) for local calls. Did you know that telco voice mail actually has leased circuits from the voice mail platform to each switch for all of the incoming calls to voice mail, in addition to the SMDI link? This way, the busy/no answer transfer that the "unregulated" voice mail side of telco purchases from the regulated side is the non-extended version, since the switch routes it to the voice mail platform over the leased line, instead of over the regular switched network. For any other provider to try to compete with this, they either have an enormous investment in leased ciruits to make, which will never be profitable without capturing a large percentage of the voice mail market, or they have to use the "extended" transfer, in which case the regulated services they must purchase make their "raw goods" cost again too high to compete. Add to this that busy/no answer transfer extended nor SMDI stutter dialtone were tariffed at all until immediately prior to the unregulated side of telco offering voice mail, and it's no wonder that the "competitive" unregulated side of telco has virtually the entire market of CO-based voice mail. And, all of this goes on under the ever-vigilant watchful eye of the PUC, who is told that the unregulated side of telco is playing perfectly fair, since it is doing nothing other than purchasing all regulated services at the tariffed rate, just like anyone else is able to do. Hmmm ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: Original Called Number Delivery in the US Date: 22 Oct 1996 21:55:56 GMT Organization: a2i network Bill McMullin (bill@interactive.ca) wrote: > We are trying to determine which RBOCs are currently delivering the > Original Called Number across their SS7 networks. In case you are not > clear the Original Called Number is the number first dialed in a call > which subsequently gets forwarded through Call Forwarding. We have recently been catching this. In our case, it is often a customer who has their phone forwarded to our voice mail. On the Dex switch, there is a field CL, that holds the Calling ANI, except in the case of a forwarded call, where it becomes the ANI of the original caller. The most recent addition to the chain, our customer, falls into a field PN, or Third Party Number, which is the ANI to be billed for this leg of the call. PN is usually vacant. In the case of an 800 number being used to forward the call, PN might be an 800 number, or it might be the forwarding ANI, which we then have to correlate to an 800 RingTo, for lack of any other indicator. As nearly as I can tell, this started happening the day PacBell turned on Caller ID. Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:35:59 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Joann wrote: > Recently, I had a phone installed in Silver Spring, MD, which is in > Bell Atlantic territory. When he was checking to make sure he had the > right `line (there are six pairs coming into the house, and currently > only two are in use), the lineman dialed a number for the DNIC > recording to tell from which phone number he was calling. Bell Atlantic also uses '958' in much of its service area for ANI purposes. John Cropper, NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Voice : 888.672.6362 Fax : 609.637.9430 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com URL : coming soon! ------------------------------ From: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: AT&T "Death Star" Logo Goofs Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:08:14 -0400 Organization: Rockwell Avionics/Collins Reply-To: wenewkirk@rodes.cca.rockwell.com Richard J. Kinch wrote: > The AT&T "Death Star" logo comes in two very different versions, one for > light and one for dark backgrounds. The corporate trademark compliance > document is very strict about using these properly. But you are forever > seeing the opposite logo on banners, imprinted trinkets, broadcast TV, > etc. OK, it's not unusual for a company to be jealous over their various trademarks, but what's the visual cue to know they used the wrong logo in the wrong application? Sort of like the ligatures used in the last couple of Rockwell logos, for example. Bill Newkirk (who has a bag with "the system is the solution" and the last "Bell" bell logo embossed in it that we discovered behind some furniture some years ago when rearranging the office ... no doubt left here when the old dimension system was up for replacement some two or three pbxes ago...) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #561 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 14:51:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA27780; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610231851.OAA27780@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #562 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 562 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Mark R. Wilkins) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Alan Dahl) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Gary Breuckman) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Scott Montague) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Mariana Sanchez) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Alex T. Ramos) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (Wes Leatherock) Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials (I-Contact Media) Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (Lisa Hancock) Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (grendel6@ix.net) Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Ed Kleinhample) Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Stuart Zimmerman) Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare (Herb Oxley) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:28:31 PDT From: Mark R. Wilkins Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article you write: > I did not have anything > confused at all. Here is the rule once again: > Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent > of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate > with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation; > (essentially in recievership). > Note I did not say a fifteen percent failure rate (with eighty five > percent of the students passing) I said a fifteen percent *success* > rate with not more than eighty five percent of the students unable > to reach the desired goals. "Any public school in which at least fifteen percent are unable to read and write..." That means any school with a failure rate equal to or more than fifteen percent is to be placed on probation, because at least fifteen percent of the students are unable to meet the standard. I'm afraid you have been confused by the language of the rule. Mark Wilkins ------------------------------ From: Alan Dahl Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 18:29:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials You know PAT, I have read and re-read this rule and unless I'm missing a double negative I just don't read it that way. What I *think* it says is that if more than 15% _can't_ read that the school will be placed on probation. What makes you think it says the opposite? While I suspect that the school system in Chicago is probably nothing to write home about I can't imagine that it's _that_ bad without someone, at least outside of the city, making a National issue of it. Or is Kelly Bundy more representative of the Chicago school system than I'd like to think? P.S. You misspelled "receivership" in the quote above. "i" before "e" except after "c", remember? ;-) Alan Dahl Axys Core Development Team alan.dahl@attws.com AT&T Wireless Services Phone: (206) 702-5231 P.O. Box 97060 Fax: (206) 702-5452 Kirkland, WA 98083-9760 http://www.eskimo.com/~adahl ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 03:23:08 GMT I think the person who wrote was correct, and your view not correct, on the percentages in the quote. "at least 15 percent...unable...will be placed on academic probation" means to me that 15 percent unable = probation, 20 percent unable = probation, etc. By the way, recievership should be receivership eighty five should be eighty-five twenty five should be twenty-five seventy five should be seventy-five embarassment should be embarrassment harrassment should be harassment I really enjoy the digest. I hope you don't think I'm being too picky here, but it was the topic of your article. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Scott Montague <4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:06:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials I hate to say this Pat, but I believe you are wrong. Perhaps we speak a different language up here in Canada, but if I read this correctly, it's saying any school in which MORE than 15% of students FAIL to read and write at the proper level will be placed on academic probation. Give it a re-read with my emphasis added. > Any public school in Chicago in which at LEAST fifteen percent > of the students are UNABLE to read and write at a level > commensurate with their age and grade-level will be placed on > academic probation; (essentially in recievership). Therefore, to restate, If 15% or MORE of the students of a school can NOT read and write at the level appropriate for their age, the school will be placed on academic probation. I'll promise to run this by my local English teacher if you do... :) Scott Montague / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tomorrow 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I agree that the way I phrased it was incorrect. The circumstances are however that if 15 of 100 students in the school are at the level they should be, the school is considered a success by Chicago standards. If more than 85 of the 100 students are not up to the level they should be then the school needs help. Interestingly, when this item appeared in the Chicago papers, there were people writing to the papers saying the same as yourself, 'surely you must have the figures backward ...' nope ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: sancmari@telefonica.com.ar Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 16:03:00 PDT Hello Pat and all of you reading, I have been following the great ammount of articles that have been written in the last weeks about this subject and I think that I can add some additional comments. In first place, I may say that for those of us that English is not our native tongue (and if you followed the last year publications, you must have noticed that we are an interesting quantity) it is easier to follow the ideas if we can recognize the words than if we have to start guessing what was intended to be said. To be fair, I have to say that many times it is just a question of ignorance (or "luck of information" as I have been previously told) but if you are not living in USA, you cannot follow the "last tendencies" in language (that is one of the reasons for not using contractions, all of the others are related with a very stiff education). Besides, and I know this will probably mean nothing for many of you, I think that perhaps a sociologist will help more about this than we all. This behave of changing words, lessening vocabulary, just using "common words" is not a privilege of your country, not even your language. Spanish is a very rich language, full of different words that allows you to express exactly what you want to say and not something just similar ... or it used to be like that. Generation after generation have been reducing the available expressions to a handful of them and even changing their meaning. We are witnesses of the defeat of culture. How many of you can say that have ever read a book of a writer that won the Literature Nobel Prize? Not to talk about classics. We just consume best sellers. We, as telecommunications professionals are very responsible too. We have been providing alternative enjoyment, leaving books back. You can say whatever you want about it, the only way to have good spelling, and manage a certain ammount of words is just reading and using them, and that is what we have been losing. It sounds like coming from an old old person. Well, I am not. I include myself between all that people that are putting aside culture but (at least) I still can feel guilty. Mariana Sanchez PS: All misspelling and other errors are just mistakes (there is no intention on them). ------------------------------ From: Alex T. Ramos Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 15:24:06 -0500 Organization: Lucent Technologies PAT, After reading your two responses on this, I think you're glossing over the "at least" and reading it as "less than", because your conclusion is precisely backwards. Let me attempt to prove it step by step: Would you agree that the following four phrases can be substituted as follows without a change in meaning: "Any public school in Chicago" ==> "A School" "at least fifteen percent of students" ==> "15% or more students" "unable to read and write ... age and grade-level" ==> "illiterate" "be placed on academic probation (essentially receivership)" ==> "Fail" If you agree, then please substitute for the longer phrases in your original statement: > Any public school in Chicago in which at least fifteen percent > of the students are unable to read and write at a level commensurate > with their age and grade-level will be placed on academic probation; > (essentially in recievership [sic]). Simple string substitution then yields: [A School] in which [15% or more students] are [illiterate] will [Fail]. If "U" is the universe set of schools, and "P(S)" is the percentage of students who are illiterate in a given school "S", then the set "F" of failed schools (schools in probation) is defined by F = S in U where P(S) >= 15% This leads to the following conclusions: - A school with 14% illiterate students is a success (not in F). - A school with 15% illiterate students is a failure (in F). - A school with 15% literate students (85% illiterate) is a failure. etc.. > School has 1000 students. 150 of them can read and write. The > other 850 are illiterate. The school is a success. Your conclusion is backwards. Such school has 85% unable to read and write, which is more than 15%, therefore it is a failure. You must be glossing over the "at least" and reading it as "less than", or reading the "unable to" as "able to", or something... QED. Alex T. Ramos atramos@lucent.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The report in and of itself is so shocking that the figures are quite naturally suspect. Add to that my own error in the presentation and I can easily see your point. The figures are how I meant them, regardless of how I said them. There is some concern in Chicago right now about it. In fact the entire Board of Educa- cation was fired and replaced by another bunch of cronies who will report directly to Mayor Daley. They'll see if they can do any better. All responsibility for financial matters was taken away from the Board several years ago when they went into a form of bankruptcy used by municipal and government bodies which cannot pay their bills and was turned over to the 'School Finance Authority' -- another bunch of cronies who report to the governor rather than the mayor. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 01:50:01 GMT Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials In a comment to Joe Schumacher's and John R. Ruckstuhl's posts, Pat wrote: > There are those people who say we should pay attention to the message > itself and not the way it is delivered, and that we discourage people > from presenting very valuable thoughts and ideas if we insist that > they present them in a grammatically correct way with correct spelling > and punctuation. I feel that the presentation is part of the package, > and that a carefully presented (i.e. spell-checked and > grammar-checked) message has some additional credibility to it. I only > wish I could give as much attention to this Digest as it needs, but it > has become almost an assembly-line process as the messages march past > on my screen one after another. Quality and quantity battle one another > again. Literate persons do not find that the message has been presented if it is full of this kind of errors. If the readers understand the language -- and obviously very many of us do -- "it's" and "its" are two different words, with two entirely different meanings. So are "there," "their" and "they're." And many others. So when you read them you discover you are reading gibberish because the wrongly spelled words mean something different, and with the different meaning the statement, sentence, whatever, does not make any sense whatever. It's true that you can decode it, but in the meantime your thought process has come to a screeching halt and the flow of information is broken. I've seen material that probably averages two errors a sentence, and it's almost impossible to read because you're spending all your time decoding it. Normal reading does not involve decoding; you've learned how to pass the information directly to your brain from the words. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:24:34 -0700 From: I-Contact Media Subject: Re: Typos in Lucent Television Commercials I think you still got this a little muddled; I think you wanted to say "fifteen percent or less"; not "at least fifteen percent", which would indicate the 15% success/ 85% failure rate to which you were referring. Also, receivership is "i before e except after c." Bob Ponce I-Contact Media Inc. (914) 761-4328 Interactive Phone Cards/ Web Sites/ Promotion, Marketing and Public Relations for Online Ventures/Profit Center Marketing/ Interactive Communities ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number Date: 22 Oct 1996 23:09:33 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net In the Yardley PA (215-493) 811 is "ringback", that is, you dial it, wait for a second dial tone, dial 6, flash the hookswitch, and hang up. Your phone will ring. No number information is given. This code does NOT work in other Phila area exchanges. This code works the same as "579" did years ago in the Phila area. Speaking of return call, in New Jersey, if you dial 1169, the system will tell you the number of the caller and ask you if you want to ring it back. In my area, 1169 only rings the person back. Further, NJ will ring back Penna, but Penna won't call NJ. ------------------------------ From: grendel6@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 19:53:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number Here in BA/Pennsylvania land, it's 958-2323. As far as I know, nothing else in the 958- NXX is assigned for anything. Dunno about the Conestoga Telephone and other non-BA areas. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:01:58 PDT From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: Babu Mengelepouti Subject: Re: USPS Getting Into Spam? On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I will tell you something else that > is ***bad news*** where having the US Postal Disservice involved in the > the net is concerned: There will be no more messing around by ISP's > deciding what junk-email they want to deliver and what they do not > want to deliver. For example, in AOL's case, that lawsuit by Cyber > Promotions accusing them of 'censoring' their mail would be a moot point > because under US Postal Regulations, no one can tamper with mail which > is addressed to a person other than themselves or their employer (if > their employer has assigned them the duty of opening/reading/sorting > mail, etc.) Point 1: Electronic mail is not subject to postal regulations. It would, I think, literally take an act of Congress to do so. This is a frightening prospect, because things are rarely a "new thing" for long before they become "a new thing to tax." Nonetheless, it'd be politically difficult to give an agency which is rife with inefficiency and corruption control over the entire electronic frontier when it can't even deliver snail mail properly. Point 2: As a sysop (or an ISP), my computer's mine, NOT the Postal Service's. And if I choose not to deliver its mail, that's my right. The Postal Service is welcome to endeavour to deliver its spam and whatever else DIRECTLY TO MY SUBSCRIBERS, WITHOUT me as an intermediary. Furthermore, per the ECPA I provide no facility for private communication on my system, therefore I can read whatever I want to. I choose not to, but I reserve the right. Point 3: Wind would soon be gotten of a new source of spam, and the Postal Service would soon find that it cannot easily draft legions of ISPs to assist in its efforts. They would have to resort to delivering their version of email through their own POP servers, assign email addresses to everyone, etc. Point 4: Why would anyone pay the Postal Service lots of money for something that they can do now for free? Try to take away free email from internet users and the uproar will be tremendous. It's an essentially universal service; you'd have everyone from businesses to individuals to schools and universities up in arms. There's no way you can do it "quietly" like Clinton is doing in creating a new "anti-electronic-terrorism" branch of the FBI, or the monitoring of domestic email done by the NSA. . /|\ //|\\ Welcome to the rainforest... ///|\\\ |dialtone@vcn.