NOTE: Due to mailing error, issue 152 got sent to archives before issue 151. Issue 151 follows 152 in this collection. From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 12 23:02:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA26014; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:02:02 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706130302.XAA26014@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #152 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jun 97 23:02:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dates Set in 816/660 Split (John Cropper) Small CLEC/ISP Legal Group (Marty Tennant) Costa Rica Info Required (Raymond Mereniuk) 55 Octet Stress Test Pattern (Andrew Morley) Extending 900 mhz Portable Range (Bob Williams) Modem Connection for Motorola TeleTAC 250 (Bob Williams) Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (Netnut) Re: ESS Computer Architecture? (Dee Wadhwani) Re: Digital Pads (Jason Lindquist) Re: Digital Pads (Steve Bunning) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (via the Editor) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Payton Chung) Re: Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List (shane@ibm.net) Re: Domain Name Sold For $150,000 (Bob Keller) 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: John Cropper Subject: Dates Set in 816/660 Split Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:35:52 -0400 Organization: Transport Logic Internet Services COMMISSION APPROVES TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON PERMISSIVE DIALING PERIOD FOR NEW AREA CODE Jefferson City (June 4, 1997)---The permissive dialing period for the new 660 area code in western Missouri will begin on October 12, 1997, under a decision reached today by the Missouri Public Service Commission. The Commission accepted a technical committee's recommendation regarding the permissive dialing period as well as when mandatory dialing would begin for the new area code. Under this decision, mandatory dialing will begin on April 19, 1998. During the permissive dialing period, a customer can begin using the new area code. In addition, calls placed to the new area code using the old 816 area code would still be completed during the permissive dialing period. When mandatory dialing begins, the caller must use the new area code for that call to be completed. BACKGROUND: On April 9, 1997, the Missouri Public Service Commission determined a geographic split would be used to alleviate the exhaustion of available telephone numbers in the 816 area code. The Commission determined theKansas City metropolitan area, Kansas City Metropolitan Calling Area (MCA) exchanges, as well as the St. Joseph exchange and those exchanges which have Extended Area Service (EAS) to the St. Joseph exchange will retain the 816 area code. Exchanges currently in the 816 area code but outside the area named above (such as Warrensburg, Kirksville, Marshall, Maryville, Boonville, Trenton, Moberly and Sedalia) will receive the new 660 area code number. According to the technical committee, affected local exchange telephone companies will be providing customers with public notification and educational materials regarding the introduction of the new area code in western Missouri. 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/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:57:31 -0700 From: marty tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm) Subject: Small CLEC/ISP Legal Group As a small entity well aware of the legal roadblocks to entry still entrenched in our telecommunications law, I am interested in communicating with other small entities that have experienced trouble in the following areas: 1. Intentional blockage of negotiations with Incumbent LECs under Section 251 and 252 of the Telecommunications Act. 2. Difficulties in obtaining arbitration or other proceedings before State Public Service Commissions. 3. Legal problems related to the need to represent onself without benefit of legal counsel (pro se). I anticipate that small new entrants under the 1996 Act and Internet Service Providers trying to obtain unbundled network elements for use with XDSL technologies may find themselves experiencing the problems outlined above. I am willing to share my experiences and provide consultation on methods of avoiding problems in this area. I have also accumulated a good amount of legal documents that could assist others in representing themselves before various legal bodies. At the same time, I am seeking attorneys that have successfully prosecuted incumbent LECs failing to negotiate in good faith under the terms of the 1996 Act. For some reason, I doubt anyone has done this yet. Please contact me via the or personally if you are interested in cooperating in this manner. marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm), 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice, (803) 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ From: Raymond Mereniuk Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:49:50 +0000 Subject: Costa Rica Info Required By September we must have an Internet POP3 running in Costa Rica. We have been attempting to determine the name of the Telco in Costa Rica and have come up with no solid information, or at least not in English. We would also be interested in the name of a good ISP in Costa Rica. Can anyone help us on this one? Raymond@wcs.net ------------------------------ From: Andrew Morley Subject: 55 Octet Stress Test Pattern Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 15:52:05 GMT Organization: Trend Communications Ltd. Reply-To: andym@trendcomms.com Ages ago (more than one year!) I wrote: > Does anyone know where the 55 Octet BERT pattern is defined. > Presumably it is in some ANSI or (possibly?) Bellcore document, but > which? I'm sure I can remember reading such a doument but I can't > remember what it was called. Can anyone help? Well, I had one correspondent who sent me the pattern, which is what I wanted. So I was happy. But now I need to know the reference. Does anyone know where the pattern is actually defined? Is it an ANSI, Bellcore or ITU document? Thanks in advance, Andrew ps A copy of your response by email would be helpful just in case I miss it on this incredibly busy newsgroup/digest! Andrew Morley, Design & Development, Trend Communications Ltd, High Wycombe email: andrew.morley@trendcomms.com Phone +44 1628-524977 Bucks, UK. ------------------------------ From: Bob Williams Subject: Extending 900 mhz Portable Range Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:58:58 -0400 Organization: RLW Consulting Reply-To: bob@infinet.com I have six acres (a friend calls it a "runway"), 1300'x200'. My house is in the middle, and I'd like to be able to use a portable 900 mhz phone anywhere on the lot. The ones I've tried so far only go about 300' in either direction. I took a look at the antenna on the base unit, and it's about 5-1/2" long. As a former amateur radio operator, I figured that at 902.3 to 927.75 MHz (centering on 915 MHz), a full wave antenna would be about 32.8 cm, half-wave - 16.4 cm or 6.5". If I could put the antenna in the attic, I'd have line-of-sight to it from just about anywhere on the lot. The questions are: Has anyone tried this? Is it legal/illegal? What sort of baluns would I need to impedance match the antenna to the coax/base station? Is it worth trying? Bob Williams - RLW Consulting - ------------------------------ From: Bob Williams Subject: Modem Connection For Motorola Tel-Tac 250 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:59:00 GMT Anyone out there using a Motorola TeleTAC 250 *AND* a standard modem (with an RJ11 plug)? What sort of interface cable do I need to use the modem with the cellphone (my modem supposedly supports MNP10)? Any help on this is appreciated. Please reply via email to save on bandwidth. Bob Williams - RLW Consulting - bob@infinet.com Nuthin's certain, that's for sure! ------------------------------ From: netnut@freeandsingle.com (Netnut) Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:55:14 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: netnut@freeandsingle.com mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune) wrote: > I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week, > during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI > routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the > Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice > the failure". Right. Having used internetMCI for the last couple of years I can say we have never had any major performance problems. Your note is a little vague. Are you having this problem reaching one particular host or is this getting anywhere on the Internet? Based on what you provided above it looks like you are trying to reach a certain site and having problems. Just out of curiousity have you contacted that site to see if maybe there are having server problems? ------------------------------ From: pros@cybersoftsystems.com (Dee Wadhwani) Subject: Re: ESS Computer Architecture? Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:19:27 GMT Organization: PROS & Cybersoft Systems Reply-To: pros@cybersoftsystems.com hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: > 1) What does the basic instruction set of an ESS look like? (This > would be equivalent to the Assembler language for the machine -- the > most basic programmable instructions.) I would assume they have the > usual LOAD, STORE, ADD computer instructions, but do they have > specialized instructions for call handling? That is, somehow the > switch has to be programmed to send out ringing current to the called > party, and a ringing signal to the calling party. Is this instruction > set unique to an ESS, or is it similar to other computers? > 2) When they program an ESS, do they use the basic assembler language, > or do they have higher level languages to make it easier? If so, what > are the higher level languages like? It is based on UNIX RTR and is low level. It is proprietary and information can be obtained from www.lucent.com. If you want more info just email me. Dee Wadhwani Chief Technology Officer BSEE CNE Cybersoft www.cybersoftsystems.com " Hi you all" Nashville info : www.nashvillenet.com ------------------------------ From: jlindqui@uiuc.edu (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: Digital Pads Date: 10 Jun 1997 15:07:57 GMT Organization: Big Ass Hams, Inc. An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as Robert Holloman, Jr. wrote: > Someone mentioned to me a while back that a 3dB pad, which cuts the > signal level in half, is usually done by shifting the bits in the PCM > codes by one position, losing the LSB. I would guess (big guess!) x2 > tests for pads during startup by sending as series of 11111111's and > checking what comes out the other end. (Since the other end is > analog, it can't be 100% sure of exactly what comes out.) If the other end is analog, there's your problem. x2 requires a digital line at the provider's end of the connection. Otherwise you're limited to 33.6k JL =================================NOTE======================================== Senders of unsolicited commercial/propaganda e-mail subject to fees. Details at http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jlindqui ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:49:42 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Re: Digital Pads > I'm hoping someone might be able to explain in more detail how pads work > and maybe speculate on how 56K modems might deal with them. All phone companies have "Loss Plans" that specify if and how much loss to add to phone connection. Why add loss to phone call? As the distance/delay on a call increases, the effect of echo becomes more noticeable and the opportunity for a sustained oscillation increases ("singing" in telco speak). Lowering the signal level of a call reduces the echo and the problem. The device used to attenuate the signal level is a pad. Pads can be digital or analog. Digital pads are similar to analog pads except they modify bits instead of the electrical signal level. A digitally encoded voice signal can take on one of 256 possible values (standard mu law coding used for calls in the U.S.). Pads perform a table lookup and replace the actual value with a calculated one to provide the selected level of attenuation. Digital pads can add quantization noise as the calculated value might not exactly match one of the 256 choices. I'm not sure what the 56K modems can do other than plan for the pads. I suspect an ISP could get a 0 dB connection (no padding) to their modems, but if the calling party is served from a different switch, then there could still be a pad from the calling party side of the connection. * Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 721-3023 (voice) * * Product Manager | 704 Quince Orchard Road | 301 721-3001 (fax) * * TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20878 | sbunning@acecomm.com * * NASDAQ:ACEC | "CDRs in Real-Time" | WWW= www.acecomm.com * ------------------------------ From: via the Editor Date: 10 Jun 97 13:10:00 EDT Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Hi Pat, Glad to see you are back. Could you please post this ... but leave my name address out, or just summarize this message. My company has a news feed for comp.dcom.telecom, but doesn't allow postings to get back out. Also, like a lot of companies that frown on seeing the name of the company in the address, even if I do put a disclaimer in the post. > First, drop out the emotional response - "ugly". it's a large tower. > They all pretty much look the same. Most people quit noticing 'em > about six months after construction is finished. Some people do care about the towers all the time. Try flying a plane. More and more towers going up are getting in the way, or changing approaches into airports. It's getting to be a real mess in the air. The people it hurts the most are the private pilots that don't fly a a big plane, but have to contend with more and more towers sticking up from the ground. John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Normally I prefer *NOT* to run anonymous messages. I made this one exception. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pchung@unity.ncsu.edu (Payton Chung) Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:08:42 GMT Organization: The Happy Zoo craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) wrote: > There are several solutions to this. In Queensland, we have some > towers being built to look like palm trees... > Also, there are many tall structures already in which they can be > hidden... The local PCS1900 service (BellSouth) rolled out their service last year, several years after the AMPS (Cellular One, 360) services started. BellSouth has certainly been forced to be more creative with its antennae, placing them on water towers, in church towers, on electrical poles, and, yes, in faux pine trees. The fake pines don't really look like pines (a bit on the tall side; the foliage isn't full enough), but they don't stick out as much. My understanding is that the antennae are stuck on the "trunk", hidden by the "needles." Cell towers in general have become so ubiquitous that many people don't really notice them anymore. (Payton Chung opines himself * http://develop.mainquad.com/web/paytonc) | "The solution to our transportation problem isn't just concrete." | | - Senator John Chafee, R-R.I., on proposed transport legislation | | America deserves transportation choices! http://www.istea.org | ------------------------------ From: shane@ibm.net Subject: Re: Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:18:48 GMT One method to combat spam that IBM Internet has just implemented is to restrict usage of all outgoing SMTP gateways to their dialup network. As a result, you can't use the incoming gateways to send to anyone but IBMNET users, and you can't even do a successful "MAIL FROM:" on the outgoing gateways unless you're on IBMNET's dialup network. One more thing that IBMNET didn't do, but other large providers do, is to look up the return address of each email message to ensure that they exist in DNS. It's not as hard or as big a job as it sounds, actually. These are only two of the very simplest things that sysadmins can do, and the latter is very doable with Sendmail 8. It seems to me if people did these simple things, much of the spam that uses unauthorized SMTP gateways and invalid return addresses could be restricted to valid user accounts on the dialup network (easily found) and to the folks who didn't bother implementing these features (small ISP's that get pounded by spammers who find them as a last resort). People whose valid hostnames are used as return addresses have an easy way to prosecute -- all SPAM has contact information on it, you know. I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but Earthlink has been fighting spammers, but a very high percentage of spam that I receive is actually sent through Earthlink's SMTP gateways. It's too easy to restrict this kind of activity that I wonder if Earthlink is really that serious about combatting this serious problem!!! Of course, this leaves AGIS and Cyberpromo, which you just filter out at the incoming gateway (preferrably wrapping out their outgoing machines) or, as a last resort, the email server or even the user's email program. An ISP is a private entity and, by that rule, may deny access to whomever it wants, just like you have the right to prosecute trespassers who try to get into your property. (If you send me mail, make sure "Re:" appears in the "Subject" line. Otherwise, your mail will be deleted before I read it.) shane@ibm.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:30:48 -0400 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Domain Name Sold For $150,000 gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) wrote, in TELECOM Digest Volume 17, Issue 149: > The story notes that many domain name sale prices are secret because > the transactions end up in disputes and are settled, Which is why some domain names have also be "sold" for a negative dollar figure, i.e., the transferor pays money to the transferee, in addition to transferring the name, in settlement of a claim of infringing the transferee's trademark by use of the domain name. Bob Keller (KY3R) www.his.com/~rjk 4200 WISCONSIN AVE NW #106-233 WASHINGTON DC 20016-2143 Telephone 888/301.320.5355 Facsimile 888/301.229.6875 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #152 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 12 23:21:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA22212; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706130206.WAA22212@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #151 TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jun 97 22:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages" (Rob Slade) Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith (John R. Levine) Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith (Fred Farzanegan) Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo) Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number (Sky Walker) Re: Digital Pads (Steve Hayes) Re: Digital Pads (Chris Wright) Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (DBriggs) Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (Someone) Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (John Milburn) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Roy Smith) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Clifford Donley) Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Colin Seymour) 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, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:00 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages" BKNRW3YP.RVW 970301 "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages", Andrew Busey/Larry Colker/Hank Weghorst, 1995, 1-56205-449-X, U$29.99/C$39.99/UK#27.99 %A Andrew Busey %A Larry Colker %A Hank Weghorst %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1995 %G 1-56205-449-X %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$29.99/C$39.99/UK#27.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 672 %T "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages" Out of the millions of Web sites out there, this lists four thousand. (The majority of them are at universities, and simply listed.) Some are useful, some are important, some are the home pages of small companies. Intriguingly, I couldn't find any search engines listed. Entries are divided into a couple of dozen categories (art, business, cities, etc.), but not further subdivided. A few introductory pages provide next to no help on using the Web. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNRW3YP.RVW 970301 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) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 1997 19:40:25 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > If you pass a law that makes spamming illegal in the US (like junk fax) > then I doubt very much that will offer any protection to spam recipients > in the rest of the world. To whom could I complain when I open my mailbox > one day and find it stuffed with UCE? > Conversely however, if you force spammers to identify spam with a tag it > would make it that much easier for me to filter it out. If the Smith bill isn't enforcable against people sending spam from the US to the UK, then a labelling rule certainly wouldn't be enforcable either. The goal of the Smith bill is to make spam risky and expensive enough that the low-lifes who have been engaging in it will give up and do something else. It's true, a truly dedicated spammer might try to send spam only to non-US addresses, but as we all know you cannot tell from an address where the recipient physically is. If either bill passes, a lot of us will see about getting forwarding addresses in as many domains as possible so we can collect our $500 from spammers who guess wrong. 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: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith Date: 12 Jun 1997 19:55:57 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Joe.J.Harrison@bra0130.wins.icl.co.uk (Joe Harrison) writes: > Here in Bracknell, UK, I get the same junk e-mail from savetrees.com (and > others) that you do. Over ninety percent of my junk e-mail originates in > the United States. I guess it's the same in other countries. > If you pass a law that makes spamming illegal in the US (like junk fax) > then I doubt very much that will offer any protection to spam recipients > in the rest of the world. To whom could I complain when I open my mailbox > one day and find it stuffed with UCE? > Conversely however, if you force spammers to identify spam with a tag it > would make it that much easier for me to filter it out. I assume you wrote your article in jest, because, as your note, this is U.S. law. I doubt that the highly-ethical folks at savetrees and cyberpromo would blink and continue to send the same old spam to .uk and other foreign addresses. The intent of the _Smith_ bill is to PUNISH those who perform computer trespass by substantial fines. The threat of monetary fines for each piece of junkmail will do much more than the pleasantry of attaching an 'advertising' tag to each piece of rubbish they send out. I imagine the Smith bill will put the majority of UCE spammers out of business, while the Murkowski bill merely legitimizes it. And finally, since you were obviously joking in your original post, you should put a smiley after your message. Regards, Frederick Farzanegan (who reads email in the U.S. with a .ca domain- what about me!) ------------------------------ From: bjote@cs.tu-berlin.de (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo) Subject: Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number Date: 11 Jun 1997 20:31:01 GMT Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Gordon S. Hlavenka (gordon@crashelex.com) wrote: > I received an email today from someone selling "Breakthrough" products. > While I didn't order anything from them today, I did discover that they > offer a free ANI readback service -- how very kind of them. > When you dial (888) 212-8846 you will hear a message telling you that > you have reached a "bulletproof" order line which will only accept two > calls from your number. Then they read back your number. I just tried to call this number from Germany today to see what the ANI-system does to calls from outside the US, and the number which was read back to me was (203) 782-9327 which apparently is not in use. Is it common practice to send 'non-used' numbers as ANI if the real number is unknown, or is this number just an outgoing number of some phone-company which took care of my call? Tor-Einar Jarnbjo, bjote@cs.tu-berlin.de Fetschowzeile 11 13437 Berlin, Germany ------------------------------ From: Luke@Taiwan.Net (Sky Walker) Subject: Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:22:24 GMT Organization: KAIWAN Internet Reply-To: Luke@Taiwan.Net On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:42:21 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka wrote: ---nip nip--- Same as this SPAM number 888-590-5070. > When you dial (888) 212-8846 you will hear a message telling you that > you have reached a "bulletproof" order line which will only accept two > calls from your number. Then they read back your number. View my full color picture on Los Angeles Times at http://www.taiwan.net Finger Luke@Taiwan.Net to get my PGP public key. E-Mail me at Luke@Taiwan.Net Call me at (714) 260-8888 9:00 - 17:30 M-F PSDT time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:52:18 -0400 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: Digital Pads > Anyone know much about digital pads? Many years ago now I worked for a while on a PBX that had digital pads in it. Here's a low-level description of what goes on: As you probably already know, in digital telephone systems the analog voi ce signal is filtered and then sampled 8000 times per second. Each voltage sample is converted to a digital code consisting of a sign bit and seven magnitude bits. One of two different nonlinear coding schemes is used to determine the magnitude bits. In North America, the "Mu 255 law" scheme is used while the "A law" scheme is used in Europe. Nonlinear coding is used so that very small signals can be coded accurately; this is at the expense of less accurate coding of high level signals. In other words, the voltage difference between magnitude codes 1 and 2 is much less than that between 126 and 127. Many telephone systems (including that PBX) have facilities to vary the analog gain of connections depending on whether they are local or long distance. This helps to compensate for losses in analog trunks as well as reducing the level of echo on long distance connections. These adjustment s could be made by switching resistors in and out of the analog portion of the connection but it is easier and more flexible to use digital pads ("pad" is another term for attenuator). In the PBX I worked on, the pad was in the form of a ROM containing several (I think 4) lookup tables. The seven magnitude bits were applied to the R OM address lines along with two additional bits to select the gain. The data output was the new 7 magnitude bits after the gain adjustment was made. T he same ROM was time shared to provide gain adjustment on a large number of connections at the same time. The key point is that the detailed rule applied to give the attenuation i s a function of the lookup tables programmed into the ROM. These tables are calculated by taking each of the 128 possible magnitudes in turn, converting it to a voltage level according to the Mu 255 or A law, multiplying that by the required gain (e.g. 0.708 for -3 dB, 0.501 for -6 dB) and converting the new level back to the closest code in the corresponding Mu 255 or A law scheme. This data could be calculated using a simple program written in BASIC or something like that. The same method can be used to make tables to convert between Mu 255 and A laws. This all works fine when it comes to voice calls, though there is a slight worsening of noise due to the additional roundoff errors (roughly equivalent to an additional stage of A/D and D/A conversion). However, when it comes to X2 modems, the situation must be chaotic. There is no guarantee that the lookup tables in every digital pad are going to be identical. Small differences in the programs used to generate them (e.g. in rounding off) or in the selection of gains provided (e.g. -2 dB vs. -3 dB vs. whatever) could cause differences in the tables which won't affect voice but will complicate X2 coding. Additionally, there may be cases where two input magnitude codes are translated to the same output code by the pad (so they cannot both be used in the X2 coding scheme). Then there might be more than one pad in the connection ... I'm glad I'm not involved in trying to get X2 modems to work! Other switches may implement the digital pads in software rather than in ROMs but I'll bet they either use some sort of lookup tables or possibly implement the same function on the fly using a DSP. Steve Hayes Swansea, UK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:23:25 +0100 From: Chris Wright Reply-To: ki11@cityscape.co.uk Subject: Re: Digital Pads Organization: Rolt Manufacturing Ltd In article , Robert Holloman writes > Someone mentioned to me a while back that a 3dB pad, which cuts the > signal level in half, is usually done by shifting the bits in the PCM > codes by one position, losing the LSB. Something wrong here. Digitisation is done according to a non-linear law (mu-Law/A-Law in North America/rest of world - I'm not sure offhand which is which). This uses small steps around the no-signal level, getting larger further away. This is supposed to give good resolution on quiet signals, whilst still allowing loud signals, and still keep only 8 bits, or whatever. If you do a binary divide by two, then you'll not produce a 3dB reduction, the actual reduction will depend on what level the original signal was. Chris Wright Rolt Manufacturing Ltd ki11@cityscape.co.uk ------------------------------ From: dbriggs@banet.com (DBriggs) Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:33:12 GMT Organization: CampusMCI mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune) wrote: > I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week, > during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI > routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the > Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice > the failure". Right. > Here is the traceroute report showing the problem: > loxinfo >date > Sat Jun 7 08:56:20 GMT+7 1997 > loxinfo >traceroute infothai.com > traceroute to infothai.com (192.41.24.88), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 lt-chmai1 (203.146.0.66) 2.106 ms 2.613 ms 2.704 ms > 2 bkk-chmai.tnet.co.th (203.146.1.205) 505.108 ms 555.772 ms 625.776 > ms > 3 lir8 (208.147.1.200) 570.340 ms 504.664 ms 530.860 ms > 4 mix-serial4-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.189.216.177) 786.701 ms > 794.987 ms 863.576 ms > 5 core1-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.2.161) 773.824 ms > 776.394 ms 770.023 ms > 6 bordercore1-loopback.Denver.mci.net (166.48.92.1) 791.230 ms * > 851.570 ms > 7 * * * > 8 * * * > 9 * * * > 10 * * * > The seventh hop is hard failure. Here is the rest of your path: 7 166.48.93.254 electric-light.Denver.mci.net 274 8 207.0.56.17 F0-0.slkcib02.eli.net 274 9 204.212.249.1 slc-0-f0-0.elix.net 274 10 192.41.24.88 ** infothai.com ** 329 It jumps off the MCI Pop in Denver to a firm called Electric Ligtwave, who is using *Sprint*, not MCI for their Internet service. This was determined when doing a trace route to the 204.212.249.1 (elix.net address noted above: 3 204.70.193.93 border6-serial3-6.Houston.mci.net 165 4 204.70.191.65 core2-fddi-1.Houston.mci.net 219 5 204.70.1.170 core3-hssi-5.Memphis.mci.net 220 6 204.70.4.21 core3.Bloomington.mci.net 275 7 206.157.77.42 somerouter.sprintlink.net 274 8 144.228.41.2 sl-stk-1-P2/0/0-155M.sprintlink.net 439 9 144.228.10.90 sl-che-1-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net 330 10 144.224.10.6 sl-che-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net 275 11 144.224.16.6 sl-eli-2-H0-T3.sprintlink.net 275 12 207.0.56.17 F0-0.slkcib02.eli.net 164 13 204.212.249.1 ** 204.212.249.1 ** 274 So the problem you may be encountering may actually be with *Sprint* and not MCI. ------------------------------ From: someone@somewhere.com (Someone) Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:23:00 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: someone@somewhere.com On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:43:23 GMT, mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune) wrote: > Here is the traceroute report showing the problem: I noticed the site you are trying to end up on is: infothai.com That site is using a firm called Digital Daze (digitaldaze.com) for Internet access. Do you happen to know who the ISP for Digital Daze is? It could be a problem there and not necessarily with MCI. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:03:31 +0900 From: John Milburn Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node > I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week, > during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI > routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the > Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice > the failure". Right. This type of problem is not in any way affecting "all of Asia". My primary US connection (I'm in Korea) is via MCI, and I've seen nothing like this type of behaviour. I know that it has not been happening to the Japanese and Australian connections, also. As much as I detest some of the business practices of MCI and InternetMCI, I cannot fault the quality of their international Internet service. > Here is the traceroute report showing the problem: [traceroute deleted] > The seventh hop is hard failure. Every day abround 8-9 AM local time > this failure occurs. MCI has known about it. The best they could do > was promise to fix it next Monday (I heard through the grapevine, > anyway). You don't mention how widespread the loss of connectivity is, from your perspective. Is it just a few sites, or many sites? Are they all from a single (non-MCI) provider? If just a few, it could be something as simple as route flapping. > When I wrote MCI on their Web site, their reply said they would > address in the problem in 4-7 working days. That is pathetic response > for an Internet backbone company. And it is not the way MCI typically responds, *to its customers*. I'm guessing from what you have written, and from the traceroute, that you are not the technical contact for the company which actually buys the service from MCI. If you were, you would know the 24 hour contact information for MCI's NOC, and how to get such problems resolved, by phone, fax, or email. If I've misunderstood, and you are indeed the technical contact, my apologies, and sympathies. In any case, an Asian carrier which has only one link or AS path to/from the US, as is the case for this particular provider in Thailand, is asking for this type of trouble. If MCI is a fault, there is probably some clause for financial relief in the link contract. > One who is tired of poor performance ... Always understandable, that. John Milburn Seoul, Korea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:44:29 -0400 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com wrote: > there also are problems of who's responsible for what if two competing > companies share the same structure. Telcos and power utilities (and, more recently, cable companies) have been sharing street poles for decades, and they seem to work it out just fine. OK, maybe they aren't competing companies, but competing TV and radio stations also seem to manage to work out having antennas colocated on the same tower. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An interesting thing about having several broadcast antennas on the roof of the same building (for example the Hancock Building in Chicago or Sears Tower) is that when any one of them has to do antenna maintainence, all of them need to sign off the air. Not often, but now and again during the late night/ early morning hours I will hear an announcement on some Chicago area FM station that they are going to be off the air for a period of several minutes through a few hours for maintainence work. Invariably everyone else with an antenna in the same location goes off also. I wonder how that would apply if two or more cellular carriers were located on the same tower and either of them had some major repair to accomplish? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clifford Donley Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:00:57 -0400 Organization: DexPsi Bill Newkirk wrote: > John R. Levine wrote: >> sit on a large ugly tower on top of a hill, and siting them is very > First, drop out the emotional response - "ugly". it's a large tower. > They all pretty much look the same. Most people quit noticing 'em > about six months after construction is finished. >> large cell tower in a farmer's field. A lot of us don't see any >> reason they can't colocate with Cell One's tower across the lake.) I would go along with ugly if the ones he is seeing are similar to the ones that are being built along I-75 between Tampa and Ft Myers. In fact, I would call some of these particular ones, super ugly. And, in my eyes, the ones that really looked gross a year ago haven't become less gross through the passage of time. Cliff Please remove the spam-reducing-caps from my address: REMOVETHESEcdonley@southeast.net ^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ From: netking@dircon.co.uk (Colin Seymour) Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 21:47:29 GMT In article , Curtis Wheeler wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: >> In article , The Old Bear >> wrote: >>> More than 300 communities already have revolted, imposing moratoria >>> on cell tower construction, and the movement is growing. One of the UK service providers recently put up a cellular network tower disguised as a tree -- with fake plastic branches and leaves around the antennas. The Japanese used to disguise satellite dishes as chimneys. Colin Seymour 1Mb/s 2.45 GHz spread spectrum radio modems & digital video: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~netking/spread.htm The Tram Pages: http://www.he.net/~netking/trams.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #151 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 14 00:00:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA16357; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706140400.AAA16357@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #153 TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Jun 97 00:00:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: ESS Computer Architecture? (Al Varney) Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage (H. Schulzrinne) New Security Bug in All Netscape Browsers (Eric Florack) There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It, (Netly via M. Solomon) Another Spammer With an 800 Number (Thomas A. Horsley) 800 Spammers (Steven Lichter) Re: Spam Class Action Lawsuit (Lisa Hancock) 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: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: ESS Computer Architecture? Date: 13 Jun 1997 19:39:27 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > I'm a business application computer programmer (COBOL, BASIC, etc.) > and I always wondered what it was like to program Electronic Switching > Systems. I've seen articles describing the logical organization of > different ESS components, but nothing describing the programming > language itself that they use. Could anyone answer the following > questions? For some older ESS systems, look at: Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ), July-Aug 1965, Vol. XLIV, No. 6, "A Survey of Bell System Progress in Electronic Switching", by W. H. C. Higgins - shows some sample No. 1 ESS instructions/coding. BSTJ, Oct. 1969, entire issue, "No. 2 ESS", describes the assembler, loader, simulator and debugging tools, as well as some examples of the instruction set. BSTJ, Feb. 1977, entire issue "The 1A Processor", describes the processor used in both 1A ESS and 4ESS switches (now running the 1B processor, but with similar instruction set), although only two examples of the actual instruction set are presented. only brief Newer systems (5ESS-2000 switch) are programmed (mostly) in C and C++. > 1) What does the basic instruction set of an ESS look like? (This > would be equivalent to the Assembler language for the machine -- the > most basic programmable instructions.) I would assume they have the > usual LOAD, STORE, ADD computer instructions, but do they have > specialized instructions for call handling? That is, somehow the > switch has to be programmed to send out ringing current to the called > party, and a ringing signal to the calling party. Is this instruction > set unique to an ESS, or is it similar to other computers? For No. 1 ESS, 1A ESS, No. 2 ESS, No. 3 ESS and 4ESS switches, the instruction set is unique to the switching application. However, the instructions are NOT call-related ("turn on ringing"), since the CPU is just controlling a lot of interconnected peripheral equipment. Instead, the instructions tend to to optimized to "bit manipulation" and decision making -- which is mostly what call processing really is. The manipulation of hardware (relays, network connections, looking for off-hook) occurs through "peripheral orders", which send commands on and read external busses. Except for reliability and bus width, you could control any ESS with a sufficiently fast commercial CPU. As an example of the "decision-optimized" instruction, both #1 and 1A ESS have an instruction used in scanning loops that will initiate a new scan, compare the results of the previous scan to the last scan of the same equipment and set hardware conditions based on that comparison. When combined with a few test-and-transfer and counting instructions, this allows scanning to run basically at the rate supported by the external scanners. (Scanning is basically reading 16 bits representing the state of 16 current sensors specified by the scan instruction. Each bit typically represents the on-hook/off-hook state of a customer line, a trunk, a digit receiver, etc.) Another example is the "Find Right-Most One" instruction in #1 and 1A ESS. This instruction (TZRFZ in #1 ESS, F:T in 1A ESS) will transfer to the destination location if a particular register contains all zeros. If there is a least one "1-bit" in the register, the bit number of the right-most "1-bit" is written into another register. A variant of the instruction will set the right-most "1-bit" to a zero. This is efficient for maintaining bit-mapped structures defining busy/idle resources and paths through the switching fabric. No. 2 ESS has an equivalent "Right-Most Zero" instruction. This allowed easy transformation of control bits to table indexes. > 2) When they program an ESS, do they use the basic assembler language, > or do they have higher level languages to make it easier? If so, what > are the higher level languages like? No. 1 ESS, No. 2 ESS and No. 3 ESS were all programmed in assembler, using a customized version of the same macro assembler called SWAP. This had a powerful integrated macro/string manipulation capability (well beyond that provided by the C preprocessor). 1A ESS and 4ESS use a combination of assembler, EPL (a structured language integrated with SWAP) and EPLX (a PASCAL-like language). > 3) I assume the basic call handling is programmed by the switch > manufacturer. Settings for the application for the local exchange are > placed in by the phone company -- I assume the phone company does NOT > have to program the machine in native language. Is this correct? TELCos have two means of affecting switch operation. The primary means is by using commands to build "switch translations". These are the software structures that define line ports, telephone dialing patterns and trunk hunting rules, as well as indicators regarding the features associated with lines, trunks, hunt groups, etc. Think of it as filling in the blanks of lots of forms in Excel, where you can't change the formulas. A newer means is called Intelligent Network (IN or sometimes AIN), which allows TELCo to invoke an external database query at various points in call processing (end of dialing, dialing of certain digits, call termination attempts). The database can then tell the switch how to proceed, based on TELCo programming in the database. > 4) Do the various kinds of switches (ie AT&T current models, older > Western Electric models, Automatic Electric and DSS models) all use > the same or similar machine architecture, or are each proprietary? Each is proprietary. Brief examples of ESS assembler (this is from memory, so some error is likely to exist): No. 1 ESS: 37-bit instruction word, plus parity and 6 Hamming check bits WL 1024+7 # The instruction location word (1031) is loaded into the # L register (a load-immediate) - X'407' LOOP MK 6,X,PL # Use 6+contents of X reg as memory address, read it into # the "buffer" register, then set K equal to the "buffer" # logically-ORed with L (only bits 10, 2, 1 and 0 from # the buffer are written into K) HYM 10,XA,EL# Insert Y into the buffer using the mask in L, then write # buffer to location 0+X, then increment X. Simultaneously # shift (H) K 10 bits to the right. Only bit 10 and the # low 3 bits of Y are inserted into the buffer. The other # buffer bits remain from the previous read. TKAZ LOOP # Transfer to LOOP if K is zero. (i.e., until a 1-bit is # read from bit 10 of 6+X) 1A ESS: 24/48-bit instructions, 2-bit overlapped parity per 24-bit word LW L,1024+7 # Load a word (=1024+7) into the L register LOOP L K,6(X),PL # Load K with contents of address 6+X H:S 10:0(XA),EL # Same as No. 1 ESS (S=Store) IF:T K=AZ:LOOP # Same as No. 1 ESS Actually, native 1A ESS coders would probably eliminate the H:S shift replacing it with a Store (S) and then use: IF:T K(10)=LZ:LOOP testing bit 10 of K for a "logical zero" condition. No. 2 ESS: 10- and 22-bit instructions (used No. 1 ESS 44-bit storage, but treated it as two 22-bit words that could contain two 10-bit instructions or 1 22-bit instruction. This looks very much like vertical micro-code.) AAXLR # AA reg to L reg LRXGR # L reg to General reg GT 14 # Test if G > 14 FIL LOOP # (Load bits 5-9 of the address of LOOP into transfer reg) TCNS LOOP # Transfer if test was "not-set" (non-zero) # Conditional transfers could only specify the low 5 bits # of the destination label. # The FIL is needed if the # address of LOOP differed from the address of the TCNS # other than in the low 5 bits. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 20:56:57 -0400 Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national ISPs: MCI has 304 numbers in the US; IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada. Any guesses/estimates/... for others (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)? Thanks, Henning Schulzrinne email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu Dept. of Computer Science phone: +1 212 939-7042 Columbia University fax: +1 212 666-0140 New York, NY 10027 URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:36:29 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: New Security Bug in All Netscape Browsers NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all versions of Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet browser software -- including the final test version of its Communicator Suite released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a Danish software firm, CNNfn has learned. The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100 miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC logged on to the Web site. After the firm reported the bug to CNN Financial News, CNNfn and PC Magazine tested the bug by creating and storing a document on a PC's hard drive in New York. Seconds later, the Danish company read it. As further proof, CNNfn and PC Magazine created another document which the Danish company was also able to read. Larry Seltzer, technical director of PC Labs, was among those who helped verify the bug report. He said it would take a somewhat savvy computer user to exploit the bug. "They have to be seeking information from your system and they also have to know the file name. It's not that hard for somebody who's looking to make trouble, but they do have to be looking for it," Seltzer said. "It's serious in that it's in the [actual] browser ... whereas previous bugs generally required the user to have downloaded an additional product," Jim Wise, UNIX administrator for CNNfn, said. CNNfn's test showed that Internet security firewalls offer no protection from the bug. Mike Homer, vice president of marketing for Netscape, said the company takes this and all bug reports seriously. The Danish company says the reward of $1,000 and a T-shirt is "insultingly low" considering the extent to which the bug report is likely to worry Netscape users. Cabocomm said it would accept "reasonable compensation" for the technical information -- or they can send a Netscape representative to Cabocomm and get it for free. CNNfn, PC Magazine and the Danish company will not release technical details on the bug until Netscape has prepared a bug fix. The reason CNNfn is not reporting the specifics of the bug is to avoid anyone exploiting it. Until the bug is fixed, confidential letters, business spreadsheets -- everything on your PC -- can potentially be pilfered. The Danish company says it won't exploit the bug, but has no idea if someone else has found the same bug and is compromising a system's integrity. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:53:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It, from Netly Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:28 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: FC: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly ************** http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html The Netly News June 12, 1997 Privacy? What Privacy? by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information if you let it leave your computer. That's your responsibility. So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that want the government to bar firms from collecting information about your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry of self-regulatory proposals. [...] Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right, but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a preference: Some people want more of it than others. Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms. But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all, journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry writes. [...] Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Another Spammer With an 800 Number Date: 13 Jun 1997 19:33:22 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I usually ignore one spam, but when I start getting multiple copies I get a little peeved, so for for those of you who are anxious to call and inquire about the fine products advertised by spammers, while keeping in mind that intentional harrasment is a crime, here is another wonderful spam I pass along for you. Reply-To: GODBLESS@imall.it.earthlink.net Received: from imall.it.earthlink.net ([204.250.46.19]) by mtigwc01.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA18072 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:54:03 +0000 Received: from imall.it.earthlink.net ([206.156.104.52]) by imall.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11263; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.voodoocom by voodoo (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA03205 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:46:11 -0600 (EST) Message-ID: <777777mkt0777@voodoo4u.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is X-PMFLAGS: 128 0 X-UIDL: 77707770777622830277809784529777 From: Papa_George@imall.it.earthlink.net To: voodoo4u@4u.com Subject: *** VOODOO SPELLS by Papa George *** Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 22:46:11 +0000 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The lengthy message from this person has been deleted. Basically it appears he claims to be a Witch Doctor with the ability to practice Voodoo and cast spells on your enemies. Perhaps if you ask nicely he will cast a spell on Scamford or practice some sort of Voodoo Black Magic on spammers -- himself excluded of course. If you wish to correspond with him or his sysadmin the address is noted above, however he invites telephone calls as noted below in the last paragraph of his message. PAT] ---------------- Call 1-800-958-6636. The best time is between 12 noon to 10 PM Central Time - daily. God Bless! Papa George ------------------------------ From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter) Subject: 800 Spammers Date: 12 Jun 1997 22:54:15 -0700 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN AD FOR THE TRASH LISTED!!!! In an effort to help you learn about new products on the Internet that include 800/888 numbers so you don't have to pay for the call or waste postage. The following numbers will allow you to find out about all kinds of junk that these fools have to sell or scam you: 800-365-1999 800-966-5797 software in place that blocks most of the major Spam factory sites, but I have on address that is open to any fool that wants to spam it and if they include an 800 number or Fax number so that they can be reached I'll post it. *****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. I ALSO DON'T BUY FROM BULK E-MAILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, harassment on the phone is illegal, and for best results, place those calls from a payphone at the bus station or on some street corner. If you walk away and leave the phone off hook, forgetting to hang up, then I suppose it will just disconnect on its own eventually, or maybe not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Spam Class Action Lawsuit Date: 13 Jun 1997 03:06:56 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS I'm now getting my share of SPAM email, plus some of my Usenet groups are filled with fairly sexually offensive sales pitches I have to wade through. But in order to stop SPAM, I think we need to better understand where it's coming from and what legal and technical responses are appropriate, without unfairly burdening the ISPs or 'net users. Some questions about SPAM ... > You might be glad to hear that an ISP down in Texas has not only > received a temporary restraining order against Cyber Promotions, but > that they are also preparing to file a class action suit against Cyber Is Cyper/Sanford Wallace the only principle generator of spam on the Internet? Does he send out both email and Usenet? If he isn't the only one, then the others have to be identified. I wonder if some SPAMS are actually malicious vandalism, where the name and address of someone you want to harrass is placed as the "advertiser". BTW, whatever was the result of that massive emailing not too long ago advertising sex, that supposedly "originated" in Queens, NYC? Did they ever find out what that really was about, where it came from? > It's a pretty good story that explains how a forged e-mail address on In order to "hook up" to the Internet (that is, to become an Internet Service Provider with an assigned official location address), does one have to agree to any sort of rules or conventions? Aren't there some rules to protect the integrity of the network so some idiot doesn't accidently (or intentionally) shoot out megabytes worth of garbage? Anyway, I wonder if such rules, if any, need to be upgraded, with as a minimum, stuff sent out is properly identified as to origin. (I am not familiar with the mechanics of the Internet.