From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 24 02:57:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA11639; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:57:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704240657.CAA11639@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #101 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Apr 97 02:56:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson US West Fighting Flood (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Spanish Telco Blocks Call Back (John Hewitt) Book Review: "The Ultimate Web Developer's Sourcebook" (Rob Slade) Book Review: "Corporate Politics and the Internet" by Gaskin (Rob Slade) 904 Relief Plans (Bryan Bethea) UCLA Short Course: Cost Estimation & Economic Evaluation of Projects (BG) UCLA Short Course: "Automatic Speech Recognition" (Bill Goodin) Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' (NetNut!) Record Number of SUPERCOMM Exhibitors Expected in New Orleans (T. Bresien) Where Are the Numbers? (Bob Savery) How Do They Do It? (Hillary Gorman) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: US West Fighting Flood Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:04:46 CDT From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Among the reports in the Minnesota media about the "500-year" flood on the Red River of the North have been mention of the US West communication center in Grand Forks, North Dakota. About three-quarters of Grand Forks is flooded, with all utilities turned off. Several blocks from dry ground, a communication center which services the entire area is surrounded by sandbags and still functioning. Media reports have not given many details other than that pumps and electrical generators are being kept busy. Although most flooded homes don't need phone service, this center is servicing a large unflooded area and the overloaded cellular phone system. WCCO-TV took a minute on the 10 PM news on Tuesday night to show (from their helicopter's visual and infrared cameras) the center's island of lights in the middle of dark flooded buildings. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One really heroic effort in Grand Forks is being made by the local newspaper which was (1) flooded out like everyone else in town and then over last weekend (2) burned out in the fire which went out of control in the downtown area. They have not missed a single issue of publication, and on Monday of this week came out with an edition headlined, "Through Hell and High Water" with a photo of the burned and gutted out downtown area under several feet of water besides. Everytime there is a tragedy somewhere in the USA we look at it and say how horrible it is and things cannot get any worse; i.e. the terrible situation in California last year with fires and floods, etc. Then when we think we have seen it all, we see still more. Seeing how helpless the firemen were in Grand Forks last weekend reminds me of the unbelievable snow blizzard experienced in Chicago in 1967, the year of the two-day snow storm which dropped about 30 inches of snow on us. The worst night of the blizzard, when none of the streets had yet been plowed, a highrise apartment building in the Rogers Park neighborhood caught fire. Firemen got to about one block away and got stalled in snow drifts. Dragging their hoses and tools, etc the last block took them another 15-20 minutes on foot; meanwhile the fire got worse and the entire ten story building burned down. At the time we said how terrible it was; tragedies come, and tragedies go, but this latest mess in Grand Forks takes the prize. I guess the folks in Manitoba are none to happy either as they watch the water coming their way over the next few days as things thaw out up there. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhewitt@ctv.es (John Hewitt) Subject: Spanish Telco Blocks Call Back Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:17:51 GMT Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER The Spanish State has the outmoded attitude of the telephone company being a social institution which should provide employment - not neccesarily service. Telefonica, like most European state Telcos, considers that telephone users are ripe for plucking, especially anyone who can 'afford' to call internationally. International call costs from Spain are typically twice that of the UK and N America. For this reason, Call Back services are very popular with ex-expatriates in Spain. They tend to call 'home' often and that means an international call, So expatriates use Call Back services (almost exclusively from the US) to lower internatioanl calling costs. Telefonica doesn't like this, they are losing revenue (and kinda forget the international revenue equlaization payments from the US). As a result, a game has developed between Call Back users and the Telco. You subscribe to a Call Back service and Telefonica 'watches for you at the CO. The CPU trolls the numbers called and looks for, I suppose, non-revenue calls. Too many uncompleted calls to the US, and bingo, you no longer have Call Back service. So, you ask your Call Back service provider for another number, the CPU starts watching again, and the game is on. Now there's a new slant to the game. Telefonica seems to have tired of denying access to individual numbers and has gone the whole hog. They appear to have withheld access to the entire area code used by Call Back providers. Now that ain't fair, it's not playing the game. Isn't there an international convention / agreement regarding open access to all telephone numbers through the ITU? Doesn't this amount to censorship? For example. Can ATT (or MCI, or whoever) block a US callers access to the entire Madrid area? Or, BT (or Marcury) block a UK callers access to metro Washington DC.? That's what appears to be happening in Spain. John Hewitt, Malaga Spain jhewitt@ctv.es ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:20:05 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Ultimate Web Developer's Sourcebook" by Sawyer BKWBDVSR.RVW 961218 "The Ultimate Web Developer's Sourcebook", Ben Sawyer, 1996, 1-57610-000-6, U$49.99/C$69.99 %A Ben Sawyer bensawyer@worldnet.att.net %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-57610-000-6 %I Coriolis %O U$49.99/C$69.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 %P 704 %T "The Ultimate Web Developer's Sourcebook" The real value in this book is contained in the contacts. Graphics tools, sound applications, video programs, multimedia packages, Web servers, CGI (Common Gateway Interface) tools, books, magazines, companies, and groups: this lists, overviews, and contact information goes on for chapters. The listings do tend to be more exhaustive than analytical, but you are almost bound to find some tool or resource that you are looking for *somewhere* in these pages. As for the rest, Sawyer tries to provide the concepts that professional developers will need on a daily basis. This is probably too ambitious a task: the operative word seems to be "tries". There are some very good ideas in the design of the book: one chapter concentrates on the various emerging technologies on the Web, relating each to "what this means for developers". Unfortunately, most of the advice is of the "wait and see what develops" form. Look at it as a phone book, rather than a tutorial, and you'll be happy. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWBDVSR.RVW 961218 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:00:55 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Corporate Politics and the Internet" by James Gaskin BKCRPLIN.RVW 961205 "Corporate Politics and the Internet", James E. Gaskin, 1997, 0-13-651803-6, U$24.95/C$34.95 %A James E. Gaskin james@gaskin.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-651803-6 %I Prentice Hall %O U$24.95/C$34.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 452 %T "Corporate Politics and the Internet" Yes! Finally a book that speaks with forked tongue! Gaskin knows both the technology and the culture of the net. He also knows the corporate mindset (and who should know better than Konsultant Karl?) and politics. He can speak to both groups, and he can speak the truth. This work provides a realistic, complete, and thorough overview of the concerns of the corporate world as it approaches the net, and the net as the corporations close in. It is informed, thoughtful, and practical, allowing geeks to speak to upper management and executives to understand why you can't spam. And, since it's from Gaskin, it's readable by anybody. The primary purpose of the book is to ease the problems a company faces in getting on to the Internet, and providing net access for employees. However, Gaskin interprets this mandate quite broadly. As he should. The result is a very useful guide that provides help for the problems you can foresee--and warning of those you never knew existed. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCRPLIN.RVW 961205 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ From: I5050205@aol.com (Bryan Bethea) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:02:38 EDT Subject: 904 Relief Plans The Florida Public Service Commission has reversed its earlier decision and will move the Pensacola, Panama City, and Tallahassee LATAs into a new NPA. Permissive dialing is slated to begin June 30, 1997 and end June 30, 1998. The Jacksonville and Daytona Beach LATAs will remain in the 904 NPA. The move surprised many including BellSouth who had expected the PSC to uphold its decision to move Jacksonville into the 234 NPA and Daytona Beach into the 386 NPA. Objections from the public as well as from the NANC, Bellcore, and the FCC may have changed the minds of some of the Commissioners. Based on current information (97-04-01), below are listed the exchanges that will move to the new NPA (850??): 209 216 219 222 224 227 229 230 231 240 243 244 245 256 263 265 267 271 283 286 293 297 298 301 302 309 310 314 315 318 327 335 342 349 352 369 379 383 385 386 402 408 410 412 413 414 415 416 421 422 425 429 430 432 433 434 435 436 438 442 444 449 450 452 453 455 456 457 458 469 470 474 475 476 477 478 479 484 487 488 490 492 494 501 505 506 507 508 509 510 513 514 516 522 524 526 531 534 535 536 537 539 544 545 547 548 551 552 553 556 560 561 562 566 568 569 570 572 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 584 585 587 592 593 594 599 601 609 622 623 626 627 638 639 643 644 647 648 650 651 652 653 654 656 657 663 664 668 670 671 674 675 678 681 682 683 689 697 712 715 718 722 729 747 762 763 769 770 773 784 785 802 803 814 819 827 830 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 841 843 849 853 856 857 859 862 863 864 865 866 870 871 872 873 874 875 877 878 881 882 883 884 885 887 891 892 893 894 896 897 899 906 913 914 915 916 921 922 925 926 927 929 932 933 934 936 937 939 941 942 944 948 951 956 957 960 962 968 969 971 973 974 980 982 983 984 986 994 995 997 (265 NXX codes) This is a much more balanced split than most recent splits that have been announced. The ratio of exchanges remaining to exchanges leaving is 55% : 45%. The shrunken 904 NPA is expected to exhaust before 2002 while the newly created NPA will exhaust near 2004. Bryan Bethea Market Designation Team Leader Touch 1 Communications ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Cost Estimation & Economic Evaluation of Projects Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:21:00 -0700 On July 14-17, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Cost Estimation and Economic Evaluation of Projects", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Donald S. Remer, PhD, Oliver C. Field Professor of Engineering, Harvey Mudd College of Engineering and Science. Rapidly advancing technology, increasing project complexity, and competitive pressures demand better cost estimation and economic evaluation of projects, processes, products, or services, whether developing new ones or improving existing ones. Successful engineers, scientists, and managers must use modern cost estimating and economic evaluation techniques to select the optimum mix of projects for today's cost-conscious environment. Accurate project cost estimates and investment evaluations are critical to staying competitive and optimizing organizational resources. This course develops the skills needed to prepare, review, approve, supervise, monitor, and/or use cost estimates and economic evaluations in research, development, design, manufacturing, marketing, and management. The course also discusses how to produce accurate cost estimates and investment evaluations to avoid large cost overruns or unsatisfactory investment returns, whether the project budget is a few thousand dollars or millions of dollars. The course fee is $1295, which includes extensive course materials. Course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete 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: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Automatic Speech Recognition Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:04:00 -0700 On July 21-23, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Automatic Speech Recognition: Fundamentals and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Abeer Alwan, PhD, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Ananth Sankar, PhD, Senior Research Engineer, SRI International. Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) has emerged as a promising area for applications such as telephone voice dialing, database access, human-computer interactions and hands-free applications such as car phones. Since speech is the most direct form of human communication, ASR can enhance the ease, speed, and effectiveness with which humans can direct machines to accomplish desired tasks. Speech recognition has become an established research area and current understanding has already produced several fielded applications. This course is intended to provide an understanding of the basic concepts of speech recognition including speech signal processing and feature extraction, and statistical pattern recognition and its applications in speech recognition. The course also covers recent developments in special problem areas such as the recognition of noisy speech or accented speech. The instructors assume basic knowledge of signal processing and statistical analysis, and the lectures are designed to prepare participants for development work in speech recognition. The course should also offer enough background in speech recognition theory to foster the successful development of applications, and to expose new solutions to specific problems in speech recognition. The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete 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: netnut@loyolanet.campus.mci.net (NetNut!) Subject: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:40:49 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: netnut@loyolanet.campus.mci.net Hello all -- Got this off a website which specializes in colleges and universities (www.acuta.org) 976 look-alikes MCI has identified a list of numbers that you may want to block. Increased demand for pay-per-call services has exceeded the capacity of "976" exchanges in many metropolitan areas. In response, local telcos have designated additional exchanges as "976 look-alikes." You should consider blocking calls to these numbers as well as to 900 numbers to avoid being billed when students or others knowingly or innocently connect to these services. While this is NOT a comprehensive list, we hope this will help reduce the volume of this type of fraud. Arizona (602) 676-xxxx (602) 960-xxxx Colorado (719) 898-XXXX (303)-960-XXXX Idaho (208) 960-XXXX Louisiana (504) 636-XXXX Maine (207) 940-XXXX (207) 940-XXXX Maryland (301) 915-XXXX (410) 915-XXXX Massachusetts (508) 940-XXXX (607) 940-XXXX (607) 555-XXXX Minnesota (507) 960-XXXX Nebraska (308) 960-XXXX (402) 960-XXXX New Hampshire (603) 940-XXXX New Mexico (505) 960-XXXX New York (212) 394-XXXX (212) 540-XXXX (212) 550-XXXX (212) 970-XXXX (315) 540-XXXX (315) 550-XXXX (315) 970-XXXX (516) 540-XXXX (516) 550-XXXX (518) 540-XXXX (518) 550-XXXX (518) 970-XXXX (607) 540-XXXX (607) 550-XXXX (607) 970-XXXX (716) 540-XXXX (716) 550-XXXX (716) 970-XXXX (718) 540-XXXX (718) 550-XXXX (718) 970-XXXX (914) 540-XXXX (914) 550-XXXX (914) 970-XXXX Ohio (216) 931-XXXX (513) 499-XXXX Pennsylvania (215) 556-XXXX (412) 556-XXXX Rhode Island (401) 940-XXXX South Dakota (605) 960-XXXX Texas (512) 766-XXXX (817) 892-XXXX Utah (801) 960-XXXX Washington D.C. (202) 915-XXXX Washington State (206) 960-XXXX Wyoming (307) 960-XXXX Does anyone know where I can get a comprehensive listing of 976 like numbers? I tried searching in Lycos and Yahoo but the only thing that came up was (predictably) were porno information and Cub Scout Troop 976! Thanks! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for going to all the trouble, but it may not be a big issue. Typically 976 and related prefixes are blocked from outside the LATA where they are located, mainly because there is no mechanism in place to bill for them. Believe it or not, often times the pressure to block 976 from outside the LATA comes from the information provider, who, if his service is any good or controversial enough, finds his lines swamped with calls from all over the USA, leaving no capacity for local calls for which he does get paid. I am reminded of 415-976-GAYS in San Francisco as an example. Now, there are lots of adult conference bridges around but if you call one in your local community you are going to pay plenty for using it. So what did the guys start doing? They started calling conference bridges on 976 *in other states* where all they had to pay was toll. The information provider got nothing out of it. The Chicago area guys called the SFCA bridge and the west coast guys would call the Chicago bridge. Wouldn't you rather pay 13-16 cents per minute at night (rates back in the early 1980's when they finally clamped down on this) to talk dirty on the phone to a stranger than three dollars? At 415-976-GAYS a recorded announcement answered each call telling the caller, "You have reached the San Francisco Hot Adult Conference Line. If you are not eighteen years of age, hang up now! Plenty of lively adult conversations; just three dollars for three minutes ... have fun!" Of course that meant nothing to the 99 percent of the callers not in area 415/408 (as defined in those days), and at that all they would do is get on long enough to pass their number and invite calls. So they paid 35-40 cents for an evening of 'lively adult conversation' ... not a bad deal for the end user, but for the bridge tender it sucked. MCI was first, and since then AT&T and others have followed suit by refusing to connect with 976 under pressure from the local telcos who in turn were trying to placate their Information Provider clients. We went through this a couple times in the past when the 'beeper scare' in Manhattan, NY was prevalent. Fools over there would send pages to beepers all over the country on (I think) the 212-540 exchange hoping to get calls back and run up the bill. Despite well- meaning memos from telecom admins everwhere warning against 'return- ing calls to any 212-540 number because of fraud' I do not think anyone outside 212/718/914/516 was ever victimized. If anyone reading this is able to connect with a 976 (or similar, 'lookalike') number in another LATA, I'd be interested in details. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 19:38:24 -0400 From: tbresien@eia.org (Tim Bresien) Organization: EIA Subject: Record Number of SUPERCOMM Exhibitors Expected in New Orleans More than 650 companies are expected to pack the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans this June, showcasing the very latest in communications technology. The Exhibit Hall (which is open June 3-5) will feature six Pavilions among the 290,000 square feet which are dedicated to some of the industry's most dynamic technology segments: WIRELESS, INTERNET, MULTIMEDIA, CTI, SOFTWARE, & FIBER OPTICS. Attendance is expected to eclipse last year's record of over 37,000. And with good reason. The most comprehensive demonstrations and discussions of tomorrow's hottest technology will occur at SUPERCOMM '97 in conjunction with the show's 10th anniversary. How will the overwhelming need for greater bandwidth be satisfied ? ill wireless become the infrastructure of the future ? What does the convergence of the cable and telco industries mean for today's public networks ? What will Voice Over Internet mean to the long distance business ? How is the expansion of network technology, on-line content and high-speed access driving the development of interactive services ? The answers to these questions and many more can be found only at SUPERCOMM '97. World class educational opportunities, covering every aspect of communications, will be presented by industry leaders from among the most respected companies in the world and from these renowned organizations: The International Engineering Consortium The MultiMedia Telecommunications Association The International Communications Association The IEEE Computer Society ( Internet Computing Conference ) SUPERCOMM '97 is endorsed by the United States Department of Commerce International Buyer Program and offers special amenities to the international delegations and attendees which represented over 90 nations last year. SUPERCOMM is co-owned and sponsored by: The Telecommunications Industry Association and The United States Telephone Association www.super-comm.com For information on remaining exhibiting opportunities please contact: Tim Bresien (703) 907-7483 or tbresien@tia.eia.org For information on attending SUPERCOMM please call (800) 278-7372 in the U.S. or on-line at: www.super-comm.com ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Where Are the Numbers? Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:29:24 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 With all the talk of area codes being added almost daily, the urgent need to go to 10 digit dialing for everything (or changing to 8 digit local numbers or ....) one would get the impression the US is close to being totally out of phone numbers soon. I think I read something recently that hinted that could happen as soon as 2009 or so. Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere. Last time I looked, there were 890 possible area codes (Why is 1xx reserved anyway? Why is N9x required to be reserved for additional digits for local numbers??). If you take that 890 times 999 exchange codes times 10000 numbers in each exchange, there should be 8,891,100,000 possible phone numbers available. Yes, I know not all of those can be used (you wouldn't want exchange numbers starting with 911 for instance), but the vast majority of those should be good numbers. Where am I off in my figuring?? If I'm even halfway close, we couldn't possibly run out of numbers for a long time, if ever! There just isn't 9 billion ports available in the telephone network! Nor will there be anytime in the near future! (I don't think??!) What prompted this was the BellSouth Press release announcing they now have 6 million access lines in Florida. By my figuring, you could fit 6 million lines into a single area code. And yet Florida has 10 and says they need more??! That's an average of 16.65 numbers per line! Even figuring DID numbers into business trunks, I don't see that many numbers being used. Someone please esplain dis to me so I can sleep at night again?? Thank You! Bob Savery bob.savery@hawgwild.com Sysop - HawgWild! BBS HawgWild! BBS = (402) 597-2666 - Modem hawgwild.com - telnet www.hawgwild.com - World Wide Wait ->5008 - RIME ------------------------------ From: Hillary@johngalt.com (Hillary Gorman) Subject: How Do They Do It? Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 02:46:09 PDT Check out SUBMITKING (http://www.submitking.com), the only place on the web to submit your URL to 100 marketing resources (search engines and the like) AUTOMATICLY for just $10US! Thanks for your time! Hillary ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #101 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 25 01:52:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA20979; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:52:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704250552.BAA20979@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #102 TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Apr 97 01:52:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Note From Hillary Gorman Was a Fraud (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: How Do They Do It? (Hillary Gorman) GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming; North American Mobile (John Covert) AOL For FREE Scare, TAX 264, Etc, etc, etc. (Eric Florack) 10 Cent Calls to England! (Tad Cook) Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:54:50 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Note From Hillary Gorman Was a Fraud In an earlier issue of the Digest, I ran a note from a person who was an imposter using the name 'Hillary Gorman'. The real Hillary Gorman is a long-time reader/supporter of this Digest, and as I explained to her in email, although I did not think much of the message in particular -- found it a little distasteful in fact -- because I *believed* it came from her I used it as a courtesy to her. I've since found out from quite a few people that it was a fraud. I apologize for running the message. PAT ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: How Do They Do It? Date: 24 Apr 1997 11:32:19 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , Hillary Gorman wrote: > Check out SUBMITKING (http://www.submitking.com), the only place on > the web to submit your URL to 100 marketing resources (search engines > and the like) AUTOMATICLY for just $10US! > Thanks for your time! > Hillary Since I've been getting email all morning about this, I would just like to publicly state that although yes, hillary@*.* is USUALLY me :), this particular person is NOT me, did not hack one of my accounts, hopefully doesn't even realize she's "using my name." I remain stalwartly anti-spam and anti-luser ;) (of course I am pro-USER as always.) No need for further inquiries on the subject, Thanks, hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hillary, I ran that message purely as a favor to 'you'. I thought it stunk; I thought, well, if she is doing it, okay as a favor I will give it a short blurb. I feel badly about it also. Typically I toss between two and three *dozen* items of spam in the bit bucket daily here. Yesterday in fact, the spam count was higher than usual. The one 'you' wrote was one of the least distasteful. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 22:46:52 EDT From: John R. Covert Subject: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming, and North American Mobile About a month ago, I had asked readers of Telecom to help me find a reliable company from which to rent GSM SIM cards for use in my GSM900 phone for occasional travel to Europe. I was unable to find any acceptable temporary rental. But since then, I have become one of the first people to actually roam in Europe on GSM900 with the same SIM card which is intended to be used in my new Omnipoint DCS1900 service in NYC. Since I don't live in NYC, I don't yet have a DCS1900 phone, but Omnipoint will be serving Boston next year, so I think I'll stay with them. In this article, I will try to present a brief but comprehensive overview of the international roaming situation and the various standards in use in North America and elsewhere. Contents: 1. The responses to my original request for rental SIM cards 2. What I ended up doing 3. Some GSM generalities 4. Systems within North America 1. The responses to my original request hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) had replied to tell me that "There's a company that has been set up specifically for this purpose." But he didn't remember the name. He suggested that I look on the GSM MoU page, contact them, and they would tell me the name. Well, the GSM MoU didn't even acknowledge the email I sent them, but their page did lead me towards a large list of American companies that have signed the GSM MoU and intend to offer GSM based services (always at 1900 MHz). I contacted almost every one of them, and the only one which had active international agreements was Omnipoint, which will be discussed later. None had the facilities to simply rent SIM cards on a short term basis. nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had replied that AT&T would do it "through Vodaphone UK, but they do not say that". As it turns out, this is potentially interesting, but only for those people served by AT&T Wireless (formerly McCaw) and by Cantel. Since it's through Vodaphone, a well established UK GSM900 carrier, it benefits from a large number of existing roaming agreements all over the world. But the rates are terrible. First, you _must_ be one of their subscribers. They don't serve Boston, so they're useless for those of us in this area, regardless of who our carrier is. Second, the card costs $50/year. This isn't quite as bad as their rates. Outgoing calls are $2.49/minute, no matter where you are or where you're calling. From some places, this isn't too bad if you're calling back to the U.S., but it's ridiculous for local calls. Incoming is even worse, though. You pay that $2.49 per minute, *plus* a call to the U.K. (Always to the UK, no matter where you are.) And for Cantel customers, it's even worse. Not only are Canada to UK toll rates rather high, but you are charged the AT&T annual and per minute rates (charged in US dollars) plus a Cantel monthly fee of C$7.95. Nils also suggested trying the local telco in the country visited. This really doesn't work. Local telcos simply will not do business with non-residents. I have tried this in the UK, in Germany, and even in the Channel Islands. In the latter case, it seems that the Channel Islands company had to agree to not serve anyone outside the channel islands when they set up their roaming agreements with Vodaphone and Cellnet. And even if that isn't a problem, the credit departments simply aren't willing to take a chance on someone running up a large bill and being outside the reach of their local laws. There are, in some areas, pre-paid cards. But they only work within the country of issue (no roaming), and have fairly high activation fees, and expire if you don't use them for six months. The Italian example is as follows: you buy a card for Lit. 100,000, which includes a 50,000 ($29) activation fee and 50,000 worth of available usage. You can then buy recharges in either 50,000 or 100,000 denominations, but 10,000 ($6) of that is a recharge fee. Off-peak is cheap (195/min or about 12.5 cents), but peak is 10 times that. The advantage over roaming is that incoming is free. 2. What I ended up doing A friend lent me his second, and rarely used, German D1 card; I'll pay him for the usage while I have it. But this isn't a good long-term solution, so I also signed up with Omnipoint. When I had first called Omnipoint, they only had agreements with Vodaphone and the German D2 system (which is notoriously inferior to D1 in many areas I travel to). But since they were only $9.95 a month for the first three months, and no activation or cancellation fee, I decided to try them out. In the meantime, they have added Eircell, the Swiss PTT, and Libertel in the Netherlands. And they have signed agreements with Cellnet, both French carriers, and about twenty others, and are turning something new on every few weeks. They expect to add Hong Kong and South Africa next, and have said that France (my next trip is to France) should be on within a month. Omnipoint's rates are great (or seem to be; we'll see when the bill comes). For outgoing calls, they take the foreign carrier's wholesale rate and add a percentage to it. For example, on Vodaphone, they'll charge me 41p peak and 17p off-peak. For incoming, to anywhere in Europe, I pay just their standard international call rate of 99 cents; no local carrier charge. That means it's significantly cheaper for me to receive an incoming call in Europe with Omnipoint than in San Francisco with either of the two Boston AMPS carriers! And it's real GSM. I can control all the features on my NYC number while in Europe. Even call waiting works correctly. And I can receive short email messages (1917NXXXXXX@omnipoint.net), delivered very quickly, even while in Germany, and if I had a newer GSM900 phone that could send rather then just receive SMS messages, I could send them as well. 3. Some GSM generalities GSM isn't just GSM900. More importantly, it is the SIM card compatibility and the understandings that go with roaming agreements, including the interoperation of calling features and SMS messages. Certainly the most widespread GSM is the 900 MHz GSM in all of the world except North America. GSM is also used by the newer DCS-1800 companies, Orange and One-to-One in the UK and eplus in Germany. GSM will be done with DCS-1900 in the U.S., but not all 1900 MHz service in the U.S. is GSM. Various companies have announced multi-mode phones. Being a Motorola fan, the one I've looked at, which was shown at CeBit and is to be on the market later this year, is the dual mode MicroTAC International 8800: GSM900 for Europe and DCS-1900 for North America. This choice seems to be because these are the companies that are going to be establishing roaming agreements. The DCS-1800 companies are just not a large enough market to be very interesting for roaming yet. SIM cards are great. I was in a store in the UK and saw a StarTAC. I was able to pick it up, insert my own SIM card, and immediately play with it to my heart's content. The store owner didn't have to worry about his bill being run up. I want a dual mode StarTAC. 4. Systems within North America The U.S. mobile market is a sea of confusion, and to make any of the above information useful, an overview of what we have is necessary: AMPS, both analogue and digital, operates at just above 850 MHz. NAMPS was a Motorola idea for stuffing three calls into each channel which never really caught on. Digital AMPS is either CDMA or TDMA, with some carriers choosing TDMA (mostly "A" carriers) and others (mostly "B" carriers) choosing CDMA. The digital phones are always dual mode so that you can fall back to analogue when outside the areas served with Digital sites. The digital sites use the same frequencies, allocating some channels to analog and others to digital. NEXTEL has managed to gather together the frequencies just below 850MHz in a nationwide system which only serves major metro areas and major highways between them. It's digital only, using IDEN/TDMA technology. Their Canadian partner's name is Clearnet. The 1900 MHz spectrum is to be divided among as many as six carriers in each geographic area. The A/B bands are 30MHz wide; the C/D/E/F bands are 10MHz wide. Carriers will be able to offer a variety of incompatible services in these bands. Omnipoint, Sprint-Spectrum-APC, BellSouthDCS, VoiceStream, Pacific Bell, Western Wireless, Aerial, Microcell (in Canada), and a few others will be offering SIM card based GSM service. Other carriers (including notably SprintPCS) are offering incompatible, non SIM card, non GSM services. It will certainly take these carriers at least five to ten years to reach the level of coverage that the current AMPS companies have. While they will quickly be able to provide superior service in cities, when driving out in the countryside, only AMPS will be acceptable for quite some time to come. In summary, the North American market continues to be characterized by the presence of so many different carriers and different systems that we will remain behind the rest of the world in both market penetration and coverage quality for quite a while. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:09:18 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: AOL For FREE Scare, TAX 264, Etc, etc, etc. I posted the following note to my group in response to RFI's on AOL4FREE.COM We had an attack a while back of the mail-note scares, and I was forced to deal with it. However, this particular situation has developed a bit differently, as you will see. I'll pass this on as an FYI. Feel free to distribute this to your own orgs, if you feel the need. /E ---------- You will recall I posted a note about this previously, in response to a note being circulated among our group. Since that time, it's been found that we are dealing with three separate problems, all of them using the AOL4FREE name, thereby causing some degree of confusion. Here's the facts: First there was actually a program called AOL4REE, which was intended to run on MACINTOSH systems, and thereby doesn't affect PC's at all. Then, there was a hoax about an E-MAIL virus by the same name. Finally, there is the AOL4FREE.COM which comes as an attachment to mailnotes. I have reason to *suspect* that what happened, here, was that the first few people who got hit with this mis-identified the Trojan Horse (which AOL4FREE.COM is) as a Virus. It's a fairly common error, since most people don't understand the difference.You see, a Trojan Horse is a real program, not a virus. While it is a real program it does not do what it purports to do, much like the Trojan horse of Greek legend ... thus the name. In this case, instead of giving you what the title implies, it formats your hard drive ... and in the process, commits suicide by erasing itself. (Thus preventing re-distribution of the file, as you will see) I also suspect that this file is written by someone who knows very little about programming. (To the techs: the file appears to be compiled in BAT2EXE, meaning all this clown knows is batch language, which he then compiled with Boling's program to cover his tracks.) Since it's not a virus, it won't be detected by virus detectors. The lesson here, is this: If you are not absolutely sure of the origin of the software, don't use it. Final note: Since this program, by it's nature, needs to be sent ctly to you by the author, or at least by someone who has not run the program, the chances of your actually seeing a copy of this horse in the wild seems remote at worst. This is not likely to be something one of your friends will send to you. With those facts in mind, I'd not worry overmuch about this one. If you see it, of course don't run it. If you DO run it, call tech support right away before attempting anything, because they MAY be able to undelete your files. I've taken the liberty of attaching the text from the web address mentioned in the TAX. Make particular note, please, of the last paragraph. -=-=-= =1= H-47a: AOL4FREE.COM Trojan Horse Program Destroys Hard Drives April 17, 1997 23:00 GMT PROBLEM: A Trojan Horse program called AOL4FREE.COM that deletes all files on a hard drive is circulating the Internet. PLATFORM: DOS/Windows-based PCs DAMAGE: When the AOL4FREE.COM program is executed, all files and directories on the users C: drive are deleted. SOLUTION: DO NOT execute this program. If the program starts executing, quickly pressing Ctrl-C will save some of your files. VULNERABILITY Users who download the trojaned AOL4FREE.COM program and ASSESSMENT: executes it will destroy all the files and directories on their DOS C: drive. CIAC has obtained a Trojaned copy of AOL4FREE.COM that destroys hard drives. ***NOTE: This is different from the AOL4FREE Virus Warning hoax message.**** CIAC has obtained a Trojaned copy of the AOL4FREE.COM program that, if run, deletes all the files on a user's hard drive. If you are e-mailed this file, or if you have downloaded it from an online service, do not attempt to run it. If the program was received as an attachment to an e-mail message, do not double click (open) it. Opening an attached program runs that program, which in this case deletes all the files on your hard drive. The original AOL4FREE was a Macintosh program for fraudulently creating free AOL (America Online) accounts. Note that any attempt to use the original AOL4FREE program may subject you to prosecution. NOTE: Most antivirus programs will not detect this or other Trojan Horse programs. Detection ========= AOL4FREE.COM is a Trojan program that is 993 bytes (2 sectors) long. The following text is readable in the AOL4FREE.COM file if you display it with the DOS TYPE command or the DOS EDIT program. Compiled by BAT2EXEC 1.5 PC Magazine . Douglas Boling Note that this text may appear in any program compiled with the BAT2EXEC program and has nothing to do with the Trojan Horse. If you open the AOL4FREE.COM file with a disk editor or with the Windows Notepad program, the following text is found at the end of the second sector of the file. PATH COMMANDC earc /C C: /C CD\ DELTREE /y *.* ECHOOYOUR COMPUTER HAS JUST BEEN F***ED BY *VP* F*** YOU AOL-LAMER Where F*** is a common vulgar explicative. Recovery ======== Pressing Ctrl-C before the Trojan Horse finishes deleting all your files will save some of them. If the program runs to completion, all the files on your root drive will have been deleted. The files are deleted with the DOS DELTREE command, so the contents of the files are still on your hard disk, only the directory entries have been deleted. Any program that can recover deleted files will allow you to recover some or all of the files on your hard disk. While attempting to recover files, be sure to not write any new files onto the hard disk as the new files may overwrite the contents of a deleted file, making it impossible to recover. You will probably have to boot your system with a floppy and run any recovery programs from there. If you happen to have one of the delete tracking programs installed on your system (a program that keeps track of deleted files in case you want them back) the recovery operation will be relatively simple. Follow the directions in your delete tracking program to recover your files. If not, you will probably have to recover each file individually, supplying the first character of the file name, which is overwritten in the directory when the file is deleted. Most DOS/Windows disk tools programs also have the capability for recovering deleted files so follow the directions included with those programs to do so. Background ========== The original AOL4FREE Macintosh program was developed to fraudulently create free AOL accounts. The creator of that program has pleaded guilty to defrauding America Online for distributing that program. Anyone else attempting to use that program to defraud AOL could also be prosecuted. ***(Eric notes: That program won't run on PC's, in any case.) The AOL4FREE Virus Warning message has been circulating about the Internet and warns of an AOL4FREE virus infected e-mail message that infects and destroys a system when the message is read, but that warning is a hoax and not about this Trojan horse. 1. The AOL4FREE.COM program is a Trojan Horse, not a virus. It does not spread on its own. 2. A Trojan Horse must be run to do any damage. 3. Reading an e-mail message with the Trojan Horse program as an attachment will not run the Trojan Horse and will not do any damage. Note that opening an attached program from within an e-mail reader runs that attached program, which may make it appear that reading the attachment caused the damage. Users should keep in mind that any file with a .COM or .EXE extension is a program, not a document and that double clicking or opening that program will run it. Macintosh users have the additional problem that Macintosh programs do not have readable extensions, and so are more difficult to detect. Extra care should be taken to insure that you do not unintentionally execute an attached program. CIAC still affirms that reading an e-mail message, even one with an attached program, can not do damage to a system. The attachment must be both downloaded onto the system and run to do any damage. -0- ------------------------------ Subject: 10 Cent Calls to England! Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:57:39 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Report: Sprint cutting international telephone rates ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) -- Sprint is set to lower weekend rates for telephone calls abroad as consumers benefit from the elimination of trade barriers and increased traffic on the international network, USA Today reported today. Sprint's announcement today will cut rates to as low as 10 cents per minute on the weekend, making a call to England as cheap as a domestic call, according to the report. Sprint had been charging 45 cents a minute. Weekend calls to Germany, Italy and France will fall to 30 cents a minute, from 45 cents now. Weekday rates are higher. AT&T and MCI charge 12 cents a minute for calls to Britain, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. All three carriers impose a $3 monthly fee for discount rates. "The difference between domestic and international rates will diminish," said Daniel Alcazar, Sprint's director of international marketing. Among the reasons for the cuts are a World Trade Organization pact in February, which is opening the $580 billion global market. State-owned monopolies are lowering rates charged to foreign carriers connecting to their networks. Also, traffic on the global network is growing, allowing big phone companies to buy access to other countries at lower bulk rates, Alcazar said. ------------------------------ From: davet1979@aol.com (Davet1979) Subject: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace Date: 25 Apr 1997 02:39:50 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I thought this might be somewhat on topic, and possibly when you make your contact with CyberPromotions/AGIS, you might mention the other 'interests' that CyberPromotions hosts. A note: Maybe someone has mentioned this on the list before, but I just heard about it today on GloRadio's "Daily Dose" (http://www.gloradio.com/): http://www.godhatesfags.com/ I can't believe someone even let them register that domain name. Did you actually look at the page? It is a very fearsome thing. A church is supposed to be a place of community where all can worship if they choose to honor that particular god -- it's not about the pure hatred and petty name-calling I saw on that page. I sent them a civil email asking why they're doing this (you basically get one shot to email them because they have filters set up and a whole lot of email protection). ---------------- Now, look at the InterNic record of whom owns this domain name ... Westboro Baptist Church GODHATESFAGS-DOM 3701 Southwest 12th Street Topeka, KS 66604 Phone: (913)273-0325 USA Domain Name: GODHATESFAGS.COM Administrative Contact: Phelps, Benjamin BP1521 wbc@EPLEX.COM 913-233-4162 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: ==> Wallace, Sanford SW1708 domreg@CYBERPROMO.COM <== ==> 215-628-9780 <== Billing Contact: Phelps, Benjamin BP1521 wbc@EPLEX.COM 913-233-4162 Record last updated on 12-Apr-97. Record created on 22-Jan-97. Database last updated on 22-Apr-97 06:32:10 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS7.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.2.250 NS9.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.50 NS8.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.65 NS5.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.212.50 NS10.CYBERPROMO.COM 208.5.10.100 ---------------------- Doesn't THAT seem appropriate for a company who spams people every day? Very professional, eh? Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes indeed, isn't that a very professional attitude? I thank you *very much* for calling this to the attention of our readers. When contacting AGIS, you might want to discuss this other 'venture' of Spamford Wallace. God hates Fags, huh? Amazing ... maybe its time to raise a little hell with Internic on that one. Oh well, a lot of good that would do I suppose. I pity the folks at Westboro Baptist Church if a few hackers decide to re-arrange their web page, as was done with the Department of Injustice not too long ago. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #102 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Apr 26 09:04:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15315; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704261304.JAA15315@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #103 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Apr 97 09:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Nils Andersson) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Hugh A. Pritchard) Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace (Chris Ambler) Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace (Steve Bagdon) Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' (Linc Madison) Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' (Lord Somnolent) Re: Wanted to Buy: 80-col Punch Cards (Dave Close) Re: US West Fighting Flood (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Tim Russell) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Some General Questions For Readers (Chuck Maurer) Re: Heads Up - FCC Issues 800 Order (Greg Ramsey) Re: Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider (Jay R. Ashworth) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming, and North American Mobile Date: 26 Apr 1997 02:01:38 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , John R. Covert writes: > nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had replied that AT&T would do it > "through Vodaphone UK, but they do not say that". Yes indeed. Also, while in a GSM country, call somebody with caller ID, in-country. Normally, your VODAPHONE number will show up on the callers id display. People can now call you on this number. It is NOT necessarily stable, and may be different on your next trip. It WILL save your caller money if he is in the UK or if he can call a UK number more cheaply than a US number. Whether it will save you the callee money is unclear. (You should not have to pay the US/UK hop, but I am not sure how the billing works). > As it turns out, this is potentially interesting, but only for those > people served by AT&T Wireless (formerly McCaw) and by Cantel. Since > it's through Vodaphone, a well established UK GSM900 carrier, it benefits > from a large number of existing roaming agreements all over the world. > But the rates are terrible. Oh yes. > First, you _must_ be one of their subscribers. > They don't serve Boston, so they're useless for those of us in this area, > regardless of who our carrier is. Second, the card costs $50/year. This > isn't quite as bad as their rates. Outgoing calls are $2.49/minute, no > matter where you are or where you're calling. From some places, this isn't > too bad if you're calling back to the U.S., but it's ridiculous for local > calls. Incoming is even worse, though. You pay that $2.49 per minute, > *plus* a call to the U.K. (Always to the UK, no matter where you are.) See above. > And for Cantel customers, it's even worse. Not only are Canada to UK > toll rates rather high, but you are charged the AT&T annual and per > minute rates (charged in US dollars) plus a Cantel monthly fee of C$7.95. > Nils also suggested trying the local telco in the country visited. > This really doesn't work. Local telcos simply will not do business with > non-residents. I have tried this in the UK, in Germany, and even in the > Channel Islands. True, unfortunately. > In the latter case, it seems that the Channel Islands > company had to agree to not serve anyone outside the channel islands when > they set up their roaming agreements with Vodaphone and Cellnet. And even > if that isn't a problem, the credit departments simply aren't willing to > take a chance on someone running up a large bill and being outside the > reach of their local laws. > There are, in some areas, pre-paid cards. But they only work within the > country of issue (no roaming), and have fairly high activation fees, and Sweden has prepaids for SEK 7/3 for day/night calls. (about USD 1/0.5) > expire if you don't use them for six months. The Italian example is as > follows: you buy a card for Lit. 100,000, which includes a 50,000 ($29) > activation fee and 50,000 worth of available usage. You can then buy > recharges in either 50,000 or 100,000 denominations, but 10,000 ($6) > of that is a recharge fee. Off-peak is cheap (195/min or about 12.5 cents), > but peak is 10 times that. The advantage over roaming is that incoming > is free. > 2. What I ended up doing > A friend lent me his second, and rarely used, German D1 card; I'll pay him > for the usage while I have it. This is what I do. My friend in Sweden gets billed, and I pay him. > But this isn't a good long-term solution, > so I also signed up with Omnipoint. This is an OK solution if most of your incoming calls come from the US. If they come in locally, it gets bad, routing Euro/US/Euro with the caller and the callee each paying one lap. > When I had first called Omnipoint, > they only had agreements with Vodaphone and the German D2 system (which > is notoriously inferior to D1 in many areas I travel to). But since they > were only $9.95 a month for the first three months, and no activation or > cancellation fee, I decided to try them out. In the meantime, they have > added Eircell, the Swiss PTT, and Libertel in the Netherlands. And they > have signed agreements with Cellnet, both French carriers, and about twenty > others, and are turning something new on every few weeks. They expect to > add Hong Kong and South Africa next, and have said that France (my next > trip is to France) should be on within a month. > Omnipoint's rates are great (or seem to be; we'll see when the bill comes). > For outgoing calls, they take the foreign carrier's wholesale rate and add > a percentage to it. For example, on Vodaphone, they'll charge me 41p peak > and 17p off-peak. About right. > SIM cards are great. I was in a store in the UK and saw a StarTAC. I > was able to pick it up, insert my own SIM card, and immediately play with > it to my heart's content. The store owner didn't have to worry about his > bill being run up. I want a dual mode StarTAC. Why didn't the US carriers (inlcluding CDMA) use the same compatible SIM technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:55:25 -0400 From: Hugh A. Pritchard Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming > Omnipoint, Sprint-Spectrum-APC, BellSouthDCS, VoiceStream, Pacific Bell, > Western Wireless, Aerial, Microcell (in Canada), and a few others will be > offering SIM card based GSM service. I've had GSM/SIM card service from Sprint Spectrum (APC) since the beginning of the calendar year, here in the Washington-Baltimore area. APC (doing business as Sprint Spectrum) has been offering GSM service for at least a year and a half. Its GSM operates at the high end of 1800 MHz. I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North American market has anybody using GSM. That's OK, because Sprint Spectrum's GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly has never been cloned. Hugh Pritchard, 202/767-7528 or HughP@library.NRL.Navy.mil page 301/237-1231 Naval Research Lab code 5220, Washington, DC 20375 ------------------------------ From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace Date: 25 Apr 1997 15:57:24 GMT Organization: Punknet Secret Headquarters and Day Care Centre > God hates Fags, huh? Amazing ... maybe its time to raise a little > hell with Internic on that one. Oh well, a lot of good that would do > I suppose. I pity the folks at Westboro Baptist Church if a few > hackers decide to re-arrange their web page, as was done with the > Department of Injustice not too long ago. PAT] Hell has been raised. In fact, I was just on CNET's "The Web" show a couple of weeks ago over this. They had a member of GLAAD from LA and myself discussing this issue. Apparently, GLAAD tried to register "the n-word".com as a protest, AND WERE TURNED DOWN by the InterNIC. So they asked me if we had such a policy at Image Online Design for .WEB, and I told them no, we don't censor. Register what you like, and if someone's offended, expect them to take it up with you. To be honest, don't blame the InterNIC on the "godhatesfags" name, but DO blame them that they allow some and don't allow others. In England, isn't that domain name "godhatescigarettes.com?" The point is, I think, that much like anyone can say anything they want, anyone can register any domain they want -- don't blame the registrar, blame the IDIOT who gets the domain. Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative | President, Image Online Design, Inc. chris@kosh.punk.net | chris@iodesign.com http://www.punk.net | http://www.iodesign.com | Voice+18055434716 Fax+18055434735 ------------------------------ From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:19:18 GMT Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net davet1979@aol.com (Davet1979) said: > I thought this might be somewhat on topic, and possibly when you > make your contact with CyberPromotions/AGIS, you might mention the > other 'interests' that CyberPromotions hosts. A note: > Maybe someone has mentioned this on the list before, but I just heard about it today on GloRadio's "Daily Dose" (http://www.gloradio.com/): > http://www.godhatesfags.com/ > I can't believe someone even let them register that domain name. Hey! What are you doing?!?! Personally I find this *extrememly* offensive, but does that give me the right to censure it. NO! The TV has an 'off button', and my browser has a stop button (and what am I doing loading this to begin with?!?!). But what happens if someone hates *my* domain (say, http://www.rust.net). I don't have to restrict someone else's domain name - I simply don't load it! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > God hates Fags, huh? Amazing ... maybe its time to raise a little > hell with Internic on that one. Oh well, a lot of good that would do I > suppose. I pity the folks at Westboro Baptist Church if a few hackers > decide to re-arrange their web page, as was done with the Department > of Injustice not too long ago. PAT] See above. That's censorship. Until you can prove it prevokes social unrest or can be considered a threat to national security, they should have the right to be distasteful. Spamming should be a felony -- you send it to me unsolicited, I have usually have to pay for it. But a bad domain name -- so what? I just don't load it. *I* have to do something to view it. What next? Vanity plates? Book titles? Company names? Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dear First Amendment Lover, yes, I am a censor, and proud of it. I always did feel the First Amendment to the US Constitution was a nuisance we could do without. The trouble with all you liberal and open-minded people is ... well, don't get me started on this one please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:42:39 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , netnut@loyolanet. campus.mci.net wrote: > Got this off a website which specializes in colleges and universities > () > 976 look-alikes > MCI has identified a list of numbers that you may want to block. > Increased demand for pay-per-call services has exceeded the capacity > of "976" exchanges in many metropolitan areas. ... While this is NOT a > comprehensive list, we hope this will help reduce the volume of this > type of fraud. > > Massachusetts > (607) 940-XXXX > (607) 555-XXXX These should be 617, not 607 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for going to all the trouble, > but it may not be a big issue. Typically 976 and related prefixes > are blocked from outside the LATA where they are located, mainly > because there is no mechanism in place to bill for them. Hmm. I thought I had been told that in California I could call any 976 number in the state, whether in my LATA or not, and I would be billed the surcharge as well as any applicable tolls, but I just tried 213-976-WAKE and got an intercept that my call could not be completed. Of course, there is also a 415-976-WAKE, so the test may not be an accurate indication. I tried 213-976-3825 (spelling left as an exercise to the reader ;->) which also didn't work, and I would expect that's not simply a replication of the same number in 415. I didn't get an intercept after 1-213-976, but then I don't get an intercept after other non-existent NXX's, although I do get an immediate intercept on 1-213-1XX or 0XX. (I wonder if anyone has 976-6466 -- "Tired of phony psychics? Don't dial the wrong number, dial 213-WRONG-NO instead!") In any event, I would like to compile a similar, but more useful, list for my web pages on . I'd like to make a list of all the international prefixes set up for phone sex and other operations where the "information provider" receives a portion of the foreign telco's termination fee for the call. For the NANP Caribbean, I'd like to get both the area code and the prefix (e.g., 1-809-490, 1-268-404, 1-664-410, 1-758-???); for areas outside the NANP (i.e., calls that are prefixed with "011" from the U.S./Canada), I'd like to get the country code and any information on the sub-range that is used for these "kickback" operations (e.g., 011-592-59, 011-599-6, 011-239-?, 011-683-?, 011-373-?, etc.). It appears from the examples I've seen that each country segregates these numbers into a distinct sub-range, so that neither the telco nor the IP has to deal with non-revenue local calls. The company I work for recently had a large unexplained toll call to Niger (+227); are there any kickback numbers there? If you have seen ads on the Internet or in freebie papers or wherever for these international numbers -- especially any that don't fall in the specific ranges listed above -- please e-mail me. Anything that is a sex line, horoscopes, or any of the usual 976/900 sorts of fare. Please reply to me directly by e-mail; I'll summarize the results on my web pages and also in the Digest. Be sure to un-spam-filter my address, though. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Censor's Note: Actually I think I should have said that 976 and its relatives do not ever leave the state they are in in some cases. California is like that; yes you can call all over the state, but you cannot call my 976's and I cannot call yours. Around here, Ameritech is even tighter; I do not think you can get into 976 if not in the same LATA. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:17:52 -0400 From: Lord Somnolent Organization: KoB Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' NetNut! wrote: > Massachusetts > (508) 940-XXXX > (607) 940-XXXX > (607) 555-XXXX Er, you must mean 617 for 607. Here is the full list of Massachusetts pay-per-call COs, applicable across 617/508/413(781/978): 550 - Group Conversation Bridging 554 - Adult Information Services 920 - General Business Information 940 - Adult Programs 976 - General All lines are set up by default to block 554 and 940 numbers, you must write NYNEX to get the block removed. The other three can be dialed from most phones. Also the 617-555 exchange isn't a pay-per-call CO. [TELECOM Digest Censor's Note: Thanks for the correction which also got past me. Again, the thing people need to remember is to watch out for 976, etc **within your own state and LATA**. Generally you do not need to be on guard for these from other areas of the US than your own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Wanted to Buy: 80-col Punch Cards Date: 24 Apr 1997 22:36:29 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California davem@whidbey.net (Dave Miller) writes: > I'm looking for a couple or three boxes of 96! column cards in > specific colors, too. The IBM 3624 ATM (automatic teller machine) prints its receipts on 96-column cards. These machines are still in use so the cards must be available. If asking for 96-column cards doesn't ring a bell with a supplier, try asking for ATM receipt stock. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:20:46 -0500 From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: US West Fighting Flood I discovered a press release on http://www.uswest.com/ about the Grand Forks situation. See the "About" page for the "Press Releases" link. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One really heroic effort in Grand Forks > is being made by the local newspaper which ... > They have not missed a single issue of publication, They've been publishing from the St. Paul Pioneer Press facilities, three-quarters of a state away. The Pioneer Press included the Grand Forks newspaper inside theirs for one issue last week along with an explanation of the story behind the stories. Several people noted that although they are publishing, they certainly can't deliver to their subscribers. I think Clinton also made a comment that he didn't know how they were publishing either, so you're not alone in your ignorance. But then it's not your field and you've not made ignorance an art. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Response: I am not quite sure how to read that final paragraph ... who are you calling ignorant anyway? Yes, I admit I am ignorant, and proud of it. I always did think that schools and education were a nuisance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? Date: 24 Apr 1997 13:16:34 GMT Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) writes: > Bruce Martin writes: >> Electronic stalker is making their life hell Well, as a follow-up, it was reported on the 22nd that the family's child had finally confessed that the whole thing was his doing, and that it was a "prank that got out of control". Ontario police said he wouldn't be prosecuted. Personally, considering the resources he wasted, I think he should be made to pay a rather large sum. I hope at least his parents will put him through hell. Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net "The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits." -- Grady Ward ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? Date: 24 Apr 1997 20:08:31 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer, it appears, had nothing > to do with the house, and everything to do with the home, if you > get my drift. Poor Billy, I hope whatever demons are troubling him > will be driven away with therapy. Well, Pat, from the wire service piece I read, he sounded like a smart ass kid who's games got away from him. I don't think he's in nearly as bad shape mentally as the picture you paint. If I'm wrong, of course, my apologies to him, but as I say, that's not the impression I got. > Poor Billy; I hope somehow he gets the help he needs. PAT] In any case; and from the tone of the piece, I gather the local Law are letting the parents deal with the situation, and that the parents actually _plan_ to. Both of these are refreshing developments. This isn't really telecom any longer; followups set. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "To really blow up an investment house requires Tampa Bay, Florida a human being." - Mark Stalzer +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Imagine ... parents taking responsibility for their children instead of blaming the teachers, the television and the internet chat rooms. What an outlandish suggestion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:49:19 -0500 From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer, it appears, had nothing > to do with the house, and everything to do with the home, The problems in that building could also have been blamed on a poltergeist. Investigators have usually found a teenager in a poltergeist-haunted building, and hidden cameras tended to solve the mystery when the teen did not know there was a camera pointed in their direction. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. ------------------------------ From: bcareis@airmail.net (Chuck Maurer) Subject: Re: Some General Questions For Readers Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:32:19 GMT Organization: BloodCare es008d@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) wrote: > I've gone through some of the past Digests but I still have a few > questions: > Is the number displayed on Caller ID extracted from the ANI or does a > seperate number travel through the telephone network along with the > privacy information? > When recieving calls orginating from inside PBXes sometimes Caller ID > will display the DID number or a main switchboard number and sometimes > it will display the number of the outgoing line. How does the PBX > operator "replace" the Caller ID number of their outgoing line? (This > is related to the question above). Our PBX send the number of the outbound trunk, not the phone number of the station within the bldg. This would cause a problem if the extension was not within the range that the CO can dial to. Our PBX receives calls to 351-8XXX. If extension 8123 dialed, it would work (351-8123). But if extension 7123 did it, the result would be the number of someone else in the neighborhood. The caller ID box of people we call will show a number that doesn't start with 351-8XXX and is not recognizable as us if it wasn't for the name display. > Are the (blue coinless) Charge-A-Call public telephones different from > POTS residential phones in terms of wiring or signalling? Who manufact- > ures them? > Is there any technical reason why the Charge-A-Call phones cannot not > accept incoming calls? > Most hotels have room phones with a message waiting light connected to > their PBX. With the advent of VoiceMail from the telcos, is there an > official standard for a Message Waiting Indicator on POTS phones? I don't know if it is official, but phone systems will present a stutter dial tone instead of a steady dial tone as a Message Waiting Indicator. I have seen a phone that periodically go off hook while idle to check the dial tone for stutter and turn on the light if it stutters. Chuck Maurer / BloodCare / Dallas, TX ------------------------------ From: wireless@cdc.net Subject: Re: Heads Up - FCC Issues 800 Order Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:02:26 GMT Organization: Netcom Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > The COMMISSION ESTABLISHES RULES PROMOTING EFFICIENT USE, FAIR > DISTRIBUTION OF TOLL FREE NUMBERS. Report No: CC-97-17. by 2nd R&O & > FNPRM. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: April 4, 1997. Dkt No.: > CC-95-155. (FCC No. 97-123) > 2. Rebuttal Presumption of Hoarding. > Hoarding is defined as a toll free subscriber acquiring more numbers > from a RespOrg than it intends to use immediately. I wonder what the definition of "immediately" is? How will this impact on paging providers and others who would have 800/888 numbers set aside for accounts that are not in service yet? I personally manage an inventory of over 5,000 800/888 numbers and in no way am I hoarding though I do wish I had more numbers for rotating stock. Greg Ramsey wireless@cdc.net ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider Date: 24 Apr 1997 20:14:34 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Doug Terman (antilles@madriver.com) wrote: > I also suggest to her that there might be a few other unhappy email > account holders calling and she. . . sighed. . ., saying, "I think > you're right." I thought folks might be interested in the most recent revision of the file I include in "Notices of Violation, 47 USC 227" to spammers and the related postmasters: ====================== Notice of Violation of Federal Law United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, says that "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." A telephone facsimile machine is defined in Section 227(a)(2)(B) as "equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." Pursuant to this definition, a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Please stop this. You have been put on notice. I have recorded your site name; further UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk mail from your site will force me to follow up under federal law. ======================= Notice to Postmasters Your systems were used to send this message. If this is contrary to your AUP's, please act accordingly. If it is not, you may wish to take advice on whether not adding such a provision leaves you open to legal exposure. Please note that you may have gotten this message even if it's obvious to me that your machine was used solely as a transit system for the email in question; I mean to cause you to decide that a bit more care in the choice of whose mail to forward would be A Good Thing. And, you may even have received a copy of this if you simply provide wholesale connectivity to a sender of unsolicited commercial email -- this shouldn't remain An Acceptable Dodge, either. Finally, please note that if your company policy is such that you appear to publically not care whether your customers behave in unethical or illegal manners -- yes, AGIS, I mean _you_ -- then any legal theories which make you civilly or criminally liable in tort or statue _will_ be pursued. Govern yourself accordingly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- While the legal theory behind applying '227 to spammers has, admittedly, not been tested at the bench, it seems to work pretty effectively. You folks might all also be interested to know that I (just) found myself on Spamford's list this past Saturday afternoon. I called his (non-800) phone line, pressed 4, and told them to take my addresses (listed) off their lists, and not to allow them to be added again. I also filled in the form on their website. I gave them until this past Wednesday, by date, to get it taken care of... and they did. Whether the included '227 threats helped or not is unknown; I'll let you know if I see any more from them. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 "...short of hiring the Unabomber, how can I +1 813 790 7592 jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #103 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 28 09:10:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA05648; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:10:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704281310.JAA05648@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #104 TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Apr 97 09:10:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" (Rob Slade) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (John R. Covert) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (David Smith) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Karim Alim) Cellular Problem Dialing More Than 10 Digits (Jon Solomon) NPAs in Jeopardy Situation (BBethea505@aol.com) Cell Phone Cancer Study (Stewart Fist) Share the Wealth (ya) (Steven Lichter) Incredible Chutzpah (Andy Sherman) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 09:47:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" BKWDGTSM.RVW 961219 "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music", Anthony Helmstetter/Ron Simpson, 1996, 1-883577-95-0, U$39.99/C$55.99 %A Anthony Helmstetter %A Ron Simpson %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-883577-95-0 %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$55.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 %P 336 %T "Web Developer's Guide to Sound and Music" Even if you present it in thorough detail, as the authors do, telling people how to add a sound link to a Web page only takes a small chapter. What this book does, then, is to give those who don't have a background in the technology of music on the computer a thorough overview of music and sound development. This ranges from simple capture of sound clips through editing and all the way up to recording at professional studios. For those already into the audio aspect of computer multimedia this will be a very simple text, but for the majority of Web developers it provides a guide to all aspects. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWDGTSM.RVW 961219 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun 27 Apr 97 15:12:06 EDT Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming From: John R. Covert First I'd like to correct an error in my previous message. The Motorola International 8800 is dual-mode 900/1800 MHz with the intention of giving European 1800 MHz customers the ability to roam on 900MHz. I'm not sure why I had thought it was 1900MHz/900MHz. Wishful thinking and late-night surfing, I suppose. Tri-mode phones are hoped to appear by next year. In reply to my message, nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had written: > Yes indeed. Also, while in a GSM country, call somebody with caller ID, > in-country. Normally, your VODAPHONE number will show up on the callers id > display. People can now call you on this number. That would indeed tell us a little more about how the AT&T/Vodaphone SIMcard hack works. In the case of a real international SIMcard, at least in the case of my New York SIMcard, calls within the UK showed up last week as "number withheld". I should have stuck the D1 card I had with me into the phone and checked that out. With a real SIM card, you really don't have a number within the country in which you're roaming; it's not needed at all for outgoing, and the temporary number used to route incoming calls to you can be released for reuse by someone else as soon as call setup has completed. > Why didn't the US carriers (including CDMA) use the same compatible SIM > technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! Utter stupidity, I must say. The only benefit of not using SIM cards is that it makes the phone slightly cheaper; the cost of the SIM card slot mechanical and electrical interface probably adds about $20 to the cost of the phone; well worth it in my opinion. And Hugh A. Pritchard wrote: > I've had GSM/SIM card service from Sprint Spectrum (APC) since the > beginning of the calendar year, here in the Washington-Baltimore area. > I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North > American market has anybody using GSM. Not true. You can roam in NYC on my carrier, Omnipoint. See your carrier's web site at www.sprintspectrum-apc.com. Warning: if you forget the "-apc" you'll end up at the SprintPCS site, a completely different non-GSM system. Omnipoint seems to be the clear leader in setting up roaming; if I had a 1900 MHz phone, my Omnipoint card would let me roam in DC, in the Carolinas with BellSouth Mobility, in Honolulu, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Vegas and Portland with VoiceStream, in SFO/LAX/SanDiego with Pacific Bell, and in Montreal, Ottawa, and Quebec City with Microcell. These are all fully active roaming agreements. See www.omnipoint.com. And as I mentioned, they are the only real GSM carrier so far to have any overseas agreements; yesterday they added Sweden to their list which previously included the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. > GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly has never > been cloned. And, in fact, with the SIMcard encryption technology, should never be able to be cloned without a lot more computing than could possibly be economical to bother with. /john ------------------------------ From: dsmith@tiger.co.uk (David Smith) Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming, and North American Mobile Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 03:02:14 GMT Organization: Tiger Co. nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) wrote: > Why didn't the US carriers (inlcluding CDMA) use the same compatible SIM > technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! The US GSM-1900 uses the same compatible SIM technology. ------------------------------ From: Karim Alim Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 02:37:58 -0400 Hugh Pritchard wrote in V17, #103: > I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North > American market has anybody using GSM. That's OK, because Sprint > Spectrum's GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly > has never been cloned. Actually, as of early April, Omnipoint in the Metropolitan New York area now provides service for Sprint Spectrum-APC users roaming from the Washington-Baltimore area. See http://www.celltalk.com/features/news/97/apr/02:040297002.html for more details including links to coverage maps and pricing. Oh, and I think you are right about GSM being unclonable, but if it ever DOES happen, it will probably be when you're in Manhattan. :^) -k. ------------------------------ From: jsol@eddie.mit.edu (Jon Solomon) Subject: Cellular Problem Dialing More Than 10 Digits Date: Sun, 27 Apr 97 17:51:14 EDT I note that both of the cellular companies here in CT don't let you dial more than 10 or 11 digits to complete a call ... E.g. Dialing 1-800-TERMINIX fails, while 1-800-TERMINI succeeds. I reported it to both Bell Atlantic NYNEX and to SNET Linx. jsol ------------------------------ From: BBethea505@aol.com (Brian Bethea) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:28:18 EDT Subject: NPAs in Jeopardy Situation I recently bcame curious of the number of NPAs currently in jeopardy of exhaust before relief can be provided (split/overlay): This is what I found from cruising Bellcore's website (without ordering IL's at $10 each!) CODE State/Prov. Declaration Relief Plans 310.............CA.................1994........................Split with 562 now in permissive. 617.............MA.................1995........................No relief here until 1998, will split with 781. 415.............CA.................1996........................Split with 650, late summer '97. 619.............CA.................1996........................Split with 760 now in permissive. 412.............PA.................1996........................Was to be overlay (05/97). In review by PUC. 201.............NJ..................1996........................Split with 973 510.............CA.................1996........................Split with 925, 1998. 714.............CA.................1996........................Split with 949, 1998. 212.............NY.................1996........................Overlay (??) in early 1998. New code is 646. 817.............TX..................1996........................Split with 254 & 940, May 1997. 414.............WI.................1996........................Split with 920, early summer '97. 210.............TX..................1996........................Split with 830 & 956, July '97. 508.............MA.................1996.......................Split with 978, early '98. 501.............AR.................1997........................Split with 870 now in permissive. 405.............OK.................1997........................No definites on relief. 215.............PA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 717.............PA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 403.............AB.................1997........................No definites on relief. 770.............GA.................1997........................No definites on relief. 614.............OH.................1997........................Split with 740, late '97. 972.............TX..................1997........................No definites on relief. Just left permissive last week! 816.............MO................1997........................Split with ???, late '97. I find it very interesting that the industry and the local telcos in each of these areas have drug their feet so long in planning. (I realize that state PUCs often muddle the process.) Even so, relief plans should begin as soon as the code level goes above 50%. Also, mandatory dialing should begin as far ahead of the exhaust date as possible, not merely a few days/weeks. Of course, with the use of overlays these problems could be avoided for the most part. I'll not go into that song and dance again. I think there have been a couple split vs. overlay threads recently. Bryan Bethea Market Designation Team Leader Touch 1 Communications ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:01:23 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Cell Phone Cancer Study This gets very little coverage in TELECOM Digest, for good reason. Most of the studies are inconclusive. Not all, however. This, I predict, is one of the most significant yet. ----------------------------- Cell phones/cancer connection. by Stewart Fist The Australian newspaper, Tues 29 April 1997 A team of scientists funded by Telstra to investigate claimed links between cellular phones and cancer has turned up probably the most significant finding of an adverse health effects yet. When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic". Three other prominent magazines including 'Nature' also later rejected the report, suggesting that they would not handle such important conclusions without the research being further confirmed. The study looked at 200 mice, half exposed and half not, to pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan Harris and statistician Val Gebski, and it revealed a highly-significant doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power-density roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two half-hour periods each day; this was pulsed transmission as from a handset, not the steady transmission of a cell-phone tower. A significant increase in B-cell lymphomas was evident early in the experiment, but the incidence continued to rise over the 18 months. The implications of the B-cell (rather than the normal T-cell) lymphomas here, is that B-cell effects are implicated in roughly 85 percent of all cancers. The experiment was conducted as a blind trial, using absolutely identical equipment and conditions for two groups of 100 mice. The only difference between handling the two groups was that the power to one antenna was never switched on. Over the 18 months, the exposed mice had 2.4-times the tumour rate of the unexposed - but this was later corrected downwards to a more confident 2-times claim to remove other possible influences. According to Dr Alan Harris from the Walter and Eliza Institute in Melbourne: "This is important because at present, there was no convincing evidence that radio fields (in contrast to X- and Gamma-rays, ultraviolet and atomic radiation) can directly cause the changes in genes responsible for cancer development." In fact, until late 1996, most governments and all cell-phone companies have been claiming that the safety of their product has been proved - and that the only possible biological effect of radio frequency transmission is localised body heating. The conduct of this experiment actually raises questions more about the potential for cell-phone hanset radiation to effect people nearby (passive exposures) than just the user him/herself. The experiment was conducted in the 'far field', at distances greater from the mice than the cell-phone is normally held from the head. Near-field biological effects in EMF effects are thought to be sustantially different from far-field, although the biomedical implications are not clear. Also, in close proximity, most of the energy transfers from the handset to the head by induction rather than just radiation, and this can raise the energy transfer by a factor of four. The study therefore under-rates the potential power effects on the handset user, while over-rating those for people nearby. The Adelaide study has been held back from publication for over two years while the B-cell implications were checked at a laboratory in Maryland, USA. Under their contract with Telstra, those involved in the study were prohibited from discussing their findings until after publication. Increased tumours began to be recorded after about 9 months. It is important to note that these were transgenic mice, specially bred to be susceptible to cancers of the immune system. However susceptible mice are commonly used in these studies as 'proxies', since cancer-causing effects are believed to be cumulative at the cell level. The total exposure period is very much less than can be expected from human use over a lifetime, so while one of the scientists downplayed the importance, saying, "humans are not rodents" another pointed out that "DNA is DNA". Every attempt appears to have been made to hose down the significance of this report, however the importance of the finding will not be lost on the international scientific community. This research now places Australia at the fore-front of EMF-health research, and it demands a series of follow-up studies to investigate dose-related responses and near-field effects. An expensive video-conference is being mounted on Wednesday by Telstra in Adelaide to officially release the report, with Dr Michael Repacholi speaking from Geneva. He has been prominent crusader on the side of "cell-phones are safe" lobby for many years. However, none of the technical or medical press involved in this debate have been invited to Adelaide conference. The official press release issued by the chairman of the scientific committee, Professor Tony Basten of Sydney University, also leads with gentle fire-extinguisher statement that "In our opinion the findings are valid for this genetically-engineered mouse model, but they must be put in context. Mice and humans absorb energy from these fields differently so we cannot conclude from this single study that humans have an increased risk of cancer from the use of digital mobile phones. More focussed research needs to be done to resolve that issue" I couldn't agree more on the last point, but nothing done in the last few years with the exception of the Drs. Lai-Singh work in Seattle has more obviously established that cell-phone safety has not yet been proved. There has been evidence accumulating over many years that the long-term effects of radio-frequency exposures may have serious consequences for a small percent of the population, but this has been ignored by the industry and by governments. The fact that Prof. Tony Basten concluded his release with the statement "For the time being, at least, I see no scientific reason to stop using my own mobile phone," is largely irrelevant. At his age and in his occupation, the potential dangers from increased phone use are probably minimal. The question is, would he buy his teenage child one? SIDEBAR This report follows two other fierce brush-fire in the cell-phone industry. The first was generated last year when Dr Henry Lai and Dr Singh at Washington State University reported enormous increases in double-strand DNA breaks in rat-brain tissue following microwave exposures of only two hours. The industry largely ignored these findings claiming that the frequencies used were not identical to cell-phones. In addition, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group in the USA, which is funded by the cell-phone industry has become embroiled in a number of scandals. The WTR was promoted to the public and to the US Government as being an 'independent' and 'arms-length' body controlling $25 million in research funding. Recent leaked documents show that it has been under the direct control of the industry association, and it has long operated as a PR front. In the last four years it has spent $17 million "without wetting a test-tube, " according to Microwave News editor, Louis Slessin. Following the tobacco industry's problems, the WTR scientists recently went on strike for nearly a year, refusing to perform their contracted research until adequately covered for indemnity against law suits by the cellular phone industry association. Last week, the WTR was finally paid US$938,000 to fund indeminity insurance coverage. The US scientists' sensitivity to this issue follows the filing of thirty-eight cases which are now before the courts over past tobacco-safety studies. Both the tobacco company lawyers and the scientists they funded have been charged as co-conspirators with the Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies in suppressing evidence and manipulating research results. END ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sleight of hand comes while you are reading their lips! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 ------------------------------ From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter) Subject: Share the Wealth (ya) Date: 26 Apr 1997 13:25:06 -0700 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company Here is an 888 number that I got in junk E-mail. I'm sure all of you would like to call it to find out how you can share the wealth. Besure to tell them that your sponser is SH3333777, so that he may get all the credit. Besure to leave all the information requested or he will never know. The number is 888-324-3245. Remember not to abuse that number and you should really call from a pay phone or large PABX. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ From: asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 27 Apr 1997 08:40:34 -0400 Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. Did anybody else hear about this? I heard it as one of those whimsical little pieces on the half-hour on NPR's Morning Edition a couple weeks ago. It seems some relatively small LD carrier has applied to do business in Florida under the trade names of "I Don't Care" and "It Doesn't Matter". Presumably, if a subscriber gave either of those answers to a LEC carrier selection request then Scumbag Communications (or whomever) would be that person's PIC. According to the story, the Florida PSC has delayed action on the application while it searches for the statutory authority to say no. [Pause] OK, now that we've had a good laugh, let's get serious! Can you imagine the statue not having the authority to prevent implementation of a deceptive trade practice? I would think this is easy -- compare the consumer's intent in saying "I don't care" to the outcome if these folks prevail. They are not the same, unless to add to the carrier selection script "Do you mean 'I Don't Care' long distance service from Scumbag Communications or do you mean that you don't care who your carrier is?" Anybody heard what the final PSC action was on this? Andy Sherman 3 World Financial Center, NYC, 11th Flr VP, Business Continuity (212) 526-4641 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com "Never use a scalpel if a machete will do the job." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There have been previous reports a few months ago in this Digest about the company which made up those names, since they have applied in other states as well, where they have had mixed results (turned down in a few, accepted in a couple). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #104 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 29 04:38:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA10112; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:38:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704290838.EAA10112@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #105 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Apr 97 04:38:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Rural Telcos and the Internet (oldbear@arctos.com) Book Review: NetSuccess: How Real Estate Agents Use the Internet (R Slade) Qualcomm Gets OK on Q Phones (Tad Cook) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Greg Monti) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (John B. Hines) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (nwdirect@netcom.com) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Bob Goudreau) Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID (Dave Yewell) Original Called Number Delivery on 800 Calls (Bill McMullin) Talk or Drive, But Not Both at Same Time (Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Seymour Dupa) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Linc Madison) Re: Radio Call-In Contest Regulations (Eric Florack) Manual Conversion (Carl Navarro) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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, 28 Apr 1997 16:00:19 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Rural Telcos and the Internet I just had a request for some information from some grade school kids working on a school project and was curious about where they were located. I checked the name of their school's internet access provider in the internic and discovered they are in northern Montanta and that their ISP is part of a rural telephone cooperative. From what I could tell from their ISP's web pages, Three Rivers Telephone Cooperative servers about 16,000 subscriber lines. The co-op has been around since 1953 and now serves 26 exchanges -- and offers internet access in all but one of these exchanges at what appears to be competitive rates to those which we find in many more urbanized areas. (They maintain a web site at http://www.3rivers.net which includes some pages about their internet services, a map of their service area, their newsletter, etc.) While rural cooperatives are not that unusual, I have not been sufficiently close to them to know what they have been doing in the area of internet connectivity for their subscribers. If this is typical, I am both pleased for what it portends for rural access to the net -- and deeply disturbed about the whining coming from the Baby Bells who continue to complain about net access being a problem rather than an opportunity. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:02:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetSuccess: How Real Estate Agents Use the Internet" BKNETSUC.RVW 961219 "NetSuccess", Scott Kersnar, 1996, 1-56592-213-1, U$34.95/C$49.95 %A Scott Kersnar skersnar@wco.com %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-213-1 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$34.95/C$49.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 214 %T "NetSuccess: How Real Estate Agents Use the Internet" What the heck, I mean, some of my *relatives* are real estate agents. But, you must admit, this is a pretty specialized interest. When one has been reviewing books for a while, one gets a bit cynical about specialized topics. Not to worry. Kersnar has done an excellent job of presenting the net in a realistic, detailed, and helpful fashion. Although the book does present case studies of realty companies connecting to the net, it doesn't fall into the trap of becoming simply a series of Web site screen shots. (Than which there is nothing more boring.) Email is given primacy--as it should, given that email is the most immediately useful resource. The overview of software tools even includes the all important, but often unmentioned, dialer. Definitely one of the better business-on-the-Internet books. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNETSUC.RVW 961219 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) ------------------------------ Subject: Qualcomm Gets OK on Q Phones Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 01:11:45 GMT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Saturday, April 26, 1997,in the {San Jose Mercury News}. Qualcomm gets OK on `Q' phones as Motorola loses suit Mercury News Wire Services SAN DIEGO -- A federal judge has ruled that Qualcomm Inc. can move ahead with plans to produce palm-sized wireless telephones that rival those offered by Motorola Corp. in a decision that could help drive down prices and expand services for such extremely lightweight, compact devices. The judge Thursday night denied claims by Motorola that San Diego-based Qualcomm copied its designs. Qualcomm officials said Friday that work will resume immediately on its "Q" phones, five-ounce devices that Motorola contended were illegally patterned after its popular StarTAC model. U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. ruled Thursday that Motorola has "no likelihood of success on the merits of its claims" in its infringement case. Motorola officials said the company has already filed a petition to appeal Jones' decision. The Qualcomm phone, which is expected to cost about $800 when it goes on sale this summer, has a similar size and clamshell shape to the Motorola device, which costs up to $899. The antennas, batteries and keypads also are in the same positions. But there are differences. The StarTAC's "send" and "end" keys are laid out differently. And unlike Motorola, Qualcomm will offer e-mail and other Internet features on its "Q" phones. The San Diego company said it did not intentionally mimic the StarTac, but placement of its features were dictated by function. Jones agreed that the "Q" phone did not infringe on most "points of novelty" attributed to the Motorola model. For instance, the "Q" phone's rectangular screen is similarly located on the StarTAC, but the placement was dictated by the phone's functions rather than industrial theft. But the decision could damage Motorola's bottom line because the StarTac is such an innovative and unusual design, said analyst Bradley Williams of Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc. Qualcomm shares rose $2.13 Friday to $45.13. Motorola shares fell $2.63 to $55.38. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:38:48 -0400 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? On 22 Apr 97, bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere. Last time I looked, there were > 890 possible area codes There are about 710 possible area codes in the North American system at it stands, with the 1XX, N11 and N9X combinations excluded. > (Why is 1xx reserved anyway? Because the initial digit would be confused with the "1" which is used to indicate "area code next" in some, but not all, cases. Suppose area code 144 were assigned. So, 144-367-9949 wouild be a legitimate NANP number. Now, a subscriber dials a toll call to 1-443-679-9498 in Maryland. Should the subscriber's central office accept the first ten digits dialed as if they are the whole number and connect him to 144-367-9949? Or should the switch wait for 5 or 6 seconds to see if he dials one more digit, and route it to Maryland? Switching decisions should *never* be based on time-outs on domestic calls. > Why is N9x required > to be reserved for additional digits for local numbers??). So that there is unambigious room to expand the system to four-digit area codes. My area code here in New Jersey is 201. Someday, when all the 3-digit area codes run out, there will need to 4-digit area codes. A specific 4-digit combination has already been reserved to convert 201 to the 4-digit format. It will be 2901. In order for this to work, there can be no 3-digit area codes in which the second digit is a 9 (because that, too, would be ambiguous). Therefore, those with a second digit of 9 are not assignable. This only sets aside 10% of all possible area codes, which is is not a huge deficit. > that 890 times 999 exchange codes times 10000 numbers in each exchange, > there should be 8,891,100,000 possible phone numbers available. Actually, it's 710 area codes times 780 exchange codes times 10,000 numbrs, which is only 5.5 billion possible numbers ... > Yes, I know not all of those can be used (you wouldn't want exchange > numbers starting with 911 for instance), but the vast majority of > those should be good numbers. Yes. But you haven't considered all the things that really affect numbering. In North America, each central office is assigned a "rate area" for determining the mileage of long distance calls in and out. All subscribers to that central office are considered to exist at one single point on the surface of the earth. All mileages for rating calls are measured to and from that point. The billing system used by North American telcos (ranging from the smallest rural co-operative up to the giant local telco GTE, to the long distance giant AT&T) look up the rates for each call by looking only at the first six digits of the called number (after the "1"). Those six digits are the area code and prefix. In the small town of Spearfish, Wyoming, those six digits are 307-643. Without exception, all 307-643 numbers MUST be in the Spearfish central office (or in a rural switching office which is connected to and within about 10 miles of) it. Even if all of the numbers in 307-643 cannot be used because the population of the area is not large enough, those numbers cannot be used anywhere else. This cannot be changed without changing the software at every central office and telephone billing center in North America. All it would take would be time and money. In the US and Canada, there are tens of thousands of towns with populations under a few thousand. In these towns, the 10,000 possible phone numbers in a single prefix may *never* all be used up or assigned. But all 10,000 numbers are assigned to that town (and mileage point) and cannot be used anywhere else. Each prefix runs out of numbers when about 90% of the 10,000 numbers are used. In those cases, a second prefix is overlaid on the town. Each area code runs out of prefixes when about 780 prefixes are used (regardless of how full or emtpy those prefixes are). In those cases, a second area code is added by splitting or overlaying. Another North American rule is that area codes do not cross state lines. So you cannot combine the small populations of Montana and Wyoming into a single area code to save assigning one. Also, each time a new phone company starts up in an area, whether it is a landline company, a new competitor, a cellular or PCS company, it must be assigned a block of numbers, usually 10,000 numbers (one prefix) to begin serving its customers. So, here we are in Spearfish, with maybe 500 access lines connected to the 307-643 central office. And two cellular carriers move in and want blocks of numbers. The A and B carriers have 100 customers each. And they also have one prefix apiece. So the small town has 3 prefixes (30,000 numbers) serving 700 paying customers. Tough. That's just the way it is. > Where am I off in my figuring?? If I'm even halfway close, we couldn't > possibly run out of numbers for a long time, if ever! Let's look at the beginning of 1995. There were about 150 area codes in service then, which was all the possibilities that could exist without the center digit being allowed to expand beyond 0 or 1. Since early 1995, 28 months have passed, and about 60 new area codes have been assigned in North America. That's about two new area codes per month. Let's do the math. We know that there can be about 710 area codes if we exclude the ones of the forms X11, 1XX, 0XX and N9X. How many months' supply do we have until we run out of the 710 possible codes? 710 minus 150 equals 560 codes still unassigned. At two codes per month, the three-digit area code system has 280 months left to live. That's 23.3 years. So, in 23.3 years from January, 1995, give or take 50%, the area code system will need to go to four digits: March, 2018. We're taking bets that it will be sooner than that. > What prompted this was the BellSouth Press release announcing they now > have 6 million access lines in Florida. By my figuring, you could fit 6 > million lines into a single area code. Yes. You absolutely can, if thay are all in big cities in which each prefix uses all 10,000 numbers. > And yet Florida has 10 [area codes] and says they need more??! Don't forget, BellSouth is not the only phone company in Florida. It does not serve the boom-towns of Tampa-St Pete (which are GTE), or Fort Myers Naples (served by Sprint) or Tallahasse (I forget who serves them). There are plenty of other companies serving Florida, too, all of which are outside of the 6 million lines counted by BellSouth. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:47:03 GMT Organization: The Conspiracy bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) wrote: > Where am I off in my figuring?? If I'm even halfway close, we couldn't > possibly run out of numbers for a long time, if ever! There just isn't > 9 billion ports available in the telephone network! Nor will there be > anytime in the near future! (I don't think??!) The problem is in the way the phone system does phone number routing and billing. This is done by the exchange part of the number, so that in order to establish a Point Of Presence (POP) on the phone network requires an entire exchange, 10,000 numbers at a time. When MFS, TCG and other alternative phone companies want to setup in a new CO, they take phone numbers 10,000 at a time, even if they only have a couple of hundred actually assigned. Even then numbers are often assigned in large blocks within the large blocks for companies, etc. A smarter routing system, similar to what is used for 800 number portablity, would make number allocation more efficent. One thing I would like to see, is a "shadow" overlay area code for large metropolitan areas. This would be a voluntary assigned at the request of the line owner, and would be intended for non-human use numbers like modems, ATM and POS machines. I know the FCC has struck down mandatory overlays, so thats why it would be optional. If I was a tele/data com manager, with lots of machines that used the telephone network to communicate, not having to re-program everything when there were splits in the "human" numbers would be big advantage. It would also be a signal to telemarketers not to call, since there isn't a human to answer. Such numbers would not be listed in the phone book, or directory assistance to simplify things, and discourage human use. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I have also wondered about is why all the lines in a hunt group on a switchboard (or any multi-line phone for that matter) have to have actual, dialable numbers assigned to them. It seems like a waste of numbers for a switchboard with thirty or forty incoming trunks on it to have a number for each trunk. Usually people just dial into the first line. Couldn't quite a few numbers in each area code be salvaged in that way, by making the back lines in a hunt group just be 'circuits' which were hunted down as needed? Give them non-dialable numbers like 012-3456. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nwdirect@netcom.com Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:24:40 GMT For starters many of the numbers that are assigned are not actually used. It is quite inexpensive for a paging company or other entity to take an entire prefix and use just a few numbers in it. That wastes the entire prefix. The phone companies should assign numbers in blocks of 1,000 and once they use those they can have another 1,000. These would be in prefixes already in use. The phone companies can reserve specific prefixes for this purpose if they want to but share them with all similar companies. How can they force the issue? Very simply. Charge the current prices to do it this way and quadruple the price if they want to hog an entire prefix. The problem now is that the telcos are practically giving the prefixes away. I heard that anyone can have an entire prefix for around $10,000 a month, a dollar a number. At those rates it is easy to pay for an entire prefix. The telcos don't really care if they have to keep adding new area codes. It is up to the public to say enough is enough and for the telcos not to issue new area codes until the usage percentage of the numbers they already have is sufficiently high enough. With the proliferation of new phone companies, each taking several prefixes and using just a very small portion of the prefixes assigned to them will just exacerbate the problem. The way we are going now it is quite possible that we could exhaust all the available area codes within the next 11 years. We need a federal law or FCC ruling to stop this insanity before it is too late. * Internet Access Providers - Web Presense Providers - BBSes * * http://www.thedirectory.org/ - largest directory on the web * * tens of thousands of listings - over 7,500 Access Providers * * Telephone Prefix Location Finder - "The BBS Corner" * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1997 11:52:28 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something somewhere. Last time I looked, there were > 890 possible area codes Ahh, but you looked a little too far, and counted many more codes than are possible :-) ... Taking your questions in order: > (Why is 1xx reserved anyway? Because direct-dialing 1-1XX-NXX-XXXX would conflict with special service codes that start with "11" (and which are also dialable with the "*" key if you have tone-dialing). For instance, 1167 (or *67) blocks transmission of Caller ID. Likewise, dialing an operator- assisted number as 0-1XX-NXX-XXXX would conflict with international calls, which begin with 011 (direct-dialed) or 01 (operator-assisted). The 00X range is also off-limits, since 1-0XX-NXX-XXXX would conflict with the 10XXX (soon to be 101XXXX) set of carrier-selection codes (e.g., prefix your call with 10288 or 1010288 to choose AT&T as the carrier). > Why is N9x required to be reserved for additional digits for local > numbers??). Umm, because *something* has to be reserved for number expansion, and N9X is as good as anything else? To be more precise, the N9X NPAs are reserved for general "future number expansion". This may include longer local numbers; it may include longer area codes; it may include both. But the NANP Administration would be extremely foolish to paint itself into a corner by using up all the number space with no smooth upgrade path for number space expansion, during which new longer numbers can be phased in and old 10-digit numbers phased out. > If you take that 890 times 999 exchange codes times 10000 numbers in > each exchange, there should be 8,891,100,000 possible phone numbers > available. Yes, I know not all of those can be used (you wouldn't > want exchange numbers starting with 911 for instance), but the vast > majority of those should be good numbers. The actual total, while still a large number, is only about half of what you suppose. First, there aren't 999 possible exchange codes. For reasons similar to the previously-discussed impediments to 0XX and 1XX area codes, 0XX and 1XX exchanges cannot work, unless all 7-digit dialing within the NPA is eliminated. Even then, there are extra complications: some of those numbers have long been used as the billing numbers of non-dialable points; and some telephonic equipment is apparently unable to handle dialing a 10-digit number that has 0 or 1 as its fourth digit. Also, the N11 series of exchanges (and NPAs) is generally unavailable, due to special numbers like 911 (emergency), 411 (directory assistance), 611 (telco repair) and 311 (the proposed new non-emergency police number). There are a few places where some N11 exchanges (such as 811) exist as the prefix for normal 7-digit numbers, and NPAs which have no 7-digit dialing (such as 800, 888 and 900) now also allow N11 exchanges (though even they exclude 911). But in most cases, N11 numbers aren't available, and the number of usable 3-digit prefixes within a given NPA is only 792 (and 799 for non-geographic NPAs such as 800). Second, the area code space is much smaller than 890 codes. As discussed above, 0XX, 1XX and N9X are unavailable. NANPA has also put a few other codes off-limits or reserved them for specific service uses (thanks to Mark Cuccia for providing these details last year). Here's a list; note that "aa" refers to a pair of digits that match each other: N11: barred because N11 special numbers must still be dialable even in areas with 10-digit dialing. 37X: reserved for future (as-yet-uconceived) services that might require an entire block of 10 contiguous NPAs. 96X: reserved for same purpose as 37X 5aa: PCS (expansion of existing NPA 500) 8aa: toll-free (expansion of NPA 800) 456: international inbound 521, 524->529: Mexico Roaming, Temp. 600: Canadian Telex and other data services 700: IC services 710: US GETS (Government Emergency Telephone System) 881, 881: international access to NPAs 800, 888 883, 885, 886, 887, 889: reserved for NDTP (Non Dial Toll Point) relief > Where am I off in my figuring?? If I'm even halfway close, we couldn't > possibly run out of numbers for a long time, if ever! There just isn't > 9 billion ports available in the telephone network! Nor will there be > anytime in the near future! (I don't think??!) > What prompted this was the BellSouth Press release announcing they now > have 6 million access lines in Florida. By my figuring, you could fit 6 > million lines into a single area code. And yet Florida has 10 and says > they need more??! That's an average of 16.65 numbers per line! Even > figuring DID numbers into business trunks, I don't see that many numbers > being used. Even though you are about "halfway close" to the correct number, the thing to keep in mind is that it represents only the maximum *possible* phone numbering space, only reaching that maximum if usage density is 100 percent and there is no wastage. However, until NPA numbers are fully commerically and geographically portable (i.e., until the first six digits of an NXX-NXX-XXXX phone number have no more association with particular telcos or geographic zones), there will continue to be a large amount of wasted number capacity. There is a significant amount of slack capacity at both the NPA and the local exchange level. Even in these days of explosive phone number growth, there are a number of NPAs with a fairly small number of local exchanges, which might never come close to using up the whole NPA. Waste is probably much worse at the local level, since (with a few exceptions) each local central office, even for podunk towns with a few dozen phone lines, uses an entire exchange of 10,000 phone numbers. And in the past few years, exchange density has gotten even lower due to a proliferation of new telcos, such as cellular providers and competitors for local service. The latter are a big source of number usage, since they have been reserving at least one exchange for *every* billing point in their service areas, even when they have few or no customers in those locations yet. Hopefully, local number portability will restrain such profigacy, since it will allow customers to switch to a different local telco without having to change phone numbers. On the other hand, some of the mechanisms being mooted to implement local number portability might make the problem even worse, since they involve mapping "logical" numbers to telco-specific physical numbers. 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: I would think area code 401 serving Rhode Island is mostly wasted. Certainly quite a few exchanges are in use there, but I'll bet there are lots and lots of unused numbers. Ditto 406 for Montana and 208 for Idaho. Is there any reason the entire North American continent has to stay as a group in country code 1? For example, suppose we had country code 12 for the eastern part of the USA, country code 13 for the western part (let the Mississippi River be the dividing point, like it is for the 'K' and 'W' radio stations) and perhaps country code 14 for Canada. Now each 'country' gets to use the entire bunch of area codes internally, and like existing area codes, subscribers would only need to dial 011-12-XXX or 011-13XXX plus seven digits if they were dialing to the other side of the country or to Canada. Admittedly we would have to dial fifteen digits if calling the other side of the USA but only seven or eleven digits for most calls instead of twelve digits everywhere if a four digit area code is imposed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Yewell Subject: Why both 1+10 and 10 on my CID Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 21:54:44 -0700 Organization: Netcom I just received a new CID from BellSouth. There are two buttons to dial long distance based on the number sent: "dial 10 digits" which I assume are the ten digits which CID delivers and "dial 1+10 digits" Isn't all 10 digit dialing in the US "1+10"? Appreciate your info. Dave ------------------------------ From: Bill McMullin Reply-To: bill@interactive.ca Subject: Original Called Number Delivery on 800 Calls Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 23:37:28 -0300 Organization: InfoInterActive Inc. We are trying to determine which, if any, US telcos provide the Original Called Number to the 1-800 network provider. In other words, if a phone is Call Forwarded to a 1-800 number and the termination location has PRI ISDN or SS7 connectivity, does the Original Called Number get delivered when the forwarding station receives calls? In case there is no definitive answer or only some telcos and areas offer the service, we have set up a test 1-800 number. We are looking for US volunteers who subscribe to Call Forwarding on their home phone. For those which want to help you simply need to forward your phone to 1-800-214-4728 then call yourself or have someone call you. Only one test call is necessary and after it is done you can turn off Call Forwarding. Based on the logs we produce we will be able to tell whether or not the Original Called Number is delivered. Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to help. Regards, Bill McMullin InfoInterActive Inc. Halifax, Nova Scotia Ph: 902-832-1611 Fx: 902-832-1015 ------------------------------ From: Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt Subject: Talk or Drive, But Not Both at Same Time Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:42:48 -0400 Organization: Cognos Incorporated This could be a first (or at least one of the first few) in legislation related to cellphones and driving: According to latest press reports from Poland the newly adopted Highway Act, a legislation regulating the usage of public highways, PROHIBITS the use of cellular phones (as well as smoking :-)) while driving in populated ("urban" or "residential" might be better translations) areas. Safety appears to have been the deciding factor for adopting the new rules. More on the subject as news rolls in ... Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt Software Engineer voice: (613) 738-1338 x. 4664 Cognos Incorporated fax: (613) 228-1448 Ottawa, Ontario mailto: dziewalw@cognos.com CANADA ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 28 Apr 1997 15:15:26 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. In comp.dcom.telecom Andy Sherman wrote: > It seems some relatively small LD carrier has applied to do business > in Florida under the trade names of "I Don't Care" and "It Doesn't > Matter". I once head a person shanged his name to "None of the Above". He then ran for political office. On the ballot, his name appeared ... John ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:03:58 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Tom.Horsley@worldnet. att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) wrote: > Either that, or terrible news coverage of the issues, with reporters > implying that everyone would have to start dialing 10 digits for every > number they ever call. It's really very simple: With an overlay, *no* > number you currently dial will change in the slightest. With a split, > odds are good (and they get better with every split) that some of the > numbers you call will have to change and you will have to dial 10 > instead of 7 digits. So explain again why the PSC thinks a split is > more "convenient"? The reason that the news reporters have been saying that with an overlay you will have to dial 10+ digits for every call is that it is TRUE. In an overlay, 7-digit dialing is prohibited. There are two very strong reasons for this rule: (1) It is very important to force everyone in an overlay to think of their phone number as the full 10-digit number, not just the last 7. The only practical way of doing that is to require them to DIAL all 10. (2) Allowing 7-digit dialing within the same overlay area code gives the incumbent LEC a huge advantage over the entering competitors. For both of those reasons, the FCC has mandated that all overlays must be accompanied by 10-digit (or 11-digit) dialing. So, contrary to your assertion, in an overlay, *EVERY* local number in your own area code will change in the manner you dial it. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sick of hearing all this crapola about how 'allowing seven digit dialing within same overlay code gives the incumbent LEC a huge advantage ...' That has *never* been demon- strated or proven. Are not the competitor's customers going to be calling one another just as often as the existing LEC's customers call one another (within the same code)? Is not the LEC going to be assigning its own customers to the new overlay code as well? If I am an existing customer of LEC and you choose to go with a competitor and we wish to talk to each other, I'll need to dial your area code as often as you need to dial mine. In the meantime both of us can continue to dial seven digits for many of our calls. Now I have no particular objection to simply dialing ten digits for all calls, and in fact if the entire nation went to a dialing scheme of area code plus seven digits for everything, we would be able to get by with ten digits instead of eleven because there would no longer be any ambiguity about the meaning of the first three digits dialed; they would always be an area code, and as a result no need to pull a one to start with to provide context. What I do object to however is the constant whining and complaining by the competitors, wireless and landline alike, that everything done to them is 'unfair', and that the rest of us must be imposed upon with every change in the technology no matter how inconvenient it is for us to change area codes, etc once a month more or less. In the northwest suburban (Chicago) community of Schaumburg, IL about half the people in town had to get completely new telephone numbers -- all ten digits! -- because they could not be worked conveniently into either 847 or 630 with their existing numbers. In Chicago itself, there might as well be an overlay between 312 and 773; the essence of one is present anyway on the north side boundary line between the two codes as it juts in and out, up and down side streets and between houses on the same block over a range of about a mile along Armitage Avenue. But ask Joe Diddly's phone company and its half-dozen customers to accept a different area code or to share a prefix with P. Yunies phone company and its three customers?? Why god forbid, that would be unfair! It would give LEC an unfair advantage ... or so it is claimed. Only a tiny minority of the existing customers of LEC will ever give any consideration at all to going to a competitor, and if they are saavy enough to know how to do that, then they are saavy enough to know how to dial between area codes and understand the reasoning behind receiving a new number/area code to start with. The burden on this should go to the people who have caused the problem, not all the other subscribers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:44:08 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Radio Call-In Contest Regulations John Higdon writes in #97, > scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) wrote: >> I've speculated that special contest numbers are >> used which are known to all of the switches in a metropolitan area, so >> that the load of returning busy signals to N-1 callers can be >> distributed among all of the CO's, rather than swamping the one switch >> attached to the contest line (and tying up lots of trunks). > This practice (yes, it did exist -- I even hosted a radio talk show > dedicated to the topic back in the seventies) was known as a "choke > network". A prefix was designated as a "high volume" exchange and all > radio stations using lines for contests and requests were required to > obtain numbers in that special exchange. Stations not served by that > particular central office were required to haul it in via foreign > exchange. In the case of Rochester Tel, they used 222 for this purpose. Since 222 was not serving ANY area in 716, it was a new exchange set up for the purpose and all radio stations air lines were run through it. Thing was that 222 wasn't really an exhange, I don't think, since none of the numbers for any of the dozen or so stations I worked for, ever terminated in 222. Instead, invariably, they'd be terminated in the exhange in service for that area. IE: Downtown Rochster studios would be served by 454 and 232 numbers, studios in Brighton 442/461, and so on. I've always assumed it was some kind of map routing, which would send any 222 calls to the Stone Street site (our biggest telco operation) and then back out to whatever the real number was from there, on a call-forward basis. Always seemed to me a bit of a waste of switch power. -----&<----snip-------- > I speak of all this in the past tense because in the era of SS7 and > intelligent routing networks, trunk management can be done on the > fly. A virtual choke network can be created instantly. As a result, > the old choke exchange has fallen into disuse. Since Stone street was all ESS by the time this was in place, in our case, it was a simple proceedure to simply add the 222 routings to the xbar exchanges. It's a system still in use today, even with all the switches now being ESS. Why bother to change it, I guess... =0= There is no such thing as 'shades of grey', no 'grey areas', only black and white spots, some of which are very small. If you see grey, you're not getting close enough to what you're looking at to know it's true nature.Every grey area is merely a number of componant questions you're not close enough to see. ____________________________ __________________________________ /Eric Florack, SysOp of the /\ /Internet:eflorack@servtech.com /\ / FREE FILE FARM BBS / /\ / or eric_florack@xn.xerox.com _/ /\ /716-352-6544 or 352-1629 / \/ / 'A day without Clinton is like / \/ /GT Network 041/003,041/007 /\ / a day without hemorrhoids' / /___________________________/ / /_________________________________/ / \___________________________\/ \_________________________________\/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ------------------------------ From: Cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: Manual Conversion Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:23:42 GMT > Ameritech will need to keep some Centel employees on hand to operate > the nonstandard (from Ameritech's perspective) switches! I wonder if ITT made any of those switches. It had a manufacturing plant right in the heart of Centel territory in Des Plaines. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > It seems to me also that Centel was the last part of the old area > 312 to be dialable from anywhere else in the area. They had dial > phones also, it is just that they were not connected with Bell for > dialing purposes. We could dial everywhere in Chicago as of 1951 > and the final manual office cutover, but for a few years after Maybe the North Side had no manual exchanges, but not so on the South Side! My parents moved to the PROspect exchange in 1952. I distinctly remember common battery phones (we still had a dial) until sometime in 1955. It seems to me than my friend (ABerdeen 4-0967) had common battery too. Two years ago, when my father passed away, we still had a WECO phone with the old dial showing PROspect 3549 as the telephone number :). Carl Navarro [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I beg your pardon but I am certain that the last manual office in Chicago was cut in 1951 on the north side. The office was called 'Avenue' (as in 283) and it served (still serves) the area around Ohare Airport. The dial conversion started here in 1939 but was suspended about half way done in 1942 when Western Electric was nationalized by the federal government for the war effort. When WECO was given back to AT&T in 1946 and was able once again to resume production for civilian use, Illinois Bell was able to resume manual --> dial conversion. During 1943-45 the telephone company went around to people who had extension phones in their house and asked them to give up their extension phone so that telco could install that instrument in a residence where the people had no phone at all; they had to do this because phone instruments were in very short supply while WECO was doing war production. All during the last half of the 1940's the telephone operators were very discontented. Rumors were rampant that when conversion to automatic dialing was completed, 'the company was going to fire all the operators'; there would no longer be any need for them. Within about six months of the Avenue CO getting cut, Ohare Airport (then known as Orchard Field) opened; despite being dial, Avenue CO had about twice as many operators as before. As an aside, for those of you who wonder how Ohare got the aviation location abbreviation 'ORD' it goes back to when it was called Orchard ... You are correct that PROspect was one of the last to be cut also, but it had to be prior to 1955 by at least a few years. Some phones had dials on them for a year or more prior to the dials being used for anything. While one group of people were converting the offices, another group were going door to door mounting dials on existing dial-less manual instruments. After installing the dial, they put a little sticker on the phone saying 'dial will not be in service until 2:00 AM Saturday, (date) ... until that time do not use the dial, simply lift the receiver and speak to the operator as in the past.' And sure enough, 2:00 AM on the Saturday morning stated, the operator disappeared and dial tone took her place. I remember the cut in Whiting, Indiana when I was around 11-12 years old. Wanting to see how it would work, I stayed awake and deliberatly made some calls both ways. About 1:58 AM I asked the operator for 1234, which was the recorded message line at the Hoosier Theatre giving movie schedules. I asked again at 1:59 AM and got it a second time. At 2:00 AM I lifted the receiver a third time and got nothing. At 2:01 I lifted the receiver and got dial tone, and dialed 659-1234 to hear the message. I probably was the first user of the automated system in Whiting. But a friend of mine who tested it from the Chicago side said the results were somewhat different. Our house in Chicago had had dial service for a few years, and to call Whiting (where my grandparents lived) it was necessary from Chicago to dial '911' and then sit there and wait in dead silence for anywhere from ten to twenty or so seconds until an operator answered saying 'Whiting!' and then passing the desired number to her. He said he tried dialing 659-xxxx starting the day before (Friday) and a strange thing would happen. It would ring, the party in Whiting would answer the phone, but within a couple seconds the Whiting operator would go on the line thinking her subscriber had gone off hook (which he had). The operator was expecting to get a call from her subscriber. Apparently the dial system was wired and in place but the manual switchboards were not yet disconnected. Oddly enough, and as just a bit of historical trivia to close this issue of the Digest, the Amoco Oil Company (then called Standard Oil) had -- still has -- their major refinery facility in Whiting and they had a dial PBX for several years before the town of Whiting had dial service overall. If you are used to picking up an extension to dial 9 and get a new dial tone, imagine dialing 9 on your PBX extension, hearing a click and waiting until an operator responded asking 'number please' ... on the other hand, Amoco PBX users could dial the '8 level' and get dial tone from the Chicago FX lines, or they could dial '7' and get dial tone from the 'StanoTel' national phone network Amoco operated. But dial 9 to make a local call and you waited until an operator came on to ask 'number please'. For incoming calls, officially the lead number on the PBX was given as (Whiting) 2111 (they had about ten or fifteen lines in a hunt group, even in the manual days) but most people just asked the operator for 'the refinery ...' Amoco (as Standard Oil) *was* the telephone company in Whiting in the very early years, from about 1890 to 1900. The reason the extreme northwest corner of Indiana was always *Illinois* Bell rather than Indiana Bell was just a quirk of history also. In the early days, the predecessor to Illinois Bell was a company called Chicago Telephone Company; all the industrial heavyweights of those days -- i.e. John Rockefeller, William Gary of US Steel, others, all had their offices in Chicago but their refineries, foundries, mills and other plants on the southern shore of Lake Michigan. They all wanted the new inven- tion in their offices of course, and when they found out they could use the phone to stay in touch with their plant superintendents over in Indiana -- provided someone installed lines 'that far away' -- they were more than happy to make the capital investment needed. Mr. Gary saw to it that wires were strung to 'his' town of Gary, Indiana and JDR happily paid to string a wire from his office to that of his refinery superintendent in Whiting. The Chicago Telephone Company said thank you very much (big smile no doubt) and with circuits in place, the rest was easy. When AT&T made a big power play in the early 1920's and was gobbling up lots of telcos they got Chicago in the process, along with all of Chicago Tel's customer base, central offices, etc. That included Whiting/Hammond/Gary/East Chicago, Indiana, with original compliments to the industrialists who made it possible for Chicago Tel thirty years earlier. See you tomorrow! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #105 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 1 08:23:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA03567; Thu, 1 May 1997 08:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705011223.IAA03567@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #106 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 May 97 08:23:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (John Rice) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (nwdirect@netcom.com) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Brian Wohlgemuth) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Steve Ligett) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Stanley Cline) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (John Dearing) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (John R. Levine) Re: Where Are the Numbers? (Greg Monti) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: 30 Apr 1997 15:58:25 GMT Organization: BBN Corp. In article , nwdirect@netcom.com says ... > How can they force the issue? Very simply. Charge the current prices > to do it this way and quadruple the price if they want to hog an > entire prefix. The problem now is that the telcos are practically > giving the prefixes away. I heard that anyone can have an entire > prefix for around $10,000 a month, a dollar a number. At those rates > it is easy to pay for an entire prefix. You overestimate the price. NYNEX/MA used to charge $29/month per hundred numbers. Now it's $1/month, or $100/month for an entire prefix! Don't ask me why or whose idea that was. However, you don't have to get numbers from them; any certificated CLEC can order up prefices too, as can Radio Common Carriers (pagers, cellphones, etc.). > With the proliferation of new phone companies, each taking several > prefixes and using just a very small portion of the prefixes assigned > to them will just exacerbate the problem. The way we are going now it > is quite possible that we could exhaust all the available area codes > within the next 11 years. We need a federal law or FCC ruling to stop > this insanity before it is too late. The current system is wasteful because it requires a separate prefix for each carrier in each exchange area (rate center). This could be fixed by allowing *shared* prefix codes, wherein each block-of-1000 numbers could be assigned to a different CLEC. This would require an upgrade of tandem-switch (and probably some local CO) software, but wouldn't generally affect billing. A much worse proposal was to have each CLEC split one prefix among multiple exchanges; that would affect billing software EVERYWHERE. Related: The whole "overlay" "fairness" thing is temporary: With number portability, a CLEC's clients could take their "Bell" numbers to the CLEC switch. So 7-digit dialing in an overlay area would be nondiscriminatory; the "overlay" NPA would be hidden. Of course the CLECs would need to be able to get their non-bulk-number subscribers some numbers in the old NPA, but some of these could be reserved for them. I therefore think the FCC screwed up this one, applying a 1997 rule to the long term. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: rice@SPAMBLOCKR.ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:16:04 GMT Organization: Teradyne Telecommunications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I have also wondered about is > why all the lines in a hunt group on a switchboard (or any multi-line > phone for that matter) have to have actual, dialable numbers assigned > to them. It seems like a waste of numbers for a switchboard with > thirty or forty incoming trunks on it to have a number for each trunk. > Usually people just dial into the first line. Couldn't quite a few > numbers in each area code be salvaged in that way, by making the back > lines in a hunt group just be 'circuits' which were hunted down as > needed? Give them non-dialable numbers like 012-3456. PAT] They don't. Most of the newer digital switches allow rotaries to have only a pilot number. I've run into this in GTD-5s and others. You'll see evidence of this on Caller-Id, sometimes. However, some telcos assign discrete numbers to all lines of the rotary, anyway, to facilitate testing when line problems are reported, and to use for automated line testing equipment. ------------------------------ From: nwdirect@netcom.com Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 21:11:19 GMT Greg Monti (gmonti@mindspring.com) wrote: > Also, each time a new phone company starts up in an area, whether it > is a landline company, a new competitor, a cellular or PCS company, it > must be assigned a block of numbers, usually 10,000 numbers (one > prefix) to begin serving its customers. So, here we are in Spearfish, > with maybe 500 access lines connected to the 307-643 central office. > And two cellular carriers move in and want blocks of numbers. The A > and B carriers have 100 customers each. And they also have one prefix > apiece. So the small town has 3 prefixes (30,000 numbers) serving 700 > paying customers. Tough. That's just the way it is. Why can't they just be given 1,000 numbers and not necessarily in a block? With computers these days a company can easily keep track of their number inventory. There is no need for them to have a contiguous block. With the crisis we have today we need to change some of our thinking and the way we do things. A town with one prefix and 500 customers should NEVER get another prefix, never ever, unless that prefix has no more usable numbers. When we stop wasting what we have the problem will resolve itself. >> And yet Florida has 10 [area codes] and says they need more??! > Don't forget, BellSouth is not the only phone company in Florida. It > does not serve the boom-towns of Tampa-St Pete (which are GTE), or > Fort Myers Naples (served by Sprint) or Tallahasse (I forget who > serves them). There are plenty of other companies serving Florida, > too, all of which are outside of the 6 million lines counted by > BellSouth. Tallahassee is served by GTE. But it doesn't matter which company serves a particular rate area if there is only one. The problem is when there is more than one. Then the waste begins. Let us take another scenario. In large metro areas it is expected that more than 100 companies will set up to compete. That is at least 100 new prefixes under the current lunacy. Since each metro area generally has more than one rate area, they will need one prefix for each rate area. If they have six or more rate areas one or more splits are automatic. Here is the killer though: Usage is NOT increasing at all (or only a little). Waste IS! Is anyone in the industry awake? I think not! Having one split now and another one in three years is not necessary, period. * Internet Access Providers - Web Presense Providers - BBSes * * http://www.thedirectory.org/ - largest directory on the web * * tens of thousands of listings - over 7,500 Access Providers * * Telephone Prefix Locations - "The BBS Corner" - Web Banner Creation * ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: 30 Apr 1997 15:57:37 -0400 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Telecom Moderator wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would think area code 401 serving > Rhode Island is mostly wasted. Certainly quite a few exchanges are > in use there, but I'll bet there are lots and lots of unused numbers. > Ditto 406 for Montana and 208 for Idaho. Is there any reason the > entire North American continent has to stay as a group in country > code 1? In reality 401 is filling up nicely with enough space for future expansion. By your reasoning you'd give away what capacity we have left and then when we NEED it, we're screwed. I do agree with loaning some of 401 to the southeast part of MA though. Hell, we just ought to annex the Attleboro's. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com Boston has the combat zone, Providence *IS* an erogenous zone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 10:54:16 EST From: Brian Wohlgemuth Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I have also wondered about is > why all the lines in a hunt group on a switchboard (or any multi-line > phone for that matter) have to have actual, dialable numbers assigned > to them.] One reason why telcos assign TN's to every line in a Hunt Group is for billing purposes. If "Customer A" has 10 lines in hunt coming into his office, he might use the last few lines to make outgoing calls, and therefore, billing would need to be assigned to those TN's. On a PBX, however, TN's are assigned in the CO to ring through on each of the trunks to the customers premises. The TN's reside in the software, and are dedicated to the customers PBX. Some of these PBX's buy groups of up to 10,000 numbers, but rarely use more than 30%-50% of them. Brian Wohlgemuth brian.wohlgemuth@telops.gte.com Business Sales Consultant GTE Telephone Operations ------------------------------ From: steve.ligett@Dartmouth.EDU (Steve Ligett) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: 30 Apr 1997 15:33:42 GMT Organization: steve.ligett@dartmouth.edu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I have also wondered about is > why all the lines in a hunt group on a switchboard (or any multi-line > phone for that matter) have to have actual, dialable numbers assigned > to them. It seems like a waste of numbers for a switchboard with > thirty or forty incoming trunks on it to have a number for each trunk. > Usually people just dial into the first line. Couldn't quite a few > numbers in each area code be salvaged in that way, by making the back > lines in a hunt group just be 'circuits' which were hunted down as > needed? Give them non-dialable numbers like 012-3456. PAT] We have a hunt group of 150 modems. We "publish" three numbers in that hunt group for users to use. However, at about 4 a.m. each day, we have a computer dial each of the 150 lines as part of our maintenance procedures. If modems, etc., never failed, we wouldn't need those phone numbers (and my life would be much simpler). ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:34:12 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:38:48 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Greg Monti wrote: > Without exception, all 307-643 numbers MUST be in the Spearfish > central office (or in a rural switching office which is connected to This isn't always true. I've seen (usually *adjacent*) COs share the same NXX -- for example, town A gets NXX-[1000 to 4999] and B gets NXX-[5000 to 99999]. > and within about 10 miles of) it. Even if all of the numbers in > 307-643 cannot be used because the population of the area is not large > enough, those numbers cannot be used anywhere else. This cannot be If the ratecenters are adjacent or have become remotes of another CO, I don't see any reason why NXX-sharing could not be done. In fact, in Ringgold, GA which had three NXXs serving different areas of the Ringgold Telephone service area, after the three small COs wer cut over to a single DMS-100, the same three NXXs now can serve *anywhere* in the Ringgold Telephone area -- all calls are rated/routed from the location of the DMS, not the old COs and now remotes! > Also, each time a new phone company starts up in an area, whether it > is a landline company, a new competitor, a cellular or PCS company, it > must be assigned a block of numbers, usually 10,000 numbers (one Wireless carriers don't always get a whole NXX in less populated areas -- they often get a block of numbers in an existing NXX. For example: Cellular carrier wants to serve Copper Basin, TN (there is no B-side service there.) They wouldn't have to get a whole new NXX; they could simply get a block of numbers in 423-496 [or 706-492 or 704-494 which are also local and inside any cellular coverage] (assuming a contiguous block were available, of course.) In general, cellular numbers act like RCF lines or PBX DIDs, in that calls to those numbers *forward* to a port on the wireless MTSO which may be 200 miles away! > Fort Myers Naples (served by Sprint) or Tallahasse (I forget who > serves them). There are plenty of other companies serving Florida, Sprint serves the entire Tallahassee LATA. > too, all of which are outside of the 6 million lines counted by > BellSouth. I'm sure BellSouth didn't count all the NXXs used by CLECs (Intermedia, MFS, etc.), wireless carriers (BellSouth *Mobility*, ATTWS, GTE Mobilnet, 360, US Cellular, Palmer, etc.), paging companies, the BellSouth-reserved 780/203/930* NXXs, and the like. (*780=BellSouth internal, 203=ZipConnect, 930=UniServ) The biggest number-wasters -- without a doubt -- are paging companies and CLECs. Not all of them -- just some of them. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Date: 1 May 1997 02:08:22 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Our esteemed Moderator opined: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something I have also wondered about is > why all the lines in a hunt group on a switchboard (or any multi-line > phone for that matter) have to have actual, dialable numbers assigned > to them. It seems like a waste of numbers for a switchboard with > thirty or forty incoming trunks on it to have a number for each trunk. > Usually people just dial into the first line. Couldn't quite a few > numbers in each area code be salvaged in that way, by making the back > lines in a hunt group just be 'circuits' which were hunted down as > needed? Give them non-dialable numbers like 012-3456. PAT] I believe what you are talking about are called "Coded Terminals". You have a single published number say 222-1234 which has multiple "terminals" and can accept as many incoming (or outgoing) calls as there are terminals. It's frequently used for Telethon-like applications where you have a bunch of people all calling the same number. In a similar vein, I have also wondered why each outgoing trunk attached to a PBX almost always has an individual phone number. I have seen a (very) few sites that had just a single number for the outbound trunks with each trunk identified with a "terminal" number, ter-1 ter-2, etc. In these cases nobody is going to be calling these numbers anyway, they're just for outgoing calls and usually aren't connected to equipment that is expecting an incoming call anyway. Just think of all the thousands and thousands of numbers that could be recouped. John Dearing : Philadelphia Area Computer Society IBM SIG President Email : jdearing@netaxs.com U.S.Snail : 46 Oxford Drive, Langhorne PA 19047 (USA) Voice Phone : +1.215.757.8803 (after 5pm Eastern) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is true as some writers have pointed out that the 'back lines' occassionally need to be addressed directly for trouble testing purposes, etc however this testing can also be done with a 'line simulator' type device. You plug in the line in question to this device and can ring it and do everything a 'true' incoming call can do. One thing telco might consider is having a surcharge for multiple lines in a hunt group which require actual numbers to be assigned. When new service is installed, telco could offer some discount if 'actual telephone numbers do not need to be assigned to the hunt lines'. It would be a decision by the customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 16:09 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > prefix) to begin serving its customers. So, here we are in Spearfish, > with maybe 500 access lines connected to the 307-643 central office. > And two cellular carriers move in and want blocks of numbers. The A > and B carriers have 100 customers each. And they also have one prefix > apiece. So the small town has 3 prefixes (30,000 numbers) serving 700 > paying customers. Tough. That's just the way it is. Actually, most cellular carriers hook up to the network as PBXes, not as central offices, so cell carriers can and do use blocks of numbers from regular exchanges. My cell number here is in 607-279, an Ithaca landline exchange, and when I had a Vermont cellular number, it was in 802-296, a White River Junction landline prefix. This caused some trouble setting up my long distance service, since at the IXC I chose, the cellular department sent me to the landline department, and vice versa. (Solution: pick another IXC with more clues and lower rates.) CAPs are indeed gobbling separate prefixes, since their switches are all set up to be peers with the incumbent telco's switches. I've heard a proposal to modify phone routing in dense areas so the call can be routed by seven digits rather than six, e.g. 555-1XXX could be MCI, 555-2XXX could be AT&T, and 555-3XXX could be MFS, all at the same billing point so it wouldn't break the billing software, and only relatively nearby switches and tandems that routed to that prefix would have to know to do something strange. It probably won't happen, since it's not all that much easier than full portability which is already mandated. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:59:17 -0400 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: Re: Where Are the Numbers? At 04:09 PM 4/30/97 EDT, John R. Levine wrote: > Actually, most cellular carriers hook up to the network as PBXes, not > as central offices, so cell carriers can and do use blocks of numbers > from regular exchanges. I guess I exaggerated a little on the Spearfish, Wyoming example. In smaller towns, cellular often shares a block of numbers with the landline carrier. In any place with significant population, those blocks are 10,000 numbers (whole prefixes). > CAPs are indeed gobbling separate prefixes, since their switches are all > set up to be peers with the incumbent telco's switches. I think ultimatly, cellular and beeper companies will also want their switches to be peers, not subordinate to landline switches. In larger cities, I assume they already are. > I've heard a proposal to modify phone routing in dense areas so the > call can be routed by 7 digits rather than six, e.g. 555-1XXX could be > MCI, 555-2XXX could be AT&T, and 555-3XXX could be MFS, all at the > same billing point so it wouldn't break the billing software, and only > relatively nearby switches and tandems that routed to that prefix > would have to know to do something strange. > It probably won't happen, since it's not all that much easier than > full portability which is already mandated. Hmmm. Thanks for the update. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #106 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 1 09:09:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06631; Thu, 1 May 1997 09:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:09:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705011309.JAA06631@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #107 TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 May 97 09:09:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson EBS Problems? (Mark J. Cuccia) Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months (John Cropper) Re: Why both 1+10 and 10 on my CID (Michael J. Tardiff) Re: Why both 1+10 and 10 on my CID (Jeff Hollingsworth) Weird Line Operation - MTU? (Jim Wall) U S WEST's National Directory Assistance (Jim Jacobs) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Linc Madison) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (David W. Tamkin) UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" (Bill Goodin) UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" (Bill Goodin) PROspect 3549 (Carl Navarro) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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, 30 Apr 1997 13:12:01 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: EBS Problems? The EBS (Emergency Broadcasting System) has been going through enhancements over the past few years, as I've read in various broadcast communications engineering and industry journals. From what I understand, there is supposed to be a silent 'digital' alerting tone, which will replace the _LOUD_ two-tone (analog) alerting signal that we've heard for a few decades. (I seem to recall reading that originally, the analog alerting tone was a single frequency). One weekday afternoon about a week or two ago, I was listening to WBYU-AM/1450, a station that airs nostalgic music from the 1930's through the 1960's. Most of the time, they carry a satellite fed service from ABC-Radio in Dallas TX, called the "Satellite Music/News Networks", with the particular satellite music format called "Stardust". The network itself airs news from ABC's American Direction Radio Network. At approximately 2:55pm Central Time, the music feed went 'dead', and I heard several _LOUD_ pulses of multiple frequencies. Then I heard the 'standard' EBS dual-frequency alerting signal. I then heard a voice which sounded like a telephone or two-way radio stating "EBS Test for WLS Radio Chicago. Come in, WLS. Hello, WLS?" The entire 'interruption' into the satellite music feed from Dallas ran about five minutes. WLS Radio (as Pat knows) is owned and operated by ABC Radio. I had thought that something went astray in ABC Radio's Satellite automation. (Pat, since WLS is currently a news/talk format, rather than the top-40 music format that it was in the late 1960's though the 1980's(?), do they carry ABC's Paul Harvey again?) A few days after this incident, I heard on Charles Osgood's feature on the CBS Radio Network that the enhanced EBS had a failure the other day, with a closed-circuit test for a particular Chicago radio station being heard all over the country over a broadcast radio network. A few days after that, while listening to Rush Limbaugh on WWL-AM/870, I heard the very SAME pulses of _LOUD_ multiple frequencies. However, I didn't hear any 'standard' EBS tone nor a request for WABC or WLS to 'come-in'. Limbaugh's three-hour radio talkshow is produced by EFM/EIB, although it is distributed over ABC Radio's satellite service. On Tuesday 29 April, while listening to G. Gordon Liddy's national talkshow on WTIX-AM/690, I again heard these same several pulses of _LOUD_ multiple frequencies for a few seconds. Liddy's broadcast is satellite distributed by Infinity/Westwood. Westwood also owns the Mutual Broadcasting System and the NBC Radio Network. Infinity and Westinghouse have some form of merger or association which was announced last year. Westinghouse owns or manages the CBS Radio Network, and I've recently been hearing Liddy mention that his program is on the Columbia Broadcasting System. BTW, CBS Radio's webpage (http://www.cbsradio.com) displays the logo currently used by Westwood/Mutual, in addition to the CBS 'eye' logo (the 'eye' was _NOT_ the logo of CBS Radio back in 70's, but rather a series of 'radiowaves'). Has anyone else been recently hearing these EBS tone-burst signals on local or national radio or television? One would think that these tones wouldn't be audible if the new enhanced system was supposed to be 'fully digital'. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__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: John Cropper Subject: Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:02:32 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Another state has put NPA relief on hold, this time over concerns by the NANC with regards to inequities in relief duration as a direct result of the 801/435 split. As originally proposed, the split would separate the Wasatch front (801) from the rest of the state (435). 801 would last until 2004, while 435 would last until 2024. NANC guidelines set forth in February 1997 state that a difference of no greater than fifteen years exist in a split-relief situation. In a filing April 16th, Utah regulators decided to DELAY relief of 801 for three months, while they sought a variance from the NANC, permitting the split to proceed as originally approved. This would push permissive dialing back to September 22nd, 1997. No reference was made to changing mandatory dialing, originally scheduled as January 18th, 1998, and it is not known at this time whether this will also change. Refer to http://web.state.ut.us/bbs/PSC/DL05/11146P.WPD on the Utah web server for full details. Please note that you will need WP 5.1 to read it (or a compatible converter). John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: mjt@halcyon.com (Michael J. Tardiff) Subject: Re: Why both 1+10 and 10 on my CID Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:41:37 -0700 Organization: Western Star Internet Consulting In article , Dave Yewell wrote: > I just received a new CID from BellSouth. There are two buttons to dial > long distance based on the number sent: > "dial 10 digits" which I assume are the ten digits which CID delivers > and "dial 1+10 digits" > Isn't all 10 digit dialing in the US "1+10"? Not by a long shot. Some localities have had 10-number (no 1) dialing for year. Here in the greater Seattle area, Sunday began our permissive period as we split 206 into three pieces, and 253 and 425. We've had to dial 11 digits (1+10) for all toll calls for some time; with the split, we still dial 11 digits for toll calls, but now need to dial 10 digits for any call that crosses an area-code boundary. So the rule ends up being "dial 10 for any call, dial 11 if it's a toll call." In what I think was a bad-for-educational-purposes move, U S WEST chose to still allow seven-digit dialing for local calls within an area code. I think that gives people too many confusing options, but no one asked me. At least they allowed 10-digit dialing for local calls so that the above-stated rule works. Cheers, Michael J. Tardiff mjt@westernstar.com Western Star Internet Consulting http://www.westernstar.com Seattle, Washington USA 1 206 528.0388 - Internet Strategy, Connectivity, Web Marketing, Public Speaking - ------------------------------ From: hollings@cs.umd.edu (Jeff Hollingsworth) Subject: Re: Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID Date: 30 Apr 1997 00:13:10 -0400 Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 In article Dave Yewell writes: > "dial 10 digits" which I assume are the ten digits which CID delivers > and "dial 1+10 digits" > Isn't all 10 digit dialing in the US "1+10"? As of Thursday most of the state of Maryland will be 10 digit dialing for *all* local calls and 1+10 digit dialing for toll. Seven digit dialing will no longer be permitted due to the pending start of area code overlays. I assume that this box is designed with this feature so it will work in MD too. A side note, Bell Atlantic has been running a big media blitz to prepare for this. We have been hearing lots of stories and reminders about the need to reprogram (or upgrade) everything from FAX machines to emergency phones in elevators. Apparently (according the the Washington Post) Bell Atlantic is eager for a smooth transition since they want to do overlays in 703 (VA) soon. Both areas are part of the DC Metro area and bad press from the 301/410 conversion could doom overlays in 703. Jeff Hollingsworth Work: (301) 405-2708 Internet: hollings@cs.umd.edu FAX: (301) 405-6707 WWW: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hollings Home: (301) 649-5829 ------------------------------ From: Jim Wall Subject: Weird Line Operation - MTU? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:34:59 -0700 Organization: SoloPoint, Inc. The other day I ran across a phone line whose onhook voltage was 10v (and it would spike up to 40V every second to two seconds). The phone line worked fine with normal phones but had problems with some more esoteric phone products. At the phone junction box (Pacific Bell land) there was a encapsulated plastic module that had two screw lugs and a earth ground connection. The two screw lugs were tied across tip and ring. If the line were operating correctly I would have said this was some variation of a surge protector. When I took this thing out the line began operating fine with the inhook voltage now a constant 40V. Is this module a Maintenence Termination Unit (MTU)? What is this supposed to accomplish? Now this house was in the middle of nowhere, so are these only installed an really isolated areas? In other words, can anyone give me a brain dump on this subject? It would be greatly appreciated. If I get mail responses, I'll summarize for the net. Thanks, Jim Wall ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:06:45 -0400 From: Jim Jacobs Subject: U S WEST's National Directory Assistance Wednesday April 30 7:08 PM EDT Company Press Release Source: U S WEST Communications Group U S WEST Reports Enormous Demand in Colorado for its New National Directory Assistance Service Operators Currently Fielding More Than a Thousand Calls an Hour DENVER, April 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Demand for U S WEST's new National Directory Assistance service exceeded company projections by more than 400 percent during its first two days of availability. The new service allows people to call a local number -- 1+411 -- to obtain telephone listings from around the country -- all without having to look up area codes and make multiple phone calls. On Tuesday, operators fielded almost 4,000 calls. On day two, teams fielded more than 6,000 calls during the six hour morning shift from 6 a.m. through noon. The service was introduced Tuesday morning to callers in Colorado's 719 area code, and later Tuesday evening to callers in Denver and the rest of the state. ``The response to our National Directory Assistance trial so far is exceeding our wildest expectations,'' said Matthew Peterson, U S WEST manager for National Directory Assistance. ``What's even more encouraging is that reliability for the service is tracking very high.'' To date, operators successfully located listings for customers more than 80 percent of the time. In those cases where listings are not located, most often the numbers are unlisted. ``We're off to a good start and committed to keeping the quality of the service very high,'' said Peterson. ``Calls are being answered at a rate faster than we projected and it's taking less time than expected to successfully complete customer requests for listings.'' The company began a 90-day trial of the service in Colorado after receiving approval from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Initially, calls are being handled by staff at the U S WEST Directory Assistance Center in Waterloo, Iowa. This summer, the company plans to expand its Colorado Springs facility to handle the directory assistance calls. U S WEST expects to hire more than 200 people to staff the facility. U S WEST's new National Directory Assistance employs first-of-its-kind technology and search processes to ensure speed and accuracy of service. U S WEST is only the second regional Bell phone company, after Ameritech, to offer a National Directory Assistance service within its territory. With the new service, U S WEST callers in Colorado are able to obtain either local, in-state, or out-of-state listings, with significant cost savings. A call to U S WEST National Directory Assistance costs 85 cents for up to two numbers. Multiple listings can be requested during a single call, and listings can be from different cities and states. Competitive providers typically charge 95 cents or more per call -- and requests for listings from different cities and states require that customers spend additional money and make multiple phone calls. The new system has been designed for ease of use and convenience. Customers simply respond to a voice prompt and need only know the name, city and state of the person, business, or government agency they're seeking. The system -- Automated Directory Assistance Service (ADAS) -- which U S WEST has obtained from Northern Telecom -- automatically routes inquiries either to a local directory assistance operator or to the national bureau, depending upon the request. With the system, operators also hear the customer request -- while listings for particular cities and states automatically appear on the operator's computer screen. The new service also places a strong emphasis on ensuring the most accurate information available. Listings for U S WEST's 14-state region will be obtained from the company's own internal customer database. Listings outside the region will come from the Nortel Quest411 system, which includes more than 120 million current listings from other local phone companies. ``Industry experts have been brought in to conduct studies and ensure the ongoing accuracy of our databases,'' Peterson added. ``Our operators have advanced searching aids and an express-listing correction system in place to handle difficult searches.'' In addition, U S WEST has established a special service center for customers to call with questions regarding the National Directory Assistance service. The number for the center is 1-800-337-0722. The new service is now available to all Colorado customers, plus most U S WEST payphones throughout the state. U S WEST charges for local listings remain unchanged. U S WEST plans to extend the service to all locations in its 14-state region during 1997. U S WEST Communications Group (NYSE:USW - news) provides telecommunications services to more than 25 million customers in 14 western and midwestern states. The company is one of two major groups that make up U S WEST, a company in the connections business, helping customers share information, entertainment and communications services in local markets worldwide. U S WEST's other major group, U S WEST Media Group, is involved in domestic and international cable and telephony, wireless communications, and directory and information services. SOURCE: U S WEST Communications Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech has been operating a 'national directory assistance' service here for several months. A call to 411 gets information from any area code. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:48:03 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > (2) Allowing 7-digit dialing within the same overlay area code gives > the incumbent LEC a huge advantage over the entering competitors. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sick of hearing all this crapola > about how 'allowing seven digit dialing within same overlay code gives > the incumbent LEC a huge advantage ...' That has *never* been demon- > strated or proven. Are not the competitor's customers going to be > calling one another just as often as the existing LEC's customers > call one another (within the same code)? Is not the LEC going to be > assigning its own customers to the new overlay code as well? If I > am an existing customer of LEC and you choose to go with a competitor > and we wish to talk to each other, I'll need to dial your area code > as often as you need to dial mine. In the meantime both of us can > continue to dial seven digits for many of our calls. No, the competitor's customers are NOT going to be calling one another just as often as the existing LEC's customers call one another. Not by a long shot. It's simple math. If you put in an overlay at about the same time that the CLECs start into business, then you have a situation where: (1) The vast majority of the numbers in the old area code belong to customers of the incumbent LEC. (2) The great majority of all numbers are still in the old area code, at least for the first couple of years. (3) The majority of the customers of the CLECs will get numbers in the new area code, while only a relatively small fraction of the ILEC's customers get the new area code (especially if the ILEC is allowed to continue reusing discontinued numbers in the old area code). In any event, customers of the CLEC are disproportionately likely to get the new area code. (4) Therefore, the great majority of calls will be placed BY people in the old area code, and the great majority of calls will be placed TO people in the old area code. In other words, the people who sign up with the CLEC will have to dial 10 for most of their calls, while the people with the ILEC will most often be able to dial only 7 -- and furthermore will mostly dial 10 only if they're calling a customer of the CLEC. That means that it is easier to place most of your calls if you are a customer of the ILEC, and it is easier for most of your friends/customers/ whoever to call you if you are a customer of the ILEC. THAT is a competitive advantage for the ILEC, and not just whining. If you mandate 10D (or 1+10D) for all calls in the overlay, then the competitive advantage pretty much disappears; the only thing left to whine about is the "goodwill value" of having the "familiar" area code. I support overlays wholeheartedly, but I agree that an overlay must be the end of 7-digit dialing, just as the introduction of a second prefix in a small town must be the end of 4-digit dialing. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 15:13 CDT From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split Organization: TIPFKAG [World-Wide Access, Chicago, Illinois 60606-2804] TELECOM Digest Editor commented on in comp.dcom.telecom: > In Chicago itself, there might as well be an overlay between 312 and > 773; the essence of one is present anyway on the north side boundary > line between the two codes as it juts in and out, up and down side > streets and between houses on the same block over a range of about a > mile along Armitage Avenue. Not only that, but the two area codes are sprinkled in spots among one another as it is: all public schools have phones in 773, even those situated in 312 territory, and all police stations, fire stations, parks, and public libraries throughout the city have phone numbers in 312. Bits of overlay are present all over the city. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For persons wondering why that is the case, it is because all public schools are served by a centrex which is based at the school board headquarters which is in 773 territory and all city agencies are served by a centrex which is located at city hall in downtown Chicago's 312 territory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:18:06 PDT Organization: UCLA Extension On July 28-August 1, 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, Hughes Space & Communications. 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 $1495, which includes the course text and extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more information and a complete 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: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Digital Signal Processing" Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:05:00 -0700 On July 28-August 1, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Digital Signal Processing: Theory, Algorithms and Implementations", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Robert Stewart, PhD, Faculty Member, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. Each participant receives a Digital Signal Processing Reference Glossary (500 pages); multimedia reference CD-ROM featuring algorithms, DSP sample problems, graphs, and comprehensive notes; software and hardware workbook and manuals; and lecture notes. This course presents the core theory and algorithms of DSP and demonstrates through laboratory sessions the real-time and real-world implementation of digital signal processing strategies. It is intended for engineers, computer scientists and programmers, and project management staff. After presenting the mathematical tools and theory of DSP, the course features practical laboratory sessions that allow participants to simulate and implement advanced DSP systems such as acoustic echo cancellers or psychoacoustic compression strategies. Participants should obtain the tools and materials necessary to apply DSP methods immediately at their workplace, as well as: o Analyze discrete time systems using time domain mathematics o Analyze discrete time systems using frequency domain mathematics o Design and implement FIR, IIR, and adaptive digital filters for real-world applications in digital audio and acoustics and telecommunications o Understand the theory of adaptive signal processing systems and how to apply to real-world problems o Understand the DSP theory of signal coding and compression o Undertake DSP system design using advanced analysis and design software o Implement real-time digital filters, and adaptive digital filters using DSP simulation software, and real-time DSP processor hardware o Apply DSP theory and algorithms in the application domains of modern computing, multimedia systems, and communication systems o Integrate theoretical and practical skills to undertake a DSP design project. SystemView software (running on Windows 3.1/95) will be used for the DSP software laboratory sessions. This advanced software provides a comprehensive, state-of-the-art DSP toolbox for modern signal processing. An evaluation license will be available to participants so that they can continue to use the software after the course. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more information and a complete 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: Cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: PROspect 3549 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:12:28 GMT (Regards manual to dial conversion of PROspect exchange in Chicago): I must have been the brightest 2 year-old there ever was:). Anyway, I distinctly remember that it was somewhere between August and December of 1955, since I was only 5 and I didn't know how to use the dial! Anyway, it was VERY interesting for me to hear about Chicago and, of course, Orchard Field. I worked for ITT in Des Plaines in 1980. I always thought I'd love to live somewhere in the NW suburbs, like Park Ridge, and commute to downtown someday and ride the train. Fortunately, I didn't :). Carl P.S. My sister worked at the Hawthorne plant back in the early '60 s. I remember touring the plant, but I don't remember too much about it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #107 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 3 01:51:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA01363; Sat, 3 May 1997 01:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 01:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705030551.BAA01363@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #108 TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 May 97 01:51:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Raises Rates Due to Coin Phones/Telecom Act (Danny Burstein) BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime (Mark J. Cuccia) Redundancy Schemes for ATM vs TDM (Jim Holland) Area 703 Calls (Carl Moore) Employment Opportunity: [Austin, TX] Applications Engineer (J. Stroud) FCC Universal Service Hearing to be Cybercast Online! (Monty Solomon) What's the Status of the Lawsuit Against Destiny Telecom? (Liz Ashraph) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:18:03 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: AT&T Raises Rates Due to Coin Phones/Telecom Act The Telecom Act, which blindsided far too many folk.who.should.have. known.better, who only picked up on the CDA portion, also stated that IXCs would have to reimburse coin phone owners for calls made from their equipment. This became a big issue as customers switched more and more to using calling cards/1-800/888/collect methods to place their calls, thus using the coin phone (in the opinion of the owner), for "free". (In Texas, the local version of the Public utilities Commission has, in fact, authorized payphones to charge an access fee, generally being $0.25, for calls to 1-800/888. Hmm, can anyone advise if this also applies to collect calls?). (Coin phones operated by the local telcos got, so to speak, 'paid off' through the [roughly] $0.03/minute kickba^h^h^h access charge the IXCs paid the local carriers) Anyway, the Telecom Act ordered that the IXCs give money back to the COCOTS as well. Two plans were proposed -- one with a $0.35 payment per call, the other through a monthly flat rate of [mumble -- something like $35 ... sorry, don't have the rules in front of me]. We had some pretty extensive discussions in TELECOM Digest as to how this would be worked out, including the suggestion that various places would _block_ incoming 1-800 calls from coin phones since they might have to pay extra for them ... Well, about a month ago we saw MCI's response, which was to absorb the extra costs in its general 1-800/888 service and raise all its listed (incoming) rates a couple of percent. And today's {Wall Street Journal} (01-May-1997, p. C-9) has AT&T doing the same. To quote: Notice to AT&T Business Long DIstance Customers AT&T will file tariff revisions with the FCC to increase domestic Business Interstate Inbound Services rates by 7%. Additionally, domestic Business Interstate Outbound Service rates and Business International rates will increase by 2%. These rates are scheduled to become effective May 1, 1997. These increases result from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which required the FCC to develop a payphone compensation plan for all calls made from payphones. As a result of FCC action, Inter-Exchange carriers are required to pay payphone providers for calls completed [1] on their payphones. [1] Hmm, I thought it was just calls that _originate_ from payphones. Does this mean that if I use payphones at home and work, that I'll get paid each time someone calls me????? hmmmmmmm Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 17:40:09 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime I've frequently mentioned in the Digest that, IMO, BellSouth is probably the most customer-friendly LEC in the US and Canada. They also recently received the J.D.Powers award. BellSouth has their AreaPlus plan which 'monthly-flat-rates' _all_ calls within ~40 miles within the same LATA ... and their Complete Choice plan for any/all "Vertical Services" (Call Waiting, CW-Deluxe, Caller-ID, 3-Way Calling, etc) at a single fixed monthly price. Under the optional Complete Choice plan, if a new service (such as CW-Deluxe) becomes available in your serving switch, you can add it to your line/account, at _NO_ extra charge, neither one-time, nor an increased recurring monthly charge! BellSouth offers 24-hour/7-day Business Office service (at least for residential), although there may be times when one has to wait on hold for a while if the reps are busy with other customers. Some BellSouth 'traditional' tariffed local/EAS calling areas (single monthly flat-rate) can be _QUITE_ large (i.e. Atlanta metro). I'm referring to the 'basic/traditional' local area, not AreaPlus, nor state-specific plans such as Louisiana's "LOS" (Local Optional Service). Those optional plans can increase the size of the local (free) or heavily discounted intra-LATA toll dialing area. For the most part, I find BellSouth's Business Office rep's, Repair rep's, and intra-LATA (TOPS) Operators to be friendly and informed. (Of course, I did have some problems with new NPA's not being properly loaded in time, into the translation tables of local #1AESS offices, back in 1996 and some already this year). Recently, I've found BellSouth's Business Office rep's to be quite helpful and understanding in removing strange AOSlime and other like PAY-per-call charges from a bill when there is a dispute. Back in February, I was receiving a few calls from the Orleans Parish (county) Prison, according to my Caller-ID box. The Sheriff's Dept and Parish Prison, etc. are located in the "Broadmoor" wirecenter of the New Orleans ratecenter. ("Broadmoor", 504-82x, was a new wirecenter in 1962, in the mid-city area, carved out of adjacent SxS wirecenters, and it was a #5XB [also serving TWX], until cut to #5ESS in Sept. 1987). The numbers displayed on my Caller-ID box were 504-82x-9xxx or 504-82x-8xxx. Traditionally (prior to BVA and LIDB), the -9xxx and -8xxx line number ranges have been reserved for coin/pay/public telephones/lines. The name part of the ID box displayed "PAY PHONE". I knew these calls were coming from the local jail, since I had a voicemail message left one morning, from someone wanting to be bailed out. My outgoing message for voicemail does NOT include the words "YES" or "OKAY". When I got home, I saw the "PAY PHONE" and 504-82x-8/9xxx number on my ID box at the time the voicemail message was left. A few days later, I received a call into my cellphone (since my home phone is forwarded first to my cellphone), and I kept saying "Hello, Hello, Hello". I'd heard some background noise, and then an automated voice saying "You have a collect call from Orleans Parish Prison from ---". Needless to say, I hit the 'end' button RIGHT AWAY on my cellphone. When I got back home fifteen minutes later, I had ANOTHER call from 504-82x-8/9xxx, "PAYPHONE". And there were a few other calls from "PAYPHONE" at 504-82x-8/9xxx for about two weeks, but nothing left into my voicemail nor rolled over to my cellular. On EVERY one of these calls displaying as such on my Caller-ID box, I checked with the Business Office who told me that they were listed with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Dept. or Orleans Parish Prison. I explained to the Business Office to flag my account so that if some AOSlime tried to bill me local collect charges (possibly with any HUGE surcharges) that such charges were going to be DISPUTED. I also called up the Sheriff's Office and requested that such calls be investigated and/or halted. The "telecom" manager said that he could program my number to be 'blocked' from being dialed from the prison pay phones. I recently received my monthly bill from BellSouth, with a 94-cent charge on a page labelled Integretel/KR&K. The originating number was 504-82x-8/9xxx, and the date of the one-minute 'collect' call was for the one which 'hit' my voicemail. I called up BellSouth right away, and they told me that I wasn't going to have to pay the charge as it was already in dispute (!), although it would be 'on my account' until the dispute could be investigated. The rep was quite helpful and said that if such charges appeared in the future to call them up right away if I wished to dispute them! BTW, after calling up the Sheriff's Office's "telecom" department and being told that my number could be 'blocked' from being called from their prison payphones, I had NO more such incoming calls from these 504-82x-xxxx "PAYPHONE" numbers on my Caller-ID box. HOWEVER ... BellSouth has sunk itself in ANOTHER way, and this involves their OWN payphones. Remember that last fall, I prepared an article on how (most) BellSouth public coin payphones were "COCOT-ized" in that they weren't using central office coin control/detection nor Bell-TOPS/AT&T-OSPS ACTS/Operator coin control/detection -- i.e. they were thus now being interfaced with the c/o like a COCOT with internal chips. (Actually, in Summer 1993 they began retrofitting their coinphones with COCOT-like chips, but the c/o or TOPS/OSPS still did traditional coin control. The Summer 1993 thru Fall 1996 period was a 'hybrid' method of BellSouth telco coin phone operation). Even under the 'full COCOT-like' interface, the BellSouth coinphones were still routing 0+ inTRA-LATA local or toll to BellSouth TOPS. Local/EAS calls billed to card/collect/3d-pty (via BellSouth TOPS) here in Louisiana are $1.00 FLAT (unlimited time). There is the 75-cent 'surcharge' plus the 25-cent charge for the quarter you would have dropped in the phone. This even applies to full customer dialed/keyed automated calls, but the entire charge is flat, unlike some/most AOSlime and even _AT&T_ or MCI/Sprint/etc. handled local calls billed to a card which charge by the minute. However, last week, Stanley Cline (roamer1@pobox.com) alerted me to the fact that BellSouth payphones (with the cocot-like interface) in northern Georgia were sending 0+ inTRA-LATA traffic (both local and toll) to some strange AOSlime! I wanted to test if such was happening here in Louisiana. Only problem is that MOST all payphones in New Orleans are now actual COCOT's rather than BellSouth. Yesterday, I did have a chance to test a BellSouth payphone (with cocot-like interface), and SURE ENOUGH, dialing 0+ten-digits in the LATA (whether local or toll) caused the payphone to dial out some 950-xxxx or 800/888- access number. The automated voice in the phone's chips were stating "please wait" while the payphone touchtoned out other identification tones to the AOSlime (just like most any sleaze COCOT using sleaze AOSlime). Both Stan and I have determined that the AOSlime is "TelTrust" (whoever the heck they are). However, this AOSlime for BellSouth payphones is INDICATING ITSELF AS BELLSOUTH! Their rates include some STRANGE AND EXPENSIVE Surcharges, even for LOCAL calls billed to card/etc! When I quizzed her, she admitted that she wasn't really BellSouth, but that BellSouth had contracted them. BTW, TelTrust's CIC code is 10(10)485. But when I dial 10(10)485-1-700-555-4141, I get "Thank you for choosing BellSouth" rather than identification as TelTrust. This is NOT the same voice as the REAL BellSouth "thank you for using/choosing BellSouth" voice when using REAL BellSouth TOPS or Toll switches. This is unforgiveable. I know that BellSouth has to compete with COCOT vendors for location/property owners, and I know that there is the new payphone deregulation. BellSouth has also put their public/coin/pay telephones under a separate subsidiary. But for BellSouth to send the general public to AOSlime rather than genuine BellSouth TOPS for 0+ intraLATA is HORRIBLE. (BTW, A single-0 by itself from the phones still route to the REAL BellSouth operator). BellSouth DOES have a CIC-code for using the real BellSouth toll or TOPS services (on a per-call basis) if another carrier is chosen as the primary inTRA-LATA Equal Access fg.D toll carrier in those states where this is happening. The CIC-code is 101-5124+. It also works in those states where BellSouth is still the only choice for primary inTRA-LATA fg.D E/A toll (altho' 10(10)288+ for AT&T, 10(10)222 for MCI, etc. can be used to bypass BellSouth). And when using BellSouth 'cocot-ized/AOSlimed' payphones, 101-5124+0+ten-digits inTRA-LATA _DOES_ route to traditional BellSouth TOPS, with its TARIFFED less expensive rates. I would NEVER have thought that BellSouth would have allowed one of its divisions or subsidiaries to stoop so low as to route calls via AOSlime while still telling the customer that the service is BellSouth! Since real/traditional BellSouth TOPS is the most economical carrier for local/EAS calls billed to (LEC-issued) card when at a coinphone and not wanting to use coins, I will _ALWAYS_ dial 101-5124-0+ for local/EAS, and I hope others who live in or travel through BellSouth territory will do the same as well. (Note that I say LEC-issued card, as BellSouth and AT&T have cancelled the mutual card-honoring arrangement for AT&T-issued cards for BellSouth handled inTRA-LATA calls). And for inTRA-LATA _TOLL_, I plan to (and usually do) route/bill my call via AT&T (or sometimes Sprint or MCI), and haven't for the past seven years via BellSouth! Stan Cline also reports to me the following additional information: "BellSouth is still routing (0+ten-digits inTRA-LATA local and toll) calls from their Nortel Millenium "smart" payphones, **and** from the blue charge-a-call phones (and the desk-type phones in hotels) to TOPS. I don't know if the Nortel phones just aren't programmed yet, or what." "And the agreement for BellSouth calling cards to work in AT&T's card-reader phones (one can dial 1-800-Call-ATT/1-800-321-0288 and bill to a BellSouth card, but canNOT swipe the card in the phone itself.) According to AT&T, BELLSOUTH, NOT AT&T, canceled THAT agreement!" I haven't really seen the blue "charge-a-call" Bell phones in some time. They were quite in vogue here in New Orleans in the early 1980's, when South Central Bell's payphones were still "ground-start/coin-first". Around 1984/85, Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish began to introduce 911 service and SCBell started changing their payphones to "Dial-tone-first/loop-start". Therefore, there wasn't really a need for as many blue "Credit" phones as there had been. But for the most part, blue "Credit" phones are still "dumb" phones on a standard loop with 1+ toll restrictions in the c/o. I also have never seen a Nortel Millenium "super" payphone in the New Orleans area, whether from BellSouth or from a COCOT company. I haven't been out to the Airport in _YEARS_, but the last time I was there around 1990 or so, Bell had some 'super' payphones which were standard single-slot WECO housings retrofitted with a card-swipe, touch-a-carrier speed dial buttons, and an LCD-readout. Various types of mag-cards could be inserted including LEC-issued cards, LD-carrier-issued cards, or 'commercial' (Visa, MC, AMEX, Discovery, Diners Club, etc) credit cards, etc. These phones had modem/chips inside, but they were also coin-controlled/detected in the traditional way by the network (c/o, TOPS/OSPS-ACTS, etc). They also had a way to access a separate credit-card validation database. I don't know if BellSouth has changed over to Nortel manufactured 'super' payphones at the New Orleans International Airport (Moisant/MSY) or any other major tourist/convention centers. I also haven't really seen many AT&T-CardCaller phones (the ones with the video screen instruction readout) lately, nor the desk-mounted version of such AT&T phones at hotels lately. That doesn't mean they aren't around, but I haven't been looking lately. As for mag-swipes, there is special encoded information in the mag-stripe on the back of the card. AT&T still accepts LEC-issued cards when calls are placed (10(10)288)-0+ or 800-CALL-ATT/800-3210-ATT from such phones, and the card number is entered at the bong or quoted to the operator. But maybe the mag-stripe encoding indicates BellSouth at such phones, and the internals of the phone reject the card in that manner. The BellSouth 'super' payphones _do_ accept an AT&T-card in the mag-swipe, and it causes the phone to dial-out 10(10)288+0+, whether the called number is local or toll, inTRA-LATA or inTER-LATA, thus putting the call via the AT&T network. I also called up BellSouth public phone Business Office (557-COIN =2646 from former South Central Bell; 780-2175 from former Southern Bell ... these are _not_ dialable as such from _outside_ of the nine-state area), to voice my displeasure at the new AOSlime situation from BellSouth's phones. The rep I spoke with gave me _three_ different conflicting stories or situations as to what was now happening. Finally, when I told her that I was going to complain to the La.PSC and the FCC, and post something on the Internet, she told me that "this shouldn't happen on inTRA-LATA calls, only on inTER-LATA calls if the location owner requested it, and that Public Phone Repair Service should be notified that the phones were 'misprogrammed'." I don't know if that was really the case ... I think that BellSouth thought they could get something over on the general public, but at least we now know about 101-5124+0+. But in most _other_ traditional service offerings, BellSouth is still (IMO) the most customer-friendly local telco in North America. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__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: Someone I know here in Skokie has installed a COCOT outside their place of business. They asked my advice on how it should be programmed, and actually took my advice. I think it provides pretty decent service, and it seems to be getting a lot more business than the three Ameritech payphones nearby. The Ameritech payphones are at the other end of the building, in an area that is quite dark at night. They are not lighted. They sit directly under a pigeon roost and are constantly filthy with pigeon droppings. The switchooks and tone pads are frequently in poor working order. On the other hand, the COCOT sits alone, several feet away in an area on the sidewalk well-lighted at night by the flourescent signs at the place of business. In addition, the COCOT itself is lighted, via a small tube under the plastic shell on the top of the container. I found it interesting that you can operate a certain type of flourescent bulb on low-voltage (like about 9-10 volts output from a transformer which is plugged in a regular 110 AC line in the place of business). The phone is programmed as follows: Local area (Skokie, Evanston, Morton Grove, Niles, Wilmette, Glenview, Park Ridge, and Golf, Illinois, all 847 points) 30 cents for five minutes. Also Chicago-Newcastle (in 773, but local) 30 cents for five minutes. The Ameritech phones charge 35 cents for initial deposit. Further north points in 847 range from 40-45-50 cents for five minutes depending on how far north. All of 773 (except Newcastle, mentioned above) and 312 -- in other words, all of Chicago -- is fifty cents for five minutes. Ameritech gets between 45-75 cents for those calls. The west suburbs in 630 plus most of 708 is 50 cents for five minutes. The southern part of 708 is 55-60 cents for five minutes. Long distance is programmed (and the phone proudly indicates this on a sign attached) to be one dollar (coins of course, not calling card) for three minutes anywhere in the continental USA. Additional minutes are 25 cents each. Canadian area codes plus 808/907 are set for $2.00 for the first minute and fifty cents per minute after that. Area 809 and its various split-offs are all blocked -- calls not allowed. Calls to 800/888 are allowed at no charge, although the owner will be compensated eventually at whatever rate is decided. The phone is attached to a 'coin line' which according to Ameritech (a) 'fraud- proofs' the phone against incoming collect charges, 800 charge back type lines ala Pilgrim Telephone, and (b) automatically puts him in line to receive the subsidy from the IXC's when it is finalized. The sign mentioned above says that for least expensive rates on long distance calls to use coins (the three minutes for one dollar deal as described) and continues, saying 'alternate inexpensive billing methods include 1-800-CALL-ATT, 1-800-AMERITECH (for calling card calls) and 1-800-COLLECT via MCI. "You may if you wish dial zero and be serviced by the IOS Operator Service at a somewhat more expensive rate per call." Finally -- and this to me is sort of a class act -- the COCOT speed dial positions (*0 through *9) are programmed with 'public service' numbers all operating free or for 25 cents each. For example one speed dial position dials the RTA/CTA Transit Inform- ation service 'to recieve public transit schedule information for this location'; another speed dial position connects to the local taxicab service; a third connects to a time-of-day/weather message and another one to 'report problems with this phone.' I am rather pleased the owner took the trouble to have the phone programmed in a non-ripoff fashion. Long distance is handled by AT&T on default calls. Apparently the public seems to like it also since it has been quite busy in the three weeks it has been in service. The owner goes outside and wipes the phone and its housing clean every day (the pigeons hang around there also) and each time I have walked past (or deliberatly stood around to see what it was doing) I see someone using it. This is a relatively busy bus stop corner, and instead of walking several yards to use the filthy, unlighted, and often times broken Ameritech phones people are seeing the COCOT and using it instead. The owner tells me the company which installed it and maintains it gives him a thirty percent piece of the action. He was told when the coin collector comes out to 'dump the box' he will come inside, count the money and hand over a third of it on the spot to the merchant. I can't help but think that much of the bum rap COCOTS have received in the past has been due to the ignorance of their owners in setting them up properly. In this case, the company which put it in told the store owner, "anything you want it programmed to do, let us know; it is all handled by our computer." He did not have the slightest idea what he wanted on the phone, so he asked me. I think if more COCOT owners would genuinely make an effort to *compete* with the local telco payphones, they would be amazed at the results. On his behalf I dealt directly with the installer/programmer, and we both had the same idea about the same time: always charge a nickle less than the Ameritech phones. Always charge as little as possible for long distance while still making a profit. Try and find a Genuine Bell payphone with three minutes of long distance for four quarters ... Do not be afraid to encourage people to use their calling cards via 800 'bypass' numbers set up by long distance carriers, since most will take advantage of the $1/three minutes thing anyway. By the way, this COCOT connects to 411 (Ameritech's national directory assistance line) for a flat rate of sixty cents, and it connects to any-555-1212 for seventy-five cents. I think the guy who owns the shop where it is located is going to see some nice $$$ from it, in a legitimate way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Holland Subject: Redundancy Schemes for ATM vs TDM Date: 2 May 1997 02:22:54 GMT In today's public switched telephone network, traffic between switches is carried by a transport network that is engineered for high quality and reliability. One of the principal components of reliability in the transport network is facility redundancy (DS1, DS3, OC-3). The idea is to have an alternate path that can be used in the event of either a cable/fiber fault, or the failure of some transport network element. Two common schemes for implementing this redundancy are: 1. 1 for 1 redundancy: every active carrier has a standby that can be used if a failure is detected. 2. 1 for N redundancy: a group of N carriers has 1 standby facility that can replace any one (only one at a time) of the N facilities. In both cases, in response to a failure in the active path, the system will switch its traffic to the stand-by facility. This event is sometimes known as a protection switch. Now for my question ... Assuming that we have an ATM network carrying voice traffic for the PSTN, and that the ATM network is required to have the same level of reliability as that of today's transport networks, how is this redundancy implemented? Do today's ATM switches support the concept of a spare port that can be used as a stand-by port. Regards, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 97 10:26:24 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Area 703 Calls Do you know if there are any toll calls left within area code 703 now that area 540 has split from it? Toll as defined here does NOT include extended-area local. Also, I take it there are local calls across the 703/540 border; Leesburg is the seat of Loudoun County, and the next exchange west of there along route 7 should be 540-338 Purcellville (would those be the 10D variety?). Someone at the help line has told me that outside of the DC area, 7D would still be useable for those scattered cases of local calls from Md. to Del., Pa., W. Va., and one case to eastern shore Virginia. You've already got the 10D variety for local to DC and Va. suburbs (also across the 301/410 border, which affects, say, Silver Spring to Columbia and vice versa). And at least for now, 202 and 703 are still allowing 7D for local calls within area code (this includes those extended-area local calls, see above). So 240 is restricted as a prefix there, to allow for local calls going to Maryland-suburban phones in area 240. (In addition to the already-existing restrictions on use of 202,301,703,410 as prefixes.) Until after the full cutover of 10D for local within Md., you can't have phones in area codes 240 and 443, at least between Baltimore and Washington, because some 7D local calls within 301 started with 240 and 443. (Yes, I know today is the full cutover; 9-278-xxxx in an attempt to reach my own office phone in 410 area got the "improper access code" message within the office exchange. I should get a message -- obviously different -- if I try 7D from my home phone, which is also in 410.) ------------------------------ From: MCI.TELECOMMUNICATIONS@drn.zippo.com (Jimmy Stroud, Jr.) Subject: Employment Opportunity: [Austin, TX] Applications Engineer Date: 1 May 1997 08:33:12 -0700 Organization: MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION Network Systems Engineering Division Applications Test Engineer Applies knowledge of engineering principles and practices in the integration testing and field implementation of the Adjunct Processor/Save platform. Works independently with minimum supervision in the following: review technical documentation, analyze requirements, analyze test platform, hardware, circuit requirements, perform test bed configuration, define entrance and exit criteria, define detailed integration end-to-end test plan, perform regression, integration, end-to-end, performance and stress testing, perform field implementation. Work with a test team through the entire release, testing and implementation. Travel to remote sites to execute developed field implementations. Qualifications: B.S. degree or equivalent with 4-5 years in the areas of Data Communication protocols, telecom systems and systems integration testing experience. Detailed knowledge of Stratus computer systems, VOS and Unix, thorough knowledge of X.25, SNA, other protocols. Must possess excellent written and verbal communication skills combined with strong planning, coordination, analytical problem solving skills. Requires initiative with good work ethics, mature leadership capabilities. Also requires Unix and VOS operating systems, Stratus or IBM knowledge. JOB CODE:TCR13063 Please send resumes to the attention of Jimmy Stroud, Jr. Fax resumes to (770) 284-4866 or E-mail to 2176930@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 02:13:23 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be Cybercast Online! Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 18:29:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Shabbir Safdar Subject: EVENT: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be cybercast online! ========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls Update No.6 http:/www.democracy.net/ May 1 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Sit in on live FCC Universal Service hearing: May 7, 9:30am Eastern - Live Town Hall Meeting with FCC Chairman Reed Hundt: May 13, 7pm Eastern - In our archive - About democracy.net / Subscription Information ___________________________________________________________________________ SIT IN ON LIVE FCC UNIVERSAL SERVICE HEARING: WEDNESDAY MAY 7, 9:30AM ET The future of Universal Service in the nation's telecommunications network is one of the key elements of our nation's communications infrastructure. At issue - how to ensure that citizens who live in rural and inner city areas have access to advanced telecommunications services, and how to pay for it. The 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act directed the FCC to answer these questions. After nearly a year of investigation, hearings, and public comment, the FCC will announce its rules on Wednesday May 7th. You can join the proceeding live. Be present, ask questions, and get answers from FCC staff after the hearing. (FCC staff are not allowed to comment on a matter before the Commission before the commissioners have made their ruling.) Best of all, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net on Tuesday May 13 for an online town hall meeting. Hundt will discuss the Universal Service proceeding and respond to questions from Internet users. * Universal Service Hearing - How To Participate * DATE: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 TIME: 9:30 am Eastern / 6:30 am Pacific (Event will last +/- 3 hours) LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the hearing, please visit http://www.democracy.net for background information on the Universal Service issue, including links to various sides of the debate. You can also submit questions in advance. _____________________________________________________________________________ LIVE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH FCC CHAIRMAN REED HUNDT: TUESDAY MAY 13, 7PM ET During the May 7th Universal Service Proceeding, Internet users can submit their questions and comments via democracy.net. On Tuesday May 13, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net for a live Virtual Town Hall meeting to discuss the Universal Service proceeding, respond to Internet users questions, and discuss other Internet-related issues before the FCC. This is a great opportunity for Internet users to talk with one of the key telecommunications policy makers. * Online Town Hall Meeting with FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt * * How To Participate * DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 TIME: 7:00 pm Eastern / 4:00 pm Pacific LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net Visit http://www.democracy.net/ in advance of the event to submit questions. Additional information can be found at the FCC home page: http://www.fcc.gov _______________________________________________________________________________ IN OUR ARCHIVE * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. RICK WHITE NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't want to minimize the National Security concerns -- these concerns are real - but I think we've reached the point where the National Security community is going to have to solve these problems in a new world. You can't delay the arrival of the new world forever." -Rep. Rick White on encryption at 4/10 democracy.net town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04101997/ * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. ANNA ESHOO NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't think Congress should rush into making decisions about the Internet. There are still far too many Members that are not users themselves, and therefore do not understand the medium." -Rep. Anna Eshoo on Congress and the net at 4/16 democracy.net online town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04161997/ _______________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET / SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive (http://www.webactive.com), Public Access Networks (http://www.panix.com), the Democracy Network (http://www.democracynet.org), and DIGEX Internet (http://www.digex.net). More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ or send mail to majordomo@democracy.net with "subscribe events" in the body of the message. To stop receiving announcements on the democracy.net "events" mailing list, please send mail to majordomo@democracy.net with the phrase "unsubscribe events" in the message body. _____________________________________________________________________________ End update no.6 05/01/1997 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 15:03:00 -0400 From: Liz Ashraph Subject: What's the Status of the Lawsuit Against Destiny Telecom? Does anyone know if the lawsuit against Destiny has been settled or where that stands? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #108 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 3 03:46:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA06699; Sat, 3 May 1997 03:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 03:46:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705030746.DAA06699@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #109 TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 May 97 03:45:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: EBS Problems? (Michael Wright) Re: EBS Problems? (Daniel J. Meredith) Re: EBS Problems? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: EBS Problems? (Toby Nixon) Re: EBS Problems? (James E Bellaire) Re: EBS Problems? (John Cropper) Re: EBS Problems? (Derek Peschel) Re: EBS Problems? (Gary Reardon) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (Stanley Cline) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (Fred Atkinson) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (nwdirect@netcom.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: voe@telalink.net (Michael Wright) Subject: Re: EBS Problems? Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 12:39:06 GMT Organization: Telalink Corporation, Nashville, TN, USA Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > The EBS (Emergency Broadcasting System) has been going through > enhancements over the past few years, as I've read in various > broadcast communications engineering and industry journals. From what > I understand, there is supposed to be a silent 'digital' alerting > tone, which will replace the _LOUD_ two-tone (analog) alerting signal > that we've heard for a few decades. > Has anyone else been recently hearing these EBS tone-burst signals on > local or national radio or television? One would think that these tones > wouldn't be audible if the new enhanced system was supposed to be 'fully > digital'. Rush's show has been rudely interrupted a couple of times here in Nashville by the same combo of harsh multi-tones pulsing on and off ... but in each case the reason was a LOCAL weather bulletin. A telephoned voice drowsily, and sometimes unintelligibly, crept thru some sort of weather statement, taking far longer than necessary. Apparently the local station was inserting this tripe, not the net. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 97 8:25:30 MST From: Daniel J. Meredith Subject: Re: EBS Problems? > The EBS (Emergency Broadcasting System) has been going through > enhancements over the past few years, as I've read in various > broadcast communications engineering and industry journals. From what > I understand, there is supposed to be a silent 'digital' alerting > tone, which will replace the _LOUD_ two-tone (analog) alerting signal > that we've heard for a few decades. (I seem to recall reading that > originally, the analog alerting tone was a single frequency). SNIP > Has anyone else been recently hearing these EBS tone-burst signals on > local or national radio or television? One would think that these tones > wouldn't be audible if the new enhanced system was supposed to be 'fully > digital'. There has been extensive testing going on in the Phoenix, Arizona area. The first changes began taking place a few months ago and were only on the radio stations. What is heard out here are two short buzzes followed by a message stating "This is a test of the Emergency Alert System. The Emergency Alert System will be replacing the Emergency Broadcast System..." Just last week the local television stations began testing the "Emergency Alert System." The process is exactly the same on the television stations, the exact same tones come across the audio path, with audio from the program completely muted. Then across the top of the screen in a blue box the message from EAS scrolls across the top in white letters. This has been the same for all of the stations I've caught it on. Interesting enough they are doing these tests in the middle of prime time programming instead of daylight like was normally done for the EBS. It will be interesting to know how well this works... Daniel "It's Nice To Be Important, But It's Important To Be Nice" Southwestco Wireless, L.P. Fax: +1-602-470-9418 ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: EBS Problems? Date: 1 May 1997 23:22:01 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates It's now called the Emergency Alert System, and while it's digital, it's _not_ inaudible. Check out http://www.fcc.gov/cib/eas/Welcome.html for more details, including the part 11 regs, and a description of the format. Naturally, the digital format cannot be decoded by any stock chip on the planet; fortunately, it's pretty slow, and straight FSK. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "To really blow up an investment house requires Tampa Bay, Florida a human being." - Mark Stalzer +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: EBS Problems Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 15:11:57 -0700 They've been using them here for a few months in the Seattle area. I hear them on KVI 570AM (which is what I usually listen to). My understanding is that the signal that is broadcast is modulated data that can be picked up by receivers and printed out or displayed. Supposedly, people who are deaf and wouldn't be able to hear emergency announcements on the radio will be able to buy these receivers and have them in their home. When there's a tornado or flood warning or some other emergency (do we worry much about nuclear attack anymore?), they'd be able to see the flashing light and read about the problem. So, although the signal is "digital", it must certainly be audible to be able to picked up by this equipment. -- Toby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 16:06:12 -0500 From: James E Bellaire Subject: Re: EBS Problems? EAS - Emergency Alert System replaced EBS as of January 1st this year. The old EBS receivers are to be left connected as back up until January 1998. The new system has a header code that is sent three times, that is the 'screeeeeech screeeeeech screeeeeech' that you hear at the beginning of the alert. Then a shortened tone plays (only for valid emergencies) and a message of up to 2 minutes length. An end code plays in triplicate after the 'message' portion. That is the quick 'screech screech screech' at the end. A weekly test of the system, which can occur at any time of day instead of just daylight hours, can be under 30 seconds. This test is 'silent' because it does not have a spoken message inside the header. All the station does is announce the test (optional 'this is a test of the Emergency Alert System'), play the header and end codes (screeeeeech screeeeeech screeeeeech - screech screech screech), then returns to its regular program. Not exactly silent, but short with no tones. A monthly test is started by a primary station in each area or statewide and MUST be replayed within 15 minutes. This includes the tone and a script, and is similar to the old EBS tests except that it is coordinated on all area stations. The header code can tell you most of the content of the message, including the county or state involved. The eventual goal is to replace the NWS weather monitors with EAS monitors in homes. Then you can tell your box to listen to your county's code and whichever events interest you. The headers specify what event is happening, from special weather statements to tornado warnings. They are set codes that must be used so that anyone with EAS equiptment can decode any alert signal. EAS was based on the S.A.M.E. alert system that the NWS used. The message portion (inside the header/end codes) is stored and forwarded on other participating stations, unlike EBS where the operator had to transcribe and re-read when forwarded. The EAS message is generally the same as the headers would say, with any details information added. For example, an EAS header may say (in code) 'NWS issuing a TOR (Tornado Warning) for 018039 (All Elkhart County Indiana) effective 15:44 on 05/01 for 15 minutes' with the announcer reading this plus 'a funnel cloud was spotted 3 miles Southeast of the city of Elkhart heading Northeast at 10 miles per hour'. The stations around here still say their station's name at the end of the announcement ('stay tuned to U93 for more information') even though the exact message is stored and forwarded on other stations. They shouldn't be doing that since any future information would be sent through EAS on all stations, but old habits are hard to break. Some stations are also selling sponsorships of EAS (we play your ad right after any EAS message) hoping that listeners will stay tuned. Many NWS stations are adding EAS to their signals, with broadcast and cable systems receiving alerts directly as well as through the old EBS chain. The EAS equiptment is required, with the cheapest systems selling for around $1000. Broadcast and cable systems must by and have the equiptment in use by January 1st 1997. (Although the FCC is not giving fines out as long as a station has ordered equiptment and is acting in good faith.) There have been a ton of implementation problems since January 1st, with the system having problems decoding signals received from other starions or broadcasting the computer codes cleanly. When all the bugs are worked out it will be a better system, but for now we have to put up with the glitches like the one you described. Radio World has had good coverage of the implimentation of EAS and its problems, including a look back at the old CONNELRAD system (pre EBS). EAS is an evolvement of EBS that focuses the service on the way EBS was actually used, for weather and local emergencies. The national EBS system has not needed to be activated, but those tones have saved a lot of lives on the local level. For more information on EAS, search the web or visit the FCC at http://www.fcc.gov/cib/eas/Welcome.html James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://www.