From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 21:36:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05146; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170136.VAA05146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #251 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:36:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors (Robert J. Perillo) Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence (John McGing) Reflections on PCS'97 (Tara D. Mahon) Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) (Steve Hayes) Re: Phoning Home to 5 (John Mianowski) Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release (Laura Twombly) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Tom Watson) Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition (Zev Rubenstein) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 18:22 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors Northern Telecom Ltd. stated last week that its widely used DMS-100 telephone switch caused numerous billing errors in many phone company central offices due to a software bug introduced during a software upgrade this summer. The software glitch caused the billing interface to become dyslexic and use the wrong area code in phone company Central Offices covering more than one area code. The software snafu was fixed after about a month of erroneous billings. Net users calling their "fixed price" local access number found hundreds of dollars of overcharges on their telephone bills this summer. The local number was billed as a toll call with a different area code attached. To add to the confusion, customers were told by their local telephone company that the billing problem was with their long distance company or the Internet Service Provider (ISP). And these companies directed customers back to the local telephone company. Customers were refused an explanation but were finally told that it was a "System Error". Pacific Bell acknowledged that 167,000 Californians, mainly in the Bay Area's 415 and 510 area codes and 805 near Los Angeles, were billed $667,000 in unwarranted local calls. The problem was also reported by Nynex customers (now Bell Atlantic) in the New York City area. I do not understand why complete testing and some sort of independent review was not done by NorTel before they released the software upgrade? The local telephone companies should also have some sort of Quality Assurance program in place before they allow a contractor to upgrade software in their Central Offices? I also do not understand why the local telephone companies did not handle the problem better in terms of customer service, and inform all possible affected customer's of the problem? [References: Inter@ctive Week, "Net Users Overcharged in Glitch", by Louis Trager, 08-Sep-1997. Forbes Magazine, "Midsummer madness, New technology is marvelous, except when it isn't. System Errors", by Dan Seligman, 08-Sep-1997, page 234. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP Richmond, VA Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:30:36 GMT Organization: @Home Networks Note the out they put in if you run a modem on the line (or a fax, I guess.) BellAtlantic Dear Customer, September 1997 The Terms & Conditions for Bell Atlantic Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service and Optional Wire Maintenance (the "Plans") have been revised. These changes will become effective on November 1" 1997. A copy of the new Terms & Conditions is enclosed. We encourage you to take the time to review the revised Terms & Conditions. A brief description of the changes to the Terms & Conditions are listed below. Description of the Plans - Optional Wire Maintenance : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that coverage applies to the inside wire and jacks associated with a Bell Atlantic or other eligible carrier's dial tone line. Inside wire and jacks associated with a dial tone line service not protected by the plan are not covered under the Plan. The description has also been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade dial tone line to transmit or receive data or signals. Description of the Plans : Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade line to transmit or receive data or signals. Additionally, a sentence has been added to indicate that Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service is not available for residential ISDN lines. Charges : A late payment charge has been added. A late payment charge may be applied to the unpaid balance of the bill for each billing period in which you fail to pay the bill in full by the due date. Exclusions : Two exclusions have been added to the Plans. In West Virginia, repairs resulting from major fires or acts of nature, such as floods, wind-storms and earthquakes will no be longer covered by the Plans. These exclusions have previously applied in all other states within the Bell Atlantic mid Atlantic service area. As noted above, an exclusion has been added to indicate that the Plans do not cover malfunctions in the dial tone line resulting from the use of voice grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which exceed the operating capabilities of the line. A service charge may apply if a repair person is dispatched and the problem is determined to be of that type. Non-acceptance Instructions : If you do not wish to accept the above changes, you may terminate your participation under the Plan at any time by contacting Bell Atlantic al the number shown below. If you wish to continue your subscription to the Plan, do nothing. The Plan will remain on your line pursuant to the revised Terms & Conditions. Should you have any questions, please call us at 1 -800-232-4008. Sincerely, Glenn Pettit Assistant Product Manager ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 10:51:36 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Reflections on PCS'97 Hi Pat and DIGEST, The following went out as part of Insight's email newsletter, NewsFirst Telecom, yesterday -- thought the list would be interested. Best Regards, Tara D. Mahon, tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation >>>NEWSFIRST EXTRA Reflections on the PCIA's PCS'97 Show, Dallas, TX As Texans are fond of telling everybody, things are bigger and better in Texas. This year's PCIA Personal Communications Showcase conference, held September 9-12, seemed to confirm this, with over 20,000 attendees and 600 vendors loudly proclaiming their wares. On the show floor were singing salesmen at PageNet, dancers at Samsung, H. G. Wells at Ericsson, and several towering antennae. Amid the noise and hoopla, we also observed signs of important trends in the wireless industry: o Wireless handsets for cellular or PCS operation are rapidly becoming commodities. Several vendors showed very similar models with price and distribution as the only clear differentiators. While market leaders sought to create distinct market niches--Nokia with style, Motorola with small size and range of products, Sony with innovative design-- the growing list of vendors, plus new products from Samsung and Lucent/Philips, make this an increasingly crowded market. For several vendors, innovative software from Unwired Planet and GeoWorks provides Internet access and enhanced wireless services. o Wireless Local Loop has arrived. Interesting new products from Mitsubishi, LG Electronics, Sony and others give carriers and installers a range of choices in this increasingly important market. We even saw a version of the Japanese PHS wireless system for use in the US. Using both the licensed and unlicensed PCS frequency bands, vendors are meeting the demand for lower cost alternatives to stringing more copper wire. Insight sees this as a rapidly growing and potentially exciting market both in the US and in developing countries. o Competition between the CDMA, TDMA, and GSM digital protocols continues. By now most vendors realize that Qualcomm's CDMA technology really works, while end-users want features and are confused by technology. As of mid-1997 there were 44 million wireless phones registered in the US and market research is finding households with multiple wireless phones. Insight sees success in this competitive market increasingly being determined by how well carriers can meet users' needs for coverage, security (especially for business users), and network reliability. o There was a lot of talk but few announcements of LMDS products. Since the FCC announced last March that it will auction off spectrum in the 28-31 Ghz band for this new service, there has been a lot of speculation about its performance and competitive benefits. There is also something of a backlash against more auctions and vendors' taking on large amounts of debt. Insight sees LMDS as one of several local loop distribution technologies. LMDS has advantages for carriers entering a new market and initially having limited penetration or market share. Its cost advantages in these "thin" markets for CLECs and other new carriers should make it valuable, especially for providing "bursty" services to smaller establishments. o As carriers seek to differentiate their services, security or fraud reduction is being recognized as a problem facing carriers and their corporate customers. Just as "churn" was the buzz word that would get carriers' attention last year, so systems and software vendors from Lucent Technologies to Systems Link Corp. see fraud reduction as an important sales opportunity. Insight Research would be pleased to discuss any of these issues and how they might apply to your firm. For further discussions, please contact Michael French, Vice President of Market Research at (973) 605 -1400, or by e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:34:09 -0400 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) In Telecom Digest V17 #241, Dave Stott wrote: > I did the arithmetic a little differently. If I'm an ISP and buy a > business line for $35 (the going rate in Phoenix from U S WEST), hook > a modem up to it for incoming calls, then receive calls every single > minute of every single day in a typical 30 day month (43,240 busy > minutes), then I'm paying 0.081 cents/minute for access. If, more > typically, I use the specific line 75% of the time (32,400 busy > minutes), then I'm paying .108 cents/minute for access. >If IXCs are paying PacBell >> versus $0.014 per minute paid to the local phone company for >> handling connections to a long distance carrier > then there isn't that much difference. Dave - check your arithmetic. $0.014 per minute is 1.4 cents/minute. That is about 13 times as much as .108 cents/minute. Quite a difference, I'd say. In any case, much of that $35 is paying for the physical line to the ISP. I'm sure that the IXC has to either provide the physical interconnection itself or pay something comparable to or more than $35/month for it. In my opinion, the whole thing is a mess. Most people in North America have become used to "unlimited free" local calls which are heavily cross-subsidized by that 1.4 cents/minute and (in most places) relatively high line rentals. Here in Britain, we have the opposite situation - lower line rentals and (in general) lower long-distance rates but hefty local call rates (about 5c/min daytime). Neither is a satisfactory situation. They don't reflect the real costs; resulting in poor utilization of the telecommunications infrastructure. My prescription would be: 1 - Phone service should be metered like electricity. With per-minute non-fixed costs in the fraction of a cent range, the metered rate might be about 0. 5 cent/min - a bit more for long distance. This sort of rate shouldn't deter most people from using the phone, any more than electricity rates deter most people from turning on a light. It would deter people from abusing the system with ISP connections nailed up all day, etc. If someone still wanted a nailed-up connection, they would be paying enough to cover the extra costs. 2 - The metered rate would not provide for itemized billing any more than you get itemized billing when you switch on a light. If you still need itemization even at 0.5 cents/minute, you could buy recording equipment or perhaps Telco could offer this service at extra cost. I suspect it costs as much to bill calls unde r the present system as it does to connect them. It must cost a whole lot more to promote all those confusing call plans, to administer all those charge card and collect call charges and to sort out all the billing disputes. And what about the costs of area code splits because every competing carrier needs its own office codes for rating purposes? 3 - Line rentals should - on average - cover fixed costs plus a reasonable mark-up. This would tend to be higher than at present but would be partly offset in most parts of North America by stripping out the current payment for those "free" local calls. 4 - In time, competition would drive all these prices down and bring them even closer to costs. With the present arrangements, there's much less incentive to focus on costs and much more to focus on silly marketing gimmicks. If you're at long-distance carrier paying 2.8 cents/minute for local network access, there's not much incentive to work on the 1 cent/minute or so it actually costs to connect the calls. 5 - Payphones should charge a fixed per-minute cash amount on all calls (except emergency) in addition to the metered charge to cover the cost of installing and maintaining the phone. No doubt, some other arrangement could be set up to allow calls to be made without coins but this arrangement should cover its own administrative costs. I'd say that this cost would be so much higher that everyone would decide to put the coins in instead. As an aside, this already happens in most of Europe. In Britain, you can make a short call to anywhere in the country with a 10p coin (about 15 cents). Very few people go through the operator to make a collect call for about 10 times as much. 6 - Where it was necessary to subsidize phone service (rural and low-income), this should be explicit and probably a responsibility of government. The revenue could be raised by a percentage tax on all telecommunications services. Although I'm sure that most telcos are making quite ample profits, I don't see this as the real problem. It's more that the present price structures prevent efficient use of the system and lead to massive overheads which we all end up paying fo r. Steve Hayes, Swansea, Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: mianows@ix.netcom.com (John Mianowski) Subject: Re: Phoning Home to 5 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:26:46 GMT Organization: Netcom When I was in the second grade, our small town got dial. It was a VERY big deal, with open houses at the CO, training presentations at the school, etc. I have a very vivid memory, from about three or four years before, having the following exchange: (Young child picks up phone handset). Operator: "Number please." Child: "459." Operator: "Their mother is sleeping." My friend's mother was a telephone operator, who had apparently worked the previous overnight shift. The day operator of course knew this, and would not put my call through!! JM ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release Date: 16 Sep 1997 19:15:45 GMT Organization: ESAC Leonard Erickson wrote in article : > Anthony Argyriou writes: >> The 209 area code split will be implemented in the following stages: >> November 14, 1998 Start of Permissive Dialing >> May 15, 1999 Start of Mandatory Dialing >> August 21, 1999 End of Mandatory Dialing. > Excuse me? *End* of Mandatory dialing? I think someone at the CPUC is > using a bit too much "medical" marijuana. :-) It sounds goofy, but it's a useful name for what occurs at that time. That is when the new codes that the split released will begin to be assigned. The rest of the available codes will be removed from the special announcement that says something to the effect of "you must dial area code XXX." Which means that customers that misdial after that point will reach the standard Vacant Code announcement, or a wrong number. Laura Twombly ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:47:37 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Could someone explain to me exactly _HOW_ these MedicAlert devices work? > I was under the impression that a _LOCAL_ telephone number of a _local_ > hospital or emergency reporting center would be dialed upon pressing the > 'panic' button, _or_ at least a toll-FREE 800 (or 888) number would be > programmed-in to be dialed. Do all MedicAlert signaling devices > throughout the US dial-out to a California 209 (toll) number? Medic Alert was founded BEFORE 800 numbers were in existance (or used very often) and as such, the early bracelets had instructions to call a 209 number COLLECT to get the 'vital' information. Later they did get an 800 number, but not until LOTS of bracelets had been issued. Thus I can see the reason why a particular number in 209 should continue to be that way. Of course, the phone company could do the "right thing" and setup a one-number CO that forwards the particular number to the correct area code (or some nice automated response). The fact remains, the number MUST be protected, as it is a "cast in stone" style number. I suspect that MedicAlert did some early negotation with the phone company (which was quite easy then) to insure that it would be "protected". Yes, there are lots of nice "igh-tech" solutions, but this is a political decision, and "high-tech" doesn't enter into the decision, only emotions. (*SIGH*) Perhaps we should re-unite the Bell System. (That's another topic, please create a new thread for it). tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:23:38 -0400 From: Zev Rubenstein Subject: Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) writes: > Obviously ISPs should network themselves with the most cost-effective > technology possible, and the FCC part 15 spectrum is great for that. etc. Regarding ISPs networking themselves (in the business sense), check out Verio (http://www.verio.com), which has gotten lots of funding to buy smaller ISPs to create a nationwide network. Regarding wireless ISPs, check out http://www.warpdrive.net/hires/index.htm They are one of many wireless ISPs; they are using UHF frequencies for fixed wireless connectivity. I was going to use them myself, but am out of their current service area. Regarding bypass of the LEC in general by ISPs and NSPs, there was a great article a few weeks ago in Inter@ctive Week, which discussed how companies like Concentric Networks were applying for CLEC (competetive local exchange carrier) status. Concentric in particular doesn't offer ISDN service: they are banking on xDSL longer term, and are using frame relay and fractional T1 to service their market, which is primarily corporate & home office. As wireless technology is better able to compete with wireline infrastructure for bypass, there will likely be a price point where NSPs (like Concentric), larger ISPs and merged ISPs (e.g. Verio affiliates) eager to bypass the LEC bottleneck will pick the appropriate wireless technology to reach customers. Recall, also, that AT&T announced plans to use proprietary technology developed by AT&T Wireless Services (AWS) to do the same for both voice and data. (I recognize that there are those who claim that AWS is bluffing; I'm only pointing out that there are others with the same concept). Finally, MCI, which has always stuck to a reseller strategy in wireless and a build-infrastructure strategy in local service (in some areas) may choose to do the same: buying spare wireless capacity as it arrives (as George Guilder predicts it will). Zev Rubenstein Business Development Manager Predictive Systems 510-749-3210 zev@predictive.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #251 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 22:25:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08633; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170225.WAA08633@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #252 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 22:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT (R Ghosh) Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh (H. Peter Anvin) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Fred Goodwin) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (F Goldstein) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (M Chance) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (R McMillin) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Michael Kagalenko) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Clive D.W. Feather) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Bruce Wilson) Re: Nextel Cellular? (Michael D. Sullivan) 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@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 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: Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:53:12 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org Organization: Deus X Machina, New Delhi The Indian Techonomist - bulletin, September 16, 1997 Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Indian Cabinet clears private ISP policy * Broad outlines cleared, details left for later * Telecom capacity shortage: $250 mil backbone plan * Power utility, railways long-distance telecom networks September 16, 1997: The Indian Cabinet in a meeting today cleared the policy proposal to allow private Internet service providers. As predicted by The Techonomist (August 31), what was cleared by the Cabinet makes up the broad outlines of the new Internet policy environment: no licence fees for two years, reduced telecom tariffs, traffic to be routed through the international telecoms monopoly (and till now the Internet monopoly), VSNL. The devil is certainly in the details here, and Department of Telecoms (DoT, the telecoms monopoly) has apparently evaded others' attempts to get it to include specific licensing terms in the policy approved by Cabinet. It is now up to the DoT to decide what exactly the new tariffs should be, and to whom they will apply. It remains unclear whether private operators' traffic must be routed through VSNL's TCP/IP gateway, or through transcontinental telecom capacity (also leased through VSNL). The policy on direct interconnectivity between private operators has not been clearly specified - the DoT has always preferred to act as intermediary, or penalise links between separate private operators with especially increased telecom tariffs. However, DoT Secretary A V Gokak had earlier this month said that interconnections would probably be allowed, ending the ridiculous situation where traffic between to geographically proximate nodes in separate networks has to take a path half-way round the world. Mr Gokak had also indicated that private operators would be free to set tariff structures for their customers, with the market, rather than the DoT determining prices. (Previously, private e-mail operators had to stick to DoT-specified tariff bands.) DoT "backbone" unlikely to ease capacity constraints There is no doubt that the growth in Internet users will take off rapidly - there are about 50,000 commercial subscribers today. Given the continuing restraints on operators, and capacity constraints, the number of Internet hosts will probably remain pitiful (barely a thousand), and Indian web sites will continue to be hosted off US-based servers. The DoT is also being urged to build telecom capacity specifically for an Internet backbone. It is not particularly keen to do so, given the far higher profit margins in extending India's limited infrastructure for telephony traffic. There is a proposal to build an Internet backbone, budgeted at roughly $250 million, but DoT cannot reasonably be expected to find the money on its own. It is, of course, spending several billion dollars on expanding its telecom network, and part of that may go into a dedicated Internet backbone - if someone else pays for it. Telecom capacity off power utility, railways' networks might Proposals have been floating around the corridors of government for alternative long- distance networks operated by the railways (a government Ministry) and the electricity transmission utility (Power Grid Corporation of India, PGCL). Both have huge property giving rights of way across the country, and the Ministry of Railways already runs a vast internal telecoms network. Both see long- distance telephony as a money-spinner rather more profitable than their core operations, and would like to build bulk capacity for either the DoT or private operators. India is expected to end the DoT's monopoly on domestic long-distance traffic in 1999 (the DoT's local monopoly has been in the process of ending since 1995, the first private local wireline operator plans to start operations this November). For the moment, the government is not allowing the Railways or PGCL to go ahead with joint-ventures with private or foreign companies, it is "studying the issue." Perhaps a good experimental first step would be to let the Railways sell the spare capacity on its telecoms network - much of it optical fibre - to new private Internet operators. As a compromise, the Railways could do this at non- competitive rates, sharing some revenue with the DoT. Given the DoT's attitude to new services - which is paranoid rather than welcoming - this solution to the shortage of available telecoms capacity is not very likely. The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Reproduction permitted with this notice attached ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh Date: 16 Sep 1997 08:54:46 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) In belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) wrote: > The CCITT no longer exists. It was replaced by the ITU. > The ITU is not refusing to standardize 56K. They are currently > working on the standard, possibly to be called V.PCM. Because the ITU > is a political committee, it does take them quite a while to decide on > a standard. I can imagine the biggest political hurdle is probably two major corporate entities trying to get the standard as close as possible to their particular already existing nonstandard implementation ... hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500 Eric Ewanco wrote: > In article Eric Florack > writes: >> Objection: Your use of the word "subsidy" suggests that the money >> lost to this (How can you lose something you never had?) is being >> gotten from some other source. That's simply not true. And yet, the >> telco's are hardly going broke over this. > Here I absolutely agree with you: the author employs a subtle shift in > language. He refers to price controls as "subsidies". So simply > because the tariffs are set low, he declares this a subsidy. A > subsidy is when the government forks over money to keep a profitless > but necessary effort afloat. It's not when it regulates a monopoly's > prices. > Even if we were to grant this, a flaw in his argument is that because > ISPs don't pay per minute for receiving calls, this amounts to a > "subsidy". But this is the same tariff all businesses pay. If the > ISPs are subsidized, so are other businesses. If it really did cost > the telco some rate per minute to maintain a connection, then they'd > be losing money on other business calls, too. But one can hardly > argue that the LECs would structure their business rates below cost! > Besides, the model for telco charges is that the one who places the > call usually pays for it. If the telcos are losing money, then why do > they offer flat rate residential service, that makes this possible? > Wouldn't the responsibility lay more logically with flawed tariff > structures on the calling end, rather than on the receiving end? Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of shorter duration than calls to an ISP? If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP customers. Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Fred Goodwin CMA SBC-Technology Resources, Inc. fgoodwin@eden.com Opinions are my own, not SBC-TRI fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page Austin, TX 78759 http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 15 Sep 1997 16:25:18 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , hicom@oldcolo.com says: > What is Nathan (and indeed the RBOCs who cry in their beer about > overloaded switches) going to say when the 4,500 ISPs in the US wake > up to the fact that they can already, and soon will be able to do ever > faster and cheaper, drop the use of local loop telco services and > convert their customers to no-licence digital wireless? Bypassing the > local wired common carriers entirely? ... > When the shoe is on THAT foot, watch the RBOCs start bitching about > the 'bypass' technologies, and Internet phone. > *REAL* competition and open marketplace anyone? Interesting digression. Telcos' (specifically, ILECs') collective market power is eroding under both technological and regulatory weight. Alas, the vast majority of dial-up Internet users (especially the low-volume residential recreational users) are stuck with ILEC phones as their only option at the present time. So it is important to keep that channel available. But yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus on the horizon. The catch is that no one gift works for everyone. Wireless answers are getting better. Last winter the FCC gave us a wonderful gift in the "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" (U-NII) band, allowing up to 4 watts ERP for unlicensed wideband high-speed data in the 5.7 GHz range. This is too new for equipment to be available yet but there is huge potential for cellular-style (in topology, not pricing, but hey those towers look nice) "community networks". This goes back to Apple's 1995 petition. There's also a 2.4 GHz "unlicensed PCS" band medium-speed data; a fair amount of gear is now available for this. The 902 MHz "junque band" is still there but rather a bit noisy for longer-range (non-LAN) uses. Trouble is, these radio frequencies (the term "microwave" scares off civilians who think of ovens and thus danger) are somewhat limited to "line of sight". If you have a high tower or hilltop surrounded by the plains of Colorado or Arizona, then you'll do well. But here in New England we have rolling hills (tougher to get line-of-sight) and big trees (foliage fade). Some areas have serious rain fade problems. So a wireless solution typically ends up missing substantial areas. Still worth pursuing though. Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. The second approach is "Unbundled Network Elements" (UNEs). Here, ILECs must rent CLECs elements of their network (the FCC defined the list) at cost-based prices. Local loops, switch ports, and LEC switch and trunk minutes-of-use are all included as UNEs. Incoming switch use is generally free, and ISDN PRI ports and interoffice mileage under UNE agreements are a fraction of tariff rates. Same network, different price. So the ILECs have less incentive to try to screw ISPs than they did a year ago, because the ISPs have CLEC alternatives (switched or switchless). And radio technology is making the local-loop bottleneck less critical than it used to be. I suppose an ideologue can call anything a subsidy, but enough lawyers have pounded on these rules to make for a very tender cutlet. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:57:18 CDT Robert L. McMillin wrote: > What I have to wonder about here, though, is the idea that monopolies > are necessarily bad. In the long run they tend to be unsustainable; > and in any event, anti-trust legislation seems to me to be a > blunderbuss aimable at any politically convenient target (unions were > the first such target in the U.S.). While I could be wrong, I believe that the first anti-trust efforts were directed at such targets as Rockefeller's Standard Oil, J. Paul Getty's empire, Carnegie's U. S. Steel, and the big railroads. Those were the targets of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Except for the Grange, the unions didn't get big enough to notice until the 1920s-1930s. Michael A. Chance Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., St. Louis, Missouri Tel.: (314) 235-4119 Email: mc307a@helios.sbc.com ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:48 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. -- a Thomson company Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > It would have been nice if Newman got his facts right -- but it's not > really necessary. In other words, proponents of market regulation (or outright nationalization) don't have to worry about the accuracy or truthfulness of their arguments -- all they have to do is make the right noises. Down with The Man! Feh. > While correcting his errors, all you've done is reiterate the need > for government regulation to ensure that prices bear some relation to > costs (your comparison with Europe is apt) and to ensure free > competition. That probably makes Newman satisfied. What??? Last time I checked, last-mile service is *required by law* to be provided by goverment-selected monopolies. That bears no resemblance at all to "free competition". Honestly, I'm astonished that Newman continues to get airtime around here. He is the Lyndon Larouche of Telecom. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I run his stuff (I keep a little of it around in stock here) whenever I hear snoring coming from the direction of your terminal and realize that you must have fallen asleep, or other- wise gotten bored with the discussions. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Kagalenko Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:40:29 EDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > I'll grant you there are dishonest IP's. But quite a few are honest > even if their information or service is essentially useless and they Now wait a minute. You assume some very interesting meaning of the word "honest" here. I would be interested to see how you could possibly consider honest someone who bills for worthless service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, what you and I may consider to be worthless in our lives may be a treasure to someone else. For example, I have absolutely no use for astrology; I have no use for Tarot and other similar things. But there are people who believe stongly in these things and there are IPs who legitimatly provide these services to the believers. Not every IP who operates a religious phone service is a fraud. Granted, many are. Some IPs sincerely believe they are providing a great public service at a reasonable cost, and they have documented call counts to show they are getting inquiries, etc. Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying 'worthless as far as I am concerned ...' Here is another example: let's consider yours truly. I am an IP, albiet not using the phone or billing via telco. I send out this Digest every day to a few thousand names on the mailing list plus to a newsgroup and a few specialized other lists, etc. I maintain a web site with all the back issues. I say to whoever reads this, 'hey how about sending a donation every year or so in the suggested amount of twenty dollars ...' Now, you and some others think my rants mixed with news and reviews in the telecom scene are really great and you send me the money as encouragement to continue. On the other hand I get letters saying 'your stuff is useless; totally worthless to me; I would not send you five cents if you downloaded the entire archives to me ...' but they do not (in most cases, although some have) suggest I am dishonest for publishing 'useless' information. That is what I meant. There *are* many -- maybe most -- telephone IPs who sincerely believe in what they are doing and the service they are providing. Perhaps most people would disagree, but the IP did make good on delivery of information, etc. HaHa! I just remembered: I got another notice today asking me to cease and desist from sending spam to a site, despite the fact that the user at that site is on the mailing list. I removed the user's name from the list and sent him a note cc'd to his admin saying 'here, you guys work it out; I do not send out spam'. I'll let the user yell at his admin about it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:18:02 +0100 From: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.) In article , Bob Holloway writes > 2) there is no easy way, currently, for 900/976 service > providers to know whether the person calling is authorized to use the > phone that he/she is calling from. Obviously, they would like to > assume that they do -- but this isn't always the case. I see this as > particularly a problem that prevents sex lines from screening their > calls to make sure they are from adults In the UK these lines are on 0898 numbers. Before these numbers can be dialed, the subscriber has to obtain a specific PIN from BT. No PIN, no calls, no charges. Problem solved. 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 | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:33:28 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert In article , jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) writes: > You mean someone actually BOUGHT the "Help, I've fallen and I can't > get up" gadget? And it costs them a long distance call every time the > neighbor opens his garage door? And they're still working? Somehow, > these have always seemed to be in the same realm as Chia pets and the > Clapper. You obviously are neither a senior citizen nor have a parent who's one. My late father, who died July 1 in his 82nd year, subscribed to a service provided by a local ambulance company; and one of the first things I did on arriving at his apartment was to see if he was wearing the pendant or find it and lecture him if he wasn't. The "base station" was effectively a radio-controlled speaker phone which autodialed the ambulance dispatch center on activation. Its pickup was sensitive enough to hear him anywhere in the apartment; and I got a call if he didn't respond when the dispatcher came on the line to ask him what was wrong. (Having more than one line, they could keep his open while calling me on another one.) Getting back on-topic for this discussion, I don't see why the base units can't be programmed (or reprogrammed) to dial *any* number, including changing the area code, if necessary. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Nextel Cellular? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 09:30:23 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:27:44 GMT, Ben Parker wrote: > All the discussion in the Digest here recently on CDMA/TDMA/GSM and > various cellular and PCS carriers and such has been very interesting > and informative. However, nobody has mentioned Nextel in this > discussion yet and I'd like opinions about there place in the overall > scheme. > Nextel seems to offer a nationwide digital/analog network (TDMA) that > is free of roaming charges. Additionally their phone sets offer text > paging functions and also have a unique 2-way radio capability that > allows you to connect to specific handsets anywhere in their network > for much less than usual rates. In essence this is long-distance > radio, using their cellular (850mhz) network. Seems like it delivers > today what most PCS promises for tomorrow. Too good to be true? I haven't used Nextel, but they don't use the cellular or PCS bands; they use the 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) bands, which are in the same vicinity as cellular. Their phones cannot roam on cellular systems; just on Nextel's own network (and potentially on other enhanced SMR networks using compatible technology, if and when there are such systems). Before Nextel, SMR frequencies were used for high-power, area-wide dispatch communications; Nextel bought up lots of these systems and "cellularized" the system architecture (lots of lower-power transmitters in a cellular grid). Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #252 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:04:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA24364; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190204.WAA24364@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #253 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) (Rob Slade) AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage (Robert J. Perillo) Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing (Jon Gilbert) Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA (John Cropper) ISP Termination Charges (Joe Jensen) Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award (Monty Solomon) Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Servers (Stuart McRae) NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced (Bob Goudreau) Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone (S Dietrich) Heads-up for 800 Service Users (Judith Oppenheimer) NYNEX Voicemail Product? (Michael Gutteridge) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:33:01 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) PRININSC.RVW 970319 "Internet InfoScavenger", Cathy D. Dupre, 1996+, 1088-0666, U$149/yr %A Cathy D. Dupre %C MSC473, 1153 Bergen Parkway, Suite M, Evergreen, CO 80439-9501 %D 1996+, monthly %G ISSN 1088-0666 %I InfoScavenger Communications, Inc. %O U$149/yr 303-674-2794 800-449-8533 fax: 303-674-4184 subs@infoscavenger %T "Internet InfoScavenger" This is an eight page (letter size) periodical published monthly or possibly ten times per year. The slogan is "Sites and insights for growing businesses." The contents of the four sample issues I received deal with various issues of using the Internet as a business resource. There are articles on market research services, copyright, and business models, but the primary emphasis is on advertising and marketing. In fact, about half of the total material in what I received dealt specifically with publicizing your Web site. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are liberally sprinkled through the articles, and the last page of each issue lists all the Web sites again. Despite, or perhaps because of, the limited range of topics, the advice is practical and generally sound. An article on ensuring that your site gets frequently "hit" by search engines also notes that the tactics may be interpreted as "spamdexing", and thus may backfire. For those who are new to the Web, and primarily interested in using it as an advertising tool, there is a lot of good advice. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 PRININSC.RVW 970319 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: Wed, 17 Sep 97 13:57 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage AT&T's network of toll-free numbers (800) crashed Wednesday 03-Sep-1997 and thousands of callers were greeted with busy signals between 12:30pm and 2:00pm EDT. The network outage was the company's worst overall outage since Jan. 15, 1990. AT&T blamed human error of a technician for the crash. AT&T Corp. stated that it would compensate customer's for their toll-free service disruption. Many customers have contracts that entitle them for compensation. The problem was caused when a technician uploaded to AT&T's Signaling System # 7 (SS7) an incorrect set of translations for the routing of '800' phone calls. Calls using the new '888' prefix were not affected. '800/888' numbers have become increasingly popular for remote access and call centers, and may account for more than 40% of the volume on AT&T's domestic network. Loading incorrect Routing and Translation tables have been the cause of many recent network outages. These tables should be tested off-line, and automatically checked for format problems by a pre-processor. Preferably an automated "knowledge engineering" system should be used to create these tables. Since many of these problems have been blamed on a "technician's human error", increased training is in order. Before the changed Tables/Instructions are uploaded into the system, there should be a mandatory Quality Assurance review. [References: AP, "AT&T to Compensate Customers", 04-Sep-1997. Network World, "Database glitch KOs 800 lines", 08-Sep-1997. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: Jon Gilbert Subject: Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:42:14 -0400 Organization: Access Orlando (407) 895-1200 Reply-To: jong@ao.net I've seen the archives at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/country.codes/, and the Americom CGI at http://www.inconnect.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/americom/aclookup, and I'm despaired: Is there a comprehensive listing in a singular format of internation country and city codes available? I'm planning on writing an automatic dialling script, and I'm going to need something along those lines. And rather than try to format all the data at massis into a standard format, I'm hoping that someone already has done this. Have they? jong out. Jonathan Gilbert jong@ao.net ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:15:05 -0400 Bell Atlantic is consistent, if not accurate. Upon trying to reach a client in the new 931 area code today, I was stopped at the 8th digit by a BA circuit in northern New Jersey with the standard canned message "it is not necessary to dial a 1 before calling this number". Upon calling Bell Atlantic repair, rep after rep repeated the company line: "It is a problem with your long-distance carrier, not us". I repeatedly tried to explain that THIER switch was not even letting me through, because 931 was not entered as an NPA, but apparently they had already made their mind up on the issue, and I was just "some dumb customer who didn't know better". Having completed a call TO THE SAME NUMBER earlier in the day using my LD carrier's calling card, I know that BA is pretty much full of S. This is the second incident in two days that BA has blamed on the LD carrier, and both were problems on THEIR end. In a few months when competition is in full swing, I will be among the first in line to switch local dialtone providers if BA's service department continues with their 'limited culpability'. John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 ICQ: 2670887 FREE areacode info: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ $17.95 internet: http://www.lincs.net/internet/dialupacs.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had the very same problem a few years ago with a new exchange which opened in 414; Illinois Bell refused to listen to anything I had to say. Finally after a couple days of trying to tell them my LD carrier worked just fine, I had to go way over their head and talk to a guy from AT&T based in Kansas City. I told him about it and how IBT/Ameritech would not even try to correct it. His response was, "they'll listen to me and do as I say ..." and sure enough, a couple days later I was able to get through just fine. I guess Ameritech had to completely reload the tables or something. So John, perhaps a reader here who carries some weight will get in touch with you for particulars and then call someone at BA and get them to straighten it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Jensen Subject: ISP Termination Charges Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:40:08 -0400 In a recent TELECOM Digest article, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on > the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch > negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. > This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC > recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other > hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay > each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating > minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) > bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 > - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating > data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the RBOCS, based on the inequity between outgoing termination compensation and incoming compensation. In at least one region, the RBOC has filed a complaint and placed the termination compensation associated with ISP traffic that would have gone to the CLEC in escrow pending resolution. Their argument is that internet access is interlata and therefore not subject to termination charges. This issue is still being debated at the national and state level. Joe Jensen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:15:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:06:33 -0700 From: Susan Evoy Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award September 16, 1997 For Immediate Release Contact: Duff Axsom 650-322-3778 Peter Neumann To Receive Social Responsibility Award Palo Alto, CA. - Peter Neumann, a national authority on computer security and risk, will be given the prestigious Norbert Wiener Award for excellence in promoting socially responsible use of computing technology. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) annually honors an outstanding leader for personal dedication to increasing the public awareness of the social and political consequences of the uses of technology. Dr. Neumann will be honored October 4, 1997 at the CPSR Annual Conference in Berkeley, CA. "Peter Neumann is a remarkable scholar and social activist", said CPSR president Aki Namioka. "His contributions to our knowledge about the risks and reliability of computing technology are widely published in scientific journals, but even more importantly he initiated the public dialogue through open discussion in one of the most widely read computer online USENET newsgroups, RISKS Forum (comp.risks)." "Dr. Neumann is a pioneer in linking the risks in using technology to our most cherished rights to privacy and our need for a secure environment", stated Namioka. "CPSR is extremely proud to present the Norbert Wiener Award for 1997 to a truly important citizen, an activist and a distinguished scientist. He was one of the early members of CPSR and helped bring public awareness to the major flaws in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) during the Reagan administration." The Norbert Wiener Award was established in 1987 by CPSR in memory of the originator of the field of cybernetics. Norbert Wiener was among the first to examine the social and political consequences of computing technology. His book, The Human Use of Human Beings, pointed out the dangers of nuclear war and the role of scientists in weapons development in 1947, shortly after Hiroshima. Dr. Neumann's research on the implications of computing gained wide recognition when he created the ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes in 1976 with considerable attention to risks issues, and then created the online Risks Forum in 1985. He was also co-author of the National Research Council (NRC) report, Computers at Risk in 1990. Dr. Neumann is the author of Computer-Related Risks, published in 1995 by The Association for Computing (ACM) and Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Computer-Related Risks summarizes many real events involving computer technologies and the people who depend on those technologies, with widely ranging causes and effects. It considers problems attributable to hardware, software, people, and natural causes. More information about this book can be found at: http://heg-school.awl.com/cseng/authors/neumann/crrisks/crrisks.html His expertise in the issues of privacy and cryptography are demonstrated in his role as an author of the seminal study, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society for the NRC. He served on the Expert Panel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. He is a member of the U.S. General Accounting Office's newly formed Executive Council on Information Management and Technology. Over five decades, Dr. Neumann, Principal Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, CA, has been concerned with critical computer and communications systems issues such as security, reliability and human safety. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and was a Fulbright scholar at the Technicsche Hochschule, Darmstadt, Germany. He has worked in the computer field since 1953. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He was the recipient of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award in 1996 and the ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Service Award in 1997. More information and access to many of his writings may be obtained at his webpage, http://www.CSL.sri.com/neumann.html. CPSR was founded in 1981 by computer professionals in the Silicon Valley concerned about the use of computers in nuclear weapons systems. CPSR has grown into a national public interest alliance of computer scientists, information technology professionals, and others concerned about the critical choices facing society in the applications of computer related technology. CPSR has 22 Chapters throughout the United States and is based in Palo Alto, CA. ---------------- Duff Axsom, Executive Director http://www.cpsr.org/home.html Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Phone: (650) 322-3778 Fax: (650) 322-4748 Email: duff@cpsr.org ------------------------------ From: Stuart McRae Subject: Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Sservers Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:27:37 -0400 I'm looking for information on redialer units to provide access to value added fax services. We can route faxes over the intranet if a fax user dials the server and then DTMF's the recipient, but end user's aren't motivated to figure out how to do this (and some fax machines make it real hard). I've heard people talk about auto-dialers that can re-route calls like this to a different number, and DTMF the number dialed, but have never come across such a unit. I guess it would also need to insert a DTMF prefix to identify the originating machine for routing non-delivery notifications (and to authorize access). Can anyone provide a lead on how I find such a unit? I've never seen one in a catalogue, but I'd have thought that with more Internet Fax services being advertised there'd be a growing demand. I'm interested in availability in the US and also Europe and other countries. For users at the same site as the fax servers, it has been suggested that PABXs might support this function. Is this reasonable? Thanks, Stuart McRae ------------------------------ From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:24 EDT Subject: NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced Today's issue of Raleigh's newspaper _The_News_&_Observer_ says that Bellcore has announced the numeric values of the three new North Carolina area codes which are to be split off from the existing three NPAs over the forthcoming year. The story also listed most (but not all) of the dates associated with the splits. The new codes are: 336, which will cover the northern half of the current 910 NPA, and which will encompass the "Piedmont Triad" of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point, among other areas. This is the NC code in greatest jeopardy, and so it will take effect very soon (12/15). Unfortunately, there was no mention of the date on which permissive dialing will end. 252, which will cover the eastern three-quarters of the current 919 NPA, including cities such as Greenville and Rocky Mount and most of eastern North Carolina including the Outer Banks. This NPA takes effect on 3/22/98, and becomes mandatory 6 months later on 9/21. 828, which will cover the western two-thirds of the current 704 NPA, including Asheville and most of NC's western mountain region. This NPA is *tentatively* schedule to take effect on 6/1/98 and become mandatory on 10/5. For more details, see the N&O story online at . Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:46:46 EDT From: spock@blacksun.adelphi.edu (Dr. Sven Dietrich) Hopefully someone can clarify this one for me, or point me in the right direction: I recently bought an Ericsson CH-337 PCS 1900 phone, with a subscription to Sprint Spectrum PCS. What prevents me from getting another smartcard (SIM chip) from, say, Omnipoint (NY) and using it with that in NY rather than roaming with Sprint? I mean, it's the _same_ model as the one being sold by Omnipoint, no? It's the same GSM technology, right? I've heard different stories, so if someone could explain the technical details or direct me to a FAQ, I'd be grateful. Please reply by e-mail, if possible. Dr. Sven Dietrich | Internet: spock@abraxas.adelphi.edu (MIME/PGP) Dept of Math & CS | Voice: +1-516-877-4488 Fax: +1-516-877-3545 Adelphi University, New York | http://www.adelphi.edu/~spock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:42:49 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Heads-up for 800 Service Users AT&T IS SHIFTING GEARS in its policies towards call centers, large corporate users and others that have low-or-no-or-infrequent volume 800/888's along with their more active toll-free numbers. The essence of it is to reduce specific inventory that carries cost with no revenue, regardless of the overall business done with the carrier. Details can be found at ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, http://www.icbtollfree.com. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: NYNEX Voicemail Product? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:31:14 -0700 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com Hiya I want to use NYNEX's Voicemail product in the Stoneham area (617-438-xxxx). Basically, there aren't enough people in our remote office there to really justify a key/integrated system, but we'd like to retain some "real" voicemail features. Most notably, we'd like to have the ability for people who reach a subscriber's mail box to transfer out to an operator (zero destination, I think it's called on the Meridian?) However, to get this feature, we are told that we need to go with what NYNEX calls "Type III" service, at the rate of $150 *per line*. For the 25 (minimum) lines we'd have to get, that's far too much money. I cannot believe this is accurate. I guess I'm suspicious because the NYNEX rep keeps bringing out a salesman hawking the Intertel switch/voicemail system. And, while he will talk with the end-users, he won't call me (responsible for telecom, thankyouverymuch.) Any users of NYNEX voicemail out there? Any hints on a way to do this without buying a switch? Thanks, Michael Gutteridge ONYX Software Corp. System Administrator http://www.onyx.com mikeg @ onyx.com 425.519.4118 (remove spam in the "from" address) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #253 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:33:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26398; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190233.WAA26398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #254 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:33:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (Brad Allen) Re: ISP Subsidy? (Gary Novosielski) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (John Stanley) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Greg Hennessy) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (David Richards) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Rahul Dhesi) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Bill Sohl) The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Joey Lindstrom) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 18 Sep 1997 16:31:32 -0400 Organization: Q > The ISPs along with AT&T, Apple Computer, Netscape, Microsoft, > Compaq Computer, IBM, and a host of other computer companies demanded > and won continued FCC intervention to prevent market pricing on local > telephone company services used by ISPs to reach their customers in > the first place. Since the initial breakup of AT&T back in 1983, the > FCC has exempted Internet providers from paying the same kind of > per-minute access charges to local phone companies that long distance > companies have to pay to connect their customers. This has allowed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Internet providers to pay the flat business rate to local phone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > companies that ordinary local business customers pay -- which in turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has allowed them to offer flat-rate service for the Internet to their > customers. I take it you consider the backbones free? When's the last time peering at an interexchange point was free? When's the last time leasing fiber under the sea was free? When's the last time paying "settlement" fees to large ISPs that have good backbones from hither to fro was free? When's the last time that setting up cooperatives to make it more cost effective to deal with these settlement issues was free? Hey, btw, when's the last time that leasing a line from the local "previous"-monopoly "baby bell" was free? Oh, let's not forget the free connection that MAE charges you to connected to their POP. Hey, those free routers are really useful too. Oh, the free labor and free service contracts for all of these components is really a nice perk. Uh hum. Oh, I almost forgot --- and those large energy companies going through their own industry shakeup, hey, they love giving ISPs power for free, too, when used for the backbone! Radio equipment is free too. And setting it up! Wonderful price. Not to mention all the free real estate space that ISPs use. Oh -- I'm talking about the backbone connections the ISP has here, which you probably don't think exists, so it must be free. You betch'a. What you are forgetting is that this "flat rate" you speak of is actually far above a reasonable profit margin for the local phone company, since the connections are going through local networks with high capacity, and furthermore the biggest blunder in your argument is that the backbone that the ISPs use does NOT EXIST! Else, they'd be called "Service Providers", not "Internet Service Providers". The only problems that may come about due to overcongestion and cost of providing service are the stupid engineering and layout of the system by the local phone companies to not take advantage of the simple efficiencies involved. Take my connection. I have a 24 hour a day, 365 day a year wire from my home to my phone company, and there is another similar connection between them and my ISP. If the phone company is worried about congestion between their own switch and their own switch, which are in the same building, then they have a big problem. I'm just using the connection that's already there from me to the switch and from the switch to the ISP. The buildings' switch's being full is mere bullshit; they cost less than the wire that is already 24 365. In the case of interswitch congestion, the local bell companies haven't exactly made a point of tarrifing a seperate charge for that problem; instead they install enormous capacity. If they complain, it's because they designed the charge system in such a way as to complain. I consider it fair to ask ISPs to charge slightly higher rates for interswitch links, if they are also given reasonable rates to interconnect with the various other switches as well using their own communications network. Yes, that might cost the ISPs a little bit more, but considering the business, feature and flexibility possibilities, not by much, if any, will there be an end charge on that; the worst problem with this scenereo is that the local phone company previous-monopoly would now have a bigger network as their competition. The local phone companies are involved in anticompetitive measures, and regardless of whether they are paying you, you are definately a part of their scheme to obtain those ends. You are the hyprocrite. Wait, I seem to have missed something: > Worse than the actual costs of the upgrades for ISPs is the fact > that those investments are being made in traditional analog voice > phone lines and switches, instead of the phone system moving the ISP > phone traffic onto high-speed digital switching systems right at > customers homes, an approach that would be more efficient and create > the basis for upgrading all data traffic. Most of the Baby Bells > began offering such high-speed digital services for ISPs in 1997, but ^^^^ > the Internet providers have little incentive to pay for such services > as long as they can convince the FCC to allow them to use the local > phone lines like ordinary business users. Wow! And you're complaining about the way things were before 1997! Good for you! Of course, there is SO much time between 1997 and this year -- all that time to actually find out about these wonderful services you're talking about (what are they, anyway? DSP? Nope. Cable Modem? Nope. I can't get either, here. I'm in the middle of Manhattan!) We're talking about really fast companies, too -- companies, that when the customers have a large need for things back in the 1970s and 1980s, they are so fast to come to market that they have something in 2000s that answers those requests!!!! Well, at least we wish it were that good ... I *hope* they'll have *something* in my lifetime that is faster than ISDN. BTW, I'm thinking of augmenting my network with "Cellular Vision" here in the NYC area, and jettisoning that awful Time Warner Cable that I have. I'm sure that puts you up in arms -- you'd probably want a "air tax" that gets paid directly to Bell Atlantic, because Cellular Vision "threatens their monopoly". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:59:03 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? In TELECOM Digest V17 #252, Fred Goodwin wrote: > ... I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. ... [T]he cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Well, there's a drug store about two blocks from here. When I need a newspaper, I walk down there and buy it. There's no need to get in the car since it's so close. But I notice that a lot of people do drive to that same store. In fact, in the last year, since they've started carrying milk and bread, auto traffic has increased -- so much so that they've been forced to add a whole new section to the parking lot. It occurred to me that this must be pretty expensive, and that I wasn't getting any use out of it, because I always walk to the store. In fact prices are a little higher than I remember, and I'm sure this has something to do with it. The cost of that parking lot is being borne by all the customers, not just those who use it. I got mad, and asked the lady behind the counter how come she was forcing me to give a subsidy to all the non-pedestrian customers of the store, and I demanded a lower price for my newspaper than the guy behind me in line, who had driven in from the street just as I arrived. She just looked at me funny. (I think she's a communist.) ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 18 Sep 1997 13:58:15 GMT Organization: Oregon State University In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. Anyone who has a teenager knows this. Anyone who has a computer at home knows this. Anyone who has called any company with any sort of automated telephone system knows this. The typical data call I make lasts three minutes. How long does Mrs. Smith spend on the phone to her Mom? I have been paying a premium for a line that I almost never use just so I can use anther line for my computer. I had to pay extra for my "voice" line so I could pay more for unlimited calling on my "data" line. I have been paying this "subsidy" that the telcos are whining about, but I don't see them rushing to refund my money. > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. I would submit that the telco should have used the premium I have been paying for seven years for unlimited calling on my voice line to keep its services up to par. They demanded that I get a more expensive line than I needed for a line I make almost no calls on, just because I had one line that was unlimited calling. If they didn't mean to charge me more, then I want my money back. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection The ISP isn't making the call, it shouldn't have to pay more than any other business does. I am already paying more for flat-rate than I have use, so why should I pay more? ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:52:08 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500, Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, damnit. You obviously don't have teenagers. :-) > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Nope. Poor foresight on the part of a regulated monopoly utility is _not_ the fault of the customers. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. You might, potentially, use that word, were it not for the fact that the RBOC's themselves are one of the beneficiaries, they being in the ISP business, too. But the sweepingly fast advance of wireless is going to make this a moot point shortly, I suspect, anyway -- as I noted in a posting a couple days back. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: gsh@clark.net (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:00:24 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. I deny that, since calls to an ISP are residential calls. This is simply trying to ghettoize internet users and suck more money out of them. ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 11:56:29 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, calls to ISPs are longer than 'typical' residential calls. But so are calls to BBS systems -- multiline BBS systems date back at least 15 years (Ripco does, anyway); they're just more popular now. And there have been rumors of an 'FCC mandated BBS tax' for almost that long. The problems of congestion and switch capacity upgrades are the result of telco monopolies not being prepared for a sudden shift in consumer calling habits, and chosing a rate structure that encourages certain behavior. Strange how I don't see any complaints about congestion in the Chicago area -- only in the last couple of months (coincidentally just after the launch of Ameritech's own internet service) has my ISP received _ANY_ customer gripes about 'fast busy' or 'The number you have dialed...' intercept messages. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Bullshit. The telco proposes their own tariff, they chose to make packet-switched data service so expensive as to be out of the reach of the end user. because I suddenly order, use, and PAY FOR more circuits than they anticipated is a problem, but the telco dug their own grave by how they set up the rates. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. The local telephone _monopoly_ chose to set rates so as to discourage use of X.25 (packet-switched) services and encourage long holding times by endorsing flat-rate local calling. Compare this to Europe, where X.25 is in widespread use and untimed calls are generally an unheard of luxury. ------------------------------ From: c.c.eiftj@15.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 03:38:41 GMT Organization: a2i network In Fred Goodwin writes: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Um, the situation is much simpler than that. Short calls are typically shorter than long calls. Let me repeat that: Long calls are longer. Short calls are shorter. > OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that > blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or > its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch > upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of > service to its other, non-ISP customers. You want heavier users to pay more. Then why not simply make heavier users pay more? I don't understand why it must be based on whether or not they call an ISP. I know people who are on the phone for hours and hours talking to their friends -- should they or should they not pay more? I know people who call their ISP for five minutes a day, max. Should they or should they not pay less? I really don't understand why people try to make it so complicated. If long calls are the problem, penalize the long calls. Let me ask you something, hypothetically. Suppose people of a certain race (call it Yellow, or Green, or Black, or whatever) were observed to make longer calls on the average than people of other races. What would your preference be, if you had to choose one of these two possibilities? - Charge all people of that race more for phone calls, regardless of the length of their call; - Charge people based on the length of their call regardless of their race. Explain and justify your choice. Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:12:30 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Not in a household like mine with three kids. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Thousands of business lines generate huge minutes of use on a flat rate basis yet you wish to ignore those users and only focus on ISPs because they have tilted the model previously used. How do you identify ONLY the cost causing lines since they are only incoming calls terminating on them? > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Yet most ISPs busiest times are outside the normal peak hour periods. It seems there's more trouble with ISPs that don't provide enough lines (thus causing busy conditions to their users) than the network being short of switch capacity or trunking. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 03:07:20 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Pardon me, a relative neophyte, for butting in here ... but it seems to me like we're going to see more problems like this Medic-Alert thing happening with every new area code split that comes down the line. It's another argument in favour of overlays, but I won't get into that - I'll just say that Mark Cuccia is God and that's that. :-) But I think it's completely AMAZING that the CPUC decided to change its mind and grant one area the right to keep the old area code while switching the other, more-populated, area to the new NPA, simply because Medic-Alert *HAD* to keep it's old phone number. What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I missing something here??? Just a thought. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #254 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 13:58:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15196; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709211758.NAA15196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #255 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 13:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN (Judith Oppenheimer) 800/888 Problem - Suggestions Welcome (Jay R. Ashworth) Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup (Douglas Reuben) Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" (Rob Slade) AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Chris Mathews) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:18:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN For years the RespOrgs say all numbers are the same, no one has any rights or interests in numbers, and the FCC buys into this and makes it law. During which time, however, the FCC facilitates the RespOrgs setting aside "valuable" 888's matching "valuable" 800's in which their customers have an "interest." Then the customers who've set aside their 888's want them, so the FCC says they can have them, *if* they assert no interest in them. (Who else besides me has said "huh?" yet.) So this goes on for a whole YEAR, until the FCC issues its guideline codification aka the April Report and Order, at which time the SMS says, a ha!, RespOrgs have been abusing the release process to grab 'their' numbers in violation of the FCC edict that they have no 'interest' in them. (I gotta tell you here, when the release of 888 set-asides was first ordered by the FCC in June '96, an SMS insider who shall remain anonymous told me it was because the FCC was getting pressure from 800 subscribers who wanted THEIR numbers.) But I transgress. So now, June 1997, the SMS changes policy, batches 888 set-aside releases and tells everyone what numbers are coming out, so that everyone has an equal chance to grab these "valuable" 888's, per the FCC's first-come-first-serve scenario. Except now the RespOrgs are complaining that other RespOrgs are "stealing" numbers out of 888 release that "belong" to their customers. (There's sort of an "honor system" among 'real' RespOrgs: that you don't touch "my" numbers, ie that 'belong' to my customers, and I don't touch yours. And if you do by mistake, of course, we'll settle it among ourselves. Not that we're brokering or dealing in numbers, of course.) Now remember: the 'my numbers' and 'belong' here refer to 888 numbers in the set-aside pool that have been assigned to no one, and according to the FCC, belong to no one. Heck, they even say numbers assigned to you and working for you that you PAY for, don't belong to you. SO, NOW, the SMS, as of September 17, "based on recent RespOrg input", will discontinue issuing a weekly list of 888's being released, and will release them in some un-defined timeframe as well. Presumably, it will be harder for "thieves" to "steal" the numbers. Of course, it will also be harder for RespOrgs to capture 888 releases "belonging" to their customers (which customer said they "assert no interest in" in order to get them released.) Who's had enough of this absurdity? If all these years everyone is saying that customers have no interest in these numbers -- as the Industry Guidelines, written by RespOrgs themselves, have always clearly stated -- then why are these same RespOrgs duking it out over their customers' proprietary interest in specific numbers? Perhaps it's time for everyone to get it that the Emperor is waddling down the street NAKED. (Gee, maybe someone should tell the FCC?) Judith 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: 20 Sep 1997 14:57:33 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Well, here we go again. A client of mine, who's had the same doesn't-spell-anything-in- particular 800 number for about ten years now, started getting calls this week that they didn't expect. 300 or more of them. For "AESolutions", which is apparently the power utility in Pennsylvania, somewhere. You see, the folks at AE Solutions apparently went to their carrier, MCI (big surprise) and said "we'd like a number that spells out our name". Presumably, the MCI people looked up my client's 800 number, discovered that it was assigned, and then said "well, 800-AESOLUT is already taken ... but 888-AESOLUT is available, why don't you take that". The customer, not knowing any better, of course said "sure". The expected chaos is ensuing. _My_ outlook on this is that the culpable party is the utility's sales rep at MCI, who should understand his business well enough to know, as we all do, why assigning a branded number in 888 is probably a bad idea just now. Obviously, the real culprits are the customers, but hell, you can't expect people to _read_ or anything. Would anyone like to challenge my appraisal of the situation, or offer suggestions are to which is the best approach to a solution? We can't even run a prompter front end to let callers pick the right number ... because their INWATS carrier and ours are different. I agree with Judith, as those who read my DNS NOI notes will know: branded numbers belong in 800, numbers that don't need to be branded should only be assigned in the other blocks. I'd grandfather, but if your brand ain't available in 800, lump it: find another way to spell it. Same problem as the "new big 7", which suck, BTW. :-) Please email, I'll summarize. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You could always answer with a taped announcment on the front saying 'this is Company X ... repeat, this is Company X; this is not AE Solutions. If you are calling AE Solutions you have reached a wrong number; please hang up now; if you are calling Company X at 800-whatever please remain on the line for an answer." Stress the 'eight hundred' part of the number, and maybe add a line saying 'this is not 888-whatever' stressing the 888 part. Of course some people will dial over and over when they hear that, but at least you can dump them after 15 seconds or so each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@tiac.net (Douglas Reuben) Subject: Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup Date: 20 Sep 1997 20:38:53 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Svcs Inc / +1 510 254-0133 / www.interpage.net After receiving some feedback as a result of a recent post regarding Bell Atlantic's Alpha Messaging product on their Digitial Choice CDMA plans, I'd like to make a few corrections and add a few observations. 1. I noted that there should not be any alpha messaging in the ex-Contel Cellular of Vermont/00300 system, covering northern Vermont (north of a line running roughly from Rutland to White River Jct., more or less along US-4, and generally north of I-89), and that the switch servicing the 00300 system was probably still a Motorola EMX. Neither of the above are correct: Despite what BAMS told me (and I mean this only in a constructive way; the product manager was very helpful in explaining the issues involved), there IS alpha messaging in the areas I have traveled in the 00300 system, mainly from White River to Montpelier. Messages come in very quickly, and not only was it a pleasant surprise after being told that it would be "a while" before messaging worked there, but since my pagers do not work there, it was very useful being able to get my pages on the mobile phone. Interestingly, it seems that the switch recordings I get in the 00300 system say "119", which is the BAMS/A-side switch ID for the Connecticut system. Perhaps Vermont is being run off of the CT switch in some manner, similar to the way the Dutchess and Orange County (00486/00404) systems appear to be operating off the Albany (00078) switch (and thus receiving messages)? Additionally, the switch serving 00300 is definitely not an EMX, and sounds like an AT&T Autoplex, so that would perhaps support the notion that it is somehow run off of the CT switch or something along those lines. Just a guess, though. 2. I also unintentionally confused the two Vermont systems; to clarify: 00300 - is the "B" side in Northern VT, which used to be owned by Contel, and is now run by BAMS. It does not cover southern VT or New Hampshire (as does the A carrier), but handoffs work well (at least on I-89 and I-91 in the White River area) between the 00300 and the growing United States Cellular 01484 system serving Southern VT and southwestern NH. (The 01484 is on the NACN even though US Cell in this market is the "B" carrier, "A" roamers can roam on the system and receive calls, use features, etc. You can even set your phone to roam on the strongest signal, A or B, and receive calls, place them, and use features on either the 01484 or it's A-side counterpart, the Atlantic Cellular 00313 system. Roam charges, if any, may vary between the two system; check with your home carrier.) As noted above, the 00300 seems to be an Autoplex, although I think under Contel it was an EMX. 00313 - Cell One/VT and Western NH. This system is owned by Atlantic Cellular, which seems to own a number of RSA's, mainly in mountainous areas :) (Seriously, they also own a system in El Dorado County, CA, also in the hills southwest of Lake Tahoe. You can spot these systems by the male recording they employ in (seemingly) all their markets.) They cover all of Vermont (they took over the failing Montpelier and northen Vermont system a few years ago), as well as a good chunk of western New Hampshire. They also operate half a system (along with Cellular One/Boston) in the Lakes Region of eastern NH, which is so mismanaged it is laughable (the SID is 01485 or 87, I forget...one is in NH, the other is in NJ). They are the premier carrier in the region, offering by far the best coverage and service area. They finally got their EMX switch well integrated into the NACN, and calls and features for all NACN roamers work fine there. They also operate a small area near VT on the NY state side, and Franklin County, Mass, which they purchased from BAMS maybe 3 years ago. 3. Maine is NOT included in the BAMS extended "home roam" airtime plans, so if you go to Maine, you don't get the free incoming minute, or the off peak airtime plans (if you subscribe to them.) I do believe Maine's B side is run, at least in Southern Maine, off of the BAMS switch for the 00028 or 00428(?) system, so perhaps Alpha Messaging does work there. Anyone test that yet? Additionally, Rochester NH and the immediate surrounding area is covered by the Maine B side, so be careful if you roam there. Most people I know living in seacoast NH or in Rockingham County and Portsmouth are very disgusted with their cellular service: The A side has 3 systems all bleeding into each other in the area, and the B has two, none of which reciprocate in terms of airtime plans on their respective sides, so customers have to frequently pay higher roaming charges for using their phone because they happen to live on the line between systems. (A good market for Nextel? :) ) 4. The BAMS Eastern New Hampshire/00428 system also has alpha messaging. Thus, it would seem that the largest "holes" in the BAMS messaging "network" area: NY: Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), Richmond (Staten Island), Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, and Southern Putnam Counties in NY (all in the 00022 system -- do they even sell Alpha in NY? Who'd want it?) (Note: Kings County is Brooklyn, not the Bronx as I indicated in my earlier post.) RI: No Alpha Messaging anywhere in RI, except perhaps extreme northern sections of the state and Woonsocket, ie, near the Boston part of the 00028 system, where messaging does work. MA: No Alpha Messaging in the SE Mass area, New Bedford, Taunton, etc. CT: No Alpha Messaging in Litchfield, which is not run by BAMS. PA: Areas of Philadelphia seem to have it, and others don't; can't figure it out yet. I could also just be due to occasional delays in getting messages. Overall, though, with messaging now available in the BAMS Hudson River corridor (00486, 00404, 00078), VT (00300 - it may have worked there for a while; I was told it didn't), and Eastern NH (00428), the utility of the service has increased, at least for me. Now if they could only get all their markets online and allow more than 55 characters per page! ... Well, at least there is some progress :) Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:36:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference", Que Corporation, 1997, 0-7897-1144-3, U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 %A Que Corporation euteam@que.mcp.com 72410.2007@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1144-3 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 202 %T "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference, Second Ed." As with most quick reference guides, this contains all the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags and commands up to version 3.2. As a matter of fact, it goes a little beyond, listing obsolete and proposed commands as well. Each element is listed by name, and contains information on compliance. (The listings are for Netscape, Internet Explorer, Mosaic, HTML 2, and HTML 3.2. The codes for the graphical browsers indicate only the "latest version".) In addition, there is a brief description of syntax, some discussion of purpose and use, and an example or two. Some entries also contain screen shots, or lists of related commands. Surrounding this central reference are a number of aids. The tables grouping related commands are quite useful, as are the character code and colour listings. The newsgroup resources are somewhat less so, with a number of groups included by only the most tenuous connections. The expanded table of contents, alphabetically listing the alphabetically arranged element entries, is a twenty-one page waste of space. The choice of what to include and what to leave out is always problematic. In general, the guide concentrates on more recent or more esoteric commands, which is understandable in a work which is, after all, not tutorial in nature, but meant for experienced users. Less understandable is the brevity of both functions of the vital anchor tag in comparison to individual listings for each of the six header () tags, occupying a total of eight pages. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1997 10:43:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Forwarded from alt.peeves... ## Nachricht vom 19.09.97 weitergeleitet ## Ursprung : /alt/peeves ## Ersteller: fps@netcom.com Spotted in news.admin.net-abuse.email, reposted FYAmusement. So who wants to break out the bubbly? In article <5vu8rd$pqq@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Mark Boolootian wrote: > In http://207.87.233.68/outage.html, Sanford laments: > Network Outage Update Page > 9-19-97 10:00am > Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > Dear Customers, > Cyber Promotions has experienced serious network problems for the last few > days. These problems have affected every customer in one way or another. I > have finally collected the information which explains this circumstance, and > I think it may make you quite mad. Cyber is also calling out for your help. > You can be part of this fight right now. > The major network problems started on Wednesday, 9-16-97. Our primary > backbone provider, AGIS, took responsibility for the problem. The following > is a quote from AGIS' web site... > Philadelphia Route Reflector > Posted at 23:45 EDT on September 16, 1997 > At 16:00 EDT, our Philadelphia Route reflector went down. After extensive > troubleshooting with the vendor, it was discovered that the ATM card the > reflector runs off of is defective. ETA for a replacement part on site is > 22:00 EDT on 9/17. Customers in the North East US will experience moderate > to high ping times and traces, but traffic is getting through. We have > opened Ticket# 032499 on this issue, and will update this page when we have > more information or an updated ETR. > Well, since that problem was detected, our network connection was never > restored back to normal. We called AGIS' network operation center over and > over again, every 10 minutes, to get an update and estimated time of repair. > I understood the damage that our customers would incur with each and every > minute of downtime. But AGIS' answer was always the same... "Engineering is > working on it. They won't give us any more info." Yesterday, their answers > began to change. At 8am, their network operation center told me that there > was only one engineer that could resolve the problem, and he wasn't in yet. > He was expected to get there in an hour. At 9am they then said he didn't > come in yet, but rather, he was in an off-premise meeting. But they would > page him. At 10am, they simply said, "He's not here yet." I even went so far > as to offer my personal assistance. At this point, I personally tried to > reach AGIS' CEO, Phil Lawler, to fill him in on the details. But, Mr. Lawler > was apparently out of town on business, and wouldn't return until Monday. > In a desperate move, we started asking our customers to call AGIS and > pressure then into escalating this repair. Within minutes, AGIS > representatives quickly changed their story. They started telling our > customers that the connection was down because Cyber Promotions had breached > some sort of security protocol, and that their routing equipment was never > broken (despite the fact that on their own web page, they still admitted > that the equipment was faulty). And since this was a "security issue" they > stated that they could no longer give out any further details. > At that point, we called in our legal representatives to contact AGIS. Our > lawyers actually got through to AGIS' in-house counsel. Within an hour or > so, we received a copy of affidavits that were prepared by AGIS' engineers. > You're never going to believe this... but in their affidavits, they claimed > that they had to turn off Cyber Promotions' connectivity because Cyber was > being ping attacked by a third party! > The following is important: Agis had filtered ICMP (ping and traceroute) for > months until they upgraded their routers a few weeks ago. When they upgraded > their routers, they stopped filtering ICMP for some unknown reason. We were > concerned, because they left the door open for ping attacks by > anti-spammers. > Here are some quotes from AGIS' affidavits (that were not marked > confidential in any way): > By Adam Hersh, senior engineer: "I attended (a) meeting with Les Addison and > Rick Pado, and we analyzed the status of AGIS network performance problems, > and I determined and recommended that the circuits of Cyber Promotions and > Quantcom needed to remain off in order for AGIS not to suffer further > network performance problems ... The ping flood attacks observed originating > from the west coast into AGIS network and directed to the Washington routers > and Philadelphia routers, severely degraded AGIS network performance to (an) > unacceptable level ... AGIS had no alternative but to shutoff services to > Cyber Promotions and Quantcom." > By Richard Pado, senior engineer: "Les Addion, AGIS Chief Engineer, worked > with me to reset configuration settings in attempts to resolve the AGIS > network disruption. These attempts failed ... I attempted several ICMP > debugs and consequently lost connectivity because of the massive ping flood > attacks ... I performed and analyzed TCP dumps regularly ... I resolved the > AGIS network disruption by shutting down the interfaces of Cyber Promotions, > Inc. and Quantum ..." > In other words, AGIS admitted just three days ago that their equipment was > faulty, and then admitted that their so-called senior engineers don't know > how to stop a ping attack without disconnecting their customers. > Also bear in mind, Phil Lawler, CEO of AGIS, signed the connectivity > contract with Cyber Promotions. I am not allowed to disclose the details of > the contract, but let it be known that immediate termination is blatantly > against the provisions of the agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that > since Mr. Lawler was out of town, the terms of our contract were not even > considered. > What can you do? You may wish to call AGIS and explain to them the damaging > affect of having your connectivity shut down. You may wish to suggest > alternatives to them. You may wish to offer your help. You may wish to give > them a piece of your mind. That is up to you. Our official recommendation is > that you should realize that we are all in this together. Cyber Promotions > will fight hard, and so should you. > At this time, our lawyers are preparing temporary restraining order papers. > We plan to bring this issue to federal court immediately. We are also > transferring many of our services to our backup connections with other > backbone providers. We can not give you an exact ETA on full service > restoral until we get more information about the status of the AGIS > connection. Please come back to this web page to see frequent updates. Thank > you for your continued support. Free commerce on the Internet WILL PREVAIL! > (Agis contacts below). > Regards, > Sanford Wallace > President and CEO > > Cyber Promotions, Inc. > > AGIS contacts: > AGIS engineering: Adam Hersh, Les Addison, Richard Pado (313) 730-1130 > AGIS Network Operation Center (313) 730-5151 > AGIS Fax (313) 563-6119 (submitted to the net by) > Mark Boolootian > booloo@cats.ucsc.