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: edhample@sprynet.com Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare Date: 23 Oct 1996 18:19:08 GMT Organization: K-Systems rabrody@earthlink.net (Richard Brody) writes: > Today I finally got around to installing the voice/fax software that > came with the computer (it's a new computer, took delivery last week). > The program is Cheyenne Communications' BitWare VFD for Windows. > Installation went along without a hitch. All features work fine, > connections, transfers, etc. The voice/fax/data/pager answering > system works flawlessly. I was impressed. :-) > And then came the problem. :-( > When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and > attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually > received this error from the dialer: > "The com port is either being used by another application > or is not supported." > This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself. > I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved: > "Com port is busy." Very likely, what has happened is that your Fax software (BitWare) has installed a program (possible to monitor the modem for incoming faxes) that starts as soon as Windows starts up. Look in your Windows Startup group (i.e. Program Manager group). If you don't see anything suspicious in Startup, look in the Win.Ini for a "run=" line with something suspicious. Good luck, Ed Kleinhample - Consultant Land O' Lakes, FL edhample@sprynet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:35:11 -0400 From: Stuart Zimmerman Reply-To: f_save@snet.net Organization: Fone Saver Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare In TELECOM Digest V16 #558 Richard Brody wrote: > When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and > attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually > received this error from the dialer: > "The com port is either being used by another application > or is not supported." > This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself. I have experience with several similar software packages. It appears that you need to turn off the voicemail software before you try to use your modem. The voicemail software is automatically loaded whenever you go into windows. (It is either loaded through the win.ini file or it is placed in the "STARTUP" group. Whenever you are in windows it is running, unless you shut it off. If it is running, it has "rights" to the COMM port it is assigned to, and will continually check the COMM port to see if you are getting a call. Simply turn off the program before you try to use your modem. That should solve your problem. Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f_save@snet.net ------------------------------ From: hoxley@cybercom.net (Herb Oxley) Subject: Re: Com Ports Conflict With BitWare Date: 23 Oct 1996 12:39:59 GMT Organization: Cyber Access Internet Communications, Inc. It looks like BitWare is loading a Windows driver which takes over the COM port you have configured (presumable to allow for background fax reception.) Unless there's an official way of stopping the driver, your workaround (selecting a different COM port) is probably the best way to go. > When I subsequently quit/closed the BitWare program(s) group and > attempted to run my Winsock dialer to a PPP dialup ISP, I continually > received this error from the dialer: > "The com port is either being used by another application > or is not supported." This is the tipoff to BitWare still running. > This no matter rebooting Windows as well as the computer itself. > I then tried my DOS comm program, Telemate, and recieved: > "Com port is busy." If you're getting this outside of Windows (as opposed to running Telemate from MS-DOS Prompt in Windows) Bitware may have installed a resident program in your AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS file. Herb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #562 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 16:32:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA08129; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:32:52 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610232032.QAA08129@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #563 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 16:32:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 563 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Online Market Research" by Lescher (Rob Slade) Cellular Anomalies -- Updates (Stanley Cline) Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Dave Gellerman) Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: SS7 Signalling Links (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Henry Baker) Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum (Mariana Sanchez) Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number (Ed Ellers) Re: 214/972 Split Observations (Brian Purcell) Questions About Manchester Code (Isaac Fung) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:45:45 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Online Market Research" by Lescher BKOLMRRS.RVW 960624 "Online Market Research", John F. Lescher, 1995, 0-201-48929-5, U$19.95/C$27.00 %A John F. Lescher jfl@vivamus.com %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1995 %G 0-201-48929-5 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$19.95/C$27.00 800-822-6339 Fax: 617-944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 269 %T "Online Market Research" Here is some market research for you. The latest business trend is to write a book about doing some type of business, or some business function, on the Internet. The competition is fierce, with everyone and his dog putting something into the channel. The demographics (dogs aside) tend to fall into one of two camps: business consultants and hack writers. The products are almost uniformly terrible. (See "Free Business Stuff From the Internet" [BKFRBUST.RVW], "How to Grow Your Business on the Internet" [BKHTGYBI.RVW], and "World Wide Web Marketing" [BKWWWMRK.RVW] for some singular exceptions.) Lescher's work, of course, is not confined to the Internet. In fact, aside from three chapters it concentrates on the commercial online databases. (It does not, in fact, mention the Internet's major value: that of access to potential customers and primary research.) However, there is surprisingly little information about the actual task of research. The major database firms are mentioned, and there is some description of the material available, but little after that. The "case studies" of research tend to suggest you do some, rather than giving any pointers as to how you might. An explanation of boolean logic for queries takes up a whole four pages, more than a page of which is occupied by three simplistic diagrams. Tables of query terms provide limited information on a whole two services. For any technical writers out there, some market research for free: there is a hole in the literature dealing with online business. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKOLMRRS.RVW 960624 Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | Nam tua res agitur, paries Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | cum proximus ardet. Research into Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | - For it is your User rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | business, when the wall Security Canada V7K 2G6 | next door catches fire. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Cellular Anomalies -- Updates Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:22:49 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com An update on a couple of cellular-related things I've mentioned in the Digest lately: 1) The "long distance local call" situation in Chattanooga was finally fixed. After threatening BellSouth Mobility with an FCC complaint(!) a BellSouth rep called and said the prefix was now "local" and would no longer be subject to long distance charges. They still appear to be routing calls to the area (Villanow, GA) through Sprint, but since I don't get charged, how they route calls is irrelevant. The situation with "long distance local calls" between Atlanta and=20 Newnan, GA is even worse than I thought, though: (BellSouth/ATL) ATL -> Newnan = home airtime + LD charge Newnan -> ATL = 95c/min (InterCel) + LD charge (AirTouch/ATL) ATL -> Newnan = home airtime, NO LD charge Newnan -> ATL = 35c/min (BWC/CellOne) + LD charge (even though AirTouch switches Newnan CellOne's calls!) (InterCel/Newnan) Newnan -> ATL = home airtime, NO LD charge ATL -> Newnan = 35c/min (AirTouch) or 50c/min (BellSouth),=20 LD applies for calls on both carriers. Note that BellSouth's customers must pay LD for calls either to Newnan from Atlanta, or from Newnan to Atlanta. Customers of the other carriers get a break one way or the other... Georgia is currently the only state where BellSouth doesn't have some sort of "statewide local" or at least "statewide reduced roaming"=20 rate plan -- InterCel seems to be the reason why. (A BellSouth Atlanta tech rep basically agreed with me, that InterCel was "gouging".) 2) I confirmed that call completion ("just say yes") does NOT work from US Cellular's territory (Knoxville, TN) -- as I mentioned, USCC's calls are routed through a TDS Telecom CO and not BellSouth. (I wish they'd recognize BellSouth customers and give us the call completion, since it works in the rest of Tennessee.) =20 But USCC is too stingy to do that; they have not answered any of my letters or [now] faxes about the Ocoee situation! I am filing complaints not only with the FCC, but with the Tennessee Attorney General (since USCC is providing patently misleading coverage maps, has a listing in the Copperhill area phone directory when they have no coverage there, etc.) One of their "roamer support" reps actually ENCOURAGED me to file the complaints! How dare them! Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:23:13 -0400 From: dave_gellerman@Newbridge.COM (Dave Gellerman) Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology Organization: Newbridge Networks In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Here's a thumbnail sketch of the 56K technology. Readers may find it > of value. > The proposed 56 kb/s techology is designed for ISPs or anyone who can > warrant a digital connection to the central office. The proposed scheme > calls for a standard V.34 modem connection upstream from the user to the > C.O., but the path to the ISP (or as Rockwell calls it,"central site") > must be a digital connection, typically a T1 line. Pat, I just finished reading Rockwell's white paper while traveling yesterday, and I think that you've mistated the bit about the upstream direction. I don't recall anything in the paper talking about the upstream being a standard V.34 modem connection, but rather, that the data rate being used upstream would not need to be as high (fortunately, since they didn't feel they could accurately control the symbol space in that direction). The main reason I'm sending this is to make it clear that the user must use a 56K modem in their PC, not an existing V.34 modem (unless this could be added via a firmware change -- the white paper didn't address this issue). However, they did talk about the 56K modem being able to interoperate with a conventional analog V.34 modem. Actually I would call this "amplitude shift keying" rather than 56K digital modems (but I'm not in the modem biz, so...) Clearly good digital coding is also needed to ensure sufficiently low error rates (Rockwell mentions Trellis8 but didn't get into any detail on it). Dave Gellerman dave_gellerman@newbridge.com Newbridge Networks http://www.newbridge.com Herndon VA USA 703 736-5313 ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: 56Kb/s Modem Technology Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 21:50:22 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Kevin Kadow wrote: > If you look at the math, the new 56Kbps analog modems are more > accurately 'fake digital modems'. The switch digitally samples the > line voltage 8,000 times per second -- the modem 'guesses' when the > sample is going to be taken, and puts just the right voltage on the > line to get the switch to come up with the binary value the modem > wants it to see. > Basically, this is equivalent to ISDN's 56K DOSBS, but with one end > being analog and 'tricking' the switch into producing the right binary > values. I finally gave up, but I once thought of using a similar technique of "fooling" the US gateway to pass 32-56kbps DOSBS data past the mu-law/A-law boundary. As I recall, there are over 240 of 256 PCM words that map to unique values between mu-law/A-law. I thought of sending a pattern of octets like 1, 2, 3 ... 256 to be echoed back from Europe and looking for 128 "uniques", thereby being able to encode 56kbps. If only 64 "uniques", then 48kbps, if only 32 "uniques" then 40kbps, etc. This could be done dynamically for each call during a negotiation phase after call setup, by each end of the call. My collaborator at the other end was able to make his Euro-ISDN TA answer a "voice" call as data and wrote a nifty C-program to echo back any octet received. I called his setup from an analog line once and "THIS IS VERY, this is very, INTERESTING, interesting, TO HEAR, to hear" would echo back. Some people gave me European digital loop-back numbers but these would not answer a DOSBS call. I did discover that 19,200 async would echo characters back correctly using a 64kbps clear channel, 38k4 async would be about 45% correct, 57k2 was garbage. If anyone at USR wants to consider this technique for crossing the ocean with their X2 technology, I'd be willing to look for my notes on the negotiation program I was considering. > Yes, my company is one of the dozens of ISPs in and around Chicago who > offer dialup via POTS lines (and several ISDN BRIs), but it's not _ALL_ > sour grapes :-) Do you offer a DOSBS capability? Do you get hassled by the phone company for offering this service? I notice that the BSPro is crippled and only makes 56kbps DOSBS calls, but calling within the same switch is bound to be able to support 64kbps DOSBS. Maybe phone companies only object to 64kbps DOSBS because it steals revenue for "premium" 64kbps data calls. By tolerating 56kbps DOSBS, phone companies can justify a premium for 64kbps clear channels. Thanks for explaining the analog encoding technique for X2. For those interested, see also http://www.nb.rockwell.com/mcd/56kmodem/ Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net See also, http://www.nb.rockwell.com/mcd/56kmodem/ ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: SS7 Signalling Links Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:24:57 -0700 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Eoghan wrote: > I have a question regarding the signalling links used between > exchanges for SS7 signalling. > In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to > signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling > terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between > them. SS7 is very prevalent in the US, except ours is "out-of-band" for the signaling link. Like SS6 that uses analog modems for transport of the data link, this transmission path is separate from the transmission path given to the voice circuits. The signaling link is usually only 56kbps using physical transport provided by data "lines" but the physical transport can usually support 64kbps. I bring up remote SS7 data links using dial-up ISDN BRIs requesting 64kbps clear channels, but the link still runs at 56kbps because the signaling link terminal does not have a 64,000bps option. Sometimes the other end doesn't support 64kbps clear channels or the TA is provisioned to only answer 56k requests, and I have to fall-back to a 56kbps Unrestricted data bearer channel request ISDN call. SS7 links in the US are concentrated at a Signaling Transfer Point (STP). This has the advantage of only needing to provision Global Title Transfer (GTT) routes at a concentration point, rather than at the end-nodes. Europe has 30 channel trunks, which are really 32 channels, the first one repeats a sync octet pattern, and the 17th is an "in-band" SS7 link (the link is contained within the same physical media that the voice is contained). Bit robbing T-1 signaling is becoming archaic but it has not been entirely eliminated, so when you call a rural area, your call may be routed to a bit-robbing "in-band" signaling trunk. These can also be used for 56kbps data transport which has not been entirely eliminated either. SS6 is similar to SS7 but the signaling link uses an analog modem, not a data "line", for physical transport. I don't think anyone in the US uses SS6. > I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to > connect the signalling terminals. > Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is > a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved? > Any help would be greatly appreciated.> > Ericsson Systems Expertise > Dun Laoghaire, Ireland Hope that helps. I understand that the Dutch have dedicated 5ESSes with no voice trunks to concentrate their 64kbps SS7 data links like an STP in the US. Jeffrey.Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 18:57:13 GMT In article , mma@fox.nstn.ca wrote: > I am shopping around for a 900MHz cordless phone. One of the 900MHz > cordless phone advertised it is using spread spectrum trchnologies. > What is spread spectrum and what is its advantage over others without > spread sprectrum? Spread spectrum techniques were invented around the time of World War II, by the actress Hedy Lamarr, among others, who obtained a U.S. patent for a frequency agile torpedo control system. In traditional narrow-band radios, the object of the game is to squeeze the information into the narrowest band of frequencies possible, and then utilize FCC licenses to keep everyone else from interfering with your signal. In spread-spectrum radios, however, interference is considered to be a fact of life, and the signal is intentionally spread over a much larger bandwidth with a 'spreading code' -- a pseudo-noise signal typically generated by algebraic techniques. By having the receiver synchronize with the transmitter, the receiver can generate the same pseudo-noise signal and thereby decode the transmission. (Frequency Modulation (FM) -- to the extent that it uses a bandwidth much larger than that of the signal it is carrying -- can also be considered to be a form of 'spread-spectrum' communications.) The factor by which the signal is artificially spread can be used to reduce any interference, which is almost certainly not correlated with the pseudo-noise signal. This reduction in interference is called the 'processing gain' of the spread-spectrum system. Two of the commercial uses of spread spectrum technology are GPS (Global Positioning System) and 'CDMA' (IS-95) cellular telephone technology. Although spread-spectrum cordless phones are harder to eavesdrop on to the casual listener (other 800-900 MHz phones, including FM cellular phones, can be listened to using the UHF tuners of older US TV sets), they should not be considered to be 'secure', since they use very simple codes. References: Costas, J.P. "Poisson, Shannon and the Radio Amateur". Proc. IRE, Dec., 1959. (Probably the best single paper arguing against 'narrow band' modulations.) Dixon, Robert C. "Spread Spectrum Systems, with Commercial Applications", 3rd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994, ISBN 0-471-59342-7. Torrieri, Don J. "Principles of Secure Communications Systems", 2nd Ed. Artech House, Boston, 1992, ISBN 0-89006-555-1. Viterbi, Andrew J. "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication". Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995, ISBN 0-201-63374-4. Kesteloot N4ICK, Andre, and Hutchinson K8CH, Charles L. "The ARRL Spread Spectrum Sourcebook". American Radio Relay League, 1991, ISBN 0-87259-317-7. ------------------------------ From: sancmari@telefonica.com.ar Subject: Re: Questions About Spread Spectrum Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 15:16:00 PDT mma@fox.nstn.ca (Mike) asked about spread spectrum. As far as I know, this is a tricky way (I am sorry technicians) of avoiding interference and obtaining better results in quality (noise is less noticeable) than traditional systems. It is used in digital cellular systems. There are two main technologies involved in the suject: frecuency hopping and (I have to say I do not remember the specific name in English so you will have a translated from Spanish version of it) direct assigment. Frecuency hopping: The main idea is to divide the spectrum available in k-channels. When you make a call, traditionally, you are asigned to a channel (one of all the available ones). When using spread spectrum, you use all the alternative channels in different slots of time, hopping from channel to channel during all the conversation. Advantages: if any portion of the spectrum is having too much noise, you almost cannot notice it as you are changing of frecuency continuously. Besides, if someone wants to listen to your conversation, must follow you from channel to channel; he/she must get the logical sequence of hopping (near-random sequence). Direct assigment: CDMA is based on this philosophy. You also use the whole spectrum available, providing different channels by the use of different codes instead of different frecuencies. Advantages: once again, noise is less noticeble and it is more difficult to interfere intentionally a conversation. Good luck! ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic "Return Caller's Phone Number" Number Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:24:46 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Joann writes: > The other day I had to take a trip out to a veterinarian in Manassas, VA > which, as it turns out, is not only outside of the Washington DC metro local > calling area, it is serviced by GTE of Virginia. > I asked for permission to make a local call while I was there. As it turns > out, they have a "metro" line so people can call them without paying a toll, > and this metro line isn't merely a call-forwarded number,it has an actual > dial tone. That reminds me of a photo I saw years ago in {The Courier-Journal}, accompanying a story about some rural area of Kentucky. The picture was taken at a gas station in a town on the border between South Central Bell's (now BellSouth's) and General Telephone's territory; the owner had somehow obtained a line from the "other" telco so he could call folks in that area toll-free, and on the wall he had two black phones, one Western Electric, the other Automatic Electric (GTE's former equipment division). ------------------------------ From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell) Subject: Re: 214/972 Split Observations Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:25:41 GMT Organization: Wide-Lite > The phone companies are only *part* of the problem. This split was put > off for almost EIGHTEEN monthes while SBC, local businesses, and the > Texas PUC argued the issue of split versus overlay in court. Overlays > won out at first (February 1996), but were almost immediately reversed > by a Texas judge. The matter was finally settled by late spring, and > dates set. The problems continue though, since 713 already had over > 100,000 numbers assigned to 281, and Dallas' pool of available numbers > had dwindled to bare minimum. > If the relief had been definitively decided, and all parties had just > shut up once the decision was made, it might not have been as much of > a disaster as it's shaping up to be now. I couldn't agree more. Fortunately, it appears that the TX PUC, SWB, and others involved have learned from the 713 and 214 fiascos. Approval for relief for the 210 and 817 NPAs is expected next month. Both will be geographical splits (210 will be split twice). The only real debate seemed to be who would keep the old codes (San Antonio and Ft. Worth won out repsectively; a no-brainer if you ask me.) Brian Purcell bpurcell@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ From: wkfung@vol.net (Isaac Fung) Subject: Questions About Manchester Code Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:30:41 GMT Hi all, Is Manchester II code = Differential Manchester code? Where can I find it? (Gophers or WWW) Thanks, mailto:wkfung@vol.net Isaac Fung http://www.vol.net/~wkfung ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #563 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Oct 23 17:54:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA16680; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:54:28 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610232154.RAA16680@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #564 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Oct 96 17:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 564 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 (Lisa Hancock) Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition (Bill Sohl) Re: SS7 Signalling Links (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Eduardo Kaftanski) Reference Wanted on 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) Optical Systems (Marone Giuseppe) Azimuth Online - Opinions? (Mark Edward Monnin) Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equiupment (Dana Rozycki) Screen Telephones - What Are They Good For? (Peter Bartnik) Seeking Information on Lebanon Telecom Market (Raymond Ho) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:36:12 -0700 Organization: Tulane University Jay Hennigan wrote: > Mark J Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote: >> In Summer 1946, Philadelphia went from "3L-4N" local numbering to "2L-5N". >> This wasn't simply a change of the third letter of the exchange name to a >> digit. In Philadelphia in 1946, when the third "dialpull" changed from the >> third letter of the exchange name to a numerical digit, the numerical was >> *NOT* necessarily the corresponding number on the third letter. *MOST* of >> Philadelphia's exchanges changed over using a *DIFFERENT* numerical for the >> third dialpull. > >> There weren't many other cities in the US which had 3L-4N. Unlike >> Philadelphia, most of those locations changed the third letter of most of >> their exchange names to the directly corresponding numerical digit. > [snip] >> There is a {Bell Telephone Magazine} article documenting the changeover: >> "Philadelphia Goes 2-5", by Harold S. Le Duc, volume 25 (1946), issue 3 >> (Autumn '46). The article begins on page 175 of v.25 (1946). > Was there any discussion in the atricle of why Philadelphia would have > deliberately changed the third dial pull in the majority of exchanges? > It would seem to me that this deliberately made things much more > difficult for both the telco and for the subscribers. The same > advertising campaign, phone books, etc. but translating the alpha to > the corresponding numerical would have achieved the desired result of > freeing up combinations unspellable with three consecutive letters and > allowing 1 and 0 as a third dial-pull, as well as adopting a national > standard. As new exchanges were created, they could have been > introduced with a new name that deliberately did not match the third > digit. > For example, change BALdwin xxxx to BAldwin 5-xxxx (no equipment > changes needed), and name the next 22x exchange CAstle. > In the days of hand-soldered equipment of that vintage, the added costs > and interruption in service to change the city's numbering over a brief > period must have been substantial. Not many cities in the US ever had "3L-4N" numbering. I don't think any in Canada ever did. In France, only Paris ever used 3L-4N, and I submitted an article on Paris' EXChange names as of the early 1960's when they changed the presentation of numbers to "ANC" (All-Number Calling). In the UK, the major cities which used 'director' registers in their step-by-step switches had seven dialpull numbers, all of which were presented as 3L-4N. These cities were London (01), Birmingham (021), Edinburgh in Scotland (031), Glasgow in Scotland (041), Liverpool (051), Manchester (061). I have included the old-style STD used for those cities (pre-phONEday, and also for London, pre-split of 01 to 071/081). Also note that the STD (or Area Codes) used in the UK frequently used a letter of the town: Birmingham 021 (B=2), Edinburgh 031 (E=3), etc. I know that Denmark had a dial similar, but not identical to the North American dial, and while similar, it wasn't identical to the UK or France dial. Most digits on the Denmark dial had three letters, but they weren't exactly arranged as the other countries. I don't have any old Coppenhagen directories, but I think that they too used 3L-4N numbering. In the US, only Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and New York City ever displayed their seven dialpull numbers as 3L-4N. New York City changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in late 1930, over a few weeks period. I haven't had the chance to verify old microfilms of the {New York Times} for any articles or sample advertisements to see if how the third letter changed over. i.e. did the majority of their EXChanges change the third letter to its corresponding numerical digit, or not? Boston changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in either 1947 or 1949. I have been told that in *EVERY* case, the third letter of their EXChanges mapped over exactly to the corresponding numerical digit. Chicago changed from 3L-4N to 2L-5N in the latter part of 1948. I have been told that all EXChanges mapped over their third letter to the corresponding numerical digit *EXCEPT* for about four or five central offices. There was *NO* mention in the 1946 {Bell Telephone Magazine} article as to *WHY* Philadelphia changed the third lettered dialpull to a *different* third dialpull numerical rather than the numerical which corresponded with the original third letter. My *guess* is that this would have *forced* the locals to actually *dial* the newly indicated numerical rather than out of habit try to dial the old letter for the third pull of the dial. Some locals might have tried to dial: PENnypacker-xxxx, now PEnnypacker-5-xxxx as PEN-5-xxxx, which would have translated into 736-5xxx, rather than 735-xxxx. Forcing most of the misdialed calls to a vacant code recording or intercept during the first few days, weeks or months after the cutover would have made most Philadelphians begin to *always* dial the modified exchange names and digits. > FWIW, going to 2L-5N clearly was a move toward freeing additional number > space, but even in large metro areas the use of 1 or 0 as a third dial > pull didn't occur until much later than the 1940s time-frame. > The justification of all-number calling on the basis of the > "unspellable" 2-letter combinations, 55, 57, 95, and 97 has always > been a challenge to me. KLondike is obvious and was used in 415-land > for 55, and although KRemlin works for 57, it would have been > politically incorrect during the cold war era. KRypton works as well. > Many of the WR- words are OK for 97 but probably misspelled by a large > segment of the population. One couldn't imagine the telco deliberately > issuing "WRong" numbers. YPsilanti also works. The only one that is > a real stumper is 95. Any takers? Well, it has frequently been mentioned that San Francisco had their KLondike exchange (55x), and also KLondike-5 (KL-5) was the recommended 'generic' exchange mentioned in fiction (radio, TV, movies, etc) and in 'generic' telephone advertisements. Note that KL-5 is 555 which is the exchange code frequently seen in fiction since the mid 1960's. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, when exchange names were still quite in popular use, TV/Movie fiction used KL-5 or KLondike-5. As for the other 'unpronounceable' combinations, Bell Labs and AT&T Long Lines had done numerous tests to see if it were feasable to use names formed from letters using those digit combinations. And back in the 'good-olde-dayze' of the old Bell System, Bell Labs was *QUITE* meticulous about its public testings. BTW, around the late 1950's, still during the EXchange name days of 2L-5N, New York City and other large places which needed new central office codes were beginning to get new codes of two letters plus a digit, where the first two letters were *just that* -- letters, but no 'name'. There were NNX codes indicated as something like LL-x, TT-x, PM-x, etc. I think that the 55, 57, 95, 97 blocks were also begun to be used in such large cities, using 'letters only' with no name. As for the 'third digit zero', AT&T recommended that it *NOT* be used back during the 2L-5N days, as the third dialpull of '0' (zero) could be confused with the letter 'O' ("oh"), which would have been mistakenly dialed as a '6'. Many telephone directories have had a special instruction box indicating that the letter 'O' is a '6' and *not* the digit '0' (zero), and that the letter 'I' is a '4' and *not* the digit '1' (one); and to dial 'OPERATOR' as a '0' (zero) for assistance and emergencies (police, fire, ambulance), unless '911' service was available. While a third digit of zero was rare to non existant during the 2L-5N days, it did exist in a few situations. Here in New Orleans, for about a year or two back in the late 1950's, we had a WHitehall-0 exchange. This was a temporary setup for the expanding area of New Orleans East. The step-by-step equipment for WH-0 was located in a housetrailer near a new subdivision. It homed on the older WHitehall-x stepper exchange in an older part of New Orleans. As mentioned, WHitehall-0 was only temporary, as Southern Bell (later South Cental Bell, now BellSouth) was building the *very first* #5XB exchange for New Orleans, which served the N.O. East area, CHestnut-2. Now fastforward to 1995, Bell did recently add a new 940 exchange within the other 94x, so we have a WHitehall-0 exchange again, for those of us who still refer to central offices by their old dialable 2L-5N names! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course there was no such thing as 911 in that era; so the phone books would have said nothing about it. Quite often the number for the police was (exchange)-1313 or in many cases (exchange)-2121 and the fire department was (exchange)-2131. In the event you had two communities sharing the same exchange but each had their own police department then one of them had 2121 and the other had 2161. Chicago had POLice-1313 (later PO-5-1313) and FIRe-1313 (later FI-7-1313). Police and Fire were always very short dialpulls as a rule, with repeating digits to make them easy to remember. Other 'standard' numbers included Western Union which was always (exchange)-4321 for the message-taker and (exchange)-9411 for the telephone company business office. There was an exception in Chicago where WABash-4321 went to the Western Union administrative offices (although the operator could connect you to a message-taker) and WABash-7111 which was the direct line to the message-takers). The phone book told you to dial zero in any emergency and an operator would help you, and if you wished to place a telegram from a pay phone you also had to dial zero 'and ask the operator for Western Union'. The reason was that once you had dictated the telegram, the WUTCO clerk would tell you to flash the hook to get the operator back on the line. WUTCO would then quote the charges for the telegram and the operator would have you deposit the money in the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa Jeff) Subject: Re: Philadelphia EXchanges, Circa 1946 Date: 23 Oct 1996 03:36:24 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net For reasons I'm not clear, the Philadelphia conversion seemed to intentionally change everyone's number. Perhaps they wanted to make a clean break with the past. Perhaps, to avoid customer confusion from continuing to dial 3 Letters, they wanted to enforce the change by changing everyone's number. (The newspaper the day after the change reported 25% wrong intercepts, and the phone company was pleased with that.) As much as I personally mix the exchange names, I can understand the problem with the growth of long distance calling, especially direct dialing. (Remember before the 1960s long distance was pretty expensive and used only for very urgent business.) In Philadelphia for example, we had LOmbard pronounced LUMBARD--a chance for misseplling. A real problem causer could be BAring, which was pronounced BEARING. To squeeze out names, some exchange names got pretty creative, such as SWinburne (Plainsboro NJ). Names with a Y (9) as the second letter could be mistaken for an I, such as HYatt, HYacynth. The phone company also had trouble with people switching 1 and I, and 0 and O. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They were also pretty creative here with INTerocean, BITtersweet, HOLlycourt, SUnnyside-4, NORmal, and a few others. Actually NORmal was not that much off the wall; it was located in the neighborhood of the Chicago Normal School (later known as Chicago State University). But it was a source of fun at times when people would call it abNORmal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ACTA Internet Phone Petition Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:39:19 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Jeremy Buhler wrote: > Most of the ACTA-related stuff on the VON site is rather old, but > there was one interesting item. FCC Chairman Reed Hundt composed > an address which was delivered by FCC Chief of Staff Blair Levin > at INET '96 in Montreal on June 28. The address was pretty > unambigously in favor of internet telephony. See > http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh629.txt > for the complete speech, but here's the most relevant portion: > ### BEGIN QUOTED TEXT ### > The FCC has received a petition from the America's Carriers' > Telecommunications Association asking that we restrict the sale of > "Internet phone" software, because the providers of that software do not > comply with the rules that apply to telecommunications carriers. > Similar issues are being discussed in other countries, including > Canada. We've just finished getting comments on that petition. We're > in the process of reviewing those comments now, but I would just note > that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the > Administration's telecommunications expert, has filed very thoughtful > and well-reasoned comments with us asking us to reject this petition. It would be interesting to see what the NTIA comments actually were. If anyone knows where they can be found online, please post. > I am also strongly inclined to believe that the right answer at this > time is not to place restrictions on software providers, While I'm no attorney, I really would question if the FCC or any other agency would have the power to restrict the availability of the software in any case. This is not at all a matter of national security which established the export control on encryption software, so I can't see how any restriction, if put forth, would stand up in court. Additionally, the practical aspect of stopping software availability is laughable at best and totally unenforceable because of the ease of which such software can and would be distributed anywa. > or to subject > Internet telephony to the same rules that apply to conventional > circuit-switched voice carriers. On the Internet, voice traffic is > just a particular kind of data, and imposing traditional regulatory > divisions on that data is both counterproductive and futile. Thankfully, a voice of reason and understanding. The actual reality being that there's no way to even monitor andd/or stop such traffic. > Even if > most of the FCC wasn't working around the clock on implementation of > the Telecommunications Act, I can't imagine that we would have the > time to keep track of all the bits passing over the Internet to > separate the "acceptable" data packets from the "unacceptable" voice > packets. Ditto the above. > Internet telephony may well become, in time, a competitive > alternative to traditional circuit-switched voice telephony. After > all, as the growth of the cellular industry demonstrates, people are > willing to give up a significant level of quality in exchange for > other benefits. > In the cellular case the benefit is the ability to > make a call from virtually anywhere, in the case of Internet telephony > the benefit is a vastly lower price. This is especially true, for > example, for international telephone calls. The cellular is a bad analogy because the quality was given up in exchange for the mobility of access. The only bbenefit to internet phone is cost avoidance. That'll find favor with consumers, but business users will not (IMHO) routinely abandon their quality (quality in terms of transmission and immediate availability) to save a few bucks. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: SS7 Signalling Links Date: 23 Oct 1996 16:25:50 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Eoghan wrote: > I have a question regarding the signalling links used between > exchanges for SS7 signalling. > In Europe, a speech channel (64kbps) is given over completely to > signalling (we ain't no bit-stealers) so you have a signalling > terminal in each exchange, with an unrestricted 64kbps channel between > them. > I have learned that in North America, a different system is used to > connect the signalling terminals. > Can anyone shed some light on what this mysterious connection is? Is > a separate cable run between exchanges? Are modems involved? Separately provisioned DS0 (that is, 56k or 64k) circuits are used between signalling network components (that is, SSPs a.k.a end offices, STPs a.k.a. routers, and SCPs a.k.a. database/route servers) to carry SS7 traffic. Some places these circuits are still subrate; Summa Four, for example, offers an 8-way 8kbps card that splits a single DS0 out into eight signalling links. I have no idea what physical transport for a raw 8kbps link is; they're probably always muxed up to 56k or 64k. That's actually the trick to the whole thing. Very little interoffice traffic ever moves on physical T-1 facilities these days, and I'm sure the same is the case on E-1 in Europe. Since you have to mux all this stuff together anyway, you just throw the signalling channels in somewhere and pull them out at the other end. In the case of A-links between central offices, "the other end" probably really is a V.35 connector on the SSP. In the case of links to STP or SCPs, there's really no way to tell how many physical offices the things hop through on the way to the other end. I couldn't swear that this is the way it works in Europe, but I'd be quite surpbised if it weren't. We have T1 circuits with a separate signalling channel here in North America, too, you know; we call them PRI. :-) The signalling on that channel, however, is *not* SS7; SS7 is spoken between elements of the carrier network only, and essentially obsoletes the primitive signalling facilities built into the T1 itself; this is why these days you can buy a "clear channel" DS0 from an SS7-equipped carrier, though they'll charge you extra for it. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM ------------------------------ From: ekaftan@ns.rdc.cl (Eduardo Kaftanski) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:04:13 -0300 Organization: Webhost Chile S.A. In article , Craig Macbride wrote: > Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular > phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on > my cellular phone, that should be a local call, regardless of where > either of our homes is. In Chile there is ONE (1) area code for ALL cellurar phones in the entire country (guess that makes us really small). Code is 9, so if you are dialling 09-XXX-XXXX that is a Celll phone that can be anywhere in the country. The nice part of it, is that all calls to a Cell phone are local to the caller. Called party pays long distance if they are roaming AND the call is not local. Else, its local always. I admit it, we are small. There are 4 providers of Cell service, two for the central states (the capital and the second largest city) and two for the rest of the country (15 Million people.) Two of them (the ones serving A-side on both locations) just merged in one company, so we just have now three. I have a contract with the B-side server for the central states, and B-side server for the rest of the country honors my contract and lets me keep my number when I roam and more or less my same tariffs. Eduardo Kaftanski Beeper: 7378087 Codigo 5271 ekaftan@rdc.cl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:22:10 +0100 From: Marone Giuseppe Subject: Reference Wanted on 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) Optical Systems Hello everybody, I have been asked by Telecom Italy to provide a brief survey on the installed 10 Gbit/s (STM-64) optical system. I would like to get data both about on-field trials and installed systems carrying paying traffic (if any). Could anybody provide me with some reference (www, papers, articles, etc.)? TIA, Giuseppe Marone - giuseppe.marone@cselt.stet.it Optical Networks Architectures Dept. CSELT - Centro Studi E Laboratori Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. via Reiss Romoli 274, I-10148 Torino, Italy ------------------------------ From: monnin@staff.uiuc.edu (Mark Edward Monnin) Subject: Azimuth Online - Opinions? Date: 22 Oct 1996 21:24:59 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana In August there were several posts about Azimuth Online's flat rate cellular service. Several people started to look into it to see if the service was real or a scam, however I don't think I ever saw any answers. So ... Does anyone know if the flat rate cellular service from Azimuth Online was a legit deal or a scam? Or if you know of any other flat rate cellular service that's legit, I'd like to know that too. Mark Monnin ------------------------------ From: Dana.Rozycki@octel.com Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:22:00 -0700 Subject: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equiupment Pat -- The American University theatre department here in Washington, D.C. is staging a play that has many scenes of operators working manual switchboards, featuring phones from the 40s, etc. Do you or any of your readers have any info., pictures, etc. of the old manually switched central office equipment that the theatre department could use to construct the sets? (They're real sticklers for detail.) Better yet, is anyone aware of anyplace in the D.C. area that sells (or rents) old telephones or central office switching equipment? A call to Bell Atlantic yielded nothing more than a refusal to help. Thanks very much, Dana Rozycki Octel Communications Corporation Federal Systems dana.rozycki@octel.com voice/fax:703/206-5513 ------------------------------ From: Peter Bartnik Subject: Screen Telephones - What Are They Good For? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:38:03 -0500 Organization: New Era Technologies, Inc. According to a recent announcement from the Yankee Group, there are over 500,000 screen telephones in use in the US today, and this number is expected to incease to over 10 million by 2001. Screen telephones not only display Caller ID name and number, but can also be used for other applications: directory enquiries, home banking and bill-paying, stock quotes and even email. The drivers behind screen telephone deployment are currently the regional operating companies, who benefit from a visual interface for consumers to simplify the use of switch based services like call conferencing, repeat dialling and call forwarding. But, who is using them and how, and what do users perceive as the major benefits they derive as telecommunications consumers? I'd be interested in starting a discussion about screen telephones, their potential and limitations, and how this learned group sees their role in the household of the future, both in the 40 odd percent of US households that have PCs, and the 60% that don't. Peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:39:14 HKT From: Raymond Ho Subject: Seeking Information on Lebanon Telecom Market Hi, Is there anybody who has contact or capability and interest to work on a project regarding obtaining market information on Lebanon telecom market? Raymond ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #564 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 12:48:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA29004; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610241648.MAA29004@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #565 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 12:48:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 565 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NJ ... it's a Twin Split! (John Cropper) Telecom Licences Half-Signed Amid High Drama in India (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Laser Problems [Hints] (Christopher Lusardi) Safety Hand Tools, Protective Devices (CableGuards) (Steve Drab) Tormenting Telemarketers! (Maddi Hausmann Sojourner) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Cropper Subject: NJ ... it's a Twin Split! Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:52:24 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com Hot off the press (AP): State to Split Calling Regions, Add 2 Area Codes By DAVID WILKISON The Associated Press 10/23/96 4:01 PM Eastern NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- Millions of numbers will change next year for some northern and central New Jersey telephone customers under a plan approved Wednesday by the state Board of Public Utilities to split calling regions and create two new area codes. The geographic split of the 201 and 908 area codes will create 16 million new numbers but is only a short-term solution to handle the growing demand of additional lines for computers, fax machines, pagers and cellular phones. An alternative plan the BPU rejected would have kept current numbers the same and given new area codes to new customers, requiring statewide 10-digit dialing even for calls to a next-door neighbor. "I think customers would have been led into the belief that dialing 10 digits means that `I've got to pay more,"' said BPU President Herbert Tate. "We did not want that to happen in their minds at this point in time." The board approved the change over the objections of Bell Atlantic, which now provides virtually all local phone service in the state and preferred the overlay method to keep numbers the same. "As we have said repeatedly, we believe that a geographic split is more costly and more disruptive for customers than the alternative," said Len J. Lauer, president and chief executive of Bell Atlantic-New Jersey. "`We predict the board will be faced with this decision again in a few more years, sooner than would have been the case if an overlay had been chosen," Lauer said. But Tate said regardless of which plan was chosen, the numbers would likely be exhausted within four years. The cost of the change, which Bell Atlantic places at $12 million, will not be passed on to consumers, Tate said. However, the split will mean that businesses like Lesa Essig's messenger business in Newark will have to repaint signs and delivery cars, get new stationery printed and reprogram automatic dialers, among other chores. "My entire business is run by phone," said Essig, president of Efficient Courier, told The Associated Press. "Your clients are going to try to reach you, and they're not going to remember the area code. It's going to be a hassle." The new area codes numbers won't be designated until next month. The numbers would likely become effective in May 1997 and become mandatory in November 1997 when the 201 and 908 numbers are exhausted. The decision was an important one for long-distance carriers like AT&T, MCI and Sprint, which plan to compete with Bell Atlantic next year by offering local service. Bell Atlantic has about 5 million of the 8 million numbers in the 201 area code and if the overlay had been implemented, Bell Atlantic would have had an advantage in being able to assign numbers to businesses and homes with multiple lines that wanted the same area code, opponents said. "The overlay provides a competitive advantage for the incumbent monopoly because you will have to essentially give up your number if you chose a new competitor like MCI or AT&T," said MCI spokesman Bernie Tylor. "By giving up that number, we felt consumers would not want to exercise that choice," Tylor said. Russ Mayer, director of government affairs for AT&T, said the overlay plan would have been too confusing for consumers and praised the geographic split. "In addition to being the right way to go for customers it is the right way for competition to be given the opportunity to get a toehold ... in the (local) business," Mayer said. Under the plan, about 5 million customers in the affected regions will keep their seven-digit numbers but be given new area codes. The geographic boundaries do not always follow county or municipal lines. The BPU's decision affects all the counties currently in the 201 and 908 area codes except Hunterdon and Hudson counties. Most of Bergen County was left alone. All of Monmouth, Sussex and Passaic counties and most of Essex, Morris, Middlesex, Ocean and Warren counties will be affected. Newark, the state's largest city, also will find itself with a new area code. "One would think that New Jersey's largest, premier city would not have to be put through the inconvenience, not to mention the expense," said Pam Goldstein, spokeswoman for Newark Mayor Sharpe James. "I can't even imagine what the expense is going to be." East Rutherford and 20 other municipalities will have split area codes. Officials would have the option to have one area code, but it would require some residents to change their entire number. "We have a large senior population and it's going to be confusing for them and the other residents as well," Darlene Sawicki, municipal clerk of East Rutherford, told The AP. "No one is in favor of them doing this." The other 20 municipalities that would have more than one area code are: Bernards Township; Bridgewater; Clark; Edison; Fair Lawn; Franklin Township (Somerset County); Green Brook; Kearny; Linden; Lodi; Piscataway; Ridgewood; Saddle Brook; Scotch Plains; South Plainfield; Wallington; Wanaque; Warren Township; Westfield; and Wood-Ridge. State ratepayer advocate Blossom A. Peretz said she was hopeful Bell Atlantic and the board could work together to provide "some kind of remediation" for the split communities but called the decision the correct one. "It's going to provide for entry for new local exchange competitors, which in the long run is going to bring greater advancements in technology and lower rates for the customers," she said. "It's less confusion for the customers at this time." --------------- John Cropper, NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Voice : 888.672.6362 Fax : 609.637.9430 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com URL : coming soon! ------------------------------ Subject: Telecom Licences Half-Signed Amid High Drama in India Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:21:23 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, October 23, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Telecom licences half-signed amid high drama in India October 23, 1996: It has been an eventful week for telecom in India, that began with an ultimatum to prospective telecom operators from Beni Prasad Verma, the Minister of Communications, that was much weaker than it seemed; and ends after tense midnight conferences with six firms apparently bowing to the government's demands, while in fact continuing to hold most of the cards. The Minister was addressing a surprise press conference the day before the Department of Telecommunication's (DoT) third deadline to private firms to take on their licences to run local telecom networks spanning well over half of the country, on October 18. After missing two previous dates, July 31 and September 12, because the private operators called its bluff and preferred to wait until their concerns with the terms of agreement were met, the DoT was not going to tolerate further postponement, threatened Mr Verma. However, the effect of an ultimatum was somewhat dampened with the Minister conceding, in principle, to the main demands of the private firms - who, after winning in three rounds of tenders, hold letters of intent (LoIs) from the DoT. Two of these have to do with the interconnect agreement, which is to set terms for revenue and traffic sharing between the DoT's nation-wide network and the regional networks of private operators, with whom the DoT will compete locally. Conflict between an incumbent losing its monopoly and its competitors is hardly limited to India, but the unique situation here is that the monopoly will remain under government ownership. An independent regulator is obviously required to ensure fair play, but until the proposed Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is actually constituted, the DoT acts as both plaintiff and judge. Mr Verma agreed, after repeatedly dodging the issue, that the terms of the interconnect agreement would be subject to the TRAI appeal process even if it was signed before the TRAI's creation. He also agreed, somewhat vaguely, to consider modifying parts of the agreement that specify port charges for connections to a DoT exchange from a private one. Perhaps more significant was Mr Verma's third concession, that should reduce the worries of telecom companies trying to find the money to pay for the high licence fees they bid, as well as costs of building and running their networks. He agreed to the principle of transferability for the 15-year licences, so that they can be used as collateral for loans. They will not be ideal collateral, however, as the DoT will reserve the right to evaluate, for technical and financial soundness, any prospective buyers of licences assumed by lenders if the original licensees default. Still, this is a major concession from a government that has been stonewalling the issue for several months (the bidders should have known what they were going in for, DoT Secretary M P Modi has implied in the past). Together with an independent decision from the Finance Ministry effectively permitting foreign investment of up to 73% in telecom operators last week (see next report), Mr Verma's statement could be a breakthrough. Given these positive signals, one might well have been surprised that the seven LoI holders did not sign on the dotted line on Friday and grab their 10 licences, rather than risk penalties and forfeit of their earnest money. Well, one of them is out of the running: the venture between Israel's Bezeq, Thailand's Shinawatra and India's HFCL (which failed to sell 49% of a holding company to AIG after the American insurance firm got scared by the implications of the recent telecom financial scandal) failed to extend its bank guarantees (given as earnest money) in June and has taken the DoT to court. As for the others, they hemmed and hawed, and after meetings with DoT officials which ran until just before midnight on Friday, three formally accepted the DoT's letters of intent (LoIs) to sign the licence agreement: Reliance- Nynex, Ispat-Hughes and Techno Telecom, which is promoted by India's Usha group. Their acceptance was carefully worded; like those reported today of Tata-Bell Canada and Essar-Bell Atlantic, and the one expected tomorrow from RPG-NTT, acceptance of the LoIs is far from the end of the matter, even if accompanied by further extending bank guarantees of earnest money. None of the LoI holders are likely to sign either the licence or the interconnect agreement immediately; it will take at least a few weeks to make formal and acceptable changes to the agreements based on Mr Verma's imprecise promises. The deadline, though, remains October 18 and technically the LoI holders are liable to pay penalties for the period until they sign up, properly this time. In this elaborate game of bluff and Asian face-saving (the DoT could not, of course, simply give in to private operators' demands without a simultaneous toughly worded ultimatum) the licensees-in-waiting remain a rather worried lot. On the one hand, they would like a fair, competitive environment not largely clouded with uncertainties. Rather than vague promises, they want real initiatives - Tata-Bell Canada reportedly insisted, at first, that it would only sign after the TRAI was set up - and have yet to see Mr Verma's concessions detailed in writing. On the other hand, the huge potential of India's market - under 1% of India's 900 million people have phones - may justify taking some risks, and often these appear greater than they really are. Fuzzy government policies and unclear risks are common to most fast-growing developing countries, and India has a pretty reliable (if slow) legal system - though litigation can, of course, delay thing further. As far as the TRAI is concerned, the track record of similar institutions, notably the Securities and Exchange Board of India, is quite good. Although the current TRAI Bill awaiting Parliament's clearance (which is little changed from a Presidential ordinance that lapsed without Parliamentary ratification) could do with many improvements, not least of all greater powers, the delay in setting it up need not be a big problem. The TRAI has hiccoughed along for over a year, largely due to procedural snags. Legislation is likely to pass in the coming session of Parliament, but this will start only next month. It could take six months after that to locate members for TRAI, which will have the status of a High Court. All in all, it will be well into next year before the TRAI can reasonably be expected to start operation. Even if the LoI holders sign licence and interconnect agreements (suitably modified for a stronger TRAI role) next month, they are unlikely to complete much of their networks till the third quarter of next year. Till then, they could concentrate on matters other than paying the DoT interconnect fees - such as finding the money to operate. For more information, including the full text of the TRAI ordinance, see the hypertext version of this document at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/23oct96.html The Indian Techonomist: http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) A4/204 Ekta Vihar 9 Indraprastha Extension New Delhi 110092 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: lusardi@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christopher Lusardi) Subject: Laser Problems [Hints] Date: 23 Oct 1996 21:54:26 GMT Organization: UB A profesor of mine has strongly advised me to seek help with the below problems. I'm looking for what I can get in the way of hints, etc! Thank you, Christopher Lusardi 1)An InGaAsP semiconductor laser operates around 1.3 um. The lenght of the cavity is 250 um and the index is 3.4. Determine the separation between longitudinal modes in Angstrom. 