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: EBS Problems? Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 18:10:01 -0400 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > The EBS (Emergency Broadcasting System) has been going through > enhancements over the past few years, as I've read in various > broadcast communications engineering and industry journals. From what > I understand, there is supposed to be a silent 'digital' alerting > tone, which will replace the _LOUD_ two-tone (analog) alerting signal > that we've heard for a few decades. (I seem to recall reading that > originally, the analog alerting tone was a single frequency). The EBS is due to be decommissioned (supposedly by the end of 1997), and replaced by the Emergency Alert System (EAS). This transition will be highlighted by more modern equipment, including the 'silent' alerting system you mentioned. > One weekday afternoon about a week or two ago, I was listening to > WBYU-AM/1450, a station that airs nostalgic music from the 1930's > through the 1960's. Most of the time, they carry a satellite fed > service from ABC-Radio in Dallas TX, called the "Satellite Music/News > Networks", with the particular satellite music format called > "Stardust". The network itself airs news from ABC's American Direction > Radio Network. :-) ABC has more than a dozen "Networks", and it's no wonder that one of them might've been affected by a random switch flip at one of their company-owned stations ... > Has anyone else been recently hearing these EBS tone-burst signals on > local or national radio or television? One would think that these tones > wouldn't be audible if the new enhanced system was supposed to be 'fully > digital'. The EBS-EAS transition is not fully complete nationwide, hence the continuance of the 'audible' alerts ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (Derek Peschel) Subject: Re: EBS Problems? Date: 1 May 1997 20:58:40 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle > Has anyone else been recently hearing these EBS tone-burst signals on > local or national radio or television? One would think that these tones > wouldn't be audible if the new enhanced system was supposed to be 'fully > digital'. Yes, on a local radio station. It's KING FM (98.1 MHz). I've heard the new signals a couple of times, early in the morning. First the station plays a small announcement: "This station is required to conduct weekly tests of the Emergency Alert System." (or something like that) Then come the signals (IIRC, two long followed by three short bursts). I'm sure there's a concluding announcement but I don't remember what it is. The whole thing is over very quickly. The tests sound professionally done (not a mistake). I'm sure KING made a recording so they can play it often -- the tests always sound the same. Note the change of name -- "Emergency Alert System." So calling them EBS signals is apparently incorrect. They are clearly digital signals, but aren't inaudible. In an emergency, stations would play some kind of loud warning along with the quiet signal, but I don't know what that warning would sound like. KING's web page http://www.king.org/ doesn't seem to have any information about the EAS, but they do have RealAudio running so you can hear for yourself. Derek ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:17:35 -0400 From: Gary Reardon Subject: Re: EBS Problems? The new system (EAS) is not a 'silent' digital system, but multiple audible packet data bursts. As annoying as the old system, but actually carries information on the type of alert, where it came from, and who it's for. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 19:34:04 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:00:19 -0400, The Old Bear wrote: > area of internet connectivity for their subscribers. If this is > typical, I am both pleased for what it portends for rural access > to the net -- and deeply disturbed about the whining coming from In the Chattanooga area, most [read: all but one] of the surrounding non-Bell telcos, both co-op and traditional, provide internet access to their customers, *usually* (but not always) at rates close to the "big-city" rates. In many of the cases, one large ISP -- Info Avenue of (North? South?) Carolina provides connectivity which the rural telco resells to its customers. Others, such as Alltel and TDS, have built their own networks; yet others partner with existing local ISPs in adjoining areas. One telco [Trenton GA Telephone], OTOH, continues to milk its customers dry by forcing them to pay either inflated toll charges or $70/mo for a FX line to access Chattanooga as "local." -- they REFUSE to provide any local 'net access because they are so BACKWARD! Needless to say, I may be testifying before the Georgia PSC about the lack of local net access, along with the EAS MESS ... (I think the 'net sex/violence scares feed telco's reluctance; the cable company in Trenton dropped MTV after complaints. Given THAT, why would a telco provide/sponsor a conduit to even *worse* content? If they did, they may be subject to public outcry.) =20 *Bell*-served rural areas, and even smaller towns (~20-50k population) continue to experience a local-access shortage. For example, Rome, Georgia -- home to several small colleges and served by BellSouth -- had *no* local ISPs until about six months ago, and Meridian, Mississippi had only one or two ISP POPs until lately. That worries me -- Baby Bells pushing ISP service in large urban areas when rural and smaller communities are more in need of local access. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ------------------------------ From: fred_atkinson/skytel_at_skytelnotespo@mtel.com (Fred Atkinson) Date: Fri, 02 May 97 08:40:00 -0600 Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet I have a friend that lives in a little place called, 'Monetta, South Carolina'. Monetta is long distance to all of the three nearest major cities. As my friend was an old computer buff, he was very disheartened to be unable to get local Internet access for a while. The local carrier is 'Pond Branch' Telephone. They entered into an agreement with an Internet provider actively involved in arranging Internet coverage in rural areas. Suddenly, my friend was able to get local Internet access. Not only access, but the access was on the same exchange his telephone service was on (803-685). 'Pond Branch' later got their own domain name (pbtcomm.net). His Internet charges are billed on his home telephone number which is convenient. There is no reason in the world why rural areas can't get Internet access from a local provider. If they can't, it's because no one has been willing to provide it or because no one has tried. Fred ------------------------------ From: nwdirect@netcom.com Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 21:21:45 GMT The Old Bear (oldbear@arctos.com) wrote: > While rural cooperatives are not that unusual, I have not been > sufficiently close to them to know what they have been doing in the > area of internet connectivity for their subscribers. If this is > typical, I am both pleased for what it portends for rural access > to the net -- and deeply disturbed about the whining coming from > the Baby Bells who continue to complain about net access being a > problem rather than an opportunity. As the webmaster for a large directory of ISPs that lists locations access is provided I can tell you that more and more rural areas are getting Internet access through such providers. And with several providers now offering unlimited access for a flat fee using an 800-number it is possible for everyone who has a phone to get access without paying long-distance charges. * Internet Access Providers - Web Presense Providers - BBSes * * http://www.thedirectory.org/ - largest directory on the web * * tens of thousands of listings - over 7,500 Access Providers * * Telephone Prefix Locations - "The BBS Corner" - Web Banner Creation * ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #109 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun May 4 08:50:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA12759; Sun, 4 May 1997 08:50:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 08:50:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705041250.IAA12759@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #110 TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 May 97 08:50:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Carte Blanche to Steal (Judith Oppenheimer) NYNEX Rushes Massachusetts Into New NPAs (John Cropper) Commentary on Spam and it's Cost to Recipients (John DeBert) UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging (Monty Solomon) Another Spam With Free Cassette (Stan Schwartz) Review of Book on Long Distance Competition (Jack Decker) Marconi 6200 Microwave Test Set For Sale (Ed Coglio) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Sat, 03 May 1997 12:44:04 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: Carte Blanche to Steal FCC grants carriers carte blanche to steal what they've been buying. Over the course of the last three years, The Big Three promulgated the most offensive anti-brokering (read: anti-subscriber rights) language in the Toll Free Industry Guidelines, which are now essentially codified by the FCC Toll Free Access Codes Order. (CC Docket No. 95-155) During that same period, the Big Three -- AT&T, MCI and Sprint -- have been the most active and frequent buyers of toll-free numbers from subscribers. This is not an accusation --- it is an observation of fact, with literally hundreds if not thousands of substantiating transaction documents residing with subscribers throughout the U.S. The new FCC 800 Order (see ICB Cover Story -- http://www.icbtollfree.com -- or in case of server inertia, http://www.thedigest.com/icb/) mandates that carriers confiscate toll-free numbers from subscribers where there is a presumption of hoarding or brokering. The parameters of hoarding and brokering are not defined, except to implicate a very broad palate of normal business activity. Due process is not even addressed. Hence, where carriers have routinely pursued and obtained toll-free numbers for sums ranging from low five figures to mid six figures, they now have carte blanche to simply take what they want. Charged by the FCC with returning confiscated numbers to the available pool, the pilfering carrier has only to place the desired number in the available pool and then immediately pick it up, to comply -- and take off with its ill gotten gains. Good relationships and customer considerations notwithstanding, the friendliest of carriers could become a shark if its immediate need supersedes the value of your relationship with them. Furthermore, the carrier comes up looks rosey -- complying with the FCC -- and you look guilty as charged. The onus of proof would be on you. The only logical conclusion we can draw: You never know when one of your toll-free numbers might spell something invaluable to one of these top three buyers. Your best insurance would be to remove your toll-free numbers from AT&T, MCI and Sprint. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB Toll Free News ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well honestly Judith, I never could understand why anyone would have their 800 number serviced by one of the big three when there are much smaller carriers such as Call America who provide *so much more* service for less cost. Consider all the hassles in even getting the big three to turn on an 800 number; the time delay before they can get it running, getting it moved from one termination point to another, etc. I have an 800 number with Call Home America (a division of Frontier) which has always worked fine. Their customer service is great. I have another 800 number with Call America (not to be confused with Call Home America) which I have discussed here a few times which also is extremely flexible with lots of extra features attached, etc. Ernie Strong is the contact point for Call America's MyLine Service. This is the one I discussed here several weeks ago with the 800 numbers with call forwarding/call waiting/three-way calling/outbound calling/wakeup service/voicemail/ callback stuff all attached as part of the one price. I hope readers who did not contact him earlier will do so now. I've used the service for years, and I remember years ago when I used to get 800 service from AT&T with all their foolishness. You have illustrated a good point Judith; just one more reason to let the big players do their own thing and take your telecom needs to smaller companies who appreciate your business. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NYNEX Rushes Massachusetts Into New NPAs Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 14:32:05 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises Due to an "extreme jeopardy" situation declared by BellCore for area codes 508 and 617, NYNEX is advancing the premissive and mandatory dialing dates for both the 508/978 split and 617/781 split. BOTH area codes will split effective September 1, 1997, with a ninety-day permissive dialing period. Original plans had called for a February 1998 permissive dialing period, but the recent BellCore announcement forced a reassesment of NPA relief. Exchange lists (as released by BellCore) for both splits can be located at LINCS. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/ The latest compiled area code information is available from us! NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ ------------------------------ From: John DeBert Subject: Commentary on Spam and it's Cost to Recipients Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 14:53:57 -0700 Organization: hypatia.com Parasites on the Internet: The senders of unsolicited commercial email and "spam" (both referred to hereinafter as "Spam") seem to me more as parasites, hucksters and scam or con artists than legitimate businesses. They send out their spams to addresses harvested indiscriminately from Usenet postings, mailing lists, archived material and other sources, regardless of any interests of the recipient. They post to multiple newsgroups, sometimes to every newsgroup, using resources belonging to others without paying for them to distribute their adverts. They use far more than a reasonable share of resources. They falsify and forge mail header lines, inserting false From: and Received: lines to conceal the source of the message, use other site's mailers to send their messages and provide no legitimate contact name, address or phone number. They evade criticism by using deceptive tactics as described above, and prevent direct responses to their mail, forcing people to use roundabout ways of contacting them and make it harder for people to request removal from their lists. I question whether most spammers are even legitimate businesses. They seem to go to great lenghts to conceal their identities and evade those seeking to find out who they are. Were these spammers to do these things using other, more traditional means such as the mails, they would have been shut down, fined and jailed. Yet on the Internet, they seem quite happy to disregard the laws enforced for the traditional media and quite happy to set aside ethics for a dollar or two. There have been similar scams using traditional media: Sending official looking letters that looked exactly like mail sent from government, sending important-looking mail with postage due, sending mail with false return addresses, et cetera. All these are now illegal and carry stiff penalties for violators. They lack the ethics of legitimate business. They are unconcerned whether their spam costs their recipients some money and they don't care about harming the reputation of people who have the addresses that they falsify or the sites that they use to distribute their junk. Spammers get a free ride, since all they have to pay for is their connection, not for the emormous amount of mail that they distribute. For them, being a parasite is profitable. Unlike spammers, many people must pay for their mail, whether sending or receiving, in the form of connect-time charges, quota fees, or even indirectly in the form of higher rates as their service provider raises fees to support better and larger mail systems to accomodate the huge volume of mail sent by spammers. Sometimes, as a result of spam, some people are denied services because the spam has caused their total file sizes to exceed quota, the mailer crashed due to overload, et cetera. In essence, spammers are spending other people's money, no, they're stealing other people's money to make their profit. Spam "Kings", much like Sanford "Spamford" Wallace, sell their services to unsuspecting and naive businesses hoping to advertise more widely. These spam kings fail to mention to their customers that spamming can cause harm to their business instead of improving it. The spam kings also help their customers unwittingly commit fraud by teaching them how to falsify headers, etc., or sell them software to do it automatically. Their customers end up with a reputation as bad as the spam kings and do not gain the customers they had hoped or had been promised. They are shocked at the hostility directed toward them for doing something that they were led to believe was legitimate and ethical. Spam kings claim to be providing a legitimate service. Yet were they to do the same in traditonal media, they would end up in prison, convicted of numerous misdemeanors, felonies and federal crimes. What they are doing instead is taking advantage of a lack of law or enforcement to engage in or encourage hucksterism, fraud and other deceptive and unethical practices. They're the modern equivalent to the snake oil peddlers, real estate shysters and used car salesmen of old, with one key difference: Everyone else is burdened by the majority of their business expense, not them. When it comes to the Internet, more than anywhere else, there are more than enough suckers to squeeze money from, whether it be a business looking for a new way of advertising or someone interested in a product or service. "Let the buyer beware" implies far more than anywhere else. What can be done? People are taking matters into their own hands. There are people who bombard the apparent senders with huge amounts of mail, flood their hosts with SYN messages, fax threats, etc. Some have undertaken it upon themselves to cancel posted advertisements. Some have gone so far as to block mail from known spammer sites and even all other unauthenticated sites. And some have complex filters in place to block mail that appears to be spam. But bombarding the apparent senders often strikes at people who are themselves victims of these scams. SYN flooding causes problems for a lot of people who have nothing to do with the spam, whether directly or indirectly. Blocking mail and even all connections from apparent spam sites may also block sites that have nothing to with spam, as they may have been broken into by a spammer, or inherited a spammer's IP address. Most such knee-jerk responses to spammers often have embarrassing consequences and make the person reacting look an idiot or fool. Some people announce that they will accept spam for a fee. It seems to work, sometimes, but not with spam kings. Others invoke federal laws designed to protect fax machines and cellular customers from solicitation, with somewhat more success but it has yet to be decided in court whether a computer system or network can be considered a fax machine as defined under law. Yet spammers have adapted. They forge headers, falsify From: and return addresses. They invade other site's mailers to distribute their junk. They block or divert incoming mail and use many other tactics, besides. Sometimes, when they don't get what they want, they threaten to sue to force people to carry their junk mail for free. A Modest Proposal: Extend federal prohibitions of fax and cellular phone solicitations to computers and networks. Spam does cost money and can deny use of computers and services by filling disks and quotas, consuming bandwidth on networks and even wasting paper. Admittedly, the expense of carrying and receiving spam seem intangible but it no more intangible than using any other means of electronic communication for soliciting: It still affects one's pocketbook and that is the point of view that should be looked at, rather than the point of view of convenience. Rather than going ballistic and harassing and threatening spammers, make complaints to law enforcement, politicians and to the spammers' service providers. Publish the spam, and the spammers' identities, most particularly if the spammer is a business, or if it appears to be a fraud. There's quite a bit that can be done. The Internet is still a frontier and the unscrupulous critters in it need to be placed on notice that their behaviour is intolerable, and that there are indeed enforceable penalties for crossing the line. copyright 1997. Electronic redistribution In whole permitted with correct attributions and without fee. Telecom Digest use in whole or in part permitted. All other rights reserved. onymouse@hypatia.com SPAM/Unsolicited commercial email is an unwanted expense. I think I should pass on the expense to the ones who imposed it on me and put an end to their free ride in my pocketbook. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still say the best method is to financially ruin them by any means possible; usually this means using the toll free number they provide (sometimes) or as we will discover in another message in this issue, by requesting 'free samples'. Read on for more details in a later message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 02:16:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging? Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 22:46:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Gordon Cook Subject: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure? I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of the Well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well, is now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have to **sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET or simply be cut off. I first heard an opaque reference to this from a nationally known figure a couple of months ago. In the last ten days I have heard separately and privately from three different people one of whom is directly affected. I asked him to call me. He never did. Now I think I understand why. Hughes said that David (?) Hollub who is responsible for the Well's connectivity and has just been fired by Bruce Katz the well's owner has revealed in a well conference what UUNET is doing and that the story made it into the {Wall Street Journal} today. I will be sending Hughes a summary understanding of what I think this means that he will post on the Well inviting national journalists to call me for whatever information/insight I can give them into the story. I would especially like to begin hearing from those directly affected. Please detail very precisely what restrictions you place on the information you send me. First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who? MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their markets ... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against the wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on? Those ISPs who did not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck in the second or the third round? The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Another Spam With Free Samples Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 19:28:47 -0400 I received this today. Feel free to snip the content, but I thought I'd make digest readers aware of a toll free number that they want to be sure to call and ask for information and a free cassette. Now make sure to use your correct address when requesting your cassette, otherwise mail will be returned to sender after all that money for postage would have been spent. From: milteam@prodigy.net[SMTP:milteam@prodigy.net] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 1997 4:54 PM Subject: GUESS WHO'S SLEEPING IN YOUR BED ??? From: milteam@prodigy.net * * * * * You "MITE" Be Surprised! * * * * * * * * * Allergy sufferer's worst NIGHTMARE! * * * * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Much nonsense about medical problems being cured by using an MLM approach to selling whatever product it is they are selling ... all deleted here; it went on for a couple thousand more lines. Now for the important part; and make sure you get all the details correct when you call the toll free number to order your free cassette tape. Following that, a look at the headers which came with this crap. PAT] ************************************** CALL NOW for your FREE cassette! TOLL-FREE (888)403-0307 24hrs. OR E-mail your Name, Address and Telephone Number w/area code: milteam@juno.com ************************************** P.S. With 1 (800) ordering -- no distributor sign-up fee -- no front loading -- no group volume requirements -- and reasonably priced, superior quality product line, its easy to see why we're the highest rated MLM company in history and one of the fastest growing young companies in the industry. --------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From milteam@prodigy.net Sat May 3 15:51:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net [206.13.28.53]) by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-1.0.1) with ESMTP id PAA00169; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:51:04 -0400 (EDT) From: milteam@prodigy.net Received: from David (whx-ca9-14.ix.netcom.com [205.187.202.110]) by mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA06600; Sat, 3 May 1997 12:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 12:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705031950.MAA06600@mail-gw2.pacbell.net> Subject: GUESS WHO'S SLEEPING IN YOUR BED ??? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You all know what needs to be done. I do not have to elaborate further. If you need a few cassette tapes, order as many as you want. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 May 1997 00:53:16 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Review of Book on Long Distance Competition You might be interested in the article/review at this URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1r1.html The title is: "Phone Bill Too High? Blame the FCC." Subtitle: "The Failure of Antitrust and Regulation to Establish Competition in Long-Distance Telephone Services." ------------------------------ From: Ed Coglio Subject: Marconi 6200 Microwave Test Set For Sale Date: Sat, 02 May 1997 20:15:07 -0700 Organization: SatNet Marconi 6200 Microwave test set for sale: - color display - useable to 20 Ghz - TDR and frequency sweep capability - power meter and counter - 4 scalar inputs - can display 4 measurements simultaneously - includes 6581 cable test head and case - 6910 and 6230 power sensors - all interconnect cables - manual This instrument is in pristine condition and current calibration is good to August 97. Excellent for use by tower crew on new installs. As accurate as the HP network analyzer and much more transportable. Asking mid $30's. Serious inquiries only ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #110 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 5 00:45:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA20335; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 00:45:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705050445.AAA20335@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #111 TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 May 97 00:45:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Nils Andersson) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Stanley Cline) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Michael Schuster) Re: Incredible Chutzpah (Andrew Moore) Re: Fiber/Copper Breakout or SLC? (Patton Turner) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Scott Nelson) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Michael Kagalenko) Re: Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID (Andy McFadden) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (John R. Levine) Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet (nwdirect@netcom.com) Re: Carte Blanche to Steal (John Cropper) Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging? (Michael W. Coen) Last Laugh! How Many??? (Jim Weiss) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 04 May 1997 17:28:48 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > OK, now that we've had a good laugh, let's get serious! Can you > imagine the statue not having the authority to prevent implementation > of a deceptive trade practice? I would think this is easy -- compare > the consumer's intent in saying "I don't care" to the outcome if these > folks prevail. They are not the same, unless to add to the carrier > selection script "Do you mean 'I Don't Care' long distance service > from Scumbag Communications or do you mean that you don't care who > your carrier is?" I am not sure if it is deceptive. If somebody truly does not care, then he should be happy with whatever he gets. (On a lighter note, there is a possibly apocryphal story about a Nevada man who picked a vanity license plate number of NONE. His punishment was being mailed 358 notices about unpaid parking tickets. The rest of the story is left as an exercise.) Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 19:34:09 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On 27 Apr 1997 08:40:34 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom Andy Sherman wrote: > Did anybody else hear about this? I heard it as one of those Old news. *I* mentioned Dennis Dees' antics several months back. > It seems some relatively small LD carrier has applied to do business > in Florida under the trade names of "I Don't Care" and "It Doesn't > Matter". Presumably, if a subscriber gave either of those answers to > a LEC carrier selection request then Scumbag Communications (or The intent was to grab calls dialed to the LEC operator, where the caller answered "I don't know|care" for the name of the LD carrier to handle interLATA calls. I certainly don't think he'd try to take 1+ traffic -- that could be considered a form of slamming, IMHO. > Anybody heard what the final PSC action was on this? In Georgia, from what I understand, he dropped his application ... I don't think the current PSC would allow it. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 4 May 1997 21:25:56 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) wrote: > I once head a person shanged his name to "None of the Above". He then > ran for political office. On the ballot, his name appeared ... Actually, it was "Absolutely Nobody" and he run for Lt. Governor of some state, I seem to remember Washington. hpa Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: 04 May 1997 19:03:29 -0400 In article , Andy Sherman wrote: > Did anybody else hear about this? I heard it as one of those > whimsical little pieces on the half-hour on NPR's Morning Edition a > couple weeks ago. That's almost as good as the company calling itself ATNT, who called AT&T subscribers to "confirm they wanted ATNT as their long distance carrier". Right. Mike Schuster | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@panix.com | schuster@mem.po.com ------------------------------ From: Andrew Moore Subject: Re: Incredible Chutzpah Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 11:58:58 -0400 Organization: Cornell University Hi there - I got wind of this a few months ago and I think I have the access codes to dial them direct -- I think they came off of alt.phreaking or somewhere and I haven't tried them, so you may get mixed results. I believe it goes like this: 1015016 - KT&T - owns the following: 1015136 - "I don't know" 1015137 - "It doesn't matter" 1015138 - "Whoever" 1015140 - "Anyone is OK" It sounds pretty weird to me too. Andrew Moore (remove the NOSPAM, unless spamming) ------------------------------ From: pmturner@mindspring.com (Patton Turner) Subject: Re: Fiber/Copper Breakout or SLC? Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 22:50:01 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: pmturner@mindspring.com Pat Talbot wrote: > I am extending a network to a building about a quarter of a mile away > from my central facility via arial fiber (12 strand). I'm looking for > a box that will let me convert 50 or 100 copper pairs down to a single > fiber pair, and then convert back from fiber to the 50 or 100 copper > pairs on the far end. Does a SLC provide this functionality? > At the central site, we have a large PBX and would like to connect > phones at the far end using the above scenario. The far end currently > has a separate key system phone switch that I would like to eliminate > from our midst. :) A SLC (non I-SLCs at least) are designed to have a CO (COT) and a field end (ROT) and are customised for that application. It would work for your application, but plain D4 channel banks might be cheaper, and a bit more flexable. I would price the two methods. If you aren't going to need some multiple of 96 channels, I'll bet the D4s are cheaper. Pat ------------------------------ From: scott_d_nelson@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Scott Nelson) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1997 13:36:32 GMT Organization: Alcatel Network Systems fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) wrote: > According to Dr Alan Harris from the Walter and Eliza Institute in > Melbourne: "This is important because at present, there was no convincing > evidence that radio fields (in contrast to X- and Gamma-rays, ultraviolet > and atomic radiation) can directly cause the changes in genes responsible > for cancer development." Thanks for the post, Stewart. I just wanted to focus on the above quote that I stripped from your article. As I understand it, medical scientists and physicists both agree on how high frequency radiation such as X- and Gamma-rays can have genetic affects, but I have seen no hypothesis on how low-frequency RF might affect biology. I am told that the general theoretical concensus is that low frequency RF only serves to manipulate cells *physically*. That is to say that they can cause physical movement or excitation of matter which -- as far as we know -- only results in the generation of heat. In other words, wireless communication could possibly fry your brain, but it won't cause cancer. Still, the energy required to do any significant physical damage like a microwave oven is way, way more than any wireless transmitter that cellular/PCS/GSM phone users would come in contact with -- including wireless base stations. Note that I prefixed some of my comments with "as I understand...", "I have seen...", and "I am told...". I in no way claim to be an authority here, so I would appreciate being corrected or supported. If there is any sound hypothisis to the contrary regarding low-frequency RF causing genetic mutation, I would like to hear of it. And, knowing how newsgroups can spawn more missinformation from rumor rather than fact, I would like to see solid references on any sources quoted. (In this regard, I commend you on your article.) *Scott Nelson work: scott_d_nelson@aud.alcatel.com* *Alcatel Network Systems home: nelson84@concentric.net* *Richardson, Texas phone: 972-996-5890 fax: 972-996-2778* ------------------------------ From: Michael Kagalenko Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 23:49:34 EDT Stewart Fist (fist@ozemail.com.au) wrote in article > This gets very little coverage in TELECOM Digest, for good > reason. Most of the studies are inconclusive. Not all, however. > This, I predict, is one of the most significant yet. > Cell phones/cancer connection. > by Stewart Fist > The Australian newspaper, Tues 29 April 1997 > A team of scientists funded by Telstra to investigate claimed links > between cellular phones and cancer has turned up probably the most > significant finding of an adverse health effects yet. > When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was > rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic". Three > other prominent magazines including 'Nature' also later rejected the > report, suggesting that they would not handle such important > conclusions without the research being further confirmed. This makes me a bit suspicious about the claims by S. Fist. As far as I am familiar with "Science" and "Nature," poor science is more likely reason for rejection then controversial nature of findings. Were those results published in any peer-reviewed journals? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Stewart Fist noted originally that 'very little coverage of the topic appears in TELECOM Digest' and the reason for that is I tend to toss out the articles on 'cancer caused by cell phones' without publishing them ... usually that is. The topic has come up here in the past, and each time around the consensus of several writers who really should know what they are talking about has been that this 'cancer' is hogwash. It is indeed a controversial topic and there are a number of people who beleive it to be true. I don't think I beleive it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) Subject: Re: Why Both 1+10 and 10 on my CID Organization: Lipless Rattling Crankbait Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 19:56:49 GMT In article , Jeff Hollingsworth wrote: > In article Dave Yewell > writes: >> "dial 10 digits" which I assume are the ten digits which CID delivers >> and "dial 1+10 digits" >> Isn't all 10 digit dialing in the US "1+10"? The database we get from CCMI includes dialing pattern information, with separate entries for HL (home area code, local), HT (home, toll), FL (foreign area code, local), and FT (foreign, toll). There's one set for "allowed" dialing, and a second set for "permissive" dialing (well, PFT is assumed to be 1+10 everywhere). The database assigns single-letter codes to each exchange, where each letter represents a different combination of values. The current DB has 17 different sets. There are places where you are *required* to dial seven-digit numbers into different area codes. There's not much about dialing that I would call "standard" in the U.S. FWIW, I believe there was an exchange in Cananda that "went M" before Maryland did, but MD was the first in the U.S. to do so. The unpleasantly fascinating part is that there are places in the country where you get charged more for dialing 1+10 than you would for dialing seven, even though both connect you to the same place. So being able to dial fewer than 11 digits is an important feature for some areas. > As of Thursday most of the state of Maryland will be 10 digit dialing > for *all* local calls and 1+10 digit dialing for toll. Seven digit > dialing will no longer be permitted due to the pending start of area > code overlays. I assume that this box is designed with this feature > so it will work in MD too. > A side note, Bell Atlantic has been running a big media blitz to > prepare for this. We have been hearing lots of stories and reminders > about the need to reprogram (or upgrade) everything from FAX machines > to emergency phones in elevators. This was fairly interesting for WebTV, since the devices "learn" what patterns work by dialing the phone and watching what happens, using the CCMI data as a starting point. Of course, by this time all of the devices in Maryland had learned that 7-digit dialing worked great, which meant that we had to make the boxes un-learn that fact *before* May 1st. (After May 1st they'd have a hard time dialing in to be fixed. It's easy to straighten them out after the fact, but the goal was to keep things as seamless as possible.) Send UCE to consumerline@ftc.gov (Spam Bait) Send mail to fadden@netcom.com (Andy McFadden) Fight Internet Spam - http://www.vix.com/spam/ and news.admin.net-abuse.email ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 09:53:00 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. Sovernet is an interesting rural ISP. They cover the entire state of Vermont with local call access, even though Vermont has only one city big enough to deserve the name (Burlington), lots of small rural exchanges, and very high intra-state toll rates. They've cobbled together a network of POPs colocated in local computer stores and the like, along with a lot of remote call forwarding between neighboring towns to maximize the local access to each POP. Their rates are the same as everyone else's, in the vicinity of $20/mo. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: nwdirect@netcom.com Subject: Re: Rural Telcos and the Internet Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 01:05:41 GMT Stanley Cline (roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com) wrote: > Re: (rural Internet access) There are now several ISPs that provide flat-rate, unlimited access service for around $19.95 via an 800 number. There is now no reason why everyone with a U.S. phone cannot have reasonably priced access. * Internet Access Providers - Web Presense Providers - BBSes * * http://www.thedirectory.org/ - largest directory on the web * * tens of thousands of listings - over 7,500 Access Providers * * Telephone Prefix Locations - "The BBS Corner" - Web Banner Creation * ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Carte Blanche to Steal Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 18:39:31 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises Judith Oppenheimer wrote in article ... > FCC grants carriers carte blanche to steal what they've been buying. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You have illustrated a good point > Judith; just one more reason to let the big players do their own thing > and take your telecom needs to smaller companies who appreciate your > business. PAT] Unfortunately, Pat (and Judith) it is not always that simple. From personal experience, and that of close associates, I can tell you that AT&T (and sometimes Sprint) does not relinquish an 800/888 toll-free customer easily. I have had customers take up to a WEEK to provision from AT&T to another, smaller carrier (IXC, WilTel, LDDS, etc.), due to AT&T not processing the resporg paperwork upon receipt. They will stall, accumulating more receipts, and 'investigate why the paperwork has not been processed', before finally releasing the customer. In all cases, save one, the customers were current on their payable (in the one case the customer was 5 days late due to an accounting error). Judith, perhaps you can shed some light on this practice...? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be good to hear what Judith has to say on this. Are you sure however that the stalling is due to thier imminent loss of the customer or is it just their nature -- as I suspect -- to stall and fumble around when processing any sort of order slightly more complicated than turning on routine long distance service? Taking a week to get something done is nothing new for those guys; sometimes it takes two or three weeks or longer to get the service turned on in the first place; a time when you would think they were anxious to please and placate a new customer. Also, as far as the status of an account is concerned and whether the payments are up to date, is that a valid reason to refuse to release a number? I had heard at one point some discussion that carriers would be able to refuse on that basis, but I was not aware of anything formal on the topic. Judith, speak up! PAT] ------------------------------ From: mwcoen@hooked.net (Michael W. Coen) Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements; Now Charging? Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 18:16:50 GMT Organization: Whole Earth Networks News David Holub, CEO of Wenet/Hooked (www.wenet.net) was fired and there is tremendous discussion going on in the Well (www.well.com) and the Hooked proprietary newsgroups. Mr. Holub's handling of the UUNET negotiations were at odds with major shareholder Bruce Katz. Mr. Holub wanted to testify before the California PUC about the enormity of the issue UUNET is forcing. The peering agreements ISP's have with UUNET will be terminated over the next few months and ISP's must sign non-disclosure statements if they even wish to negotiate with UUNET. Many, if not all, small ISP's may be shuttered as they cannot afford the cost of peering agreements. UUNET is wholly-owned by Worldcom (www.worldcom.com). Even the Federal government will be forced to pay hefty fees for internet connectivity. Write your US Senator and ask for an investigation into Peering Agreements with UUNET and Worldcom. Here is a Yahoo listing of US Senators: http://www.yahoo.com/Government/Legislative_Branch/Senate/Senators/ Mike www.hooked.net/~mwcoen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I cannot resist the temptation: Isn't it interesting that all the Yahoos are listed on Yahoo. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:03:23 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! How Many??? Thought you might enjoy this... Forwarded message: From: Just4Laughs@usa.net (Just 4 Laughs) Reply-to: Just4Laughs@usa.net To: Just4Laughs@usa.net Date: 97-05-02 22:34:50 EDT This, from Sandi Woodard and Jennifer-Ann Anderson, has run quite a bit on the Net, but we're running here for the benefit of those who haven't seen it yet ... Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to effect the changing of a light bulb? A: 1,331: 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the light bulb has been changed. 14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. 7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. 27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. 53 to flame the spell checkers. 156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list. 41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames. 109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb. 203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped. 111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list. 306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty. 27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs. 14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs. 3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list. 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too." 12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy. 19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three." 4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ. 1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup. 47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, leave it here. 143 votes for alt.lite.bulb. ------------------------------------------------ Just 4 Laughs! FREE Humor To Your E-mail! About 4 e-mails per day, most every day. If you would like to receive Just 4 Laughs! Send an e-mail message to me or go to the Web site. Just4Laughs@USA.Net GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ~~~~~~~~~~ Do you need another e-mail account? Go to the Just 4 Laughs Home Page, because there is a list of FREE e-mail programs. GO to http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6993 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #111 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed May 7 01:04:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA12091; Wed, 7 May 1997 01:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 01:04:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705070504.BAA12091@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #112 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 May 97 01:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 847 Reported to Need Relief 4Q97 (David W. Tamkin) Motorola May Take Legal Action Over Health Claims (Monty Solomon) ISDNworld Conference (Bob Larribeau) Book Review: "How the Internet Works" by Eddings (Rob Slade) Street Corner Web Browser Spotted in the Netherlands (Paul Houle) False 911 Calls (rweingar@newnorth.net) Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users (B. Allen) Employment Opportunity: Burlington MA Telecommunications (Jack Bryar) Re: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime (Stanley Cline) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: 847 Reported to Need Relief 4Q97 Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:43:36 CDT The Friday, May 2, Chicago _Sun-Times_ (nothing appeared about it in the Chicago _Tribune_) carried a front-page story that area code 847 is in bad shape and needs relief this coming fall. Two suggestions were a split roughly along the Des Plaines River (except that the south end of the split line would go west of the city of Des Plaines) and an overlay. The article stated that the split proposal did not say which side should keep 847. As we expect, the effect of an overlay was very poorly presented in the article. The poll question of the day was "Would you rather have an area code split or dial eleven digits for all calls?" and the article said that with an overlay all local calls would have to be "dialed as [not "like" but "as"] long-distance calls, but at a local charge." Except for the 312/773 line through Chicago, which has two area codes to itself, area code boundaries in Illinois do not divide municipali- ties. There is no way to split 847 without forcing many thousands of phone number changes where municipal borders vary from CO and exchange boundaries, though I should expect that the proposed split would not create any single area needing number changes as large as the 23,000 lines in southern Schaumburg that had to get new numbers when 847 was created early last year. At least the article did not blame beepers and faxes for the number crunch: it blamed the reservation of an entire prefix for each local service provider in each exchange. The Citizens Utility Board -- an organization that argues before the Illinois Commerce Commission and lobbies the state legislature against utility rate increases -- supports neither; they maintain that only about 29% of the actual telephone numbers in 847's existing prefixes are in use, and they want competing local providers to be assigned numbers in blocks of 1000 instead of in entire prefixes. That would get 847 out of jeopardy. Full number portability is supposed to be in place soon, and that will allow assigning numbers to providers in blocks of one. Blocks of 1000 would then be an adequate stopgap until portability (can't we call it something else?) is in full swing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The _Chicago Tribune_ reported on this in the Tuesday paper. As you pointed out, the culprits named for the mess are the various competitors and their blocks of ten thousand numbers each. The Tribune article said most likely the 'east side' of 847 -- namely here in Skokie, Evanston and up the lakeshore -- would be getting the new code, while communities to the west and northwest would likely be the ones to keep 847. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 00:05:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola May Take Legal Action Over Health Claims Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 19.12 Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 07:14:23 -0400 From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA]" Subject: Motorola may take legal action over health claims In Australia, there's been quite a fuss over claims that cellular phones cause all manner of disease. Motorola responds: Phone giant may take legal action over health claims Australian Associated Press 29 Apr 1997 SYDNEY, April 29 AAP - In the wake of growing fears over mobile phone safety, industry giant Motorola has hinted it may take legal action over claims linking its products to brain cell damage, cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. The company's managing director Ron Nissan said today he had written to fledgling protection device manufacturer Microshield, seeking that it retract the claims made in its sales brochures. Key points made in the article: * Microshield announced its protective cell-phone shield in the third week of April. * "The device consists of a woven polyester and nickel casing, a PVC phone screen ingrained with ultra fine protective mesh and an adjustable polyester-coated aerial guard." * Device is described as blocking 90% of harmful emissions from the phones. * Advertising pamphlet claims that cell phones have been shown to cause "permanent brain cell damage, cancer cell growth acceleration and possible promotion of asthma conditions following exposure to microwave radiation at cellular phone frequencies". * Also claims that cell phones may cause Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. * Executive Director of the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Peter Russell, has written to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to demand removal of this brochure. * ACCC will test Microshield claims using independent investigators. * Australian researchers announced yesterday that lab mice show higher incidence of lymphoma after exposure to cell phone radiation. M.E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP (Kirkland, QC), Director of Education National Computer Security Association (Carlisle, PA) http://www.ncsa.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: ISDNworld Conference Date: 6 May 1997 16:23:33 GMT Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 The California ISDN Users' Group Spring ISDNworld conference will be held June 19 & 20 in San Diego. The conference will include tutorials, discussions of emerging technologies, and applications. There will also be an exhibition with 50 ISDN product and service companies participating. We will be hosting the North American ISDN Users' Forum on June 16 to 18 at the same location. The ISDNworld conference costs $295 if you register by May 23, $345 after. There is no charge to attend the exhibits. Take a look at http://www.isdnworld.com for complete information. Send your postal address to info@ciug.org if you would like a brochure mailed to you. Bob Larriibeau California ISDN Users' Group ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 10:59:54 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How the Internet Works" by Eddings BKHINWRK.RVW 961216 "How the Internet Works", Joshua Eddings, 1994, 1-56276-192-7, U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 %A Joshua Eddings 72203.1434@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1994 %G 1-56276-192-7 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 218 %T "How the Internet Works" Most people will read the title of the book in terms of the overall and conceptual function of the net. In that sense the book works very well. The basic applications of the Internet are presented clearly and in a manner that aids in understanding. I am impressed Just in case, though, there may be those who think that the book shows you how to make the net work for you: how to use it. Sorry, the level of detail is not sufficient for that, nor is it intended to be. Most of the book, however, is quite accurate: surprisingly so given the "picture book" format. Almost the only quibble I have is with the first explanation of gopher, which presents a more potent type of agency than is actually the case. A fairly minor point in a whole book. (Even the section on viruses isn't bad.