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, so Scamford is going to now rely on > the sysadmin excuse of the ages: "I have no control over my users and > what they do ..." Since it has served sysadmins well over the years as > a way to let users wreck the net, maybe it will work for him also. I have mixed feelings about this. Online service falls between being a common carrier like the phone company and being merely a conduit for messaging, and a publisher or bookstore which is selling content. I don't think it's reasonable to expect an online service provider censor every message posted on their system for taste and lawfulness. What's utterly offensive to me may be desirable entertainment to you. But I do think ISPs should keep an eye on their system, and if they do receive a complaint about content, they have a responsibility to check it out and take action if necessary. If they learn a subscriber is using their system as a base point to transit kiddie-porn, stolen credit card numbers, or other clearly illegal items, then they have a responsibility to cancel that user because the user is violating the law. Because of the harassing nature and expense of SPAM, I would throw it in the same category as objectionable material. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #153 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 15 12:55:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA05760; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:55:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706151655.MAA05760@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #154 TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Jun 97 12:55:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Country Codes History (updated 6 June 1997) (David Leibold) 54th UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin) 626 Area Code in Effect (Tad Cook) Active X Control For Dialogic Boards (Chris Dupuy) 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, 13 Jun 1997 23:58:38 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Country Codes History (updated 6 June 1997) Country Codes History 6 June 1997 David Leibold (aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca) This is an attempt to trace the development of ITU's (formerly CCITT's) country codes assignments. Information was gleaned from vintage ITU/CCITT "Books" (i.e. the Recommendations which are the international telecommunications standards), and whatever else was available. There will be numerous details to be filled in (dates of changes, introductions, circumstances etc). Additional, corrected or updated information to this end would be welcome. Document History... 10 December 1995 - inaugural edition 6 June 1996 - updates courtesy Geoff Capp, Ray Chow, Mark Cuccia, Gary Novosielski, Dik Winter - a few more details as they were found 6 June 1997 - corrections from Geoffrey Dyer - changes due to ex-USSR and Czech/Slovak developments with data adapted from an ex-USSR profile (those details courtesy Toby Nixon, ITU, Stentor (Canada), CRTC (Canada), Telecom Digest (including information collected for the country code listings). - Marc Zirnheld - detail on new Monaco country code. --------- Format... --------- This file is ordered first by time (when country codes were established, changed, deleted, etc) then within each particular time by country code. The initial list of 1964 is shown; only the changes are listed therafter. ------- 1 9 6 0 ------- The 1960 CCITT Red Book featured a list of country codes for Europe that was the precursor for the international telephone country code assignments. Whether this was ever available for subscriber use is unknown; this could have been intended for operator dialing rather than customer dialing. That list went as follows (* represents a code that remains in use in today's country code plan): 00 to 19 - special codes - special routings, semi-automatic services, direct routes between countries, situations where digits of a destination number are not analysed, etc. 20 - Poland 21 - Algeria (Fr.) [* today is 213] 22 - Belgium 23 - Austria 24 - (unassigned) 25 - Finland 26 - Arabia 27 - Cyprus 28 - Bulgaria 29 - Gibraltar 30 - Greece * 31 - Egypt (U.A. Rep.) 32 - (unassigned) 33 - France * 34 - Israel 35 - Hungary 36 - Turkey 37 - Lebanon 38 - Norway 39 - Italy * 40 - Libya 41 - Jordan 42 - Portugal 43 - Malta 44 - Great Britain * 45 - (unassigned) 46 - Sweden * 47 - Rumania 48 - Morocco 49 - Germany * [presumably West Germany at that time] 50 - Spain 51 - (unassigned) 52 - Ireland 53 - (unassigned) 54 - Syria (U.A. Rep.) 55 - Netherlands 56 - (unassigned) 57 - Czechoslovakia 58 - (unassigned) 59 - Albania 60 - Luxembourg 61 - Denmark 62 - Tunisia 63 - Yugoslavia 64 - Iceland 65 - (unassigned) 66 - Switzerland 67 - (unassigned) 68, 69 - USSR 70 to 79 - European Republics / USSR 80 to 89 - spare codes 90 to 99 - intercontinental traffic Note from Dik Winter regarding 60-Luxembourg: "At least this country code has been used in the Netherlands (but at the same time the country code used for Belgium was 32). That must have been in the early sixties indeed. I do not have parts of a phone book showing it, I have only parts of Amsterdam phone books and when direct dialling from Amsterdam to Luxembourg was allowed much later the country code was changed to 352 as it is now, but I have noted it down from another Dutch phone book (presumably that of the province of Zeeland)." ------- 1 9 6 4 ------- The 1964 CCITT Blue Book listed the initial country codes list for international dialing, arranging the codes according to their world zones. These corresponded to the initial digit of the one- to three-digit country codes; Europe got two zones (3 & 4) due to a high number of countries requiring two-digit country codes. The initial listing was referred to as Recommendation E.29. That initial country code list was as follows (country codes not listed were spare at the time): World Zone 1 (North America - country code 1 - note some of the nations that were to be included, but were since assigned World Zone 5 country codes): Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, French Antilles, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, USA, US Virgin Islands. World Zone 2 (Africa): 20 - United Arab Republic 21 - Maghreb (integrated numbering plan): Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia 220 - Gambia 221 - Senegal 222 - Mauritania 223 - Mali 224 - Guinea 225 - Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) 226 - Upper Volta 227 - Niger 228 - Togolese Republic 229 - Dahomey 231 - Liberia 232 - Sierra Leone 233 - Ghana 234 - Nigeria 235 - Chad 236 - Central African Republic 237 - Cameroon 238 - Cape Verde Island 239 - St Thomas & Prince 241 - Gabon 242 - Congo (Brazzaville) 243 - Congo (Leopoldville) 244 - Angola 245 - Portuguese Guinea 249 - Sudan 250 - Rwanda 251 - Ethiopia 252 - Somalia 253 - French Somaliland 254 - Kenya 255 - Tanzania 256 - Uganda 257 - Burundi 258 - Mozambique 260 - Northern Rhodesia 261 - Malagasy Republic 262 - Reunion 263 - Southern Rhodesia 264 - Territory of SW Africa 265 - Malawi 266 - Basutoland 267 - Bechuanaland 268 - Swaziland 269 - Comores 27 - South Africa World Zone 3 & 4 (Europe): 30 - Greece 31 - Netherlands 32 - Belgium 33 - France 34 - Spain 350 - Gibraltar 351 - Portugal 352 - Luxembourg 353 - Ireland 354 - Iceland 356 - Malta 357 - Cyprus 36 - Turkey 37 - [Note: not assigned until 1966] 38 - Yugoslavia 39 - Italy 401 - Finland 402 - Hungary 403 - Bulgaria 404 - Romania 405 - Albania 41 - Switzerland 42 - Czechoslovakia 43 - Austria 44 - Great Britain 45 - Denmark 46 - Sweden 47 - Norway 48 - Poland 49 - Germany (West) World Zone 5 (South America): (50, 51, 52 - unassigned in 1964) 53 - Cuba 54 - Argentina 55 - Brazil 56 - Chile 57 - Colombia 58 - Venezuela 591 - Bolivia 592 - British Guiana 593 - Ecuador 594 - French Guiana 595 - Paraguay 596 - Peru 597 - Surinam (Netherlands) 598 - Uruguay Zone 6 (Oceania, Australia, etc): 60 - Malaysia 61 - Australia 62 - Indonesia 63 - Philippines 64 - New Zealand 65 - (unassigned in 1964 - Singapore was part of Malaysia) 66 - Thailand 672 - Portuguese Timor 675 - Papua New Guinea 676 - Tonga 677 - British Solomon Isles 678 - New Hebrides 679 - Fiji 682 - Guam 683 - Western Samoa 684 - American Samoa 685 - Cook Islands 687 - New Caledonia 688 - Niue 689 - French Polynesia 69 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 7 - USSR (only country code 7) World Zone 8 - Eastern Asia 80 - (unassigned in 1964) 81 - Japan 82 - Korea 83 - (unassigned in 1964) 84 - Vietnam 852 - Hong Kong 853 - Macao 855 - Cambodia 856 - Laos 86 - China 87 - (unassigned in 1964) 88 - (unassigned in 1964) 89 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 9 (Western Asia, Middle East): 90 - (unassigned in 1964) 91 - India 92 - Pakistan 93 - Afghanistan 94 - Ceylon 95 - Burma 961 - Lebanon 962 - Jordan 963 - Syria 964 - Iraq 965 - Kuwait 966 - Saudi Arabia 967 - Yemen 969 - Aden 972 - Israel 975 - Hadramut 977 - Nepal 98 - Iran ------- 1 9 6 8 ------- Changes in the 1968 CCITT White Book... the list was then titled Recommendation E.161 / Q.11. Changes listed in order of country code: 1 - Antigua (territory added) - Barbados (territory added) - British Virgin Islands (territory added) - Cayman Islands (territory added) - Dominica (territory added) - Grenada (territory added) - Montserrat (territory added) - St Kitts (territory added) - St Lucia (territory added) - St Pierre & Miquelon (territory added) - St Vincent (territory added) x Guatemala (CHANGED to country code 500) x Mexico (CHANGED to country code 52) x Netherlands Antilles (CHANGED to country code 599) 240 - Equitorial Guinea (NEW) 243 - Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) (Name change) 259 - Zanzibar (NEW) 260 - Zambia (Name Change) 263 - Rhodesia (Name Change) 266 - Lesotho (Name Change) 267 - Botswana (Name Change) 269 - Comoro Islands (Name Change) 355 - Albania (NEW - changed from 405) 358 - Finland (NEW - changed from 401) 359 - Bulgaria (NEW - changed from 403) 36 x Turkey (CHANGED to 90) 36 - Hungary (NEW - changed from 402) 37 - East Germany (added - announced in ITU Notification #980 of 10 March 1966) 40 - Romania (NEW - changed from 404) 500 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 1) 52 - Mexico (NEW - changed from 1) 599 - Netherlands Antilles (NEW - changed from 1) 65 - Singapore (NEW - became independent of Malaysia 60 code) 681 - Wallis and Futuna (NEW) 686 - Gilbert & Ellice Islands (NEW) 90 - Turkey (NEW - changed from 36) 968 - Sultanate of Muscat & Oman (NEW) 969 - Southern Yemen (Name Change) 971 - Trucial States (NEW) 973 - Bahrain (NEW) 974 - Qatar (NEW) 976 - Mongolia (NEW) [Notes: ITU Notifications 992, 995 and 998 of 1967 announced the new country codes 968 (Muscat & Oman), 971 (Trucial States), 974 (Qatar); ITU Notification #984 of 10 July 1966 announced 973 (Bahrain). No official reasons were found for the many country changes between 1964 and 1968 information.] ------- 1 9 7 2 ------- Changes in the 1972 Green Book for E.161/Q.11: World Zone 1: 1 x British Honduras (CHANGED to 501) x Costa Rica (CHANGED to 506) x El Salvador (CHANGED to 503) x Honduras (CHANGED to 504) x Nicaragua (CHANGED to 505) x Panama (CHANGED to 507) 21 x "Maghreb" integrated numbering plan divided into separate country code assignments that follows ... 210 - Morocco 211 - Morocco 212 - Morocco [only this country code used today for Morocco] 213 - Algeria [only this country code used today for Algeria] 214 - Algeria 215 - Algeria 216 - Tunisia [only this country code used today for Tunisia] 217 - Tunisia 218 - Libya [only this country code used today for Libya] 219 - Libya 243 - Zaire (Name Change) 253 - Afars Alssas (Fr. Terr) (Name Change) 500 x (CHANGED to 502) 501 - British Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 502 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 500) 503 - El Salvador (NEW - was in 1) 504 - Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 505 - Nicaragua (NEW - was in 1) 506 - Costa Rica (NEW - was in 1) 507 - Panama (NEW - was in 1) 51 - Peru (NEW - changed from 596) 596 x Peru (CHANGED to 51) 671 - Guam (NEW - changed from 682) 682 x Guam (CHANGED to 671) ------- 1 9 7 6 ------- >From 1976 Orange Book: 248 - Seychelles (NEW) 509 - Haiti (NEW) 590 - Guadeloupe (NEW) 596 - Martinique (NEW - originally assigned to Peru) 673 - Brunei (NEW) 674 - Nauru (NEW) 87x - (NEW - reserved for mobile/maritime assignments) 880 - Bangladesh (NEW) 978 - Dubai (UAE) (NEW) 979 - Abu Dhabi (UAE) (NEW) ------- 1 9 8 0 ------- >From Yellow Book 1980: 253 - Djibouti (Name Change) 672 x (Portugues Timor DELETED - presumably merged into +62) 682 - Cook Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guam) 683 x Western Samoa (CHANGED to 685) 683 - Niue (NEW - changed from 688) 685 x Cook Islands (CHANGED to 682) 685 - Western Samoa (NEW - changed from 683) 686 - Gilbert Is. (Ellice withdrew from the single British colony of Gilbert & Ellice in 1975 - see also +688) 688 x Niue (CHANGED to 683) 688 - Tuvalu (NEW - Ellice Is. withdrew from Gilbert & Ellice in 1975, then became independent Tuvalu 1 Oct 1978 - see also +686) 960 - Maldives (NEW) 978 x (Dubai DELETED - presumably merged into +971) 979 x (Abu Dhabi DELETED - presumably merged into +971) [Notes: Few reasons were found for shuffling the 6xx series country codes. Regarding deletions of 978 (Dubai) and 979 (Abu Dhabi), these probably became part of 971 (UAE, originally listed as "Trucial States"). Note from Dik Winter regarding Dubai and Abu Dhabi: "I have information from a British phone book of 1982, at that time the UK still used 978 and 979 for Dubai and Abu Dhabi. And given the area codes at that time (according to that information) integration would have been impossible. Integration within 971 came later together with area code changes."] ------- 1 9 8 4 ------- >From 1984 book: 1 x St Pierre & Miquelon (CHANGED to 508) 246 - Diego Garcia (NEW) 298 - Faroe Islands (Denmark) (NEW) 299 - Greenland (Denmark) (NEW) 500 - Falkland Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guatemala) 508 - St Pierre and Miquelon (NEW - was in 1) 670 - Marianna Islands, including Saipan (NEW) 672 - Australian Territories (NEW - originally assigned to Portuguese Timor) 680 - Palau (NEW) 690 - Tokelau (NEW) 691 - Federated States of Micronesia (NEW) 692 - Marshall Islands (NEW) 850 - North Korea (NEW - South Korea retains 82) ------------------- A f t e r 1 9 8 4 ------------------- The following country codes were added, changed, had country names changes, or were otherwise noteworthy since 1984. Dates were included if they were available. Currently, country codes are presently assigned under Recommendation E.164 (formerly E.163, in turn E.161/Q.11, in turn E.29). Note that some changes listed here took effect before the 1984 lists. This may be due to various factors such as UN recognition of nations, official country name changes, the process of updating the Recommendation, or perhaps overlooking a change listed in a CCITT book prior to 1984. 226 - Burkina Faso (Name Change on 4 Aug 1984) 229 - Benin (Name Change from Dahomey upon 1975 independence from France) 230 - Mauritius (NEW - year of introduction unknown - this has appeared in the late 1970s) 239 - Sao Tome & Principe (Name Change or use of domestic language form) 245 - Guinea-Bissau (Name Change as of 1974 independence) 247 - Ascension (NEW - year of introduction unknown - ca. 1984-87) 259 - Zanzibar (although assigned in 1968, routing via Tanzania country code 255 had been in effect for many years, and may still be in effect) 261 - Madagascar (Name Change from Malagasy Rep.) 263 - Zimbabwe (Name Change from Rhodesia as of 18 Apr 1980) 264 - Namibia (Name Change from Territory of SW Africa as of 21 Mar 1990) 269 - Comoros & Mayotte (Name Change - Geoff Capp noted that Mayotte is part of the Comoro island group. Mayotte alone chose to remain French when the other islands chose independence 1974-75. Mayotte was the first of the islands to become direct-dialable, and took +269. For Canada, at least, the other Comoros were assigned a 0XX Mark code until they became diallable in the late 1980s/early 1990s.) 290 - St Helena (NEW - year of introduction unknown - late 1980s) 291 - Eritrea (NEW - seceded from Ethiopia in 1993) 295 - San Marino (NEW then CHANGED - was assigned, but became 378) 296 - Trinidad/Tobago (apparently assigned then removed) 297 - Aruba (NEW - became autonomous of Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 1986 - dates of country code assignment and implementation are unknown) 37 - East Germany (DELETED - with German reunification, numbers are under country code 49 now as of mid-1991) 370 - Lithuania (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 371 - Latvia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 372 - Estonia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 373 - Moldova (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 374 - Armenia (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 1 May 1995; this was split from country code 7) 375 - Belarus (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 376 - Andorra (Principality of) (NEW - in effect Dec. 1994; formerly reached via France (33)) 377 - Monaco (Principality of) (NEW - in effect by 21 June 1996; formerly reached via France (33)) 378 - San Marino (NEW - split from Italy 39; formerly assigned 295) 379 - Vatican City (NEW - implementation dates/details unknown; formerly reached via Italy (39)) 38 - Yugoslavia (DELETED - 1 Oct 1993, due to Yugoslav break-up) 380 - Ukraine (NEW - announced Jan. 1995; in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 381 - Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslav areas) (NEW - formed from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 385 - Croatia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 386 - Slovenia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 387 - Bosnia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 389 - Macedonia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 41 - Liechtenstein (probably always was part of Switzerland system (country code 41). Liechtenstein posts and ports were handled by Austria until 1921.) 42 - (Czech & Slovak Republics now separate - country code remains for now) 501 - Belize (Name Change - was British Honduras until ca. 1972) 592 - Guyana (Name Change - was British Guiana until 1966 independence) 678 - Vanuatu (Name Change - was New Hebrides until 30 July 1980 indep.) 686 - Kiribati (Name Change - was Gilbert Is. until 1979; not listed as such in ITU list until 1984 book) 800 - International "freephone" services (NEW - as of 1995; service is becoming active internationally as of 1997) 870 - Inmarsat "SNAC" service (NEW - as of 1995; no word on when this service will become active) 871 - Inmarsat Atlantic East (NEW - originally assigned to all of Atlantic) 872 - Inmarsat Pacific (NEW) 873 - Inmarsat Indian (NEW) 874 - Inmarsat Atlantic West (NEW - formed from split of 871 Atlantic) 878 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 879 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 886 - Taiwan (Mainland China has reserved +86-6 for access to Taiwan; however Taiwan given +886 for access, while +86 routes to mainland) 94 - Sri Lanka (Name Change - was Ceylon until 22 May 1972) 95 - (Current regime refers to itself as Myanmar; some nations only recognise it as Burma.) 967 - Yemen Arab Republic (Name Change?) 968 - Oman (Name Change - shortened from Muscat & Oman as of July 1970) 969 - Yemen Democratic Republic (DELETED? With Yemen unification, 967 would be the single country code; this territory was formerly called Aden. The Aden capital was found to have country code 967 ca. 1991) 971 - United Arab Emirates (Name Change - Trucial States merged 2 Dec 1971 to become U.A.E.) 975 - Bhutan (NEW - was assigned to Hadramut which joined South Yemen) 994 - Azerbaijan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7)) 995 - Georgia (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7)) 996 - Kyrgyz Republic (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7)) Note from Ray Chow regarding 975-Bhutan (formerly Hadramut): "Hadramut (or Qu'aiti State in Hadhramaut as printed on its stamps) was a state which later joined Aden to form South Yemen (the "People's Democratic Republic of Yemen"). Bhutan is a small country between India and Tibet (east of Nepal and Sikkim). Evidently it got country code 975 some time after Hadramut became part of South Yemen." Note from Ray Chow regarding former USSR territories (7, 3xx, 9xx): "It's interesting that of the three Caucasus republics that split from code 7, only Armenia got a "European" (3xx) code. Georgia and Azerbaijan are also in Europe (at least according to my maps), but telephonically are in Asia. For that matter, I see from your list that Turkey, a small part of which is in Europe, started with a European code and ended up with an Asian one." Bob Goudreau's response to above: "Actually, according to the geography texts and maps I've seen (e.g., the recent _National_Geographic_ map of Europe), the usual definition of the boundary between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus is the ridge-line of the northernmost range of mountains. Thus, almost all of this area is geographically part of Asia. Georgia and Azerbaijan have small bits that lie in Europe (as, surprisingly, does Kazakstan (note new post-Soviet spelling)), but Armenia lies entirely in Asia. It is thus ironic that it is the only one of the three that received a European country code." ------ 1996-7 ------ 388 - European Telephony Numbering Space (expected to be officially assigned, if not already - in use by January 1999) 42 x Czechoslovakia (DELETED - 28 February 1997; split to 420, 421 reflecting the now-separate Czech and Slovak Republics) 420 - Czech Republic (NEW - split from 42 on 28 February 1997) 421 - Slovak Republic (NEW - split from 42 on 28 February 1997) 878 - Universal Personal Telecommunications (NEW - replaces code that was reserved for national mobile purposes) 881 - Global Mobile Satellite System (NEW - uncertain which specific GMSS project this refers to - Iridium?) 888 - reported unavailable for assignment - reason not widely known although it is speculated that this reflects recent use of 888 for toll-free services in North America 992 - Tajikistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7). Assigned 1996-7?) 993 - Turkmenistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7), generally in service by 3 Jan 1997). 998 - Uzbekistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7), Assigned 1996?) ------------------------------------- F u t u r e D e v e l o p m e n t s ------------------------------------- There were reports in the fall of 1995 that country code +388 was sought by European interests for European-wide services. The ITU Study Group 2 had approved this assignment during a meeting in San Francisco in January 1996 (according to OFTEL Numbering Bulletin (UK)). As of 1997, European sources indicate that the European Telephony Numbering Space (+388) is planned to be in service by January 1999. Hong Kong will join China in 1997. When, or if, Hong Kong's telephone network will adopt China's country code of 86 is unknown at this time. Kazakstan is the only ex-USSR republic that does not have a known separate country code assignment at this writing. Russia will likely retain country code 7. [end of document] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: 54th UCLA Engineering and Management Program Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 15:58:51 -0700 September 14-19, 1997, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for experienced first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals with high advancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Beckman Instruments, Amgen, Telegenics, Rockwell, Davidson & Associates, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses. The program fee of $2,095 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For additional information and a complete program booklet, please contact Beverly Croswhite at: Phone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815 e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses ------------------------------ Subject: 626 Area Code in Effect Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:11:56 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Area code for parts of San Gabriel Valley, Glendale changes to 626 LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The San Gabriel Valley got a new area code on Saturday as the result of a skyrocketing demand for 818 phone numbers. The new 626 code includes the cities of South Pasadena, Alhambra, Monterey Park, El Monte, La Puente, Covina, Glendora, Azusa, Monrovia, Sierra Madre, Mount Waterman and most of Pasadena. A very small section of Glendale also was affected. Customers in the San Gabriel Valley who have other area codes, such as 213, 909 or 562, will not be affected. While tens of thousands of residents must learn the new prefix, they won't see a change in the price of their calls. "Call distance determines call price," said California Code Administrator Doug Hescox. "What is a local call now will remain a local call regardless of the area code change." The 818 code will continue to be used by most people in Glendale, Burbank, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta and the San Fernando Valley. Hescox, who coordinates area code planning statewide for the telecommunications industry, said the affected neighborhood in Glendale is connected to a telephone wire center, a kind of electronic relay station, that will serve the greater San Gabriel Valley. "I think it's a pain," said Jana Hubanks, who does bookkeeping out of her family's Glendale home for her stepfather, a physician. "You have the same area code for so long, and they change it." "How do you fight it? It's just a fact of life," said Dennis Dunstan, who just had a new home and business line installed at his home. The 626 area code was proposed two years ago as the demand for new telephone numbers skyrocketed with the proliferation of home computers and faxes. In 1947, when area codes were first introduced, California had three area codes. By the end of 1998, the state will have a total of 23. Residents will have an eight-month period to get acquainted with the new 626 area code. During this period, people calling from outside the area can dial either the old 818 or new 626 code. Customers in the 818 or 626 area codes also can use seven-digit dialing during those eight months to reach customers between the two areas. ------------------------------ From: Chris Dupuy Subject: Active X Control For Dialogic Boards Date: 15 Jun 1997 01:01:50 GMT Organization: America.Net, Inc. Business Internet Solutions(TM) I am currently developing an Active X Dialogic Control. Of course most of the Functions that the Dialogic Boards Support will be included in the Active X. It is totaly Multi-Threaded, Non-Blocking Control (Asyncronous). You can use the control in Both Sync and ASync modes, and have the results reported to your application in one of two ways. If you are interested in helping test this control, and provide suggestions, please contact me at chris@scwi.com. The control supports up to 120 channels (when used with the dialogic 60 port boards). All that ACTIVELY participate will get a free unlimited development license, with no royalties. Currently the control is in the VERY EARLY stages, it only supports dialing, recording wavs or vox's, going on or off hook, playing messages, and getting digits. Chris Dupuy chris@scwi.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #154 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 17 09:24:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21776; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706171324.JAA21776@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #155 TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Jun 97 09:24:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes (Stanley Cline) Unloaded Switched Line For Modem? (Alan Sterger) Telephone Congestion Due to Internet (Jared Gottlieb) Summons Conference Calling (SCC) Service (scc@bellsouth.net) Book Review: "Children and the Internet" by Kehoe/Mixon (Rob Slade) Book Review: "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity" (Rob Slade) Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (F. Goldstein) Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (Peter Morgan) Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (Bob Savery) 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: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:39:11 GMT Organization: C3 Communications, Atlanta Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world -- spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs. Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it! The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way. THE HISTORY: * 1989 -- The "original" Atlanta metro local calling area wasn't all that big -- it only covered about ten whole counties and portions of several others (mainly because of COs straddling county lines.) * 1992 -- NPA 404 needed relief; NPA 706 was assigned. At first, the plan for 706 was to put everyone outside the "original" local calling area in 706 -- but there was mass unrest from the masses in border areas such as Cartersville and Gainesville, and the 404 area was increased to about a dozen more counties (including the rest of the ones already partly in 404.) Areas far from Atlanta, such as Dalton, Columbus, Augusta, the Chattanooga suburbs in Georgia, etc. got 706. The local calling area grew substantially -- it became all of NPA 404, as well as two small portions of Alabama [Fruithurst and Ranburne] served out of Georgia COs. * 1995 -- NPA 404 needed relief again, and NPA 770 was assigned to areas outside the Perimeter (Interstate 285), with a couple of exceptions. Again, all of NPA 404/770 was a single local area. A Pike County legislator passed a bill moving Concord and Zebulon, which were in NPA 706, into 770 -- but still staying outside of the metro calling area. Two areas in NPA 706 -- Braselton [which Kim Basinger bought, then sold] and Gay -- moved into the local calling area. * 1996 -- Jasper in Pickens County (NPA 706) was added to the local calling area. * 1997 -- The half of Big Canoe resort in Pickens County, the eastern fourth of Gordon County [mainly Fairmount] (all in NPA 706) and Concord and Zebulon (already in 770) became local. Relief is needed for NPA 770 -- the Georgia PSC is deciding what to do. An overlay (of BOTH 404 and 770!) seems the likely solution. So now, the local calling area for metro Atlanta is: * NPA 404 -- all * NPA 770 -- all * NPA 706 -- Braselton, Big Canoe [Pickens half], Fairmount/Ranger, Gay, Jasper * NPA 205 -- Fruithurst and Ranburne There are a few areas on the edges of the Atlanta area [such as Adairsville, Gainesville, etc.] that can call additional areas *not* local to the entire area. [For example, Adairsville and Kingston can call Rome as local, but no one else in the metro area can.] For the most part, the areas of local calling established in or before 1992 are not a problem -- they are all listed in the local phone books and are reachable from 95% of payphones, PBXs, etc. And people aren't afraid to call them for fear of toll charges (976 notwithstanding.) THE GRIPES: The areas established as "local" last year and this year (Jasper, Fairmount/Ranger, Big Canoe, and "Conc-Zeb" -- but Jasper in particular) remain a massive MESS. Specifically: * BellSouth and independent LECs refuse to provide "free" directories for, or "free" directory assistance calls in, the new areas. I have called BellSouth on several occasions requesting phone books for Jasper and Fairmount, which are LOCAL calls to me, and am told there *WILL BE A CHARGE* (~$12-15 EACH) for them! (This is in contrast to Tennessee and Louisiana where phone books for any local/EAS or even Area+/optional-local areas are FREE FOR THE ASKING. The LECs in all four "new" local areas refuse to provide free phone books to their non-customers. BS distributed NEW phone books in late April to most of metro Atlanta -- and JASPER WAS NOT INCLUDED, even though it has been local for OVER A YEAR! BellSouth *DOES* list numbers for other Alltel-served local areas (including Winder, Canton, and Monroe) in the metro phone books. (I didn't expect the Fairmount, Big Canoe, or Conc-Zeb areas to be in the new phone books, as they were added to the local calling area so recently.) There are no more free directory assistance calls in GA, either, so I can't get numbers for Jasper or the other new local areas AT ALL without either paying, or having to go to the public library to see old, microfiched copies of the areas' phone books. (I CAN still go to a payphone and call DA for free, but who knows how long that will last?) * 75-90% of COCOTs in the metro area do NOT allow local calling between the "1995" metro area, and the new areas. For example, tonight IN JASPER I visited six payphones -- TWO (one Alltel/LEC and one CCI) allowed "local-rate" calls to Atlanta -- four others wanted either more money ($1 for 3-4 minutes) or would not complete the calls at all [didn't recognize 10-digit dialing and/or new-format NPAs.] Hell, one didn't allow 10-digit, 1+ or 0+ dialing (even 800) at all, and a surly store clerk got p*ssed off at me for making an issue of it! In the core Atlanta area [including Marietta, Roswell, Conyers, etc.] I've visited innumerable payphones, and the vast majority (at least 75%) overcharge for or do not allow calls to the newly-added areas. Most phones *DO* allow "local-rate" calls to Concord and Zebulon in NPA *770*, but **DO NOT** allow Jasper or Fairmount (both in NPA *706*) as local! Some phones want calls to Jasper/Fairmount dialed as 1+, which DOES NOT WORK HERE! The main, if not EXCLUSIVE, reason for the COCOT problems is the different NPA! (Same crap exists with 800/888) * Businesses in the 706 areas still are paying for RCF/FX to areas in NPA 404 (or 770) to avoid confusing consumers (who may be afraid that 706 = toll, which IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE.) The worst example (BY FAR) is Jasper Jeep [one of the largest Jeep dealerships in the US] that advertises two numbers most of the time: "Atlanta 404-525-xxxx, Jasper 706-692-xxxx" Never mind that **JASPER IS LOCAL TO ATLANTA AS 706-692!** Would they do this if they were in Decatur, Marietta, or even Nelson [just down the road, in NPA 770?] I doubt it. * Some PBX owners don't recognize "anything in NPA 706" as local. The PBX where I work (MindSpring) DOES recognize all the 706 prefixes local to Atlanta as local -- but many others don't. Anyway -- the solution for most of the woes (confusion, PBXs, payphones) seems to be to move the local areas still in NPA 706 OUT of 706, and into whatever new NPA the area gets. (770 is *NOT* an option, simply because most if not all of the local 706 NXXs already exist in 770.) Leaving them in 706 almost certainly *WILL* mean their being treated as second-class calling areas for some time to come. I attended the Georgia PSC area code "public meeting" in Marietta last week, and voiced this opinion. Commission Chairman Stan Wise said that they were still considering what to do about the 706-local mess, but didn't give specifics. (I hope the NPA plan approved by the PSC -- to deal with 770 -- also deals with 706-local. That means OVERLAY of 404/770 with a new NPA, and the 706-local areas being realigned into the new NPA [or 770 if at all possible.]) (Chairman Wise expressed concern about losing regulatory control of COCOTs to the FCC and Telecom Act, too.) Further, I'm cranking out phone-in and written complaints by the boatload (as I always have) to the PSC and to COCOT owners, informing them of "bad" payphones, where "bad" = "706-local broken." And I have most of the problem COCOT owners listed on my web page, as well as a list of 706-local NXXs, for mass consumption. Payphones = http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/shame.html Local NXXs = http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/atlnxx.html This still doesn't address the phone-book/listing issue -- I have yet to complain to the PSC at all about it. Threatening BellSouth and Alltel with "PSC" [to get them to send free phone books] hasn't helped yet -- the PSC itself will probably have to intervene. I do NOT expect to HAVE to pay for listings for LOCAL areas, simply because of telcos' incompetence. Oh well... Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net (hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ **NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: sterger@primenet.com (Alan Sterger) Subject: Unloaded Switched Line For Modem? Date: 14 Jun 1997 21:53:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet I'm wondering if I can get an unloaded switched circuit from GTE in California to use with my Courier v.everthing? I'm 3.8 wire line miles from my CO. The response is rolling off the high end negating the highest capable symbol rate. In a data comm book I have it says, "It is possible to order a circuit without loading coils from the telephone company for short-distance direct connections or local loops; they are known as 43401 circuits (AT&T Specification 43401)." Is this what I want? Will GTE provision it? How much will it cost? Alan ------------------------------ From: jared@netspace.net.au (Jared Gottlieb) Subject: Telephone Congestion Due to Internet Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1997 20:18:57 +1000 Organization: Netspace Online Systems The 7 June {New Scientist} has a variant of the congestion theme in the Antipodes column: "The internet is always a source of interesting snippets about a range of subjects --i ncluding the Internet itself. I read a report by Brian Harmer last month about the popularity of the Internet in Taumarunui, a quiet little town south of Auckland. Apparently it is impossible to make long-distance calls to or from that town between about 3 p.m. and midnight most days as people hook up to their Internet Service Providers via 0800 numbers. Telecom in New Zealand is mildly embarrassed and says the number of lines into the town will be increased in August." ------------------------------ From: scc@bellsouth.net Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:57:40 EDT Subject: Summons Conference Calling (SCC) Service Are you or your company's executives frequent CONFERENCE CALLING users? If so, then why not try the premiere provider of full-service teleconferencing available today ... SUMMONS CONFERENCE CALLING ... ABSOLUTELY FREE. Conference calling is very important because you can bring together a large group of people (up to 500 users) in as little as 5 minutes and help reduce the skyrocketing cost of travel in today's world. It is great for sales meetings, board meetings, investor relations, etc... Our client list includes: * Major cellular and PCS providers * Fortune 500's * Major Financial advisors * MLM's and Network marketing companies * Major law firms * Numerous sales oriented companies SUMMONS offers a state-of-the-art service that is second to none. In addition we offer: * Low flat rate pricing (.21 to .38 per minute per person) * Rates up to 30% below AT&T, MCI, and Sprint * No per call setup fees * Private 800 #'s for custom greetings * Full service features (i.e..operators, Q&A, recordings, etc...) * Affinity programs for your group or association (earn discounts or commission for your group) * Full digital bridging quality * No contracts or minimums * No hassles Our service is that simple. To qualify for the $ 100 FREE TRIAL CALL simply call 1-800-306-2287 to setup your company account in only a few minutes. Even if you don't have a need at this time, call today to guarantee your $ 100 FREE TRIAL CREDIT or to learn more about us simply visit our WEB SITE at: http://www.summons.com Thanks for your time, Jim White Sales Manager P.S.*** Agent Inquiries Welcome *** If you have any questions or concerns you can write or call us at: Summons Conference Calling PO Box 942145 Atlanta, GA 31141 770-496-5767 (office) scc@bellsouth.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although the above is a commercial sales pitch I received unsolicited in the mail (i.e. spam) I thought it was sort of interesting. If anyone wants to investigate this service and write it up here, let me know. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:55 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Children and the Internet" by Kehoe/Mixon BKCHLINT.RVW 961216 "Children and the Internet", Brendan Kehoe/Victoria Mixon, 1997, 0-13-244674-X, U$24.95/C$34.95 %A Brendan Kehoe brendan@zen.org %A Victoria Mixon %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-244674-X %I Prentice Hall %O U$24.95/C$34.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 215 %T "Children and the Internet" Writing an Internet guide directed at use for children is more difficult than it seems. Children's interests are open-ended, so there is little to define topics to include and those to leave out. Most such books include a hodge- podge of sites, contacts, and points of trivia that usually leaves the reader cold. Following the minimalist style of Kehoe's "Zen and the Art of the Internet" (cf. BKZENINT.RVW) this book, paradoxically, provides more with less. Sticking to (kid) business, the book covers the basics, safety, getting connected, resources, the net in education, and case studies in four California schools. The material is practical and realistic, with reviews of Internet filtering software concentrating on how a particular program functions, and options for parental control. Case studies in the schools point out not only the fun of new resources, but the problems of plagiarism and so forth. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCHLINT.RVW 961216 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:30:00 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity" BKPCMGDC.RVW 961216 "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity", Frank J. Derfler Jr., 1995, 1-56276-274-5, U$34.95/C$48.95/UK#32.49 %A Frank J. Derfler Jr. %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1995 %G 1-56276-274-5 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$34.95/C$48.95/UK#32.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 471 %T "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity (3e)" While not flashy, and not overtly technical, this book *is* a very serviceable guide to communication for desktop computers. It covers the components, concepts, and concerns at a level that is right for the department manager or not-quite novice user. The book may appear dauntingly thick, and not quite as lavishly illustrated as its other Ziff-Davis kin, but it's probably easier to than it looks at first glance. The intent is to educate, and the reading level and tone are suitable to the task. You will not be able to set up your own network after reading this book, but you will be able to start designing what you want, and either talk intelligently to consultants, or direct your studies. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKPCMGDC.RVW 961216 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage Date: 16 Jun 1997 15:58:19 GMT Organization: BBN Corp. In article , schulzrinne@cs. columbia.edu says ... > Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need > to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I > imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should > be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national > ISPs: > MCI has 304 numbers in the US; > IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada. > Any guesses/estimates/... for others (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)? I have done this for clients ... of course the actual numbers are QUITE proprietary! What I can say in public: There a law of diminishing returns. There are dozens of local numbers with, say, a million or more people in the local area. There are, at the other extreme, thousands of rural exchange areas with only hundreds or low-thousands of people in their local calling area. Picking out the best mix is then hindered by which COs are any good; an ISP should do almost ANYTHING to avoid an analog switch! Figuring out the size of a calling area, in people, is not trivial. Just finding out what's a local call is tough enough (noting that CCMI has a costly database product and many libraries collect phone books). These often don't map to anything that a census lists, either. 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: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:50:50 +0100 In message Henning Schulzrinne writes: > Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need > to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I > imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should > be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national > ISPs: > MCI has 304 numbers in the US; > IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada. In the UK, the initial set of ISPs had this sort of problem too (made as more important by the fact every call _is_ charged, there are none of your "included" local calls), and some companies went to the trouble of setting up many PoPs (Demon, Easynet, Pipex, to name a few). Then BT (and following their lead, Mercury and Energis) offered a service they call "Populator" (or similar) which are for data connections only and offer national access (where the caller still pays for a "local" rate call) and either a flat fee per quarter per line (on a sliding scale depending on how many hundred lines) or with a large fee and then a pay as you go fee in addition (again, a sliding scale as the minutes/month increase). I guess some companies in N America could consider offering this on a State- wide basis (or by some other suitable geographic area) but I'm not sure how the charges would match up. The advantage for the ISP is that they have central modem banks, rather than perhaps having some concentrators dotted around, but in the UK the telcos get funds from both caller and ISP while in your situation, you may pay your ISP a bit more for this "free" access. Peter ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Re: Minimun Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:42:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 One good source of such information is the BoardWatch Directory of InterNet Service providers. They have listings (that include the info your looking for) that cover all the National backbone operators, the national ISP's and "over 17,500 InterNet Provider listings". They've recently expanded and started covering ISP's in other countries. DISCLAIMER: I don't work for Boardwatch ... just a happy reader of their Magazine. See Ya!! Bob Savery bob.savery@hawgwild.com Sysop - HawgWild! BBS HawgWild! BBS = (402) 597-2666 - Modem hawgwild.com - telnet www.hawgwild.com - World Wide Wait ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #155 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 18 09:06:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15533; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706181306.JAA15533@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #156 TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Jun 97 09:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Printed Directories and Local/EAS/Optional Calling Plans (Mark J. Cuccia) Some Questions and Comments Regarding Mexico (Mark J. Cuccia) New Edition of {Telecommunications Directory} Being Prepared (Nigel Allen) Historical Anecdote, was Re: Telephone Congestion to Internet (D. Burstein) Book Review: "The Internet Phone Connection" by Kirk (Rob Slade) Does Anyone Know About UP (Internet Access via Mobile)? (Rudy Torres) 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: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:41:25 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Printed Directories and Local/EAS/Optional Calling Plans In "Atlanta Metro Calling History", Stanley Cline wrote: > As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area > is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world -- > spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless > carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs. > Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it! > > The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and > calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way. > THE GRIPES: > The areas established as "local" last year and this year (Jasper, > Fairmount/Ranger, Big Canoe, and "Conc-Zeb" -- but Jasper in > particular) remain a massive MESS. Specifically: > * BellSouth and independent LECs refuse to provide "free" directories > for, or "free" directory assistance calls in, the new areas. I have > called BellSouth on several occasions requesting phone books for > Jasper and Fairmount, which are LOCAL calls to me, and am told there > *WILL BE A CHARGE* (~$12-15 EACH) for them! (This is in contrast to > Tennessee and Louisiana where phone books for any local/EAS or even > Area+/optional-local areas are FREE FOR THE ASKING. Stan, an *excellent* submission as usual, pointing out problems and inconsistancies in today's confused telco industry and regulatory environment! A minor point of correction here regarding BellSouth in Louisiana ... I have BellSouth's "Area-Plus" plan which 'flat-rates' the entire optional LOS bands outside of the 'traditional' local/EAS dialing area. Depending on the location of your wirecenter (and ratecenter), you have a 'first' outer-ring which is 'capped' at $15.00 per month of calls, and a 'second' outer-ring which is UN-capped. The clock keeps ticking up charges on calls to that second outer-ring, but the per-minute rates are *HIGHLY* discounted. Of course, the LOS/Area-Plus optional charging/dialing plans are only for calls within your LATA. In Louisiana, if one is an LOS or Area-Plus subscriber, they can get *FREE* BellSouth printed directories, but *ONLY* those published by BellSouth. Some of these directories might include some communities served by independent telcos, but the directories are published by Bell. By simply calling the local (Louisiana) BellSouth Business Office, I have been able to get (for free) all of the BellSouth printed directories which cover my LOS/Area-Plus plan. But I was told that I had to call up BellSouth Directory Sales (a toll-free 800/888 number in either Birmingham or Atlanta) if I wished to *PURCHASE* the printed directories published by the independent telcos, even for communities in my optional billing/dialing plan. There are only two independent telcos in my LATA, and both serve communities which are LOS/Area-Plus to my "Seabrook" wirecenter and New Orleans ratecenter. The price for these directories was something between $20.00 and $30.00! (ouch). However, I called up the business office of each independent telco, and was asked for my mailing address and how many copies of their directories I wanted. Of course, I only needed one copy each. They both told me that there was NO charge for their directories! Each independent telco told me the months that their directories were revised/printed, so that I could call them again for their most recent edition! And each independent telco seemed *QUITE* proud of the local artwork designs on the cover of their directories. The independent telcos are the Reserve Telephone Company (ratecenters / wirecenters of Reserve LA and Garyville LA), and the Lafourche Telephone Company aka LATELCO - which serves the lower/southern half of Lafourche Parish (county) and the rate/wire-centers of Grand Isle LA (actually in Jefferson Parish/county), Leeville LA, Galliano LA, Golden Meadow LA, Cut-Off LA, and LaRose LA. BTW, LaTelCo in LaRose LA provides its own 411 directory and '0' TOPS operators, separate from BellSouth, altho' LaTelCo's territory is in the New Orleans LATA. Reserve Telco is only a 'local exchange' provider with no operator services (neither local/toll assistance nor information/directory) of their own. Some of the history of the printed New Orleans area directories ... For decades, Bell (Southern Bell until 1968, South Central Bell from 1968 through 1995, and now BellSouth since 1995) has printed a metro New Orleans directory listing all exchanges/wirecenters in the New Orleans ratecenter (which covers communities of virtually all of Orleans Parish, most all of Jefferson Parish, Chalmette/Arabi/etc. in St.Bernard Parish, and Belle Chase in extreme north Plaquemines Parish), the wirecenter(s) in the Kenner LA ratecenter in Jefferson Parish - which is 'EAS' with New Orleans, and the old "Community Dial Office" rate/wirecenters of Lake Catherine LA (extreme eastern Orleans Parish), St.Bernard/Delacroix/Ysclowsky LA (lower St.Bernard Parish), Jesuit-Bend LA (north Plaquemines Parish), Lafitte LA (in Jefferson Parish) which are all EAS with New Orleans. In addition, Bell has *also* published two 'community' or 'regional' directories for communities of the West Bank area of New Orleans Metro (whether in Plaquemines Parish, Orleans Parish or Jefferson Parish), and the Kenner/River-Parishes directory (which includes the rate/wirecenter of Kenner/Harahan which is EAS with New Orleans, and the rate/wirecenters serving communities further up the river which are EAS with Kenner/Harahan, but not with the New Orleans ratecenter). (Of course, these days, LOS/Area-Plus expands the heavily discounted or flat-rate dialing area even larger). At some point in the 1980's (I can't really remember when), South Central Bell didn't seem to like printing large directories for the entire metro area. And at the same time South Central Bell was trying to push (optional) *MEASURED* rate LOCAL exchange service with NO monthly maximum 'cap'. That type of local billing has since been discontinued and 'replaced' with the much more "customer-friendly" LOS plans. I think BellSouth would like to forget about the optional measured rate fiasco of the 1980's! :) So, the New Orleans metro directory became revamped as the 'community' West Bank directory (which has existed for years), the (new) Orleans/St.Bernard Parish directory, the East Bank Jefferson directory, and the (existing) Kenner/Harahan and River Parishes directory. By 'default', you would get the 'neighberhood' directory only, unless you requested other/all directories of the entire local/EAS dialing/billing ratecenter area. These directories were free for the asking. However, someone (I assume some lawyer) found an obscure item in the Louisiana PSC tariffs which stated that an entire ratecenter / 'exchange' / local-EAS billing/dialing area must be printed in a single book! (I wonder how such a tariff item could apply to such large local billing/dialing and geographic metro area as Atlanta, or simply large geographic metro areas even if they don't have large 'flat-rate' billing/dialing!?) So, until the next directory printing cycle, South Central Bell issued a (temporary) 'generic looking' white-cover with black-text ONLY (and NO pictures/etc. on this cover, except for the 'Bell' logo, SCBell name, etc.) "Greater New Orleans Residential White Pages". This covered the 'traditional' ratecenter and EAS local dialing of all of the 'regional' areas, but there were no "call-guide" instruction pages in the front. There weren't any business listings in this 'generic black & white cover' book, as those listings had already been separated from residential, and the entire metro area's alphabetical business listings were being included in all (temporarily) separate 'regional' directories. Presently, there has been a debate over the size of the print in the New Orleans area directory. BellSouth would send out for free, at individual requests, a plastic magnifying strip (which also doubled as a small ruler), and it had the BellSouth logo and slogan on it. There was also a survey as to how people felt about the print size, and the results are that the next printed book will go back to a larger print size. Regarding PBX/COCOTs and local dialing, I've had similar problems. On some (but not all) of these "CPE" devices, everytime a LOCAL/EAS prefix is added to the New Orleans / Kenner ratecenter, it could take *YEARS* before that prefix is programmed in as "local". :( I have made similar complaints, and I always tell them *FCC* and *PSC*. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It certainly *IS* a 'running battle'. New NPA's, dialing procedures (let's not forget that existing 10-XXX+ CIC's which for some years have been permissively dialable as 101-0XXX+ become mandatory as 101-0XXX+ in Jan.1998), new CIC's (101-5XXX+, 101-6XXX+, and future 101-XXXX+), new country codes, new c/o NXX prefixes, etc. ALL need to be recognized in PBX's, Cellular systems, COCOT-chips (including BellSouth's 'new' Teltrust A/O/Slimed COCOTs), telco wirecenter switches, LD carrier switches and operator service systems, etc. And no matter how much Bellcore's NANPA/TRA, the industry forums (ATIS/INC/NIIF/OBF/etc., CSCN, etc.), the FCC/CRTC and state/provincial regulatory, and even the telcos and carriers 'in the know', as well as the media and consumer advocacy groups (although the latter frequently tend get things wrong) try to inform other/all members of the industry of new codes and dialing procedures, there will always be something to 'slip thru the cracks', although much of the 'sleaze' out there (COCOTs A/O/Slime, etc) either don't care about serving the public, or they are DELIBERATELY trying to rip-off the end-user! :( 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- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:06:01 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Some Questions and Comments Regarding Mexico Does anyone have access to a (relatively) recent directory of any (large) city in Mexico (most likely Mexico City)? I'm trying to compile the list of (Telmex) Mexico's service and access codes. I do know some of them and they are indicated below: 91+ Station-sent-paid inTRA-Mexico Toll 92+ "special billing" inTRA-Mexico Toll 93 ?? 94 ?? 95+ Station-sent-paid Toll to US/Canada (does this include AK/HI?) 96+ "special billing" Toll to US/Canada ( " " " " ?) 97 ?? 98+ Station-sent-paid International Toll 99+ "special billing" International Toll Station-sent-paid is like the NANP 1+ or NANP-to-int'l 011+ "special billing" is like the NANP 0+ or NANP-to-int'l 01+ for collect, third-party-billing, calling-card, all forms of person, etc. 98/99+ pair for International Toll includes dialing from Mexico to the NANP-Caribbean, as +1-809-, +1-441-, +1-242-, +1-246, +1-649, +1-664, +1-868, etc., but does are Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands dialed as 98/99+1-787/340- or as 95/96+787/340-? (or with 98/99+1-809- or 95/96+809-, if the directory used for reference is pre-split-up-of-809). Is Alaska/Hawaii dialed from Mexico as 95/96+907/808- (US/Canada) or as 98/99+1-907/808- (International) ?? The "service" codes that I know of are: 01 Repair 02 ?? 03 Time-of-Day 04 Directory Assistance 05 ?? 06 non-emergency inquiries 07 ?? 08 Emergency 09 ?? 00 ?? I don't know offhand if the Assistance Operator is 09 or 00. I would assume that the Business Office is 02, 05, or 07. I *GUESS* that one or two of these 0X (02, 05, 07) codes could be used for a local weather report or some other Telmex-provided recorded information line. AFAIK, Mexico City's seven-digit local numbers do NOT (presently) begin with '1', but they can NOT begin '9' nor '0', as seen above. Some other towns in Mexico CAN have local dialed numbers beginning with '1'. The City Code for Mexico City is the single-digit '5', but some other towns surrounding Mexico City have three-digit city codes of the format '59X' followed by a five-digit local number. This fits in properly with the '9X+' access code scheme: Mexico City- +52-5-NXX-XXXX, the 'N' can NOT be '9' (nor 1/0) surrounding- +52-59X-N-XXXX, and I assume that the 'N' can NOT be '9' (nor 1/0) Thanks in advance for any info to add to this! 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- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:12:24 EDT Subject: New Edition of {Telecommunications Directory} Being Prepared From: ndallen@interlog.com (Nigel Allen) Organization: Allen Telecom Policy Consultants, Toronto, Canada Telecommunications-related companies (as well as individual telecom consultants and telecom-related government agencies and associations) may find it useful to be listed in the {Telecommunications Directory} published by Gale Research so that journalists, researchers and potential customers could get in touch with you more easily. There is no charge to be listed. Here is a description of the directory: A Detroit publishing company, Gale Research, is preparing a new edition of its {Telecommunications Directory}, which it describes as "an international descriptive guide to telecommunications companies, services, systems, and related organizations in the field." The editors would like to include a comprehensive listing of companies in the telecommunications industry. There is no charge to be listed in the directory. All that you have to do is to complete a questionnaire. If you would like your company to be listed in the directory, you can obtain a questionnaire that you can complete at http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/tdq.html If this is inconvenient, I would be happy to send you the questionnaire by e-mail. Alternatively, you could contact: Telecommunications Directory Gale Research 645 Griswold Street, Suite 835 Detroit, MI 48226-4094 U.S.A. telephone (313) 961-2242, ext. 1206 or 6516 fax (313) 961-6815 Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/telecom.html ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Historical Anecdote, was Re: Telephone Congestion to Internet Date: 17 Jun 1997 21:17:33 -0400 Organization: mostly unorganized In jared@netspace.net.au (Jared Gottlieb) writes: > The 7 June {New Scientist} has a variant of the congestion theme [snip] > I read a report by Brian > Harmer last month about the popularity of the Internet in Taumarunui, > a quiet little town south of Auckland. Apparently it is impossible to > make long-distance calls to or from that town between about 3 p.m. and > midnight most days as people hook up to their Internet Service > Providers via 0800 numbers. Telecom in New Zealand is mildly > embarrassed and says the number of lines into the town will be > increased in August." Which reminds me of a problem I ran into while attending a fairly well known private college on the West side of Harlem in NYC in the late 1970s. This is back in the days of one telco (*), and long distance calls went from the local New York Telephone office to an AT&T Long Lines center. I lived off campus at the time and hence had a 'regular', rather than a campus/centrex-CO (**) phone. I discovered that it was almost _impossible_ to make a long distance call from my CO to friends of mine in New Haven and California from roughly 23:00 to 23:30. If I tried, I'd get either reorders (rapid busies) or, occassionaly, intercepts. I spoke to some telco folk about this and managed, after the usual problems, to get to the good guys - i.e. the ones who grew up eating copper wire for breakfast, etc. After a bit of investigation they figured out why this was happening, and also why the regular and standard reports hadn't picked up on it. Since this was a university neighborhood, there was a significant population of younger folk who were calling long distance to reach friends and family. And since rates were lower at 23:00, that's when they made their calls. The major businesses in the area (the university, a couple of hospitals, and certain Government groups we never spoke about) which made daytime calls had their own circuits, hence the general public lines were heavily skewed to a 23:00 peak. Since the daytime circuits were adequate and, apparently, the diagnostics looked for average blocking based on a standard scattering of call time distribution, they hadn't realized just how bad that half hour was. Fortunately once this was noticed, they were able to increase capacity in fairly short order. * Execunet (MCI) was just starting to be availbale to the public, and Southern Pacific Comunications had a very limited service area. ** This university was one of very few places with a Centrex-CU, which meant the switch was on the customer premises. That's where I got my first look at what _large_ banks of batteries look like. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 05:39:00 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Phone Connection" by Kirk BKINPHCN.RVW 961217 "The Internet Phone Connection", Cheryl Kirk, 1997, 0-07-882269-6, U$29.99/C$42.95 %A Cheryl Kirk netphones@aol.com ckirk@alaska.net %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882269-6 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$29.99/C$42.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 276 %T "The Internet Phone Connection" Nope, this isn't about dialup Internet, it's about Internet dialup. If you want to get involved with Internet telephony but don't know where to start, this is the book for you. Kirk covers every aspect of the technology, from base system, to specialized hardware, through hone programs, via standards, and in related software and applications. Everything is dealt with practically and in sufficient depth. All sections are not only clearly explained, but also a pleasure to read. The book covers the technology on a conceptual as well as hands-on level. The author looks at the social side in addition to the bits and bytes. Reviews of the various products (and many are covered) give specifications, description, and personal opinions. Actually, I hope nobody buys this book until I get my system running ... copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINPHCN.RVW 961217 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Rudy Torres Subject: Does Anyone Know About UP (Internet Access via Mobile - product)? Date: 18 Jun 1997 11:46:00 GMT Organization: Swiss Telecom Hello out there, I'm interested in gathering additional information on a product offered by a company called UP (Unwired Planet, Redwood Shores USA) that allows access to the Internet (E-mail and Web browsing using HDML - Handheld Device Markup Language) via Mobile equipment (GSM, DCS1800, PCS1800, CDMA, TDMA, etc.). I've seen their web site for typical sales and marketing information on the product offering (UP.Browser, UP.Mail, UP.Pager, and UP.Link). But I'd like to get additional non-biased comments and/or opinions about this product from Mobile providers that have implemented it (especially GSM networks). Is there any web sites with market assessments (open to the public) on these products (or mobile services using these products) on the WWW? Does anyone have any comments and/or remarks concerning these products and/or mobile services using these products? You can reply to me by either posting a reply to this NG posting or via e-mail at my address. I would appreciate the information but please do not send SPAM on telecom products, I am not interested. Thanks in advance! Rudy Torres Swiss Telecom PTT Mobilcom - MC23 Ostermundigen, Switzerland Rudy.Torres2@swisstelecom*-*NoSpam*-*.com (Please remove the *-*NoSpam*-* to send e-mail). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #156 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 19 09:27:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06629; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706191327.JAA06629@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #157 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jun 97 09:27:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Mike King) Thanks to Subscribers (Robert Allender) Buy-Out Discount 800 Number Inventory?! (Judith Oppenheimer) First Post-FCC 800 Order "Enforcement" Issued (Judith Oppenheimer) Disaster Recovery Question (Tom Clifton) 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: The AOL List: Faces of Evil Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:31:11 PDT ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) From: David Cassel Reply-To: David Cassel Subject: The AOL List: Faces of Evil F a c e s o f E v i l ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Authorities entered AOL's Dulles, Virginia headquarters May 30. They located an AOL lawyer named Andrew Lewis Singer--and arrested him. "He seemed normal," one of his former co-workers told the AOL List. But three days earlier, Singer had left the building and driven to a nearby pond, where he paid an unexpected visit to a teenaged boy he'd met on America Online. The lawyer had created the screen name DCBOY83, and corresponded with the teenager via e-mail, investigators told the {Washington Post}. The AOL List confirmed the investigation with the Louden County Sheriffs Department. Press Information Officer Ed Pifer says that around 5 p.m. on May 27, AOL's lawyer had met his on-line acquaintance in Ashburn Farm -- then asked about an 11-year-old fishing across the lake. He went over to that boy, initiated a conversation -- and then committed a felony offense which included putting his hands down the boy's pants. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-06/06/093L-060697-idx.html Singer apparently returned to work at AOL the next day. He continued working for the company until he was arrested in his office that Friday. The next week authorities told the {Washington Post} they'd begun searching the lawyer's computer records at America Online headquarters, as well as the lawyer's apartment -- and AOL's spokespeople confirmed that he had been employed at America Online for nearly a year. Yet since the story broke in the Post, it's remained virtually unreported. The disturbing issue may spook the press -- even though it corresponds with a long series of AOL-only incidents involving child pornography. The {Cincinnati Enquirer} obtained FBI records in 1995 showing that more than 3,000 members were suspected violators of federal child pornography laws (at a time when AOL had just 3 million subscribers.) "Thousands of subscribers to America Online have been viewing the illegal pictures and downloading them..." the paper reported -- citing the FBI reports. ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/cinn1 Even worse, child pornography was being downloaded directly from AOL's file libraries. Faulty screening allowed users to upload illegal images directly into the shareware libraries -- and FBI records showed that "during one 25-minute span when an illegal photograph was made available ... about 400 people nationwide downloaded the picture to their computers." Weeks later, the Associated Press determined that the FBI "has too few agents to handle the thousands of search warrants that authorities contemplated executing during a one-day crackdown." Instead, by September the FBI raided over 120 homes in over 60% of the nation's federal districts -- culminating a two-year undercover probe into America Online child pornography trading. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9509/cyber_porn) But in fact, the problem started in 1991. "One subscriber ... posed as a 13-year-old homosexual boy last month and received pictures of what appear to be youngsters involved in sexual acts," Newsweek reported. (12/23/91) The problem has become wide-spread enough for AOL to ban the character strings "boy" in all AOL chat room names. But even though a filter now prevents any chat room from being created if its name contains the word boy, (http://pathfinder.com/@@BafpJAQAGSEf7Szw/Netly/daily/960918.html) it appears to have had little impact. In November -- and as recently as March, " 'Teen Pix' was still a chat room name..." one observer reports. And so was " 'Under 15,' with x's in between the letters..." That observer is Brian Smith -- a Florida attorney. In January he filed a lawsuit against America Online on behalf of a woman whose 11-year-old son appeared in commercial child pornography. The suit contends that the videotapes were sold in AOL's chat rooms -- and that AOL staffers witnessed the transactions, but allowed them to continue. (http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,563,00.html) "In essence, AOL has created a home shopping network for pedophiles and child pornographers," the lawsuit notes. (http://www.wco.com/~destiny/flasuit.htm) When Smith publicly announced his suit, the AOL List contacted Barry Crimmins -- a children's rights activist who'd investigated AOL's child pornography traders for six months in 1995, forwarding the information to the FBI's investigators. Asked if he'd ever seen AOL Guides witnessing the trading of child pornography without intervening, Crimmins responded "All the time." How responsive was AOL? "The most they ever did was close the room. Sometimes hours after I had complained to TOS about it." (http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0036.html) Friday, Smith's suit goes to a crucial hearing on a motion filed by AOL. Reached in West Palm Beach, he offered this observation. "It certainly doesn't look good when AOL's defending a child pornography suit to have one of their own employees, in-house, doing one of the very things they're accused of aiding." Indeed. When questioned by the {Washington Post}, an AOL spokesperson "would not say whether Singer's status as an AOL employee gave him access to information about subscribers, such as lists of children who use AOL chat rooms meant only for young people." AOL flatly denied subscriber information was accessed after an AOL technical services employee pleaded guilty to grand theft in 1996. A multi-state investigation followed the purchase of over $30,000 in computer equipment using stolen credit information -- and investigations led to the arrest and conviction of the AOL employee who signed for the equipment. (The {Florida Times-Union} also reported that he then implicated two fellow AOL employees. http://www.wco.com/~destiny/ccaol2.htm) But oddly, AOL's come under fire for doing something similar at the corporate level. "AOL snoops into its subscribers' incomes and details of their children," another news story announced this week -- citing a watchdog report that AOL is "selling the information aggressively through a broker to third parties ..." http://www.techweb.com:80/investor/newsroom/tinews/june/0609aol.html Privacy Times contends that AOL is selling advertisers address lists which "include lists of 248,000 children between the ages of 0-5, 354,000 children between the ages of 6-11 and 1,084,000 between the ages of 12-17." And the price is high. "These lists sell for $110 per thousand." But AOL also determines their members' income using data obtained from other services, Privacy Times reports -- a policy which Elizabeth Zitrin, deputy leader for AOL's ACLU Live forum, considered "scary". AOL's spokespeople refused to provide Privacy Times with figures on their profitability, but in a 1994 Community Update, Steve Case acknowledged AOL's motives. ("Why are we doing this? Primarily because it will be a source of additional revenue for us...") Privacy Times' Evan Hendricks notes that as a direct result of the policy, "AOL members increasingly are targeted by junk mailers." A group of hackers struck back. "Behind those computer monitors the staff is laughing at you," one told the AOL List -- so they installed a tell-all hacker web page...on AOL's PrimeHost service! "Making it on PrimeHost was an idea we had from the beginning," they told the AOL List, "to try and show how pitiful AOL's dedication to security is." AOL didn't discover the page for two months (until a rival hacker tipped them off). But the same day AOL shut the page, the hackers sneaked a change-of-address page into its previous location! ( http://www.wco.com/~destiny/lithnode.htm ) "Just another great example of poor AOL security," the page's author commented the next day. Safely ensconced in their new location, they proceeded to display sensitive in-house information, including the phone number for Tatiana Gau, AOL's Vice President of Integrity Assurance -- along with a picture. (http://www.lithiumnode.com/aol/tatiana.html) But AOL continues their pose of responsibility. The same day the {Washington Post} reported the sexual assault charges filed against AOL's lawyer, Steve Case announced that AOL would host a conference about children's safety. Conceding that the omnipresence of the on-line life means "we need to take our civic responsibilities even more seriously," Case opines that children's safety is "one of the first issues that requires urgent attention," adding that "the reality is that we are confronting these issues every day..." (http://www.wco.com/~destiny/case-jux.htm) In fact, AOL's confronting other issues as well. An AOL web page recruiting for the Ku Klux Klan went off-line this morning -- but it was accompanied by thousands of other pages. "Members.aol.com is unavailable," read an in-house system status report, stating that the problem started at 1 a.m. Thursday morning. "Estimated time of repair: 2:45 p.m." (http://www.wco.com/~destiny/sys-stat.htm) When the pages came on-line, the Klan page returned as well. AOL's commitment to civic responsibility rang hollow to an African-American who'd received taunting e-mail from the page's author the night before. It's message? "A victory for the Klan is a victory for all of America." THE LAST LAUGH AOL users pursuing minors looks like a wide-spread problem -- and they'll apparently go to great lengths, one user reports. A teenager who investigated AOL's "Teen Chat" chat area told the AOL List that "Within 20 minutes, someone offered me free tickets from New York City to Florida..." David Cassel More Information - http://www.wco.com/~destiny/frontend.htm http://www.wco.com/~destiny/time.htm ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Please forward with subscription information and headers. To subscribe to this list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom of the page at www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST in the the message body. To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST. ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL? For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT] ------------------------------ From: allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) Subject: Thanks to Subscribers Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:21:57 -0400 Patrick: In April you published my request for your subscribers to test the new numbering system which was about to be imposed on international audiotex services in Hong Kong. Kind subscribers from all around the world tried the new 14-digit number for the Hong Kong stockmarket quotes hotline we operate and found, as we feared, that it was largely inaccessible. We took the results from these calls the the Telecommunications Authority here in Hong Kong and, to make a long story short, they have agreed to postpone the numbering change for one year, then to look at it again. I would like to thank you, TELECOM Digest, and all your subscribers for this result. Without you, it would never have happened. Robert Allender RAS Marketing tel: +852 2834-4902 Suite 2, 19 Hennessy Road fax: +852 2834-2983 Hong Kong real-time stock quotes +852 1729 0990 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now of course the issue is will Hong Kong even remain similar to what we have known after June 30 with the change in government. I've an uneasy feeling about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Buy-Out Discount 800 Number Inventory?! Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400 Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net I queried this company on behalf of a client, who wants to know how a company can provide ISP service with flat-rate unlimited dial-in 800. The response: OneSource buys closeout (reminant 800 numbers) at extreme discount from a wholesale brokerage. That is why our number changes. The numbers run out. As soon as OneSource has the software developed to update itself to the next stack of numbers before the old ones run out, it will become seemless. Until then, we will have to deal with updateing our dial up to the new numbers periodically. I hope that clears it up. Sincerely, Thomas Prendergast --------------- OneSource is an MLM which offers the following contact info for billing disputes: OneSource Communications, Inc. 9400 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 124-707 Irving, TX 75063 Phone: (972) 556-0317 Fax: (972) 556-9631 Phone is answered by answering machine. Those facts aside, for the sake of being thorough: To my mind the numbers don't play out - even at .03 per minute, or $1.80 per hour, that's only 11 hours online per subscriber per month, assuming OneSource would choose to eat that, and has no other operations costs. Does anyone have any comments/experience re OneSource? Does anyone have any feedback generically re remnant 800 number stock? For example, what happens with pre-paid calling cards that don't get sold? Would this be what he is referring to, and if so, would it fit the scenario as he describes it? TIA - Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com 800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html 800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html 1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: First Post-FCC 800 Order "Enforcement" Issued Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:43:08 -0400 Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net On June 13, 1997 the FCC issued its first related official pronouncement since adoption of the Toll Free Service Access Codes, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95-155. The document, addressing a dispute between AT&T and ITT Sheraton, and TWC Communications, is of substantial importance to the telecom and marketing industries. We will be posting on-going documentation regarding this matter on ICB TOLL FREE NEWS; in the interim, anyone who'd like can contact me directly at joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com for an email copy. Regards, Judith Oppenheimer ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com 800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html 800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html 1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:24:14 -0500 Subject: Disaster Recovery Question From: t_clifton@juno.com (tom clifton) A few weeks ago I had a customer call me after their HVAC service man cut a chiller line in the PBX room and several hundered gallong of glycol-water solution soaked the room. THe PBX was toasted - smoked power supplies, memory boards, CPU, hard drive etc, and was replaced with a standby system the next day. However, the 66 block frame also got soaked. I did what I could to clean it by vacuuming with a wet/dry vacuum tjhen flooded each block with a trichlorotrifluroethane "residueless" contact cleaner then blew each one dry with a tetrafluroethane "duster" and repeated an hour later. Does anybody have any better advice on cleaning up after such a mess, or on the long term effects on the reliability of 66 blocks that have suffered such abuse? My suggestion to the customer is to replace the frame. The bulk of riser cable to other floors is perhaps managable, but there is a LOT of 4 pair on that floor that will be too short to re-terminate, and Insurance aside it will very disruptive to rerun the cables and splicing (as far as I'm concerned) 4 pair is pointless. One other note of interest. THe customer had a rigorous program of backups - maintaining them off site etc. However, it seems that the floppy disk drive on the PBX was out of alignment (8 years old) and only a portion of the configuration volume was readable on other two other PBX's. Word of wisdom - if you have off site backups, make sure that your restoration machine can read them. Tom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #157 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 20 23:08:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA12698; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:08:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706210308.XAA12698@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #158 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jun 97 23:08:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mexico Numbering/Dialing - NEW Info (Mark J. Cuccia) Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Bill) 612 Relief Proceedings (Bryan Bethea) Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line (Hillary Gorman) Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Joseph Singer) Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Fred Farzanegan) Face of Evil *157 (Eric Florack) Telemarketing - Is it Wrong? (Kevin R. Ray) MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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, 19 Jun 1997 18:47:00 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Mexico Numbering/Dialing - NEW Info I was a bit premature in my earlier posting regarding Mexico. In this posting, there will be some additional information on Mexico Dialing Codes *PRE* 1997 and ALSO some information on Mexico Dialing Codes beginning in 1997. Some of the reasons I may have been a bit premature in my earlier post: On Tuesday afternoon, I did have a chance to stop by the Main branch of the New Orleans Public Library 'downtown', twenty minutes before that branch closed. The 1995 edition of the Mexico City directory was available, as was the old 1985 edition! I also remember that the 1975 edition was still there a few years ago, but it must have been tossed out when the 1995 edition was received. BTW, I had a chance to (briefly) scan through the directories of some major Canadian cities, a handful of towns in Hawaii and Alaska, and the San Juan PR directory. All of these directories were from the early 1990's. The NOPL Main Branch *USED* to have directories of Bahamas, Bermuda, the US Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islands. But those had become somewhat dated and were most likely tossed out. And while I didn't have time to scan through the directories of London, Paris, Rome, etc. it did seem to be editions from the early 1990's. However, *OLD* directories from foreign countries (which were still on the shelf in 1993) had been tossed. I missed not seeing the 1967 (yes, SIXTY-seven) Manilla (Philippines) directory which *WAS* at the Public Library in 1993. :( While I don't speak Spanish, I was able to figure out what the 1995 Mexico City directory indicated: [MY notation of '??' means that the code wasn't shown in the directory. Either the code is 'vacant' (not used), or it is used as some form of internal test-type code: ANAC, Ring-Back, Test-Board, etc.] '00' Service Codes: 01 - Directory Assistance - National 02 - Operator Assistance - Local and National/Toll 03 - Time-of-Day 04 - Directory Assistance - Local 05 - Repair Service (dialed code translates to a local number) 06 - Emergencies (Fire, Ambulance, etc.) 07 - Government Department/Service Inquiries 08 - Emergencies (Police) 09 - Operator Assistance - International/Overseas 00 - ?? The translated local number for Repair Service in Mexico City was also indicated next to '05', as: (+52-5)-518-8320 '9X+' Access Codes: (special-billing indicates "Operator-Assisted" card, collect, 3rd-pty, person, etc) InTRA-Mexico Toll- 91+ABCD-xxxx (station) 92+ABCD-xxxx (special-billing) 93 - ?? 94 - ?? Calling to the US (including Alaska & Hawaii), Canada- 95+NXX-NXX-xxxx (station) 96+NXX-NXX-xxxx (special-billing) 97 - ?? International & Overseas (including *ALL* of the NANP-Caribbean)- 98+country-code+national-number (station) 99+country-code+national-number (special-billing) Mexican National Cellular Access 90+ABCD-xxxx Dialing to the NANP-Caribbean (including PR/USVI) was indicated as: 98/99+1809+nxx-xxxx Obviously, a 1996 directory would indicate: 98/99+1441-nxx-xxxx Bermuda 98/99+1787-nxx-xxxx Puerto Rico 98/99+1268-nxx-xxxx Antigua etc. It appears that the NANP-Caribbean is dialed as "Intl/Ovs" rather than "Bordering-Country Toll" due to billing/rating. i.e., NANP-Caribbean from Mexico is probably billed as 'fixed-rate-per- minute' for each country, rather than variable-rate based on distance (V & H co-ordinates plus a possible "other-line rate-step") Mexican National Toll-Free Numbers are of the form (and dialed) as: 91+800-x-xxxx Telmex' Business Office in Mexico City is: (+52-5)-222-1212 (main switchboard) (+52-5)-222+XXXX (extension of specific department or person) Some additional notes: Mexico's National Numbering is eight digits total. The City-Code + Central-Office-Code part is four digits total. (+52)-ABCD-xxxx The 'A' position digit is NEVER a '0' (zero), but can be any other possible digit from '1' thru '9'. Numbering/Dialing is parsed as follows: (+52)-ABC-D-xxxx The 'A' position is NEVER '0' The 'D' position can NOT be '0' nor '9' The 'B' and 'C' positions can be any possible digit If the 'A' position is '5', the 'B' position is '9' (see below) (+52)-AB-CD-xxxx The 'A' position is NEVER '0' The 'C' position can NOT be '0' nor '9' The 'B' and 'D' positions can be any possible digit (There are presently NO situations of the 'A' position being '5' in this parsing) (+52)-5-BCD-xxxx Mexico City and immediete environs The 'B' position can NOT be '0' nor '9'; It *USED* to be that the 'B' position could NOT be a '1', but more recently, Mexico City (cellular) numbers *CAN* begin with a '1'. (+52)-59C-D-xxxx smaller towns surrounding Mexico City metro The 'D' position can NOT be '0' nor '9' The 'C' position can be any possible digit Monterrey has the single digit '8' for its city code, followed by a seven-digit local number. The first digit of the c/o code in the seven-digit local number *CAN* be a '1'. However, I haven't yet been able to determine how towns surrounding Monterrey have their city-code+c/o-code parsed, nor which specific digits are restricted from which positions in the 8BCD city-code+c/o-code. The digit-possibilities for each 'A'/'B'/'C'/'D' position were much more limited years ago (in the 1970's and earlier 1980's). Mexico does have plans to expand their national numbering plan, by adding TWO more digits to the national number, within the city-code- plus-central-office-code portion. Thus the total city+c/o-code will expand to a total of SIX-digits, the full national number will expand to a total of TEN-digits, and the worldwide number for Mexico wil expand to a total of TWELVE-digits. However, I don't have anything further regarding the specifics on which digits will be added where, nor how the new numbering will correspond to geographic locations within Mexico, except that the city+c/o-code parsing will CONTINUE to be variable, depending on the population, or density of telephone numbers in a particular area. NOW ... after my earlier posting, I received email from someone who works in the North American telecom industry (but who wishes not to be named), regarding changes in the Mexican Dialing plan, as he has done some consulting work on the new Mexican Numbering/Dialing Plan. And I also received email with some info, from a reader of TELECOM Digest who lives in Mexico City. THANK YOU (!Gracias!) to all who have sent me email with additional information on the new Mexican Numbering/Dialing Plan! It appears that Telmex has begun to expand the '0X' Service Codes to a longer '0XX' format. AND, I also discovered that Telmex now has a webpage, although it is only available in Spanish: http://www.telmex.com.mx (which is identical to) http://www.telmex.net Telmex' webpages do indicate *SOME* of the (new) dialing procedures in Mexico. In addtion Mexico is beginning to introduce Equal-Access and Presubscription to a Primary toll-carrier. Some of the dialing instructions, to dial (on a per-call basis) a toll call via a carrier other than the chosen/presubbed primary, is shown on Telmex' website. Equal-Access and Primary toll-carrier Presubscription seems to have begun in the larger cities in Mexico only this year (1997). The following is a compilation of information from various sources: "CIC" indicates the three-digit "Carrier Identification Code" 'cc' indicates the ITU-assigned country code 'nn' indicates the full national number in the dialed country special = card, collect, 3d-pty, person, etc. 00-0+"CIC"+090 Intl/Ovs. Operator of dialed "CIC" 00-0+"CIC"+09+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via dialed "CIC" (special) 00-0+"CIC"+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via dialed "CIC" (station) 00+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via Presubbed Carrier (station) (in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as: 95+NXX-NXX-XXXX for NANP (US/Alaska/Hawaii/Canada) 98+cc+nn for ALL of NANP-Caribbean and all other cc's) "Caller-Pays" to NANP Toll-Free 800/888 use the 'replace' codes, 880/881 01-0+"CIC"+020 Mexican Toll Operator of dialed "CIC" 01-0+"CIC"+02+nn Mexican Toll Calls via dialed "CIC" (special) 01-0+"CIC"+nn Mexican Toll Calls via dialed "CIC" (station) 01+nn Mexican Toll Calls via Presubbed Carrier (station) (in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as 91+nn) 020 Mexican Toll Operator of Presubbed Carrier (the code WAS 02) (in non-Equal-Access areas, Telmex' LADA is the operator) 02+nn Mexican Toll Calls via Presubbed Carrier (special) (in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as 92+nn) 030 Time of Day (the code WAS 03) 031 Wake-Up Service 040 Local Directory Assistance (the code WAS 04) 050 Repair Service (the code WAS 05) 055 National Directory Assistance (the code WAS 01) 060 Emergencies (the code WAS 06 for Fire, 08 for Police) 070 Government Deptartment/Services Inquiries (the code WAS 07) 080 [I have had conflicting information on the use of this code... one use is for business office - 'new customers', the other use is for 'paid' call for routine police reports] 090 Intl/Ovs. Operator of presubbed carrier (the code WAS 09) (in non-Equal-Access areas, Telmex' LADA is the operator) 09+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via presubbed carrier (special) (in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as: 96+NXX-NXX-XXXX for NANP (US/Alaska/Hawaii/Canada) 99+cc+nn for ALL of NANP-Caribbean and all other cc's) For per-call dialed "CICs", I have been able to find out the following: 100 Miditel 111 Avantel (a joint venture with MCI) 123 Telmex' LADA 200 Bestel 234 Investcom 288 Alestra (a joint-venture with 'guess-who' ... AT&T) 333 Iusatel (I do NOT know if this is a joint-venture with Sprint) 555 Telinor 777 Marcatel Calls to Mexican Cellular phones NOW seem to be dialable just like dialing to any Mexican geographic/POTS local or toll numbers. Mexican Toll-Free numbers are dialed/numbered as: 91/01+800+five-or-seven-digits. There doesn't seem to be any restriction on the possibilities of digits for each position of the five/seven-digit portion of the Toll-Free number. I don't know if the five-digit numbers are going to expand to seven-digits when the rest of Mexico's POTS/ geographic numbers expand. Nor do I know if there are any 'key' digits in 'key' positions to determine whether or not a Mexican Toll-Free number is 800+five-digits or 800+seven-digits. I have sent an email to Telmex, requesting formal or printed documentation of the new Numbering/Dialing Plan for Mexico. I did request an English language edition, but I will settle for Spanish if that is the only language edition available at this time. When I have further information, I'll post it! 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- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:26 -0700 From: Bill Reply-To: grendel6@ix.netcom.com Subject: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews. Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers. Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC), Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint. Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. Omnipoint isn't here yet, but (I believe) they will be true PCS. True or false? What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone know what their pricing looks like ? Bill P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features" (like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus $.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes a month; LD is free on weekends, but 99% of my calls are during peak periods). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:39:59 -0500 From: Bryan Bethea Reply-To: nineonine@geocities.com Subject: 612 Relief Proceedings The 612 NPA Relief Industry Team recently held its second meeting to consider relief alternatives for the rapidly exhausting 612 NPA. The Team has prepared a draft report to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. While the Team was unable to reach a concensus on a relief method, they did develop two plans that are presented in the report. One option splits the current code using the Mississippi River (roughly) as its boundary. Some COs operate on both sides of the river and would be kept in on code or the other. Minneapolis and communities to the west of the river would retain the 612 code while Saint Paul and communities to the east of the river would receive the new code. This option has the support of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. 10 digit dialing for local calls between the area codes would become necessary. The other option is an all service overlay. All local calls would be dialed as 10 digits. USWest, GTE, Frontier, Lakedale Telephone and other LECs prefer the overlay option. Another option was considered but not included in the report. Referred to as the "Doughnut Split", this option would have kept Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and their immediate suburbs in 612 while forcing the outer ring of communities into a new code. It seems as though most of communities in the Twin Cities area have EAS to Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Why bother with a split if 10 digit dialing will be required under either option chosen? It will be interesting to see what the MPUC decides. The report asks for a decision by October 1997 to avoid exhaust of 612 in the first quarter of 1998. Bryan Bethea Walnut Hill, Florida HOME TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS Telephone 850-327-6228 334-368-8600 Fax 850-505-0205 334-368-1778 ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line Date: 19 Jun 1997 15:08:17 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous Ok. I'm frustrated. Maybe someone here Knows Something (tm) and can help out, maybe not, but I need to vent, regardless. Here's the situation. I'm in the MFS/Worldcom building here in Philadelphia. I wanted a telephone line to go along with all of our T1s and T3s. The only way to do this, apparently, was for Bell Atlantic to bring a line to the demarc, and for MFS/Worldcom (which can't yet deliver local dialtone here) to run it up 22 stories and install a jack here, and resell it to us as an MFS/Worldcom line. This is, according to MFS folks, a "standard" Bell Atlantic Centrex line, but the checks go to MFS instead of Bell Frantic (which is fine with me, really.) Note that this line requires a prepended 9 to dial out to the world. Now, the Bell Atlantic instructions published in the phone book on how to forward calls from a regular line didn't work, so I called our MFS rep who said she had to check with Bell and get back to me. She got back to me and said that I should call someone else. I called the person, who told me she works for Worldcom, and she instructed me to: pick up the phone; dial *206; wait for a double beep; dial the number calls should forward to. When I tried this, I got a fast busy after dialing *. I then tried dialing 9 * 206, but again got a fast busy after dialing *. I was then instructed to try this: pick up phone; dial 506; etc ... After dialing the 50, I got "the number you have called can not be completed as dialed..." so I tried 9 506, which got me dead silence. "Are you SURE it's not giving you a double beep after that?" she asked me. Yes, I was sure, as I had done it five times. So, the Worldcom woman had no idea what to do and says she will call me back. However, I've been trying to get this working since 8 am YESTERDAY and really MUST have it working by 4 PM today. Any bright ideas out there?? Note that both Bell and MFS are in agreement that this particular Centrex line DOES have call forwarding enabled. They just don't seem to know how to make it work. Note also that MFS asked *me* if I was calling out through "my" PBX. I informed them that we asked for a regular old voice line, and this was what they gave me, and that if it was behind *their* PBX, they are the ones who should know about it ... hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Call forwarding is usually done with something like *72 or 72# or 1172. May I presume you tried the obvious like 9-1172 (since you said the * went straight to reorder) or 9-72#, or possibly 9-72 (wait for time out and beep tones)? Also, what about other users on the centrex? How do *they* call forward (both to an inside extension or outside number)? Please note that some centrexes are wired to allow forwarding only to another extension and not off- premises. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:17:00 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil While I am quite upset with AOL's record especially in this case, Pat comments: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you > need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL? > For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given > the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT] I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I think also that a reason that a lot of the "unwashed" subscribe to AOL is that it doesn't require a great deal of computer savvy to negotiate your way around while it takes a little more knowledge to log on with a regular net account. That's at least my take on it. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA mailto:dov@oz.net http://www.oz.net/~dov http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262 [ICQ pgr] PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 FAX +1 206 325 5862 ------------------------------ From: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil Date: 20 Jun 1997 15:13:33 GMT Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. I hate being an apologist for AOL, but in general, I'm a happy subscriber of many years. I'm sure the article references valid data -- but in a system where there are _thousands_ of chatrooms and millions of members, there are going to be sickos hanging out. Big brother can only do so much. Some good things in AOL's favor: You can't use it as a spam-factory. Spam comes your favorite neighborhood ISPs around the country, but not AOL. It's also a bargain. For $19.95 unlimited you get the traditional services of an ISP (email, ftp, browsing), plus a HUGE database of content of AOL-only magazines, references, files. Throw in 10MB of free web space per account, and there's nothing that comes close. Some bad things? Being a bargain and giving away free online time is going to attract lots of users. Within those users are going to be some bad- and _very_ bad apples. I personally don't use the chatrooms (full of kids and bad language), and don't trust anyone giving away free software (virus, anyone?), so I'm not aware of the pervasiveness of smut. But, I've seen binary images which could offend Larry Flynn in our 'self-regulated' USENET. This facet of internet life is that people will do lots of bad things when they can hide their identity. The article was obviously meant to generate the type of knee-jerk response that our Moderator showed. Actually, after reading it, I thought it a credit that AOL _allowed_ a site criticizing it to be hosted by AOL (and I'd venture it was only shutdown when the site quit paying the bill or refused to remove information that was libelous). As far as censorship- the article mentioned both the KKK and ACLU had a presence. There's an uneasy relation- ship between the two, but if the organization is not _illegal_ refusing to allow it to participate would be greeted with cries of first-amendment protection (which AOL has been burned in the past by trying to stifle unpopular views). AOL has a reputation for moronic users -- but in the large sense, AOL has done more for the internet revolution than anything else. They've made the information highway available for the unwashed masses. Those of us from the old school are offended by users with limited typing and reasoning skills, but hopefully, our pain is more than compensated by the education of the net-proles. I'm an AOL user (farzanegan@aol.com) -- not exactly proud of it, but one of the millions of others who aren't CAPS (or morally) deficient. Please adjust your sodium intake when reading articles such as the aforementioned. Regards, Frederick Farzanegan (Every disclaimer you may have ever heard applies.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:51:41 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Face of Evil *157 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you > need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL? > For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given > the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT] But what on earth makes you think that the problem is limited to AOL? Granted that in terms of service, AOL has been among the worst, but it seems rather clear to me that was only half the issues covered in the post you're responding to. Unspoken in all of the collection of articles you're responding to is the total impotence (pardon) of the government to deal with the issue, given the constraints of current law. Point of my response: I wonder how many people are looking at that collection of articles, and wondering if the CDA is really such a bad idea, after all. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It does not matter what people think about CDA. It only matters what the ACLU and the librarians think about it. Those two will apply sufficient pressure to keep it off the books. One obnoxious and bullying ACLU lawyer is enough to keep millions of Americans from getting what they want, so don't fret about all the bad publicity going on right now. I never said the problem was limited to AOL, but if you want a good well-rounded example of what is wrong with the Internet today, you can certainly find several at AOL. I have often wondered what the feds must have on Steve Case; maybe it has to do with taxes, or possibly some other felonious behavior. I mean, he certainly sucks up to them, letting them run all their sting operations there. The article noted there are times that some of the chat rooms become outragous yet the Guides and TOS people do nothing about it. I suspect they (TOS/Guides) have been instructed to let it continue; possibly federal agents are in there busy posing as teenage boys and girls, trying to seduce the older guys so they can then go out and arrest them. Probably the TOS/Guides are told to keep their hands off some of the rooms thus created so as to not put the kibosh on some FBI agent in the process of mailing out GIFs of a naked boy to some other user. I am reminded of this federal judge in Chicago for many years who always cheated on his own federal taxes. The IRS knew it, and they loved it because they had him under their control. Whenever a tax evader case came up, guess which judge always got the case on his docket? ... guess who always won the case ... the IRS of course. Finally one day the judge had a case which was really sort of in a gray area. It leaned in favor of the defendant, a man accused of making liberal interpretation of the tax laws to his benefit. The judge was about to rule in his favor when a very high honco with the regional IRS office came in, stood in the back of the courtroom, and literally glared at the judge. Suddenly the judge blurted out, "I am being blackmailed and pressured by the IRS ..."; the IRS guy gave him a very dirty look and stormed out. I have to wonder if the feds and Steve Case have some sort of 'mutual understanding' about things ... and as long as he continues to extend his hospitality and resources to them, they leave him alone. Just a theory, you understand. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Telemarketing - Is it Wrong? Date: 20 Jun 1997 02:34:00 GMT Organization: The Windy City I'm sitting at the office at 5:05pm today with the few remaining employees getting ready to leave. The ENTIRE switch board lights up almost instantly. The last time that happened someone had died. Once we all realized that it was some telemarketing firm trying to sell something (each of us about five calls into the madness of scrambling to grab all the lines with reception gone for the day) we all got VERY angry. I had enough numbers though that I could dial each one ONCE and have some fun with them (they sent CID info). I found out that if you dialed at the right time you wouldn't get a busy signal. You'd be connected to their computer dialer trying to dial the next number. Only catch is that *I* was supervising the line (it couldn't hang up on me :). I initially "blew" a busy signal (a trick I learned a long time ago working with modems) to scratch off a couple of numbers. I left the phone off the hook to go have a smoke. When I came back it was working hard trying to dial and dial and dial. Then I started to have fun. I got all my computer sounds out and set up my computer to play what I wanted and when. A baby crying in the background (SCREAMING actually). A cat screaming (I just stepped on my cat trying to get to the phone!). " 911 -- beep, Beep, BEEP, the number you have reached, '911' has been disconnected. No further information is available about '911'. Please make a note of it". The best part is I only called them once ... they called me over 50 times. Who would the judge believe? So the next time you get a telemarketing call take a look at the caller ID box or try *69 (in this area *69 now reads the number back to you for future reference :). Use your imagination ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this one time also. I got the number the predictive dialer was using to make outgoing calls and called in, leaving it hung there for half an hour or so. PAT ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:50:00 EDT MCI is now offering local service throughout the Chicago area. The terms of service for residential customers is $18 per month which gets you 100 calls of unlimited duratation within the northern Illinois LATA. Unfortunatly this includes local area calls which Ameritech was giving for three cents on an untimed basis. Addtional calls after the first one hundred are ten cents each. Their rates for any additional features (call waiting, three way calling, caller ID, forwarding, etc) are however more expensive than Ameritech. For example caller ID is $8.50 per month; Ameritech gets $6.50. If you have existing service with Ameritech, MCI will 'migrate' you to their service at no charge. If you want a new line brought in the fee is $56.00 to bring it to your demarc. If you want to keep your existing phone numbers you can do so. You are not tied into MCI long distance service, nor is there any discount or special price for local service subscribers. You can pick any long distance carrier you want. They said most orders take seven to ten working days to complete. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #158 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 20 23:35:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA14017; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:35:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706210335.XAA14017@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #159 TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jun 97 23:35:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Chris Ziomkowski) Book Review: "The Cyberethics Reader" by Willard (Rob Slade) Canadian Telemarketing Fraud (Tad Cook) FCC Lashes Out at AT&T-SBC Merger (Tad Cook) How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port? (Jim Wygralak) Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (David Martin) Wireless Seminar (Jerry Kaufman) Telecom Policy Newsletter Available (Monty Solomon) 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: Chris Ziomkowski Subject: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:33:03 -0700 Organization: Summit Computing Just got back from Billing World '97 in Washington D.C. Pretty much the overriding theme of the conference was what to do about CLECs. However, I came back from the conference with more questions than when I went. No one there seemed to have any substantative answers to any questions, and as I'm trying to write a new billing package targeted at the CLEC market, it would be very helpful if anyone could answer a few questions for me. First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by reselling the ILEC's switch? If a CLEC is allowed access to the copper, does that mean that the CLEC can steal all the high profit origination fees from long distance while leaving the ILEC to absorb the cost of the local loop, which in many cases are sold at or below cost? Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered local calling? Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There seems to be alot of confusion.) The remaining areas are supposed to ramp up LNP service so that it will be universal by the end of 1998, and cellular carriers are exempted until 1999. This raises all kinds of interesting billing problems and abuses. For example, if I'm an ILEC and a CLEC steals my customer, I will have to port the number. But, the Act allows me to bill for all dips to my databases, so I can charge someone every time they dip my database to find the Location Routing Number (LRN) associated with it. Basically, as a CLEC I'll get hit with a fee everytime someone calls my customer. As an ILEC, what prevents me from setting up a number which just constantly dials the CLECs ported customer, each time hitting my database for the LRN, and each time generating a fee to me? From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation between the ILEC and the various CLECs ... and we all know how likely that will be. (Everyone remember taking game theory in college?) Unless some legislation comes along detailing these considerations a little more, my billing system just got a lot more complicated, because of all the various fees. Is this an accurate assessment? On a more technical note, if I'm a non facilities based CLEC simply reselling the ILEC's local loop, what format is the ILEC going to send AMA record data in? Can anyone point me to a Bellcore technical document which might explain this? (I've looked ... I've failed.) Also on a technical note, has anyone actually dealt with interfacing to the RBOC's OSS layer for electronic requests? I know that it's only being used by NYNEX and PacBell at the moment, and even that in only limited form. (In fact, I was only able to find two systems at the conference that even pretended to deal with the OSS complexities.) Everyone else still requires a fax. Is there any sort of a standard that's being borne out by the other regional LECs which I could use to start coding up an interface? I'm not big enough to negotiate with each of the RBOC's individually. Can anyone give me some guidance as to how and where to find what the various ILECs are implementing? BTW, I'm looking for a consultant to help me out with some of the more esoteric aspects of this industry. So if you've dealt with CLEC issues before and can give me some guidance, drop me a line. Thanks. I hope this will spawn some interesting discussions. Chris Ziomkowski Software Consultant czim@bigbear.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:02:14 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Cyberethics Reader" by Willard BKCYETRD.RVW 961217 "The Cyberethics Reader", Nancy E. Willard, 1997, 0-07-070318-3, C$17.95 %A Nancy E. Willard %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-070318-3 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O C$17.95 905-430-5000 905-430-5134 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 101 %T "The Cyberethics Reader" This is *not* a good reader on cybernetic ethics. It isn't a collection of essays, to begin with, it's light on discussion and scenarios, and there are no real in-depth examinations of ethical issues in computer mediated communications. What it *is*, is a very, very good primer on netiquette. The list of chapter titles alone makes a handy set of behaviour guidelines (and the author encourages you to copy and post it as such). The discussion is light for a debate on morality, but is just right as advice to make your activities on the net more pleasant for you and those around you. In addition, Willard has produced a document with enough breadth of scope for the real net world. It makes a kind of "everything I need to know I learned in email" compendium. (If that sounds trite, it is only because it is so true.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCYETRD.RVW 961217 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Subject: Canadian Telemarketing Fraud Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:02:35 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Canadian Telemarketing Scam Victimizes Elderly U.S. Women BY CLAIRE BOOTH, BOCA RATON NEWS, FLA. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 19--On July 11, a Canadian prize-awarding team, complete with everything but Ed McMahon, is supposed to show up on Jerie Crider's doorstep and hand her a check for $500,000. But since Crider didn't send the company $31,000 to cover "taxes" on the prize, Ontario police don't expect anyone to be ringing her doorbell. Crider, an 83-year-old Pompano Beach resident, received a phone call on Monday from someone telling her she had won half a million dollars. To claim her sudden windfall, all Crider had to do was send the prize company, Dime Corporation, a check for $31,000, the caller told Crider. "I told them I'd have to talk to my financial advisor," Crider said. After Jennifer Lowndes, vice president of investments at Smith Barney in Boca Raton, heard from her client, she got curious and called the Montreal phone number that the Dime Corporation had left with Crider. The woman Lowndes spoke to told her that taxes on the money Crider won would equal $110,000. "Fine, subtract that from the total and wire it in," Lowndes told the woman. By sending $31,000, Crider could save 65 percent on the taxes, the woman said. That didn't make much sense to Lowndes. With prizes such as what Crider was supposed to have won, the taxes are taken out of the money itself, never paid beforehand, she said. Dime Corporation, a new company, has had five complaints lodged against it, including Crider's, since the end of May, said Det. Staff Sgt. Barry Elliott, the coordinator of Project Phone Busters, a Canadian law enforcement task force that is investigating telemarketing fraud. According to Elliott: One complaint came from Homestead. Others originated in Washington, D.C., and San Diego. The one instance where Dime allegedly scammed someone occurred in Kewadin, Mich. A woman lost $2,331. All of the complainants were elderly females. "They'll take money from anybody, but they're looking for the golden senior who they can take for everything," Elliott said, adding that many of the companies switch phone numbers, addresses and corporation names frequently making it difficult to track them. Dime Corporation did not return phone calls Wednesday. Montreal and Toronto became centers for telemarketing fraud in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Elliott said. The task force works in cooperation with the U.S. Justice Department and other American agencies to try and stop phone scams. So far this year, there have been 47 attempted telemarketing scams reported in Florida. That's nine more attempts than were reported for all of last year. There have been 14 actual frauds in Florida this year, compared with 19 for last year, according to Project Phone Busters. The majority of scams concern prizes, with pitches for loans and vacations falling far behind, according to Project Phone Busters. "It's clean, it's easy, it's hard to trace," said Kim Overman, public relations director for the Palm Beach County Better Business Bureau. "The Canadian thing is turning up a lot more in recent months." It won't be found again in South Florida if people stay aware and don't send money to anyone without checking first. "The only thing that would have happened on July 11 was they would have taken their cruise around the world on my client's dime," Lowndes said. Tips for avoiding a phone scam Never give out your credit card or bank account number over the phone to someone who promises money in exchange. Legitimate sweepstakes and prize contests do not require a purchase or a payment for anything. Do not respond to any offer asking you to pay duties, taxes or processing fees. Call Project Phone Busters task force toll free at (888) 495-8501 with any questions or to report a scam. (c) 1997, Boca Raton News, Fla. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News. ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Lashes Out at AT&T-SBC Merger Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:12:49 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) FCC lashes out at expected AT&T-SBC merger BY JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top telecommunications regulator put AT&T Corp. and SBC Communications Inc. on notice today that he would block any union between the telephone giants to prevent what would be the largest merger in U.S. history. "My belief is that a combination of AT&T and a regional Bell operating company is unthinkable," Federal Communications Commission Reed Hundt, a former antitrust litigator, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution. AT&T is the nation's largest long-distance company. SBC is now the nation's biggest local Bell telephone company. Hundt's remarks followed a recent comment by AT&T Chairman Robert Allen that a hypothetical $50 billion merger between AT&T and SBC is "not unthinkable." So large a merger ultimately would have go to the Justice Department for a determination whether it potentially violates antitrust laws. The FCC also would have to approve the transaction on the ground that AT&T, SBC and eventually the merged company serve the public. Competition would be thwarted by the two teaming up because they are likely competitors in both the local and long-distance markets, Hundt said. "It's difficult to imagine that any other firm will be a more effective broad-based local entrant than AT&T," the largest long-distance company, Hundt said. Reacting to Hundt's speech, his strongest remarks yet against mammoth mergers, AT&T said competition would be protected before completion of a merger agreement. "If a partnership ... can be structured to increase competition ..., then it ought to be considered," Mark Rosenblum, an AT&T vice president, said. SBC would not comment. A 1996 telecommunications law lets local, long-distance and cable companies enter into each others' businesses. The goal was to increase competition, which in theory would expand choices and lower prices. Thus far, the act has created an unprecedented wave of telephone and media mergers. Opponents such as Hundt, who plans to leave the FCC once a successor is confirmed, fear that AT&T joining with SBC or any other local Bell telephone company would violate the spirit of the 1996 law. It also would violate the purpose of a now-defunct consent decree that broke up the Bell System in 1984 into AT&T and seven local phone company offspring dubbed the Baby Bells. While Hundt specifically struck out against the hypothetical AT&T-SBC merger, which is still being negotiated, he did not address a $23 billion merger proposal now before the FCC: Bell Atlantic and Nynex. "Nothing in this speech should be read as any kind of communication on the topic of that merger," Hundt said. FCC approval is the last regulatory hurdle for Bell Atlantic and Nynex to overcome. The union would create the largest local phone company in the country, serving local phone customers from Maine to Virginia. The Justice Department cleared the deal, infuriating consumer groups, which contend it will stifle local phone competition and possibly raise rates. Consumer advocate Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Consumer Union's Washington office, believes Hundt's comment should also raise a warning flag before Bell Atlantic and Nynex. "The logic he has established applies equally to mergers of Bell companies," Kimmelman said. ------------------------------ From: darus@wwa.com (Jim J. Wygralak) Subject: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:32:53 CDT I have a dilemma. I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can NOT drive inside wiring. Is there a device available that I could plug into an analog port on the TA, that would look like a single phone to the TA, which could then drive extension lines in the other rooms? I considered trying to build something myself. I have a degree in electronics but I'm afraid that I might only know enough about telephony to be dangerous. ------------------------------ From: David Martin Subject: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:27:28 -0500 Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA 50011 Reply-To: dmartin@iastate.edu What is a realistic average equivalent baud rate for voice communications & how does it translate into real digital transmission costs? Here's my naive analysis. Please correct me. My personal experience is that 28.8 kbs is sufficient for voice communications. 32 kbs is surely conservative. I just checked my dialup connection to the internet: I've been on for 2 hours and 26 minutes & my total traffic has been 8000 Kbits - this is an average load of just about 1 Kbit/sec (mostly I just background check email and foreground read www.washingtonpost.com.) Doesn't this imply that my existing telco wiring plant is cabable right now of supporting something like 32 endpoints like me ON MY WIRE? That is, if each data end point on the average uses only 1/32 of the bandpass needed for voice, the 32 endpoints could be multiplexed onto a single wire. (I know the hardware isn't in place to do this, but it should be possible & not rocket science.) Doesn't a T1 have 24ea. 64 kbs channels? Since each T1 channel can carry 2 continuous 32kbs data streams, it follows that the real capacity of a T1 channel is something like 64 simultaneous data users/channel or about 1536 simultaneous users per T1 ($1K/T1-mo. => $0.67/user-mo) Ok, I know the above is very sloppy and there are lots of statistical concerns, but is it safe to say that a single T1 channel(eg. 64 kbs at the telco) can really handle 6-10 real simultaneous data users? This is an important point regarding the development of the infrastructure needed to support a large fraction of users who are "off hook" but actually quiet most of the time. Where are the REAL bottlenecks? This simplistic analysis indicates that substantial savings would result from bringing packet switching into the home. That is, re-engineering the local switchs to respond to packet arrivals, rather than off-hook states could achieve a large savings. Is this true? If everybody were packet switched at home, could the existing wiring plant support the current voice traffic and the anticipated increment in data traffic at little or no cost increase? What does a more detailed analysis conclude? ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kaufman Subject: Wireless Seminar Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:51:51 -0700 Organization: Alexander Resources Reply-To: JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT Alexander Resources presents: Wireless Business Telephone Systems Seminar A new, comprehensive, two day educational seminar for telecommunications professionals who need to understand the applications, benefits and limitations of: ON-PREMISES/UNLICENSED PCS WIRELESS PBXs/CENTREX IN-BUILDING CELLULAR SYSTEMS The seminar covers all aspects of these new systems and services: Private domain, dual domain, and multi domain service areas; Dual mode and mutli mode operation; Host controlled and Network controlled call routing; Part 15 Subpart C, Part 15 Subpart D, PCS and Cellular spectrum; Adjunct and Integrated implementations; and Single cell/single user, single cell/mutli-user and mutli cell/multi-user radio architectures. The seminar is continuously updated to provide you with the latest information on: New products, technologies, spectrum regulations, standards, user benefits and applications, market forecasts and trends. 1997 Seminar Schedule and Venues Dates: September 15 & 16, 1997 Location: Washington, DC Hotel: Sheraton Crystal City - Arlington Dates: October 20 & 21, 1997 Location: Dallas, TX Hotel: Dallas Medallion Dates: December 1 & 2, 1997 Location: Phoenix, AZ Hotel: Phoenix Inn To receive a detailed brochure including cost of the seminar, contact Alexander Resources at: Phone: 972-818-8225 Fax: 972-818-6366 E-mail: JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net Postal mail: Alexander Resources, 5705 Deseret Trail, Dallas, TX 75252, USA When requesting the brochure please provide your name, your company name, address, phone and fax number. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:19:51 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Telecom Policy Newsletter Available Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:16:49 -0700 From: Susan Evoy Subject: Telecom Policy Newsletter Available Telecommunications Policy Roundtable: Cutting Across Turfs to Change Public Policy CPSR's Spring 1997 newsletter Guest editor: Andy Oram Computer scientists have been saying for years that computers and computer networks would merge with telephones and television, the other major media of our age. Now computer/telephone technology and multimedia have raised their heads, not only as a dazzling set of products that benefit end users, but as a complex regulatory and policy arena. Over the past four years, CPSR members have taken on a new field of technology (telecommunications) and mastered its principles enough to have an impact on public thought. This issue of the newsletter offer updates on major debates such as universal service and the effect of mergers on service and competition. We also look at the alliances CPSR has made with organizations and policy- makers to see that the public interest is heard during the battles between multibillion-dollar industries. Jeff Johnson and Chris Mays: CPSR Joins California Policy Roundtable Brennon M. Martin: Competition, Interconnection, and Universal Service Jerome Thorel: Telecom Giants Battle For Online Content: Focus on France W. Curtiss Priest: E. Markey, E-Rate, and E-Culture Jeffrey Hops: Turning the tide: The "Telecommunications Access Act"and the future of non-commercial access Peter Miller: Community technology flourishes in Seattle Jeff Johnson: Report from ACM'97 conference Press release: Philip Zimmermann, Creator of PGP, joins CPSR Board Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet): Conference announcement and call for associates ***************************************************************** The newsletter was sent to CPSR members earlier this month. To purchase a copy for $5.00, send your address and check, VISA, or MasterCard to CPSR, PO Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302. > -- > Susan Evoy * Deputy Director > http://www.cpsr.org/home.html > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302 > Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 * Email: evoy@cpsr.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #159 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 22 13:31:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA14167; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706221611.MAA14167@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #160 TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Jun 97 12:11:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Can't Collect for Hacker's Calls (Tad Cook) Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (Marty Tennant) Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (Brian Elfert) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Henry Baker) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael Israeli) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Marty Bose) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Afshin Youssefyeh) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Jason Lindquist) Telephone Triage Nursing Website (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line (Hillary Gorman) Internet Telephony Report (John Stahl) Telco 50 Pinout and Meisei Manual? (Warnica) 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: AT&T Can't Collect for Hacker's Calls Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:55:41 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Judge Rules Philadelphia Law Firm Not Liable for Payment of Hackers' Calls BY JIM SMITH, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 20--For a change, David beat Goliath. AT&T Corp. had sued in federal court to collect nearly $17,000 from a small Philadelphia law firm -- even though the firm had been victimized by "hackers." The bill was for long-distance toll calls made overseas, mostly to the Dominican Republic, over a nine-day period in August 1994. AT&T demanded payment, knowing that "hackers" had illegally accessed the firm's leased telephone system to make the overseas calls, and despite the firm's prompt notice that a scam was in progress. "It is the policy of AT&T to hold customers responsible for all such calls because it is the customer, not AT&T, who controls the security of ... the customer's telephone system," an AT&T employee told the firm's founder, James C. Schwartzman. Three arbitrators, attorneys Joseph Lombardo, Doris Dabrowski and Pamela Esposito, heard several hours of testimony from Schwartzman and other witnesses yesterday and then ruled in Schwartzman's favor. "I'm still outraged by this," said Schwartzman, a former federal prosecutor who has a three-lawyer firm that does both criminal and civil litigation. Schwartzman said he intended to research other AT&T collection cases involving long-distance-toll fraud, with an eye towards filing a class-action suit against AT&T on behalf of others who have been billed for calls made by hackers. Richard Blasi, an AT&T spokesman, had no comment on the arbitrators' ruling, but insisted AT&T tries "to work with" customers caught up in such a scam. But testimony indicated that all AT&T will do is offer to settle a disputed bill in exchange for what it costs AT&T to prosecute a debt- collection case. "They certainly never made any proposal that was a substantial discount from the full amount," noted Schwartzman's partner, Gary Tilles. Schwartzman isn't an AT&T customer, since his long-distance service -- then and now -- is provided by MCI, and his phone system is leased from his landlord, Rawle & Henderson, another law firm. Back in 1994, the day the hacker began using his lines, Schwartzman reported it to MCI. At his request, MCI immediately blocked any overseas calls originating from Schwartzman's phone. The hacker then made long distance calls by accessing AT&T's system. MCI later apologized and withdrew its bill for more than $3,000 in unauthorized calls. AT&T also was notified by Schwartzman the first day of the hacker's calls, but said it had no capability then to put a block on overseas service. AT&T may appeal the arbitrators' award to U.S. District Court, but its attorney, Frank Nofer, couldn't be reached for comment. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:51:26 -0700 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm) Subject: Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area TELECOM Digest Editor reported: > MCI is now offering local service throughout the Chicago area. The > terms of service for residential customers is $18 per month which > gets you 100 calls of unlimited duratation within the northern Illinois > LATA. How does the $18 a month compare with the Ameritech residential offering? > Unfortunatly this includes local area calls which Ameritech > was giving for three cents on an untimed basis. Addtional calls > after the first one hundred are ten cents each. Their rates for any > additional features (call waiting, three way calling, caller ID, > forwarding, etc) are however more expensive than Ameritech. For > example caller ID is $8.50 per month; Ameritech gets $6.50. Why unfortunately? I am assuming there is a difference between local calls and calls within the northern Illinois LATA? Or are they the same? marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm), 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice, (803) 527-7783 fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech's monthly fee is a little less, however Ameritech charges $10 per month to be on the 'call-pack' plan, while MCI simply includes it as part of the monthly fee. The 'call-pack' plan from Ameritech offers a few different options as well; MCI does not. I said that 'unfortunatly local area calls were included' because with Ameritech, calls within an eight mile area are considered local and those always are untimed. It was only calls to distances greater than eight miles, (what they term Band B, C or D calls) that are timed. On Ameritech, calls within the local area are about four cents each; talk as long as you want. Calls to B,C, and D points are charged four to six cents for every two or three minutes. (I am speaking now of residential customers; business customers are timed even on local calls). The main advantage to a call-pack is that calls to those outer areas are billed at ten cents each on an untimed basis (actually, ten dollars for the first hundred calls). But call-pack does not distinquish between 'local' and 'outer', meaning the local untimed calls you could have had for four cents each now cost ten cents each. So whether or not call-pack makes sense depends on where the majority of your calls go. At home I have one line with call-pack and one line without call- pack. I use the line without call-pack as my modem line since 99 percent of my modem traffic is to the local dialup, where I can stay connected for hours at a time at four cents per call. The other line which is used mostly by others in the household to call friends in Chicago and other suburbs has call-pack since most of the calls on that line are *not* to Skokie and thus would wind up being timed if not for call-pack. The 'unfortunate' part of MCI local service then, is that call-pack is the only option. You pay ten cents for each and every call in the northern Illinois area. Admittedly you can talk as long as you want, however Ameritech gives the most local of those calls at four cents rather than ten cents on the same untimed basis and for people who do not use the phone a lot, you do not have to pre-purchase 100 calls per month as is the case with MCI. If my modem calls of several hours in duration were to a Chicago number which Ameritech was timing, then the call-pack would be a very good deal, whether you got it from MCI or from Ameritech. MCI, as I understand it, has only one call-pack plan; eighteen dollars per month which includes the local line. Ameritech offers some variety on the call-pack, where you can purchase 100 calls/$10 with additional calls at ten cents each; 200 calls per month at a reduced amount (I seem to recall it is around $18 per month) or 300 calls per month (I think this costs about $25), but that is *in addition to* the local line charges per month. And as noted above, once you go with any of the call-pack plans from Ameritech, your previously very local untimed calls at four cents each get swept right into the plan at ten cents each. The trade off is you had better make lots of outer area calls. MCI just flat-rates all calls at ten cents with a minumum of one hundred calls, but when you include whatever the monthly fee for service would be otherwise, it is not a bad deal. Like so many telco services, whether one chose to stay with Ameritech or 'migrate' (their term) to MCI is an applications thing based on your own usage. As I noted in the previous message, MCI is charging more for the additional features like call-waiting, etc, but they are giving the same 'discounts' on feature packages as Ameritech. Another problem with MCI: they cannot hunt between lines. With my Ameritech service, if my main line is busy, calls automatically hunt to my second line. MCI says due to the 'nature of how they interact with Ameritech central offices' they are unable to hunt between lines. If your line is busy, tough. Callers need to dial your second number direct unless you have call-waiting, which of course is a no-no where modems are concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Subject: Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area Date: 22 Jun 97 01:18:40 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > If you have existing service with Ameritech, MCI will 'migrate' you > to their service at no charge. If you want a new line brought in > the fee is $56.00 to bring it to your demarc. If you want to keep > your existing phone numbers you can do so. You are not tied into > MCI long distance service, nor is there any discount or special price > for local service subscribers. You can pick any long distance carrier > you want. They said most orders take seven to ten working days to > complete. Hmm ... MCI just started service here in Minneapolis. (My first 48 lines with MCI will be turned up Monday.) MCI is not charging any install fees here, and does not expect to until 1998 at earliest. They are only doing business service right now, as they are not reselling US West, but they have their own switch. MCI requires a minimum order of six lines right now. Brian [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They told me if I want to 'migrate' existing lines from Ameritech to MCI **and keep the same phone number** I can do so at no conversion or installation fee. They will make all the arrangements. If I want brand new service not previously associated with Ameritech, they can do that also but the installation fee of $56 applies. They'll use existing pairs in either case. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 01:09:14 GMT In article , grendel6@ix.netcom. com wrote: > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. It depends upon your definition of "PCS". One definition of PCS is that it utilizes 1.9 GHz, while another definition is that it uses digital + a number of additional features like caller id, short messages, etc. So far as I know, there are at least three bands: Nextel is in its own part of the band with push2talk mobile radios Analog cellular (A & B) is in its own 900 MHz band "PCS" cellular is in the 1.9GHz band There are at least four types of modulation: analog FM (like A&B cellular) "American" TDMA (includes Nextel's hacked up version) ("American" is my term) GSM (also TDMA, but is usually considered different from American TDMA) CDMA (Qualcomm, etc.) There are a number of voice encoders: analog (can be almost wireline sometimes) 8 khz GSM (so-called "half-rate") -- relatively poor quality 14 khz GSM (so-called "full-rate") -- better voice quality 14 khz GSM (so-called "enhanced full-rate") -- best voice quality 14 khz CDMA -- about equal to GSM enhanced full-rate quality The confusion really reigns because Sprint is CDMA with the single exception of Wash DC, which is GSM. I think that all of Sprint is 1.9 GHz. I think that Sprint in DC uses 14khz full-rate GSM, while Pacbell in Cal uses _enhanced_ full-rate (14khz) voice encoders. Thus, the voice quality of pacbell phones should be a bit better than Sprint DC GSM phones. Most of the GSM services offer enhanced services, because this is software that has long been working at 900MHz outside the US. The CDMA services and the TDMA services will offer essentially similar capabilities. Even the analog cellular people have gotten with the program, and want to provide short messages, caller id, etc. The major advantage for digital is better privacy, although unless you get the best voice encoder systems, you give up a lot in voice quality. Oh, and by the way, you'll have a heck of a time finding out the above information by consulting the various providers' web sites. They seem to not want anyone to really know what is going on. The best place to learn is to consult some of the trade rags. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually the best place to learn what is going on is to read this Digest on a regular basis. PAT] ------------------------------ From: izzy@izzy.com (Michael Israeli) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: 21 Jun 1997 12:26:55 GMT Organization: Dip n Strip has moved - BOFH branch In , Bill wrote: > I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't > remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews. > Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers. > Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its > partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as > *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC), > Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint. The Sprint service in Philadelphia is called Sprint PCS, not Sprint Spectrum. Sprint Spectrum is only offered in Washington D.C. Sprint PCS is a true PCS system utilitizing CDMA and operating at 1.9ghz. > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum technology, hence the name. > P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is > perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features" > (like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get > a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus > $.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes > a month; LD is free on weekends, but 99% of my calls are during peak > periods). I don't work for, or have any interest in Sprint PCS, other than the fact that I use the service here in Philadelphia. It is really an excellent deal, especially for people who use their phone a lot. Sprint PCS charges $50/month for 500 minutes plus $.10/min over that peak or off peak. Or, they also offer 1500 minutes for $75/month plus $.05/min over that. Plus there are no land line or other charges normally associated with cellular service. Oh, and don't forget, first incoming minute is always free (plus caller ID, 3 way, call waiting, voicemail, etc). For comparison purposes, Comcast (the A-side cellular carrier) charges $90/month for 300 minutes plus peak/off peak rates after that. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 05:37:43 -0700 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? > Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers. > Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its > partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as > *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC), > Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint. > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. (snip) Sprint Spectrum, aka Sprint PCS, uses CDMA, which is a true PCS technology. It does not use GSM, which is what Sprint Spectrum in DC uses. You seem to have a bias towards GSM, from your comments about "real" PCS; having done some work in both, I prefer CDMA, primarily because of better vocoder technology. PCS, in itself, does not specify what technology is used; that's why so many carriers are muddying the waters by renaming their various digital services as PCS. Marty ------------------------------ From: Afshin David Youssefyeh Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:54:30 -0700 Sprint is true PCS. As for Nextel, they are a company out of Los Angeles. They have been around for a couple of years, but only recently have they began going after the mass public. So far, their service has been limited to fleets (taxis and limos) the problem with their service is that their phones are too big. Also, I don't think that their system is on the PCS frequency (1300), instead, they run on 800. However, their prices seem reasonable and they don't charge for roaming. Also, they have this feature that allows you to conference call with other Nextel users. ------------------------------ From: jlindqui@uiuc.edu (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: 21 Jun 1997 08:39:51 GMT Organization: Big Ass Hams, Inc. An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as Bill wrote: > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. Sprint's PCS service should be just as "real" as it is everywhere else. It's 1900 MHz CDMA. There really isn't much difference between what you're calling "true PCS" and "juiced-up cellular". Technically, the over-the-air protocol's a bit different, but that's it. > What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone > know what their pricing looks like ? After the first minute, Nextel (another 1900 MHz CDMA carrier) rounds their airtime to the nearest second, instead of up to the next whole minute, like tradtional cell carriers. They also have some sort of partnerships going with local market entities, which I don't really understand yet. Jason A. Lindquist linky@uiuc.edu <*> Senders of unsolicited commercial/propaganda e-mail subject to fees. Details at http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jlindqui ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Telephone Triage Nursing Website Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:03:41 -0400 Pat: I am forwarding this to TELECOM DIGEST from its original posting because it may be of interest to those involved in call centers. We tend to think of call centers as being commerce or product support related. But here is a telephone "support" function which falls into neither catagory. When these folks say "customer care" they really mean customer care ... --- Forwarded message follows --- From: webster@katsden.com (Kathi Webster) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce Subject: HEALTH: Telephone Triage Nursing website Date: 21 Jun 1997 11:48:59 -0400 Telephone Triage and Nurse Consultation Website URL: < http://www.katsden.com/telenurse/index.html > The Internet gathering place for nurses who work with patients primarily through the telephone. Whether in an office, call center, hospice, hospitals ... this is the place for nurses and health care professionals to get the most up to date info. Conferences, professional organizations, assessment tools, triage nursing resources, call center information, employment opportunities, and live chat area. Monthly ezine (TNT) featured at sister site. Also provided: Health Administration resources for nurse managers, Medical (physician) resources, Disease State Management (DSM), marketing and demographics, and ergonimics issues. Kathi Webster BSN RN Editor, Telephone Nursing Telezine webster@katsden.com ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (hillary gorman) Subject: Re: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line Date: 22 Jun 1997 01:56:47 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Call forwarding is usually done with > something like *72 or 72# or 1172. May I presume you tried the obvious > like 9-1172 (since you said the * went straight to reorder) or 9-72#, > or possibly 9-72 (wait for time out and beep tones)? Also, what about > other users on the centrex? How do *they* call forward (both to an > inside extension or outside number)? Please note that some centrexes > are wired to allow forwarding only to another extension and not off- > premises. PAT] Yes, we tried all of those. The other users on the centrex were using *206 to call forward, which is why we'd been told to try that first. Here's what happened: our MFS rep finally called Bell and yelled at them to send a tech out. Bell insisted a tech couldn't do anything, but since MFS agreed to pay for one, they agreed to send one. An hour later, I got a phone call from a Bell tech, who told me to try dialing 10 206 - which didn't work. THen he told me to try 10 207, also didn't work. He called me back about an hour after that and said "I've got it! Dial 206, wait for the stutter tone, then dial 10 + your number to forward calls to." THAT worked. Why on earth it took them over 24 hrs to find out what we needed to do is beyond me, but I suppose I should have known better than to expect competence from Bell Frantic. hillary "finally forwarding" gorman hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact "So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?" Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth! ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Internet Telephony Report Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:59:40 +0000 A recent article from the Internet based INFORMATIONWEEK DAILY, an email sent compilation of data and telephony related news, could possibly be related to a similar bit of prognostication (remember the forecast for future Internet Overload?) regarding the potential for expansion of Internet Telephony. The report of a recent panel discussion at the PC Expo in New York City relates that the consensus of this august group was that internet based telephony is expected to grow radically in the next 5 - 10 year period. I wonder whether if this is another one of those guesses that will fall short of expectations? If it does 'ring' true, wonder how the LEC's, etc., will make their money, certainly not from local service charges (ay least not at the current rates)?! Imagine what the cost of local service will jump to with out the 'support' of LD services! Gee, all the LD calls for a flat $19.95 (or what ever). Here is the report: > Good Morning! Today is June 18. And this is... > ---------INFORMATIONWEEK DAILY------------ > The E-Mail News Service For IT Decision Makers > from the editors of InformationWeek magazine > * Now reaching 75,000 subscribers and growing * > _____Internet Telephony: Much More Than A Hobby_____ > Internet telephony will gain a substantial chunk of the > telecommunications service market within five to 10 years, > technology executives predicted yesterday at a panel > discussion at PC Expo in New York. > The four panelists -- Allen Lutz, senior VP of Compaq > Computer; Tom Evslin, VP of AT&T WorldNet Services; Frank > Gill, executive VP of Intel; and Elon Ganor, CEO of Net > telephony software provider VocalTech Inc. -- concurred that > within the next 10 years, and as soon as five years, at least > 50% of telephone traffic will go over IP networks rather than > public switched networks. > The attraction is simple to understand, they said, especially > considering the high cost of international phone calls > and the comparatively low price of Internet access fees. "It > may not be free, but it sure is attractive," said Compaq's > Lutz. > The change to IP telephony will take a while, the panelists > said, because public-switched networks are both effective and > entrenched. "Circuit switching won't go away. The fiber > doesn't rust and rot," said AT&T's Evslin. In addition, > Internet call quality is inferior. > The panelists conceded that the Internet telephony > pricing model will not always be so favorable for end users > as the vendors behind it attempt to turn a profit. > "Eventually, market forces will determine how much people > will pay [for IP telephony], and we'll see if we can make > some money," Ganor said. > -- Jeff Sweat John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications and Data System Consultants "No job is too big or too small for us" email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: l3q90@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Warnica) Subject: Telco 50 Pinout and Meisei Manual? Date: 19 Jun 1997 00:56:39 GMT Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada I'm looking for the pinout for the telco 50 pin connector (what line goes to what wire colour / number) Also I'm looking for a manual / info for a Reliant 16 (mfg 1986~) made by Meisei electric Co. Ltd. Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #160 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 23 08:40:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA06467; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706231240.IAA06467@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #161 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jun 97 08:40:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bill Horne) Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Felix Tilley) Re: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port (David Tweed) Re: How Do I Drive Inside Wiring from an ISDN TA Analog Port (Tad Cook) Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? (Jonathan Abramson) FITCE Congress 1997 Registration (Dominic Pinto) ACM SIGCOMM 97, in Sept 1997 in Cannes, France (Ernst Biersack) Re: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes (Ken Eikert) 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: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: 21 Jun 1997 16:51:42 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA czim@bigbear.com wrote: > [snip] I'm trying to write a new billing package targeted > at the CLEC market, it would be very helpful if anyone could answer a > few questions for me. > First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding > becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it > actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access > to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by > reselling the ILEC's switch? You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services, signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la carte. Each is available separately. > If a CLEC is allowed access to the copper, does that mean that the > CLEC can steal all the high profit origination fees from long distance > while leaving the ILEC to absorb the cost of the local loop, which in > many cases are sold at or below cost? No, because the ILEC will discount loops only by the amount of "avoided costs", and the costs they're avoiding are the ones associated with customer contact, which is very expensive. In other words, YOU have to deal with the customers, send out bills, hire people, etc. Also, your question presupposes that you'll have your own switch: have you priced a 5E or DMS-100 lately? The hardware and the expertise needed to run it will put most small CLECs out of the running. In any case, even if you have your own CO, you'll have to pay the ILEC to use their access tandem on the way to the IEC, or make a deal with the IEC to terminate trunks into your switch, in which case the ILEC will probably be doing the transport anyway. You'll find your margins eroding very quickly. Of course, the major IECs will be offering their customers deep discounts on long distance to entice them into switching dial tone providers, so that they can "pay themselves" the access charge. Don't expect them to offer you anything like that. > Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that > matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls > terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the > case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply > purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and > making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees > from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered > local calling? What prevents it are the laws against fraud. Notwithstanding the fact that you probably don't look good in stripes ;-), the charge is PER CALL, not per minute, and it's pretty tiny compared to the fixed costs of getting into the business. What many CLECs *ARE* doing, however, is eagerly seeking to serve ISPs, paging services, and fax lines, since these are exclusively INCOMING services. Since they get paid to terminate the call, the scale tips way over in their favor if they have only terminating services hooked up. Everybody is going to have to go back to the regulatory table on this one; the question is when. > Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the > conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a > rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. Let's back up for a second: the FCC ordered portability implemented by Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA, and the MSA's don't correspond to either state or LATA boundaries. They New York MSA is cutting from 10/1/97 to 3/31/98 (it was 12/31/97, but the FCC extended the deadline). The other MSA's follow fairly quickly, e.g., Boston is 1/1/98 to 4/15/98 (again, it was extended), and Providence is 3Q98. There are a lot of exceptions to the rules: check out the report and order. The initial implementation of LNP is "Service Provider" portability, which means that you'll be able to keep your old phone number when you change to a different LEC. > (Does anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center > is? There seems to be a lot of confusion.) Rate centers are billing areas, and are defined by both the FCC and state governments. They may be served by one exchange or several, and may or may not correspond to town/city/county/state boundaries. Check the Local Exchange Routing Guidelines (LERG) issued by Bellcore. > The remaining areas are supposed to ramp up LNP service so that it > will be universal by the end of 1998, and cellular carriers are exempted > until 1999. This raises all kinds of interesting billing problems and > abuses. For example, if I'm an ILEC and a CLEC steals my customer, I > will have to port the number. But, the Act allows me to bill for all > dips to my databases, so I can charge someone every time they dip my > database to find the Location Routing Number (LRN) associated with it. For those just tuning in ;-), a Location Routing Number identifies the SWITCH to which a ported number has moved, i.e., the LNP database will contain a list of LRN's to show what CLEC office is the "recipient" switch in a ported scenario. > Basically, as a CLEC I'll get hit with a fee everytime someone calls my > customer. As an ILEC, what prevents me from setting up a number which > just constantly dials the CLECs ported customer, each time hitting my > database for the LRN, and each time generating a fee to me? Sleep deprivation is an ugly thing to watch: I think you're drinking just a *little* too much coffee. Try decaf. > From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate > local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation > between the ILEC and the various CLECs ... and we all know how likely > that will be. (Everyone remember taking game theory in college?) > Unless some legislation comes along detailing these considerations a > little more, my billing system just got a lot more complicated, > because of all the various fees. Is this an accurate assessment? Yes and no. Yes, your billing is getting more complicated, but, hey, it's only software: just hire a few computer geeks and give them those macs like that cute actor showed you on TV, and problem solved :-J. No, it's not an accurate assessment. The CLECs and ILECs *ARE* cooperating, and will continue to do so. Everybody gets paid to complete calls, and nobody gets paid if they don't go through. > On a more technical note, if I'm a non facilities based CLEC simply > reselling the ILEC's local loop, what format is the ILEC going to send > AMA record data in? Can anyone point me to a Bellcore technical > document which might explain this? (I've looked ... I've failed.) The Bellcore Acounting Format. See the CAFD. > Also on a technical note, has anyone actually dealt with interfacing > to the RBOC's OSS layer for electronic requests? I know that it's only > being used by NYNEX and PacBell at the moment, and even that in only > limited form. (In fact, I was only able to find two systems at the > conference that even pretended to deal with the OSS complexities.) > Everyone else still requires a fax. Is there any sort of a standard > that's being borne out by the other regional LECs which I could use to > start coding up an interface? I'm not big enough to negotiate with > each of the RBOC's individually. Can anyone give me some guidance as > to how and where to find what the various ILECs are implementing? No, since the OSS systems aren't standardized. Tune in ten years from now. > BTW, I'm looking for a consultant to help me out with some of the more > esoteric aspects of this industry. So if you've dealt with CLEC issues > before and can give me some guidance, drop me a line. Good luck. Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ From: ftilley@goodnet.cyberprom.com (Felix Tilley) Subject: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:57:44 -0700 Organization: I Procmail Spammers to Hell I have crossposted this from comp.risks. This article seems more appropriate to comp.dcom.telecom. The original author is Thomas Brazil. Note that From: line has been altered to foil email spammers. Felix Tilley -- ftilley@goodnet.com Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:55:36 -0500 From: braz@mnw.net (Thomas Brazil) Subject: Computer fraud in subscribing to telephone service? Several weeks ago, we started receiving automated calls. When my wife picked up the line, there was just a slight hum for exactly ten seconds, then the line would disconnect. Initially, my wife had thought some "female" was trying to call me, and hung up. It was only when I received the same calls that she believed me! After the first two weeks of this, we received another, automated ten-second hangup IMMEDIATELY followed by a call from South Central Bell inquiring as to whether we wanted to "TouchStar" telephone service, which allows the customer to find out (among other things) who had "called and hung up" for a "low" monthly fee. I complained that I thought it was rather coincidental that BellSouth would call right after another automated hang up, but they professed their innocence. Today, I started receiving them on BOTH of my lines at the same time. I called a friend (another RISKS reader) to ask what steps I could take (I live in AL, he lives in MD). To my surprise, he started getting the same ten-second automated hangups three weeks ago, and they have not stopped! What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number for the 75-cent fee. When people get tired of paying the fee, they subscribe to the service. I may just do that to see if the calls stop. I have tried the better business bureau, but no humans exist to speak to! The risk? Well, my marriage went south for the first two weeks, and people are possibly getting duped while the phone companies take the money and run. ------------------------------ From: dtweed@removethis.ma.ultranet.com (David Tweed) Subject: Re: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 17:21:04 GMT In article , darus@wwa.com (Jim J. Wygralak) wrote: > I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a > single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola > Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting > POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can > NOT drive inside wiring. It's probably only the ringer load that's the issue. If you have only phones with electronic ringers in the apartment, I wouldn't worry about it. If you have older phones with mechanical ringers, disconnect them (or all but one of them) and count on hearing the phone ring from the other room(s). Building a reliable "POTS repeater" would be a very nontrivial exercise, even for an experienced telecom engineer (like me :-). Dave Tweed ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Do I Drive Inside Wiring from an ISDN TA Analog Port? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:53:13 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) darus@wwa.com (Jim J. Wygralak] wrote: > I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a > single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola > Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting > POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can > NOT drive inside wiring. > Is there a device available that I could plug into an analog port on > the TA, that would look like a single phone to the TA, which could > then drive extension lines in the other rooms? It was originally made to drive an off-premise extension from a key system, but the Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adapter will do this. You can plug it into any place that will drive a standard two-wire single line phone, and it boosts the DC voltage and the ringing up to normal CO line levels. In fact, I know of one installation where it was used with the Motorola product mentioned here. You can reach Proctor & Associates in Redmond, WA via email at 3991080@mcimail.com or solutions@proctorinc.com, or via telephone at 425-881-7000 or fax at 425-885-3282. The output of the 46222 has a ringing voltage of 105 VAC at 20 Hz under no load, and it drives at least 5 REN like a standard phone line. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: jra-tx@netcom.com (Jonathan Abramson) Subject: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:25:01 GMT Does anyone know where I can find a list of telephone rates for local service for both business and residential for the whole country? I am looking for the monthly charges for local service alone, not the rates for local long distance. For business service, I would like to find the rates for single phone lines, combo trunks, DID trunks, Centrex lines, etc; whether flat, measured or message service is provided, what the monthly allowance is, and how much additional local calls or minutes cost. I have already found two sources that help, but are not totally adequate. The first is the FCC's Reference book of Rates, Price Indices and Household Expenditures for Telephone Service. (March 1997) This source is great , but only covers a some cities. I also have the Bell Operating Companies Exchange Service Telephone Rates (December 31, 1995) put out by the National Association Of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. This book covers the whole country but doesn't cover PBX trunks, and is a little out of date. Short of calling the local phone company in one city in every rate band across the country (which I may have to do), does anyone have any suggestions. The help is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Jonathan jra-tx@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Dominic Pinto Subject: FITCE Congress 1997 Registration Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:14:00 +0100 Congress registration and hotel reservations details are available from: Dominic Pinto FITCE UK Room A604 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Preferred e-mail: dominic.pinto@itu.ch Ph: +44 (0)171 356-5112 Fax: +44 (0)171 356-6482 Mob: +44 (0)802 246761 ------------------------------------ 36th EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS DAYS THESSALONIKI, Greece, September 22th - 27th 1997 The Annual Congress and the European Telecommunications Days are the premier international events organized by FITCE, the Federation of Telecommunications Engineers of the European Community. FITCE was founded in 1961 to aid the establishment of good relationships between telecommunications engineers across European borders and to promote and facilitate the exchange of professional experience and knowledge. FITCE numbers some 5000 members across the European Union, and includes telecoms and communications professionals from all the varying converging industries - telecoms, IT, media, and broadcast. The Hellenic Association of Telecommunications Engineers will be hosting this year's annual congress in THESSALONIKI, GREECE, from Monday 22th to Saturday 27th September 1997. The Congress theme is: -EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY AT THE DAWN OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM- Emerging technologies in telecommunications, and the liberalisation and globalization of markets, are in turn becoming key factors for investment opportunities and equally attractive revenue projections even from the beginning of the 21st century. The expectation for a dynamic presence and an ever increasing role in the new competitive environment looms in the horizon of most telecommunications enterprises, irrespective of their size,incumbent or minor. The Congress will also include parallel sessions concerning evolution of the telecommunications sector of the Eastern European Countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union. The host city is THESSALONIKI, the capital of MACEDONIA. Situated at the cross-roads of three continents and two seas, Thessaloniki, is the second largest city in Greece and one of the greatest financial and commercial centers of Southeastern Europe. Details are also on the Web at http://www.otenet.gr/FITCE97/ ------------------------------ From: erbi@eurecom.fr (Ernst Biersack) Subject: ACM SIGCOMM 97, in Sept 1997 in Cannes, France Date: 22 Jun 1997 15:19:43 GMT Organization: ACM The annual ACM SIGCOMM 97 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures and Protocols for Computer Communication will take place from September 14 to 18 in Cannes, France. There are many good reasons why you should attend: An outstanding technical program comprising - Tutorials: Sunday September 14 and Monday September 15 - Conference: Tuesday September 16 to Thursday (morning) September 18 Keynote addresses by the two winners of Annual SIGCOMM Award. A superb social program with: - Wine and cheese tasting: Monday September 15, 18:00 to 21:00 - Pool session: Tuesday September 16, 19:00 to 22:00 around the Hotel Majestic pool Workshops right after the conference: - Internet Simulations with the NS simulator: Thursday (afternoon) September 18 - Reliable Multicast Meeting: Friday and Saturday September 19-20 Student travel Grants (application deadline July 1st !!) Register now!! (Early registration rates until August 1st) For more information and the registrations forms see: http://www.inria.fr/rodeo/sigcomm97/ OR http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm97/ Ernst Biersack (SIGCOMM 97 publicity chair) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 09:13:00 -0700 From: Ken Eikert Subject: Re: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes Stanley Cline wrote: > As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area > is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world -- > spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless > carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs. > Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it! > The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and > calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way. > THE HISTORY: > [Stanley Cline's excellent history of metro Atlanta local > calling area expansion (1989-1997) snipped.] At the end of WW2, Atlanta's local calling area was roughly equal to today's NPA 404. In 1950, Chamblee (included Dunwoody) and Clarkston were added to the local calling area. In 1951, Smyrna (included Powers Ferry) was added. The year 1960 marked the biggest expansion in the size of Atlanta's local calling area until 1995. Added in 1960: Austell, Douglasville, Duluth, Fairburn, Fayetteville (included Peachtree City), Jonesboro (included Riverdale), Lithonia (included Panola), Marietta, Norcross, Roswell, Stockbridge, and Stone Mountain (included Tucker). In 1961 Alpharetta, Conyers, Palmetto, and Powder Springs were added. Added in 1962 were Acworth and Woodstock. In 1964 Buford, Dallas, Hampton, Lawrenceville (included Lilburn and Snellville), Locust Grove, and McDonough were added. Finally, in 1966, Loganville was added, and Atlanta began bragging that it had the world's largest toll-free local calling area. No new exchanges (other than CO splits) were added to the metro Atlanta local calling area between 1966 and 1995. [Information above checked against Southern Bell directories; corrections welcome.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #161 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 23 09:09:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA08308; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:09:56 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706231309.JAA08308@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #162 TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jun 97 09:09:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Stanley Cline) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (John Stahl) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (grendel6@ix.netcom) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Tim Russell) Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (Tim Russell) Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (Al Varney) Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Stanley Cline) Re: Telco 50 Pinout and Meise (Bob Savery) Effects of 206 Split (Babu Mengelepouti) 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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:10:52 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:26 -0700, Bill wrote: > I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't > remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews. PCS is more or less a buzzword meaning different things to different people. In general, "PCS" is used to refer to one of two things: digital wireless service, or services using the newly-auctioned 1900 MHz frequencies. Others seem to use the term to refer to GSM services in the US (i.e., Powertel, BellSouth DCS, Omnipoint, etc.) or even worse, to repriced/repackaged analog cellular service. > Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers. > Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its > partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as > *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC), > Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint. Carrier Digital? 1900? GSM? BANM digital yes no no Sprint Spec yes yes no Nextel yes no no Omnipoint yes yes yes Nextel really isn't truly "cellular" or "PCS" -- it's more or less a "specialized mobile radio" service, aka "enhanced two-way." At least here [Atlanta], Nextel seems to be shifting its market focus slightly, from fleet/utility customers who want an "enhanced two-way" service, to some high-volume general business customers. > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. Sprint Spectrum (the cable-company-supported, non-APC version) is using 1900 MHz frequencies, and is using CDMA digital technology. So yes, SS can be construed to be "true" PCS -- unless you subscribe to the "GSM" definition, which I don't. > Omnipoint isn't here yet, but (I believe) they will be true PCS. True > or false? True using all "valid" definitions. > What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone > know what their pricing looks like ? I'm not very familiar with their pricing. From what I understand, they are priced a bit higher than standard cellular/PCS, but do include either a large amount of or even unlimited "private" airtime (i.e., "calls" or "two-way" to others in the same organization.) If two-way features aren't important, it may be best to look at the "consumer" PCS carriers (i.e., SS and Omnipoint there; here in Atlanta, that would be Powertel and AT&T Wireless) -- they are apt to be the cheapest for similar service. > P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is > perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features" *I* don't think they are "acceptable" (neither are US Cellular, CommNet, Louisiana Radiofone, or Atlanta AirTouch), but I will not get into that here. I have done that enough times in the past. > (like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get > a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus > $.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes Probably you can. In areas where PCS is available, they are undercutting traditional cellular carriers' pricing by 25-40%. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net (hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ **NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:25:32 +0000 Probably the easiest way to tell, is find out the frequency of the telephone handset (radio) you are given; if it is in the 800 - 900 mHz range it is cellular, if it is in the 1900 MHz range it is PCS! The PCS spectrum is in the 1900 MHz range and there are six potential suppliers at any point in the US - the licenses were auctioned off in six different 'blocks' - A through F. Most of the "big guys" like AT&T, Sprint Spectrum, etc. have the A-block or B-block licenses, which have very large service areas in each MTA. The C-block through F-block areas, called BTA's, are much smaller by comparison. If you are interested, go to the FCC Internet site (http://www.fcc.gov) and 'nose' around the wireless section. There you can find a complete list (in Excel spreadsheet format) of all the PSC auction "winners" along with the listing of major cities for each block license, the population base in each and even how much money each of the "winners" bid for their license. With the cellular spectrum, the FCC created two competitors in each MSA, the b-side and the a-side, the wireline and the non-wireline competitor. With PCS, the FCC 'created' up to six competitors for every spot in the US. However, there is some concern whether, like cellular where you can take your telephone (radio) anywhere in the US and have it "work" (make a call for a price per minute), you will be able to do the same with your PCS telephone (radio). There are several operating "systems" in the PCS framework of operation and not all of the suppliers are planning to use the same method of digital communication. However, locally, in large metro-areas, there will be a plethora of competitors and services available. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications and Data System Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:52:02 -0700 From: Bill Reply-To: grendel6@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re : Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented: > I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS > system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum > technology, hence the name. And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com. APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not. Bill ------------------------------ From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: 22 Jun 1997 18:30:30 GMT Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services Bill writes: > Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether > the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just > juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects > of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge. If this is the Sprint system with the Sony CDMA phones (the ones with the popup earpiece that reveal "Digital by Qualcomm") then it's the system I use here in Omaha. I suppose it depends on your definition of PCS, but I would say that the Sprint system qualifies. It runs in the 2.4 gHZ range, uses extremely low power phones (I believe absolute maximum output on the phones is 150 mW), and has many services with more coming. However, I believe one of the things PCS is known for is many small cellsites rather than fewer larger ones, and I don't believe that's the case with Sprint - I believe the sites are cellular-style, though I could be mistaken, since 150mW at 2.4 gHz doesn't go very far in rain, and the system seems nearly impervious from rainfade. Right now the system delivers Caller ID on incoming and outgoing calls, which is a nice thing. They also have a voicemail service which will be nice when all the bugs are worked out - they admit there are minor problems occasionally, so don't offer voicemail yet unless you specifically ask for it - instead, landline forwarding is free. I'm told calls forwarded to landline phones with incur a small, non-duration fee once per call once voicemail is working properly. The first minute on incoming calls is free, which, coupled with Caller ID makes me MUCH less hesitant to give out my number to people. Also in the works is alpha paging and, I'm told, Internet access. I read an article stating that Sony had licensed an HDML browser (Handheld Device Markup Language) for use in the phones, and Qualcomm/Sony already sells a serial cable that plugs into the base of the phone. Overall, I'd say the system definitely qualifies as "real" PCS. The voice quality is amazing and the system works extremely well aside from a couple of small dropout zones which Sprint assures me will be fixed in July. Things are complicated because Omaha has put a moratorium on new cellsite antenna installations. Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net "The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits." -- Grady Ward ------------------------------ From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? Date: 22 Jun 1997 18:47:53 GMT Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services David Martin writes: > I just checked my dialup connection to the internet: I've been on for > 2 hours and 26 minutes and my total traffic has been 8000 Kbits - this > is an average load of just about 1 Kbit/sec (mostly I just background > check email and foreground read www.washingtonpost.com.) > Doesn't this imply that my existing telco wiring plant is cabable > right now of supporting something like 32 endpoints like me ON MY > WIRE? That is, if each data end point on the average uses only 1/32 > of the bandpass needed for voice, the 32 endpoints could be > multiplexed onto a single wire. (I know the hardware isn't in place to > do this, but it should be possible & not rocket science.) > Is this true? If everybody were packet switched at home, could the > existing wiring plant support the current voice traffic and the > anticipated increment in data traffic at little or no cost increase? As an ISP, I see patterns like yours quite often on our dialup ports. I'd definitely agree with the statement that most users would like to do nothing more than be connected 24/7 and check email continuously, and actually use full throughput not much more than one or two hours a day. I seriously wish that ISDN had become a pervasive technology. Since it supports two 64 kbit channels, as well as a 19.2 kbit signaling channel which can also be used for low-bandwidth packet-based X.25 applications, it seems tailor-made for use in the above scenario. Systems could simply contact us with small "Do I have mail?" messages via the signaling channel, (or, in fact, we could contact THEM!) and only bring up the full PPP connection and actually take switch capacity when there's something to retrieve or when the user wants to browse, download news, etc. Of course, once people actually started using ISDN, US West promptly made it metered and much too expensive for the average user to afford, despite the fact that there are extremely low-priced access solutions available now. It wouldn't matter anyway, since they're normally incapable of getting a line installed in less than 2-3 months, and once it is installed it's normally configured wrong and it takes weeks of shakedown to get everything working. Then it still gets mysteriously "reconfigured" so that 2-channel calls won't work once every few months. I'd go so far as to say that, if ISDN were in place pervasively and such software were in place, RBOCs wouldn't have any capacity problems at all. This assumes, of course, that the current capacity problems in areas like Seattle are, in fact, due to the Internet and not just failures by US West and other RBOCs to properly keep up on infrastructure. I'm not convinced that's the case. Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net "The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits." -- Grady Ward ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? Date: 23 Jun 1997 04:03:24 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , David Martin wrote: > What is a realistic average equivalent baud rate for voice > communications and how does it translate into real digital transmission > costs? Here's my naive analysis. Please correct me. > Ok, I know the above is very sloppy and there are lots of statistical > concerns, but is it safe to say that a single T1 channel(eg. 64 kbs at > the telco) can really handle 6-10 real simultaneous data users? > This is an important point regarding the development of the > infrastructure needed to support a large fraction of users who are > "off hook" but actually quiet most of the time. Where are the REAL > bottlenecks? > This simplistic analysis indicates that substantial savings would > result from bringing packet switching into the home. That is, > re-engineering the local switchs to respond to packet arrivals, rather > than off-hook states could achieve a large savings. That's exactly what ISDN does with X.25 packet (D- and B-channel). For example, we make multiplexers that take 30 9600 baud async serial inputs and multiplex it over a single 64Kbps B-channel. Works just fine. We have SUNs that basically have an ISDN B-channel as an interface, with X.25 supporting multiple connections. Europe markets X.25 to-the-home even without ISDN. Frame Relay is another example of packet switching at the user level. The biggest problem with expanding this service is that local dial-up voice channels are untimed, unlimited-time channels, and it's difficult to implement a packet service that is either usage-based or priced flat-rate that is as cheap. There just aren't a lot of economics working to provide a cheap untimed/unlimited efficient digital subscriber service. ADSL might do it -- not because it will be cheaper per month, but because it will be enought more bandwidth that folks will pay MORE per month. It's also difficult to fund re-engineering of the local switches when the existing service is priced so low. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:10:55 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:17:00 -0700, Joseph Singer wrote: > I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the > country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I Where, now? With the explosive growth of ISPs? There are only three areas I know of that did have "only" AOL dialups, but that's changed: * Rome/Calhoun, GA - now has several ISPs. Georgia PSC may move them into Atlanta mass-local-calling area eventually since they are on the edge of it. * Slidell, LA - now (extra-cost) Area Plus to New Orleans, and has a couple of ISPs of its own. * Meridian, MS - now has at least five ISPs In fact, smaller towns are less likely to have AOL dialups than local or even regional ISPs. Take, for example, Arab and Sylacauga, Alabama -- neither have AOL numbers but do have local numbers for MindSpring, a (regional-now-national) ISP. Chattanooga had several ISPs and no "AOLnet" AOL number for some time. -SC (regular poster to alt.aol-sucks, and AOL basher, who is still getting billed by them. "AOL is sucks" -collective voice of a.a-s) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net (hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ **NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Re: Telco 50 Pinout and Meise Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 LL> I'm looking for the pinout for the telco 50 pin connector (what line LL> goes to what wire colour / number) 1 White/Blue 26 Green/Black 2 Blue/White 27 Black/Brown 3 White/Orange 28 Brown/Black 4 Orange/White 29 Black/Slate 5 White/Green 30 Slate/Black 6 Green/White 31 Yellow/Blue 7 White/Brown 32 Blue/Yellow 8 Brown/White 33 Yellow/Orange I can't draw worth beans 9 White/Slate 34 Orange/Yellow but the pins go.... 10 Slate/White 35 Yellow/Green 1 2 11 Red/Blue 36 Green/Yellow 3 4 12 Blue/Red 37 Yellow/Brown 5 6 13 Red/Orange 38 Brown/Yellow 7 8 14 Orange/Red 39 Yellow/Slate 15 Red/Green 40 Slate/Yellow and so forth. 16 Green/Red 41 Violet/Blue 17 Red/Brown 42 Blue/Violet 18 Brown/Red 43 Violet/Orange 19 Red/Slate 44 Orange/Violet 20 Slate/Red 45 Violet/Green 21 Black/Blue 46 Green/Violet 22 Blue/Black 47 Violet/Brown 23 Black/Orange 48 Brown/Violet 24 Orange/Black 49 Violet/Slate 25 Black/Green 50 Slate/Violet LL> Also I'm looking for a manual / info for a Reliant 16 (mfg 1986~) LL> made by Meisei Electric Co. Ltd. This one I can't help with though. Sorry! See Ya!! 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:49:07 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti <"Babu Mengelepouti"@baker.cnw.com> Reply-To: prophet@baker.cnw.com Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Effects of 206 Split The 206 split into 206 (now serving only Seattle, Sea-Tac Airport, and a couple of small suburbs around the airport), 253 (serving the greater Tacoma area and the Kent Valley), and 425 (serving Everett and the Eastside, including the headquarters of Nintendo USA, AT&T Wireless Services and Microsoft) entered permissive dialling a few weeks ago. I have discovered the following: - Calls to these NPA's using the old (206) NPA still bill on IXC statements as calls to 206. However, if they are dialled using the new NPAs, they appear on statements as such. - However, calls to my 888 number from these NPAs do *finally* reflect the new NPA. For a couple of weeks after the permissive dialing began, the ANI was *still* appearing on LDDS Worldcom and AT&T (the ones I tested) as 206. - Just like the greater Dallas area, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ruled against USWest and GTE who wanted to *require* 1+ for all inter-NPA calls (which could result in a toll call being placed without the customer's knowledge), but in ruling against that possibility it was *required* that 1+ *NOT* be permitted for "local" calls. So to call Seattle from Redmond one cannot dial 1-206-248-xxxx, one must dial 206-248-xxxx. Dialling 1+ for a local call results in an intercept. 1+ is *required* for toll calls as before. My feelings on the matter are that I am pleased that I will always know whether or not I am placing a toll call, but some software flat-out refuses to dial a number in a foreign NPA without prepending a 1. I have worked around this thus far by editing the phone number to prepend the NPA onto the 7 digit number, and fooling the software into thinking that it is dialling that number in my own NPA. This split was less poorly implemented than most, but it was handled poorly. Washington has seen the recent introduction of three new NPAs. The bulk of the population in western Washington lies in the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett corridor, and the rest of the western part is largely small logging and farming towns (Olympia, the state capital with 50,000-some residents is the largest city in the 360 NPA). While creating 360 was wise from the standpoint of minimising disruption of more rural residents, at the same time Seattle, Tacoma and Everett should have been split. At this point, the splits are still sane; they are made along as clear geographic lines as can be made in this hellhole of urban sprawl. Future NPA adjustment should come in the form of overlays, however. And I really wish that 1+ was *allowed* for local calls, although I will never support it being *required*. dialtone@vcn.bc.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #162 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 24 09:26:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA28553; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:26:54 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706241326.JAA28553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #163 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jun 97 09:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Lee Winson) Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Jay R. Ashworth) Tiny Center in Norway Guides Rescues All Over the World (Tad Cook) Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Henry Baker) Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (John P. Harris) Re: Effects of 206 Split (Linc Madison) Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (John R. Grout) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? Date: 24 Jun 1997 01:08:26 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into > a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number > for the 75-cent fee. I'm not sure if that's the case. First, in many areas, return-call *69 will yield the caller's number, so you need only do it once. Secondly, repeated calls as you describe is generally not allowed per phone company tarrifs. You might be eligible to complain via call-trace *57 where the phone company's harassment unit is notified. If I were getting such calls and couldn't track them down via *69, I would use *57 and expect the phone company to put a stop to them. It is possible someone's fax machine or computer is programmed wrong. Or, some vending machine or oil tank is vainly trying to get filled. (These problems have resulted in the symptons described, though it is strange that multiple numbers are affected.) ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? Date: 24 Jun 1997 04:09:23 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Felix Tilley (ftilley@goodnet.cyberprom.com) wrote: > What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into > a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number > for the 75-cent fee. When people get tired of paying the fee, they > subscribe to the service. I may just do that to see if the calls > stop. I have tried the better business bureau, but no humans exist to > speak to! The risk? Well, my marriage went south for the first two > weeks, and people are possibly getting duped while the phone companies > take the money and run. It should be noted that this was in RISKS about 3 weeks ago, and has aready been flogged to death there. Interested readers are directed to http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bin/risksindex where Lindsay Marshall is kind enough to carry the (very interesting) Risks Digest on the web. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Subject: Tiny Center in Norway Guides Rescues All Over the World Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:20:07 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Tiny center in Norway guides rescues all over the world BY DOUG MELLGREN Associated Press Writer SOLA, Norway (AP) -- Sitting at a bank of radios and phones, Ole Vaage helps save hundreds of people on the other side of the planet -- on a good day. On a bad day, the last words of someone he loses echo in his mind for hours. "You can be talking to someone. Then the radio goes silent and you realize their boat sank and they are dead," said Vaage, rescue leader at the Rescue Coordination Center-Southern Norway. He seldom sees the people he does save from his post in this small town in southwestern Norway. Many are in waters thousands of miles away. The center monitors satellite radio signals worldwide. When it picks up a distress call, it tries to contact ships in that area. "We don't actually rescue people. We send messages to ships or people in an area, and they do the job for us," Vaage said. When a ship sends a distress call, it is picked up by a satellite and bounced back to Earth. Since vast areas of the world's oceans have no dedicated rescue center, the Sola center took up the job by default. "The center that picks up the call first is the rescue leader," said Vaage, a former navy officer. For example, the Achille Lauro cruise ship, with 1,000 people aboard, was in the Indian Ocean off Africa when it caught fire in November 1994. The Norwegian center picked up the mayday call and directed ships to the site, saving almost everyone aboard before the ocean swallowed the crippled liner, which already was infamous for a hijacking by Arab terrorists in 1985. An American television network called the center seeking details on the rescue. The callers apparently did not realize the ship was near the equator, while the rescue center is only 550 miles from the Arctic Circle. "They asked when we expected the passengers to reach Norway," said Anders Bang-Andersen, the center's press spokesman. "I said we hoped the passengers might visit Norway someday, but that right now we were only concerned with getting them to land in Africa." Manned around the clock, the center averages 10 people saved a day. Last year, the center's 13 permanent employees -- usually two to a shift -- directed about 250 rescues in distant waters. It handled an additional 3,500 in the waters close to home as well as on land in Norway. The center was established by Norway's government in 1970. It was set up to coordinate rescue units of the navy, coast guard, police, hospitals, offshore oil industry and volunteer groups, rather than having each operate on their own as in most rescue centers. In a disaster, reinforcements come from all the agencies. "You start with a blank sheet. You don't know what resources are there. You have to remain calm. The first thing you have to do is try to control the chaos," said Vaage. For such a high-tech operation, the center looks old-fashioned. Information beamed to earth by up-to-the-minute satellite technology chatters out on old telex machines. Rescuers encourage ships to use the telexes because it is often easier to understand a captain's written English than his spoken English. When handling a distress call from the other side of the world, rescuers race to dig a paper map of the area from their files. Perhaps the single most important piece of equipment is the most old-fashioned: the rescuer's mind -- especially his ability to think clearly under pressure. There is no time for doubt in these circumstances. A recent shift gave a hint at what the center's staff faces. Vaage, with a telephone seeming grafted to his ear, coordinated searches for a lost family in Norway's mountains and for a fisherman missing from a small boat, and sent navigation warnings to ships off the U.S. East Coast. That, he said, was a quiet shift. It's not a job you leave at work. "After you go home, sometimes you just have to call in to see how it went," said Vaage. The pay-back, he said, "is a lot of thank you letters." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:55:54 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Chris Ziomkowski wrote, > First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding > becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it > actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access > to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by > reselling the ILEC's switch? If a CLEC is allowed access to the > copper, does that mean that the CLEC can steal all the high profit > origination fees from long distance while leaving the ILEC to absorb > the cost of the local loop, which in many cases are sold at or below > cost? The rollout of local telephone competition certainly opens up a lot of questions. I've been boning up on it lately, as it has become another area for my consulting practice. While some of the information is subject to nondisclosure, an awful lot isn't, if you can find it. One good place to start is the FCC's web page. There are two different scenarios for a local "competitor". One, for which the quotes are applicable, is Total Service Resale. This is apparently what MCI is offering in the case of their residential Callpack service in Chicago; it provides the quickest way to get into the low end of the business, though it's hardly worth doing on a long-term basis. With Resale, the "competitor" essentially becomes a marketing and billing agent for the Incumbent telco (ILEC). They gain access to the ordering computer, and get billing detail records for "their" subscribers. But the lines are 100% pure ILEC. The rates are basically the ILEC's too -- the reseller gets a discount (say, 11-20%, though actual percentages vary within guidelines) on tariff rates. The discount is based on how much ILEC marketing and billing expense is transferred to the reseller; there is no notion of cost-based pricing for the services themselves, since they're based on the existing ILEC tariff. Note that when "migrating" to a reseller, nothing but the paperwork changes, so the phone number stays the same, the installation cost is minimal (or zero), the dial tone sounds the same, etc. The second scenario is facilities-based competition. In this case the CLEC owns actual facilities which it uses to connect to its subscribers. Again to use MCI as an example, they have a CO switch of their own in Chicago which is used to provision services to their own subscribers. Initially this is only economical for high-volume (T1 or more) subscribers, hence the resale. In the facilities-based scenario, it's possible to have the entire service provisioned by the CLEC, or for the CLEC to provide some of their own service and to purchase "unbundled network elements" (UNE) from the ILEC. These elements include local loops, switching, transport (interoffice bandwidth), operator services, 411, 911, etc. Unbundled network elements are generally priced based on cost, not CLEC tariff prices. So it's possible that the price of an ILEC residence line (before discount, under tariff, and not necessarily "compensatory") is less than the price of an unbundled local loop alone! In general, the cost studies (TELRIC) needed for UNE pricing are not done yet, but the FCC has suggested some "proxy" numbers. Local loop proxies range (on a per-state average, large-CLEC basis only) from just under $9.83/mo (MA) to $25.36 (ND), with most big states in the $11-16 range. With facilities-based competition, the CLEC can be more creative with service offerings, pricing, etc. By next year, major markets will have number portability, so "migrating" ILEC subscribers can keep their phone numbers; for now, each CLEC needs its own batch of prefix codes, which explains a lot of area-code exhaust now going on. > Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that > matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls > terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the > case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply > purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and > making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees > from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered > local calling? That would be fraud, similar to the 900-service operators who called themselves. Besides, that would consistute use of a residence line for a business purpose :-). It is true, however, that carriers must pay each other to terminate calls. In most cases these "accounting rates" (the older term) for local traffic are in the half-cent per minute range, but they're bilaterally negotiated. "Bill and keep" (no charge for traffic exchange) is allowed but uncommon. > Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the > conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a > rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does > anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There > seems to be alot of confusion.) Rate center rules do seem to vary a little bit state by state. In general it refers to the point from which calls are billed -- any two lines from the same rate center are treated the same when called from elsewhere. Generally this translates to "exchange area or zone therein". But it can be hard to pin down in some local places, which is a bit off topic. > From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate > local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation > between the ILEC and the various CLECs ... I don't see that at all. Flat rate service is based on the notion that when you average all flat-rate subscribers together, they cost x to serve, so you charge x plus margin. The average 1FR line generates something like ten hours a month of usage. At half a penny a minute, even if 100% of it went to the ILEC, the accounting-rate payment of say $3 would not be a big pain, and the CLEC would collect on calls to its subscribers too, so it would probably balance out near zero. Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:47:27 GMT In article , bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) wrote: > czim@bigbear.com wrote: >> First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding >> becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it >> actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access >> to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by >> reselling the ILEC's switch? > You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services, > signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la > carte. Each is available separately. Actually, while this may be the theory, it is not the practice. In practice, "physical" collocation is almost non-existent, so it is almost impossible to gain access to the physical wires. "Virtual" collocation is required, and has been recently reaffirmed by the FCC (see www.fcc.gov). Virtual collocation provides "logical" access, but not physical access, so the ILEC still has you by the short and curlies if you want higher data rates than POTS. ------------------------------ From: John P. Harris Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:41:44 -0700 Writing a billing package for the current and future economic environments of telcom carriers is a venture I don't envy. However, from our CLEC and ILEC clients I know there is a huge demand for a properly functioning system. I'll try to answer some of your questions: The Telcom Act of 1996 (TA96) requires certain incumbent LECs to unbundle their networks, as well as to resell their facilities and provide access to rights of way. Not all LECs must unbundle at this time though. Rural LECs (some of which under the definition provided in TA96 may not be "rural") are not required to provided unbundled facilities unless the state PUC finds that it is in the public interest. In areas which are truly rural, it is likely that it would not be in the public interest. In general, the RBOCs, GTE, Sprint/United are the companies required to unbundle and resell at wholesale rates. A CLEC may provide service entirely through resale or through any combination of resale and facilities. We have seen and expect to see that resale is the initial method of choice. This allows the CLEC to build market share prior to constructing their own facilities. When volume permits it is best for CLECs to have their own facilities since overall cost might be lower and control would be higher. An initial step many CLECs take is to place a switch in service at the best possible location and purchase unbundled loops from the ILEC. Later, as clusers of customers develop, the CLEC could consider constructing outside plant facilities. A CLEC could construct cable and wire. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Effects of 206 Split Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:10:53 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , prophet@baker.cnw.com wrote: > - Just like the greater Dallas area, the Washington Utilities and > Transportation Commission ruled against USWest and GTE who wanted to > *require* 1+ for all inter-NPA calls (which could result in a toll call > being placed without the customer's knowledge), I don't believe any proposal was ever made for the Dallas area to require 1+ on local calls to nearby area codes. For several years, the Dallas area has had *mandatory* 10-digit dialing (with 1+10D prohibited) on FNPA local calls. Permitting 10D on local calls is fine, but prohibiting 1+ on local calls is just plain stupid. > but in ruling against > that possibility it was *required* that 1+ *NOT* be permitted for > "local" calls. So to call Seattle from Redmond one cannot dial > 1-206-248-xxxx, one must dial 206-248-xxxx. Dialling 1+ for a local > call results in an intercept. 1+ is *required* for toll calls as > before. My feelings on the matter are that I am pleased that I will > always know whether or not I am placing a toll call, but some software > flat-out refuses to dial a number in a foreign NPA without prepending a > 1. I have worked around this thus far by editing the phone number to > prepend the NPA onto the 7 digit number, and fooling the software into > thinking that it is dialling that number in my own NPA. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for forbidding 1+ on local calls. It serves no legitimate purpose. It does not protect consumers from unwanted toll charges or from confusion about what is or is not a toll call. It only frustrates people who simply want the call to go through, period. As to your other comments about the handling of the 206/360 split, followed fairly rapidly by the 206/253/425 split, the key point to keep in mind is that at the time of the 206/360 split, it made sense to put as few people, particularly in metropolitan business centers with national or international trade at stake, into an area code that was of the NNX format, since at that time many telephone switches (especially private equipment) still assumed that all area codes had a 0 or 1 in the middle. Thus, you couldn't have put any part of the Seattle/Tacoma/ Everett metro area into 360 at that time. ** 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: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? Date: 23 Jun 1997 21:23:55 -0500 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Reply-To: john.grout@reasoning.com russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) writes: > I seriously wish that ISDN had become a pervasive technology. > Since it supports two 64 kbit channels, as well as a 19.2 kbit > signaling channel which can also be used for low-bandwidth > packet-based X.25 applications, it seems tailor-made for use in the > above scenario. Systems could simply contact us with small "Do I have > mail?" messages via the signaling channel, (or, in fact, we could > contact THEM!) and only bring up the full PPP connection and actually > take switch capacity when there's something to retrieve or when the > user wants to browse, download news, etc. If the ISDN line is dedicated to the ISP, it is very doable for the ISP to call the user's router or vice-versa. An example is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's "UIUCnet at Home", which provides both a ISDN line and a university-owned router to faculty, staff, (wealthy) individual students, or even a small group of students connected by a LAN (they must provide the LAN). Another example is Brainstorm (a Bay Area ISP), which provides service to smaller corporate sites within range of its ISDN POPs using a Centrex ISDN line which connects to the company's router (which, if the company chooses, they can purchase directly from the ISP). John R. Grout john.grout@reasoning.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #163 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 26 01:20:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA11962; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:20:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706260520.BAA11962@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #164 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jun 97 01:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Another Change of Address is Needed (TELECOM Digest Editor) Oregon Electric Utilities Run Fiber to Customers (Tad Cook) Cap'n Crunch Site Now Moved (John Draper) Cut off and Wrong Number Calls (Babu Mengelepouti) Book Review: "Using C-Kermit" by da Cruz/Gianone (Rob Slade) Cyber Promotions Sues World Com (Lisa Hancock) Book Review: "Internet Homework Helper" by McLain (Rob Slade) "Out of Area" When Will it End? (Bruce James Robert Linley) PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DIGEST DUE TO LOSS OF DOMAIN NAME. 