2)A 250-um long semiconductor laser operating at 1.55 um has a threshold of 20 mA. The differential quantum efficiency is 35% per facet. What is the output power per facet when biased at 30 mA? The cross-section of the beam is 2X4um. How many photons are inside of the laser cavity when it is biased at this level. 3)The same laser described above has a relaxation frequency of 3 GHz when it is biased at 30 mA. What is the relaxation frequency when biased at 40 mA? 4)A 250-um long semiconductor laser with cleaved facets has an index of 3.5. The operating wavelength is 1.3 um. What is the facet reflectivity? What is the equivalent distributed loss of the mirrors? If the internal loss is 40 cm^(-1), what is the gain coefficient needed to reach the threshold? 5)A second order Bragg reflector is used to design a single-mode semiconductor laser which operates at 1.55 um. The index is 3.4. What is the physical period of the grating? 6)A Fabry-Perot interferometer consists of two parallel mirrors. It can be used as a narrow linewidth filter. If the mirror reflectivity is 90%, what is the ratio between the maximum and minimum transmission coefficients? If the interferometer is 5 cm long, what is the spacing between adjacent transmission peaks? How about 2.5 cm? Can you think of a design using multiple fiber sections of different lenghts so that there is one 5-GHz transmission peak every 100 GHz? 7)The transient turn-on of a semiconductor laser is similar to an electronic circuit with R, L, and C components. Design an RLC circuit so that under the excitation of a step voltage, the output voltage has a 5-GHz damped relaxation oscillation with a decay time of 1.5 nsec. Can you think of a circuit which even has a turn-on delay of 1 nsec in addition to the relaxation oscillation? Verify your design by performing the integration over time. Show the output voltage as a function of time. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, this is not the Homework Hotline, which is a telephone service of the Chicago Public Library. In this one case, here are your questions in case anyone can help you, but you you should really do your own homework in the future. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:52:01 -0500 From: Steve Drab <31mile@31mile.com> Reply-To: 31mile@31mile.com Organization: 31 Mile Equipment Company Subject: Safety Hand Tools, Protective Devices (CableGuards) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve Drab raises an important subject in this next message which we do not cover a lot in the Digest, and that is the safe handling of high voltage equipment and wires. In addition, he has agreed to help sponsor this Digest on a temporary basis for a month or two, and a link has been established on the web page that you might get better aquainted with his products. I hope you will stop in to say hello to him and thank him for his support of the Digest. Look for him at http://www.31mile.com - And while there, check out the page with the lightning bolt; it takes a minute or so to load the page, but it is a very interesting graphic. PAT] ------------------ Most people these days are concerned about safety and getting the job done more quickly; the following two items may be of interest and solve some problems. OSHA - "Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices" - 29CFR 1910.331-.335 "The regulation requires qualified persons, that are working on or near exposed energized parts (50 volts to ground or more) where contact might occur, to wear rubber insulating gloves or use other insulating materials in addition to using insulated tools where the tool might make contact with the energized parts." The complete article can be read at my web site for those who may have interest. In the telecommunications industry, voltage isn't the only problem; with the use of battery backup systems there is a great risk of encountering high amperage. A dropped or misplaced tool could potentially cause great damage and serious injuries. If anyone is interested in the tools that are available, please check out the insulated hand catalog contained at my web site. I would also like to mention that we make custom insulated tools for any special application or requirements. The other item that merits mentioning is cable protection. Many times cable is left exposed in temporary or emergency situations. Placing that cable out of the way can mean placing the cable overhead or underground(both methods relatively time consuming). An alternative to these methods is a product called CableGuards. CableGuards are a portable interconncting way of providing protection against physical damage, as well as reducing the possibility of tripping incidents. OSHA 1926.403(j)(2)(i)(ii) "If equipment is exposed to physical damage from vehicular traffic, guards shall be provided to prevent such damage)" There is a catalog section on Cableguards at my website for anyone to check out. Hope this is helpful. Contact me if you have any questions; I'll try to help. Steve Drab 31 Mile Equipment Company http://www.31mile.com mailto:31mile@31mile.com ------------------------------ From: Maddi Hausmann Sojourner Subject: Tormenting Telemarketers! Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 21:23:39 +0000 Organization: General Magic, Inc. I recently posted on the limitations of Caller ID as implemented by Pac Bell. Our biggest disappointment with the service was that many phone calls were tagged "OUT OF AREA" rather than giving a phone number. In particular, banks of phones behind switchboards or in a Centrex are marked that way, which covers most of those pesky telemarketers that make our lives so miserable. We've found a way to work around that which others with Caller ID may also wish to use. When we get calls marked OUT OF AREA, especially at the prime telemarketer time (6-8 pm), we now answer the phone "KDNA, you're on the air!" Usually the telemarketer will be a bit befuddled, and ask for one of us by name. We will repeat that we are a radio station, that the caller is on the air, and is, in fact, the twenty-fifth caller. Here's a dialog with one telemarketer who bit real hard: Me: (seeing OUT OF AREA on Caller ID, using bouncy DJ voice) KDNA, you're on the air! Telemarketer: May I speak to Mad-uh-LEEN So...So...So-johr-NOHR? M: This is KDNA, and you are ON THE AIR! You've just won your choice of a new Ford Explorer or $25,000 in cash!!! T: I have? M: You certainly have. T: Oh my god! M: Happy? Which will it be, the Explorer or the money? T: I don't know! Let me get my supervisor! M: You don't need your supervisor, it's your prize. Are you calling us from work? T: Yes I am. (background voices) My boss says to take the money. M: The money! So you listen to KDNA while you're working? T: I didn't even know we were calling you! M: Well, where are you calling us from? T: M: My, my! I guess you can't pick us up all the way out there! So what's your name? T: Sherry. M: Sherry, tell us here on KDNA what kind of music you like. T: I'm so nervous I can't even think! Nothing like this has ever happened to me! M: Sherry, if you like the kind of music that we play here on KDNA, we'll play one just for you! T: But I wouldn't be able to hear it. Where's your radio station, anyway? M: We're broadcasting out of Silicon Valley, California, at 106.6 FM. [obviously telemarketer isn't smart enough to know FM stations don't end in even decimals.] T: This is just so great! M: Sherry, how old are you? T: I'm 20. M: And what do you do? T: I'm a business student at . M: What will you do with the money, Sherry? Start a business? T: Oh, I just don't know! M: I thought you said you were at work, Sherry. T: I am. This is to help pay for college. M: What's your job? T: I'm a telemarketer. M: You're a WHAT? T: I'm a telemarketer. I call people up and ask them if they want to buy M: Oh, that's too bad. T: Why? M: Because we here at KDNA think telemarketers are the lowest scum on earth, and I don't think we can give this prize to a telemarketer. You folks are always interrupting people during dinner and I think that's rotten. So I don't think you should win. T: But that's not fair! M: Hey, it's my radio show, I get to make the rules. T: But you can't do that! M: I sure can, I'm giving this prize to the next caller. Meanwhile, I suggest you quit your job. Today. We apologize if there is a radio station actually named KDNA. We picked it both for its closeness to our daughter's name, Diana, and because it shows our disdain for certain folks stuck in the shallow end of the gene pool. Maddi Hausmann Sojourner madhaus@genmagic.com General Magic, Inc. in beautiful Sunnyvale, CA 94088 USA If you like this address you will also like madhaus@netcom.com Visit my daughter's web page at http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~ds/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry Maddi, I don't think it was funny. In fact, it was a bit hateful. I am not suggesting that telemarketers are my favorite people, but I think you pushed it a bit far. Put yourself in the position of a very young person going to college and paying for it with a part time job that they may very well not like any more than you like their calls. Also you should note that there are many people in telemarketing work because a physical handicap prevents them from doing other work. They may be for example visually impaired or confined to a wheel chair, etc. That does not of necessity put them on the shallow end of the gene pool; it does mean they are ambitious enough -- like the young lady who called you -- to want to survive on their own in the world and accomplish something. If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier feelings any. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #565 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 13:54:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA07906; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:54:15 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610241754.NAA07906@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #566 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 13:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 566 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Seven Busted in California Recovery Room (Tad Cook) Interesting Chattanooga Phone History (Stanley Cline) Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen (grendel6@ix.netcom.com) Possible NXX Lottery in CA (John Cropper) Extra Expensive 809/Caribbean Calls (Mark J. Cuccia) CFP: Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia (Rosh John Joseph) 904 ... Here We Go Again! (John Cropper) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Seven Busted in California Recovery Room Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:28:17 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Seven Arrested in Brea, Calif., Crackdown on Telemarketing Fraud By Ronald Campbell, The Orange County Register, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News BREA, Calif.--Oct. 24--Federal agents have arrested seven people for running a "recovery room," milking money from victims of earlier telephone scams. Nortay Consultants of Brea allegedly took nearly $500,000 in "retainers" from 1,100 people to help them recover money they had lost previously. Nortay paid only $11,000 to its customers, according to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court Tuesday. The seven Nortay arrests were part of a crackdown on telemarketing fraud. Federal agents arrested six others and raided five businesses in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties. Nortay owners Norman Hefferan and Lori Blitz brought to the business extensive experience in telemarketing plus a more tangible asset -- a list of customers from their past ventures, according to an affidavit signed by FBI Special Agent Nora C. Collas. Nortay telemarketers claimed to be "investigators" from the "fraud division" of Nortay, which they described as an "advocacy company." They offered to recover money from those "pesky promotional and telemarketing companies" for a refundable retainer plus 25 percent of what they recovered. Nortay claimed a 96-percent success rate. Most of Nortay's customers were elderly, according to the affidavit. One of them, 87-year-old Leon Adams, paid Nortay $8,175 to get his money back. The Monticello, Utah, resident visited Nortay three times. When he left, the affidavit says, staffers called him "Elmer Fudd." According to the FBI affidavit, Hefferan dipped into customer accounts to pay restitution to the Orange County Probation Department for an earlier conviction of telemarketing fraud. Those arrested, in addition to Hefferan and Blitz, were Jerry Pierre Ste. Marie, Dennis Choquette, Chris Hall, Harold Larsen and Jacob Giffin. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Interesting Chattanooga Phone History Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 01:53:13 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com While at the Chattanooga library looking for some other things, I stumbled upon a collection of old *telephone books* for the Chattanooga area (as well as many other areas of Tennessee.) I was surprised to see some of the things I saw, such as: * In the oldest book available (1958) DDD was available to *some* exchanges, but not all. The 398 half of Trenton was a local call back then (as was the Collegedale area). Calls were dialed as 2L + 5N; there were some party lines (particularly in the CAnal-9 -> UN-6 -> 866 office, which is the one that now serves my home.) To reach a long distance operator, one would dial "110"; for intra-NPA LD calls, one would dial (I think) *only* the seven digit (2L + 5N) number. (I used to have a city directory from the *1940s* -- at that time, Chattanooga used four- and five-digit numbers. For example, 7-xxxx (my grandmother's number for many years) became AM7-xxxx, then 267-xxxx. (When she moved about eight years ago, the number was not reassigned to another customer for over FIVE YEARS!) A frequently-mentioned area near Chattanooga (the Copperhill area) apparently had their own version of "911" in place well before 911 was the real number; in their (very slim) directory it listed "for emergencies dial 274 (or some similar number). At that time, Copperhill (now 423-496, no B-side cellular service!) used three- and four-digit numbers, with no DDD available (although an area code map was given, and callers were urged to give the LD operator the area code.) In that directory, party lines were listed as "325-J" or similar (three numerals, followed by a letter, always the first letter corresponding to a number (A,D,G,J,M,P,T,W -- they had *eight-party* lines there!) * With the 2L + 5N dialing, between 1958 and 1961 (the '59 and '60 books are missing) Chattanooga made some major changes in phone numbers. For example, the Rossville exchange (now a #5E, 706-866) used to be known as the "CAnal-9" exchange...by 1961, it had been changed to "UN-6" (no word representation was given.) So all the numbers in CA9 (229) were moved to 866! Other exchanges, such as the MAdison and AN(word?) offices, didn't have their numbers changed. On the front of the phone books, it said "start using these listings on [directory effective date] -- DO NOT DIAL FROM MEMORY." The Trenton 398 area used EX-8 as their prefix; the Soddy-Daisy (Bell) and Collegedale (Collegedale Telephone, now Century Telephone) were already using seven-numbers dialing (332 for Soddy-Daisy, and 396 for Collegedale.) The Ringgold, GA area went local to Chattanooga in about 1963 (no more areas became local to Chattanooga until the 1970s, when part of Chickamauga, GA became local, then no more additional local calling until the EAS explosion in the past few years.) * Bell used "standard" names for exchanges, although in a couple of cases, I can figure out another, *regionally related* name for the exchange: 62x - Bell "MAdison" - me "MCCallie" (McCallie School, from which Pat Robertson and Ted Turner graduated, is just about next door to the CO.) 89x - Bell "TW"something - me "TYner" (Tyner is a neighborhood in that CO's area.) 82x - Bell "VA"something - me "VAlley" (CO serves Lookout Valley, as well as Lookout Mountain.) (I can't figure out anything for the other COs, including the main "AM" CO. It could be that the names are just coincidences, but it's weird nonetheless.) A couple of Walker County Telephone Co.'s (now ALLTEL's) COs used the town name for the CO name (KEnsington for 539, and NOble for 764); I have no idea what was used for 638 [LaFayette] and 397 [Villanow.] * Rates for long distance calls were extremely high (compared to today) -- one of the directories quoted a rate of about $9 (~1960 dollars) for a 3-min, daytime call to Anchorage, Alaska, and $12 for a call to points in the Caribbean. Calls within the US averaged 35-50c/min, depending on DDD availability, distance, time of day, etc. (No mention was made of the pricing of "short-haul" calls -- for example, from Chattanooga to Dalton or Cleveland or Copperhill, or even to Atlanta.) Ah, how far the phone network has come in less than 40 years ... about 12 prefixes back in '58, and nearing 50 (not counting EAS calling) today...calls much cheaper now (usually) than then, better reliability, wireless phones that work (almost) everywhere, etc. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:32:19 -0700 From: grendel6@ix.netcom.com Subject: Getting Someone at the Telco to Listen In issue 559, Jack [better late than never :-)] said... > I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better > procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about > something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you > almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President > than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem > and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service). > But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with > Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby > Bells" as well. Your story reminds me of an experience that I had about thirteen years ago, when I was still a data communications tech/programmer/strange problem repair person at a major online data communications company in southern NJ. We had a pool of four NYC FX lines (originally five, but at some time in the far past, the last of the five was disconnected) coming in to our PBX. They hadn't been used much for several years, and when I added them into our LD routing tables so that outgoing calls to 212/718 would try to route onto the FX's first, then the WATS lines, then regular toll. The first FX was numbered 212-NXX-5714, and we had -5715, -5716 and -5717. It developed that when all four FX's were busy, incoming callers would get an intercept stating that "212-NXX-5718" the (old) FIFTH FX had been disconnected, instead of a busy signal. I called NYNEX repair (611 on the FX), and was politely referred to the Camden (NJ) test board, through which office our FX's were routed. When I *insisted* to the 611 clerk that the problem was in NYC, she said that she'd refer it to a technician. Two hours later, I got a call from Tom (or Dick, or Harry; I forget his real name) who said he was calling from the CO in New York to look at my problem. He had me make -5717 busy on our demarc, and then called -5718. He got the intercept, asked me if that was the problem, and then said "...hmmm, looks like you're ISG-ing...." What THAT means, I don't know, but he asked me to hold on a second, went off the line, and came back and said "try it now." It worked fine, of course. Amazing what happens when you get to talk to the right person. He said the same thing's true from his end; "... it doesn't work ..." isn't much of a trouble ticket. Bill ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Possible NXX Lottery in CA Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:15:23 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com From The CA PUC: CPUC APPROVES PREFIX LOTTERY IF CONSERVATION MEASURES FAIL The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved today a lottery system to be used to distribute new telephone number prefixes to telecommunications companies serving customers in the 310, 415 and 619 area codes if conservation measures fail to avert a shortage of prefixes within those area codes. In June, Pacific Bell, the State Code Administrator (SCA) declared a temporary freeze on prefix assignments to carriers serving these area codes because of impending number shortages. New telecommunications technologies and competition for local exchange service have increased telephone number use and new area codes must be introduced statewide to meet that demand. The SCA generally follows standard industry guidelines which are intended to assign codes in an efficient manner. Because of concerns that prefixes in the 310 area code may be used up before a new area code can be introduced, in June the Commission adopted more restrictive conservation measures for assigning prefixes. The Commission is also considering whether similar restrictions should be applied to other area codes. The additional conservation measures the Commission imposed on the 310 area code include: all carriers - cellular, paging, personal communications services, local telecommunications companies and local competitors - must return or confirm that they have unused numbers; disconnected telephone numbers will be reused after two months for residential service and nine months for businesses; and all prefixes, including those that are the same as nearby area codes, will be used. Today's order directs the SCA to report to the CPUC whether conservation measures specified last June will be sufficient to ensure number availability in those area codes or if rationing by means of a lottery is necessary. Since the freeze was declared, Pacific has been meeting with industry representatives to devise additional voluntary conservation measures that would extend the life of prefixes in these area codes. If the voluntary measures are not sufficient, a lottery will be conducted to determine which carriers get the remaining codes within these three area codes. At a later date, the Commission may decide to extend the lottery to other area codes facing similar number shortages. To mitigate risks that new entrants to the telecommunications industry may be denied any prefixes, the lottery would reserve 60 percent of the prefixes for carriers who are new in the area and the rest to carriers that want to expand business in an area. However, to avoid denying new service to customers, priority will be given to a carrier which is the only service provider in a community and has run out of numbers for that area. Area code 310 has 53 new prefixes left and they must last until the area is split in October 1997. Because numbers may run out before the area code split is completed, the Commission ordered the SCA to evaluate the feasibility of splitting the 310 area sooner. The 415 code has 120 new prefixes left which must last until May 1998. The 619 code has 57 to last until December 1997. There are 792 prefixes in an area code, 10,000 numbers in a prefix. John Cropper, NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Voice : 888.672.6362 Fax : 609.637.9430 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com URL : coming soon! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:26:35 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Extra Expensive 809/Caribbean Calls There has recently been a discussion regarding 'extra expensive' charges (over and above the expected tariffed international rate) on calls to certain NXX exchanges or seven-digit numbers in the Caribbean (NPA 809 and the new split ones down there). I have called the AT&T operator to see if some of these 809-NXX codes or new Caribbean NPA-NXX codes have a valid 'nameplace' and also to inquire about the rates. They *do* have a valid nameplace, and a standard international Caribbean rate. Incidently, many Caribbean islands do have *internal* 976-xxxx numbers, but 976 and similar type local PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call NXX exchanges are blocked from inward access from outside of the local area. Regarding extra-expensive charges to the Caribbean, here is what 'could' be happening: Similar to the 'pay-per-call' chargeback 800/888 numbers (toll-free???), the called party in the Caribbean gets the caller's number via a realtime ANI hookup. I don't know if SS7 Caller-ID type of number delivery works yet on inbound calls to 809 and the new Caribbean NPA's, except for maybe calls to Puerto Rico and the USVI, as these are *US* locations and fall under FCC jurisdiction, probably including interstate Caller-ID and other SS7 CLASS features. You get your 'standard' but rather high ( >$1.00-per-min.) international Caribbean charges via your primary toll carrier, via whatever billing procedures you normally have, either on a separate long-distance company bill, or via a page(s) for that LD company with your monthly local telco billing. But THEN, you get a bill from some sleaze billing company, most likely via a separate page(s) associated with your local telco, for 'voicemail' charges or 'paging' charges or 'conference call' charges. The 'bill' claims you 'ordered' such 'services' from some unknown sleazeball company, and at rates of something like $50.00 or $100.00 or whatever. Since your telephone number was delivered via realtime ANI to the called sleazeball sex company, they can prepare such 'bogus' charges and route it thru some billing consolidation third-party entities which have billing/collection contracts with most/all LEC's in the USA. Sometimes, they will even say that you did dial an 809 (or new Caribbean NPA) number, even though you were already billed for the tariffed international Caribbean toll charges via your LD company. As for the charges for bogus 'conference calls', I've been told that there is NO indication of the telephone numbers included in the so-called 'conference', nor the connection time, nor any other detail that a legit carrier would indicate in billings for conference calls. You simply get 'Conference Call' made at 3:00 am on such-and-such-a-date, at a cost of US$75.00. MAYBE it says that there were twenty parties and that you were connected for fifteen minutes, but no numbers of the conferees. This is similar to the 800/888 chargeable numbers. Back in 1984, some of them were even indicating on their extra page(s) with your local telco bill that you were being charged for dialing an '800' number. Customers began to complain (and RIGHTFULLY SO) to telco, FCC, state reg, consumer advocacy groups, media, etc. Most telcos which did the end-billing began to drop such billing if the AMA/RAO tapes had charges which specifically indicated charges for calling an 800 number, and the FCC began to issue some orders or the like to prohibit or limit such practices of the sleazeball companies. To get around that, the sleazeball companies began to 'make up' bogus 'services' to indicate on the bill, such as described above (conference call, voicemail, paging, etc), when they got (realtime) ANI from someone dialing their sex/astrology/horoscope/psychic/etc. 800 (and now 888) numbers. I would think that the *same* thing is probably happening with 809 (and new Caribean NPA's), however they can 'slip by' more easily since the sleazeball billing entity could show the actual 809/Carib. NPA again, since unlike 800/888, it is not a toll-free NPA. On another similar related note: Remember about six years ago ... there was a pay-per-call scam or rather a scam which billed to your telephone bill which was referred to as 'collect 900'? You'd get a call from a recording telling you that you'd won a prize or something, but had to pay a processing fee. The processing fee would be charged to your telephone bill (via a billing entity). If you WANTED the gift(?) and agreed to the processing charges, just press '1'. If you did NOT want the 'gift' (gift?), just press '2'. If you hung up, you didn't press '2'. If you had a pulsedial or rotary phone, you didn't press '2'. If you didn't speak English and couldn't comprehend the instructions, you didn't press '2'. Could an answering machine 'press 2'? Could a modem? What about little children at home, or elderly/handicapped people getting such calls? Even if you did press '2' to REJECT, were you certain FOR SURE that you really DID reject that call/gift(?)/charges? The FCC did do some investigations on it and there are prohibitions on such. Due to the divested environment we are in now, such scams and sleaze billing practices will continue to slip thru the cracks! :( 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: Rosh John Joseph Subject: CFP: Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 18:21:53 +0100 Organization: Aspex Microsystem Ltd. Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Geneva, Switzerland - Tuesday, April 1, 1997 Call for Participation The Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia will be held in Geneva, Switzerland on April 1, 1997. The workshop is part of the 11th International Parallel Processing Symposium (IPPS '97) which is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Parallel Processing and is held in cooperation with ACM SIGARCH. In the recent years multimedia technology has emerged as a key technology, mainly, because of its ability to represent information in disparate forms as a bit-stream. This enables, everything from text to video and sound to be stored, processed and delivered in digital form. A great part of the current research community effort has emphasized the delivery of the data as an important issue of multimedia technology. However, the creation, processing and management of multimedia forms are the issues most likely to dominate the scientific interest in the long run. The focus of the activity will be how multimedia technology deals with information, which is in general task-dependent and is extracted from data in a particular context by exercising knowledge. The desire to deal with information from forms such as video, text and sound will result in a data explosion. This [requirement to store, process and manage large data sets] naturally leads to the consideration of programmable parallel processing systems as strong candidates in supporting and enabling multimedia technology. The workshop aims to act as a platform where topics related, but not limited, to: * parallel architectures for multimedia * mapping multimedia applications to parallel architectures * system interfaces and programming tools to support multimedia applications on parallel processing systems * multimedia content creation, processing and management using parallel architectures * parallel processing architectures of multimedia set-top boxes * multimedia agent technology and parallel processing * `proof of concept' implementations and case studies. Workshop plans include a keynote address, submitted papers, and a panel discussion. Submitting Papers & Publication Details Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original unpublished research and recent developments in the topics related to the workshop. The language of the workshop is English. All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed. Submissions should be in uuencoded, gzipped, postscript form and e-mailed to Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk. In cases where electronic submission is not possible, send 4 copies to the Workshop Organiser. Manuscripts must be received by October 30, 1996. The manuscript should not exceed 15 double-spaced (i.e. point size 12), single-sided A4 size page, with a 250-word abstract. The corresponding author is requested to include in the cover letter: 1. complete postal address 2. e-mail address 3. phone number 4. fax number 5. key phrases that characterize the paper's topic. Receipt of submissions will be promptly acknowledged by e-mail. Notification of review decisions will be e-mailed by January 10, 1996. Camera-ready papers will be due by February 20, 1997. A book of the accepted papers will be available at the Workshop. In addition, the accepted papers will be appearing in a planned special issue of the Journal of Parallel Computing. Workshop Organiser Argy Krikelis Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom Tel: + 44 1895 274000, ext: 2763 Fax: + 44 1895 258728 E-mail: Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk Programme Committee V. Michael Bove Jr. MIT Media Lab. Shih-Fu Chang, Columbia University Edward J. Delp, Purdue University Ophir Frieder, George Mason University Martin Goebel, GMD, Germany Argy Krikelis, Aspex Microsystems Ltd., UK Tosiyasu L. Kunii, The University of Aizu, Japan Yoshiyasu Takefuji, Keio University, Japan & Case Western Reserve University Registration: This workshop is being held as part of IPPS. The usual IEEE Computer Society guidelines apply wrt registration; the workshop is open to IPPS registrants and separate registration for the workshop is not needed. Information about IPPS can be obtained over the Web at the following URL: http://cuiwww.unige.ch/~ipps97 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 904 ... Here We Go Again! Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:26:59 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: psyber@mindspring.com In early September, BellSouth filed with the FL PSC for intervention in relieving the rapidly growing 904 area code. Despite a split in late '95 (a 65-35 split at that), and projections that 904 would late until 2000, action is sorely needed. Last Thursday the PSC decided to consider open hearings on the matter, to be scheduled at an upcoming meeting of the board. As usual, BellSouth *wants* to overlay, but will present a split option. The following is a list of dates and times for discussion of NPA 904 relief plans: FAW NOTICE OF 11/4/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Pensacola City Hall City Council Chambers 1st Floor in Pensacola. FAW NOTICE OF 11/5/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Panama City Hall, Commission Room, in Panama City. FAW NOTICE OF 11/7/96 service hearing at 6:30 p.m., Rm 148, Betty Easley Conference Center, 4075 Esplanade Way, in Tallahassee. FAW notice of service hearing to be held 11/13/96 in Daytona Beach. Specific location and time not available at time of posting. John Cropper, NexComm PO Box 277 Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 Voice : 888.672.6362 Fax : 609.637.9430 mailto:psyber@mindspring.com URL : coming soon! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #566 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 16:31:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA26065; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:31:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610242031.QAA26065@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #567 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 16:31:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 567 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division (Stanley Cline) Western Union = New Valley Corp? (Stan Schwartz) New *XX Service Code? (Stan Schwartz) Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (Ernie Holling) Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? (R. Van Valkenburgh) Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe) (Arnold Brod) Re: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" (Wes Leatherock) Re: AOL, Microsoft Network Mull Flat Rates (Doug Sewell) Two New NPAs For New Jersey (Tad Cook) Re: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equipment (Craig A. Fringer) Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 (Steve Forrette) Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Zev Rubenstein) Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted (Ken Jongsma) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Beepers and Area Code Division Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:33:24 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) wrote: > johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) writes: >> You want cellular numbers to be local to the city where the >> subscriber lives. > Why even do that? Why not make them local to wherever the cellular > phone currently is? If I'm standing 10 feet from you and call you on I think that a mix of the two ideas (number based on subscriber's home base, and number based on caller's location) would be the most logical. In most cellular systems, this would mean that a cellular phone would be a local call from *anywhere in that cellular system's territory*, instead of persons calling to the cellular having to pay LD charges. For example, the Atlanta BellSouth Mobility local coverage area covers at least 45 counties in Georgia. Calls FROM cellphones to anywhere in the 45 counties are local, but inbound calls are local ONLY from the area where the cellular's number is based (*unless* one knows how to use roamer access numbers.) Example: Dalton, GA customer of BellSouth can call TO Atlanta (and Toccoa, etc. but not Newnan :^( ) without LD charges, but persons in Atlanta calling the cellular customer (whether they're in Dalton, Atlanta, or Toccoa) must a) pay intraLATA LD to call the Dalton number "POP", or b) use the Atlanta roamer access number then enter the Dalton number. (This doesn't take into account inter-carrier or inter-switch roaming situations, which are much more complex.) Why not set up a central pool of numbers that's local from anywhere in the 45 counties? My opinion: BellSouth (and the many teensy independent LECs in north Georgia) don't want to see that one-way LD revenue go away. (Sort of like the argument surrounding local calling between Trenton, GA and Chattanooga. In fact, ANY call to a cellular phone from Trenton is LD, even though cellular customers can call TO Trenton without LD charges! This is one of the Georgia PSC's arguments against Trenton Telephone, that they have denied cellular carriers the opportunity to establish "POP"s in Trenton.) (In reality, it is possible to expand local inward calling somewhat with BellSouth/Atlanta by establishing a number in the Adairsville "POP" [770-773, etc.] which is local to Rome, Calhoun, and the Extended Atlanta Metro calling area. This still doesn't address Dalton or northeast Georgia.