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #255 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 22:31:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15004; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709220231.WAA15004@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #256 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 22:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too (Eric Florack) DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Master List of SLC's by LEC's (Herman Ohme) Online Service Provider a Moneygrubber? (J. DeBert) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Ed Ellers) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Tom Watson) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (William H. Bowen) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:27:02 -0400 From: brian Subject: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option When I got my BANM CDMA phone in January the saleswoman told me several things that turned out not to be true. The first was the availability of the hands free car kit with external antenna. She said it would be available in about a month. It has been almost nine months now and they still say they don't have it. And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the option. Why? "Dunno." Has anyone else been told anything about "Privacy." Caveat Emptor. And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 05:58:39 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too This has been under discussion, and this adds information to that discussion. /E Fighting Over the Bone by Brian McWilliams, PC World News Radio September 18, 1997 Setting international modem standards used to be a private process carried on behind closed doors, but the heated discussions over the pending 56-kbps modem have spilled into the streets -- again. This time, it's Lucent Technologies that claims to be in the driver's seat regarding intellectual property. "We think that the patents we have will limit the ability of other parties to get patents that read on the core of the technology," says Bob Rango, general manager of Lucent's modem chip-making group. "We didn't say that no other patents would be granted, but since we invented this thing back in 1992, we started filing patents way back then. I mean, the patents that we're getting issued now were filed two to three years ago." Lucent was responding today to the announcement earlier this month by 3Com that it had exclusive rights to the intellectual property of inventor Brent Townshend, who claims to have patents pending on core 56-kbps modem technology. Rango said that Lucent sent a letter to the International Telecommunications Union today saying that it will license its patents on PCM, or pulse code modulation, to other companies under reasonable terms and conditions. 3Com, of course, earlier made a similar announcement regarding its patents. Dataquest analyst Lisa Pelgrim says it's all a continuation of the jockeying that's historically occurred during the modem standards process. The only difference today is that PC users are closely following the twists and turns. "In past standards, most recently V.34, there were a lot of issues that came up in court that were not publicized," notes Pelgrim. "One of the things that has happened with 56K is that it has been very public. A lot of it comes from the Internet taking off and so many people finding that they do want faster [access] speeds, which makes 56K a big story." (Eric notes: Not to mention the lack of real commitment to ISDN from locals, as has been suggested previously in this forum.) One significant element of Lucent's intellectual property that we know won't be in the ITU draft standard that's in the works now is Lucent's technology for doing PCM on the upstream side of the connection. Last January, Lucent said it had developed and was testing PCM for transmission from the PC to a host modem, and had been able to get nearly bisymmetrical connect speeds with upstream speeds of 45 kbps. But Rango today said Lucent had to shelve that technology for compatibility reasons. "In order to expedite the technology deployment on K56flex, we elected to do V.34 upstream because we wanted to get the quickest interoperability with our partner, Rockwell," he explained. Rango says Lucent and other modem companies involved in the ITU standards process are doing everything they can to get a draft standard in January. He said most are already designing their modem code to reflect the standards work that's occurred so far. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 03:45:00 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, right ? Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever that phone might be ? This would remove the need to constantly split area codes since there wouldn't be "area codes" anymore, just 10 digit telehone numbers. Need a new line, just grab the next available number. With more and more cities being split into different area codes, dialing 10 digits for ALL numbers might become more natural than having to decide whether one has to dial 7 or 10 digits. Also, when one person moves, one could keep the same telephone number and the telco would simply change the routing tables. If one changes supplier of dial tone, same would happen. Keep your number, change routing table. This would be quite similar to the internet domain name system. The questions: -Has this been studied ? -Is computer technology fast enough to allow such a "DNS" based scheme (similar to the internet) for all calls in North America ? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would think this would be sort of risky, although there is lots of talk about 'number portability' and I guess we are going to have it in the not to distant future. The problem I see is the inability of the technology at the present time to keep up with the speed needed. Now, this look-up arrangement is done with most (all?) 800 numbers (are there still any 'hard-wired' 800 numbers around in any telco, anywhere, dating back to the late 1960's perhaps?) but toll-free calls make up only a small percentage of the total traffic, and if one listens closely one can detect a very slight delay in processing those calls now while the lookup is being done as contrasted to 'regular' local calls. Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens occassionally now with 800. Just the other day AT&T's 800 numbers were out of service for a short period of time -- was it a couple hours? -- due to the database having been incorrectly loaded. When number portability becomes the norm over the next few years should we expect from time to time that the entire national phone system will freeze up and reject calls if the database happens to be trashed? And what happens if the database is deliberatly tampered with? I am reminded of an occassion quite a few years ago when in the process of mailing out this Digest one day, every single copy got tossed back in my face. Not a known host in the bunch, but then a couple hours later I found out from someone that, "well, you see there is this domain/host resolver in (I think they said Georgia) that got all screwed up last night. There was a comma in one of the entries which messed up everything after that point; it propogated around the net ... made quite a mess ... but they edited it and reloaded it and now all is fine ..." Well ... accidents will happen I suppose; the latest problem with AT&T and the 800 number fiasco several days ago was blamed on 'human error' which is all quite understandable. But to trust every single telephone number to a database which is susceptible to 'human error' seems like quite a risk to me, to say nothing of human malice and terrorist hackers, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:57:22 -0500 From: Herman Ohme Subject: Master List of SLC's by LEC's Is there a master list of (SLC's) Subscriber Line Charges by all LEC's for fixed monthly fees for special telco circuits (ie. WAL, DAL,T-1), or Special Access Surcharge (SAS) on special access circuits. ------------------------------ From: J. DeBert Subject: Online Service Provider a Moneygrubber? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:23:28 -0700 It seems that there is a problem with one of the oldest online service providers, based somewhere in Ohio. Three months ago they "double-dipped", charging both my checking account _and_ credit card for monthly fees, including a rather significant amount they had previously credited back to me. Since then, all they tell me is, "Your refund is in process" or "We'll submit a refund request" and to "wait two weeks", until the last time when they said that they could not issue a refund. Since then I closed my account, waited fourteen days then called to see what was up. Again, I am told that "it is in process", whatever that means -- apparently it does not mean that they intend to repay the money they owe me. They double-billed once, long ago, but refunded the money relatively quickly. Has any other comp.dcom.telecom readers had such a thing happen to them? Are they perhaps so strapped for cash that they cannot pay? Are they so desperate that they need to double-bill? Any advice? Should I sue them? File a report with a credit bureau such as Standard & Poor's? Call a newspaper "Action Line" and set them on this service provider? Complain to the BBB? Call the FCC? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since the oldest online service provider anywhere, as you point out, based in Ohio, has a few management people who read this Digest regularly, I'd hope one of them would call you after seeing this and make the needed correction. Honestly, they are pretty good most of the time in their customer service. Try to get through to a supervisor or the head of customer service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:23:04 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) wrote Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert > You mean someone actually BOUGHT the "Help, I've fallen and I can't > get up" gadget? And it costs them a long distance call every time the > neighbor opens his garage door? And they're still working? Somehow, > these have always seemed to be in the same realm as Chia pets and the > Clapper. Actually, my grandparents purchased these at my insistence two years ago. My grandfather had been stricken with bone and prostate cancer, and was immobile (the cancer had made his bones so brittle he'd broken both hips). And my grandmother was able to totter around the house a bit, but due to severe arthritis she could not even walk so far as from the house to her car without assistance -- and usually was taken around in a wheelchair. I cared for them over the summer, but had to return to school in the fall. And I was worried. They lived on a farm on a remote road six miles outside of town, in a remote valley in the North Cascades. Since they never went anywhere, it could be days before anyone noticed that something was wrong. What if my grandmother fell down? It had happened before -- shortly after I got there for the summer, she fell down in the kitchen and I had to lift her. Clearly it was necessary for them to have something. While there were two cordless phones in the house, I wasn't sure that if she fell the phone would not break -- and besides, a 78 year old woman with arthritis, in pain after having fallen, may be unable to dial the phone. So I discussed the situation with them, and insisted that they get the "I've fallen and I can't get up" device. The device itself is a radio transmitter which communicates with a base unit. The base unit is connected to a regular phone line. When the button is pressed (in the event of an emergency), the base unit has a yellow light that starts flashing and sounds an alarm. If the button on the device was pressed accidentally, you can go press a button under the yellow light and it won't summon help. If within 2 minutes you don't go press the button, it calls an 800 number, and a modem transmits to the company's central computers that there is a situation. The company (I believe they're called "LifePlus" in Issaquah, Washington) calls back the number they have on file to make sure that everything is okay. If everything is NOT okay, or there is no answer, they make an aid call to the fire department. While these devices did not save the lives of my grandparents (my grandmother recently passed away due to heart problems, and my grandfather died of cancer last year), it did extend them by awhile. She did fall down and used the device to summon help. Without it, she could have died! I think that this much-ridiculed invention can be a lifesaver to older people living alone, especially in remote areas -- of which we have many in Washington state. And I'm glad that it was available for my grandparents to use. Given the circumstances, I very much am in favor of the 209 split happening the way that it did. Each unit would have to be returned to the company to be reprogrammed, or someone sent to every home to reprogram each of them before the split. And there is always a possibility that one might be missed -- one which could later need to be used to summon emergency help. I think it would have been a far better design for an 800 number to be used, as the company in Issaquah does. But what's done is done and I don't think that an old woman who's fallen down ought to pay with her life (or health) for MedicAlert's incompetence. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the very same thing for my mother several years ago and paid for the first year of service in advance. Hers operates the same way and calls an 800 number. The range of the base unit is pretty good; it works anywhere in her two-story house, the front or back yard, and over into the neighbor's yard as well. On hers, she can either press the button on the necklace she wears *or* she can not respond to a phone call at a certain time of day as pre-arranged. I think she has them call her at 9:00 AM daily which is a time she is always up. If she presses the button -- and she has done so a couple times by accident, and once when she first got it to test it out -- a speakerphone comes to life and dials the number. Within a few seconds the operator/dispatcher has her name and address on the screen (they do not rely on ANI, but rather, the base unit transmits data over the line when an answer is received) and the dispatcher will say something like, "Ruth? (that is her name) ... are you there Ruth? Is something wrong? Please speak to me." If she answers she can explain the problem (or say it was an accident). If there is no response or if the dispatcher does not like the sounds he is hearing -- for example someone screaming or crying -- then he can make a decision on how to handle it. If the dispatcher does not get an answer at the agreed-upon time for a call each day he can also make some decision for handling it. The company asks for the name and address for a couple of close relatives as well as the name, address and phone number of the neighbor on either side, provided those people have given their written permission to be listed with the company. A 'no-answer' situation on the daily phone call means a call will go to the two neighbors with a request that they check on my mother. If the user answers and describes a problem then a call will go out to police/fire/medical personnel as needed. In the event of a 'no answer' to the daily call and the neighbors are not available then police are called and asked to check the well-being of the person. I think it is a great system for elderly people who insist on retaining their independence and living alone, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Date: 21 Sep 1997 06:27:13 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Joey Lindstrom wrote: > What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally > intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH > CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all > the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if > we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with > toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I > missing something here?" The difference between replicating toll-free numbers and replicating conventional numbers is that the former use a lookup table while normal numbers *always* go to a specific central office based on the NXX. Once the "mandatory" dialing period (where you get a warning recording) ends and the NXXs open up any seven-digit calls to this number, dialed within the new NPA, will either go to a different central office in the new NPA -- which would have to call-forward them to the desired number -- or else will fail if there is not yet a CO in the new NPA that uses that prefix. I don't know of any way to "fix" the switches so that that one seven-digit number will be sent directly to a different CO from the one that normally handles that NXX. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really would be nothing to be 'fixed'. Have the number which winds up in the wrong area code be a 'foreign exchange' (FX) line to the place where it is desired, or use 'remote call forwarding' where a virtual number terminates in the central office (never going to any actual subscriber) and from there it gets forwarded to the same number but in the new area code. When Ameritech opened 847/630/773 they were offering remote call forwarding to customers -- at a price of course -- telling people they could have 'their' number in any area they desired. The only catch was assuming the 312/708 version of the number was not already taken, which usually it was not since the former 312/708'er was being put in 847 or 773 anyway. So, you just let the distant telephone switches do their thing in the usual way; when the receiving switch gets the call it handles it like FX or RCF to wherever the subscriber is. With RCF the person receiving the calls pays for them being forwarded, and with FX there is just some monthly rate to the subscriber; it is all transparent to the person originating the call; all he pays for is what he actually dialed, period, not what the receiving CO decides to do with it. Also you are mistaken on how 'normal' numbers are handled where the competition is concerned. For example, MCI now offers local service in this area and they allow you to keep your existing Ameritech number if desired. Ameritech's CO still gets the call, but sees it now goes to MCI and translates it (or maybe call forwards it) to the MCI pseudo-number assigned to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:44:28 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Joey Lindstrom wrote: > What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally > intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH > CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all > the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if > we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with > toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I > missing something here? No, you ARE NOT missing anything. The whole decision is/was POLITICAL. Political decisions are not based on anything reasonable. Somebody wanted their way, and found a "good excuse" to get it that way. Similar arguments have been touted as "starving " and thus detremental. Based on fact, you ARE joking!! Welcome to the USA. It was related to me this way: Legislation is like sausage. The final product is OK, but you don't want to know how it is made. This probably relates to almost ALL area code problems, "equal" local access, why the Bell system was broken up, why Microsoft is intact, etc ... the list goes on. Everybody comes up with an "excuse". Some are more reasonable/palatable than others. They mask the "real" agenda. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 20:37:04 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) wrote: > snipped Spamford's "crying in his beer" for brevity< > (submitted to the net by) >> Mark Boolootian >> booloo@cats.ucsc.edu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] Chris, The latest I've heard is that BBN Planet is going to provide Spamford with connectivity. BUT, on another note, I've also heard that two large BBN customers in the Bay Area are going to have a long talk with BBN and tell them "if you accept Spamford, we're out of here". Maybe the saner heads at BBN will prevail. BTW, I still think the only thing that will dissuade Spamford and his ilk is a direct physical attack (a commando raid) on his operation and put it out of business. A little drastic maybe, but, as the Sean Connery character said in the movie "The Untouchables": "if he brings a knife, you bring a gun. If he puts one of yours in the hospital, put one of his in the morgue". Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one of these days/nights, knowing human nature as I do, and knowing how *really bitter and angry* a lot of netters are over his antics, but I still cannot and would not condone it. Violence is never an answer to the problems of the net. I think back to the olden days of Citizens Band Radio when it was in its glory and how after periods of massive interference and static caused by CB'ers operating illegally certain vigilantes would go out late at night to use triangulation to locate the offender. When located, indeed the response was pretty ugly. Antennas would be toppled over, the coaxial cable would be sliced in several pieces; if possible, the vigilantes would gain entrance to the premises and totally destroy the radio. By the time it was finished and the vigilantes left, the illegal CB-er would be wishing it was the FCC which had raided him instead. Now the FCC agents could be and were pretty vicious -- I have often joked that FBI agents in those days were trained by the FCC field inspectors which is how the FBI guys got such ugly dispositions -- but the FCC at least could usually be counted on to do no more than smash up the radio, seize everything which remotely looked like radio equipment to use as 'evidence' and give you your day in court. The vigilante CB-ers on the other hand had no time or patience to waste on the justice system in the USA; a couple broken arms or a house set afire were not unheard of. And then for a few days the radios would all be very, very quiet. Most all the CB community knew who the vigilantes were, and most condemned violence to the extreme they had seen it, but at the same time their attitude was damned if they would cooperate with the police at all when it came to catching/prosecuting the 'community heroes'. We never, not once, in the 1960's and early 1970's ever thought that our wonderful communications medium known as Citizens Band Radio would ever be abused or come to an end after people got so bitter and fed-up that they unplugged their radios and tossed them on a shelf in the closet. And who on this net who has been around since the early 1980's or even five years ago would have suspected that we may indeed see physical violence against abusers, or even the technological violence -- pinging, email bombs, etc -- that are so common today. Years ago on Usenet we would have discussions about 'the death of Usenet'. I even got into them and everyone would laugh and predict the 'death of the net' for whatever reason. Maybe the death of the net will come when we turn on the news some day and read that Spamford was found dead; his office a shambles; and FBI agents harassing all the netters they can find about it. Maybe people will say to hell with it and toss their computers on the shelf next to the dusty old CB radio. I don't know why, and I don't really approve of violence, but I have a feeling we are going to experience a net catharsis sometime soon in the form of such a shocking act of violence. It just seems to be the logical response to the direction in which we are moving very rapidly. And like the CB community more than twenty years ago, if I did know anything about it I'd be damned before I told the government anything. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #256 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Sep 22 21:06:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA11146; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709230106.VAA11146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #257 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Sep 97 21:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time (Peter J Harrison) BellSouth Can't Tell Time (John E. Connerat) SprintPCS Long Delay Before Voicemail (Rick Strobel) Long Distance Information? Don't Count on It (Steve Bunning) Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Jay R. Ashworth) AT&T Tests New DA Service (Tad Cook) Radio Vigilantes (Ed Ellers) Insight on ABC's 20/20 (Tara D. Mahon) Call for International Testers (Mike Fine) New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Thad Jacobs) Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Marc Baime) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (John Nagle) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Kevin Podsiadlik) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: PeterH_MSN@msn.com (Peter John Harrison) Subject: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time Date: 22 Sep 1997 19:41:28 GMT Organization: Peter's Bandwidth Fontier on The Microsoft Network Tonight 7-8PM, Pacific Time on the *Monday Night Bandwidth Chat*! Come learn about going Wireless with Metricom's Wireless Modems! Ever wished you could log on from your favorite coffee shop? Your back yard? How about just stop tying up your phone line? A wireless modem and Internet service like Metricom's could be just what you need! Come talk with Metricom's Greg Dalzell. Greg is the Metricom's Director of Product Marketing at Metricom. This is your opportunity to learn something about how packet modems work, and how to go wireless without paying for a cell phone. So come join us from 7-8PM, Pacific Time for our weekly *Monday Night Bandwidth Chat*, Hosted by Peter John Harrison. To enter the chat, go to http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/01c1ts.asp To get some background on wireless modems, see the current issue of *Bandwidth: Focus on Technology* at http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/forum5/cool/focus.htm See you online! Peter John Harrison MSN Forum Manager, *Peter's Bandwidth Frontier* http://forums.msn.com/bandwidth/ ISDN? Cable Modems? ADSL/xDSL? Satellite Downlinks? The Bandwidth Forum on MSN -- A place to find the amswers. Hosted by Peter Harrison at http://forums.msn.com/bandwidth (Trial memberships available via MSN at http://www.msn.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:52:12 -0400 From: John E. Connerat Subject: BellSouth Can't Tell Time I recently moved to 706-208 (Athens, Georgia), where I signed up for "Memory Call" -- BellSouth's voicemail service. Since the very beginning of my service, the time stamp on my incoming messages has been 12 minutes fast. Assuming that this was an anomalous quirk, I did nothing about it for several days. When the problem didn't resolve itself, I called BellSouth repair. The agent with whom I spoke was in great disbelief, until I had her call my line, leave a test message, and let her listen in as I checked it. She proclaimed that, "it must be wrong for everyone in your area. How can that be?" I proceeded to tell her that it had been wrong for days. She said that it would be fixed in 24-48 hours. I subsequently got a voice mail message from a human saying that my problem had been fixed (with the wrong time stamp again). Since it had not been fixed, I called back a week later, and went through the same routine, explaining to this new agent that I had indeed called before, and it really, really was broken. Despite the same initial disbelief, she was convinced that indeed it was broken and said she'd make sure it was repaired! 24 hours later I get an automated message left on my voice mail proclaiming that "the problem I reported had been fixed." Guess what? It's not! Can anyone possibly fathom an explanation why all the techs involved in the 706-208 Memory Call believe it's 12 minutes later than it really is? Wouldn't this mess up all sorts of records, and wouldn't you think a herd of customers other than me might be inquiring? I'm puzzled. John E. Connerat Athens, GA TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They do not 'believe it is 12 minutes later than it really is ...' What they are doing -- and had hoped you would take a hint by now -- is closing your trouble tickets with no action taken; just putting it down as a crank caller and letting it go at that. They do not understand what you are talking about or what it is you want done. Maybe the first person who answers your call eventually figures it out, but like the old game called 'Chinese Telephone' by the time the ticket works its way around through the maze and gets to some technician that person has no idea what you wanted. Or maybe he does, but wonders why you would be the one to report it instead of one of his own kind so he closes the ticket and someone calls you and says 'all good now'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: SprintPCS Long Delay Before Voicemail Date: Tue, 23 Sep 97 01:01:51 GMT Organization: InfoTime, Inc. Sprint just upgraded to a new voicemail system that is supposed to work, unlike the original one. I waited six months for it. After the specified number of rings to my phone (about four or five) there is a long pause of nine to twelve seconds before the voicemail system picks up. I rely on this voicemail for my small business. I have call forwarding busy/no answer on my main business line that forwards to my PCS phone. That way if the call can't be answered then I know the caller will at least reach voicemail. But, I'm afraid that after several rings and three "rings" worth of dead air, many callers will just hang up -- and I could lose a sale. I need to address this with my rep. again. Can anyone provide any data that might say "xyz study found that callers assume the line is dead after 12 seconds of no sound ... and hang up..."? Thanks in advance for any advice or info. Rick Strobel | | InfoTime Fax Communications | Fax-on-Demand | 502-426-4279 | & | 502-426-3721 fax | Fax Broadcast | rstrobel@infotime.com | Services | http://www.infotime.com | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:40:55 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Long Distance Information? Don't Count on It There is a front page article in the print edition of Sunday's {Washington Post} titled "Long-Distance Information? Don't Count on It" which highlights the problem with getting up-to-date and reliable long distance information via NPA-555-1212. While this is old news to TELECOM Digest readers, the mass media now seems to have picked up on the issue. Here is a link to the electronic version of the article. http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/21/243l-092197-idx.html 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:58:27 -0400 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA The following article was seen on the AP wire, and is included here for commentary, under the fair use provision of US Copyright law. [ ... ] AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and Portland, Ore. By dialing ``00'' customers in those areas will be able to obtain telephone listings for any place in the United States - even if they don't know the area code or city. [ ... ] Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? 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: AT&T Tests New DA Service Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:17:12 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) AT&T Tests New `00` Info Directory Assistance Service - Directory Assistance the Way Customers Really Want It - BASKING RIDGE, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--September 22, 1997--AT&T today announced a market trial of its new AT&T `00` INFO(sm) (Double-0 Info) national directory assistance service that allows AT&T customers to obtain a telephone listing for any place in the United States with one simple phone call - even if they don't have the area code or exact city. The `00` INFO service trial begins today in Seattle, Denver, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Portland, Ore. In marked contrast to the industry trend to provide fully automated directory assistance, AT&T `00` INFO Service features personal, courteous, helpful service from specially trained AT&T information assistants who will stay on the line for the entire call. From the moment they greet the customer by introducing themselves, AT&T assistants are there to help customers simplify their lives, by searching for a directory listing with as little information as a partial name and a locality or state. And AT&T assistants will stay with the customer through the end of the call when they provide the requested information. `We're providing directory assistance the way customers really want it,` said Howard McNally, vice president of AT&T Consumer Markets Division. `AT&T is bringing back the personal touch. Not only will we stay on the line with our customers, but we'll do everything in our power to meet their needs -- using enhanced search features to find the listings they want, and even the address and zip code, if that's what they need.` AT&T `00` INFO takes directory assistance to a higher level of customer service, providing a renewed emphasis on personal service that is supported by several new search capabilities: -- A new expanded search capability allows AT&T information assistants to extend a directory search to surrounding communities when they can't find a requested listing in a designated city or town - even if the caller doesn't know what those communities are. -- A key word search function allows AT&T information assistants to search for a business listing when the caller doesn't know the full or exact name of the business. This search will find the listing if the key word appears anywhere in the name. AT&T's new `00` INFO Service makes it easier for callers to use directory assistance. They no longer need to remember multiple numbers for directory assistance. And they don't need to know the area code. Customers need only dial one simple number to reach an AT&T information assistant who will help them find telephone listings anywhere in the United States. During the market trial, AT&T is offering the new AT&T `00` INFO Service at the same 95-cent price that it charges for conventional directory assistance. With `00` INFO Service customers can get unlimited listings per call, but pay 95-cents for every two listings. AT&T customers in the five test markets can use `00` INFO from their home phones, or when they are away from home, by dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT. The AT&T `00` INFO directory assistance service trial is limited to listings in the United States. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Radio Vigilantes Date: 22 Sep 1997 13:05:19 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Our Moderator noted in reply: > I think back to the olden days of Citizens Band Radio when it was in > its glory and how after periods of massive interference and static > caused by CB'ers operating illegally certain vigilantes would go out > late at night to use triangulation to locate the offender. When > located, indeed the response was pretty ugly. > Antennas would be toppled over, the coaxial cable would be sliced in > several pieces; if possible, the vigilantes would gain entrance to the > premises and totally destroy the radio. By the time it was finished > and the vigilantes left, the illegal CB-er would be wishing it was the > FCC which had raided him instead." There are reports out of Elkhart, Indiana, that two people who have taken a dislike to the operators of a local amateur radio repeater have been devising some ingenious ways of jamming it (as opposed to just transmitting jamming signals from their own location). For one thing, they put small jammer transmitters inside beach balls and left them at the beach. In another incident, they bought a new TV set from Wal-Mart, installed a jammer inside, repacked it and returned it for a refund; Wal-Mart then resold the TV to an innocent customer who didn't know that he was "interfering with" emergency communications. Supposedly one of their jammers even included a seismometer to shut it down if it detected people walking near it (say, with direction-finding receivers). The Elkhart police know who these characters are but have no jurisdiction in the case; there has been no word on any action by the FCC. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Elkhart police most certainly would have jurisdiction in some aspects of it. The incident with the television set which was tampered with and returned constitutes fraud against Wal-Mart and the re-buyer of the merchandise. The behavior in general of the individuals involved would also most certainly qualify as disorderly conduct and the Elkhart police could act on that as well. Furthermore, police are charged with the duty of enforcing *all laws* whether of a local, state or federal nature, however they would of course refer a federal matter to federal authorities. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 11:36:32 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Insight on ABC's 20/20 Hi Pat and list, Insight Research is pleased to announce that Michael French, our VP of Market Research, will be appearing on the Thursday night edition of ABC's award-winning 20/20 news magazine program. Mr. French was interviewed as an expert on telecom fraud. The segment, to be aired next Thursday, September 25, is reported by 20/20 correspondent Arnold Diaz. Please check your local listings for channel and time (20/20 airs 10pm EST). Insight Research would be pleased to discuss the issue of telecom fraud, the opportunities to control it, and how it may apply to your strategic plans. For further discussions, please contact Michael French at (973) 605-1400, or via e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. Regards, Tara D. Mahon tara@tm.insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation www.insight-corp.com Gatehall I, One Gatehall Dr. 973-605-1400 phone Parsippany, NJ 07054 973-605-1440 fax ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:17:27 -0400 From: mcctest@aol.com (Mike Fine) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Call for International Testers CALL FOR BETA TEST PARTICIPANTS 3Com Corportation's Mobile Communication Division is looking for 40 people to participate in a Beta Test. This test will test the new x2 technology and explore international aspects of modem operation. Qualified Applicants must have the following: -Laptop Computer with PCMCIA or Cardbus Slot -Complete Internet Access including FTP, WWW, and E-Mail -Understanding of modem technology -Ability to dedicate time to testing Acceptance into our test program provides the following benefits: -Test the latest in technology -Opportunity to keep the product -Opportunity to participate in other tests Please visit the following web site no later than 09/26/97 and complete an application: http://beta.mhz.com/ For more information, please contact: Mike Fine Beta Test Supervisor 3Com Corporation Mobile Communications Division E-mail: mfine@mhz.com Voice: 801-320-7561 Fax: 801-320-6009 -Test Participants will be expected to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement -Testing is Global. Participation is open to residents of the following countries: Canada Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand North Korea Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania CIS Saudi Arabia Singapore South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Yugoslavia United Kingdom Venezuela ------------------------------ From: Thad Jacobs Subject: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Organization: IAS Date: 22 Sep 97 17:43:29 GMT Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come and when their proposed effective date is as well? ------------------------------ From: Marc Baime Subject: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:05 -0400 Organization: Road Runner If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. Can both machines run at the same time? Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? Where does the cable need to be split? Before coming into the cable modem? Coming out of the cable modem? I have a NEC2000 ethernet card I used to use for a two PC Novell lan that I had set up in my home ... can I use this card? Are there any books on this subject? Any literature on the web? All replies appreciated. Please respond to mbaime1@tampabay.rr.com with any information on this subject. Probably be nice if you responded to the group also as I'm sure many inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks in advance, Marc Baime ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:28:18 GMT bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) writes: > BTW, I still think the only thing that will dissuade Spamford and > his ilk is a direct physical attack (a commando raid) on his operation > and put it out of business. A little drastic maybe, but, as the Sean > Connery character said in the movie "The Untouchables": "if he brings > a knife, you bring a gun. If he puts one of yours in the hospital, put > one of his in the morgue". I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". The FTC has the power to take action, so send them the evidence they need to do so. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 22 Sep 1997 13:33:37 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] Pat, The latest I gathered from reading through the weekend of posts in news.admin.net-abuse.email is that Cyberpromo was kicked off a total of four ISP's in 24 hours (some sort of record?) and currently isn't getting connectivity through anybody. Just try accessing http://www.cyberpromo.com and you'll see. There's an article on this at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14429,00.html?latest that gives some details. According to AGIS themselves, Cyberpromo, Quantum, and NacyNet were all kicked off for "security issues" and not this ping attack that has been reported. Check out the AGIS network operation at http://www.agis.net/outages.htm to see what little AGIS has said about it. The rumors are flying about why AGIS did this, and so far it doesn't appear that there are a lot of facts. I'm sure that all the details well be posted here as well as on news.admin.net-abuse.email as well as other places as quickly as we all learn them. By the way, the Cyberpromo parody page at http://members.aol.com/macabrus/thyberpromo.html has also been updated as a result of this new chapter in the saga of spam. Bruce [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried to connect just now with www.cyberpromo.com and it just sat there for several minutes until I finally broke the connection. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Podsiadlik) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:01:28 CDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? Oh, Spamford had backup plans all right. After AGIS dropped him, he went over to Digex. Then he went to Sprint. (Might have been Sprint then Digex ...) Then he went to BBN Planet. The game of Internet Hot Potato ended with Wallace getting dropped by four different backbone providers in a span of 24 hours, a record which may well never be broken. A moment for the Internet history books, to be sure. Kevin Podsiadlik DSC Communications Corporation Internet: kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com 1000 Coit Road, Plano, Texas 75075 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Congratulations to the pholks who made it happen with their constant pinging, etc. But will it last? Will he be back in a day or three, meaner than ever? Let's watch and see. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #257 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 02:47:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA21948; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 02:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 02:47:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709240647.CAA21948@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #258 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 97 02:46:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Paula Pettis) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (G.L. Waltman) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Eric B. Morson) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Ken Dulin) Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? (Linc Madison) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Ray Morian) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Louis Raphael) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Trey Valenta) Re: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time (Dan Seyb) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Stan Cline) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (Ed Ellers) Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance (John Grout) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John R. Levine) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Leonid A. Broukhis) Re: Radio Vigilantes (James Bellaire) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (jf@oxy.edu) I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up! (Harry Bowman) 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@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 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paula Pettis Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:28:12 -0400 Reply to Thad Jacobs: Please check out our website. We have all of the existing NXX's but not the future ones. We update our software every month from the FCC tariff number 4. Paula Pettis Stuff Software 1249 Silver Palm Drive Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 Voice: (407) 290-2301 Fax: (407) 290-0079 http://www.stuffsoftware.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to point out that Paula Pettis has been a long-time regular supporter of the Digest and she maintains a link via the Telecom Archives web page which is well worth the time you might spend to take a look at the services her company offers. Her area code lists mentioned above are very complete and accurate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: G. L. Waltman Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: 23 Sep 1997 17:46:20 GMT Organization: Air Products and Chemicals Bellcore offers a good amount of information at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/index.html The information is updated monthly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:22:37 -0400 From: Eric B. Morson Reply-To: EasyE1@aol.com vSubject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? The most comprehensive NPA/NXX site is run by my friend John Cropper in NJ. His URL is http://www.lincs.net/areacode.htm Eric B. Morson EasyE1@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Ken Dulin Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:43:17 -0500 Organization: Arch Telecom, Inc. Reply-To: kend@archtelecom.com Thad Jacobs wrote: > Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's > by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come > and when their proposed effective date is as well? Your information is at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/update97.html Ken Dulin Arch Telecom, Inc. kend@(badspammer)archtelecom.com remove (badspammer) to email http://www.archtelecom.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: New and Existing NPA/NXX Index? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:51:53 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Thad Jacobs wrote: > Is there an online location to obtain, new and existing NPA and NXX's > by state for the whole country? Is there a list of new ones to come > and when their proposed effective date is as well? There are several. My web pages at < http://www.best.com/~eureka/telecom > focus on the new area codes and their mandatory effective dates, although I'm in the process of preparing a comprehensive listing by state and city, and some other new features, along with updating the basic info. (I just returned from a two-month vacation, so the pages are still on the July update.) John Cropper, a frequent contributor here, maintains web pages at < http://www.lincs.net > (That's an acronym LINCS; no relation to my name.) He has all area codes listed in a variety of sorting orders, and information about definite, proposed, and speculated future changes. Both pages also provide a variety of links to other sources. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:32:16 -0700 From: Ray Morian Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack >> Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > >> Dear Customers, 8< bunch of Spamford's whining deleted >8 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford > still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or > networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my > inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I > know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you > have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] I agree totally with you Pat! :) I also called AGIS's NOC and engineer as listed on the email and congratulated them :) ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone > any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on > Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his > circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one > of these days/nights, knowing human nature as I do, and knowing how > *really bitter and angry* a lot of netters are over his antics, but I > still cannot and would not condone it. Violence is never an answer to > the problems of the net. 8< snip >8 ] True, but humans being humans, the worst qualities of some people do tend to show through. Ray ** From and reply-to headers ROT-13'd to discourage other spammers ** Morian -- morian@globalserve.net -- http://www.globalserve.net/~morianFinger for copyright statement/disclaimer & PGP public key. ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 23 Sep 1997 02:11:53 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Kevin Podsiadlik (kjpodsia@spd.dsccc.com) wrote: > A moment for the Internet history books, to be sure. Indeed. Maybe, just *maybe*, a serious dent in the spam problem will be made. A few weeks ago, I had given up on the Internet, having decided to filter out what I could until the soon-to-come end. Now, I think that there may be a bit of hope - I've started complaining to spammers admins (etc) again. I'm also including my last twenty days worth of spam as a free "gift" to spammers whose addresses I can figure out for *sure*. It comes standard with an offer for a permanent subscription, to be activated by the sending of a second UCE. So far, no takers. No remove mechanism is provided, as subscription is strictly voluntary ... :-) ------------------------------ From: trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 23 Sep 1997 23:09:54 GMT Organization: Alternate Access Inc. In nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, > especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a > false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission > spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". The FTC has the power to take > action, so send them the evidence they need to do so. I suggest you DON'T do this. I can't find the article now, but the FTC recently put out a statement that the large numbers of people who were doing this is putting severe strain on the systems. Seems many have set their procmail scripts to do forwarding on any suspected UCE/spam. According to the FTC, they don't want to see the messages unless it's definately fraud related and overall abuse will result in them pulling the plug on the address or tracking the person down who is flooding their systms. I'll still look to see if I can find this post. Trey Valenta trey@zipcon.net Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tonight's Monday Night Bandwidth Chat 7-8PM Pacific Time Reply-To: d.seyb@telesciences.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 12:52:07 -0400 From: Dan Seyb Egad, Pat. I can kind of forgive the fact i didn't see the notice of the Monday night chat until Tuesday morning. From the header, the email reached me around 9PM yesterday. If I had been at work then, and I had read the mail immediately, I could have participated. What really annoyed me was the URL they listed for more information. (http://207.68.136.82/bandwidth/category1/forum5/cool/focus.htm) When I tried to view it, a popup window asked for an id and password. Their option, but I don't play that game. But that password window would NOT go away. I hit Cancel. The window came back. I hit Ok. I got an error message window. I hit Cancel on that window. The original password window came back. I hit Ok again. The error window came back. I tried Ok this time. The password window came back. Repeat until tired of it. I finally gave up and killed the entire session. Kind of a shame, too. If wireless access was wide spread and priced even reasonably close to wired modems, I would definitely be interested, and so would several of my friends. dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The timing on that message was really strange. I got it just three or four hours before the on-line meeting was due to start (I think about 6 pm central time) and probably would have not used it at all except that I was in the process of working on an issue of the Digest and figured that if I got it out right away probably a third to half the readers would see it in time if they cared to participate. I wish I had gotten a little more advance notice on it. I did not bother to go check the web page but just pushed it out ASAP in the issue then being prepared. I sort of appended it to the issue then in preparation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 02:00:58 GMT Organization: missing Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:58:27 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory > assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and > Portland, Ore. > Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? They are also offering this from the Atlanta area. I just dialed 00 (I'm PICed to AT&T) to check some rates for intraLATA calls for someone, and I was prompted with the usual options, plus this one: "For double-oh Info US Directory, press or say one" Also, I heard "For international directory assistance, press or say two". We all know how much AT&T charges for international DA ... It seems that AT&T is getting more and more gimmicky with calls to "00" -- every time I call for rates or other information, I'm asked if I want to have a call placed at the operator-HANDLED [high] rates. Then the voice-mail jail (say this, press that), and now this. For the record, I no longer use AT&T for LD DA, and haven't for several months -- I use LCI International on a casual-call basis (101-0432+) instead. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: 23 Sep 1997 01:53:58 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Jay R. Ashworth wrote: 'Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable?' All this means is that AT&T will now provide DA to callers who reach an AT&T operator by dialing 00. (Personally, I think Bellcore should have standardized 211 for the IXC operator, but who said they had a sense of history?) ------------------------------ From: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Here We Go _Again_ ... AT&T National Directory Assistance Date: 22 Sep 1997 20:53:37 -0500 Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Reply-To: john.grout@reasoning.com Jay R. Ashworth writes: > The following article was seen on the AP wire, and is included here for > commentary, under the fair use provision of US Copyright law. > AT&T on Monday began testing its new ``00'' Info national directory > assistance service in Minneapolis, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver and > Portland, Ore. > By dialing ``00'' customers in those areas will be able to obtain > telephone listings for any place in the United States - even if > they don't know the area code or city. > Um, does AT&T not realize that "00" is _taken_ as a dialable? Yes, it is ... it's a way to reach an IXC operator (though probably not one customer in twenty knows that, especially AT&T's customers, whom it has swaddled with catch phrases like "always dial 1-800-CALL-ATT"). Since "00" is already a dialing loophole which allows people to reach the long-distance network (and the possibility of making a billable long-distance call on lines which haven't been designated in advance as unbillable), it should already be blocked by institutions who want to rigidly control or eliminate long-distance calls. My former employer, the University of Illinois, was sensitive enough to the possibility of fraud and unauthorized billing to designate its lines as unbillable (relatively common, I believe) _and_ to limit direct access to the network (via PIC's) to the "big three" IXCs (AT&T, MCI, Sprint), whom it trusted enough to not present it with unwanted charges (either via 10xxx+0+ or 10xxx+00). If AT&T is trying another end-run around these sorts of institutional billing controls, I believe it will be even more quickly stomped than their last effort (an egregious attempt to use a toll-free dialing prefix) ... and I hope it would cost them some angry institutional customers. John R. Grout john.grout@reasoning.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, having 00 available for all users should not pose any real problems as long as billed number screening is in place. The operator may answer without looking closely at the computer screen but as soon as she attempts to forward the call the computer will refuse to do so; the operator will not be able to get rid of the call lacking some acceptable (third number, collect or credit card) billing. And if the caller says 'collect' she won't be able to push the call out if the distant end also has billed number screening in place. Naturally this assumes the long distance carrier subscribes to the database of billing-denied numbers or has one of their own; but is there anyone anywhere whose 00 defaults to Integratel? ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 1997 05:53:53 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. 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: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: 23 Sep 1997 16:21:54 -0700 Marc Baime writes: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. Can > both machines run at the same time? Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? > Where does the cable need to be split? Before coming into the cable > modem? Coming out of the cable modem? The safest way to do it without violating the contract with the ISP is to install the second network interface card in your computer. A hub connected to the cable modem will not do it, because if you connect more than one computer to a hub, you'll have unauthorized nodes in the segment. Leo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:10:50 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Ed Ellers wrote: > There are reports out of Elkhart, Indiana, that two people who have > taken a dislike to the operators of a local amateur radio repeater > have been devising some ingenious ways of jamming it (as opposed to > just transmitting jamming signals from their own location). For one > thing, they put small jammer transmitters inside beach balls and left > them at the beach. In another incident, they bought a new TV set from > Wal-Mart, installed a jammer inside, repacked it and returned it for a > refund; Wal-Mart then resold the TV to an innocent customer who didn't > know that he was "interfering with" emergency communications. > Supposedly one of their jammers even included a seismometer to shut it > down if it detected people walking near it (say, with direction-finding > receivers). The repeater in question is on the tower of a 50kW ERP FM station south of town. The repeater is used for Elkhart County SKYWARN, which provides severe storm spotting and disaster relief. Jammers have been found all over the place, including in the woods across the street from the tower site, floating in the Elkhart River, and hung on one of the AM towers in the array next to the FM. The perpatrators have trespassed on both the transmitter site and on private property near it. And they have been doing this occasional blocking for more than a year, usually using small transmitters in sandwitch sized containers. Local news reports have been sketchy. There has been coverage on South Bend TV Stations as well as in newspapers. But it is not a daily issue. A related report about a CBer in South Bend, who has a large power amp and kills most of his neighbor's TV, Portable Phones, and Radios (not to mention a church PA system) talking to his trucker buddies was aired last month. The local police reported him to the FCC and that was it. No local action has been taken. (He still has all of his equipment.) > The Elkhart police know who these characters are but have no jurisdiction > in the case; there has been no word on any action by the FCC. The repeater is outside of Elkhart City, so I must assume that you mean Elkhart County Police. Both Wal-Marts in Elkhart County are in Goshen, once again a job for County or State police (or Goshen City Police on that one part of the issue). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Elkhart police most certainly > would have jurisdiction in some aspects of it. The incident with the > television set which was tampered with and returned constitutes fraud > against Wal-Mart and the re-buyer of the merchandise. The behavior in > general of the individuals involved would also most certainly qualify > as disorderly conduct and the Elkhart police could act on that as > well. Proof is the hard part. They would need to trace the exact television that was bought, returned and resold AND prove that the tampering was done by the people who returned it. Actually seeing these guys place a transmitter would be handy too. Their tampering is spread out enough that most of the leads die off before the next incident. I would love to see these guys caught and punished. But it needs to be proven otherwise they will just walk away. > Furthermore, police are charged with the duty of enforcing *all > laws* whether of a local, state or federal nature, however they would > of course refer a federal matter to federal authorities. PAT] I wonder what level the federal authorities would place this at? James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the 1970's there were a lot of guys with the knowledge and equipment to convert CB radios into ten- meter transceivers. They would buy new radios a dozen or so at a time in stores like Wal-Mart where the clerks had no idea how the radio was supposed to work and didn't care anyway after first ascertaining that the model being sold was using the Motorola 02-A programmable chip for channel selection. They would take these new radios back to their bench and 'do the mods', meaning they would cut a couple traces on the circuit board, add a jumper here and there, tweak a couple of the trim-pots to get the radio to oscillate properly at a greatly expanded coverage range and then sell these units to the general public with something like 80-120 'channels' or frequencies instead of the 40 authorized by the FCC. Guys who were good at it and had decent circuitry to work with and a very steady hand to adjust the trim-pots could get those radios to oscillate all the way up in ten meters, and clear down in many cases to the low 26-megs territory. Illegal as hell, but those modified units sold like hotcakes on the street. Well, accidents would happen now and then; the pirate tech- nician would forget to check his solder maybe, or leave the slightest bit of wire in contact somewhere it should not be and the chip in the radio would get blown to kingdom come ... but not to worry, the pirates had a solution for that also. They would *carefully* remove the parts they wanted from the damaged radio and inventory them for use in *other* radios. Then they would *carefully* put the case back together so it appeared it had never been opened, put it back in the original carton, and take it with their receipt back to the store to get their money back or (more likely) a new radio. At Wal-Mart or K-Mart or wherever, the disinterested and not too bright sixteen year old clerk would just mark the unit 'defective' and toss it in a pile with others and give the customer his money back or a new radio. The pirate techs would not try this too often at Radio Shack; the clerks at Radio Shack after all would hand out xeroxed instructions for the mods about the time the customer was walking out the door with his new radio ("oh here, some customer left this 'hobbyist' guide to radios on the counter in case anyone wanted one ...") which were always anonymously written, etc on typewriters with a couple of crude drawings/sketches showing where the jumpers were to be attached and the traces cut. If you went back to Radio Shack the next day with a unit that 'seems to be defective' you better bet the clerk would stare you right in the face and tell you what you were full of. If the clerk himself was corrupt he'd snicker, toss the radio in the defects pile and give you a new one but some clerks would quickly stamp the phrase "as is, no refunds" on the customer's reciept and tell him that was so he could not go to some other RS store and 'try to hand them the same line of bull you just gave me ...' sending the pirate away with the junky radio. Whatever; a certain number of radios whether via Wal-Mart, Radio Shack or some discount store found their way back to Japan or Hong Kong or China to the one factory where all radios are made despite the brand name on the unit. Stores everywhere would return the 'defective units' for credit. Imagine then quality control inspectors in Japan opening up the radios and looking inside to 'see what was wrong' ... Japanese man takes off the cover, peers inside, flabbergasted, says to his co-workers at the factory, "Holy Chr---! Look at this! How did this peice of junk get passed quality control inspection? No heat sink, no zenner diode, no final, no knobs on the front! " ... Because of course whoever had 'done the mods' on that radio and blew it up in the process had cannibalized what was left on the circuit board to use in other radios he was repairing and then boxed it back up and took it to the teeny-bopper at the customer service counter at the mall to get a refund, and with a straight face yet. Finally the number of pirate radios in service got to be such a joke with people telling others openly 'you got channel 72 on your radio? I'll meet you there ...' that the FCC finally got sore about it. Any attempt to police individual users operating 'out of band' on the pirate frequencies was in vain. The FCC's response was one day to go to Motorola with a formal demand that they cease production of the 02-A chip. They also went to Fort Worth to meet with Radio Shack executives and told them to get their sales clerks to 'can the crap' and quit giving out illegal mod sheets 'under some thinly disguised BS having to do with the First Amendment and free speech.' Both Motorola and Radio Shack were threatened by the FCC with large fines and lots of grief if they did not comply. In Radio Shack's case, within a couple days the word went from Ft. Worth to the stores that there was never again to be any discussion of 'the mods'. The rule was, talk about the mods and you'll get fired. Within a year or so all new CB Radios had their frequency selection/tuning stuff in ROM (read only memory) chips and in the case of Radio Shack, with a checksum kind of thing where you could hack all you wanted, but if the checksum did not match the radio would just remain silent. In those years, I had a Uniden CB with a device called a 'digi-scan' attached with a ribbon connector in place of the usual channel selector knob. The Uniden radios could be expanded to six hundred channels. Those were great days -- or nights perhaps, as I seldom got on the radio much before midnight -- and like today's internet, once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jf@oxy.edu Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:45:55 -0800 Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: jf@oxy.edu Why can't MedicAlert just purchase remote-call forwarding or foreign-exchange lines or work out something with the phone company? What am I missing here? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:01:33 -0400 From: Harry Bowman Subject: I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up! There seems to be some confusion about what Medic Alert's product is. The "I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up" gadget is marketed under the brand name "Lifecall". They appear to be sold in Canada, according to a web search, by VOXCOM Security Systems. The Medic Alert Foundation is a nonprofit, tax exempt corporation and therefore probably doesn't advertize on TV. There is a contact number on their web page (1-800-736-3342) for information. Their Director of Communications has two numbers listed, one of which is (209) 668-3333. I assume that means I have the right people. The page I found is at: http://www.social.com/health/nhic/data/hr0400/hr0494.html. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #258 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Sep 24 22:20:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA07221; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709250220.WAA07221@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #259 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Sep 97 22:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T '00' Directory and Other AT&T 'Gimmicks' (Mark J. Cuccia) 559 Announced For 209 Split (John Cropper) Slammed - Fraud? (Charles Beatty) Security Alarm Problem Due to Area Code Change (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Patrick Tufts) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:47:01 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T '00' Directory and Other AT&T 'Gimmicks' The New Orleans area does _NOT_ yet have this AT&T '00' Directory. When I dial '00' from a line 'PICd' to AT&T (or 10(10)288+0(#/0) from any non-restricted line), I route via the Jackson MS AT&T #5ESS OSPS switch (601-0T, JCSNMSPS06T), where I hear the AT&T 'sparkle' jingle with audio brand/logo. I then hear the recorded instructions to enter the number I wish to call, or for an operator -- to enter '0' or say 'Operator'. (The 'live' operators that I reach can be located anywhere along the southern part of the east coast, from Maryland to Florida -- i.e. BellAtlantic's old C&P territory or BellSouth's old Southern Bell territory). But I understand that the AT&T OSPS switch which serves Minneapolis MN (in the US West territory), 515-0T, in Des Moines IA, is now giving the option to enter/say '1' for Directory Assistance, upon dialing an AT&T '00' Operator. A friend in Minneapolis 'three-wayed' me to his AT&T '00' code, so I could hear the new prompts AT&T is now giving. AND FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME, THIS DIRECTORY OPTION (for lookups of US numbers) is HANDLED BY ***EXCELL-AGENCY***, and is _NOT_ the AT&T OSPS operator initially reached searching a database or verifying listings from the far-end genuine-Bell/LEC 'inward' directory operator! OKAY ... so here is yet ANOTHER gimmick from AT&T! :( BTW, when AT&T's operators connect to directory operators outside of the NANP (i.e. 