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHINWRK.RVW 961216 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Paul Houle Subject: Street Corner Web Browser Spotted in the Netherlands Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 09:26:27 -0400 Organization: Cornell University We went to the Netherlands a few weeks ago and found a street corner web browser in the middle of a bank of pay phones. It runs MSIE 3.0 and supports Java and Microsoft's limited version of Javascript but has Active X turned off. It costs about 6 US cents per minute to use and makes printouts for about 25 cents US. You pay for it with either a prepaid phone card you get from the post office or a 'chip card' which is some kind of smart card. I was quite impressed. For more information and photographs of the machine, go to URL http://www.msc.cornell.edu/~houle/sc/ ------------------------------ From: raw Subject: False 911 Calls Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 08:37:36 -0500 Organization: rtc Our 911 center is reporting "False 911 Calls". I've heard of cordless phones dialing 911 when their battery is discharged. Has anyone discovered any other unexpected / unexplained causes for these events, other than the obvious - (bad cable pair / trouble). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about malicious people dialing 911 just to stir up a little action? Here in Skokie some fool was going through the train station several times per week late in the evening, dialing 911 then walking away and leaving the phone off hook or sometimes just hanging up and walking away. Of course every time this happened a police car would have to go there. I do not know if they ever caught him or not; the calls apparently stopped. In Chicago for many years prior to 911 when there was no convenient or easy way to trace false alarms, the Fire Department was plagued with false alarms -- sometimes a couple hundred per day. In many instances it was not so much a false alarm as it was a confused person giving the wrong address for a legitimate fire. We have many streets in Chicago with both a *north side* and *south side* of the city designation such as *North* Kedzie Avenue and *South* Kedzie Avenue; or *North* Cicero Avenue and *South* Cicero Avenue. So what was the Fire Department supposed to do when calls were received from someone who shouted hysterically into the phone, 'there is a fire at 1234 Kedzie Avenue' then hung up the phone to rush off to safety before the dispatcher could question the person 'is that 1234 North or 1234 South on Kedzie?' Since the addresses are a few miles apart, the dispatcher had to send out two squads; one to each side of town. Naturally one came back having done nothing. Most false alarms were recorded on the books as 'mistaken citizen trying to be helpful' unless specific malicious intent could be proven. The installation of 911 cut back greatly on that sort of incident once people were aware that they could be easily traced back to their phone and address. But still, payphones are used for these 'games' quite frequently. Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users Date: 06 May 1997 22:47:27 -0400 Reply-To: ulmo@armory.com > Access fees [to reach long distance companies] are a virtual "gravy > train" for local phone companies, [...] > But drastic changes could "blow up basic telephone service for > everyone," said Roy Neel, president of the U.S. Telephone > Association. [...] Hmm. I don't get this: In NYC, local NYNEX service (which often costs more than long distance bills) would get more expensive. Ok. Then MFS Intelenet, Teleport, Avis Rent-A-Car, AT&T Wireless, Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile, Omnipoint, and NextWave's resellers will be more competitive in the local phone market. More competition. Quicker progression in the charging chess game, leading to lower prices. Where does the consumer lose? Is this another case of protecting the old grandma who doesn't need cellular service? > He points out that access charges have dropped ever since the break-up > of AT&T in 1984, but that the average residential user hasn't always > benefited. Business users and high-volume residential customers have > saved, [...] Can someone compare their 1983 NYC bill to mine? I am a high-volume residential customer and my monthly local bill (without long distance and ISDN charges) is about $140 per month. Add in ISDN used for POTS-type service, and suddenly the cost is more like $180/month. Wish those charges went towards my cellular ($140/mo), ISP ($140/mo) and long distance ($60/mo -- most of which is local toll-free) bills as well (i.e., make them less). I don't even have cable (how can I afford it?) Honestly, I believe that the services I use cost a lot of money, but I feel $200/month to be a lot of money and it is probably sufficient for fiber to the home *and* an unlimited-use cell phone. I feel it is all an issue of costing, products, and integration, so this discussion I feel is entirely appropriate. (Saw a Hylan fiber splicing truck on 6th Ave today. Bet it would be cheaper if there was more fiber to maintain.) > The es[s]oteric nature of the dispute hasn't kept the local and > long-distance companies from boiling it down to simplistic arguments > that are being pushed in advertising and public relations campaigns > on the airwaves, in print media and over the Internet. I think my arguments are midway between simplistic and essoteric and am sure my economics on the issue make me look like a kindergartener. So what can I say? They don't teach this stuff in elementary school where it belongs! So I never learned it. > [...] Neel, of the local phone company trade group, angrily calls > MCI's arguments "a bare-faced lie." Neel said the access charges > help make up the difference in higher-cost areas as well as > residential service. The true cost of providing residential local > service is about $35 a month, [...] God do I wish! I'd be estatic to pay DOUBLE (so they make 100%)!!!!! > twice the average phone bill, Neel said. Oh God. I'm that unaverage? Well, my attitude is charge them for what they're using. If they don't need to pay $50 per month for phone service, then they don't need it, and can use a payphone or get a cellular phone at $25 per month for those emergency calls (likely to go down soon; or free for the 911 calls). > And without access fees companies would have to charge more, a lot > more in rural areas, for service. That's what it costs to live in rural areas. So live in the city where there are subways which are much better for the natural environment. The welfare for light suburbs and rural areas is unnecessary. Are you saying my $0.80 apple will go up to $0.90 because of this? Fine, I'll pay $0.10 more for my apple. > But others estimate the true cost of phone service to be much less. I'm not trying to steal telecommunications. But cutting it to one third of what I pay now would help my life and my productivity in this world immensely. > While it may be expensive to provide service in rural areas, it costs > about $15 to $20 a month in areas such as Nassau County and $5 a month > in central business districts, estimates David Gabel, associate > professor of economics at Queens College. In addition, local phone > companies making such estimates don't take out of the local bill the > costs of providing long-distance calls. More competiton in the > marketplace should also drive down costs for local service and access > fees, Gabel said. "Where do you see high customer access fees? > ... When you have monopolies," he said. Some who have studied the > issue propose a more radical solution of eliminating any access fees > as well as any subsidy to local phone service. That will drive > long-distance rates down by 25 percent to 30 percent, said Robert > Crandall, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Wait, so this means that the higher density urban areas where people move to have higher cost efficiencies for services in exchange for paying a premium rent, in the arena of telecommunications are actually paying greater amounts because of the higher perceived income in the area and the money-grubbing tendencies of monoplistic telecommunications entities, and thus subsidising a two-pronged rural and suburban contingent and a large profit-making business. Fights of monopolies finally aside (that's what this is majorly about after all), I protest the fact that *anybody* thinks I ought to subsidize the horrible lifestyles of non-urban folk. > "Virtually every economist agrees that we've made a mess of telephone > charges," Crandall said. The extra five-cents-a-minute in access > charges that consumers pay is clearly suppressing the demand for > long-distance calls, Crandall argues. He argues that regulators > should stop distorting the market and get out of the way particularly > because phone companies are facing new competitors and moving away > from monopoly systems. He points to lower prices that came to the > airline and trucking industry with deregulation, suggesting that it > could be duplicated in the telephone industry. And not jeporadize safety. I'd rather regulate airlines and not phone companies, honestly. (Maybe there's a connection: cheaper long distance calling rates means less traveling to have to be done (and better for the environment).) I actually agree with this paragraph significantly, but maintain that some regulation should exist in terms of some requirements such as banning false advertisement, requiring them to accept customers who pay the charges, listing all charges before being charged in reasonable amount of time for customer to react in a pratical way, and some solid antimonopoly measures (perhaps actually *banning* the largest companies from taking more than X-percent of the market, say 30% (including rural areas -- radios can go a long way today (and could for a while)), and disallowing them to band together with the "other" companies), etc. Wish I ran NYNEX. With my peculiar backround, I'd actually push for laws banning more than 30% ... [market share per area] Yeah, actually, one of the only market-size cost-setting type laws (rather than fairness laws such as true advertising, notification of costs, allowing people to buy services, etc.) I think is appropriate, for *all* telecommunications (Cable, Fiber, Radio) is a market-share-percentage law. We are solidly after the age where we need to have monopolies ANYWHERE. Yes, I know, that means there have to be 4 (count them, 4) radio antennas to BoHumTum, SomeState, so their 5 telecommunications-purchasing residents can be broken up accordingly among various companies (with two on one and one each on three). The competition between the companies will be fierce enough for that 2nd subscriber on their line and those borderline purchasers that they will try to make their service more worthwhile. Meanwhile, they won't mind servicing BoHumTum since they are, indeed, charging what it costs to provide service. The other 15 people who yacked all day long on the phone who can't afford it anymore can move to the city. Yes, that's precisely how I feel about it. (Is 4 companies enough? An exemption where there are fewer than 4 customers can be made, where each customer must choose a different company. Area would be defined as ... oh god, an acre? Or a square mile? How does that sound? It needs to be small enough that 4 companies' equipment would be close enough to customers in that area that there is incentive to compete.) See? I'm an awesome regulator. There must be forces in motion I don't understand ... else it would be regulated like I'd want it ... [umm, I'm pretending stupid.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 16:20:44 -0400 From: Jack Bryar Subject: Employment Opportunity: Burlington MA Telecommunications Individual, Inc. Editorial Department Telecommunications, Datacommunications Editorial Positions Evening, half time positions. Telecommunications position: Requires knowledge/of familiarity with * The telecommunications regulatory environment * Common (uncommon) telecom terms Datacommunications position: Requires knowledge of / familiarity with * Datacommunications protocols * Networking hardware * The major players in the datacommunications market Members of the editorial review staff work out of our Burlington, Massachusetts office. Responsibilities include final story selection and story editing of our topic library each evening. An optimal position for free-lance technology writers, technical research professionals, or independent consultants specializing in communications technology. See us at http://www.newspage.com call Jack Bryar at 800-766-4224 for more information or send resumes to: jbryar@individual.com subject: JOB-OFFER J.V. "Jack" Bryar Editorial Manager for Datacommunications and Multimedia Individual, Inc. Voice: 1-800-766-4224 x 642 International: 1-617-313-5642 email:jbryar@individual.com http://www.newspage.com http://www.individual.com If at first you don't succeed... skydiving is not for you. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 15:03:27 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 01 May 1997 17:40:09 -0500, Pat wrote: > a COCOT outside their place of business. They asked my advice on how > it should be programmed, and actually took my advice. I think it provides > pretty decent service, and it seems to be getting a lot more business Given the fact that *you*, the editor of TELECOM Digest, gave the advice, I'm not surprised at all. :) > for the first minute and fifty cents per minute after that. Area 809 > and its various split-offs are all blocked -- calls not allowed. NPA 787 -- Puerto Rico -- *should* be allowed, and charged at US domestic rates. Too many COCOT owners block 787 thinking 787 = 809 or 664 or some other scam NPA, when that's not the case! (The same should hold for 340 USVI, and 671 Guam when calls become rated as intraNANP rather than international.) > Calls to 800/888 are allowed at no charge, although the owner will be > compensated eventually at whatever rate is decided. The phone is In my experience, 888 is *BY FAR* the single biggest blemish against COCOT owners. As I note in my COCOT Web-Wall of Shame (on my web site at http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/shame.html) there are NUMEROUS COCOT *sleaze* in the Atlanta area [and other places] that either block NPA 888 altogether, or worse -- CHARGE "TOLL" RATES FOR 888 NUMBERS! I have complained REPEATEDLY to some of these COCOT sleaze with either no or rather belligerent responses, and have finally started referring the sleaze to the FCC and state regulators. One convenience store chain/COCOT owner went as far as to block an *800* number which is a backup to an *888* calling card access number. When I called that company, the "phone person" was fairly rude and said they were waiting on the *FCC* to provide rate tables! Of course, the FCC doesn't distribute rate tables to COCOT owners [the phone manufacturers, such as Intellicall and Elcotel, usually do], and why is NPA 888 not in the phones' chips OVER A YEAR AFTER THE NPA TOOK EFFECT? I think Judith would have something to say about THAT! > billing methods include 1-800-CALL-ATT, 1-800-AMERITECH (for > calling card calls) and 1-800-COLLECT via MCI. "You may if you The hidden number everyone forgets: 1-800-210-CARD for LEC calling card calls, via Sprint. > Finally -- and this to me is sort of a class act -- the COCOT > speed dial positions (*0 through *9) are programmed with 'public > service' numbers all operating free or for 25 cents each. For > example one speed dial position dials the RTA/CTA Transit Inform- > ation service 'to recieve public transit schedule information > for this location'; another speed dial position connects to the > local taxicab service; a third connects to a time-of-day/weather > message and another one to 'report problems with this phone.' That's a lot better than some of the COCOT sleaze (Roth) in New Orleans that offer horoscopes from their phones. :) > I can't help but think that much of the bum rap COCOTS have received > in the past has been due to the ignorance of their owners in setting > them up properly. In this case, the company which put it in told the Absolutely! Many COCOT operators [and even independent LECs] aren't very familiar with the NANP or telephony issues in general, and are probably clueless; others are deliberately trying to fleece the public by blocking 888, overcharging for 0+ intraLATA, etc. A few COCOT owners have been in trouble with the FCC and/or state regulators REPEATEDLY -- in a few cases over a period of FIVE OR MORE YEARS! That shows a rogue attitude -- and a request for disconnection. :) > what he wanted on the phone, so he asked me. I think if more COCOT > owners would genuinely make an effort to *compete* with the local > telco payphones, they would be amazed at the results. On his behalf I agree. The *ethical* COCOT owners (rare, but there are a few around) are certain to do better than the typical COCOT owners (who either need a big clue or are scum.) In fact, *I*'ve thought of getting in the COCOT business on and off for several years, if for no other reason than to put other, sleazy operators to shame. > to any-555-1212 for seventy-five cents. I think the guy who owns > the shop where it is located is going to see some nice $$$ from it, > in a legitimate way. PAT] I agree there too. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will mention to him about 787 and the others you named. I doubt they can be part of the three minutes for one dollar however; the default carrier is AT&T and those area codes you named cost more than that. Probably they could be in the Canada rates of two dollars for the first minute. I have thought about getting into COCOTS myself, if anyone in the business is looking for a good sales rep in this area. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #112 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 8 08:31:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA21690; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:31:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 08:31:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705081231.IAA21690@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #113 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 May 97 08:30:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Approves Landmark Overhaul of Phone Charges (Monty Solomon) 911 and Payphones (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: False 911 Calls (John Nagle) Re: False 911 Calls (Sanjay Parekh) Dial `2' For Grandma (Tad Cook) Hearing on 212, 917 Relief (John Cropper) Explanation Wanted of Wiretap Rules (Dean Webb) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 22:29:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Approves Landmark Overhaul of Phone Charges Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI. From Reuters. FCC approves landmark overhaul of phone charges May 7, 1997 2:09 PM EDT By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Regulators Wednesday approved a sweeping overhaul of domestic telephone charges that they said will lower costs for residential and business customers who make a lot of long-distance calls. Federal Communications Commimssion officials said basic local phone rates will stay the same. But consumers and businesses will pay more for extra phone lines and may see their bills rise if they make few long-distance calls. The FCC also voted to set aside about $2.3 billion a year to wire the nation's schools and libraries to the Internet at discounted rates. Another $400 million a year will be used to connect rural hospitals to the global computer network. The new rates mean residential customers with one phone line will see their long-distance bill drop to $20.65 a month from $22.50 by 1998, on average, according to FCC calculations. ``This is the single best day that business and residential customers have had since the (1984) breakup of AT&T,'' said FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. The overhaul also will: -- Keep the monthly ``subscriber line charge'' customers pay to the local phone company at $3.50. -- Boost the line charge for residential customers with more than one line to $5 a month from $3.50, and to more than $7.50 from $6 for multi-line businesses. Those increases will take effect next year and be followed by additional rises that ultimately will be capped at $9. -- Impose a new monthly charge on long-distance carriers that is expected to be passed on to customers. The charge will be $1.50 a line for multi-line residential customers and $2.75 a line for businesses with more than one line. -- Reduce by $1.7 billion the $23 billion in annual charges long-distance carriers pay local companies to access their networks, effective July 1. -- Reduce access charges by a total of $18.5 billion over the next five years. AT&T Corp. has promised to pass on the savings in access charges to customers through long-distance price cuts of 5 percent to 15 percent. Other long-distance carriers have signaled they will follow suit. Phone companies gave the rate overhaul mixed ratings. AT&T generally praised the plan, but No. 2 long-distance carrier MCI Communications Corp. said the access charge reductions did not go far enough. Regional phone compannies Bell Atlantic Corp. and Nynex Corp., which are merging, questioned the access-charge rate cut. Industry analysts, meanwhile, also offered mixed views. ``There was a lot of huffing and puffing, but this is incremental change and not revolutionary change,'' said Scott Cleland of Schwab Research Group. ) Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 12:31:11 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 911 and Payphones > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about malicious people dialing > 911 just to stir up a little action? Here in Skokie some fool was > going through the train station several times per week late in the > evening, dialing 911 then walking away and leaving the phone off hook > or sometimes just hanging up and walking away. Of course every time > this happened a police car would have to go there. I do not know if > they ever caught him or not; the calls apparently stopped. In Chicago > for many years prior to 911 when there was no convenient or easy way > to trace false alarms, the Fire Department was plagued with false > alarms -- sometimes a couple hundred per day. In many instances it > was not so much a false alarm as it was a confused person giving the > wrong address for a legitimate fire. A few years back, here in New Orleans, the city was going to fine businesses or impose a surcharge on false alarms from burglar alarm or fire alarm systems when the 'official' police or fire department (or one of the other law enforcement jurisdictions) answered the call. As for false calls to 911, a few months back, I seem to remember that the city's 911 system was *NOT* going to send out a police car to investigate if the 'hang-up' call came from a payphone. Just as in other major metro areas, here in New Orleans, fools or kids dial 911, usually from payphones, just for the sick 'fun' of it. > We have many streets in Chicago with both a *north side* and *south > side* of the city designation such as *North* Kedzie Avenue and > *South* Kedzie Avenue; or *North* Cicero Avenue and *South* Cicero > Avenue. So what was the Fire Department supposed to do when calls > were received from someone who shouted hysterically into the phone, > 'there is a fire at 1234 Kedzie Avenue' then hung up the phone to rush > off to safety before the dispatcher could question the person 'is that > 1234 North or 1234 South on Kedzie?' Since the addresses are a few > miles apart, the dispatcher had to send out two squads; one to each > side of town. Naturally one came back having done nothing. Most false > alarms were recorded on the books as 'mistaken citizen trying to be > helpful' unless specific malicious intent could be proven. Again, ditto for New Orleans. We have a lot of same-name streets, but with North and South designations. There is a 300 block of North and a 300 block of South . New York City has their "East Street" and "West Street", as well as "Avenues" with numericals from 'First' thru (I think) 'Twelth'. Miami has a grid system and NE/NW/SE/SW, with numerical names for *different* "streets" and "avenues". Considering that these are urban/inner-city metro areas, even if the caller to 911 is coherent and correct in identifying their location, the dispatch operators frequently seem to be illiterates/incompetents ... probably even people who are on political patronage and can't have anything done to reprimand/discipline/etc. them. Remember the fiasco in Atlanta during the Olympics last Summer with the calls to 911, and the incompetent 911 dispatch operators! :( :( :( > The installation of 911 cut back greatly on that sort of incident > once people were aware that they could be easily traced back to their > phone and address. But still, payphones are used for these 'games' > quite frequently. Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay > phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot > receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to > ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] Pat, most (if not all) 911 systems out there today *CAN* hold the line and trunk, just as most *real telco* operators can (i.e. TSPS/TOPS/OSPS, and also the old cordboards as well). The only problem with payphones and many not allowing incoming calls is that the public phone equipment out there today is *COCOT*. The loop from the COCOT to the central office would be held by the 911 dispatch center, but the COCOT has either no ringer, or the ringer is turned off! :( The 911 dispatch center can press ring-backward all they want, but the people near the COCOT don't hear anything, or the 'ringer' inside of the COCOT is a low-volume electronic warbler which can't really be heard in a noisy location. Also, many COCOTs don't connect the handset to the loop upon going offhook, until the chips have processed an outgoing number. There would be no voicepath connection from the handset, even if someone did pick the handset up again if the 911 center were trying to ring-backward to the COCOT. Sometimes, there there would be a connection from the loop to *only the receiver* part of the handset. The microphone/transmitter would initially be 'turned-off' (i.e., as if there was no 'sidetone'), therefore, while the person at the payphone *knew* that 911 was calling back, the person at the payphone couldn't be heard by the 911 center. :( This is similar to many PBX systems and cellular systems. The trunk (loop) that the PBX uses to place outgoing calls is the number that the 911 center would have show up on their computer, *NOT* the actual incoming number of the telephone on an employee's desk or in the hotel room. The 911 center could hold the outgoing loop, but the PBX had already disconnected the extension from that loop if they had hung-up. Of course, many PBX systems today are enhanced enough to be more compatible with 911 systems, or at least send out the actual extension's incoming 7/10 digit number on calls to 911. Some cellular systems might send the actual cellular phone number to the 911 center on such calls, however, on cellular, if the battery began to cut out, or the caller moved too far away from a cellsite antennae, or they turned their phone off, the 911 center wouldn't be able to ring-backward to the calling cellphone. Some cellular systems (although not all) can 'try' to get the proper jurisdiction's 911 center depending on what cellsite the caller is picked up in, and try to match which city/municipality/township/parish/county/state/etc. political jurisdiction's 911 or emergency services are being requested. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__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: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: False 911 Calls Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:40:49 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay > phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot > receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to > ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] I had to read up on E911 systems once, and as I understand it, the call remains up until the dispatcher releases it. That's a feature specified in the spec, as I recall. Remember, E911 works a lot like LD; the lines to the E911 center are normally 4-wire toll trunks, not subscriber-type lines. Historically, it was done that way because E911 was implemented back when end offices were still largely electromechanical but the AT&T toll switches were programmable. So E911 was originally implemented in the toll switches, not the end office switches. This gave the E911 center many of the powers of an operator, including the ability to hold a call up. However, it's quite possible that some COCOTs are programmed so that once you hang up, you can't pick up the handset and continue, regardless of the state of the line. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 13:04:01 -0400 From: Sanjay Parekh Subject: Re: False 911 Calls > a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there > are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like > to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and > ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can > hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never > stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she > just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be > able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely > on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] Looks like its time for me to stop lurking and thrown my two cents in. I was recently out in Japan working with our stuff and a DMS-10J. Apparently in Japan there is this kind of functionality. They have a specialized trunk called a FPT (fire/police trunk) on which the operator gets total control of your line if you call. Once you call, they can ring you back, keep the line open, etc. until they decide to release your line. And the ring back is distinct in that there is no cadence, just a continual ring (I think..). I would have thought we would have that kind of functionality but I guess not ... | Sanjay Parekh | | | Systems Engineer - Cornerstone | sanjay.parekh@arris-i.com | | Arris Interactive | phone: 770-622-8627 | | Atlanta, GA | | ------------------------------ Subject: Dial `2' For Grandma Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 12:24:44 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Wednesday, May 7, 1997,in the {San Jose Mercury News}. Dial `2' for grandma By Charles McDowell LAST WEEK Maryland became the first state in which all telephone calls, even one to a next-door neighbor, require the dialing of an area code. Virginia and several other states are expected to acknowledge very soon the same irritating surge of progress. The growing number of traditional telephones, along with cellular phones, pagers, fax machines, answering machines, computer lines and assorted conference-call systems, will make 10 digits the standard for phone numbers. Ten digits are something to think about, especially if you are old enough to remember when three or four digits were enough to sustain telephonic communication in most towns of the United States. I still remember a batch of three-digit telephone numbers from a boyhood in small-town Virginia. And I will confess, indeed, that I remember when my grandparents in Lawrenceburg, Ky., had the telephone number 2. Yes, just 2. That was in the 1930s. Now in the late 1990s, I am sobered to have seen telephone numbers progress through the range from one to 10 digits. This reflects some progress in the communications system, but it also reflects some losses. We have lost "Central," who said "Number please," when we picked up the telephone. She was reassuring, helpful and hopeful as we adapted to an awesome innovation in our lives. My parents and brother and I used to spend summers with my maternal grandparents on the farm in Kentucky. I remember going with my grandfather one day to his law office in Lawrenceburg. In the afternoon, I got bored and tried to call my grandmother at the farm to come and get me. The operator said: "Number please." I said: "Two, please." The operator said: "If you're calling Mrs. Feland, she and her neighbor Mrs. Sherwood are at the A&P. They've tried to call Mr. Feland but he was on the phone with some lawyer in Frankfurt. Anyway, the message is that they are coming by the office and will drive you back to the farm because that young Jersey cow just had a calf." Anyway, the operator as friend and positive meddler is just about gone. The modern caller and high technology dial up the numbers and all the rest of it, and Americans in tune with the times have several lines into home and office, a pager in their pocket and a cell-phone and maybe a cell-fax in the car. And Americans lead the enthusiasts for all of it. In recent years, the symbol of the communications revolution has been cell-phones -- tens of millions of them added to the power of America in all their wireless glory amid the traffic jams. I personally am still trying to learn how to hunch my shoulder properly to steer, operate the other controls, honk the horn at idiots and hear the phone and all the wisdom in it. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Having found out just yesterday in the papers here that we in 847 are due for another splint in a few months, your article about phone number '2' was very nostalgic for me. I remember very well phone numbers of one through four digits in length all handled manually. As I think I mentioned the other day, the Amoco Oil Refinery PBX in Whiting, Indiana was number 2111. The mayor of Whiting had 1, the Commonwealth Edison generating station was 6, a Walgreen's Drug Store was 89, and Western Union was of course, 4321. Those were long-ago times. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Hearing on 212, 917 Relief Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 05:33:22 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises From the NY PSC: As the next steps in the process, parties will be authorized to submit comments that critique New York Telephone's reports and propose alternate arrangements for long-term relief for the 212 and 917 area codes. Comments will be due May 12, 1997, and reply comments will be due June 2, 1997. Thereafter, a collaborative conference will be held on June 16, 1997, at which I hope the parties will be able to reach some degree of consensus. The nature of any further proceedings will depend on the outcome of that collaborative conference. In addition, after reviewing the May 12 comments, I will evaluate the need, if any, for task forces or other fact-finding measures. Contemporaneously with these events, a public input process will be under way in which we attempt to ascertain the views of the public at large regarding the matters at hand. The times and places of the public statement hearings are under consideration and will be announced shortly. Note: Just a reminder that Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) wants an overlay, and CLECs prefer a split ... John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/ The latest compiled area code information is available from us! NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ ------------------------------ From: Dean Webb Subject: Explanation Wanted on Wiretap Rules Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:32:33 -0500 I am interested in finding information concerning the monitoring of various forms of telecommunications, including but not limited to, telephone conversations, modem traffic, network traffic inside a corporate office, network traffic in transit between offices (either those of the same company or of another's), and so on. How are the rules different for individuals, corporations, and government/law enforcement agencies? Which states require all parties to be aware that monitoring is taking place and which states stipulate that only one party need know? What I'm driving at is an issue whether or not everything that goes over my company's data/voice connection is treated the same. Rules regarding wiretaps on voice connections seem to be at least articulated in most jurisdictions, but do they extend to other forms of telecoms? I ask this also because such information would be important to corporations devising security policies in which they attempt to monitor employees' electronic communications. I am not concerned with the ethical nature of monitoring communications in this set of questions: I'm involved in a discussion on that topic on another list. What I am after is either directions on getting relevant legal information or the legal information itself with information on verifying it. I would greatly appreciate any replies and I intend to eventually make this information available to one and all, but especially so to those who "chip in" their 20,000 microdollars (roughly two cents' worth). Free speech while supplies last, Dean Webb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #113 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu May 8 09:02:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA24202; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:02:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705081302.JAA24202@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #114 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 May 97 09:02:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Stewart Fist) What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Jack Decker) Re: Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months (Linc Madison) Digital Telecommunications Conference at UC Berkeley (dobson@berkeley.edu) Telephone Testimony in the McVeigh Okla Bombing Case (William Franklin) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:01:26 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study I received a large number of direct contacts from this article, and there were a couple of postings on TD. I'll try to deal with them all in one hit: Michael Kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu) writes: > This makes me a bit suspicious about the claims by S. Fist. As far as > I am familiar with "Science" and "Nature," poor science is more likely > reason for rejection then controversial nature of findings. Were those > results published in any peer-reviewed journals? The most outstanding thing about the Adelaide Hospital study is that it is extraordinarily difficult to make any of this kind of "poor science" mud stick. The results were published last week in 'Radiation Research'. The study was funded by Telstra, which, as a GSM carrier, has a lot to lose from the tumour-promotion findings. The original team was led by Dr Michael Repacholi, who is well known as promoter of the industry's "Cell phones are safe" claim (now at WHO). And the research was conducted by three top Australian scientists, using a supervised protocol established by a supervisory committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The main scientists insisted on this because of Telstra's involvement. I can't think of any research in the last decade which is so obviously unassailable in terms of the research protocols, the conduct, the mice numbers, or the findings. A doubling of tumours in 100 exposed mice, is not an insignificant finding. In fact, statistically, it is above the 1% level of confidence, and is therefore highly significant. Anyone interested in pursuing this matter further will find considerable material on this and other research at my site , together with a bibliography. I wish I hadn't mentioned the tortoise-like reaction of the journals because that is a minor side issue and it has detracted from the real point -- the now-well-established link between TDMA cell-phone radiations and tumour promotion. This is not an isolated case as anyone who has been following this debate would know. There are numerous studies over the years linking radio frequencies with DNA changes, tumour promotion, and sundry other adverse health effects. But publication on such a controversial subject has its problems (except in tabloids), and there's woeful ignorance in the wireless industry as to how much work is being done, and how strong are the findings. I'll bet few Digest readers know about Drs Lai and Singh, who found single- and double-strand DNA breaks after two hours of microwave exposure (in 1994, 95 and 96). Why not? It was a dramatic discovery, of vital importance to the radio industry. Then what about Drs Chou and Guy who exposed rats for two years at cell phone levels and found 3.5 times the number developed tumours; Dr Sarkar who found significant DNA (mutagenic) changes with low levels of exposure; or Dr Cleary who has been reporting tumour promotion for as long as I can remember. Where is the wireless-technology discussion on these matters? Then such dramatic discoveries as those which show dangers for glaucoma sufferers from corneal ulcers because of an interaction between the radiation and the drugs (Kues from 1985 and Monahan 1988), and a life-time of work (over 800 papers) by Dr Ross Adey, most of which deals with possible biological mechanisms. My original training was as an eye specialist, so I take the corneal, retinal and long-term cataract promotion findings seriously -- although I believe the incidence is probably low. But remember, even 1% of 100 million users, is reasonably significant. There's a lot of confusion and some conflict (scientific and political) in all of this research, some of it deliberately generated by the industry and some by the activists, especially those opposing towers. But that's par for the course in any medical controversy with political, economic and social implications. After all, when did you decide that the case against cigarettes had been proved. Do you believe the passive smoking evidence yet? What about sick-building syndromes? (The tobacco companies invented this last one themselves.) Some radio-health research has been conducted at the wrong frequencies, some at too high power levels, a lot is epidemiological which is less controllable than laboratory work -- but lab work is rarely on human subjects. Depite all that, the vast majority of findings point in one direction. There are probably serious long-term problems (probably low possibility, high potential in nature) Haven't you read about this? No? You should ask yourself: Why not? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Stewart Fist noted originally that > 'very little coverage of the topic appears in TELECOM Digest' and > the reason for that is I tend to toss out the articles on 'cancer > caused by cell phones' without publishing them ... usually that is. > The topic has come up here in the past, and each time around the > consensus of several writers who really should know what they are > talking about has been that this 'cancer' is hogwash. It is indeed > a controversial topic and there are a number of people who beleive > it to be true. I don't think I beleive it. PAT] Pat, you sound like an 80 year old cigarette smoker, who knows from his own experience that cigarettes don't give you lung cancer. Most of your experts are probably experts in radio electronics, not oncology. Because you toss them out, most TELECOM Digest readers won't have any idea of the range of research showning similar findings to the Adelaide Hospital work. I'm a great admirer, Pat, but this comment about your reluctance to give space to this problem is a direct parallel to the publishing problems that most scientists face when they work in this area. Who wants to be the editor to announce "Cell phones give you xxxx?" Some journal editors have already made up their minds that all such research is a fake and the scientists are charlatans, and others don't want to be accused of sensationalism even if it is good science. Pat in his role as moderator, has not chosen to try to distinguish between legitimate scientific research findings, and scuttlebutt from idiotic activists - because, as he says, he doesn't believe radio waves can be a problem. He doesn't have the background in such a specialised area to make such an important decision. That is precisely the problem that many of the top bioelectromagnetic scientists say they find when trying to publish in the top scientific journals. So, Pat unwittingly provided me with the perfect example as to why scientific journals are reluctant to publish these findings; their editors are human -- and this is a subject where people have strong opinions and biases. In fact, the reason why TELECOM Digest received this article direct from my keyboard is that the Chief of Staff at "The Australian" newspaper (I write the weekly telecommunications column) also applied her own form of censorship and refused to run it last week because it was 'old news' (a day old). She also doubles as the Medical Writer. It is wise to be cynical about such claims and reports -- but let's not just dismiss all of them in a knee-jerk way without a) reading the reports, and b) knowing a bit about the subject. > Scott Nelson (scott_d_nelson@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com) wrote: > As I understand it, medical > scientists and physicists both agree on how high frequency radiation > such as X- and Gamma-rays can have genetic affects, but I have seen no > hypothesis on how low-frequency RF might affect biology. I am told > that the general theoretical concensus is that low frequency RF only > serves to manipulate cells *physically*. That is to say that they can > cause physical movement or excitation of matter which -- as far as we > know -- only results in the generation of heat. The lack of a plausible mechanism has been the stumbling block in this reseach for years. Now the problem is solved -- in one way! There are about fifty, so take your pick. There are dozens dealing with DNA and the messager systems that keep cell growth in check, and others to do with the inter-cell 'gutters' which carry messages between cells and also act as electrical channels. Then there are dozens to do with free radicals (which last only nanoseconds) and such structural and functional things as stochastic resonance (eyes use this at night), layered resonance (the brain is not electrically uniform), magnetic perception (the pineal may play a role - melatonin). Most likely thre are dozens or mechanisms, some working at R/F frequencies, and some at GSM 217Hz ELF power-pulse frequency. I don't pretend to understand more than a few of these, but if you really want to know, there's a book out with a good section on the current state of thinking. One section is by Dr Ross Adey, who knows more about this than is decent. The book is 'Mobile Communications Safety" by Kuster, Balzano and Lin. Chapman & Hall 1997 ISBN 0 412 75000 7. There is also a freebie (to Australians anyway) with some excellent overview and basic mechanism (and readable) stuff. It is the 1994 Australian overview study by Dr Stan Barnett of the CSIRO, "Biological effects and safety of EMR". Fax the Spectrum Management Agency at +61 6 256 5353 and ask. They can only refuse. > If there is any sound hypothisis to the contrary regarding low-frequency > RF causing genetic mutation, I would like to hear of it. You can't prove a no-effects hypothesis. The research either finds something or it doesn't. A lot of them don't. However there are three thousand different variables, and it is almost impossible to replicate studies exactly. The most obvious study of the kind you are refering to is the Grundler series of studies done ten to twenty years ago, which showed that the certain strain of yeast he used in cell cultures, was highly sensitive to radio frequencies (way below any thermal effects level. After exposure it grew in dramatically different ways to the controls. This was an important finding at the time. However two groups have recently tried to duplicated this study, but without success. There's no question about Grundler's honesty -- he was one of the world's top scientists. But yeast strains are very different, and who can say now what strain of yeast he used -- and in those early days they didn't record temperatures, or pay as much attention as they do today to control condition matching, blind detection, etc. So these null finding throw up more questions than before. Maybe the original finding was wrong, maybe the new findings reveal evidence of some new mechanism that is worth investigating. > And, knowing how newsgroups can spawn more missinformation from rumor > rather than fact, I would like to see solid references on any sources > quoted. My electric-words.com site lists a few hundred references with some brief notes, and I'm adding some more detailed abstract information in the articles area. There are probably 10,000 relevant papers in this area, of which God-knows-how-many are good science. At least half are obviously bad science, and a lot are junk science. But you can clearly idenfity a few hundred that are very good science, and the problem is that most of these point to problems. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sleight of hand comes while you are reading their lips! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Fist, Technical writer and journalist. Current Australian columns: Archives of my columns are available at the Australian and also at the ABC site:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 Old Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 02:20:30 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? I'm not certain of all the details, but it appears that the latest FCC regulations will cause additional residential phone lines to be charged at a higher rate than the primary phone line. I'm not sure what the rationale was behind this, but my first reaction was that this is going to cause a lot of headaches for phone companies and customers alike. Aside from the obvious question of why buying multiples of a service should cost more in the case of telephone service, when in just about any other service industry the cost would be the same or less, there is a very real problem in defining exactly what is an "additional" residential phone line. You would think that would be easy, and in some cases it might be. For example, you have one person living in a single family residence, and there are two phone lines. So, one is therefore an "additional" line, right? Perhaps, but suppose that person rents a room in his home to another, unrelated person, and that person wants their own phone line. Is that a single residence, or two? Which person gets stuck with the higher phone bill? Let's take another example. Someone owns a small apartment building, and rents out rooms. Now, when I say "apartment building", you probably think "that's not a home" - but it could be, if the home is large enough and the owner is allowed to rent out rooms. An apartment building is a residence; it just happens to be a residence where many people live. In theory, only one resident of that building would be entitled to the lowest cost phone service, and everyone else in the building would pay the higher rate. Which lucky resident gets the cheap service? Let's say it's a big old house in a college town, renting out rooms to college students, who each want their own phone line. Do the students pay the higher rate because only the owner of the home gets the discounted line? If not, then let's say that a college kid moves out and an adult relative of the homeowner moves into one of the rooms - let's say it's an adult son or daughter, or maybe a parent or grandparent. If the college kids didn't have to pay the higher rate, does the adult relative have to simply because it's a relative? I hope you see where I'm going with this. As I see it, one of two things are inevitable - in fact, both are probably inevitable. In some cases, people who have a justifiable reason for wanting their own phone service will get stuck with paying a higher rate simply because they're in some sort of multiple-occupant building. OR, people will avoid the extra charge by putting the additional line(s) in the name of someone else ... perhaps another adult living in the home (even if only part time). Here's another one for you: What happens if there is a single phone line in the home of a married couple, and it happens to be in the husband's name only. Now the wife has a need for her own phone line, so she applies for one in her name, and is told she will have to pay the higher charge. She might justifiably wonder why she has to pay more for her line than her husband does. Now you may say, well, they're married, they will just have to figure that one out for themselves. Okay, then what if it's an unmarried couple living together? I wonder if NOW and the other feminist organizations are going to realize that in many cases it will be the woman who gets stuck with the higher bill, and whether that will cause them any concern? My point is this: Whatever you may think of the rest of the FCC's actions, the idea of mandating different rates for exactly the same service, simply because someone has more than one line coming into the home, seems like an idea that would make sense only to a government bureaucrat. If "representative government" still has any real meaning, every person who has a second phone line in their home, or who thinks they might someday need a second phone line, ought to take the time to write a note to their federal legislators, expressing the view that equivalent service should be charged at equivalent rates. And I would hope that some of the "social action" organizations would take a moment to stop and consider how this might adversely affect their constituents, and consider whether they want to weigh in on this. This is, after all, a form of discrimination... you get service at one price if it's the only line into a building, but you may pay a higher price just because you choose to, or are forced to by economic considerations, live in the same building as someone else who already has phone service. My final thought is that I don't even think this will have the desired effect of recovering revenue lost from the lowering of "access charges" on toll calls. The reason is that as the cost of additional lines increases, many people may disconnect existing second lines, or put off ordering additional lines, or figure out ways to make exiting lines do double-duty (for example, making one line serve both a computer and FAX machine). I have a gut feeling that the number of disconnections, and the lost business from additional lines that would otherwise have been ordered, will more than offset any gains made by increased access charges on additional residential phone lines. Jack ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Utah Delays 801 Relief Three Months Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 00:13:50 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net wrote: > Another state has put NPA relief on hold, this time over concerns by > the NANC with regards to inequities in relief duration as a direct > result of the 801/435 split. > As originally proposed, the split would separate the Wasatch front (801) > from the rest of the state (435). 