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Western Union = New Valley Corp? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:38:56 -0400 This is from the FCC Daily Digest of 10/18/96: THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. TRT :TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND FTC COMMUNICATIONS, INC - CORRECTED. Ordered IDB Worldcom Services, Inc. the successor in interest to TRT Telecommunications Corporation and FTC Communications, Inc., to pay New Valley Corporation (formerly Western Union Telegraph Company) certain amounts, insofar as undisputed, for which the Commission previously determined they were liable. Action by the FCC. Adopted: October 10, 1996. by MO&O. (FCC No. 96-410). CCB Internet URL: /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/index.html ---------------------- For how long has Western Union been "New Valley Corporation"? I don't remember seeing that mentioned in the "History of..." special issues of TD a few months back. Notice they specify "Western Union Telegraph Company" in the header, so there's no mistaking it for the defunct long distance company. Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'New Valley' has been around for a couple of years, maybe three. It is the remains of what was left after Western Union filed bankruptcy and after much of the old company was picked apart and sold off. I think New Valley is mostly into the money transfer side of the old business. New Valley bought the rights from the Bankruptcy Court to use the 'Western Union' name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: New *XX Service Code? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:45:25 -0400 My local telephone company, BellSouth, has informed me that I can now use *47 to activate "Variable Ring No Answer" at no additional charge, since I'm also using their "Memory Call" voice mail service. In my 5ESS central office, I am supposed to dial *47 and I receive a second dial tone. Then, I am supposed to enter the NUMBER OF SECONDS that I would like the phone to ring before it gets pulled over to voice mail. They tell users to allow six seconds for each ring. In the digital offices, the number entered after the second dial tone is the NUMBER OF RINGS that I would want to hear before the call gets pulled. While this makes it easier for the average user, the option I was given allows me to program "oddball" cycles of 3.5 rings (21 seconds). Stan ------------------------------ From: Ernie Holling Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:52:21 GMT Organization: The InTech Group Tom, Keith is on the right track. It sounds as though you are looking into switched rates. You should be able to probe the T-1 rates. What type of PBX do you have? Is it T-1 equipped? If you'd like a local consultant, I be happy to refer you to someone who is not in the LD business themselves. Ernie Holling holling@intech-group.com The InTech Group, Inc. 610-524-8400 75 East Uwchlan Avenue 610-524-8440 (Fax) Exton, Pa 19341 The Society of Telecommunications Consultants Eastern Technology Council BISCI ------------------------------ From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two-Year Contract? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:46:45 GMT Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net My crystal ball is on the fritz, so I can't help you with the future except to say that some people think that long distance rates will approach local rates before settling down. Another issue you don't mention that I think is important is that most of the contracts insist on a minimum usage. I have found that the carriers often try to keep the minimum at the level you are currently using (or above). This means that you must keep up your consumption AND even increase it if rates go down -- else you'll be paying a penalty in addition to your "discount". Many large companies seem to insist that the minimum requirement be no larger than 85% of their current usage. Good luck on what ever you decide. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:54:33 EDT From: Arnold Brod Subject: Re: Would You Sign a Two Year Contract? (Maybe) I initially responded to this post to Tom's private e-mail because I was doing some solicitation and did not want to do it in an open forum. He told me that T1 service would not be practical because he has 2 sites and 80 some lines. This may or may not be a correct analysis. But my question is this. I think that his volume should generate more competition for his business and would not require a term committment. I would think that the local marketplace would be the place to look for service providers. I only say this because I represent several resellers on the East Coast and one can provide 9.9cpm with no contract on as little as $400 per month in volume. And one niche provider that can bypass high intrastate rates. Now nationally, these resellers cannot compete with the product that Tom was quoted. So what about the local market Tom? Arnold Brod TeleCom Associates TeleCom@cris.com http://spring-board.com/one/telecom/tele.htm ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:25:32 GMT Subject: Cellular and "Discrimination on Class of Service" Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > I got my phone bill today, and it had one item that caught my eye. I > have a friend in Texas who has actually replaced his POTS line with a > cellphone, for various reasons having mostly to do with local calling > areas. He actually lives in Denton, but the cellphone number is in > the 214-507 prefix, which is rated as "Grand Prairie" (GRANDPRARI, in > telco abbrevspeak). This caught my eye, because I had earlier > verified that the 214-507 prefix will not be moving to the new 972 > area code; I had assumed that this meant that it was designated a > "Dallas" exchange. > I thus did a little digging, and of the 179 exchanges I found that are > designated "Grand Prairie," 43 are moving into 972, but the other 136 > are staying in 214. The division does not seem to be geographic -- as > far as I know, Grand Prairie is not subdivided (a la San Francisco 1, > 2, and 3), but is only a single rate center. There would not seem to be any reason a single rate center should not be divided between two (or more) area codes. There are multiple wire centers in Grand Prairie, and while it may be a little unusual now to have a rate center split between area codes, there will probably more in the future. After all, the billing equipment both before and after the split still has to do a lookup on all six digits to rate the call and to determine what rate center name to print on the bill, so this does not seem a major issue. Of course, that does not address your question as to whether cellular numbers are getting special consideration. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@origins.bbs.uoknor.edu ------------------------------ From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) Subject: Re: AOL, Microsoft Network Mull Flat Rates Date: 23 Oct 1996 10:58:57 -0400 Organization: Youngstown State University Thus spake Tad Cook : > AOL, Microsoft Mull Flat Rates for Internet Access Via AP Dow Jones > News Service > VIENNA, Va. (Dow Jones News) -- America Online Inc. and Microsoft > Corp. are considering charging their users flat rates for unlimited > Internet access, a move that could spark a new round of price > competition in the on-line industry. > AOL, the nation's largest on-line service, is testing an offer to its > more than six million customers of one flat monthly fee, the company > said Monday. Two months ago I switched to AOL's value plan ($19.95/20 hours, extra hours at $2.95) but it was still too expensive. In addition, all kinds of mail-spammers got hold of my AOL screen name, every day I'd toss two to four junk e-mails. So, yesterday I called AOL customer service to cancel my account. They were *very* intent on keeping my business -- they offered me 50 free hours plus waiving next month's $19.95 fee ... they suggested their GNN as an alternative if it was internet use that was costing so much (it wasn't -- and GNN's just one fish in a big pond of ISP's around here) ... and I had to play 20 questions to get them to close the account. Yes, there are a few features I'd miss ... but I can get them elsewhere. Doug Sewell (doug@cc.ysu.edu) (http://cc.ysu.edu/~doug/) ------------------------------ Subject: Two New NPAs for New Jersey Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:31:47 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Jersey to Create Two New Area Codes By Michael L. Rozansky, The Philadelphia Inquirer Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Oct. 24--New Jersey officials Wednesday jumped into the emotional battle over how to create new telephone area codes, choosing to slice the North and Central Jersey area codes into smaller geographic sections. Voting 2-0, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities opted for geographic splits instead of "overlay" codes which would have fitted atop the existing 201 North Jersey and 908 Central Jersey area codes. With an overlay, phone numbers would be assigned from the old area code until it was exhausted. Then, new numbers would be in the new (still-unnamed) code. It could have meant that two phone lines in a home could have different area codes. Herbert H. Tate Jr., president of the New Jersey board, said of a geographic split: "We felt it would be less intrusive and less confusing for customers." With an overlay system, he said, everyone would have to dial 10 digits -- the area code plus the number -- for all calls, even those within one area code. Tate said a geographic split would be fairer to competitors entering the local phone business. Using an overlay, competitors would have to assign their customers phone numbers in the new area code, while Bell Atlantic would keep its huge customer base in the older, more familiar area code. Tate said he didn't know whether that logic would hold when the board takes up the question of how to divide South Jersey's 609 area code. Wednesday's decision highlights the confusion over the best way to resolve the phone-number crunch created by soaring demand for cellular phones, pagers, fax machines, second home lines and computer modems. In June, Pennsylvania regulators decided to create a new area code for the Pittsburgh 412 area by using the opposite method, an overlay code, saying that it was "the least inconvenient." Pennsylvania regulators are fighting a federal mandate that everyone in an overlay area code use 10-digit dialing. They want Bell Atlantic customers to be able to continue to use 7-digits dialing, which Bell's competitors say would be unfair. Bell Atlantic Corp. has favored the overlay method, saying it wouldn't force anyone to change their current area codes. But competitors such as AT&T and MCI, which are entering the local-phone business, say that a traditional geographic split is less confusing. "Obviously, we wanted something better for New Jersey," Bell Atlantic spokesman Tim Ireland said. "We didn't think, of the two plans, that this one was convenient, cost-effective, forward-looking." AT&T spokesman Dan Lawler said: "Hopefully, it's certainly a positive for consumers as far as we're concerned." The splits approved Wednesday would cut through nine towns in the 201 area and 12 towns in the 908 area. The 201 area would encompass the eastern parts of Bergen and Hudson counties; the rest of 201 would be assigned to the new area code. The north and west parts of 908 would retain that number, while Shore communities like Long Branch would get a new number. The 201 area is expected to run out of numbers next July, and 908 will run out in a year, according to Bell Atlantic. ------------------------------ From: fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer) Subject: Re: Designs of Old Manual Switch Phone Equipment Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:11:45 GMT Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD Dana.Rozycki@octel.com wrote: > The American University theatre department here in Washington, > D.C. is staging a play that has many scenes of operators working > manual switchboards, featuring phones from the 40s, etc. From a Scene Designers standpoint, "A History of Science and Engineering in the Bell System" is a great series of books published by Bell Labs. Volumes 1 ("The Early Years") and 2 ("Switching Technology, 1925 - 1975") would be of interest to the purpose. A great number of photographs depict the types of equipment you seek, especially in Volume 1. I was able to find these in the university library where I work. Additionally, Phoneco Inc. in Wisconsin specializes in antiques and collectibles. The number I have for them is 608-582-4124. It has been a few years since I called them so the number may not be good. I have, however, heard their name in the past year, so here is the address: Phoneco Inc. PO Box 70 Galesville WI 54630 Hope this helps. Craig ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Pac Bell Now REQUIRES Pause After *70 Date: 22 Oct 1996 17:20:36 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.com says: > I just made a curious discovery. Up until very recently, when I dialed > *70 for cancel call waiting, I got stutter dialtone but could dial right > through it without any problems. Just this week, though, I noticed that > when I dial *70, I get two short bursts of what sounds like stutter BUSY > tone, then return to steady dialtone. Furthermore, if I don't pause and > wait for the regular dialtone, my call is not completed correctly. > I don't know what > central office or model of switch serves this line (shameful to admit, I > know ;->). Does this reflect some recent "upgrade" on the telco switch? The symptoms you describe (stuttering after *70 sounding like a busy signal and the inability to dial while the switch is stuttering) are indicative of a Northern Telecom DMS-100 switch. My guess would be that you used to be on a 1AESS, and PacBell decided to upgrade from an analog to a digital switch. BTW, AT&T's (Lucent's?) 5ESS digital swtich behaves the same way as the 1A switch respect to *70. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: zev@wireless.att.com Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 13:48:23 -0400 Jerry wrote: > I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech > 900 MHz digital cordless phones. I have not been happy with the quality of the 5 VTech phones I have gone through. The older model I had (nearly 4 years ago) I had to return twice till I got one that worked. Once it did, it had outstanding range (I lived in Manhattan and could go down a concrete stairwell on the other side of my floor and out the front door and around the corner and would only experience some slight dropouts). However, the quality of the voice (the microphone on the handset) is just OK, and the buttons on both the base and especially the handset would ignore being pressed or double-tone, depending on how they felt. By comparison, my Panasonic analog cordless that is about 7 years old has no such problems. I recently spent about $65 plus postage to have the original unit replaced (they replace the older ones instead of repairing them). I was sent the 960 NDX, which worked fine for a while, except for a clicking noise which happened continuously. Then the buttons went on that one and the range suddenly dropped to about 30 feet. I sent that one back (under warranty) and it was replaced by a 900 NDX. It seems to have great range, but the clicking is really VERY annoying on this one, and it would lose numbers stored in the memory. VTech is sending me a fed-x sticker to send this one back with and it will be replaced with a new unit of the same model. The customer service rep said that the clicking is caused by the unit performing frequency hopping -- can anyone out there confirm if that makes sense? A few months ago in the Digest someone did a survey of owners of 900 MHz cordless phones -- you might want to search for it and see what the other comments were. Finally, three years ago when I was still happy with my original VTech, I recommended it to two friends who purchased their own, and they were both happy with their original units and as far as I know haven't had any problems. Zev Rubenstein Nationwide Telecommunications Resources zev@ntr-usa.com ------------------------------ From: kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: Re: VTech Phones Information Wanted Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 15:13:03 GMT Organization: Honeywell, Inc. - DAS wrenstar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jerry W. Lee) wrote: > I was wondering if anybody out there have had any experience with VTech > 900 MHz digital cordless phones. I'm thinking of getting one through my > company, but the only problem is that I more or less have to pay for it > and won't get a chance to try it out before then. Vtech makes a rather extensive line of 900Mhz phones, including some private label models for other companies like AT&T. I have one that I'm reasonably happy with, the 900NDL. My only criticism would be that the handset volume is just a bit low, even at it's highest setting. Some have commented that the phone also cuts out at very low levels. I.e., if the person your are speaking with is talking very softly, it can be difficult to understand. While I have noticed the effect, it hasn't been a problem. Be careful that you get one of the digital models. Vtech has recently started selling a low end model (~$99) that is analog. Anyone with a cheap scanner can listen in on that model. Ken Jongsma kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com Honeywell Defense Avionics Systems, Albuquerque, NM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #567 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Oct 24 19:56:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA19978; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:56:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199610242356.TAA19978@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #568 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Oct 96 19:56:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 568 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Larry Schwarcz) Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Hillary Gorman) Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Cable Modems (tgreen@gte.net) Re: Cable Modems (Bill Sohl) Re: Cable Modems (Michael Wengler) Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local ISP? (R. Van Valkenburgh) Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey (Linc Madison) Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud) (Leonard Erickson) Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan (telcorp@worldnet.att.net) Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet (Bill Sohl) Re: Prison Telephone Revenues (Michael Wengler) NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service (Mike Pollock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* --- additionally --- ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from ** NTR ** * * Nationwide Telecommunications Resources, a nationwide resource for * * contract services, job placement and executive recruitment. If you * * are looking for a job or to fill a position: Fax resumes/requests to * * 510-673-0953; email resumes/requests to tech@ntr-usa.com; or call us * * at 510-673-9066. Watch this space for our website URL. * * NTR specializes in providing the highest quality engineers and * * IT professionals to the Telecom Industry * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! Date: Thu, 24 Oct 96 13:11:40 -0700 From: Larry Schwarcz Pat, > If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just > hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that > several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach > one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier > feelings any. PAT] Hanging up just stops that one call. They could very well call you back the next night or next week. When I get those calls, I quickly interrupt their sales pitch and just say, "No thanks, and please remove this number from your list." By law, if you ask, the can't call again (if they care about the law). Seems to work. Most of the telemarketing calls I get are actually for someone else. They When I say that the person they're looking for doesn't live here, they then try to sell to me. But, after doing this now for many years, it seems as though the frequency of them is decreasing. Of course, your milage may vary :-). Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 ------------------------------ From: hillary@netaxs.com (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 22:00:37 -0400 Organization: the bottom of the bit bucket > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just > hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that > several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach > one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier > feelings any. PAT] Sorry to burst your bubble ... I used to do cold calling for my university. "hi, this is Hillary from the CAL Keeping the Promise Campaign!" We were under direct orders to start by asking the callees for 3% of their annual income every year for 3 years. You can imagine the many hangups we got. Not only did it in fact, hurt our feelings, but we also got NEGATIVE "points" for every hangup our supervisor noticed. We had to fill out a form for each call which listed the reason for the premature termination of the call (eg, during dinner, person felt sick, person claims to have no money, etc.) If we put "callee hung up" it was WORSE than if the person simply said "no thanks, I'm broke" and then hung up. Not to mention it makes you feel really small when someone just hangs up on you. Luckily, after a couple of weeks, I was able to pay my rent that month and I quit, figuring I had three more weeks to find a better job (and I knew I could always go back if i had to.) hillary gorman http://www.hillary.net info@hillary.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you, as Maddi suggested, consider yourself on the shallow end of the gene pool? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Tormenting Telemarketers! Date: 23 Oct 1996 20:05:16 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , PAT wrote: > If you don't like dealing with telemarketers, do what I do: just > hang up the receiver. They expect that sort of response; that > several dozen or a hundred people will hang up before they reach > one person who will talk to them, so you won't be hurting thier > feelings any. PAT] I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree. The fact that telemarketers don't reach a live customer with each call is a signficant flaw in their business model both socially and economically. It's a flaw socially because it means that they harass us, the general public, by calling us to yammer about things we have no interest whatsoever in buying; this is an interruption and quite irritating; some would call it an invasion of privacy. I personally don't have inbound telephone service at home because I discovered quite quickly after moving to Chicago that telemarketing is far more prevalent in the Midwest than on the East Coast, and I very much don't care for it. It's an economic flaw because if their operators can't quickly distinguish between a "live one" and someone who's yanking their chain, it drops the transactions per hour figure for each operator substantially and raises costs. If you don't like telemarketing as I don't, I heartily encourage you to raise the business costs of telemarketing firms by keeping their operators on the line as long as possible. They annoy you, although what they do is technically legal; why shouldn't you annoy them, since that's legal, too? Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've no objection with raising their business costs, increasing their phone bills as a result, etc. I strongly also believe in discouraging telemarketers -- as an organ- ization -- but not personally insulting some twenty year old kid who is doing it because s/he is desparate to pay college expenses and rent, etc. You can stall them all you want, ask a million questions, make it a very difficult call for them; but you don't have to get personal with the person making the call by referring to them as the shallow end of the gene pool or a 'droid' or 'scum' or whatever; at least not in their presence. Most of them are no different than Hillary as per the message before this one: they are trying to pay their rent and survive in the world. I am sure for example Hillary does not consider herself 'scum', either now or back then. My main complaint with Maddi was not in expressing a dislike for those organizations but in taking some poor naive kid and playing a cruel trick like that. It is the same kind of objection I have to shows like 'America's Funniest Home Videos' and 'Candid Camera'. People are entitled to have their private thoughts and desires left alone and not exploited so someone else can have a laugh. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tgreen@gte.net Subject: Re: Cable Modems Date: 24 Oct 1996 19:36:05 GMT Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service In article , wkim@medialight.com (Will Kim) wrote: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad > Cook) wrote: >> ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard >> copper phone lines. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something > like that. :) Uhh, considering that this is being posted at 128kbps via ISDN over a "standard" copper local loop, why would you say that? Tom Green ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: Cable Modems Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:46:13 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises wkim@medialight.com (Will Kim) wrote: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad > Cook) wrote: >> ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard >> copper phone lines. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something > like that. :) The statement is essentially correct. An ISDN line uses standard a copper pair from the ISDN phone to the central office line card. That distance is up to 18Kft and can be extended with a digital repeater. The 128K of throughput is attainable by dialing up a bonded connection (i.e. 2 B channels or 64K each). Using compression, it is possible to attain an actual throughput rate that even exceeds the 128Kb/sec. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Michael Wengler Subject: Re: Cable Modems Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:25:20 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA Will Kim wrote: > In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad > Cook) wrote: > > ISDN provides connections up to 128,000 bits per second using standard > > copper phone lines. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You might want to do some more research on ISDN before publishing something > like that. :) All hail the cryptic correction! However, I thought that: 1) ISDN ran over standard local loop, except with more restrictions on bridges, splices &c. That is, a relatively unmunged local loop could carry ISDN without modification, but a munged local loop might need to be unmunged to carry IDSN. 2) ISDN is nominally either 56 or 64 kbits/sec DUPLEX, but that the line could be switched so both data channels carried in the same direction to carry a big monodirectional transfer, doubling the rates up to 28 kbits. So what then was the error, or more to the educational point, what is the actual situation? Perhaps in the future corrections can actually carry the correct data, or at least what the corrector thinks is the correct data? Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net (R. Van Valkenburgh) Subject: Re: Followup: GTE Blocking Calls to Local Interner Service Provider? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:46:48 GMT Organization: auburn.campus.MCI.net Reply-To: vanvalk@auburn.campus.MCI.net jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) wrote: > I do wish that all phone companies (not just GTE) had better > procedures for handling "unusual" complaints. If you call about > something that turns out to be a programming error in the switch, you > almost stand a better chance of getting an audience with the President > than getting to talk to someone who actually understands the problem > and can do something about it (especially if you call Repair Service). > But that is not just a GTE problem, I've had similar problems with > Ameritech in the past and I'm sure it happens at the other "baby > Bells" as well. I agree (that it may be easier to get an audience with the President rather than talk to someone at the local telco who understands the switch) ... Here in BellSouth land our company began having problems soon after another large company in the area got a number of new lines from BellSouth. Don't know under what circumstances it was caused, but many of the DID calls to our company were being dispatched to their company. I complained and complained and complained, but all they would ever do is ask what number was being called and what number was being reached and then report that they could find nothing wrong. Eventually after my incessant complaining the problem that couldn't be found disappeared. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Two New NPAs for New Jersey Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:23:12 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications One quote in this article especially caught my eye: In article , tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) wrote: > New Jersey to Create Two New Area Codes > By Michael L. Rozansky, The Philadelphia Inquirer > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News > [discussion of split vs. overlay in NJ and PA, etc.] > AT&T spokesman Dan Lawler said: "Hopefully, it's certainly a positive for > consumers as far as we're concerned." "Hopefully, it's certainly..." How is it that I get the feeling that I would know without asking what department this guy was in if I met him at a cocktail party? The other one that got me was the statement that overlays were not "forward looking," which is precisely the reverse of reality. Whether you like them or not, overlays are the way of the future; they will eventually come at least to large metropolitan areas. I was also struck by how poorly worded the descriptions in the news report were of where the new area code boundaries would lie. Something simple like "201 would retain xxx, yyy, and zzz counties, plus most of aaa and a portion of bbb; the new area code in 201 would include ..." and similarly for 908 and its new sibling. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: NANP Needs to be Cleaned Up (was Re: New 809 Fraud via Email) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 00:25:44 PST Organization: Shadownet tls@rek.tjls.com writes: >> Or we could educate people about what area codes aren't US codes. > That's ridiculous. Ordinary people ought _not_ have to remember all > kinds of silly exceptions to the general dialing and billing rules in > order to not accidentally make expensive international telephone > calls. Sorry, but given the way things have *always* been since direct dialing of long distance was started, people are responsible for knowing what they are doing. > There is already a perfectly good dialing syntax which clearly > distinguishes international calls as "different" -- the 011 prefix. No. That syntax is for dialing calls to locations with a different ITU-T "country code". While this is *usually* the same as dialing an "international" call, it isn't always. Consider Guam and Americam Samoa. > If the Carribean telcos want to take advantage of the historical > oddity in international calling rules that allows them to appear to > U.S. customers to be "domestic", they have no business running scams > that deliberately exploit the fact that they actually aren't; > assisting through billing kickbacks in the running of such scams is > equivalent to actually running them, of course. > If the Carribean telcos won't play ball, the nations they're in should > be unceremoniously -- and suddenly -- kicked out of the NANP. Perhaps > the FTC will force Bellcore and the U.S. telcos to do so; it's about > time. Sorry, but country codes are assigned by the ITU-T, *not* by any US agency. And there just plain *aren't* any spares for this part of the world. They'd have to assign ones from *Asia*, assuming they felt like doing it at all. Kicking countries out of the NANP (or admitting them to it) is *not* something the US can do on it's own, or even in conjunction with Canada. *Any* changes affect the entire *world*. >> Or is that assuming that people take too much personal responsibility >> to determine where an area code's at before the call? > That's ridiculous. The 809 area code violates a simple rule -- that > 1+ calls are either in the continental U.S. and Canada or at least in > U.S. posessions elsewhere in the world, and are far cheaper than > 011-prefixed international calls. Nice rule. Pity it has *never* had any resemblance to reality. Most US possesions require a 011 "international" call *except* for the ones in the Caribbean, and near Hawaii. Also, 1+ calls *do* go to places that aren't in the Continental US. Always have. And 1+ calls are *not* necessarily cheaper than 011 calls. Consider Mexico. > The exception should not exist, > represents a significant inconsistency in the dialing rules as most > telephone users understand them, and when used to deliberately mislead > U.S. customers into dialing international calls, is used in a > deliberately fraudulent manner. Allowing oneself to be defrauded may > not be wise, but it is certainly not irresponsible. The problem is that "most telephone users" (including you) *don't* understand the dialing rules. Your entire argument is based on assuming that the rules are something quite different from what they have *ever* been. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Telcorp Ltd. Subject: Re: New AT&T 10 Cents/Minute Plan Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 16:41:33 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: Telcorp@worldnet.att.net Monty Solomon wrote: > AT&T is now running an unadvertised promotion for a rate of $0.10/min > 24 hours per day for six months. After six months the rate changes to > $0.15/min 24 hours per day. There are no monthly charges. > You can optionally request a calling card - $0.30/min with a $0.30 > surcharge. Can someone who IS currently an AT&T customer get this rate? ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: Reinventing ISDN for Internet Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:49:44 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Jeffrey Rhodes wrote: > (Original date was Thu, 17 Oct 1996) > Bill Sohl wrote: >> hh@pc012004.is.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) wrote: >>> Interesting idea. Ascend and several other suppliers of ISDN equipment >>> already implement something similar in their small and home office >>> equipment. The devices have timeout parameters, and drop the >>> connection when no traffic is passed for the specified length of >>> time. ISDN connects so fast that there is no noticable delay when the >>> connection is reestablihed by the user. The "D" channel is used in its >>> normal fashion, with no special handling by the telco. It would be >>> trival for USR, Moto, or any of the other ISDN "modem" manufacturers >>> to implement this feature in their consumer products. >> Remember, however, that upon reestablishing a B channel connection to >> the ISP involves a new switched connection and a new login to the ISP >> for that connection since there's no way the ISP can be sure that any >> new switched connection being established is associated with the X25 >> dialog being maintained from your ISDN station. > Why not use the D-channel X.25 for user-to-internet processing and > have the Internet Service Provider use the D-channel X.25 to bond with > a call on the B-channel for internet-to-user? That's a possible scenario, but see more below. > The call setup from the Internet Service Provider would not need to > login, authenticate, etc, and could drop when the bits going towards > the user are idle. The call from the ISP will then result in the B channel call being billed to the ISP. Probably not something the ISP is willing to accept without some means to pass along the cost on a minutes of use basis. Probably doable, but not the neatest arrangement. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Michael Wengler Subject: Re: Prison Telephone Revenues Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:50:29 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA Bill Newkirk wrote: > Once in a while we get to discussing some of the local news in the > evenings when several of us are on the radio, and one day we were > talking about prisons and access to telephones and we had something > along the lines of this ... > Off hand, it would seem like there's a problem with sticking it to the > unconvicted when calls are made by those in the pokey. Amazing how all > those little dimes add up. and of course, the Orange County, FL folks now > realize what a gold mine they've unwittingly made ... Hey, maybe most people in jail *BEFORE* their trial because they can't make bail are guilty ... BUT this is America, darn it, and they are legally innocent until proven guilty. I find it virtually unbelievable that the same coercive, obnoxious, degrading facilities and rules can be used to hold people before their trial as is used to punish them if/when they are convicted. In my opinion, separate facilities with separate rules should be used for people awaiting trial. AT LEAST, those facilities should include access to telephones on which 800 numbers can be dialed. These facilities can be reserved even for people who have NEVER been convicted. That way, habitual criminals won't clog up this slightly nicer hellhole, and make it too expensive to administer. I'm not talking about coddling criminals here. I'm talking about following our own American tradition of "innocent until proven guilty," to at least the minimal extent of allowing communication with the outside world without a completely unjustifiable monopoly-revenue-producing revenue of the specialized COCOTS providing the service now. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:12:17 -0700 From: Mike Pollock Organization: SJS Entertainment Subject: NYNEX to Adopt Uniform Reach Numbers For Repair Service NYNEX to adopt uniform reach numbers for repair service NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 24, 1996-- Beginning on Jan. 1, 1997, NYNEX will adopt seven-digit telephone numbers for telephone repair service across New York State. Residence customers will dial 890-6611 and businesses will use 890-7711. By implementing the seven-digit numbers, NYNEX will be able to standardize the way its residence and business customers reach repair service throughout New York State. The seven-digit numbers have been in use for several years in upstate areas, while 611 mainly has been in use in the New York City metropolitan area. Also, NYNEX now will be on an equal basis with other local communications companies that may have a seven-digit number for repair. The numbers will replace 611 for NYNEX repair service in the 212, 718, 914 and 516 area codes. The repair numbers are toll free, can be dialed from anywhere in the state, do not require dialing an area code, and are staffed 24 hours a day. By standardizing the repair numbers across the state, NYNEX's customers will have simple, easy-to-remember repair numbers no matter where they are in the state. Also, operators, representatives and other customer-contact employees will be able to provide callers with the appropriate repair number without having to know where the call is coming from. From now through Dec. 31, customers in the New York City metropolitan area will reach NYNEX repair service by dialing either 611 or 890-6611. Beginning Jan. 1, 1997, if a customer dials 611, a recorded intercept announcement will tell the caller that the number has been changed to 890-6611 for residence repair and 890-7711 for business repair. The announcement also will alert callers who use a communications company other than NYNEX for their local service to call that company for repair. Detailed information about the change will be included in customers' November bills. In addition, NYNEX representatives are meeting with consumer and community groups throughout the New Yo