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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, 25 Jun 1997 23:24:08 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Another Change of Address is Needed Someone said they would pay the needed fees to have a domain for this newsgroup/digest. Then, someone else said that Internic provided free service to non-profit groups using .org ... I got a note from Internic a couple days ago saying the bill was not paid. I attempted to (a) locate the person who said it would 'all be taken care of' and (b) detirmine if non-profit things such as this could in fact be serviced. The person who made the apparently bogus 'donation' to the Digest is now non-locateable; his own email address not working. I wrote back to Internic and said I would see to it the bill was paid as promptly as possible if in fact there was no leniency given to such as myself ... their response was to cut off service to telecom-digest.org without further ado. It would have been quite gracious of them to at least allow an orderly transition, and I suppose I could have put off some other bills and paid them within a week or so, but that is apparently not their way of doing business. Anyway, telecom-digest.org is apparently dead; please go back to the direct address which was and still is in service which is as follows: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (for editorial stuff) telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu (subscriptions, etc) tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Telecom Archives service) http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ Archives Web Page The above always have been in use; it is just that telecom-digest.org pointed to them. I just wish Internic could have been slightly more professional in handling it. Issue 163 of the Digest went out Tuesday morning, however a great many sites saw the 'telecom-digest.org' and somehow barfed on it, claiming they did not relay mail, etc. It was retransmitted Wednesday night to the mailing list; unfortunatly some of you will get it twice however it had to be done since several hundred did not get it the first time. Sorry for the confusion. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: Oregon Electric Utilities Run Fiber to Customers Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:36:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Two Oregon Electric Utilities to Install Fiber Optics BY LANCE ROBERTSON, THE REGISTER-GUARD, EUGENE, ORE. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 24--Two local electric utilities are about to show you the light. Not as in light bulbs, which the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene Water & Electric Board are good at juicing up with electrons. No, these two utilities are embarking on separate plans that eventually could hot-wire the entire Eugene-Springfield area with fiber optic cables, which are used primarily to send and receive data, pictures, faxes and telephone calls at nearly the speed of light. SUB will start work this summer on a $1.5 million project to lay fiber optic cables along most major streets, with the idea of eventually spending up to $20 million to hook up every home and business in town. "We intend to wire the entire city," said SUB board member Bill Kittredge. The Eugene utility is taking a less aggressive approach. It plans to hire a private company to install fiber optic lines to its own facilities and public agencies -- the city, University of Oregon, public schools and the like --sometime next year, but EWEB commissioners haven't decided yet how widespread a system they want. Wiring up all of Eugene with fiber cables could cost as much as $100 million. EWEB commissioners will talk about the project at theirits July meeting. The utilities would recover their costs by charging access fees and leasing space on their fiber optic systems to cable TV, phone, Iinternet and other telecommunications companies that want to serve homes and businesses. The potential for both utilities and their customers is enormous. Fiber optics are flexible, hair-thinsized strands of pure glass that use light waves to transmit enormous amounts of data in just about any form: e-mail messages, phone calls, Internet chatter, cable television channels, video teleconferencing, World Wide Web pages and all kinds of other images and data. Because they use light waves, fiber optics can transmit all this stuff at, well, nearly the speed of light. Just one fiber can send 2.4 million bits of information per second, compared to 33,800 bits in today's standard modems used for connecting to the Internet and online services. Two of the hair-thin strands can send 24,000 phone calls at once. One strand can transmit 240 television channels to your TV or computer. And most fiber optic cables have 96 or more individual strands, bundled into a cable the diameter of a nickel. "It's astounding technology," said Larry McMullen, telecommunications project manager for the Springfield Utility Board. So why are two electric utilities venturing into what has typically been the domain of television and phone companies? Utility officials say the fiber optics can be used to automatically read meters. In other words, no more meter readers. And in today's deregulating energy markets, utilities need access to "real time" information about power usage to better gauge how much electricity to buy on the open market at any one time. But the push into fiber optics fits in with SUB's and EWEB's traditional role as a public agency, utility officials say. They want all their customers to have high-speed access via fiber optics, not just the big customers private telecommunications companies are more likely to serve. "Why is Interstate 5 publicly owned? It's because it provides a public good," said Kittredge. "The public owns the freeway, private citizens own and drive the cars. "Fiber optics is the same: If you believe that this is the information superhighway, then it should be publicly owned. Otherwise, you're back to a monopoly," he said. "Part of being a public utility is, we can provide a public good for all the residences and businesses," added Bob Steward, EWEB's telecommunications project manager. The utilities' plans don't sit too well with private phone and television companies, however. They say SUB and EWEB are horning in on what's traditionally been their domain and area of expertise. Besides, there are fiber optic cables already in place throughout both cities, company officials say. "Look, we have an excellent fiber optic network in Eugene. Why do they need to put in another one?" said Jim Gottschalk, area manager for US West, which provides local telephone service to most of Oregon and other Western states. "We've told them (the utilities), it doesn't make sense and it isn't a good use of resources, people and time," Gottschalk added. But Kittredge said SUB's plans will make cable television, telephone, internet and other services more competitive, which is what the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress is supposed to be about. Springfield voters also approved a change in its city charter in 1987 to allow SUB to enter the telecommunications business. A number of Private companies will be able to lease space on SUB's fiber optic system, offering competitive rates to homeowners and businesses. "This will provide customers with competitive rates on all kinds of services," Kittredge said. "Right now, if you don't like US West, where are you going to go (for local phone service)? This is what competition is all about." While SUB is pushing forward with installing the first fiber optic cable in a matter of weeks, EWEB is going much slower. The two utilities had been working together on a common project for three years until they decided to go their separate ways earlier this year, said EWEB spokesman Marty Douglass. Kittredge said SUB "couldn't stand around and wait" for EWEB to decide how fast and far it wanted to delve into fiber optics. Douglass said there's also a question of whether EWEB has the authority under the city charter, or Eugene's telecommunications ordinance, to take on the fiber optics project. EWEB probably will have to go to the Eugene City Council in late July to ask it to transfer that authority over to the utility, Douglass added. The Eugene utility also will hire a private firm to install its first "backbone" system, which will hook up EWEB substations, water reservoirs, hydroelectric plants, schools, public agencies and possibly some major businesses. But beyond doing that, Douglass said it isn't clear how much support there is among EWEB commissioners. (c) 1997, The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News. ------------------------------ From: John Draper Subject: Cap'n Crunch Site Now Moved Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:12:41 -0700 Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: crunch@host.net The Cap'n Crunch home page URL has been changed. The new URL is now http://crunch.woz.org/crunch I've made significant changes to the site, added a FAQ based on a lot of people asking me many questions about blue boxing, legal stuff, and hacking in general. The FAQ will be growing all the time, as I go through all the requests for information that many people have sent. "Email me" if you want to add more questions. Our new server is now available to host web sites for anyone who wants to use it for interesting projects. This is for Elite people only, and you have to send me a proposal on what you plan to use it for. I'm open for suggestions, and when you go up to the WebCrunchers web site: http://crunch.woz.org You'll get more details on that. Our server is a Mac Power PC, running WebStar web server, connected through a T-1 link to the backbone. I know that the Mac Webserver might be slower, but I had security in mind when I picked it. Besides, I didn't pick it, Steve Wozniak did... :-) So please don't flame me for using a Mac. I know that Mac's are hated by hackers, but what the heck ... at least we got our OWN server now. I also removed all the blatant commercial hipe from the home page and put it elsewhere. But what the heck ... I should disserve to make SOME amount of money selling things like T-shirts and mix tapes. We plan to use it for interesting projects, and I want to put up some Audio files of Phone tones. For instance, the sound of a blue box call going through, or some old sounds of tandom stacking. If there are any of you old-timers out there that might have some interesting audio clips of these sounds, please get in touch with me. Our new Domain name registration will soon be activated, and at that time our URL will be: http://www.webcrunchers.com - Our Web hosting server http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch - Official Cap'n Crunch home page Regards, Cap'n Crunch ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:58:27 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Cut off and Wrong Number Calls I have noticed an increasing unwillingness on the part of long distance carriers (ESPECIALLY Sprint) to credit for bad connections, wrong numbers, and cut-off calls. For instance, I reached a wrong number from a US West payphone, and the operator refused to reconnect me to the correct number. She instead instructed me to "call the 800 number on the payphone" (because US West operators will no longer connect to their own coin refund/repair service), and after sitting on hold for several minutes the woman who answered laughed and said she'd never been asked for a refund for THAT reason before. Eventually, after conferring with her supervisor, they decided to mail me a refund. I thought that this was ridiculous; I would have been happy to just have my call reconnected or even the 25 cents put as a credit on my phone bill. Instead, US West mailed me a CHEQUE for 25 cents. Even the postage was in excess of that amount ... I am pondering whether to cash it or to frame it. Today, I made a Sprint calling card call and was unexpectedly cut off. Since Sprint charges a hefty 90 cent surcharge for each call, I use my Sprint card with its 10 cent per minute rate only for calls that I expect to be lengthy. Given that 90 cents is (relatively) a lot of money, I asked that I be credited that amount so that I could reconnect and not have to pay two surcharges. Reasonable, right? NO! Sprint asked, "How do you know that it wasn't the phone you were calling that hung up on you?" I said that I did not know, but because it was due to circumstances beyond my control, I chose to blame Sprint. The representative finally relented, after arguing with her a good five minutes, and said she would give me a "one time credit" for 90 cents. Overall, I found her to be very rude, which really is not all that unusual for Sprint, but was still uncalled for. Even AT&T, the company that boasts "instant credit for wrong numbers or bad connections," has begun to quiz me when requesting credit. Is this a growing trend? Are phone companies gradually beginning to charge for calls, regardless of whether or not the transmission quality is acceptable? Sprint seems to be taking an especially hard line and does not grant credits easily at all. This might be temporarily good for the bottom line, but it is not good for building customer loyalty. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem as I see it has to do with the multitude of carriers and local telcos now-days; and the fact that the problem in your call could have been due to an error or glitch anywhere along the line. In other words, maybe the long distance carrier was at fault, but then maybe the local telco on either end was at fault instead. Now years ago when everything for all intents and purposes was one single company, it did not matter much who was at fault. The only people it annoyed I suppose were the drones working in the old Separations and Settlements Department at AT&T; the five hundred or so employees who sat in a large room handing scraps of paper around to each other all day in the form of debits and credits between the operating companies, the independents and AT&T, each adding their own indicia as the scraps were passed around, each making their own bookkeeping/journal entries, etc. It did not even matter *that much* when everything was still Something Bell, for even though they squabbled among themselves and with the newcomers Sprint and MCI, they still all honored their accounts with each other. For many, many years after divestiture, MCI was AT&T's largest customer and in reverse, AT&T was MCI's largest customer and although they would sue each other and make accusations against each other they still pretty much went by the traditional rules as far as accounting and billing practices were concerned. Now though, lots and lots of new players; lots and lots of private phone switches, private payphones, companies which have no concept of traditional telephone billing practices, and willing to cheat however they can on those they do know about. A bit of history tossed in here: I am reminded of what Myrtle Murphy told me twenty years ago when she was still alive. She had been a long distance operator for AT&T in the 1930-40's era when calls from one coast to the other were passed from one operator to another oper- ator. A typical long distance connection went like this back then: User picks up phone, waits for operator who asks 'number please?' User says 'long distance' ... operator says thank you and connects him. Another operator answers 'long distance' and user says, "I want to call Los Angeles, CA the number Hollywood 2000". That happened to be the number for the switchboard at Warner Brothers at one time. Operator asks the user what number he was calling from for the billing ticket. User might tell the truth or he might lie and give someone else's number. Assuming the call originated in Chicago, operator would plug into a jack on the board to obtain a circuit to St. Louis. When the St. Louis operator answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Kansas City. When the Kansas City operator answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Denver. When the Denver operator answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Las Vegas. When the Las Vegas operator answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Los Angeles. When Los Angeles answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Hollywood 2000. Since the Hollywood exchange was not directly appearing on the board of the operator in Los Angeles, the LA operator would say 'thank you' and in the process reach up with a cord to the Hollywood circuits and plug in. A couple seconds later after a slight 'click' was heard which meant that central office operator had answered, the Los Angeles 'inward' operator would repeat, 'two thousand'. The other end would simply make the connection without acknowledgement. Now the switchboard operator at Hollywood 2000 answers and the user on this end (remember him?) asks for some given extension or person. The switchboard operator makes the connection. The parties converse for ... ummm ... thirty seconds, and the line goes dead. Maybe the switchboard operator at Hollywood 2000 pulled the connection down in error; maybe it was the long distance operator in Kansas City. Maybe it was the local operator in Chicago. The fact is, someone yanked the wrong cord by accident. User furiously starts clicking the hookswitch on his phone and the local operator answers. "Operator! You disconnected me." Operator replies, "No sir, I did not. You are still up here, but I will try to reconnect you." She pulls her ringing key a few times to get the Chicago long distance operator on the line, and upon her response says, "Operator! You disconnected my party!" And long distance would say, "No I did not ... party is still up here, but I will restablish the connection". She in turn would yank the ringing key a few times and admonish St. Louis, "Operator! You disconnected my party!" and what do you suppose St. Louis would say? "Still up here, not my fault, some other operator must have done it." They would get Kansas City then Denver on the line, then Las Vegas, then Los Angeles with each operator in turn denouncing the next one down the line: Operator! You disconnected my party! The last person down the line at the local PBX would get the blame because all the operators ahead of her insisted they did not pull the cord by accident. Maybe she didn't either, but there was no else after her to blame. Since the originating long distance operator was the one who controlled the 'ticketing' and the charges, etc, she would issue credit immediatly and then and start the call over again. Oh, they were very careful about billing for long distance calls provided the customer did not defraud them by giving the wrong number to start with. So careful in fact that Myrtle remarked on the way calls were handled during a 'fire drill'. From time to time they had fire drills to educate the operators on how to safely evacuate *and* conclude their calls in progress at the same time. The alarm would sound and the operators were instructed to 'clock out' any open tickets (that is, consider the call finished for billing purposes) but leave the call connected (the cords in place) and *then* leave the room. That was so that any calls in progress which happened to conclude while the operators were out of the room for the two minutes or so of the fire drill would not be erroneously charged too much. When they returned and 'cleaned up their board' (took down cords for calls no longer in progress) they were then to adjust the tickets for calls which were still in progress. Myrtle was the first union steward for operators at Illinois Bell back in the 1930's at a time when AT&T was largely non-union. The other operators would laugh at her union efforts and say to her "You will never organize Bell ... no one will ever organize Bell ..." uh huh ... yeah sure. And the supervisors would tell the other operators to 'stay away from Myrtle, do not associate with her because she is a trouble-maker', due to her union organizing efforts. But I digress, and must conclude answering your question. None of the companies feel any kinship or comraderie with the others as used to be the case. For most of them now, the customer is an interuption to their work, rather than the purpose of it. They do not understand that for every write off they do, some other telco will do just as many, and that a satisfied customer is worth far more than twenty-five cents, especially when the call could be put through in most cases without the bother of mailing a refund. They would rather insist there is nothing wrong with their equip- ment and that it must be the other guys at fault. "No operator, I did not disconnect party ... party is still up here ... must have been the next operator down the line ..." Last thought: Is there anyone here old enough to remember when losing a nickle at a payphone usually meant the operator had reported 'no answer' or 'the lye-un is busy' but then accidentally hit the 'collect' button on the switchboard rather than the 'return' button and your money fell in the box rather than out the return slot. The operator would apologize and if you intended to keep trying the number until you got an answer all you had to do was tell the operator the next time you tried your call, "I have five cents credit coming per Operator ". PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:49:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Using C-Kermit" by da Cruz/Gianone BKUSCKMT.RVW 970623 "Using C-Kermit", Frank da Cruz/Christine M. Gianone, 1997, 1-55558-164-1, U$39.95 %A Frank da Cruz fdc@columbia.edu %A Christine M. Gianone cmg@columbia.edu %C 225 Wildwood Street, Woburn, MA 01801 %C or Kermit Distribution, 612 West 115th Street, New York, NY 10025 %D 1997 %G 1-55558-164-1 %I Digital Press / Butterworth-Heinemann / Columbia University %O U$39.95 800-366-BOOK 212-854-3703 Fax: 617-933-6333 212-663-8202 %O kermit@columbia.edu http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ %P 622 %T "Using C-Kermit", 2nd edition Kermit is the most widely available communications software in the world. Versions on some platforms, however, may lack features available on others. Also, there may be a few computers to which Kermit has not been ported. This is where C-Kermit comes in. C-Kermit is the C language source code for a feature-rich version of Kermit, very similar in function to the highly mature MS-DOS version of Kermit. C-Kermit is the native version for most of the Kermit versions on major platforms, and there is no longer any reason not to have a Kermit for *your* machine. This is the user level manual for C-Kermit. (General advice on porting, configuration and compiling is included with the source, available from the Kermit distribution centre at Columbia University. Extensive documentation and back issues of the Kermit digests and announcements are also available.) Well thought out, well presented, well written, the book is an excellent addition to the previous "Kermit: A File Transfer Protocol" (BKKERMIT.RVW) and "Using MS-DOS Kermit" (BKUMSKMT.RVW). For those who insist that computer documentation is, by nature, turgid, obtuse, and boring, you haven't read anything by Frank da Cruz and Christine Gianone. Technical writers take note: *this* is how you do it. The structure and order of the book is logically organized for users, new and old. Early chapters, and appendix two, provide an excellent primer for serial communications of all kinds. (The "test number" for you to call is an 800 number bulletin board, accessible from all over the United States and Canada, courtesy of Digital.) The only minor oddity in the arrangement is that scripting, possibly of most use to non-programming users, comes after the chapters on macros and programming. This is intended to give some basic programming concepts prior to introducing scripts, since the book assumes no programming background. It is, however, possible to write simple scripts without much in the way of conditional structures, controls or variables, and it would be a pity if non-programmers gave up too early to find this out. C-Kermit is, as far as possible, the standard for the Kermit interface and functions. This, therefore, is the standard Kermit user guide. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1997 BKUSCKMT.RVW 970623 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Cyber Pormotions Sues World Com Date: 26 Jun 1997 00:49:00 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported on 6/25/97, page C3: Sanford Wallace, owner of controversial bulk e-mailer Cyber Promotions Inc. of Dresher [Penna.], said he had filed suit in Montgomery County against WorldCom Inc., Jackson, Miss., for allegedly reneging on a three year $150,000 contract to provide him with Internet access for sending commercial e-mail, also known as "spam". WorldCom, parent company of Internet service provider UUnet, declined comment through a spokeswoman. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:28:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Homework Helper" by McLain BKINHOHE.RVW 961218 "Internet Homework Helper", Tim McLain, 1997, 0-13-259557-5, U$29.95/C$40.75 %A Tim McLain %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-259557-5 %I Prentice Hall %O U$29.95/C$40.75 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 376 %T "Internet Homework Helper" (Sigh.) To paraphrase Dave Barry, help with homework usually involves information, mostly in the form of answers. Yes, the net can give you resources to help with homework. However, you have to learn how to use the net in order to get that help. This cutesy and rather oversized book *might* help. But somehow I doubt that the simplistic contents will provide much of any value. I think I'll teach my grandsons how to use the net myself. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINHOHE.RVW 961218 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) Subject: "Out of Area" When Will it End? Organization: Megami no Belldandy-sama no deshi Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:24:39 GMT Forgive a stupid question, but when will caller ID be fully implemented in the US? I thought the FCC mandated full compliance by now, yet I get tons of telemarketers who read as "out of area" on my CID box. I think they're hiding behind outdated equipment deliberately to avoid identifying themselves. So, when will the day come that everyone either sends CID, deliberately chooses to anonymize themselves, or must get off the telephone system? Bruce James Robert Linley linley@netcom.com Programmer, Fortunet Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #164 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 26 09:10:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA28041; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706261310.JAA28041@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #165 TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jun 97 09:10:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Telephone Search Engine (Walt Brubaker) Crest KTS-E2-C 2-Line Phone: Seeking Info (G. Paul Ziemba) "On Hold" (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bill Horne) Looking For RJ-9 Gender Changer (Ben de Lisle) Re: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? (Daniel Meldazis) Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Hudson Leighton) Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (puma@execpc.com) Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (William Middelaer) Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Nils Andersson) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Henry Baker) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Nils Andersson) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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, 25 Jun 1997 09:12:40 -0700 From: Walt Brubaker Reply-To: fred@nirvanal.net Subject: New Telephone Search Engine Hello Mr. Townson, I have a telecom suggestion that may be of interest to your users. "Fone Finder" is a fast telephone lookup engine, provided as a public service. It looks up phone numbers in a database, and retrieves the city, state, country, flag, and a link to the location. Searches by city name, prefix, area code, and wildcards are available. Over 78,000 cities internationally are in the database, with more being added frequently as they are submitted from contributors. You can reach Fone Finder at: www.primeris.com/fonefind/ -- Thanks, Walt Brubaker webmaster@primeris.com ------------------------------ From: paul@w6yx.stanford.edu (G. Paul Ziemba) Subject: Crest KTS-E2-C 2-Line Phone: Seeking Info Date: 25 Jun 1997 23:27:12 GMT Organization: Stanford University I'm trying to repair a Crest KTS-E2-C "princess"-style two-line telephone, and I was hoping someone knew how to get schematics or other service information. The phone was manufactured sometime before 1985. The only problem I am having with it is that the line lamps blink fast instead of remaining dark when a line is on-hook. Amazingly, Crest Industries, Inc. (in Washington state) still has the same telephone number that they had when the phone was made. However, they were insistent that they would neither service the phone nor provide any information whatsoever about it. If anyone can provide info, I'd greatly appreciate it! ------------------------------ From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: "On Hold" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:21:07 EDT Were you aware the domain name has gone into limbo? Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found out late Tuesday that Internic had cancelled it out. The person who said I should get it and promised to pay for it has vanished, and did not pay for it. Someone else said that there was normally no charge for non-profit things using .org and apparently that is incorrect also. When I got a note earlier this week from the Internic people saying the thing was never paid for I got back to them right away and said I would try to pay it as soon as I could. Their response was to simply eliminate it. So I guess the best thing to do is just go back to using ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu for all correspondence. I wish they would have allowed at least a short time for an orderly transition, but I guess they did not want to do that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Horne Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:47:25 EDT Henry Baker (hbaker@netcom.netcom.com) wrote on Mon Jun 23, 1997: > In article , bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu > (Bill Horne) wrote: >> czim@bigbear.com wrote: >>> [Does the] Act of '96 ... actually require the ILEC to unbundle >>> their local loop and give access to the copper, or is the only way for a >>> CLEC to obtain the copper by reselling the ILEC's switch? >> You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services, >> signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la >> carte. Each is available separately. > Actually, while this may be the theory, it is not the practise. In > practise, "physical" collocation is almost non-existent, so it is almost > impossible to gain access to the physical wires. "Virtual" collocation > is required, and has been recently reaffirmed by the FCC (see www.fcc.gov). > Virtual collocation provides "logical" access, but not physical access, > so the ILEC still has you by the short & curlies if you want higher data > rates than POTS. Physical colocation is available to anyone that wants to use it; I don't see why an ILEC has anybody by the calls if a CLEC can put a cage in wherever they want. Are you saying that physical colo is too expensive? If so, this sounds like the new CLEC mantra I've been hearing lately: "We want governmental installation intervals, Fortune 500 service, and RBOC grade equipment, all at residential rates, and if we don't get them RIGHT NOW we'll tell our daddy in Washington!" To which I would reply: "Welcome to the major leagues". The tariff says you will be able to *talk* on the line: everything else comes extra. Bill "Poking hornets is my hobby" Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ From: delisle@eskimo.com (Ben de Lisle) Subject: Looking for RJ-9 Gender Changer Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 03:18:50 GMT I have looked everywhere, I can not find one, I want one RJ-9 gender changer. I find plenty of RJ-11/14 and even RJ-45 changers but no RJ-9. RJ-9 is the connector that goes between the telephone and the headset. The other connector that connects the wall to the phone is abundant. But all I want to do is to make the curly cord longer. But before you say "Why not go an buy a longer curly cord" is because it will not work for my application. I need to connect two curly cords together. The reason is that one end of the connection is a normal RJ-9 while the other end is a proprietary connector to my head set. I want to be able to go more than six feet away from my desk and stay on the phone. I have a headset and a microphone (of course) that covers both ears and the mouthpiece sticks around to my mouth. My phone is an Aspect terminal. Radio Shack has no such connector. I went to a couple specialty electronic supply stores and cabling suppliers but no help. (c)1997 NEVER SEND ME JUNK-E-MAIL. I may look for you some day. http://www.eskimo.com/~delisle/warning.letter.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:11:49 -0500 From: Daniel Meldazis Reply-To: danielm1@flash.net Subject: Re: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? > Does anyone know where I can find a list of telephone rates for local > service for both business and residential for the whole country? I don't know why you would want to find out about rates for the entire country but good luck! One place you can try is the business office of the RBOCs and CLECs. They have copies of their current tariffs on file. One word of warning; these tariffs can and do change weekly. One of my jobs for a CLEC was digesting competitor tariffs for the regulatory department. That was almost a full-time job. We used a service in Virgina (I forget the name offhand) that sent us weekly updates of phone company tariffs on CD-ROM. Of course, this service cost several of thousands of dollars to subscribe to. One other suggestion is trying your public utility commission. But that will be good only for the state you live in. The RBOCs and CLECs file different tariffs for each state that they do business in and sometimes rates differ. Once again, Good luck. ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.comNO_SPAM (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:15:47 -0500 Organization: Minnesota Railroad Research Project braz@mnw.net (Thomas Brazil) wrote: > Several weeks ago, we started receiving automated calls. When my wife > picked up the line, there was just a slight hum for exactly ten > seconds, then the line would disconnect. Initially, my wife had > thought some "female" was trying to call me, and hung up. It was only > when I received the same calls that she believed me! After the first > two weeks of this, we received another, automated ten-second hangup > IMMEDIATELY followed by a call from South Central Bell inquiring as to > whether we wanted to "TouchStar" telephone service, which allows the > customer to find out (among other things) who had "called and hung up" > for a "low" monthly fee. I had a similar experience; I changed some of the phoneline usage in my office, and ended up with a old computer line now having a telephone on it. The phone started ringing off the wall, 24 hours a day; it was getting called (polled?) by some computer. I got out the USWEST DEX (R)(C) phonebook and looked up what to do with crank calls, it said do *xx three times and then call 1-800-xxx-xxxx so I did. They said they would fix it, so I unpluged the phone so I could get some sleep and forgot about it. A week or so later I remembered and plugged the phone back in, guess what it started ringing! I did the *XX and the called the 1-800 number again. The person I talked to said that the records showed that a voice mail message had been left with the owner of the phone line, but since this was my second call, they would contine contact attempts untill they talked to a "real person". So unplug the phone and back to work. The next day I plugged the phone back in and NO RINGS they got it stopped! I guess they do do what they say they will. http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl/ Remove NO_SPAM before replying ------------------------------ From: puma@execpc.com Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? Date: 24 Jun 1997 22:53:35 GMT In article , Lee Winson wrote: > If I were getting such calls and couldn't track them down via *69, I > would use *57 and expect the phone company to put a stop to them. I think you will find the telco disinterested. They turn the numbers over to the police, without giving them to you. The police are only interested if there are threats to your life involved, they have 'better' things to do. > It is possible someone's fax machine or computer is programmed wrong. > Or, some vending machine or oil tank is vainly trying to get filled. > (These problems have resulted in the symptons described, though it is > strange that multiple numbers are affected.) I think a lot of these calls are from predictive dialers used by mass marketers. They place calls ahead of time, planning on having a salesperson available for those calls that are answered. If one isn't, they just disconnect. Also, they disconnect on long ring times or answering machines, and can be fooled by answering with a long phrase instead of just hello. I've gotten calls both at home and at the office like these. In some cases, like clockwork every 20 minutes. All from out of area, according to caller_id. puma@execpc.com ------------------------------ From: William Middelaer Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil Reply-To: wsm@NOSPAM.ibm.net Organization: Quantrax Corporation Date: 24 Jun 97 21:56:40 GMT Stanley Cline wrote in article ... >> I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the >> country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I > There are only three areas I know of that did have "only" AOL dialups, > but that's changed: Ah, but Stanley, the key is that in lots of small towns, AOL is the only nationwide ISP/E-Mailer available. As my address mentions, I use IBM for my e-mail when travelling away from the DC area, but there are still lots of towns where AOL has a local dialup and even big blue, MCI, AT&T, Sprint, Mindspring and compuserve, among others, do not. I hate AOL, their interface, its horrible speed, and those stupid hoops they force their users to jump through to do the most basic of tasks, but for lots of my fellow frequent travellers, they represent the only game in town if you are a heavy user in lots of different small towns. So, I have a $4.95/month for three hours, $1.95 an hour after that contract with IBM that serves my e-mail/batch net downloads on the road, and use their dime a minute 800 service when I'm far outside of the beltway (or, if I'm in a hotel like this crappy ramada in Columbus, OH, which gets $0.50 for a local call that only takes 2.5 minutes.) Will Middelaer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:45:26 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil In article , Fred Farzanegan writes: > our pain is more than compensated by the education of the > net-proles. > I'm an AOL user (farzanegan@aol.com) -- not exactly proud of it, > but one of the millions of others who aren't CAPS (or morally) > deficient. Please adjust your sodium intake when reading articles > such as the aforementioned. As one of the net-proles getting an education (but not in typing and reasoning skills), I would agree with the above analysis. There is one more nice thing about AOL, it travels with you!!! There are free dial-ins all over the US and Canada, and I can dial in from most other countries at 10 cents (US) a minute, to an in-country number. It does not take that many minutes to pull and push email and even newsgroups. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 23:45:12 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:52:02 -0700, Bill wrote: > In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented: >> I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS >> system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum >> technology, hence the name. > And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com > and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the > Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com. > APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the > name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not. APC is the licensee in DC; it's a partnership in which Sprint is a major but not controlling investor, I recall. It offers service under the Sprint Spectrum name. APC (the other investor in the APC Partnership) got the license at a discount without auction because of its "pioneer's preference." APC is PCS, i.e. 1.8 GHz, just as the other Sprint Spectrum systems are. APC uses GSM technology, however, not spread spectrum/CDMA, which is the technology Sprint Spectrum is using elsewhere. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:53:16 GMT In article , grendel6@ix.netcom. com wrote: > In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented: >> I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS >> system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum >> technology, hence the name. > And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com > and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the > Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com. > APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the > name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not. Once again, Sprint Spectrum in Washington, DC, uses GSM time-division multiplexing rather than the Qualcomm CDMA modulation used in the rest of the Sprint Spectrum system. DC people can find this out quickly when they can "roam" to other GSM cities, but can't roam to other Sprint Spectrum cities. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 23:58:57 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On 21 Jun 1997 08:39:51 GMT, Jason Lindquist wrote: > Sprint's PCS service should be just as "real" as it is everywhere > else. It's 1900 MHz CDMA. Except in DC, where it's 1900 MHz GSM (still PCS). >> What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone >> know what their pricing looks like ? > After the first minute, Nextel (another 1900 MHz CDMA carrier) rounds > their airtime to the nearest second, instead of up to the next whole > minute, like tradtional cell carriers. They also have some sort of > partnerships going with local market entities, which I don't really > understand yet. Nextel is not a 1900 MHz carrier; it uses SMR (specialized mobile radio) frequencies in the 800 MHz band, near cellular, using digital technology (TDMA, I believe, and not CDMA). This is PCS only in the most generic sense, as is 800 MHz cellular. BTW: AT&T Wireless calls their 800 MHz TDMA cellular systems "Digital PCS." Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:00:42 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? In article , roamer1@RemoveThis. pobox.com (Stanley Cline) writes: > PCS is more or less a buzzword meaning different things to different > people. In general, "PCS" is used to refer to one of two things: > digital wireless service, or services using the newly-auctioned 1900 > MHz frequencies. Others seem to use the term to refer to GSM services > in the US (i.e., Powertel, BellSouth DCS, Omnipoint, etc.) or even > worse, to repriced/repackaged analog cellular service. Indeed, this is so. It is worth noting that GSM is a subset of digital, all GSM systems are digital. Also, all systems in North Americe on 1900 MHz are digital. Neither of these statements is true in reverse. The syllogism does not produce: All GSM systems in North America are 1900 MHz. The statement is nevertheless true AFAIK. I believe the typical and fairly useful definition of PCS is any digital service. From a customer's point of view, it is not critical which frequency is used (except that AFAIK all digital systems on 800 MHz have an analog fallback, which massively increases your coverage.) Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #165 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 27 08:19:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA12333; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706271219.IAA12333@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #166 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jun 97 08:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Rejects SBC's Long-Distance Request (Tad Cook) New Oklahoma Area Code (Wes Leatherock) 216 / 440 Split (Ohio) (Michael Fumich) Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide" by Musciano/Kennedy (Rob Slade) Telcos Challenge Universal Service Fund (Tad Cook) Pac Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Lines (Tad Cook) Help!!!!, X.25 Nightmare!! (Carlo Marcelo Arenas) Public Network or Internet for your call? (Peter Capek) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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: FCC Rejects SBC's Long-Distance Request Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:01:59 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) FCC rejects SBC's long-distance request BY JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators today rejected SBC Communications Inc.'s effort to be the first regional phone company to offer long-distance service to some of its own customers. The Federal Communications Commission rejected SBC's request to provide long-distance in Oklahoma. The FCC said the company failed to open its local market to competitors as required by a 1996 law. San Antonio-based SBC Communications recently merged with Pacific Telesis Group., the Bell company that provides local phone service to California and Nevada. SBC, which had no immediate comment, has been in talks with AT&T Corp. over a possible merger. "The power to enter the long-distance market lies in the hands of the Bell companies," said FCC Chairman Reed Hundt." If they have the will, the law makes clear the way. In the present application, SBC has plainly failed to meet the standards set forth" in the 1996 law, Hundt said. In a veiled comment to the AT&T talks, Hundt said: SBC's "combination with its strongest potential competitor would frustrate the pro-competitive purposes" of the law. The FCC's action comes one day after the Justice Department rejected another regional telephone company's request -- Ameritech Corp.'s -- to provide long-distance service in Michigan. The Federal Communications Commission will ultimately decide the Ameritech request. But the law requires the commission to give the Justice Department's opinion substantial weight. The FCC must act by Aug. 19. Specifically, Chicago-based Ameritech has not satisfied a part of the law that requires a company to open its local phone network to competitors before it can offer long-distance service to its local phone customers, the Justice Department said. Congress gave local phone companies two ways to break into the long-distance business in their own markets: either show that they compete against other local phone companies for business and residential customers; or show they have opened their networks to would-be phone competitors. SBC had asserted that it satisfied both tests. The FCC said it failed both. AT&T Corp. and MCI had asked the FCC to block the request. SBC and other phone companies are providing long-distance service in cities outside their local phone territories. But no company has been cleared by the FCC to offer long-distance to their own states. And, that's where the real fight is. The Bells see their biggest opportunity to offer one-stop communications in these markets most cheaply and efficiently. And it is also where the entry requirements are the toughest and the potential the greatest for local phone companies to have local customers subsidize investment in long-distance -- something that is not allowed. ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@sandbox.telepath.com (Wes Leatherock) Organization: The SANDBOX ** MultiLine TBBS (405)737-9540 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 16:16:19 CDT Subject: New Oklahoma Area Code All three television stations report that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has approved a split of the 405 NPA with apparently the Oklahoma City metropolitan calling area keeping 405 and the rest of the present 405 area getting the new area code. One change the commission made was to allow Stillwater and Perkins to remain in the 405 area. A curious thing about the report was that the new area code has not yet been selected, but it will be chosen some time in July. The newspaper report (before the commission ruling today) said the same thing. This seems strange, since new NPAs are usually selected a couple of years in advance, and this split is supposed to start on a permissive basis by the end of this year. I haven't been able to follow TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom) in recent months, so if someone has some information about this it would be appreciated by direct e-mail. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@sandbox.telepath.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:24:16 EDT From: Michael Fumich <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: 216 / 440 Split (Ohio) The following NXX's will move from NPA 216 to new NPA 440, 16 August 1997. Permissive dialing ends 4 April 1998. 203 242 280 331 417 474 572 647 774 858 899 954 993 204 243 282 333 422 498 576 667 775 862 918 960 994 205 244 284 338 423 508 577 669 776 866 925 962 997 206 245 285 349 427 512 582 679 777 871 926 964 998 209 246 286 350 428 516 584 685 779 876 930 965 223 247 288 352 435 519 585 693 786 878 933 967 224 248 293 353 437 525 593 698 808 884 934 968 230 254 294 354 439 526 594 703 816 885 935 969 232 255 298 355 442 537 599 708 826 886 937 974 233 256 307 356 446 542 603 715 834 887 942 975 234 257 309 357 449 543 604 716 835 888 943 979 235 259 322 358 457 546 605 717 838 891 944 984 236 269 323 359 458 547 632 729 839 892 946 985 237 272 324 365 460 548 635 734 842 893 947 986 238 275 326 366 461 563 636 735 843 895 949 988 239 277 327 414 466 564 639 748 845 897 951 989 240 279 329 415 473 567 646 756 846 898 953 992 NPA 216 will retain: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ City of Cleveland West Suburbs: Lakewood South Suburbs: Brookpark, Garfield Hghts, Seven Hills, Independence, Valley View. East Suburbs: Euclid, East Cleveland, South Euclid, Lyndhurst, Cleveland Hghts, University Hghts, Shaker Hghts, Beachwood, Pepper Pike, Orange. (Parma, a 440 AND 216 south suburb, is STILL squawking :+) Michael Fumich ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:30:37 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide" by Musciano/Kennedy BKHTMLDG.RVW 970623 "HTML: The Definitive Guide", Chuck Musciano/Bill Kennedy, 1997, 1-56592-235-2, U$32.95/C$46.95 %A Chuck Musciano cmusciano@aol.com %A Bill Kennedy bkennedy@activmedia.com %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-235-2 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 552 %S Nutshell Handbook %T "HTML: The Definitive Guide", 2nd edition If you are serious about designing documents and Web pages with HTML (HyperText Markup Language) then you *must* have this book. First of all, it *is* definitive. Many books, though much longer, don't begin to match the depth of this current work. Musciano and Kennedy cover the standard HTML up to 3.2, and, more importantly, include the non-standard extensions of Netscape (up to 4.0) and Internet Explorer. The basics, text, rules, multimedia, links, lists, forms, tables, frames and more are all thoroughly covered, point by point and attribute by attribute. There is even the SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) DTD (Document Type Definition) for HTML 3.2. (This must be definitive: it's the definition of the language.) Second, it *is* a guide, and a very good one. Lemay's "Web Publishing With HTML" (cf. BKWPHTML.RVW) still holds an edge as the most approachable beginner's introduction to Web page creation, but Musciano and Kennedy can easily welcome the newcomer as well. The structure is logical and the explanations are crystal clear. In spite of all this, the book contains even more. Web design is not given a separate section, but seamlessly permeates every section of the book. Readers are constantly reminded that while extensions may be fun, not everyone in the world has the same browser. Alternative methods are suggested for non-standard effects and functions. Shortcuts, suitable to only one browser or server, are recommended against in order to ensure the utmost compatibility with all systems. The authors apologize for the lack of coverage they give to CGI (Common Gateway Interface) programming, but their illustration of the basic functions is clearer than in almost any specialty text I've reviewed to date. All this, and readable, too. The content is straightforward and lucid. While you might not read this book for laughs, it is not the tome to choose to put yourself to sleep at night, either. I can recommend this book, without reservation, to anyone who wants to learn HTML programming and use. It is, still, the definitive guide. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1997 BKHTMLDG.RVW 970623 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Telcos Challenge Universal Service Fund Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:48:06 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Phone Firms Challenge Federal Communications Commission's Internet Order BY DEBORAH SOLOMON, DETROIT FREE PRESS Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 26--A federal attempt to link all schools, libraries and rural health-care providers to the Internet has run into a roadblock and could be derailed indefinitely. Several telecommunications companies are challenging a Federal Communications Commission order requiring local and long-distance telephone companies to pay into a "universal service" fund. The $2.25 billion annual fund would be used to wire the nation's classrooms, libraries and small-town clinics to the Internet. SBC Communications Inc., a merger of Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell telephone companies, last week filed a lawsuit challenging the order with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, GTE Corp., a local and long-distance phone company, filed a notice with the court saying it also plans to appeal. Other telephone companies, including Ameritech, are considering whether to appeal the ruling, and U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., has said he wants the order "tossed out." The FCC established the universal service fund in May in an attempt to implement the sweeping 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, aimed at opening the telecommunications industry to competition. The FCC order cuts long-distance access charges, but raises the cost of business phone lines and multiple home lines. Those increased costs are to be funneled into the universal service fund and used to connect poorer schools and libraries to the Internet. President Bill Clinton has made equal-opportunity Internet access a priority in his administration. But critics say that instead of eliminating subsidies and determining rates, the FCC is giving itself broad, unchecked powers. "The FCC has put in a tax which is going to tax the ordinary rate-payer for the wiring of schools and universities -- something which it is not authorized by law to do," Dingell said. "This has a rich probability of causing a significant rate increase to the ordinary householder for ordinary telephone service." Dingell, who has been consumed with budget issues for the past month, has not taken any action yet, but has been considering how to squash the order. However, it is unclear what can be done at the congressional level. Tom Barry, senior vice president of government affairs at SBC, said that's one reason his company has asked the courts to intervene. "The order is absolutely, totally inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act and it's unconstitutional," Barry said. In its appeal, SBC argues that the FCC should not be permitted to create and oversee a multibillion-dollar fund. "We are talking about a huge amount of money here," Barry said. "They have no authority to oversee anything like this." SBC and other companies also object to paying into the fund, saying it will force them to pass higher rates on to consumers -- something that is contrary to the intent of the telecommunications act. "Clearly, people are going to be paying for this. We don't know where this money is going to come from," Barry said. Sara Snyder, a spokeswoman for Ameritech, said the company is going over the order carefully and will decide shortly whether to join SBC's appeal. If efforts to halt the order are successful, advocates of the universal service fund say the results could be devastating. Reports have shown a growing gap between poor children who don't have access to the Internet and its wealth of information, and wealthier children who use the Internet regularly. Without a subsidy to poorer schools and libraries, advocates say, that gap is going to get larger. As of last summer, only about 28 percent of the nation's libraries offered Internet access, according to the American Library Association. Most libraries, especially those in poorer, rural areas, are struggling to keep up with technology, said Andrew Magpantay, ALA's director of information technology policy. "Libraries provide technology and the opportunity for people to learn how to use it," Magpantay said. "This is important to make sure that all Americans have the opportunity to take advantage of the information revolution." That won't happen if the FCC's order is halted, Magpantay said. The money for universal service is supposed to be available Jan. 1, 1998. Magpantay said even a short delay would be a huge setback if it kept technology out of libraries and schools for another few years. "This has the potential for really challenging the core provisions of the order," said Leslie Harris, a Washington-based policy consultant to the Consortium for School Networking, a nonprofit educational group. "It distracts the education and library communities from getting these programs going and getting schools online." ------------------------------ Subject: Pac Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Lines Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:51:01 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Some Pacific Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Telephone Installation BY RICK BURNHAM, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE, RIVERSIDE, CALIF. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 25--A shortage of Pacific Bell telephone installation personnel is hampering communications in Riverside County and throughout California. The California Public Utilties Commission has demanded an explanation from Pacific Bell following customer complaints from San Francisco Bay area customers of six-week waits to get a phone line. Although Pacific Bell said it usually takes only five days to start service, many San Francisco Bay area consumers say they are waiting much longer. The wait isn't as long in the Inland area cities that Pacific Bell serves, or in other parts of the state. "I understand we'll put in a normal (single) phone line in the usual few days," Pacific Bell spokeswoman Linda Bonniksen said. (Pacific Bell serves Riverside County customers in Riverside, Corona, Norco, Jurupa, Woodcrest, Whitewater, a small part of Moreno Valley and some unincorporated areas of the western county. It has no service in San Bernardino County.) But if you're trying to get a second or third line added, expect a longer wait, she said. The problem is unprecedented demand for additional phone lines. "It's not a situation where there's not enough people (to install lines)," Bonniksen said. "In some cases, there is no more plant in neighborhoods. We've run out of lines. I wouldn't be surprised if you see this problem in every type of community," she said. Last year, Pacific Bell had its largest annual growth in company history, hooking up an additional 650,000 telephone lines -- double what it did in 1995. "Demand has been skyrocketing for two, three, even four lines in a home for the Internet, home-based businesses, or separate lines for adults and another for children," Bonniksen said. Pacific Bell saw demand begin to grow in late 1995, boosting its new construction budget from $500 million to $600 million. This year, the company will spend $800 million on new telephone lines for residential neighborhoods, she said. In the past year, the company also has hired about 2,500 employees, many of them network design engineers and technicians, she said. Still, the California Public Utilities Commission wants to know how often the phone company meets its promises to initiate service. In the Bay Area, David Grabel and his wife ordered two phone lines for their new home in Redwood City six weeks before they moved. But the Grabels didn't get their first phone line until three weeks after they moved in. And that was after they waited at home hours for technicians to show up. "We have an infant, so having a phone when we took possession of the house was important to us," he said. "When you have a little one running around you really want a phone for emergencies." Grabel said they finally gave up ever getting a second line for his home office. "I'm laughing now but my wife is still fuming." The PUC said it has noticed a marked increase in complaints in the past few months. Customers usually complain to PUC commissioners only after they have exhausted all other remedies, said Timothy Sullivan, telecommunications adviser to PUC Commissioner Henry Duque. "So we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg." Sullivan met with Pacific Bell's general manager for Northern California service operations on June 6 to talk about deteriorating service. The PUC staff is preparing a report for the commissioners. "It's certainly an area we can't ignore," said Bill Schulte, director of the PUC's consumer services division. Spokesman Ho Blair said the company aims to serve Bay Area customers within four days, but now takes an average of five working days to install a new line. "We realize it's been an imposition for some customers," he said. "We are bringing in additional technicians and hope to eliminate the extra delay." The Associated Press contributed to this report. ------------------------------ From: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Subject: Help!!!!, X.25 Nightmare!! Date: 26 Jun 1997 17:54:22 GMT Organization: La Positiva Seguros y Reaseguros Sorry, I have to post this, but I can't find anywhere, how to get connected from a X.25 port (DB25) female to a serial port (DB25 or BB9 male). My HS NTU/NEU is a General Datacomm Enclosure Model DE-28 Sorry for your time, but I need it working for a financial network, and you know, every minute, means money!! Thanks in advance, Carlo Marcelo Arenas e-mail : carenas@usa.net; cararen@homemail.com phone: +51 (1) 9719653 ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jun 1997 14:38:14 EDT From: capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek) Subject: Public Network or Internet For Your Call? {The Financial Times}, quoted by EduPage, reports that a small company in Singapore will introduce in October in Singapore a device which attaches to a regular phone and allows a call to be directed to the Internet by suffixing the dialed number with an octothorpe (#). The device is called InnoTalk, and is expected eventually to be sold in the U.S. for about $300 retail. The summary I saw said nothing more. Presumably, the device makes a call to a local ISP, logs on, and establishes the connection to a gateway at the remote end. Nothing was said about how the operator of the remote gateway might be paid, or about how one might direct a call to another Internet phone user. (Dial an IP address? ;-) ) Peter Capek ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #166 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 27 09:24:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15962; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:24:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706271324.JAA15962@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #167 TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jun 97 09:24:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Reports Article on FCC re SMS, 800 (Judith Oppenheimer) Communications Overkill (Tad Cook) South Korean Telephone Clubs (Tad Cook) CDA Struck Down by Supreme Court (Netly News via Monty Solomon) Inband ANI and Account Code Entry - G3V4 PBX (Bruce Griffis) Re: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It (Clive D.W. Feather) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Telecom Reports Article on FCC re SMS, 800 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:44:33 -0400 Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Selection of Toll - Free Database Administrator Debated; FCC Asked To Rewrite Rules on `Hoarding' 06/02/97 Telecommunications Reports Copyright (c) 1997 Telecommunications Reports International, Inc. Although the telecom industry is preparing to create a third toll-free service access code next year (TR, April 7), carriers, regulators, and toll-free users still are fighting over how to distribute numbers in the first two toll-free codes. The FCC's recent order in Common Carrier docket 95-155 (TR, April 21) drew criticism last week from parties seeking reconsideration of the agency's approach to "hoarding" of toll-free numbers. Meanwhile, in comments on a further notice of proposed rulemaking that accompanied the April order, interexchange carriers and the Bell companies debated the future of toll-free database administration. That task currently belongs to the Bells' jointly owned Bell Communications Research, Inc., subsidiary, which has been criticized by other industry segments for its presumed lack of neutrality. Bellcore is scheduled to be sold this year. Filing jointly, the Bell operating companies and Bellcore argued that the telecommunications Act of 1996's provisions regarding impartial numbering administration don't require the replacement of Bellcore's Database Services Management, Inc. (DSMI)subsidiary or the other database subcontractors. They said that because "access to the SMS/800 system is provided under nondiscriminatory tariff, toll-free service providers are able to obtain equal access to the database and reserve toll-free numbers without fear of discrimination." They added that replacing DSMI would be time-consuming, likely taking longer than the pending sale of Bellcore (and DSMI) to Science Applications International Corp. (TR, Nov. 25, 1996). They urged the Commission to "reject any suggestion that it impose a mandatory licensing requirement for SMS [Service Management System]/800 system software that the Bell companies, through Bellcore, have expended tens of million of dollars in developing." AT&T Corp. said, "Any administrator that is affiliated or in a contractual relationship with Bellcore or the [Bell companies] would inevitably be exposed to unacceptable conflicts of interest. Ultimately the 800 SMS database administrator should be selected through competitive bidding." But in view of "the host of other crucial number administration tasks facing the industry," no action should be taken on the 800 SMS database administration issue "at this time," it added. For now, the FCC should just direct an industry committee, such as the North American Numbering Council, to determine "the procedures that in the long term will be used to select a follow-on administrator," AT&T said. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. said it doesn't object to DSMI's continuing "to serve as the toll - free database administrator, at least until a permanent administrator is chosen. However, in order to ensure neutrality in the administration of the toll-free resource, the current SMS Management Team (SMT), a group composed entirely of [Bell company] representatives, should be replaced with a Board of Directors with balanced industry representation." It saw no reason for the same entity to administer the North American Numbering Plan, the local number portability databases, and the toll-free database. Meanwhile, Sprint was among several parties calling for reconsideration of the FCC's "second report and order" in docket 95-155 that accompanied the further notice of proposed rulemaking on database administration. In that order, the Commission had set certain limits and requirements on carriers' requesting toll-free numbers from the database. "The Commission's requirement that a RespOrg [Responsible Organization] have an identified subscriber before it reserves a toll-free number is excessive and unnecessary," Sprint said. It recommended that the FCC "instead adopt a requirement that a RespOrg have an identified subscriber for a toll-free number by the expiration of the 45-day reservation period associated with that number." It asked the FCC to clarify the following: (1) How it expects DSMI to comply with the directive to monitor reserved numbers that are being "automatically recaptured" after 45 days (as opposed to being re-reserved for another subscriber), (2) That re-reservations are allowed if a RespOrg has a different customer for the same toll-free number, and (3) What the prohibition on "retrieving" a number directly from "disconnect" status entails, given that numbers move from disconnect status to "spare" status, where they may be reserved but not retrieved. Any "spare" number should be available to any RespOrg that has a customer for that number, including the RespOrg that "put the number in disconnect status," Sprint said. `Hoarding' Rules Criticized ICB, Inc., a consulting firm representing toll-free service users, asked the FCC to reconsider its prohibition on the "private consensual transfer or exchange of toll-free numbers between end users." Such "brokering" will not accelerate depletion of the number supply, ICB said. "If one were trafficking in numbers for profit, the incentive would be to sell the numbers as quickly as possible." It also asked the FCC to clarify its definition of "hoarding" ("the acquisition by a toll-free subscriber from a RespOrg of more toll- free numbers than the toll-free subscriber intends to use for the provision of toll-free service"). ICB said some legitimate business practices require activities the Commission has said would be indications that the subscriber is hoarding numbers (e.g., routing multiple numbers to one subscriber, frequent changing of numbers, and maintaining numbers with low calling volume). For example, certain business plans by shared-use vendors and owners of a "proprietary toll-free brand" may require "significant lead time" to arrange financing and begin marketing, ICB said. TLDP Communications, Inc., which markets toll-free and interactive voice response services, objected to the creation of "a rebuttable presumption of hoarding or brokering where multiple toll-free numbers are routed to a single subscriber." It said service providers shouldn't be allowed "to terminate service to customers on the basis of the presumption without an affirmative finding by the Commission." It asked the FCC to reconsider those conclusions or, at a minimum, (1) to provide guidelines as to how it expects service providers to "enforce the presumption," (2) to expand the exception granted to telemarketers from the hoarding presumption to other "situations in which multiple `800' numbers are legitimately routed to a single service subscriber," and (3) to determine that resellers, not the underlying facilities-based carrier, must enforce the rules regarding hoarding. Loren Stocker, Managing Partner of Vanity International, objected to the FCC's decisions regarding hoarding and to the underlying concept of toll-free numbers as a "public resource." She said, "Whenever a number is part of a program, service, or enterprise, then the subscription can no longer be assumed a public good or resource. The simple fact is that the intellectual property `800-Flowers' was created and overlaid upon a lifetime subscription; it was neither issued by the carrier and/or RespOrg nor [was it] part of the toll-free subscription." She added that the Act "ensures that 800-Flowers has the right to `retain their telecommunications numbers' with full and unfettered `number portability.' What then supports the legal fiction that assigned numbers are a `public resource?' In my view only unassigned toll-free numbers are a public resource ... Consider the folly of the [U.S. Postal Service] attempting foreclosure proceedings under the theory that a specific mailing address is a `public resource' and must be reclaimed." "Finally, it should be abundantly clear that the proposed auction of confusingly similar ` 888 ' vanity numbers will be immediately enjoined and ultimately disallowed by the courts. The Commission has one thing absolutely correct: Toll-free numbers have no inherent value. Rather, it is the intellectual property overlaid by the 800 [-number] holders that is reportedly worth $700 million" in some federal budget estimates (TR, Feb. 10, p. 3), she said. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com 800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html 800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html 1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714 ------------------------------ Subject: Communications Overkill Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:53:18 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Communications overkill hits corporate efficiency BY ROBERT WOODWARD LONDON (Reuter) - Communications overkill, product of the 1990s world of e-mail, voicemail, fax and the Internet, is beginning to impair companies' efficiency and drive workers crazy, according to a report released Monday. The survey, conducted in the United States and released in London, showed half of those questioned said they were interrupted by messages six or more times an hour. Far from replacing existing communications, new techonological tools merely overlay them, creating a corporate world where many executives and managers feel crushed by their communications traffic. The survey commissioned by U.S. office products company Pitney Bowes showed 71 percent of those questioned felt overwhelmed by the number of messages they received. This glut negatively affects employee morale, the quality of work and home life, and company productivity. "This phenomenon is beginning to have a seismic affect on people's professional and private lives," said Meredith Fischer, vice president, communications, markting and future strategy at Pitney Bowes. "Technology is not the problem, it's how we use and control it." The survey showed that managers on average receive and send 178 messages a day. The telephone is mostly to blame but 40 percent of the message are in paper form, giving the lie to the idea that new technologies would create a paperless environment. A common response by managers was that on arriving at work you "check your e-mail, voice mail, fax, (Lotus) notes database and then it's time to go home." Some said they received up to 100 e-mail messages overnight. Such is the blizzard that many managers have to answer voice-mails and e-mails from home. The ceaseless interruptions at work mean quality thinking time also has to be left until the evenings or weekends. Further inefficiencies arise when communications systems are not compatible, meaning messages do not arrive. Chase-up messages and telephone calls to ensure a message has been received increases the inefficiency. More and more workers now send the same message by two or three different media to make sure it gets through. Many companies also do not bother to find out how their workers, and suppliers and customers, prefer to receive messages, the survey showed. Sixty-nine percent of large companies do not have a communications policy. "Using a number of ways to communicate is not bad in itself, but it can add to the glut of materials to be managed and can be wasteful," Fischer said. "Employees are frustrated and hampered because they don't have the information to make educated choices." Workers, however, are fighting back. Some use their favorite form of communication whether or not this fits into the corporate culture. They turn off pagers and mobile phones, or let them run down, so they can get some peace when they are out of the office. Others open e-mails without reading them or just ignore those which are sent for their information only rather than directed at them. "Ultimately, we're getting to the point where people lie down in the road and say, `No more,"' Fischer told a news conference. This growing confusion and inefficiency is leading to the emergence of "mission control" workers in companies, Fischer told a press conference. This person, often at the personal assistant/secretary level, knows and bridges the deficiencies in a company's communications web. He or she informs individuals when messages fail to hit their target and how best to reach another worker in the company. The survey was conducted by Gallup and San Jose State University among 972 executives, managers and administrative staff at Fortune 1000 companies. ------------------------------ Subject: South Korean Telephone Clubs Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:54:06 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) South Korea cracks down on thriving anonymous `telephone clubs' BY SANG-HUN CHOE Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- In pink-lighted booths smaller than prison cells, men sit waiting for phone calls. Across town, with her two children finally in bed and her husband out late, Mrs. Park, a 33-year-old housewife, gets "the day's only hours to myself." She dials a toll-free number and reaches one of the men in the booths -- a man she has never met before but finds "much easier to confide in than my husband." This is the world of "telephone clubs," South Korea's latest cultural fad. In a deeply Confucian society that outwardly cherishes traditional values of home and family, the clubs are thriving, and the government is trying to put them out of business. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of South Korean men chat with housewives and even teen-age girls -- to kill time or to hope for dates or something more. Both the government and the clubs' trade group say most conversations deal with domestic matters, workplace problems and the like. But the government contends, and the club owners agree, a growing number of calls are sexually oriented. The typical male-exclusive telephone club has 20 booths furnished with leather chairs and TV sets with flickering videos of scantly clad foreign models. Club owners take out ads saying: "Meet mysterious dates!" "Get away from dry city life!" The ads also carry toll-free numbers for women. The men pay 10,000 won ($11) for each hour on the phone -- more than 11 times the regular phone charge. "At first, I thought it was crazy -- talking with other men, even husbands of other women, on the phone at night," said Mrs. Park, who gave only her last name. "But because of the very anonymity of this -- you neither know or see the person you are talking to -- you can talk about a lot of things," she said. "I really finds this refreshing in my event-less life at home. "Of course, I will get into serious trouble if my husband finds out about this," she said. "But I think Korean women must also be allowed to talk with other men more freely. I talked with a man for three hours last time." After the first club appeared in October, 1,500 quickly sprang up. The proliferation coincided with lurid TV documentaries about a small but increasing number of Korean housewives and teen-age girls who have turned to part-time prostitution. Some women told TV interviewers they were looking for an escape from boredom or were earning money for their kids' education. Under pressure from the clubs' critics for months, the government ruled the clubs illegal in May and promised to close them all down. Korea Telecom, the government monopoly on domestic phone service, threatened to cut lines for the clubs. "We must by all means avoid treading the path of Japan," said Yoon Jae-hong of the Ministry of Information and Communication. In Japan, teen-agers use telephone clubs to meet older men and arrange meetings that often lead to paid sex. Police arrested 20 telephone club owners in May on charges of showing pornography. They were also accused of hiring college girls and housewives to carry on obscene conversations with male customers. Club owners accused the government of using isolated incidents of wrongdoing to justify a wholesale crackdown. "We will take our case to the court," said Lee Jong-shik, head of an association of 1,000 telephone clubs, who led a protest visit to the ministry in early June. "What the government is doing threatens our livelihood as well as violating people's right for private conversation." Lee said 20 percent of the clubs were closing down and others are losing business because of police harassment. "Korean people are living in a regimented society and family," Lee said. "They have dictatorial bosses at workplaces and they have dictatorial husbands at home. They need a new culture of freer conversations." In a recent visit to one of the dozen telephone clubs along Seoul's bustling Chongno neighborhood, it was business as usual. Ten of the 15 booths were occupied by men clutching phone receivers. "I cannot understand why the government is so interested in what we talk about on the phone," said Kim Kyung-kyun, a 35-year-old customer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 01:30:47 EDT From: monty@roscom.COM (Monty Solomon) Subject: CDA Struck Down by Supreme Court Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Following is a summary of several press releases, etc received regarding the Supreme Court's decision on CDA. PAT] Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Subject: CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1110,00.html The Netly News CDA STRUCK DOWN! June 26, 1997, 11:30 am by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet. The Justices unanimously ruled that the so-called "display provision" -- which would effectively render the Net "child safe" -- was patently unconstitutional. "The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens. In a 7-to-2 decision, the court also struck down the other half of the CDA, which banned "indecent transmission" to a minor. The minority argued that such a limitation would not interfere "with the First Amendment rights of adults." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist were the lone dissenters on that point in a 13-page minority opinion. "This is the landmark decision that many of us anticipated," said David Sobel, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-counsel on the case. Phil Gutis of the American Civil Liberties Union -- the lead plaintiff in Reno v. ACLU -- said the decision left no wriggle room for CDA supporters: "It's going to be very hard for Congress to go back and say the court left us this opening. They didn't." Yet CDA supporters promised to keep up the fight. Against the backdrop of a dozen anti-porn activists, Cathy Cleaver, the director of legal policy for the Family Research Council, proclaimed that, "today we're going to see the floodgates of pornography open on the internet. This is not a good time to be a child. We're not going to give up the fight to protect children online." In spite of such perceived dangers, the court apparently realized the unique nature of the Internet and appreciated the fact that it is a new and developing medium. "Neither before nor after the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as 'invasive' as radio or television," the majority wrote. The CDA "threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community." The chief congressional opponent of the CDA applauded the court's recognition that the Internet is wholly unlike broadcast media. "Giving full force to the first amendment online is a victory for the first amendment, for american technology, and for democracy," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a statement. "The CDA was misguided and unworkable. It reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology of the Internet." White House statement on CDA decision THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary June 26, 1996 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion closely. The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media. Similarly, we remain committed to vigorous enforcement of federal prohibitions against transmission of child pornography over the Internet, and another prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity. The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of speech and freedom of expression that should be protected. It is the biggest change in human communications since the printing press, and is being used to educate our children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the concerns that parents have about their children accessing inappropriate material. If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe for children. Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders and groups representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can and must develop a solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that are consistent with America's free speech values. With the right technology and rating systems - we can help ensure that our children don't end up in the red light districts of cyberspace. CDA decision online Please see http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html Family Research Council on CDA decision CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100 COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today's ruling means that pornographers can open their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware: this will not be the last word on protecting children from your corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld." Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the internet. "At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute. "But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure that our country does not give pornographers special rights." FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE. ------------------------------ From: Bruce Griffis Subject: Inband ANI and Account Code Entry - G3V4 PBX Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:07:37 -0400 Organization: Commercial Equipment Financing I am running a G3V4 PBX. Documentation states that it supports ANI delivery over ISDN PRI. Unfortunately my PBX does not have ISDN software. Is there a way to deliver In-Band ANI over a "straight" T1 using ESF B8ZS signaling to a Lucent G3V4 PBX? Is there a way to do account code entry on inbound calls on an AT&T (Lucent) G3V4 PBX? I support a small help desk, and want to keep track of calls by problem type through both the PBX (via CDR) and the info system. I know it is supported on outbound calls. Anything on inbound? Regards, Bruce Griffis cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:06:20 +0100 From: Clive D.W. Feather Reply-To: clive@demon.net Subject: Re: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.) > Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but > you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that > information if you let it leave your computer. That's your > responsibility. > So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting > through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week > on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights" > for the Net. Those who are against the concept of information privacy might want to look at the UK's Data Protection Act 1984, available on the web below . This works well enough in the UK, and is typical of European data protection legislation. Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email: Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | | Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #167 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 30 09:05:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA14291; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199706301305.JAA14291@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #168 TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Jun 97 09:05:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bellcore NANPA Webpage Updates of 27-June-1997 (Mark J. Cuccia) Mexico's "Vertical-Service" Codes? (Mark J. Cuccia) Phone Relay Service For Deaf (CA PUC Press Release) (Anthony Argyriou) Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Building VRML Worlds" by Tittel/Scott/Wolfe (Rob Slade) AT&T Rethinks Rate Cuts (Tad Cook) Cyberpromo Routing Through My System! (Alan Boritz) MegaCity's (Toronto's) New Area Code (Alnawaz Ladha) 916/530 Split Boundary Change (CA PUC Press Release) (Anthony Argyriou) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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, 29 Jun 1997 17:45:23 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Bellcore NANPA Webpage Updates of 27-June-1997 Bellcore NANPA has updated their webpages, dated 27-June-1997: (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html) The test number for the California split (916->530) has been announced. It will be 530-444-0530. The dates and test numbers for Quebec's split (514->450) has been announced, along with test numbers: 13-June-1998 Permissive 16-Jan.-1999 Mandatory Two Test Numbers: 450-443-2836 450-443-2739 Since both test numbers are 450-443, I _doubt_ that they route to different access tandems of Bell-Canada (and maybe Telebec). Maybe one is English and the other is French. Or, a-la British Columbia's 604->250 split in 1996, one test number might 'supe' (i.e. bill/charge you toll), while the other test number answers with 'on-hook' supervision, where you aren't (supposed to be) charged/billed. There are PL's (Planning Letters for $10.00 each) announed for the two Massachusetts NPA splits, which NYNEX is stating to go permissive on 1-Sept-1997, and mandatory on 1-Dec-1997. That's just a little over two months away for beginning of permissive dialing, with only a three month permissive dialing period. However, as of Saturday afternoon, Bellcore NANPA's website doesn't indicate the dates nor test numbers for Massachusetts' two NPA splits. Dial-it-yourself, and SAVE! THE BELL SYSTEM: AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including: Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada (PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research) NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T) 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- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:22:09 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Mexico's "Vertical-Service" Codes? I was looking thru Telnor's website (http://www.telnor.com). Telnor is the subsidiary of Telmex. They are the traditional 'incumbent' LEC which provides service in the two northwestern states of Baja-Cal-N and Sonora. I hadn't seen these instructions or information on the (Sprint)-Telmex site, nor anything regarding this on the websites of MCI-Avantel, nor AT&T-Aventel, nor SWBell-Iusatel ... ONLY on Telnor's. o Caller-ID/Display (Identificador de Llamada) --- but there are no special _dialing_ instructions for Caller-ID/Display anyhow... o 3-Way-Calling (Conferencia Tripartita) In the middle of a stable call, FLASH, hear recall dialtone, dial the next party, FLASH, hear recall dialtone and dial '3', and a three-way conversation is established. o Call-Waiting (Llamada en Espera) During the middle of a call, if another party is trying to call, the called party will hear the 'beep', and can choose to FLASH, hear recall dialtone, dial '2', put their original party on hold, thus answering the 'beeping' party. And they can go back and forth between the two by FLASHING, hearing recall dialtone, and then dialing '2'. To drop the party currently in conversation and then go ONLY to the 'held' party, FLASH, hear recall dialtone, then dial '1'. o CANCEL Call-Waiting Dial #43#, to reactivate dial #43* o Call Forwarding (Linea Directa) Dial #53* + the forwarded telephone number (up to 12-digits) + # To cancel, dial #53# o Call-Transfer (Transferencia de Llamadas) I assume that this is for forwarding on busy/no-answer. I had some translation trouble on figuring out the instructions on this one. The webpage for this is service is: http://www.telnor.com/transferencia.html Dial *21*+ the forwarded telephone number + # I wonder if these "Vertical Service" codes part of a Mexican Standard? I know that Bellcore's NANPA assigns the *XX(X) (also dialable as 11-XX(X) from any phone, both rotary and tone-dial) for uses in the NANP. However, it is up to each and every individual local telco to provide particular services, and many don't necessarily follow the Bellcore recommended standards. Particularly, various PBX/Centrex systems, Cellular systems, private payphones (COCOTs), etc. Could there be some form of S.C.T. or CoFeTel, or Telmex standards document or list indicating the recommended * and # "Vertical Service Codes" for use in Mexico? It does appear that since Mexico's numbering/dialing plan uses initial digits of '1' for POTS/geographic local c/o codes and city codes, and '0' for service codes and access prefixes, and everything else '2' thru '9' is for POTS/geographic purposes as a first dialed digit, that there are no numerical dialpulse codes corresponding to initial # or * in Mexico. One MUST be using a DTMF phone to utilize the vertical services. The "Princess" Telephone - it's Little, it's Lovely, it LIGHTS! THE BELL SYSTEM: AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including: Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada (PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research) NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T) 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- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:33:26 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Phone Relay Service For Deaf (CA PUC Press Release) California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: Dianne Dienstein June 13, 1997 CPUC - 73 415-703-2423 (Res. T-16031) CPUC ACTS TO IMPROVE PHONE RELAY SERVICE FOR THE DEAF The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has augmented the 1997 Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP) budget by $2.9 million to stimulate competition in providing relay service, and for the first time assure deaf and disabled phone customers choice of providers. The California Relay Service uses intermediaries with teletype devices to connect deaf and disabled phone customers with hearing customers. Commissioner Henry M. Duque convinced a majority of his fellow Commissioners to augment the DDTP budget: "MCI is the company quickest to charge others with abusing monopoly power. Here is a market where it is the single service provider to a population with special needs, and instead of using technology to serve those who rely on it most, MCI appears to be abusing its customers and exploiting its market power." In 1996, MCI was selected as the primary provider of relay service through a competitive bidding process. MCI's main relay service center is in Riverbank, California. While other companies could have entered this market under the same contract terms that MCI did, none chose to do so. Soon after MCI began to provide relay service, customers complained about operator typing, spelling and grammar, users' inability to use various types of calling cards or their carrier of choice, and incorrect billing. The number of complaints about MCI's relay service soared to five times that of the previous provider, Sprint. Both the Trust which administers the DDTP, and Commissioner Duque, who has been the Commission's liaison with the DDTP, met with MCI in an effort to work together to eliminate the service problems. However, over the past six months, and despite the Commission's direction to correct problems, problems continued. The DDTP Trust concluded that the only way to provide relief to relay customers was to attract other phone companies into this market to compete with MCI and to give relay users the same kind of choice among providers that other phone customers enjoy, and spur MCI to improve service. The Trust sought Commission augmentation of the DDTP budget so that the reimbursement rate for relay service providers could be raised from the current 70 cents/conversation minute to not more than 89 cents - the next lowest rate bid during the competitive bidding for the contract MCI currently has. On June 11, 1997, the day the Commission approved augmentation of the DDTP budget, Sprint publicly announced its intention to provide relay service no later than September of this year. The Commission hopes other providers will also enter this market, and stated its intention to work with them to facilitate this. In an effort to assure better service, relay service providers must report monthly to the CPUC on the number and types of complaints they receive, and use customer surveys to assess service quality. Also, providers who do not meet the contractual requirements will be subject to daily liquidated damages of $2,000 plus 10% of the daily gross incremental revenue from the 19 cent/conversation minute difference between the current reimbursement rate and the new rate; liquidated damages will increase for each consecutive day of violations. Pursuant to legislation, there are three programs for the deaf, hearing impaired, and disabled in California: Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs) distribution; the California Relay Service; and Supplemental Telecommunications Equipment for persons who are disabled. The programs are funded by a consolidated budget which is set annually by the Commission. ------------------------------ Subject: Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:25:20 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement BY MELANIE PAYNE, AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, OHIO Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 27--Robert S. Tongren, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, says state utility regulators moved too quickly in settling a dispute with Ameritech over inaccurate service records. The state consumer watchdog also is taking issue with new rules for local telephone service released yesterday by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Commissioners approved a PUCO staff recommendation of a $300,000 fine against Ameritech, Ohio's largest telephone company. They also decided to cut regulated telephone revenues to Ameritech by up to $540,000 for providing the commission with inaccurate service records. But Tongren wasn't satisfied with the settlement. "An unidentified number of Ameritech customers who have experienced service problems have missed the opportunity for remedies because this company has not acted responsibly in managing data," Tongren said of the fines against Ameritech. "The commission has again overlooked the severity of this company's actions." The disputed records had to do with how well Ameritech complied with service requirements between July 1995 and June 1996. The telephone company earlier had been plagued with service problems that angered customers and resulted in fines against the company. Ameritech blamed a computer glitch for its inability to produce the records. The records became an issue when the statistics initially provided by Ameritech did not agree with the extraordinary number of service complaints the PUCO had received during the same period. When Ameritech was asked to review the reports, it discovered that its records were indeed faulty, but because the original records had been discarded, it couldn't generate new and more accurate reports. PUCO staff members recommended the fine and revenue reduction in lieu of billing credits to individual customers because the company could not provide individual customer records, PUCO spokesman Dick Kimmins said. The new minimum telephone service standards, Kimmins said, focus on providing individual customers with remedies. The new telephone standards, Tongren said, "are an improvement" but he said the original staff recommendations were stronger and "provided more assurance that poor service would not be tolerated." Kimmins agreed with the assessment that the recommended penalties were more severe, but he said the approved penalties, as now structured, are likely to be more effective. For example, the staff recommended that if a customer's phone service was out for more than 72 hours, the customer would receive a one-month credit for service. Under the adopted rules, if the outage is 48 to 75 hours, the customer will receive credit for one-third of a one-month basic service charge. For outages of 76 to 96 hours, the customer will receive a two-thirds credit. And for an outage longer than 96 hours, the customer will receive a full month's credit. The graduated system, which takes effect Oct. 1, will be an incentive for the local phone companies to repair the service quickly, Kimmins said. If the customer gets a month's credit after a 48-hour outage, "Why not wait 28 days to fix the phone?" Kimmins asked. Other new standards, which take effect July 7, include: A cap on phone company surcharges to the cost of a first-class stamp for bill payments made through grocery stores or banks. A requirement that companies provide each new customer a detailed list of services and monthly charges. A prohibition against combining written authorization to switch local or long-distance service with a "sweepstakes" or prize drawing. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:57:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Building VRML Worlds" by Tittel/Scott/Wolfe/Sanders BKBVRMLW.RVW 961218 "Building VRML Worlds", Ed Tittel/Charlie Scott/Paul Wolfe/Claire Sanders, 1997, 0-07-882233-5, U$39.95/C$57.95 %A Ed Tittel etittel@lanw.com 76376.606@compuserve.com %A Charlie Scott charlie@outer.net %A Paul Wolfe info@outer.net %A Claire Sanders %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882233-5 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$39.95/C$57.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 381 %T "Building VRML Worlds" This odd and interesting book distinguishes itself from others on the VRML (Virtual Reality Model Language) shelf by talking about everything *except* how to code VRML. OK, yes, there is a brief overview of VRML itself, but most of the book is concerned with how to use VRML (and how *not* to), authoring tools, resources, and so forth. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKBVRMLW.RVW 961218 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Rethinks Rate Cuts Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 08:51:47 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T may restrict who gets phone-rate cut BY JEANNINE AVERSA Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Because the savings from a rejuggling of phone fees could fall short of government projections, AT&T now says it may not share them with regular, nondiscount long-distance customers. In much ballyhooed announcement in May, AT&T Corp. promised to cut its phone rates as long as the Federal Communications Commission reduced by $1.7 billion the fees that long-distance companies pay to local carriers to begin and end calls. In a filing to the FCC on Monday, AT&T calculated that reduced fees, ordered by the government in May, come to $1.5 billion. AT&T said its calculation was based on an analysis of local phone companies FCC filings outlining their proposed access charge reductions. The reductions are supposed to take effect on July 1. 'AT&T pledged a substantial reduction to its basic consumer long-distance rate schedule on the condition that net access reductions equaled or exceeded that $1.7 billion amount," AT&T said in the FCC filing. 'If the reductions proposed in the (local phone) filing were allowed to take effect, unfortunately, that condition may not be satisfied." AT&T promised the FCC in writing to pass along the biggest portion of the expected savings to customers who are not on discounted calling plans. That's the majority of AT&T's 80 million residential customers. Historically, those basic customers haven't benefited from access fee reductions, and, as a result, haven't enjoyed rate cuts. BellSouth Corp. and the local telephone industry accused AT&T of reneging on its promise to pass on the savings to all of its customers -- not just the biggest ones. 'It comes as absolutely no surprise that AT&T is already backsliding on its `commitment' to the FCC," said David Markey, BellSouth's vice president of government affairs. AT&T spokesman Jim McGann disagreed, saying the company's promise has always been conditioned on the government's cutting access fees by $1.7 billion. 'We are hopeful that the commission will find additional reductions," McGann said. If it doesn't, AT&T will pass on to long-distance customers whatever savings that do result from access fee reductions. But AT&T won't promise that the bulk of the savings will end up in the pockets of basic customers, McGann said. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Cyberpromo Routing Through My System! Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:07:19 -0400 This wouldn't be real "telecom" news if it weren't that the Cyberpromo traffic was coming from Compuserve! Seems that my postmaster account, on my uucp system, snared a few that didn't get away, and they show that Compuserve delivered them. At least one has an "answerme.com" email address in the body of the message. The originator also has a Compuserve address, and one bounce from here was bounced back by Compuserve because his maibox was full. The real insult is that I pay for connect time for that system, and was looking in to why it was higher than it should have been. Wasn't part of the Compuserve vs. Cyberpromo settlement that there was to be no junk email without the recipient's explicit permission? I wonder how this Cyberpromo junk mail passing through Compuserve to other systems fits in with the plan? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:01:13 -0400 From: Alnawaz Ladha Organization: Humber Subject: MegaCity's (Toronto's) New Area Code Bell Canada is set to announce the new overlay area code for Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, York, East York, and Old-Toronto. just in time for the formation of "new" Toronto which will be a combination of the six cities. Instead of an overlay why not consider three new area codes to divide Toronto into four boroughs: East Toronto - Scarborough (new area code) West Toronto - Etobicoke (new area code) North Toronto - North York (new area code) South Toronto - Old-Toronto (keep 416 area code) with the Cities of York, and East York being divided among The Boroughs of North Toronto, and South Toronto. A split as such would be a perfect solution for Toronto, dividing it among it's new four boroughs. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:32:26 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: 916/530 Split Boundary Change (CA PUC Press Release) California Public Utilities Commission 107 S. Broadway, Rm. 5109, Los Angeles CA 90012 NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: Kyle DeVine June 11, 1997 CPUC - 542a 213-897-4225 C96-03-039 and C96-03-040 CPUC CHANGES 916/530 AREA CODE BOUNDARY The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today ordered changes to the 916/530 area code split, scheduled for November 1. The Lincoln, Newcastle, and Pleasant Grove exchanges in southern Placer County, and the El Dorado Hills in the Folsom exchange in western El Dorado County will now be included in the 916 area code - a previous decision had placed them in the new 530 code. Consumers who have the following telephone number prefixes are in these areas: 464, 645 - Lincoln; 663 - Newcastle; 655 - Pleasant Grove; 933 and 939 - El Dorado Hills. The California Code Administrator, which monitors telephone number growth and recommends when new area codes need to be implemented, petitioned the CPUC to change the code boundary, which the Commission set last August. Phone calling patterns showed consumers in the southern Placer and western El Dorado Counties place most of their calls to the Sacramento area. Therefore, keeping them in the same area code with Sacramento would be the least disruptive to them because they could continue to dial 7-digits on most calls, rather than 11-digits for calls between codes. The CPUC also received several hundred letters from consumers supporting the request. Consumers in the new 530 area code should plan to change advertisements, business cards, and advise their friends and associates of the change. All consumers who may be dialing to or from the new 530 area code should find out if they need to reprogram their telecommunications equipment such as speed dialers, faxes, modems, and phone systems. To give consumers a chance to get used to the 530 new code, callers will have six months, after the area code changes on November 1, to reach numbers in the new 530 code without having to dial the new code. Today's decision adds these exchanges to the area it previously set last August as the 916 area. That area included the portion of Sacramento County that is currently in the 916 area, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville in southern Placer County, and the City of West Sacramento in Yolo County. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #168 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 1 08:50:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA28824; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:50:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199707011250.IAA28824@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #169 TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jul 97 08:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Cable Competition Ups the Ante in Detroit (Tad Cook) Albany, GA Long Distance Service (jnorton@alltel.net) Mitnick Gets 22 Months (Tad Cook) Netly Interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats Staffer (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway" (Rob Slade) AT&T Still Offering 10c/min 24hrs/day (John L. Shelton III) Additional Info on Mexico's "Vertical Services" (Mark J. Cuccia) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: Ameritech Cable Competition Ups the Ante in Detroit Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:22:32 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Facing Ameritech Competition, Cable Deals Bloom in Metro Detroit BY DEBORAH SOLOMON, DETROIT FREE PRESS Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jul. 1--Faced with aggressive new competition from Ameritech, established cable TV operators in metro Detroit are adding channels, upgrading their networks and offering new -- and in some cases, free -- services. Companies such as TCI, Comcast and MediaOne had a monopoly in their markets before new operators such as Ameritech's Americast entered the Detroit market two years ago following federal legislation that relaxed industry rules. TCI, Comcast and MediaOne, formerly Continental Cable, have responded by offering free premium channels, such as HBO, to customers who sign a year-long contract. Some are reducing or freezing rates; others have added new channels. Ameritech New Media, the parent company of Americast, wants to break those monopolies. It has franchise agreements in 20 Detroit area suburbs and is negotiating in others. "We're giving people a choice," Geoff Potter, an Ameritech New Media spokesman, said Monday. The company also is giving people an incentive to sign up -- money. Ameritech New Media offers AmeriChecks -- three $10 checks -- that can be applied toward any Ameritech service, including a home phone bill, paging or cellular service. Customers can get as many as 12 AmeriChecks -- or $120 -- if they stick with the service. That's made it harder for incumbent providers to keep their customers. "It's a challenge," said Diane Dietz, vice president of corporate affairs for Comcast. "Now our customers have someone to compare us to." One city that's seen the benefits of competition is Plymouth, which has had Americast since the end of 1996. Before Ameritech's entry, Plymouth customers got their cable from MediaOne, which offered 45 channels. Today, MediaOne offers 78 channels, which is comparable to Americast's 80 to 90 channels. "Competition is always a better motivator than anything else," said Steve Walters, Plymouth city manager. Since Americast entered the market, service complaints for MediaOne have declined, he said. "MediaOne now advertises a two-hour window in which they'll be there," he said. "Believe me, that was not what happened before." The company is also offering a choice for customers who sign up for a year: $5 off each month or free HBO. Other companies, such as Comcast and TCI, are rolling out cable modems -- devices that let people access the Internet hundreds of times faster than telephone modems. Ameritech does not offer that service. In May, Continental Cable said it would become MediaOne and began a $5-billion network upgrade. A few weeks later, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said his company would invest $1 billion in Comcast Corp. to improve its cable system. Other companies are rushing products to market, such as cable modems and devices that provide better pictures. The fear of competition is fueling initiatives across the country, where incumbent cable providers are scrambling to retain customers who are being wooed by other companies. With money from Gates, for example, Comcast is to install a fiber-optic cable system nationwide with two-way data transmission. "Comcast is eager to get the network upgraded because they view Internet access as a high-revenue, high-margin product," said Anna-Maria Kovacs, an analyst with Philadelphia-based Janney Montgomery Scott Inc. Kovacs said cable companies that want to survive have to diversify their product and find other ways to make money. Comcast is investing so much to upgrade its system because it wants to develop new, revenue-generating products, such as interactive televisions and high-speed Internet devices. But some companies have other obstacles to overcome, Kovacs said. The risk for incumbent companies is greater if they haven't treated people well. "If you have a really good phone company going against a cable company that hasn't been doing its share, the telephone company will take its share of customers," she said. Detroit area cable providers say they aren't too worried. They point to community outreach programs they've funded and money they've given to schools as a symbol of their loyalty. "We're continuing to do the kind of outreach we've done in the past, such as free cable for the classrooms," said Bill Black, a spokesman for MediaOne. "These things have been going on for a long time; it's part of our corporate culture." But in a competitive market, what worked in the past may no longer be enough. "There's not a lot of precedent here," said Leslie Brogan, a spokesperson for TCI. "It definitely makes for interesting times." ------------------------------ From: jnorton@alltel.net Subject: Albany, GA Long Distance Service Date: 1 Jul 1997 02:38:11 GMT Organization: ALLTEL Hi all, I have been noticing the changes in the last few years in regard to SS7 being used on toll as well as local calls. This reminded me of something I observed in the early 1980's in Albany, Georgia. I'm not sure what kind of toll switch Bell used in Albany, but, they seemed to have interfaced it with their local ESS switch using some form of the CCISS signaling. This resulted in dramatically improved speed of call processing into and out of Albany as far as toll calls were concerned. Albany seems to be 1 of just a few other cities that were using CCISS to connect the local switch with the LD network. This process seems to have been reversed some time after divestiture, and toll calls into and out of Albany were slowed down again. I seem to remember noticing at least 1 other city in the U.S. that may have been configured this way, but, I can't remember for the life of me which one it was. I was intrigued to see Bell making progress in this area, and was somewhat disappointed when they changed things back to the older method of signaling. Was this because of divestiture or were there other reasons why this project seemed to have been prematurely ended? Were there any other cities that this project was tried in? When I made calls to Atlanta the calls seemed to go from the 4A switch in Macon (where I lived then) to the 4ESS in Atlanta via CCISS then to the local switch via MF. When I made calls to Albany, calls went from the 4A (or any other CCISS-equipped switch) all the way to the local switch via CCISS. Don't think Albany had a 4ESS in the early 80's. Seems like Atlanta would have been the more logical location what with its more advanced switch (I believe Atlanta had a 4ESS). Any thoughts on this? Joseph (Joe) Norton Dalton, Georgia, U.S.A.--The Carpet Capital of the World! Noah saved animals from the flood by arcing them! ------------------------------ Subject: Mitnick Gets 22 Months Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:02:53 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (When Mitnick was on the lam in 1994 in Seattle, he was living in a basement apartment ONE BLOCK from my house! Tad Cook tad@ssc.com) Electronic outlaw gets 22 months for hacking, parole violations LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Electronic outlaw Kevin Mitnick was sentenced Friday to nearly two years in prison for parole violations and using stolen cellular phone numbers to dial into computer databases. U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer sentenced Mitnick to 14 months for parole violations and eight months for his guilty plea to possession of cloned cellular phone numbers. After serving the prison sentence, Mitnick will placed on supervised probation. During that time, Mitnick is forbidden from possessing any computer equipment, software or cellular phones and from having a job in which he has access to computers, unless he gets prior approval from his probation officer. "I think these conditions are appropriate given his prior hacking activities and cellular phone fraud activities," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Painter. But defense attorney Donald Randolph said he was considering filing an appeal to the conditions because they were too broad for someone living "in this computer-driven world." The judge declined his request to define the word "computer," Randolph said. "The letters of those conditions would require Mr. Mitnick to live an Amish-like existence until his supervision is over ... I have no doubt that the court only intended to restrict Mr. Mitnick in his computer hacking activities." Mitnick has been in jail since his February 1995 arrest in Raleigh, N.C., following an investigation and cross-country manhunt, with a trap sprung by Tsutomo Shimomura, an expert in computer security. Mitnick pleaded guilty last year to using 15 stolen cellular phone numbers to dial into computer databases in North Carolina. Mitnick consented to moving the case to his home state of California. He is awaiting trial on 25 counts of computer and wire fraud, possessing unlawful access devices, damaging computers and intercepting electronic messages in an unrelated case. Mitnick has pleaded innocent to those charges. If convicted, he could face an additional five to ten years in prison, Painter said. He is accused of damaging computers and stealing millions of dollars in software from high-tech companies, damaging University of Southern California computers and using stolen computer passwords. The indictment follows an investigation by a national task force of FBI, NASA and federal prosecutor high-tech experts. The affected companies are Novell, Motorola, Nokia, Fujitsu and NEC. A trial date hasn't been set. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:08:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Netly Interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats Staffer Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:41:38 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer [The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane from Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed Donna Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the original CDA. Here are excerpts. --Declan] *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/rice.html Interview with Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WHY DO YOU SAY THERE IS SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE CDA IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY? I think there's been a lot of misinformation about what this is all about and what the CDA would do if it is upheld. I think there have been some scare tactics, quite frankly, and that's why you have people concerned about speech. This is an area that the public hasn't had to understand the nuances of until now. You have a lot of people who have been using the Internet for years for the contructive purposes for which it was designed. Now it's becoming more commercial and you have pedophiles, pornographers and people who are just posting their private collections of pornography and polluting it, exploiting that technology. A few bad apples are spoiling it for everyone else. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't be having this problem. Long before any of this it would have been great if the Internet community had said, "Hey, don't pollute this technology," and had imposed their own controls. But that didn't happen and it isn't happening. *********** http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/crane.html An Interview With David Crane, Legislative Assistant to CDA Cosponsor Dan Coats The Netly News June 26, 1997 [...] Q: WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE CDA? I don't think so. One of the frustrations we experienced has been the tremendous amount of debate that has centered around the indecency standard -- and the portrayal of those who oppose it as a broadcast standard. The very federal statute we amended was a dial-a-porn statute. It was telephony, which is inherently an interactive method of communication. Despite representations to the contrary, there was a tremendous dialogue with representatives of the computer industry. We tried to strike the best balance we could. Q: YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT INTERNET USERS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CDA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT. What Congress said was you're only held responsible for "knowing" violations. At that point you become responsible to solve that problem. You can't be held liable for unknowing violations. That's a distinction that's been lost in the politicking over this issue. And that's unfortunate. This is new technology and evolving technology. That's why Congress was careful not to codify a specific method of preventing access for children. What's effective today may not be effective tomorrow. We tried very much to have the CDA be flexible and be a living statute, one that would provide for advanced technologies and more restrictive technologies over time. Q:CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES? A good example is PICS [a framework for Internet rating systems]. Look at the PC Week editorial. Q:THE ONE YOUR BOSS WAVED AROUND THE SENATE FLOOR? The industry has waved around PICS and said that's a solution. But what's the incentive -- for someone who's providing pornography on the Internet -- to subscribe to PICS? You're asking him to limit his potential marketplace in a voluntary way. That doesn't work. The need for the CDA is you want to say: Yes, apply technology, but you must restrict access to pornographic materials for children. If you don't do it, you'll be subject to prosecution. Q: WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE CDA? If the Supreme Court strikes down the CDA, we'll acknowledge that the current composition of the court is saying we don't have it right [to pass such a law] and we'll go back and operate on the precedent that was established and try again. The final verson of the CDA -- the compromise that was struck in the conference committee -- was passed overwhelmingly. There's precedent to this: the dial-a-porn law. It took several attempts before it was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think that everyone involved -- from the ACLU to a lot of the reporters on the Internet -- has misrepresented the CDA in many respects. Saying that it is a ban on indecency, that adults wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. That's patently wrong. Q: YOU SOUND LIKE YOU FEEL OUTGUNNED. The newspapers have a vested interest. Every major newspaper editorialized against the law during drafting and afterward. You're not going to be a darling of the media. The media likes to portray this as a free speech issue. This is part of the process. Q: SO NOW THE PRO-CDA FORCES ARE THE UNDERDOGS? One of the virtues of the Internet is the free flow of information. But only part of the information is being put out and that's unfortunate. This representation by opponents of the CDA that considerations of the unique nature of the Internet were not taken into account or that members and staff didn't understand the Internet or that somehow Congress didn't like the Internet or saw great danger beyond this issue -- all that is simply not true. There was consultation with the computer industry at every step of the way. We wanted to create a living law -- a flexible law -- that could grow as technologies evolved. Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is the same position I have held for quite some time; that opponents -- for whatever reason -- of CDA used a variety of scare tactics and patently false information to present their case. I was especially dismayed by the tactics of the American Civil Liberties Union in the early stages of litigation and the -- if you will pardon me -- the out and out lies they told the court, knowing the judge was in no position to dispute it either way. It is too bad so many netizens accepted the arguments without any question at face value, thinking that placing any controls at all on the net somehow their own speech was threatened. Nonsense! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:05:35 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway" BKTGTTIH.RVW 961218 "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway", Dylan Tweney, 1994, 1-56276-206-0, U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 %A Dylan Tweney 72241.443@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1994 %G 1-56276-206-0 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 http://www.mcp.com %P 139 %T "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway" This is a quick, brief and limited guide to the major commercial online services. If you are a novice computer user with no experience with modems, there is not enough information here to get you started, although there is a precise view of the services if you are going that route. If you are an online veteran the "roadmaps" might point out areas on your own service that you haven't tried. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKTGTTIH.RVW 961218 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:09:27 -0400 From: jlshelton@mindspring.com (John L. Shelton III) Subject: AT&T Still Offering 10c/min 24hrs/day About seven months ago, I signed up for the "secret" deal that got me a residential rate of 10c/min all day long. It was a six month promotion, then was scheduled to go to 15c/min (standard OneRate plan.) Right on schedule, the rate did rise, and I had forgotten to mark it in my calendar, so I paid a month of higher rates. I called AT&T and they offered me another six months of 10c/min, with 60 free minutes for the first two months. At the end of this trial, the rate stays 10c/min, but they add a $4.95 monthly fee. Since we use about 1000 minutes a month, the additional half-cent a minute isn't too bad. AT&T is offering better deals (in terms of free minutes) to customers who switch from other carriers. Last time, they provided confirmation in writing of the rate plan, and say that they will send it this time as well. Also, since I was already on their billing, the new rate is retroactive to 9-Jun. Wow. Directory assistance is now up to 95c/call. I haven't checked their calling card rates lately; we use one of the 17.5c/min cards instead. =John= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:10:49 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Additional Info on Mexico's "Vertical Services" I had someone help me in translating the Spanish from the Mexican webpages regarding Mexico's "Vertical Service" codes. I also found that Telmex' website _does_ have info on their vertical services, as does its subsidiary in the two northern states of Baja-Cal-N and Sonora. Telmex' address for such "Productos y Servicios, Telefonia Digital" is: http://www.telmex.com.mx/ser_dig.htm Telnor's address for such "Servicios de Tecnologia Digital" is: http://www.telnor.com/std.html Click away from these pages for specifics on each service. o Voicemail (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Buzon de Voz"): However, there are no dialing instructions shown on how to retrieve voicemail or set up a mailbox. o Caller-ID (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Identificador de Llamada): There aren't any specific dialing instructions on privacy or number supression, if such even is allowed in Mexico. It is indicated that international calls from outside won't have their number displayed on a Caller-ID box. It also appears that on calls from payphones or cellulars won't have their number displayed, but rather just the description that the call is from such an originating phone. o Call-Waiting (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Llamada en Espera): During the middle of a call, if you hear a 'beep' and choose to answer that 'beep', you would FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '2'. The original party is put on hold, and the 'beeping' party is thus answered. You can go back-and-forth, by FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '2'. Privacy _is_ maintained between each of the parties. To _drop_ the current party you are talking with and go to _only_ the party that is holding, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '1'. I don't know about what happens if the 'controlling' party hangs-up at any time while one party is on hold. Also, if you don't answer the intial 'beep' tone within 30-seconds, that 'beeping' party will then hear BUSY signal instead of ringing. To Cancel Call-Waiting, dial #43# (both Telmex & Telnor); To reactivate Call-Waiting, dial *43# (Telmex), dial #43* (Telnor) [I wonder if 'reactivate' (previously cancelled) CW is _really_ *43*, as it would follow with activation codes further down, as *-XX-*] o 3-Way Calling (Telmex calls this "Trez-a-la-Vez; Telnor calls this "Conferencia Tripartita): To add an additional party during a stable call, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, dial that party. When they answer, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '3' to 'bridge' everyone togather. If that additional (second-leg) party hasn't anwered (or if the line is busy), OR during a 3-way connection if you want to _drop_ the second-leg party and continue _only_ with the first-leg party, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '1'. During a 3-way connection, to _drop_ the first party and continue _only_ with the second-leg party, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '2'. When the 'controlling' party hangs up, _everyone_ is disconnected. o Incoming 3-Way (must have both 3-Way _and_ Call-Waiting): To 'bridge-in' a 'beeping' call or a 'held' call from a call-waiting situation, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '3'. o Call-Forwarding (Telmex calls this "Sigueme" -- 'follow-me'; Telnor calls this "Transferencia de Llamada"): To forward incoming calls to another number, dial *21* + the forwarding number + '#'. To turn-off forwarding, dial #21#. There is mention about hearing tones or confirming announcements, but I haven't translated this yet. I assume that it is similar to NANP standards in this way. o Speed-Calling (Telnor calls this "Linea Directa"): only ONE pre-programmed called telephone number can be reached with Speed-Calling. The one number can be pre-programmed by dialing *53* + the number you wish as your speed-calling called party (up to twelve digits) + '#'. To turn-off the speed-calling, dial #53#. I don't know if yo first need to first 'turn-off' the number if you wish to change the speed-calling entry, or if you can 'over-write' the existing entry with a new entry. You utilize this "Speed-Calling-One" by simply lifting the hanset, and letting dialtone time-out after six-seconds. There is no 'digit-pound' entry. Some LECs here in the US/Canada do have a similar 'direct/express' service to ONE pre-determined telephone number, in addition to Speed-Calling-8/30. And, as mentioned in the earlier email, I don't think that the '#' and '*' have any corresponding numerical dialpulse code. The instructions from Telmex and Telnor indicate that these services are available only on Digital office (Telnor's page indicates 5ESS), and that the phone you have must be tone-dial compatible. I did get some email from someone who read the post who indicated that many of these vertical-service code formats are very similar to what a US-based cellular company did for their vertical services, of course, that with the cellular, you did use the "SEND" button. ------------------ Long-Distance-- the next best thing to being there! THE BELL SYSTEM: AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including: Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada (PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research) NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T) 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- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #169 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 1 09:17:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA00916; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199707011317.JAA00916@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #170 TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jul 97 09:17:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LEC Competition Comes to New Jersey (Tad Cook) California Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start (Tad Cook) Inband ANI and Account CO (Bob Savery) Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bradley Ward Allen) 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: * telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: LEC Competition Comes to New Jersey Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:16:19 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Jersey Telephone Customers Now Can Shop Around for the Best Local Rates BY RAYMOND FAZZI, ASBURY PARK PRESS, N.J. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News June 30--After years of hearing about how telephone deregulation is going to lead to competition and lower prices, Bob Grunder finally saw a tangible sign that the predictions were coming true. Earlier this month, the Manasquan resident got a letter from Bell Atlantic-New Jersey explaining that he and other telephone customers in the state now had the right to shop for a company to service their local toll calls. Using a list of 25 companies printed on the back of the letter, Grunder went right to work, calling each company to find the best deal. What he found, however, was one of the down sides to deregulation. "The experience was one of utter confusion," Grunder said last week. "I went through some of the mental gymnastics of calling these people, and I'll tell you, it's mind boggling." After only six calls, Grunder knew he had a challenge ahead of him. Several companies weren't able to supply him with rates, he said. When rates were supplied, they were often confusing. And that was when he could get a person on the phone. "In a lot of cases, you get that synthesized voice, which is nothing but aggravating," he said. "It's nothing but a nightmare." For the first time since 1984, when the AT&T breakup intensified competition in the long-distance industry, New Jersey's telephone customers have choices in an area of telephone service that was a monopoly. Local toll calls -- the medium-distance calls that are not quite long-distance calls -- were thrown open to competition on May 5. The move is part of a nationwide wave of telephone deregulation that many have promised will lead to lower prices and better services. But based on what competition has done to the New Jersey local toll-call market since May 5, one thing seems evident: Lower prices and better services will not come on a silver platter. Customers who are looking to save money, in fact, will have to do a significant amount of work. By Bell Atlantic-New Jersey's count, about 25 telephone companies now sell local toll-call services in the state. At least another 90 companies are buying these services and reselling them to businesses and residents. Comparing the rates of these companies is not like comparing the price of butter at two competing supermarkets. Some companies are offering a single flat rate for all toll calls, some are offering different flat rates based on the time of day or the day of the week a toll call is made, and some are offering flat rates that are only valid if a customer also buys the company's long-distance services. For New Jersey telephone customers, cost comparisons are difficult. That's because Bell Atlantic-New Jersey's basic toll-call rates consist of a set of 48 different per-minute charges based on the mileage of a call and the time of day and day of the week the call is made. That makes it nearly impossible for a person to make a comparison between what they have been spending on toll calls and what they would spend on one of the newer rates being offered. Experts say customers should try to figure out their calling patterns -- essentially picking out numbers they call most often -- and use those to try to determine which rates are best. Although competition has led to the introduction of a flat rate -- most companies are offering a rate of roughly 8 cents per minute -- in many cases the Bell Atlantic rate customers have been paying all along is still the cheapest, depending on when and where a call is placed. For example, a 15-minute weekday telephone call from Freehold to New Brunswick, placed during the business day, would cost $1.20 under AT&T's plan, but $1.15 under Bell Atlantic's basic rate. If the call were made in the evening, the gap would be wider: AT&T's rate comes in $1.20 and the basic rate at 92 cents. In other cases, particularly when the call is made to a more distant location, the AT&T's rate is often the cheapest. One analyst said that while businesses will probably take the time to sort through the confusing array of rate offerings and make cost comparisons, residential customers probably will not. Residential customers have demonstrated in the long-distance market that what they want is a simple one-rate plan. "Let's face it, that's what (residential customers are) looking for -- that every call that isn't a free local call is going to cost you exactly the same," said Linda Smith, senior manager at the Eastern Management Group, a telecommunications consulting firm in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. "It's like a postage stamp. It takes you across the street, it takes you across the country." But even variations in the flat-rate plans can make it difficult to make accurate cost comparisons. AT&T, for example, is offering an 8-cent per minute rate on its toll-call plan, but it will bill customers in one-minute increments. The rate applies regardless of whether a customer gets his or her long-distance service from AT&T. MCI Communications also offers an 8-cent per minute rate, but to get that rate you must also subscribe to MCI's long-distance service, which stipulates that customers must spend a minimum of $5 a month on all calls. But MCI also promises to bill customers in six-second increments after the first minute. The comparisons can get even more difficult when companies start throwing in discounts that are triggered after monthly bills reach a certain ceiling. GTE Long Distance, for example, is offering regional toll-call rates of 10 cents or 13 cents -- depending on where in the state the call is placed -- on calls made between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., and 15 or 17 cents on calls made between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. But the company's package -- which is also contingent upon a customer getting his or her long-distance service from the company -- offers discounts that could potentially drive those rates down. If GTE customers spend $10 or more on toll calls in a month, they get a 10-percent discount on their bills. If a customer spends $25 or more, the discount is 25-percent. GTE said the discounts can result in rates as low as 7.5 cents per minute on regional toll calls. Even AT&T puts a little discount-related twist on its plan. If an AT&T toll-call customer also gets their long-distance service from the company, the customer's toll-call spending will be combined with long-distance spending as part of the company's True Reach savings plan, company spokesman Ritch Blasi said. Under this plan, customers get a 25-percent discount on their long-distance bill when monthly spending is $25 or more. Most of the companies vying for a piece of the state's toll-call market are small companies that specialize in providing service to high-volume business customers. These companies generally do not market their services to residential customers. But most said they will sell their services to residential customers if asked. Most of these smaller companies require their residential customers to buy long-distance services from them, too. Some require deposits and minimum monthly spending. Others offer discounts if customers buy into one- or multi-year service contracts. Eastern Telephone Systems of Fort Washington, Pa., is a 15-year-old company that primarily sells its services to businesses. But, through "word-of-mouth" referrals, the company will sell its services to residential customers who call the company, said Cheryl Wiley Twining, a sales manager at the company. The company offers a rate of 8 cents a minute on all toll calls and bills customers in six-second increments, she said. If a customer subscribes to toll-call services, the company prefers that they also sign onto the company's long-distance services as well, she said. Some companies said the recent mailing by Bell Atlantic has resulted in more calls from residents than ever before. "It's just unbelievable how much shopping they're doing," said Tony Barrett, president of Universal Telephone & Tel. LLC in Kinnelon. "We've been getting 200 to 300 calls a day." The company's toll-call rate is 8.5 cents per minute for residential customers, with billing done in six-second increments after the first 18 minutes. The company also asks customers to subscribe to both toll-call and long-distance services. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, meanwhile, has come up with several rate packages of its own to meet the competition. Using a combination of flat rates and discounts, Bell Atlantic's plans are not easily comparable to the plans of its competitors. One plan, using Bell Atlantic's traditional rate schedule, provides customers with a 20-percent discount on toll-call spending of $20 or more per month. Another plan, called SoundMinutes, has a rate of 12 cents per minute from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays, and 10 cents from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. on weekdays, and all day on weekends. SoundDialing, a promotional plan that is valid until Oct. 20, provides customers with unlimited toll-calling for a flat monthly rate. The monthly rate is set based on a customer's toll-call billing history, Bell Atlantic-New Jersey spokesman Timothy Ireland said. The rates can range between $10 to $27.50 per month, and can go higher for people who rack up large toll-calling bills. Recently, the company also introduced a plan called SoundDeal. Under this plan, a telephone customer would pay $44.95 for local service, unlimited toll-calling and two optional services, such as Call Waiting, Caller ID or Call Forwarding. The following is a list of regional toll carriers doing business in New Jersey, followed by their business- and residential-customer service numbers, respectively: -- Business Telecommunications Inc. 800-849-2111 800-849-2111 -- MCI Communications 800-444-4444 800-444-3333 -- TotalTel USA Communication Inc. 800-864-4000 800-864-4000 -- Bell Atlantic Inc. 800-684-3407 800-684-5068 -- Capital Telecommunication Inc. 800-673-2401 800-673-2401 -- Vartec Telecom 800-583-6767 800-583-6767 -- Sprint Communications 800-877-1991 800-793-1159 -- Chadwick Telephone 888-765-0100 888-765-0100 -- Cooperative Communications Inc. 800-833-2700 800-833-2700 -- Universal Telephone & Tel. LLC 800-889-4007 800-889-4007 Eastern Telephone Systems 800-327-8835 800-327-8835 -- AT&T Corp. 800-222-0400 800-222-0300 -- Frontier Communication Service Inc. 800-783-2020 800-783-2020 -- Touch 1 Communications 800-201-0640 800-286-8241 -- Wiltel/Worldcom 800-821-2001 800-821-2001 -- GTE Long Distance 800-343-2092 800-343-2092 -- Visa International Communications Inc. 800-722-9090 800-722-9090 -- American Long Lines Inc. 800-569-8280 800-569-8280 -- Opticom Inc. 800-788-4562 800-788-4562 -- XTEL Communications 800-438-9835 800-438-9835 -- LCI International 800-860-1020 800-524-4685 -- Eastern Telecom International 800-364-4852 800-364-4852 -- EXCEL Communications Inc. 800-209-8133 800-875-9235 -- Worldcom 800-737-8423 800-275-0200 ------------------------------ Subject: California Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:22:08 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) California Local Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start BY HOWARD BRYANT, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, CALIF. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jun. 30--It wasn't supposed to be like this. Nearly 18 months have passed since the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pacific Bell was supposed to be offering long-distance service. AT&T was supposed to be offering local phone service. TCI Cable was supposed to be doing both. None of this has happened in any significant measure, especially in the local telephone market. In fact, true competition is so far off for residential phone users that many telecommunications analysts believe it won't happen for decades, if at all. Others go so far as to question whether the whole bold scheme of competition was an idea hatched out of naivete, that it isn't even possible for the local telephone market to function in anything other than a monopoly environment. Analysts and consumers alike are beginning to realize that not only is the local telephone market the hardest, most complicated market to transform, but that recent developments -- for example, speculation that AT&T would merge with the new SBC/Pacific Telesis -- threaten to rebuild powerful components of the original Bell monopoly. (Merger talks between AT&T and SBC were reported halted Friday over the issue of how and when SBC would open its local market to competition in order to satisfy regulator.) How did things get this way so quickly? In the local telephone market, two fundamental conflicts exist that serve to inhibit competition. The dominant phone company, in California's case Pacific Bell, is supposed to be both the facilitator to new companies entering the local phone market, while simultaneously competing with them. Pac Bell owns the local phone network -- 10 million lines connecting nearly all of California's homes. GTE Corp. is in the same boat as Pac Bell. GTE has a smaller service area in the state, but also has been operating in a monopoly environment for more than six decades. Pac Bell and GTE agreed to open up their monopoly, which meant granting access to their phone lines, their services and the rest of the state's telephone infrastructure, which the two companies have built over the past 62 years. In return, regional phone companies such as Pac Bell can enter the lucrative long-distance phone market, but only after their current local markets have competition. So far, GTE has lost less than one percent of its local telephone business to competitors since the Telecomm Act was passed in February 1996. Pac Bell, meanwhile, has lost about the same. Such small numbers hardly speak to competition. Reluctant to share ... Because both former monopolies must still compete in this new world, neither company wants to give away too much to the new entrants into the market. The result has been incessant battles over how much Pac Bell will charge competitors to use the phone network, whether or not Pac Bell and GTE are purposely slow to switch customers from it to a competitor such as AT&T or MCI, and who is truly at fault for such a failed vision. All of which is occurring at a time when Pac Bell is suffering from a major decline in service due to an underestimation of demand. In addition, local phone competition will not happen quickly because big companies -- MCI and AT&T, for example -- say they can't make enough money selling local service to residents. "There has to be a financial incentive to get into the game. You do it because you believe you can make money," said Betsy Bernard, former CEO of Pacific Bell Communications, the division that oversees its long-distance initiatives. "Economics will drive what companies do." No clear advantage ... Competitors who use Pac Bell's lines and infrastructure to offer service cannot, by and large, set lower prices on monthly flat rates and other services, such as call waiting, and still make a profit. And selling the same services at about the same price as Pac Bell doesn't give the consumer much of a choice, or the business much of an incentive to get into the game. This combined dilemma has thwarted competition thus far. Tom Long, telecommunications analyst for TURN, a San Francisco consumer advocacy group, sees an inherent conflict of interest -- Pac Bell controlling the very phone arena in which it is supposed to be competing. "The monopoly is expected to treat competitors fairly at the same time it has a great deal at stake," Long said. "Because competitors are taking away business, it's not surprising that the incumbent is doing everything it can to make it difficult for its competitors. Anyone who didn't realize this wasn't paying attention. Regulators must realize they have to get tough on the incumbent." Blair Levin, chief of staff for the Federal Communications Commission, agreed that opening the local market to competition is the thorniest issue the FCC faces, but disagreed that it can't be done. "Clearly the local market is the toughest," he said. "Clearly there is a conflict of interest. But there have been other antitrust cases where the solution was to unpack components of the local monopoly. "But it's not fair to say Congress missed the boat. What I think is: Not only do you need the right set of rules, but the right enforcement." Dishes no comparison ... As evidence that the competitive vision of FCC chairman Reed Hundt can work, Levin cited the 1992 Cable Act, which stated that the dominant cable companies could not refuse to sell programming to competitive industries, even though it owned the programming. He pointed to the now-flourishing satellite television industry as a result. But satellite companies are not dependent on a cable company's network to function, while competing local phone-service providers are totally reliant on the existing local phone company to offer service. The solution, say telecommunications analysts, is for competitors to begin building their own local telephone networks. But this seems far-fetched, as competitors begin to realize that it took Pac Bell the better part of a century to build today's network in a monopoly environment. To build a competing network of similar size and scope would not only take decades, but also tens of billions of dollars. It's a chance no one is willing to take. "Think of what a competitor would have to do to go against Pac Bell," said Long of TURN. "It would cost billions to replicate Pac Bell's network, without any guarantee of a return." SBC's cable debacle ... The same problem occurred as Pac Bell tried to enter the cable television market to compete with Tele-Communications Inc., the nation's biggest cable company. After a $16 million investment, Pac Bell parent SBC decided earlier this month that spending that kind of money to replicate TCI's network was not "financially viable" and pulled the plug on a video project in San Jose. The alternative for any company that hopes to compete with Pac Bell is to cut a deal, or "interconnect agreement," to lease or "re-sell" service using Pac Bell's lines, which thus far hasn't proven to be a money-maker. Consider: -- AT&T, the nation's biggest long-distance carrier, thumped its chest triumphantly last year when it entered the local market in Sacramento. Less than a year later, AT&T has quit on marketing local service statewide. -- MCI, the nation's No. 2 long-distance carrier, first offered service to 25,000 customers and has since cut back like AT&T. Sprint, the third-biggest long-distance company, recently entered the local market, offering two plans that curiously don't offer much more than what Pacific Bell already offers. -- Meanwhile, the cable television giants, Time Warner and TCI, both have agreements with Pac Bell to offer local telephone service to the Bay Area, but neither has even announced plans to enter the market. All of which presents something of an irony, since local competition in the business market is thriving. There, state and federal regulators take a more hands-off approach. Businesses do not have the option of choosing a flat, state-regulated monthly fee for local calling as in the residential market. Instead, they pay for all calls by the minute. Therefore, competition for business service is much more pure: Whichever company has the combination of the lowest rates and good service is in a good position to succeed. But more importantly, many competitors in the business market own much of their own local phone network, or "loops." That allows them to set their own prices and deliver their own services, without being at the mercy of the existing local phone company. No profit in home service ... The reason is geography. Because downtown areas are relatively compact, building a small-scale phone network is not a major problem, while the more dispersed residential market requires a huge investment to build a network. The residential market is very different. Prices for home phone service are capped by the California Public Utilities Commission and Federal Communications Commission for Pacific Bell. Competing phone companies usually charge about the same basic rate of $11.25 per month, thus making it harder for any one company to make money. Pac Bell can make money on the residential side selling "premium services," such as call waiting, call forwarding and Caller ID, while competing companies -- because they do not own their own telephone lines and the infrastructure necessary to offer such services -- cannot. What remains is an economic lose-lose scenario: Competitors are in business to break even at best, and that isn't enough of a reason to spend millions to enter the market. Some think it can work ... But not everyone in the industry thinks competition can't work. It can, says Lee Selwyn, president of ETI Inc., a Boston research group, if companies such as Pacific Bell didn't make every part of the resale process -- switching customers, connecting to its network, etc. -- so difficult. "Building facilities isn't the only answer, but you won't have real competition until competitors can access the network that the monopoly controls," he said. "The phone companies are absolutely dragging their feet in opening the market and letting competitors use the network." Selwyn, who has testified before the California PUC on a number of issues, says that the logistics of resale is what is keeping it from working, instead of the notion that only building a network will lead to competition. For example, in an era of high-speed communications, Pac Bell and its competitors communicate by fax machine, which leaves the door open for the possibility of numerous errors. For instance, if AT&T signs a customer on one date, but Pac Bell disconnects that customer from its network before AT&T's service is to begin, a consumer can go days or even weeks without a telephone. Competitors say Pac Bell is purposely stalling. MCI says it had to tell its potential customers that they had to wait 30 days or more before they could switch from Pac Bell. "They want to make sure that not too many people can sign up with competitors," he said. "MCI had to quote 30 days for service," Jim Lewis, MCI's vice president for local competition. "How many customers would sign up with your company if they had to wait a month to get a phone? That's anti-competitive." AT&T filed a complaint with the PUC citing similar difficulties. Pac Bell denies it is at fault for the shortcomings of competition. If anything, says Pac Bell's Regulatory Vice President Lee Bauman, Pac Bell has great incentive to move quickly to open its market. The faster that happens, the faster Pac Bell can jump into long distance. "It astounds me that competitors say we're dragging our feet," Bauman said. "We have a vested interest that competition works. For us, there is much at stake." Another view, such as that of San Francisco-based Consumer Action, is that Pac Bell doesn't own the local network at all. Says Ken McEldowney, executive director: "The people own the network. It was built through ratepayer money. Pac Bell may have built it physically, but they had a monopoly and got the money from all California phone customers." While the finger-pointing and accusations lead to lengthy court battles, at the bottom of the pile are California phone customers, who are almost exactly where they were two years ago: mad at their phone company with little choice but to sit there and take it. ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Inband ANI and Account CO Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:39:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 > I am running a G3V4 PBX. Documentation states that it supports ANI > delivery over ISDN PRI. Unfortunately my PBX does not have ISDN > software. Actually, you do. ISDN support has been part of the Definity since G3v1 and I beleive is in the G2 series (but don't quote me!) G1's I don't know about as I havn't seen one. My G3i grew up from a System 75 R1v2 and we installed our G3r after unplugging a Dimension. > Is there a way to deliver In-Band ANI over a "straight" T1 using ESF > B8ZS signaling to a Lucent G3V4 PBX? ISDN PRI trunks are presented to the switch using standard DS1 hardware. We're currently using 3150 CSU/DSU's tied to TN464 circuit packs. They're running ESF B8ZS. Ther are some programming differences in your trunk group set-up, but I can't recall off-hand what they are. Here in US West-land, ISDN PRI is the only way to receive ANI. Their standard DSS trunks do not support it. I'd first check with your telco to see how it's available from them. And also the price difference. If we didn't support a Suicide HotLine, I'd lose my ISDN trunks as they are a bit more pricey (about $300/mo per 24 channel trunk) . Then contact Lucient's Definity HelpLine. (1-800-328-7757... I think. I have the number at work on speed dial! ) They should be able to assist you with setting up the trunking. Or if you have a good relation with your Lucient Project Manager, take him/her to lunch and pick their brain! Another good source for AT&T ... er ... Lucient hardware and support is Progressive Technologies. Their pricing is very competitive to Lucient's direct sales. 1-800-477-1099 ask for Al Dressely. > Is there a way to do account code entry on inbound calls on an AT&T > (Lucent) G3V4 PBX? I support a small help desk, and want to keep > track of calls by problem type through both the PBX (via CDR) and > the info system. Do you have ACD and vectoring?? You could set your inbound number up as a VDN, point that to a vector that asks the caller what the nature of their problem is. Then, depending on what the problem is, route it to an appropriate ACD split. Set up a split for each call type. Then use (if you have it) BCMS to track the number of calls to each split. Since your a small desk, each phone would be set up in all the splits. The added advantage of this is you also get preformance data on your operators. That comes in handy when it comes time to ask the boss for more people! > I know it is supported on outbound calls. Anything on inbound? There is a solution for all your problems, but if you don't already have the hardware/software on hand, budget problems might slow you down a bit. The ISDN hardware (through Progressive) runs about $3000 per CSU/DS1 pack combo. ACD, Vectoring and BCMS (I think it's a package deal) was quoted to me for one of my G3i's at about $16K (through Lucient). That included the software, the Announcement pack and a Call Classifier pack. Hope this helps! If you need more info, just yell!! See Ya!! 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: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen) Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective Date: 30 Jun 1997 18:43:42 -0400 Organization: panix Hi, I am learning by reading, and thought others would benefit from some of my comments. Good gueses: CLEC=Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (sometimes ANY local exchange carrier, sometimes any except ILEC, e.g., AT&T, BANM, MFSI, Teleport, Real Soon Now (or is it RCN), AVIS) ILEC=Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (e.g., Pacific Bell, NYNEX, Cincinatti, GTE) LNP=Local Number Portability In article , Chris Ziomkowski wrote: > Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the > conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a > rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does > anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There > seems to be alot of confusion.) The remaining areas are supposed to > ramp up LNP service so that it will be universal by the end of 1998, > and cellular carriers are exempted until 1