801 would last until 2004, while 435 > would last until 2024. NANC guidelines set forth in February 1997 state > that a difference of no greater than fifteen years exist in a > split-relief situation. > In a filing April 16th, Utah regulators decided to DELAY relief of 801 > for three months, while they sought a variance from the NANC, > permitting the split to proceed as originally approved. > This would push permissive dialing back to September 22nd, 1997. No > reference was made to changing mandatory dialing, originally scheduled > as January 18th, 1998, and it is not known at this time whether this > will also change. > Refer to http://web.state.ut.us/bbs/PSC/DL05/11146P.WPD on the Utah web > server for full details. Please note that you will need WP 5.1 to read > it (or a compatible converter). Well, I'm duly astounded. The Utah PSC actually makes a cogent and reasonable case for this highly lopsided split. The essence of their case is that if you move part of the Wasatch front (i.e., the population center of the state, the SLC/Provo corridor) into 435, all you do is advance the need for 435 to split by several years, while only providing an extra 2 years or so for 801, since that's where all the numbering growth is taking place. Further, they quite clearly lay the groundwork for a future *overlay* of 801 in five or six years. If you carry out the current split proposal, you can leave the rural areas of the state with a single area code that won't change for quite some time, while the metropolitan area gets sensible overlays. In particular, that way the rural areas can keep seven-digit local dialing until 10D becomes mandatory nationwide. On the other hand, if you force Provo and/or Ogden into 435, you are left with a situation where 435 will have to split again before the rural areas can be left alone and the cities can be left to overlay. It actually makes sense in this case to carve off 20% of the population (occupying over 90% of the land area) to provide just enough relief to tide the cities over until number portability makes overlays more widely acceptable. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: dobson@haas.berkeley.edu Subject: Digital Telecommunications Conference at UC Berkeley Date: 7 May 1997 21:27:00 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley BRIDGING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND REGULATORY PARADIGMS The Berkeley Symposium On Policy and Strategy for Converging Information Industries June 27-28, 1997 The Consortium for Research on Telecommunications Policy is pleased to sponsor a conference on the economics of converging information industries. The third in a series, this year's conference will inaugurate Berkeley's new Center for Telecommunications & Digital Convergence, and will be held at the architecturally acclaimed Haas School of Business on the University of California, Berkeley campus. THEME Digital convergence presents new challenges for business strategy and public policy. As legal and regulatory barriers standing between information industries fall, incumbent firms and startups alike adopt a wide array of strategies to capitalize on integrated digital services. These strategies need to be evaluated from perspectives of profitability as well as their competitive and efficiency effects. The conference will bring together academics conducting research in telecommunications policy and corporate strategy with business leaders and government policy makers who are managing the transition to digital technologies. PLENARY SESSIONS The first day of the conference will be devoted to plenary sessions of general interest: Integrated Networks: Is the Dream Still Alive? New integrated technologies; successes and failures of integrating voice, video and data; recent regulatory developments; overall assessment of the business case for integrated networks. Networks and Bottlenecks Essential facilities in phone networks and computer hardware and software; use and abuse of IP protection; monopoly bottleneck or first-mover rewards; recent court rulings on open access to networks. What Urgent Issues Does Digital Convergence Raise for the Telecommunications Industry? Threats from bypass technologies; importance of first mover advantages; legal barriers to convergence; implications of integrated technologies for Telecom business strategy. What Can the Computer and Telecommunications Industries Learn from Each Other? Coping with government regulation; alternative approaches to forming industry technical standards; organizational and competitive implications of radical technological change. INVITED SPEAKERS Business and government leaders and distinguished academic researchers have be invited to serve as panelists and keynote speakers, including: Hans-Werner Braun, Chief Technology Officer, Teledesic * James Canizales, Corporate Strategy, AirTouch * Rachelle Chong, Commissioner, FCC Dave Dorman, President & CEO, Pacific Bell Joseph Farrell, Chief Economist, FCC * Richard Gilbert, University of California * Andrew Grove, CEO, Intel Peter Huber, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute * Richard Notebaert, CEO, Ameritech Gary Reback, Senior Partner, Wilson, Sonsini * Michael Riordan, Professor, Boston University * Tony Rutkowski, VP, General Magic * Eric Schmidt, CEO, Novell * Carl Shapiro, University of California * Les Vadasz, Senior VP, Intel * - confirmed CONTRIBUTED PAPERS The second day of the conference will consist of parallel sessions with presentations aimed at the research community. At this time several papers are confirmed including those by the following authors: Nicholas Economides Mark Schankerman Gerry Faulhaber Oz Shy Shane Greenstein J. Greg Sidak Sandy Levin Pablo Spiller Paul MacAvoy Daniel Spulber Michael Salinger Len Waverman Larry White Additional papers are solicited on the following topics: - whither cable-telco switched broadband competition? - alternative paths to entering digital industries - business strategy and public policy toward merger and divestiture of domestic and international telecommunications firms - impact of cable telephony and internet services on traditional telephone markets - coordination of state and federal policies toward converging information industries - conflict and coordination of legal doctrine and technological convergence - bundling and tying of voice, video and data services and consumer response - nature of essential facilities in communications networks and computer systems - intellectual property protection as a means to assist or block technology convergence - role of broadcast television in the age of digital video - the PC vs. TV standards battle SUBMISSIONS To have a paper considered for presentation, submit an abstract of approximately 300 words, including title, author(s) and affiliations along with mailing and emailing addresses of the primary presenter. Completed papers will be given preference. For full consideration, abstracts or papers must arrive by May 16, 1997 by mail, email, facsimile or through the website: CRTP-CTDC Conference F402 Haas School of Business #1930 University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1930 Email: dobson@haas.berkeley.edu Fax: 510-642-2826 Papers will be selected for presentation by the conference's two faculty organizers: Prof. Glenn A. Woroch, Director, Consortium for Research on Telecommunications Policy Prof. Michael Katz, Director, Center for Telecommunications & Digital Convergence Preference will be given to papers that focus on some economic aspect of digital convergence. Accepted presentations will be considered for publication in the 1997 special telecommunications issue of Industrial and Corporate Change, a journal published quarterly by Oxford University Press. This will be the third annual issue to publish selected papers of the CRTP annual conference. CONFERENCE WEB PAGE The conference will maintain a web page at: haas.berkeley.edu/~imio/crtp3.html Attendees may register for the conference and presenters may submit paper abstracts electronically. The site will also provide information regarding local travel and accommodations as well as the conference program as it becomes available. REGISTRATION INFORMATION Registration Fees: $300 corporate (by June 26) $200 government $100 academic/nonprofit Late Registration: $50 additional (after June 25) Refunds: Before June 23: full refund less $50 processing fee After June 22: no refund Registration includes: Lunch and dinner at the University Art Museum on Friday Continental breakfast on Friday and Saturday Breakout refreshments Internet access sites on location Registration fees are waived for speakers, who will also be reimbursed for travel expenses up to $600. Exceptions may be made for speakers traveling from outside of North America. ACCOMMODATIONS Rooms has been reserved at the following local hotels: Claremont Hotel & Resort (510-843-3000) Durant Hotel (510-845-8981) Bancroft Hotel (800-549-1002, 510-549-1000) Berkeley Marriott Hotel (510-548-7929) You may also want to consider these nearby hotels: Gramma's Rose Garden Inn (510-549-2145) The French Hotel (510-548-9330) The conference website has many more options including San Francisco accommodations. REGISTRATION FORM To register, please the complete this form and mail, e-mail or fax to the address under paper submissions and mark it to the attention of: "Ms. Pat Murphy." Name: _____________________________________________ Title:_______________________________________________ Organization:________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________ City:____________________________ State___Zip:_______ Country:____________________________________________ Business Phone: ______________________________________ Fax: _______________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________ Please Check the Following: |_| I plan to attend and have enclosed the advanced registration fee: Please bill my: |_| VISA |_| Mastercard |_| Discover # __________________________________________________________________ Signed: _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Telephone Testimony in the McVeigh Okla Bombing Case Date: 7 May 1997 22:45:15 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Reply-To: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) For a detailed description of the prepaid calling card business, of how calls are processed, and of how records are maintained, see the trial transcripts for the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing trial, at, i.a., http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/transcripts/may/050697.eve.html It's quite interesting. ---- Send email about this posting to me, Wm. Randolph U Franklin, here: ---- WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.EDU, optionally in PGP. Do not send ---- unsolicited commercial announcements. Spam the following fine ---- businesses instead. postmaster@mail-response.com ventures@mail-response.com vip@allvip.com postmaster@allvip.com info@opmcybershop.com null@quantcom.com postmaster@quantcom.com test@quantcom.com newsletter@shoppingplanet.com postmaster@shoppingplanet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #114 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 10 00:41:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA03442; Sat, 10 May 1997 00:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 00:41:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705100441.AAA03442@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #115 TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 May 97 00:41:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 805 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled Publicly For First Time (Mike King) Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Information Superhighway (P Robinson) False 911 Calls, Payphones, etc. (Tad Cook) City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes (Lee Winson) The "Call Director" Telephone Set? (Lee Winson) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (George Gilder) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Robert Weller) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (pastark@cloud9.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: 805 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled Publicly For First Time Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:09:47 PDT ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 08:56:30 -0700 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: 805 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 6, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bonnie Ward (916) 972-3019 805 Area Code Relief Options Unveiled Publicly For The First Time Customers Will Get A Chance To Comment On Plans at Public Meetings in May and June [Editor's Note: This news release describing area code splits was issued by the California-Nevada Code Administrator, who represents the telecommunications industry as a whole. Final decisions on code issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. Pacific Bell includes such news releases as a service to our customers.] SAN RAMON, Calif. -- Residents of the 805 area code will have an opportunity to comment on two plans for adding a new area code to their region at a series of six public meetings in late May and early June. Doug Hescox, California Code Administrator, said a new area code is needed by early 1999 to keep up with the increasing demand for new telephone numbers in the region. That demand -- which is being seen across the state -- is being driven by several factors. The two primary are the onset of competition in the state's local telephone service market, with each new provider requiring its own supply of phone numbers, as well as the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access and other telecommunications equipment requiring phone numbers. The 805 area code currently serves all of Santa Barbara County, the majority of Kern, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties, the north portion of Los Angeles County, and very small portions of Monterey, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties. Dates and locations of the six meetings are: Wednesday, May 28 San Luis Obispo City/County Library 995 Palm St. Community Room 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday, May 29 Santa Barbara City Hall 735 Anacapa St. Council Chambers * Use Parking Lot #10 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday, May 29 Camarillo City Hall 601 Carmen Drive Council Chambers 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday, June 3 Lancaster City Hall 44933 N. Fern Ave. Council Chambers 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Wednesday, June 4 Valencia (Santa Clarita) Valencia Town Center 24201 West Valencia Blvd. Community Room 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday, June 5 Bakersfield Beale Library 701 Truxtun Ave. Auditorium 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Customers unable to attend one of the meetings can send written comments by Thursday, June 5 to: California Code Administration 2600 Camino Ramon Room 1S900U San Ramon, CA 94583 Two plans proposed by the telecommunications industry for geographically splitting the 805 area code into two portions will be presented at the meetings. In a geographic split, the area code is divided, with part of the region keeping the existing area code and part receiving a new one. This means people who live or work in the area receiving the new code will need to change the area code portion of their phone numbers. The proposed split plans do not indicate which area will receive the new area code and which will keep 805. The public will have an opportunity to comment on which area should keep the 805 area code, as well as on the proposed split boundaries, at the meetings. Neither split plan would impact the price of calls. The price of a call is determined by distance and is not affected by the creation of a new area code. The details of the two plans are: * Divide the existing 805 area code on a north-south basis. Under this plan, the split line would run through the southeastern portion of the existing 805 area code. The area south and east of the split line would cover the vast majority of Ventura County, the southeastern portion of Kern County (including Edwards, Mojave and Rosamond) and most of the northern portion of Los Angeles County (including the Santa Clarita Valley, Newhall, Palmdale and Lancaster). The area north and west of the split line would serve all of Santa Barbara County, the vast majority of San Luis Obispo County and most of Kern County. The north area would also serve existing 805 customers in small portions of Monterey County (including Bradley and Parkfield), Tulare County (including Earlimart and California Hot Springs), the northwestern tip of Los Angeles County (Gorman area) and very small portions of Fresno, Kings and Ventura counties. * Under this plan, if 805 were assigned to the north, it would have a projected life of 10 to 11 years, and the new area code in the south would have a projected life of 12 to 14 years. If 805 were assigned to the south, it would have a projected life of 12 to 14 years, and the new area code in the north would have a projected life of 10 to 11 years. * Divide the existing 805 area code on an east-west basis. Under this plan, the area west of the split line would include the vast majority of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties along with very small portions of Monterey, Fresno and Kings counties. The area east of the split line would include the majority of Kern County, the northern portion of Los Angeles County and very small portions of Tulare, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. * Under this plan, if 805 were assigned to the east, it would have a projected life of 14 to 16 years, and the new area code in the west would have a projected life of 8 to 10 years. If 805 were assigned to the west, it would have a projected life of 8 to 10 years, and the new area code in the east would have a projected life of 14 to 16 years. * At the meetings, details of the plans will be outlined and a public comment period will follow. Under state law, the telecommunications industry is required to hold public meetings and consider customer input before a final area code relief plan is filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. The Commission makes the final decision on the area code relief plan. A decision is expected later this year. ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 00:05:50 -0400 From: Paul Robinson Organization: Evergreen Software Subject: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Information Superhighway At another place, I work for another company answering Technical Support telephone calls for an Internet Service Provider. We allow people to register for the service by loading an automated installer program, which then, when finished installing the software, allows them to dial into the registration server to choose their username and password. I got a call from a woman who is not a user of the service, but a victim. In order to explain the entire situation I have to give almost the full number, however I have changed the number here - and not giving out her area code - in order to protect her privacy. The woman called, not because she is trying to use the service, but because people trying to use the service are calling her! Or rather, their computers are calling her, virtually any hour of the day or night. The woman's number would be something like 701-8001 in this example. Apparently, people's computers are calling this woman's number instead of our registration server. This doesn't make any sense, because in order to register for the service, a user's computer will connect to the registration server by dialing a toll-free number. For the purposes of this demonstration, I'll pretend the registration server's number is 800-123-4567. Had her number been the same as the last 7 digits of the number I could understand that it's somehow missing the 1-800, but her number is completely different from the number of the registration server even without the area code. The software to set up registration is fairly telephone savvy, allowing people to pick things like whether they have tone or pulse, if they dial a number such as "9" to get an outside line, or if they have to disable call waiting. If they select "disable call waiting", it is smart enough to give them the *70 code and even allowing them to change it if, for example, they have pulse dial. That's when it hit me. Consider the registration server's number with a cancel call waiting code, only don't put in the star, and you get 70-1-800-1 which is the woman's number. (The rest of the 800 number, which in this ficticious example is 234-567, would be ignored by the dial switch.) The *70 code for cancel call waiting, followed by the 1-800 number being dialed, only the star key got lost! As a result, some people are using the cancel call waiting code but somehow the star is not included. The woman felt a little better when I explained to her why she was getting these calls, and I said we would look into the problem and try to fix it. But it's interesting how a small and tiny error can cause someone major headaches. Or in this case, some poor woman whose number matches a misdialled call waiting code and a computer 1-800 number becomes, in effect, 'road kill' on the 'information superhighway'. Paul Robinson (formerly PAUL@TDR.COM) ------------------------------ Subject: False 911 Calls, Payphones, etc. Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 18:04:16 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Pat, most (if not all) 911 systems out there today *CAN* hold the line > and trunk, just as most *real telco* operators can (i.e. TSPS/TOPS/OSPS, > and also the old cordboards as well). Unfortunately this *used* to be true with B911 and earlier E911, but with selective routing through tandems, the Called Party Control feature no longer works on 911 in many areas. Before selective routing, the trunks, which were configured like the TSPS/CAMA trunks mentioned above, went directly from the originating CO to the PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point). Just like a telco operator, the PSAP operator could hold up the trunk. But when selective routing started, all of the 911 trunks in an area would go via a tandem switch, where the ANI would be grabbed and they could be looked up in the database and routed to the correct PSAP. When they were rerouted, the PSAP operators lost this control. The old style ringback on these trunks was great, because the operator could hit a key which would cause the PSAP interface to send back TSPS ringback signalling, and ringing was sent back to the calling party directly on the metallic pair in the originating CO. Now with tandems in the way, the method used with redial is to grab the ANI and then put it into a dialer on a standard phone line, and the operator dials back. The old scenario that was great for the operator control of the trunk was that someone in a panic calls in a fire, and before the operator can ask "how big is the fire?" or any basic questions, the caller hangs up to phone their neighbors to ask them to bring their hoses. With the old method, when they picked up, the operator was still there. With the newer system, they dial back like anyone else, and get a busy. > This is similar to many PBX systems and cellular systems. The trunk > (loop) that the PBX uses to place outgoing calls is the number that the > 911 center would have show up on their computer, *NOT* the actual > incoming number of the telephone on an employee's desk or in the hotel > room. The 911 center could hold the outgoing loop, but the PBX had > already disconnected the extension from that loop if they had hung-up. Proctor & Associates of Redmond, WA has the PBX-ANI system to solve this problem, and I think PBX manufacturers will be making this an optional feature on their systems in the future. This involves a PBX having its own 911 trunks that go to the tandem, and they can send whatever 7 or 10 digit ANI that they want, which will be cross-referenced in the database at the other end to see exactly where the PBX extension is. > Of course, many PBX systems today are enhanced enough to be more > compatible with 911 systems, or at least send out the actual > extension's incoming 7/10 digit number on calls to 911. Some cellular > systems might send the actual cellular phone number to the 911 center > on such calls, Coincidentally, the firm mentioned above also makes a similar system for cellsites which delivers the calling number and the cellsite facing. More expensive systems will also give an approximate lat/long coordinate for the caller. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the clarification. I know that in Skokie for example, the 911 dispatcher frequently calls to the agent at the train station asking that person to look around at the various payphones and see if it appears someone is attempting to get assistance. The reason is the payphones themselves are all one-way outgoing only lines. After the agent is gone at night, the only option the police dispatcher has is to send a car out there. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes Date: 8 May 1997 22:22:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per the talk about 911 ... I was in Philadelphia and noticed the fire alarm pull boxes were gone. They used to be mounted on utility poles at corners. As a child, we were trained to know where the nearest pull box was to our home. If we used it, we were to wait there for the fire truck so they'd know where to go. Fire drill posters in buildings included the nearest street pull box. I was wondering if other cities have removed their boxes. They've been gone in Trenton NJ for years. Actually, when I was a child, I was confused by emergency training. I thought you would use the telephone to call police (dial Operator), but would have to run to the nearest pull box to call the fire department. In the early 1970s I had a tour of the Philadelphia fire dispatching center (this was pre-911 days.) At that time, it seemed most calls came via boxes, not the telephone. A pullbox caused a loud oscillator to beep the four digit code of the box. (I think the beep was duplicated in the fire house that served the location, but I'm not sure). The dispatcher identified the location, and telephoned (through a private direct line PBX) the fire house to provide details. Calls could also come in via a telephone, either the fire emergency number or from the Bell Operator, it was answered on a small Call Director phone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The boxes have been gone in Chicago for years with the exception of schools, hospitals and residences for geriatric patients (old people's homes) where they are required by law. The reason is they were subject to too much abuse. People who like to play games would pull the alarm on a street corner box then run off before the firemen arrived to find nothing going on. With 911 working as effeciently as it does, and the prevalence of telephones, there is no longer any real need for the boxes anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: The "Call Director" Telephone Set? Date: 8 May 1997 22:29:17 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In the 1960s, the Bell System introduced a "Call Director" telephone set, which was a key telephone set, but with many buttons. The handset was on the side, there was a dial (or keypad), then vertical rows of buttons. I was wondering: Were there any special features in a Call Director system that were not available in the six-button key sets? If so, could someone describe some of the features? Or, was a Call Director merely a keyset with more buttons to handle more lines? I know as the Bell System got more into cordless PBX systems, the operator's console looked like a Call Director, except there was an additional lamp next to each button to indicate supervisory status. I've seen such sets used on tiny PBXs as well as massive Centrexes. My question deals with Call Directors used as direct phones, not consoles. [As an aside, I've also seen Centrex operator switchboards using old fashioned 551/552 cord switchboards as well as the newer 608 cord boards. I now remember in the old days on Centrex, when you wished to transfer a call and flashed the hookswitch, you had to wait for your operator to do it. The newer ones gave you a dial tone.] Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'call director' phone sets could be used in various ways. The buttons could simply be incoming lines or they could perform other functions. It all depended on how the call director was wired. I saw a few of them wired to serve as monitoring units by supervisors in large customer service settings. Each customer service person had a phone (with calls tossed to them by an automatic call distributor) and each 'section leader' or supervisor had a call director with many buttons which enabled them to (a) pick up a call from any of the representatives and speak with the customer or (b) to monitor a call silently at any position. If they were requested to take a call from a customer, they simply pressed the associated button for the line. They had their own private line from the centrex making an appearance on one button, and the inter- esting part was how they monitored the workers: one button on the call director was for that purpose. They would depress that button then use the touch tone pad to enter the four digit extension number in their group they wished to monitor. It would just click right in silently so the supervisor could pretend to be making a phone call while actually listening to someone else's call instead. I've seen call directors at one company where the several buttons terminated 'tie lines' to different places. The unit I saw had (I think) 15 buttons; two were for extensions on the local PBX, one was a direct outside line bypassing the PBX, one was a manual, common-battery intercom; two or three others were used to activate buzzer signals at other 'intercom' stations and the other seven or eight had such esoteric labels on them as 'New York', 'Los Angeles' and 'Dallas'. If you went in on one of those it was a ring-down circuit apparently to the office of the company in the cities named on each button. And of course there was a hold key. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:17:05 EDT From: gg@gilder.com (George Gilder) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Since cell phones are not exactly a rare technology, why on earth should we pay any attention to the claims of carcinogenic effects until the incidence of relevant cancers rises in the population using the devices? For all the mumbo jumbo from the radiophobes with their tortured rodents in tow, the fact is that there are fewer, not more, brain tumors and other cancers among users of cellular phones, computers, and other radiators, than among non users. Thus there is no problem whatsoever to explain. Period. On the contrary, voluminous recent evidence supports the proposition of hormesis -- that radiation below a threshold not approached by cellphones imparts a statistically significant increase in resistance to cancers among humans. Perhaps that is why cellphone rich regions such as Scandinavia and Japan lead the world in longevity and US users of PCs and cellphones live longer than non users. In general, all around the globe the use of electricity and other electromagnetic oscillations correlates almost perfectly with greater longevity. Unfortunately among the beneficiaries of this public health boon are product liability lawyers and their junk science accomplices causing lucrative plagues of hypochondria and litigation. George Gilder ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Fri, 9 May 97 09:20:24 PDT From: rweller@h-e.com (Robert Weller) Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc.-Serving the broadcast industry since 1952 The Royal Adelaide Hospital study is an "outlier," inasmuch as most other studies failed to detect any increase in the cancer risk ratio, and so duplication of its results is critical before any conclusions can be made. In my opinion, there are some serious flaws in this research. Dosimetry. Normally, this type of animal exposure is conducted in a constant field, anechoic environment, so that exposures are uniform and well-characterized. In this study, the exposure chamber was lined with aluminum. This lining, like a microwave oven, would be expected to cause "hot spots" in the fields, and the actual exposure levels may therefore be higher than indicated. Also, the energy absorbed is normally calculated by measuring remotely the forward and reflected power (the difference is the amount absorbed). In this study, power density measurements were conducted by a person in the chamber. The presence of someone other than the subject animal would perturb the fields and absorb energy, again causing the apparent exposure level to be lower than the actual level. Subjects. While I am less familiar with this area, the transgenic mice used in the research had genetic alterations in areas that are not contained in the human genome. Research using this type of subject is apparently somewhat controversial in most circles. Better subject choices might have been "P53" transgenic mice or unaltered rats. The "PIM1" transgenic mice are not at all like kitchen mice; they are more like sloths, and are about 15 times more likely to get certain types of cancer than "normal mice. The FDA has been pushing the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) organization, funded in the US by an industry blind trust, to use rats rather than transgenic mice. The future. Duplication of this research will require two to four years, but there have been other studies that failed to detect an RF-cancer link, so this study is just one data point. The standards-setting organizations in the US (ANSI/IEEE, NCRP) are designed to look at the "big picture," being uninfluenced by the results of any single study. Robert Weller, PE Hammett & Edison, Inc. Consulting Engineers San Francisco ------------------------------ From: pastark@cloud9.net Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: 8 May 1997 20:17:31 -0400 Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, NY, USA Stewart Fist (fist@ozemail.com.au) wrote: > A doubling of tumours in 100 exposed mice, is not an insignificant finding. > In fact, statistically, it is above the 1% level of confidence, and is > therefore highly significant. It is easy to make instant judgments on statements like this, but I would like to see some specific data. For instance -- how many of those 100 "exposed mice" actually had tumors? Suppose in a group of 100 "unexposed" mice, one develops a tumor, whereas in a group of 100 "exposed" mice two mice develop tumors. Is this significant? Look at it another way: In one group of 100 male casino customers, one person won money, whereas in a group of 100 female customers, two people won money. Is this doubling of winning customers statistically significant? Does it mean that women are inherently better gamblers? Does it mean that the casino's machines are prejudiced against men? One could put all sorts of spins on this ... Pete ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #115 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat May 10 01:04:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA05188; Sat, 10 May 1997 01:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 01:04:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705100504.BAA05188@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #116 TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 May 97 01:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC (Bradley Allen) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Token Ring Switch Designer Needed (Tony Brown) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (John R. Covert) TV Interview With Two Hackers Banned From Computers (Minor Threat) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users Date: 08 May 1997 09:14:36 -0400 Reply-To: ulmo@armory.com > (including rural areas -- radios can go a long way today (and could > for a while)), This writer piqued my interest. What is the cost to provide service to the "rural" contingent of the USA, including Internet TCP/IP data services, using radio? Or using any techniques? Consider these methods: * Radio transceivers in homes * Radio towers * Radio dishes (microwave) * Satellite - low orbit * Satellite - high orbit * Cable With licensing, equipment, and maintenance, how much would each cost? For instance, how much does it cost to stick a specially prepared dead straight tree trunk in the ground, attach a unit with a metal pole, solar cells, batteries, and a couple of transceivers in it that would relay radio signals as far as 50 miles in each direction? Now there's a question: how much energy can solar cells store up? Is there anyplace in the USA where power utilities are unavailable every 50 miles from that place to anyplace with higher population? If not, then the solar panels could be reduced or omitted. What is the highest cost population density distribution and locality to service? What I'm thinking of here is that radio is cheaper than cable in long distance, and can higher bandwidth in lower population than it can in higher population, and cable is less expensive in higher density and can have higher bandwidth than radio, so the two are basically complimentary and help each other out in various situations. Radio has the biggest physical limitation of airwave congestion, and cost can be minimized around that one variable. What is the highest cost density and distance within the United States? Or even within the Bell Atlantic (new merged company) calling area? I don't know but it seems to me that providing telephone service to everybody is just an exercise in careful airwave use engineering, and the actual equipment costs are rather low. With the necessary technology to use in any particular density/terrain requirements, I can hardly see the equipment necessary to service any one particular normal end-user (2 way voice + interactive real time data) costing more than $2,000. Even a end-user with one relay station dedicated to him would only pay $6,000 for that. Break $6,000 into the life of the equipment, say three years, and suddenly you have $166.00 per month. That's less than I pay for my local phone service, and well worth the cost. If the person doesn't need to surf the web and yack on the phone simultaneously, they can use half the bandwidth for a lower cost -- what is that half the cost? -- and pay much less. One way to deal with the issue of high monthly costs is to have the remote user purchase and own the equipment used (and make maintenance arrangements of their own -- say, subscribing to a service company, or paying a service technician every time something goes wrong with some cheap insurance policy with a three-year deductible which equals the usual wear-and-tear costs, just in case a tree does smash the boxes to smitherines six times in three months). This way, if they are afraid they cannot afford $166.00 per month, they can make an investment that will last them for as long as the equipment is good, usually far longer than three years. Solid state equipment in rough terrain can last about a decade, right? Or am I way off in this estimate? That would make the cost about $50/month, right out of a modern day urban persons' phone bill. If they cannot pay up front for the investment, which is usually the case since new service is usually requested by people who are new in the world (i.e., young), then loans can be taken out to purchase the equipment. (There are all sorts of ways you can word that: "lease to buy", etc.) This seems like the best method: if the person finds themselves in a financial bout of trouble, then the creditor simply asks the debtor to return the unpaid-for portion of the equipment and pay a low time-based storage fee until they regain their ability to make timely payments. If the debtor doesn't bring the equipment into the collateral location, then the creditor charges a reasonable collection fee (not gouging or anything, just the cost to do the work) to do the collection of the unpaid-for equipment themselves (because of this it may be of benefit to have the user pay for his home equipment first), and lacking the ability to do that, proceed with normal lawsuits, etc. The cost for such a loaning institution would be higher than straight-out buying something, because of interest rates and guarding against uncollectible defaults, but then it allows the user to elect to live in the remote area with less start up costs. However, if the remote user still cannot afford the communications services that they require, then they can take that into consideration while they're trying to figure out where they are going to live. If this causes 90% of rural folk to move to the city or suburb, then I think that is an appropriate thing. However, I *really* want to know the actual costs of the equipment: is it really so high that the cost must go up significantly? Remember, I'm not saying these people have to be served with AT&T 5ESS switches sitting in their garage with 5ms ping times via redundant links to local metropolises. I'm saying they can be served with ~8kHz bandwidth full-duplex radio technology, and something that can do data at around the same bandwidth requirements. That's, what, 40kHz of bandwidth to use? How directional can non-line-of-site antennas be? Also, what would be the cost of making short-wave cell sites? Those .5 watts can go a lot further down there, right? The home unit can be stationary, and be of higher wattage. I think 50 watts can go around 30 miles at 600khz, right? Equipment for that isn't that costly. If the user wants a remote unit near his home, he can make a little cell site. A good design would make a cell site usable by passers-by out of every station, even if the station was in someone's home. The home user would decide to set the rates somehow. The passer-by would set up the rate parameters they would accept. Frequently, the passer-bys will be able to use the system at a cost they desire. This would make a sort of wide-area wide-range low-capacity cellular system. Encryption would be only if the passing user was willing to pay for it in equipment and possible bandwidth costs (it could use cryptography then use a modem to use the analog signals to connect to some remote modem that also uses the same cryptography; even the remote stations don't have to be all that sophisticated). Availability is similar: pay more for more frequencies the equipment can handle, and thus a greater range of distance and capacity. Sellers of time would typically consider their liscencing costs for the airwaves, so even some rich people with an extra super-long-range airwave slice could sell this at a premium rate to that person so desiring such connectivity. If the person desires cellular connectivity at lower cost in strange areas, that person can go ahead and arrange for a cell site themselves to be put whereever they need it -- at the cost of about $10,000, it would sure beat what I've paid to McCaw cellular already, and they would be able to yack for far longer than I did! If the costs are less, then that's even better. Consider equipment that is designed to handle transceiving a broader range of frequencies, more than just one persons' voice: at a slightly higher equipment cost, the possibility of another neighbor sharing resources with you makes the costs for both you and them lower, perhaps cutting it by as much as 40% or more (when the squirrel changes the antenna direction this full moon and you're sick in bed this time around, you don't have to pay $100 for your cousin to come fix it; you just have your neighbor do it -- I'm sure a cheapie Morse code radio can go a long ways for reporting such troubles via a low-cost relay service in the area -- when the neighbor also fires up their Morse code later that day trying to figure out what the heck is going on with their connection, the Morse code relay service just repeats the message from the first sick neighbor asking them to take care of the problem; store and forward; works great; if the rural users are so busy they don't have time to learn Morse code and still don't have enough money for redundant radios and healthy drivers to drive around to fix things, then really they are no different from a heroin addicts in my opinion, and if I'm to subsidize their heroin problems, my attitude is let them die). Wait just a fricking second here. What's wrong with a satellite connection? How much would *that* cost? If the user desires less delay, they can pay for the higher cost of non-space based communications. I can think of endless problems and endless solutions, why can't the local phone companies? My knowledge is very low, however even I can see that it is cost effective to let rural users pay for themselves. Finally, let's get real here: even I can see that the decision to subsidize rural users for a particular type and level of phone service that I have in my urban area is a totally essoteric decision with no basis in actual need. Those hick towns with 500 people and their own mom-and-pop telephone company: how much would it cost for their telephone service if it wasn't subsidized at all? (Even if the local big company wanted to charge really high rates for interconnection, it could be beat by a consortium of local mom-and-pops connecting via microwave directly and relaying to a final larger company with a better interconnection cost agreement. Redundancy and capacity would be increased, costs kept reasonable via both companies.) Is the rural costing argument mostly a big lie in order to use it as any good ol' excuse to keep rates higher? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 12:05:15 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? In TELECOM Digest (Vol 17, Issue 114), Jack Decker wrote: > I'm not certain of all the details, but it appears that the latest FCC > regulations will cause additional residential phone lines to be > charged at a higher rate than the primary phone line. > I'm not sure what the rationale was behind this, but my first reaction > was that this is going to cause a lot of headaches for phone companies > and customers alike ... Jack makes a number of good points. However, the reality is that this policy is a workable compromise and clearly was designed to minimize the effect on the single-line POTS customer so that the surcharge will not run contrary to well-established regulatory mission of supporting "universal service." One should not think of this as a surcharge on multiple lines, but instead as a surcharge on *ALL* lines with each "household" getting a single exemption. Under that perspective, it begins to make a little more administrative sense. There are a lot of analogies, ranging from the "one-time capital gains exclusion on the sale of a primary residence" -- for which you will be ineligible if you marry the the widow or ex-spouse of someone who already claimed this while married -- to the fine print on the "free offer" on the cornflakes box that says "one per name, household or address." Sure there are ways of getting around this, and I am sure that some people will tell the business office to list second and third lines in the names of 'ficticious boarders' -- just like some people with home offices current use residential tariffed second lines purely for business purposes. Even so, this compromise has a virtue unusual in regulatory affairs: it is likely that the errors which occur in this system will be in favor of inappropriate exemptions rather than the application of this surcharge to those who reasonably argue that they should be exempt. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:31:46 -0700 From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Jack Decker (jack@novagate.com) wrote: > I'm not certain of all the details, but it appears that the latest FCC > regulations will cause additional residential phone lines to be > charged at a higher rate than the primary phone line. > I'm not sure what the rationale was behind this, ... I thought the FCC's rationale was clear. Access charges for long distance calls are a means by which these carriers can contribute to the cost of providing "Universal Service". This subsidy means that the cost of a residential line does not reflect the real cost of installing any line. (Even though the ISP community likes to use the argument that the "profit" of installing a second line to access the Internet, never mind that these lines will in effect not increase long distance usage, should provide the telcos with the additional income to buildout interoffice facilities to the ISPs). So the FCC has lowered long distance access charges but wants to keep the monthly line cost low, so that everyone can continue to afford Universal Service. Additional residential lines are not providing Universal Service, so the new line charge is to better reflect the cost of these additional lines and to offset the decrease in long distance access revenue to subsidize primary lines. It's not easy to be the FCC. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: Tony Brown Subject: Token Ring Switch Designer Needed Date: 8 May 1997 14:19:18 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Frame-Relay, or Token Ring, or ATM - SW Engineer-Network Product Development I have been retained by a Chicago-based company to search for a Software Engineer for network architecture development experience for switches (Frame-Relay, or Token Ring, or ATM). This is a development position with a company that is working on cutting-edge technology for the telecommunications industry. If you have Senior Level Experience in Network management product development, please consider getting in touch with me. My client will be very agressive in terms of a compensation package. RESPONSIBILITIES: Responsible for defining and specifying system and new product architectures based upon requirements outlined in the business plan, by customers and marketing. Review and understand current industry capabilities in processors, busses, VLSI and software and determine their applicability for new designs. This individual must be capable of taking a design from the conceptual stages to manufacturing with little or no supervision and will assume a management role for scheduling and activities of a group of engineers. QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor and/or Masters degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or computer science. EXPERIENCE: 3-5 years experience in the design and development of complex networking or telecommunications products. Extensive knowledge of telecommunications and/or networking terminology, protocols and architectures. Detailed understanding of current technical issues in communications. CONTACT: This is a permanent position in the suburbs of Chicago. If you are interested, please contact Tony Brown, Ph.D. at the following e-mail address: TJBROWN@TIAC.NET Tony Brown, Ph.D. Owner & Executive Recruiter Omega Consulting http://people.delphi.com/tj_brown FAX: 617-729-7634 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 97 10:32:15 EDT Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming From: John R. Covert First I'd like to correct yet another error in my first message. The North American 1900 MHz bands consist of 3 30 MHz bands, A/B/C, and 3 10 MHz bands. I had incorrectly stated that only A/B were 30 MHz. In reply to an earlier message, nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had written: > Why didn't the US carriers (including CDMA) use the same compatible SIM > technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! And I had replied: > Utter stupidity, I must say. The only benefit of not using SIM cards > is that it makes the phone slightly cheaper; the cost of the SIM card > slot mechanical and electrical interface probably adds about $20 to > the cost of the phone; well worth it in my opinion. I've done some more research. May I start by reminding everyone that the definition of "compatible" is "different". :-) The GSM SIM cards, it turns out, are not just generic devices storing subscriber information for retrieval by the mobile telephone. The subscriber's key, Ki, is stored within the card and not revealed to a mobile set. Instead, the GSM encryption algorithm, A5, is implemented in the microprocessor on board the SIM card. Revealed details about the A5 algorithm are sketchy, but I read a paper by Ross Anderson (http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon/a5.html) as well as a better one by David Margrave of George Mason University. The latter paper was more detailed, but has disappeared, possibly only because the person who had posted it may have changed internet providers. In particular, the A5 algorithm is an integral part of the entire GSM standard, using the 22-bit TDMA frame sequence number as one of its parameters. This specific tie-in to a TDMA frame sequence number would appear to make it unusable in the U.S. systems, which in the most common case have to execute the control-channel encryption algorithm used by all AMPS phones manufactured in the past two years (to end cloning). Both AMPS analog and AMPS digital TDMA and CDMA phones continue to do call setup on the same control channel (which was always a digital channel, even with purely analog AMPS phones). The control channel must be compatible for all three modes of operation, AMPS analog, AMPS digital TDMA, and AMPS digital CDMA. And the encryption algorithm for authentication must operate in this environment. There is a copy of the specification for the crypto system used by AMPS systems located at: http://www.replay.com/mirror/cave/ and a detailed discussion of the flaw in the algorithm can be found at the crypto consulting firm Counterpane Systems at http://www.counterpane.com/ My conclusion, based on what I've read so far, is that the U.S. and Canadian Carriers were unable to use GSM SIM card capability because it is _not_ _compatible_ with the existing systems in these two countries in such a fundamental way as to be unusable, first, on the dual-mode systems being built in the existing 850 MHz space, and second, on the new CDMA systems using some of the newer 1900 MHz spectrum (e.g. SprintPCS in Colorado). In addition, the GSM SIM cards are a _licensed_ technology, requiring systems using the SIM cards to implement the GSM standard, and not some different standard designed to meet different requirements. I'm glad that I chose Omnipoint, who _do_ use GSM SIM cards, being one of the 1900 MHz GSM carriers beginning operation in the United States together with Bell South DCS, Sprint Spectrum-APC (Washington, DC), Pac Bell, Western Wireless/Voicestream, Aerial, Powertel, PCS One, Pocket Communications, and (in Canada) Microcell/Fido. Customers of Omnipoint (and eventually the others) will be able to roam all over the world simply by taking their SIM card out of their 1900 MHz phone and inserting it into a 900 MHz or 1800 MHz phone. Information on Omnipoint, including nationwide and worldwide roaming information with links to some of their partner carriers in the U.S. and worldwide is available at http://www.omnipoint.com/welcome.htm (Omnipoint just added France this week to the list already shown on their web site.) /john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 18:55:50 -0400 From: Minor Threat Subject: TV Interview With Two Hackers Banned From Computers TV.COM is a weekly, 30-minute television show devoted to topics of the Internet, online services, web pages and new computer technology. The May 17th show will feature interviews with two hackers who have been ordered by federal judges to stay away from computers after they were found guilty of committing computer and other crimes. Minor Threat will discuss the details of his ban from the Internet and how it will affect him when he is released and why he feels it is unfair. His crime was not computer-releated, but the judge believed he had the capability to electronically retaliate against the arresting officer by altering his credit rating and so, ordered an Internet ban placed on him. Minor Threat was interviewed early April at FCI Bastrop where he is currently serving a 70-month sentence. His web page is at www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/. Notorious computer hacker Kevin Poulsen was released from federal prison last summer after serving 51 months and is now struggling to cope with a life without computers. Having been surrounded by computers up until his capture in 1991, his life has drastically changed since he is currently prohibited from touching or being in the same room as one. He will discuss the difficulties he faces as a non-computer user in a high-tech environment. His web page is at www.catalog.com/kevin/. Please check the TV.COM web site (www.tv.com) for local time and channel listings in your area. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #116 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 12 03:26:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA23605; Mon, 12 May 1997 03:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 03:26:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705120726.DAA23605@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #117 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 May 97 03:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (George Gilder) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Jerry Harder) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (David Appell) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (A.E. Siegman) Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study (Stewart Fist) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Eli Mantel) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Nils Andersson) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (robertd672@aol.com) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Robert Casey) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (wlevant@aol.com) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (Sanjay Parekh) Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? (John R. Levine) Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes (Richard Enteman) Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes (jmolter@pitnet.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Sun, 11 May 1997 15:56:51 -0400 From: George Gilder Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study > The issue is whether those who use cell phones, etc. have a > statistically-significant higher increase in cancers than they would if > they did not use such devices or that they did before they used these > devices. > David > appell@together.net And of course this issue cannot be resolved in the face of a baffling complex of coincident and correlative factors and conditions, which can be summed up as industrial civilization itself with its associated measuring apparatus and vast increases in longevity. We are left with the choice of either overthrowing industrial civilization with all its overwhelming benefits (the choice of the radiophobes) or ignoring the latest legal target until conclusive scientific evidence is available. If every innovation had to face a prolonged barrage of speculative challenges, and endless courtroom speelunking for deep pockets, no innovation -- from the automobile to aspirin--could ever have been launched. Of course, the theory of global warming would have prohibited the industrial revolution itself. So far the enemies of cellphones have offered absolutely no evidence of interest except to the usual hypochondriacs with lawyers and rodents in tow (feeding on a now preposterous theory of linear human response to radiation). George Gilder ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 17:37:02 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Fri, 9 May 1997 10:17:05 EDT, gg@gilder.com (George Gilder) wrote: > On the contrary, voluminous recent evidence supports the proposition > of hormesis -- that radiation below a threshold not approached by > cellphones imparts a statistically significant increase in resistance > to cancers among humans. Perhaps that is why cellphone rich regions > such as Scandinavia and Japan lead the world in longevity and US users > of PCs and cellphones live longer than non users. In general, all > around the globe the use of electricity and other electromagnetic > oscillations correlates almost perfectly with greater longevity. It is doubtful that the EM exposure is the efficient cause of greater longevity in such areas, and cellular is definitely _not_ the cause, as those regions had higher lifespans before cellular. Much more likely is that high EM exposure and high longevity are both effects of the same cause, industrialization in a capitalist society. Confusion of cause and effect like this is what caused the idiocies of most third-world "development" schemes of the 60s and 70s (and continuing to this day). Cancer rates are higher in societies like Scandinavia, Japan, and the US than in the third world, because people live longer. Cancer is primarily a disease of old people, and when your society provides many colorful ways to die before the age of 50, you are not likely to live long enough to contract cancer. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: Jerry Harder Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: 11 May 1997 04:52:56 GMT Organization: RTA, Inc. pastark@cloud9.net wrote in article : > Stewart Fist (fist@ozemail.com.au) wrote: >> A doubling of tumours in 100 exposed mice, is not an insignificant finding. >> In fact, statistically, it is above the 1% level of confidence, and is >> therefore highly significant. > It is easy to make instant judgments on statements like this, but I > would like to see some specific data. For instance -- how many of > those 100 "exposed mice" actually had tumors? Suppose in a group of > 100 "unexposed" mice, one develops a tumor, whereas in a group of 100 > "exposed" mice two mice develop tumors. Is this significant? > Look at it another way: In one group of 100 male casino customers, one > person won money, whereas in a group of 100 female customers, two > people won money. Is this doubling of winning customers statistically > significant? Does it mean that women are inherently better gamblers? > Does it mean that the casino's machines are prejudiced against men? > One could put all sorts of spins on this ... In Israel, the {Jerusalem Post} announced Friday that the two cellular phone companies have agreed to finance a health study. This move is based on the Australian study. According to the article, Israelis should be particularly concerned since they have one of the world's highest rates of cellular phone usage. Jerry Harder Senior Partner RTA, Inc. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: 11 May 1997 01:43:51 -0400 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , George Gilder wrote: > Since cell phones are not exactly a rare technology, why on earth > should we pay any attention to the claims of carcinogenic effects > until the incidence of relevant cancers rises in the population using > the devices? For all the mumbo jumbo from the radiophobes with their > tortured rodents in tow, the fact is that there are fewer, not more, > brain tumors and other cancers among users of cellular phones, > computers, and other radiators, than among non users. Thus there is no > problem whatsoever to explain. Period. Okay, you said it; I didn't. A citation for each claim above, please? Without such, I don't see any reason why any TELECOM Digest reader ought to believe you, particularly considering that the other side of the argument was perfectly willing to provide them. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com Stumbling drunk in the railyard looking for God: http://www.panix.com/~tls/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 07:54:11 -0400 From: David Appell Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study George Gilder wrote: > Since cell phones are not exactly a rare technology, why on earth > should we pay any attention to the claims of carcinogenic effects > until the incidence of relevant cancers rises in the population using > the devices? For all the mumbo jumbo from the radiophobes with their > tortured rodents in tow, the fact is that there are fewer, not more, > brain tumors and other cancers among users of cellular phones, > computers, and other radiators, than among non users. Thus there is no > problem whatsoever to explain. Period. Not really. Comparing users of cell phones (etc.) to non users of electronic devices introduces other factors that muddy the waters. Users of cell phones are likely to be more affluent than non users, and more likely to have a higher education, more aware of nutritional factors and thus more likely to have a better diet, probably likely to have better access to health care, including preventative care, etc. These might well be the factors that lead to lower incidences of cancers in the group of interest. The issue is whether those who use cell phones, etc. have a statistically-significant higher increase in cancers than they would if they did not use such devices or that they did before they used these devices. David appell@together.net ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (AES) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:51:21 -0700 Organization: Stanford University I would like to thank Robert Heller for taking the effort to write such a clear, non-inflammatory, and readable message summarizing why the Royal Adelaide Hospital study remains entirely unconvincing, to me anyway, and apparently also to him. In addition to salient the points he made (this study is an "outlier", with questionable dosimetry, questionable subjects, and questionable reproducibility), additional points that reinforce my skepticism include: Mechanism: Despite extensive study, essentially no identified or well-established basic physical mechanims have been found by which the claimed effects could be produced. Wider-scale epidemiology: When claims of health hazards allegedly caused by EMF radiation from computer video displays first began to appear, I recall someone pointing out that a massive world-wide experiment on such hazards had already been carried out, called *television*. If the claimed effects were real, we should by then have seen a massive epidemic of similar effects, and of course we hadn't (nor had there been any evidence of ill effects among professional TV production and broadcasting personnel, despite sitting for hours surrounded by industrial-strength TV monitors. If one looks around a bit, one can surely identify industrial (or military) personnel who routinely experience much greater exposure to radiation similar to cell phone emissions in their routine professional pursuits -- yet visible evidence of ill effects has yet to appear. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 14:43:48 +1000 From: fist@ozemail.com.au (Stewart Fist) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Cancer Study George Gilder writes: > Since cell phones are not exactly a rare technology, why on earth > should we pay any attention to the claims of carcinogenic effects > until the incidence of relevant cancers rises in the population > using the devices? Maybe because people would rather not subject their offspring to a global epidemic of serious health problems. Most people I know would rather science and technology looked ahead at the long-term consequences, rather than wait for problems to be solved (as they now are with cigarettes and asbestos) by litigation after the event. > For all the mumbo jumbo from the radiophobes with their > tortured rodents in tow, the fact is that there are fewer, not > more, brain tumors and other cancers among users of cellular > phones, computers, and other radiators, than among non users. Where in God's name did this 'fact' come from. George, if this is an example of how economists think then I have a new insight into the problems of trickle-down economics. You aren't distinguishing incidence of these diseases from the mortality rates (we can now cure many forms) and you are not distinguishing between gliomas (brain and nervous tissue), leukemias and lymphomas, and about fifty other problems -- many of which are on the rise. Only cancers related to smoking and smog seem to be on the decrease in developed countries. Why brand all people interested in this problem as 'radiophobes'. I was praising the virtues of CDMA mobile phones in print before you were, and I have long been writing about the benefits of shifting back to Digital Terrestrial Television system, rather than sinking billions in HFC cable. I think radio systems are superb - but that doesn't mean I think it is safe to stick a small microwave oven against the side of your head and pulse it on and off 217 times a second. The main researchers in this area can't remotely be described as radio-phobes. This is a cheap shot -- trying to label everyone who disagrees with you as being a 'nut'. That is childish. > Thus there is no problem whatsoever to explain. Period. That is about the most banal certainty that I've heard since the fundamentalists discovered the world was created in 1440BC. > On the contrary, voluminous recent evidence supports the > proposition of hormesis -- that radiation below a threshold not > approached by cellphones imparts a statistically significant > increase in resistance to cancers among humans. We seem to swing from one fundamentalist certainty to another. While hundreds of legitimate scientific studies are dismissed in one phrase -- suddenly, a miraculous cure for cancer is offered in another. I can only guess you are talking about Dr. Ross Adey's work -- which is on analog R/F. If so, you obviously aren't making the distinction between the pulsed stroboscopic nature of GSM digital (217Hz) and analog, and this difference is fundamental to everything that is being discussed in these questions. GSM has a R/F component and a pulsed (square wave) ELF component -- and it is generally thought that the ELF may be the problem. R/F may indeed become a useful tool in medicine, but only when we know what the mechanisms are. In the past radio engineers and manufacturers have denied there are any mechanisms -- or any problems. I'm not sure that anyone involved in this research now feels certain about the threshold argument -- nor to most scientists have any feeling as to what exposures (to humans) may be significant. However the Adelaide research did strongly suggest that exposure problems with pulsed GSM are cumulative in time. > Perhaps that is why cellphone rich regions such as Scandinavia > and Japan lead the world in longevity and US users of PCs and > cellphones live longer than non users. In general, all around the > globe the use of electricity and other electromagnetic oscillations > correlates almost perfectly with greater longevity. Dare I suggest that another factor could be poverty, and perhaps exposure to another thousand other environmental and nutritional factors. I can't believe that any serious economist would deal with cause and effect in such a simplistic way. > Unfortunately among the beneficiaries of this public health boon > are product liability lawyers and their junk science accomplices > causing lucrative plagues of hypochondria and litigation. Do you count in here the liability lawyers working for the State Attorney-Generals in prosecuting the tobacco companies? This liability lawyer problem is an American one; it is almost irrelevant in Europe and Australia (where this research was conducted), and it is a problem resulting from your fanatical 'let-the-buyer-beware' approach to non-regulation. Robert Weller writes: > The Royal Adelaide Hospital study is an "outlier," inasmuch as > most other studies failed to detect any increase in the cancer > risk ratio "Most other" is a rather vague term. If you mean cell-phone research, then this is only correct if you include all those studies that came to inconclusive results. You can't prove a null hypothesis. There are plenty of well known, well conducted studies which say the opposite -- and none of them is conclusive, because no individual study of this type will ever be conclusive. Each, in its own way, is indicative. > Dosimetry There's a hell of a lot more to dosmetrics than this. Each research protocol has its problems. Mice are a bit too small to strap cell-phones to their ears, so they had to do with an antenna over the cage. This placed the mice in the far field, but at power-densities equivalent to the side of the head. The aluminium would simply have evened out the distribution and reduced the variations in body orientation. Scientist can actually measure power-densities, and set their experiments accordingly. > Subjects. While I am less familiar with this area, the transgenic > mice used in the research had genetic alterations in areas that > are not contained in the human genome. The study set out to establish whether GSM phone radiation could promote (not cause) tumorous changes in mice cells. Since at the cell level DNA-is-DNA, and this is the most likely cause of tumours, then surely it established something worth while which has a high degree of relevance to humans. It does not prove that GSM phones produce cancer -- but it says loud and clear, "We had better find out damn quick". The other criticisms here are objecting to this being a part-solution to a long-term problem; the writer want it to be a total solution. Scientists can argue for days about the use of different strains of mice, so I doubt that this engineer's opinion of which mice should have been used is necessarily better than the combined resources of the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council, Telstra, and the scientists involved. > The FDA has been pushing the Wireless Technology Research > (WTR) organization, funded in the US by an industry blind trust, > to use rats rather than transgenic mice. From what I can see, the FDA has been pushing the WTR to spend the last few million of their $25 million budget just doing anything. Pete writes about the findings of double the tumour rate in exposed mice, and the 1% level of significance. > It is easy to make instant judgments on statements like this, but > I would like to see some specific data. You got the 'relevant' data -- the tumour rate doubled in only 18 months. The specific is in the paper itself, available for anyone to read. > For instance -- how many of those 100 "exposed mice" actually > had tumors? Suppose in a group of100 "unexposed" mice, one > develops a tumor, whereas in a group of 100 "exposed" mice two > mice develop tumors. Is this significant? The 'level of significance' concept used in all scientific work grades results as either 5% (the results could have arisen one in every twenty times by chance) or 1% (once in a hundred). These results were above this higher level of significance. That is why the scientists provide these figures, so non-scientists will have some judgment of the relative importance of the evidence and chance factors. It doesn't help you to know that the transgenic control mice had 22 tumours, and the exposed had 43 (after an adjustment down), because you don't know whether the 22 is a high or a low figure. Some 'normal' lab mice strains have 100% tumour rates in 18 months, some are down at the 5% level. These mice were from a low-susceptible (5% strain) which had the gene inserted about 10 years ago to make them 'sensitive' to environmental effects. (Note 'sensitive') In other words, these mice are sensitive detectors - and the better the signal-to-noise ratio they have, the more trust we can put in the detection. Stewart Fist, Technical writer and journalist. Current Australian columns: Archives of my columns are available at the Australian and also at the ABC site: Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 Old Homepage: [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not that it is critical or important to Mr. Fist's response at all, but I would like to correct one small error. The religious fundamentalists do not claim the 'world was created in 1440 BC'. Most fundamentalists agree with the conclusions drawn by Archbishop Usher in the early seventeenth century after considerable study and calculations done by the Archbishop: the world was created on Tuesday, October 14, 4004 BC at 9:30 AM. He did not say what time zone that was; ie. Greenwich Mean Time, Eastern, etc. However King James had his own scholars review Usher's work and they concluded he was accurate. Thus when King James ordered a revision and updating of the scriptures in 1612 AD, Usher's calculations were used in the concordances or footnotes of that edition of the Bible. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 18:52:17 PDT I'm certain that I'm missing some essential aspect of the network access charges, but it seems to me that a critical error was made in how these fees were imposed and allocated in the years since long distance service was opened to full competition. Prior to this time, local phone companies had been receiving a credit based on billings for long distance calls originating or terminating in their area. Continuing that in the same form would have substantially impeded competition, while totally eliminating it would have threatened the phone companies' financial stability. Access charges were never intended to reflect the cost for the local phone company to provide any service, just to replace the value of the revenue stream that they had been credited with for long distance calls at the instant in time that deregulation went into effect. Over the years, as the number of phone lines and the amount of long distance have increased, it would seem that these access charges have probably grown to the point at which they substantially exceed the revenue stream they were intended to replace. As these access charges have grown, local phone companies have become dependent on this increased revenue stream. Had the access fees been reduced to reflect the increased volumes, the significance of the fees would have decreased over time, and we would have been seeing both categories of access fees reduced annually over each of the past 13 years. I've been wondering what's wrong with my thinking for a while, so I hope someone can clarify this situation for me. Thanks. Eli Mantel --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 22:02:12 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? In article , The Old Bear writes: > One should not think of this as a surcharge on multiple lines, but > instead as a surcharge on *ALL* lines with each "household" getting > a single exemption. Under that perspective, it begins to make a > little more administrative sense. Logically, this is what a lawyer would call a distinction without a difference. It is, however, a perfect example of how sematics can be used to manipulate the appearance, in this case by trying to establish a different "baseline" against which to compare a new phenomenon. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: robertd672@aol.com (RobertD672) Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Date: 12 May 1997 04:57:18 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com A second line on the same residential bill perhaps? In all of the examples you mentioned which had multiple occupants in a shared living space each of the phone bills would be in the name of the person for whom the service was installed (trust me, a landlord does not want a tenants utilities in their name.) Therfore, each initial line would be charged at the primary rate. If in fact there was more that one line on a bill then that line would be charged at the "second line" rate. The people who will mainly be paying this are the ones who either have computer equipment or a fax machine for which they want a dedicated line or parents with minor children living at home (as minors are not capable of entering into agreements in most localities.) > Here's another one for you: What happens if there is a single phone > line in the home of a married couple, and it happens to be in the > husband's name only. Now the wife has a need for her own phone line, > so she applies for one in her name, and is told she will have to pay > the higher charge. If she applies for the line in her name I would think that she would be billed at the primary rate. As an aside, what need would a married couple have for private lines? If they are for business purposes then they would be charged at business rates and handled by the business department. In other word residential tariffs would not apply. > This is, after all, a form of discrimination . . . you get service > at one price if it's the only line into a building, but you may pay a > higher price just because you choose to, or are forced to by economic > considerations, live in the same building as someone else who already > has phone service. Not if the bills are in seperate names. > My final thought is that I don't even think this will have the > desired effect of recovering revenue lost from the lowering of "access > ... otherwise have been ordered, will more than offset any gains made > by increased access charges on additional residential phone lines. First of all, the decrease in access charges will be recouped from a new charge to the long distance companies of between $1.50 (residential) and $2.75 (business) for multi-line customers as well as additional rate increases for multi-line business customers. Second, I am sure that the phone companies would be very happy if everyone (excluding of course business customers) were to cancel service for more than one line. It would prevent them from having to spend money to upgrade equipment and capacity to handle the explosion in phone service. At any rate the money will be recouped mainly from multi-line business customers. In addition the telcos are targeting ISPs for additional rate hikes because of the traffic they have added to the phone system. In effect the current rate increases have already hit them, try that $1.50 or so a month by several hundred lines to several thousand lines and see what it adds to your overhead (Hint: A LOT!). Strangely enough most of the RBOCs (henceforth "fat bastards") either already have or are in the process of rolling out Internet access. While they are affected by the current rate increase and would also be affected by any "ISP tax" (Internet access is unregulated) look at who they are paying the phone bills to. The fat bastards can easily absorb the extra cost (not only because they are in effect feeding themselves but also because they do not have seperate expenses for billing, advertising, etc) while many smaller local ISPs will lose a substantial amount of revenue. Of course I am sure that this would not phase the fat bastards, and it may in fact make them very happy because it would add gold to their coffers. My final thought is this. I don't actually see the baby Bells as being very succesful in the role of ISP. Yes, they will maintain a certain number of subscribers who may not even know that a better alternative is literaly right down the street. Overall though I don't think that they have the skills needed to prosper. Internet access is a very customer sevice oriented business, customer service and the word Bell (in any derivative form i.e. Pac Bell, Bell Atlantic) don't work well in the same sentence. I don't think that this will turn out to be the big gravy bowl that they expected. I could be wrong, I hope I am not. I am just waiting to see the costs for local loops go up substantially. Well, enough of my rants for now. I just got my latest phone bills and had to vent somehow. Please cc any comments, flames, etc. to me directly. I would love to hear your thoughts. Rob D. ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 03:27:36 GMT If the second line shows on the same phone bill as the first, than the phone company gets to charge extra for it. If you tell the phone company you have created a seperate apartment in a part of your house, and give them a bogus name (or maybe give them your wife's middle name and maiden name) they probably couldn't tell the difference and you'd have two 1st lines. And two seperate phone bills. For a buck fifty, I doubt most people will really care. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 21:17:34 EDT Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line ? I seriously doubt that even our intrepid federal government would attempt to characterize a multi-tenant apartment building as a "residence", as has been suggested. On the other hand, at our house (a single home), we have two POTS lines. One's in my name; the other's in my wife's. They aren't billed together, and otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Our last names are different, too. How can the telco decide that "we" really have two lines? We also have two kids and four cats. Guess that means we can get six more POTS lines at the "first line" rate :-) Come and get us, coppers. When the FCC characterizes something as "the greatest day for telephone consumers since the breakup of AT&T in 1984", you should consider it fair warning. Run -- don't walk -- to the exits. And hold on to your wallet. And one last, random thought. Maybe this is a silly question, but when PAT said "Western Union['s telephone number] was (of course) 4321" ... why "of course" ? Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In nearly every community where there resided a Western Union facility or a telegraph agent (generally affiliated with Western Union as an independent contractor providing 'telegraph services') the phone number was something-4321. This was true at least throughout the midwestern United States. An interesting exception was here in Chicago where the main switchboard for the Western Union Building and their executive offices at 410 S. LaSalle Street was WABash-2-4321 but the phone room for the message takers and telegraphers was WABash-2-7111. (But from a coin telephone, dial the operator and ask for Western Union). All the outlying neighborhood offices in Chicago were owned by the Company (I think, maybe a couple were not) and they were all something-4321. My copy of the 1946 issue of the great big 26-page phone directory for Coffeyville, Kansas issued by the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has only a few dozen entries under the letter 'W', one being: WESTERN UNION AGENCY ......... Bus Terminal Bldg, 8th & Walnut ... 4321 If calling from a pay station, ask operator for Western Union. A phone book from about 1959-60 for Evanston, Illinois showed that a WUTCO agent was located on or near the campus of Northwestern Univer- sity with the phone number DAVis-8-4321. But the same entry noted that 'if calling from a pay telephone, dial operator and ask for Western Union.' An office on the south side of Chicago was HYDe Park-3-4321, again with the special instruction for pay phone users. Probably since sometime around 4004 BC at 9:30 AM the WUTCO and the Bell had a very close, almost incestuous relationship. People now-days complain about non-telephone call related billings appearing on the phone bill, i.e horoscopes and sex, but WUTCO billed on the phone bill for probably seventy years. The reason payphone users had to ask the operator for Western Union rather than dial something-4321 was because the operator would alert the WUTCO message taker that in effect there was no phone number to be billed. The operator would tell the WUTCO person the caller was at a payphone. After the caller gave the message to be sent to the WUTCO person, the clerk would say 'okay please flash your hook and get the operator back on the line ...' the caller would jiggle the hook and when the operator responded, the WUTCO person would say 'collect seventy five cents from the caller' (or whatever the message cost) and the caller had to deposit that in the coin box on the payphone. Having done so, the local operator then had to 'dump the coins' meaning hit a key on the switchboard which caused the table in the phone to tip in the company's favor rather than tip the other way sending the coins back out the return slot. If the caller had dialed something-4321 direct, there would be no way to flash the operator for 'assistance in collecting' as they referred to it. People of course committed fraud all the time; they would tell WUTCO the wrong number for billing purposes. There were certain 'established' phone numbers in those days. In addition to WUTCO having 4321 almost everywhere, you could count on the telco business office being something-9411. Again, oddly, in Chicago all the public business offices (literally a dozen or more, walk in off the street, sit down and talk to a service rep) were something-9411. In manual offices they were just 9411 although as often as not the caller would lift the receiver and just say to the operator 'give me the business office'. But in the case of Illinois Bell's big corporate headquarters in downtown Chicago, the corporation PBX was OFFicial-3-9411 while the service reps down on the first floor were OFFicial-3-9100. In quite a few communities the police were 2121 and the firemen were 2131. But, when you had two communities served by the same central office and each maintained their own police/fire departments then the 'other' one was 2151 and 2181. Don't ask me why. In some places police were 1212 and fire was 1313. Telephone recorded announcement services were quite often 1234 or 1515. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 09:58:43 -0400 From: Sanjay Parekh Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Jack Decker wrote: > charges" on toll calls. The reason is that as the cost of additional > lines increases, many people may disconnect existing second lines, or > put off ordering additional lines, or figure out ways to make exiting > lines do double-duty (for example, making one line serve both a > computer and FAX machine). I have a gut feeling that the number of > disconnections, and the lost business from additional lines that would > otherwise have been ordered, will more than offset any gains made by > increased access charges on additional residential phone lines. The business I'm in (cable telephony) is directly impacted by this. But that raises an interesting question. How do you know and control rates when one line is provided by one company, say an RBOC, and an "additional" line is provieded by another company, say a cable company? Also, do cell phones count as "additional" lines? They can provide secondary dialtone in the same house as a normal line. It's gonna be a whole new can of worms ... | Sanjay Parekh | | sanjay.parekh@arris-i.com | | Systems Engineer - Cornerstone | | Arris Interactive | | Atlanta, GA | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 97 10:32 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: What Constitutes a Second Residential Line? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > My point is this: Whatever you may think of the rest of the FCC's > actions, the idea of mandating different rates for exactly the same > service, simply because someone has more than one line coming into the > home, seems like an idea that would make sense only to a government > bureaucrat. I agree it's a pretty lame idea, but it shouldn't be all that hard to administer because telcos already have special cases for additional lines. In some states such as New Jersey there's a different, lower, rate for second lines. In every state I'm aware of, second lines can be unlisted at no charge, even in Massachusetts where for some idiotic reason you can't put two residential lines on one bill. On the other hand, I have two lines at my house and one at my cottage, all three on the same bill. Does the cottage phone count as an additional line? Who the heck knows? Seems to me the fairest and easiest way to collect USF money is with a small increase to the gross receipts tax on all telephone service. That's easy to administer and doesn't cause distortions. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: Richard Enteman Subject: Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 18:39:09 PDT lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote: > Per the talk about 911 ... > I was in Philadelphia and noticed the fire alarm pull > boxes were gone. > I was wondering if other cities have removed their boxes. > They've been gone in Trenton NJ for years. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason [the boxes are > gone] is they were subject to too much abuse. People who like to play > games would pull the alarm on a street corner box then run off before > the firemen arrived to find nothing going on. With 911 working as > effeciently as it does, and the prevalence of telephones, there is no > longer any real need for the boxes anyway. PAT] The police and fire boxes often run on separate lines with their own power supply. They serve as an important back-up system. During power outages the police and fire boxes are often the only means of communications. To minimize the number of false alarms many fire alarm boxes had microphones added for dispatcher to talk with someone reporting an emergency. Things go in cycles, and the call boxes are bound to come back again someday after the large expense of removing them. ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 05:16:36 -0400 lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > I was in Philadelphia and noticed the fire alarm pull boxes were gone. > They used to be mounted on utility poles at corners. As a child, we > were trained to know where the nearest pull box was to our home. If > we used it, we were to wait there for the fire truck so they'd know > where to go. Fire drill posters in buildings included the nearest > street pull box. . . >In the early 1970s I had a tour of the Philadelphia fire dispatching > center (this was pre-911 days.) At that time, it seemed most calls > came via boxes, not the telephone. A pullbox caused a loud oscillator > to beep the four digit code of the box. (I think the beep was > duplicated in the fire house that served the location, but I'm not > sure). The dispatcher identified the location, and telephoned > (through a private direct line PBX) the fire house to provide details. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The boxes have been gone in Chicago > for years with the exception of schools, hospitals and residences > for geriatric patients (old people's homes) where they are required > by law. The reason is they were subject to too much abuse. People > who like to play games would pull the alarm on a street corner box > then run off before the firemen arrived to find nothing going on. > With 911 working as effeciently as it does, and the prevalence of > telephones, there is no longer any real need for the boxes anyway. PAT] The boxes are part of the "Gamewell System" which dates back to 1852. Gamewell is still very much in business -- and even has a web site at URL: < http://www.gamewell.com >. The familiar red pull boxes were based on classic DC telegraph technology. A single DC loop (wire pair) was run many locations in a neighborhood and each location would have a Gamewell box which contained a spring-driven internal sprocket wheel with teeth notched in a unique pattern. When a citizen would pull the lever on the outside of the box, the spring would be wound and the wheel would then turn, activating a switch which would close the circuit on the loop, sounding a gong in the local fire house. Because each box had a unique number, the firemen could then identify which box had been pulled and proceed to that location. In small towns, the system might activate an air-horn or steam whistle which would muster the volunteer fire company. The pattern of whistle blasts, for example 3-4-1, would identify the location so that volunteers could rush directly to the site and meet up with the crew bring the equipment from the firehouse. Many of the boxes also contained an old-fashion morse code key inside the box, which could be unlocked by the arriving firemen and used to send messages back to the firehouse. Certainly quaint by today's standards! The beauty of the system was its simplicity. The electro-mechanical assemblies were very reliable. The fire departments liked the system because it provided a positive identification of location and there were no problems with trying understand a panicy or non-English speaking citizen on a poor quality early telephone system. I worked with the City of Boston in 1969-72, and I recall a number of discussions about the pros and cons of the Gamewell system. At that time, there was considerable urban unrest from both anti-war protests and inner-city disturbances. (Fortunately, Boston remained quite civil although local government was concerned the unpleasantness of other cities might spread.) It was decided that a few false alarms were preferable to the risks involved in replacing the system with one which required citizens to use a telephonic system. Anyway, the city had long since stopped maintaining its own wires in most locations and was getting dry copper from New England telephone for the purposes of the Gamewell system. One of the Fire Department technicians had been experimenting with what other data or voice they might be able to run over the same copper loops, but datacom in those days was pretty primitive. One of the things which we looked at was using the system for security alarms on public buildings. The idea was to provide a second set of numeric codes to indicate breaking-and-entering at the public schools and then filtering those signals to the police or school department security people. Unfortuantely, the issue of life-safety was considered so important the the state legislature decades earlier had manadated that the fire alarm systems in schools be separate from any other telephone or telegraph device -- thus the limitation was legislative rather than technical. By the way, if you like those Western Union clocks which were discussed in TELECOM Digest a while back, you'd probably love to look at the insides of the old Gamewell apparatus. The fire alarm call boxes are elegant assemblies of brass gears and contactors, beautifully machined to the highest standards of their day to assure maximum reliability. And on the firehouse end, there was equally intersting equipment, including paper tape printers which, looking like time-recording seismographs, used spring driven clockworks and ink pens mounted on the ends of magnetic arms to keep a permanent record of the exact time and date of each alarm. Or, as Ogden Nash wrote: The one-L lama is a priest. The two-L llama is a beast. But I will bet a silk pajama, there isn't any three-L lllama. (*) (*) Some readers informed Mr. Nash that this was a type of large conflagration -- to which Mr. Nash said, "pooh." Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: jmolter@pitnet.net (JeepMan) Subject: Re: City Fire Alarm Pull Boxes Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 08:21:40 GMT In Milwaukee WI they discontinued the pull boxes in 1988 due to abuse of them. The pull box was in a police call box on all the corners. Pull box one side unlocked and on other side police call phone. Locked. About half of the police call boxes were removed in 1988 the other half are still in service. You can still see quite a lot of them on corners. (Painted blue) These are for the police to use to call in to stations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #117 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon May 12 04:35:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA27254; Mon, 12 May 1997 04:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 04:35:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705120835.EAA27254@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #118 TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 May 97 04:35:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 118 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Info Superhighway (Rick DeMattia) Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Info Superhighway (G Novosielski) Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Info Superhighway (Tony Toews) GSM SIMS and Crypto (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes (Rick DeMattia) Re: 911 and Payphones (Chris Farrar) Are Cordless' as Bad as Cellulars? (Bemson) Interesting Article in NY Times on Rural Telephony (John R. Levine) Good Use for Unnecessary Phone Books (Tom Crofford) Re: What's the Status of the Lawsuit Against Destiny Telecom? (centex) Call Display (Caller ID) Formats? (Rob Barnhardt) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Subject: Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Info Superhighway Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:59:32 GMT Reply-To: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Organization: Railnet BBS +1 216 786 0476 As quoted from by Paul Robinson : > This doesn't make any sense, because in order to register for the > service, a user's computer will connect to the registration server by > dialing a toll-free number... > call waiting. If they select "disable call waiting", it is smart enough > to give them the *70 code and even allowing them to change it if, for > example, they have pulse dial. Pulse dial is the key to the problem. If the new customer indicates that they have pulse dial, and also indicates that they have call waiting, one ISP package (ATT WORLDNET in an older version which I set up for my father) puts *70 into the dialing prefix. The * gets swallowed and the phone then dials 701800... It took us a while to figure this out - listening to the pulses was a clue. Rick DeMattia ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:19:36 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Information In TELECOM Digest V17 #115, Paul Robinson wrote: > I got a call from a woman who is not a user of the service, but a > victim. ... [P]eople trying to use the service are calling her ... > virtually any hour of the day or night. The woman's number > would be something like 701-8001 in this example... but her number is > completely different from the number of the registration server.... > That's when it hit me. Well, it hit me as soon as I saw the number. As you noted, that software uses the *70 code even for users who have pulse dialing. Most modems will simply ignore the * code when they are in pulse mode, without generating an error. The proper code to use on a pulse line is 1170, and this code will usually work for touch-tone users too. Software designers are universally lax with their dialing strings, so while this programmer was irresponsible, he or she is far from unique. The proper way to dial a number with a leading *67, 1167, *70, 1170, or ANY OTHER feature or dialing code that presents a second dialtone is to send the "W" command (Wait for dial tone) at the appropriate place in the dialing string, i.e.: *70W1-800-123-4567 Had this been done, the woman never would have received those nuisance calls. Since dialing 70 on a pulse-only line would not have produced a second dial tone, the dialing would have failed at that point. The common practice of using a comma merely causes a timed pause, which can never 'fail' as such. Although the W command is supported by every modem I've ever owned (well okay, not my 300 baud acuoustic coupler, but every Hayes compatible of 2400 baud or better) it is almost NEVER used by people writing programs that talk to the modems. The worst offender was the America Online software, which had an internal filter of "valid" characters that could be sent to the modem while dialing. The the letter W was NOT one of the valid characters in their default configuration! The string was something like: 0123456789*#,TP So even if you were sharp enough to replace the code "*70," with "*70W", in the dialing string, the filter would silently strip out the W as if it weren't even there. As a result, the modem would not wait for the second dialtone, and would no longer even pause briefly, since the comma was now missing. This was worse than not modifying it at all. Although the filter itself was user modifiable, it was hidden several levels deep in dialog boxes. And, since the situation never kicked an error message, there was little that would prompt even a knowledgeable user to look for it and add the W character to it. I wrote to AOL about the problem back then, but I haven't dealt with them in years now, so I don't know if they ever fixed it. I know it was a widespread problem with nearly every setup file in their extensive modem configuration library. Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@techie.com PGPInfo: KeyID A6172089 GPN Consulting http://idt.net/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Someone Who Became Road Kill on the Info Superhighway Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 05:20:40 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. Paul Robinson wrote: > At another place, I work for another company answering Technical Support > telephone calls for an Internet Service Provider. > That's when it hit me. Congratulations on figuring out the problem. Many people would've shrugged their shoulders. Others would have thought about it for a few minutes and forgotten about it. Reminds of the story I heard, likely in this newsgroup, about the woman whose phone number she'd had for many years was similar to a brand new large hotel. She'd get many mis-dialed calls for the hotel. She tried talking to someone at the hotel but get a rude reception. She then started confirming all the room reservations she got. Then the front desk had to deal with all the angry customers who had no reservations. They got a very bad reputation. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant The Year 2000 crisis: Will my parents or your grand parents still be receiving their pension in January, 2000? See www.granite.ab.ca/year2000 for more info. Microsoft Access Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The newspapers here reported last week that a family in Ohio had a phone number very similar to Papa Don's Pizza. They were getting a lot of wrong number calls to order pizza, so they put an answering machine on their line identifying themselves as Papa John's Pizza and advising the caller that the Board of Health had closed them down. The recording further suggested ordering from Pizza Hut or Dominoes. The real Papa Don's sued them on account of it and a judge ordered the family to change the message on their answering machine. Regards the woman getting phone calls for the hotel, admittedly the hotel should not have been rude to her about it, but at the same time I wonder what she expected *them* to do about it. Ignorance, they say, is bliss, and a lot of Americans are very happy people. By taking reservations, she was defrauding the hotel. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: GSM SIMS and Crypto Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 14:31:42 +-5-30 John R. Covert writes: > The GSM SIM cards, it turns out, are not just generic devices storing > subscriber information for retrieval by the mobile telephone. The > subscriber's key, Ki, is stored within the card and not revealed to a > mobile set. Instead, the GSM encryption algorithm, A5, is implemented > in the microprocessor on board the SIM card. GSM is great in terms of security, compared with any other standard. The sub key is just for authentication, and is not the key used for call encryption. that is generated on the fly, usually once per call but technically possible to generate any number of encryption keys. apart from a5, the traffic encryption protocol, there are others, incl a8, the authentication protocol. almost everything is implemented on a chip on the sim card, which is what makes it so secure in practical terms. e.g. we all know about sim portability - use on any phone. but you can also protect your phone from being stolen by locking it to your sim - so it won't work with another card. > Revealed details about the A5 algorithm are sketchy, but I read a paper > by Ross Anderson (http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon/a5.html) as > well as a better one by David Margrave of George Mason University. The I posted long ago on cypherpunks and in Cellular-Digest on the gsm auth/crypto cycle. you'll probably find that if you search for "gsm crypto" or something like that on the web, as versions of that post seem to have been archived all over the place. i think www.l0pht.com has a copy, and i can probably excavate my archives and find it. -rishab First Monday - The Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet http://www.firstmonday.dk/ Munksgaard International Publishers, Copenhagen Managing Editor - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Subject: Ohio Suburb Attempts to Ban Multiple Area Codes Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:49:09 GMT Reply-To: rad@railnet.nshore.org (Rick DeMattia) Organization: Railnet BBS +1 216 786 0476 I heard on the radio yesterday that the City of Parma, a suburb of Cleveland OH, is considering legislation which would require that all telephones within the municipal boundaries be in the same area code. Presumably this is in response to the pending split of 216. Whether municipal government has authority over the topic is another issue, of course. Rick DeMattia [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is pathetic. That is almost as bad as the time the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance saying that Chicago was a 'nuclear free zone' and that the manufacture of nuclear weapons within the city limits was prohibited. PAT] ----------------------