'international' and overseas countries) it now costs anywhere from $7.00 to $10.00, depending on the country! :( Maybe the ITU should develop a standard number, similar to the NANP's 555-1212, which would work in _any_ participating country's code, for customers around the world to _dial_ to a directory assistance operator in the far-end country's LEC! Stan Cline (roamer1@pobox.com) is CERTAINLY correct that AT&T is getting more and more 'gimmicky' about a lot of things. And IMO, there are a lot of 'bugs' in these new gimmick services. Let's see, there's: "True" (?) Messages International-Redial Directory-Link and others I'm not going to go into any detail on the above three named services, as I've gone into detail on the problems associated with them in past issues of TELECOM Digest. Unfortunately, if one doesn't need or want one of these new features or services to intrude on a call-setup, it can be difficult -- even IMPOSSIBLE to have the prompts turned off for your calling-card or line. I have been successful in having the prompts turned off for Directory-Link from my line (for 1+ calls), however I have not been able to have AT&T turn off the prompts on outgoing calls billed to my AT&T or BellSouth calling card numbers, such as for when placing calls to (Canadian/Caribbean) NPA-555-1212 when I'm not at home. International Redial (on my home line, 1+) could have been a nice AT&T feature, but its prompts came in on (non-suping) calls to numbers being intercepted by the far-end LEC with a new number referral. I finally had to have AT&T turn off International Redial from my home line. Presently, True-Message prompts don't intrude 1+ calls dialed from my home line, but I have not been successful in having it turned off on my outgoing calls billed to my AT&T/LEC calling card numbers, nor having True-Message prompts being disabled on any AT&T-handled incoming calls to my line, since I have forwarding to cellular, as well as voicemail on my line, therefore True-Message prompts to the calling party aren't necessary! While many LECs are offering "if called-line is busy/unanswered you can record-a-message for delayed delivery, for-a-FEE" services/prompts similar to AT&T's True-Messages (on 'direct-dialed' local and intra-LATA calls), the LEC-provided services is usually something that one can turn-off on a per-call or per-line basis from a particular line with an end-office-based *XX/11XX code (I think it is *02/1102 and *03/1103). But AT&T's True-Messages is a bit different, as it is based on the OSPS operator switch, and its prompts intrude on calling card calls when not at home. As for AT&T's choice of routing to directory assistance for (US) NPA-555-1212, I think that AT&T is now routing to Excell-Agency (instead of the genuine called-end Bell/LEC directory operator for calls to _MOST_ (US) NPAs on 555-1212 calls. This now includes AT&T handled calls to Alaska, 907-555-1212. I'm not sure about Hawaii, whether AT&T is routing to Excell (or some other contract agency) or rather continuing to route to GTE-Hawaii; I don't know if AT&T-handled calls to CT's 203 and 860 directory continues to route to SNET directory or if it now routes to Excell; Neither do I know if AT&T continues to route to Cincinnati Bell on AT&T handled calls to 513-555-1212, or if AT&T now routes to Excel. I do know that AT&T does _NOT_ route the following LECs anymore when a customer dials 555-1212 for one of those LEC's NPAs: US West, Pac*Bell/Nevada*Bell and Southwestern Bell, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, but rather routes to Excel. (However in the case of AT&T-handled calls to 555-1212 for Bell Atlantic's old C&P states/NPAs [MD, DC, VA, WVa], the routing is to CFW, which is a genuine incumbent _independent_ LEC, located in the Virginia area. CFW is supposed to have access to the actual BellAtlantic directory database). I assume that AT&T-handled calls to an Ameritech NPA for 555-1212 is also now routing to Excel, but I don't know for certain. Therefore, while I do place the vast majority of my traffic via AT&T, I am now placing _ALL_ calls to directory (outside of my local Bell South area 1/0-411) via Sprint, as 10(10)333+1+NPA-555-1212 (when dialing from home), or via one of several Sprint 800- access numbers, and billing to my Sprint FON-cards or one of my BellSouth calling-cards. AT&T _DOES_ continue to route calls to the genuine LEC directory operator for Canada's NPAs on 555-1212 (it seems that Excel doesn't even try to (mis)compile Canadian data. And for the Caribbean NPA(s), AT&T routes 555-1212 to either its "AT&T, What Island, Please?" intercept-and-route (and monitor the connection) operator; or they are beginning to route Caribbean NPAs (except for 809 itself) 555-1212 directly to the island's directory operator itself. And AT&T routes 670-555-1212 to the Northern Mariana's own directory operator, and 671-555-1212 to Guam's own directory operator. Other 'gimmicks' of AT&T that I don't like ... When I dial '00' from a line 'PICd' to AT&T, or 10(10)288+0(#/0), I would prefer to go LIVE AND DIRECT to a HUMAN BEING who answers the line. I do NOT like having to hear a litany of menu-prompts (even though I can DTMF enter '0' to cut-thru), nor those _pre-recorded_ generic male and female voices: "AT&T, How may I help you?" "AT&T, What is the number you are calling from?" "AT&T, the overtime charge is ..." "Thank You" etc. Nor do I like the inquiry from the operator (as Stan mentions), "Would you like for me to place a call for you at the OPERATOR-HANDLED rate?" NO! I'm only calling the operator for a nameplace, a rate, an area code or dialing instructions, etc. I am still going to dial the call MYSELF, and SAVE! And if I am having trouble getting through, I would like it to be the way it was up until about five years ago ... _IF_ I explain to the AT&T operator that there is a trouble condition, she would handle the call for me, but at the cheaper customer-dialed rates. But OH NO, they don't seem to want to do it that way anymore! :( Of course, if all of the operator 'teams' are all busy, I can understand a pre-recorded message coming on the line and stating that all operator positions are busy at the moment, and to continue to hold for the next available operator. But _I_ still want '00' (or similar) to route to a live person, and _not_ automated prompts/responses. AT&T operators are _still_ the only operators who can handle certain types of calls which MCI and Sprint don't choose to do. And if AT&T (or any carrier) wants to introduce a new service or function (such as Directory Link, True Messages, International Redial, etc), there SHOULD be some form of industry numbering and dialing standard, as well as operational standard, agreed upon by the industry forums and Bellcore NANPA/TRA/etc. Even if other companies don't choose to introduce the new service, at least there will be a standard out there so as not to cause customer dialing confusion or conflicts whenever other carriers begin to provide the same new service. At least the industry has attempted on a numbering/dialing standard with SAC-NPA 500 (although THAT still isn't 100% perfect!). Most features provided by most LECs SEEM to follow some form of Bellcore or ATIS forum dialing/numbering and network operations/interconnection standard. Is the "voice-with-a-smile" going to be COMPLETELY replaced by a robot? NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 559 Announced For 209 Split Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:40:03 -0400 Thanks to Eric once again for this tip: SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 24, 1997--The California Public Utilities Commission has approved boundaries for the geographic split of Central California's 209 area code, but has also reserved the possibility of modifying that decision pending the outcome of Fresno County's complaint case. The new area code, 559, to be introduced Nov. 14, 1998, will serve Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kings Counties and small portions of seven other counties in the southern portion of San Joaquin Valley now served by the 209 area code. Needed to meet increasing demand caused by the deregulation of the telephone industry and the explosion of high technology, 559 will be California's 23rd area code. California has more area codes than any other state in the nation. The addition of the new 559 area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. A six-month "get acquainted" period will begin on Nov. 14, 1998 that will allow customers to dial either 209 or 559. During this period, people calling from outside the area can dial either the old 209 or the new 559 to reach customers within the 559 area code. Customers within the two area codes will also be able to call between the two geographical areas using only the seven-digit phone number for the six-month "get acquainted" period. New Area Code Boundaries -- The boundaries for the area code split generally runs along the Madera County line where it borders on Mariposa and Merced counties. The northern region will retain the 209 area code and the southern region will be assigned to the new 559 area code. -- The northern region which will retain the 209 area code includes: Tuolumne, Calaveras and Amador counties, most of Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Mariposa counties and very small parts of Madera, Fresno, Sacramento, El Dorado, Alpine, Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. Cities in the northern region include: Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Sonora and Merced. -- The new 559 area code will serve customers in the southern region that contains: most of Fresno, Madera, Tulare, and Kings counties, and very small portions of Merced, Mariposa, Mono, Inyo, San Benito, Monterey and Kern counties. Cities in the southern region include: Fresno, Madera, Hanford, Visalia, Lindsay and Porterville. The estimated life-span of the 559 area code is expected to be 13 to 15 years. According to California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, "It will be a long time before the customers in the south will have to worry about another area code change." Hescox noted that new area code could last up to four years longer than the 209 area code in the north. Public Input Crucial to Finalizing Area Code Boundaries Hescox, who coordinates area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry, recognized the difficulty in determining which area was to retain the 209 area code. "A series of public hearings were held to receive comment specifically about which region should keep the 209 area code," Hescox said. "We received a lot of valuable information at these meetings and through letters that helped us in making our final recommendation." Several key issues were cited in retaining the 209 number in the northern region. Important factors include: a worldwide emergency medical information service and a major military support service are located in the north; the north has more telephone prefixes available and strong ties to its surrounding area codes, including those in the Bay Area. Call Price is Not Impacted by Area Code Split Introduction of the new 559 area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. "What is a local call now will remain a local call regardless of the area code change. Call distance and time determines the price of a call, not whether or not you dial an area code," said Hescox. Confirm Equipment Can Accommodate the New 559 Area Code In 1995, a series of new-style of area codes was introduced in North America, and 559 is part of this new series that can use any three digits from 220 to 999. This new style of area codes has special ramifications for certain types of telecommunications equipment, which must be re-programmed to recognize the new format. "Historically, area codes always had either a '1' or '0' as the middle digit for identification purposes, but by 1995 all of those codes had been assigned," Hescox stated. "Due to this change in format, it's important for customers to know that PBX (private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other telecommunications equipment may have to be re-programmed to recognize the new-style area codes in order for calls to complete," added Hescox. Customers affected by the area code split should contact their personal vendors to determine if their equipment needs to be updated. Things to Remember During the six-month "get acquainted" period which will enable the customer to use either the 209 or 559 area code, customers are being encouraged to use this period to make important changes. These include: -- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new area code; -- Notify friends, relatives, business clients and customers of the new area code; -- Update fax machine group calling lists that have numbers affected by the change; -- Reprogram speed dialers, auto dialers, alarms and PBX (private phone systems) to reflect the change (contact your equipment vendor for assistance); -- Reprogram outdial lists on personal computers that have numbers affected by the change; -- Check with wireless phone and paging service providers to find out if re-programming is required. The 209 area code relief plan was collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group composed of more than 30 companies, including: AirTouch, AT&T, AT&T Wireless, the California Cable Television Association, GTE, MCI, Pacific Bell, Page Net, Sprint and others. Public comment was gathered through a series of public hearings that were held in October 1996, and March and April 1997. The California Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning and administers numbering resources on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. ------------------------------------ John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 ICQ: 2670887 FREE areacode information: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ $17.95 unlimited analog, or $29.95 unlimited ISDN dial-up: http://www.lincs.net/internet/dialup.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:51:55 -0400 From: Charles Beatty Subject: Slammed - Fraud? Organization: Genome Database We were recently slammed. The story is a little more unusual and disturbing than simply being slammed though. Last month a service charge from Accutel of Boca Raton, FL showed up on our bill. I finally got through to a vice president at Accutel. She told me that they had purchased the cutomer base of a company called Christian Communications Group of Savannah, GA. The owner of Christian Communications is one Pastor Ralph Davis. He may also be doing business as Least Cost Routing. Now I don't believe for a second that Davis is a pastor, or that Christian Communicatons is anything but a scam. The disturbing part is that they have my wife's social security number. This is apparently sufficient to authorize a switch of LD carriers. Has anyone heard of Christian Communicatons? Least Cost Routing? "Pastor" Ralph Davis? Is there anything we can do to limit the distribution of my wife's SS# ? Do we have any kind of legal recourse? This is particularly upsetting since my wife's mother was just the victim of credit card fraud because someone got her SS#. Thanks in advance for any help or pointers. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:52:41 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change The following item is excerpted from a copyright story which appeared in the {Boston Globe} on September 11, 1997: HOME SECURITY FIRMS SOUND ALARM ON TIMING OF AREA CODE CHANGES By Bruce Mohl The state's area code problems appear to be far from over, as alarm companies warned yesterday that tens of thousands of their customers won't have working alarms if the initial phase-in period for the new area codes is not extended beyond Dec. 1. Executives from four alarm companies told the Legislature's Government Regulations Committee that three months -- the current period when either new or old area codes may be used -- is not enough time to manually reprogram each of their customers' alarms. In most cases, home visits are required. Although they acknowledged their numbers are rough guesses, the executives said as many as 400,000 business and residential customers could be left without alarm service for fire, medical, and burglary emergencies starting Dec. 1. "The stage is set for a firestorm," warned Richard L. Sampson, president of American Alarm & Communications Inc. in Arlington. James W. Lees, chief executive of Sentry Protective Systems in Malden, said alarm companies need six to nine months to convert all the systems. He said 5,200 of his 8,000 customers would go without service temporarily if the initial phase-in period is not extended. Bell Atlantic has already asked the state Department of Public Utilities to extend the period when customers can dial numbers using either the new or old area codes, but only by one month to Jan. 1. Jack Hoey, a spokesman for Bell Atlantic, said the company will work with the alarm companies, but he cautioned that the transition process can only be delayed so long. "They're looking for time that doesn't exist," Hoey said. "In some cases, they may need to hire people to get the job done." Most alarm companies have already started charging their customers more to pay for the reprogramming effort. Sentry is charging customers $25 or $39.95, depending on whether a home visit is required. Plans call for the phase-in period to end Dec. 1, after which callers dialing the wrong area code will hear a recorded message telling them to redial. As of May 1, the new area codes begin full operation, and consumers dialing a number with the wrong area code could be connected to someone who has been given that number. Lawmakers were sympathetic to the alarm company concerns and expressed hope that the so-called permissive dialing period could be extended another three months. Otherwise, the lawmakers said, they may have to force the issue with legislation. "That would be unfortunate. What you're dealing with here is a mathematical and technical problem, not a political problem," Hoey said. Bell Atlantic is also appealing to the DPU to forgo a system that would require callers to dial 10 numbers (the area code and number) when calling people who are in the local calling area but in a different area code. Bell Atlantic says the system is confusing to customers. Lawmakers will also have to deal with a bill filed by Acting Governor Paul Cellucci to boot Belmont and Watertown out of 617 and back to 781 where the communities originally started. Senator Michael Morrissey of Quincy said he supports putting Belmont and Watertown back in 781, but his House counterpart, Representative Daniel Bosley of North Adams, said it may be too late and too costly to make the change now. Senator Warren Tolman of Watertown said reprinting phone books to correct the area code boundaries and distributing them to customers would cost between $3.5 million and $4 million. ------------------------------ From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 24 Sep 1997 17:40:49 GMT Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA Ray Morian writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford >> still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or >> networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? According to news.admin.net-abuse.email, after he lost AGIS, Wallace got hosted on and immediately booted from four other ISPs (including Digex and BBNPlanet) in as many days. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, I certainly cannot condone >> any unlawful activities, which I guess would cover a commando raid on >> Spamford's heaquarters, busting up his computers, tearing down all his >> circuits, etc. I mean, I would not be surprised to see it happen one According to the same newsgroup, Cyberpromo still owes Compuserve $30,000. Also, Cyberpromo promised $10/day for any outage experienced by one of their (spammer) customers. Wallace is probably maxing out his credit cards and fleeing for Mexico. Pat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone attempted to contact him at his office (or home or wherever) and get the details on these latest allegations; i.e. money owed to Compuserve and his plans for the future? Is there any activity at his office at all such as phones being answered, a customer service rep on duty, etc, or is his office abandoned? The other day I was helping someone who has a problem with rodent infestation in their basement. I put out lots of 'nice, tasty food' the little guys would be sure to like -- heh! heh! -- and already today the results were obvious. Several bloated and quite dead little carcasses near the food dish I had prepared. This leads me to my final question for this issue: how severe is this rodent infestation on the net? Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any guesstimates? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #259 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 21:06:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA22786; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709260106.VAA22786@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #260 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 97 21:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Mark J. Cuccia) Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone (Donald M. Heiberg) 888 Shortage Hits Toll-Free Phone Industry (Monty Solomon) Fun in Elkhart, IN (was Re: Radio Vigilantes) (Bill Levant) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:18:20 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today I am _NOT_ titling this post with "Last Laugh" as part of the subject line. While I do intend some sarcasm/irony further down, the fictitious situation described here is _NOT_ funny. Background: "Suspense" was a dramatic anthology radio series that ran for 20 years on the CBS Radio Network (Columbia Broadcasting System), from 1942 to 1962. An 'anthology' is a series in which each episode is a totally different story/situation (and cast of characters), with no situation 'thread' to any other episode (similar to CBS-TV's "Twilight Zone", 1959-64). Many stories which aired on "Suspense" were, however _re-performed_ by either most or all of the original cast, or a brand new cast of players (voices); however in the later years of the original run of the series, many repeated episodes were actual _reruns_ of tapes (or transcription disks) of an original or earlier episode. One of the most popular and 'spine-tingling' episodes which aired on Suspense was "Sorry, Wrong Number", written by Lucille Fletcher. This story aired eight different times during Suspense's twenty year run on CBS Radio. The airings in the later years of Suspense were actually reruns, rather than re-performances. However, Agnes Morehead (who later played Samantha's mother on "Bewitched" on ABC-TV) always starred as the bed-ridden invalid, who is frightened by a mysterious telephone call that she overheard. The story starts out where she is trying to call her husband at work. He is working late that evening, and she is alone, in her bed. While she does have a telephone next to her on the nightstand, this is the 1940's or 1950's, long before the "Lifecall" autodialing devices first came on the market. Due to the constant busy signals while calling her husband's office number, she finally dials '0' for the operator to 'check' the line. When the operator dials the number, she hears ringing, and then the line is answered by _two_ men. Somehow, she gets cut into someone else's conversation. She can hear both of them, but they cannot hear her. What the two men are discussing is planning ... a MURDER! Obviously, she is quite upset about this, but what she doesn't realize until the end of the episode (and her own life) is that the two men are planning HER murder! Her husband was going to have her killed for the insurance money. After a few minutes, the connection is broken. Agnes gets the operator on the line again, asking her to "misdial" that "wrong" number, but all we hear are busy signals. Agnes demands to speak with a supervisor and even the Chief Operator to see if the numbers of the two men can be traced. The operators and supervisors tell her that she should call the Police, and even place the call for her. Agnes gets a 'run-around' from the Police precinct desk-sergeant. But she is still worried and concerned about hearing the telephone call with a murder being planned. She calls up the operator again, who is unable to help her further with her request. Eventually, Agnes gets a telephone call from Western Union. There is a telegram for her, which Western Union is going to read over the telephone. The telegram is from her husband. He has been trying to call her all evening, but her line has been busy. He needs to go out of town for the evening, and tells her not to worry. The telephone is right next to her bed. This gets Agnes more worried and nervous. She calls information to get the number of a private hospital (Sanitorium) that she had stayed at once before, to either hire a private nurse for the evening, or to even have an ambulance take her to the hospital and check-in. She then notices that her clock has stopped, and she hangs up on the hospital, to call the Time-of-Day recording (MEridien-7-1212) for the correct time. When she heard the two men plotting the murder, they said that the victim would be stabbed at 11:15 pm that night. It is now 11:10pm, and she hears a noise downstairs. NOW she begins to think that SHE is the unnamed murder victim mentioned in the telephone call that she heard earlier that evening. She picks up the handset on the telephone and dials '0' for the Operator. When the operator comes on the line, she says that it is an emergency and needs the Police. The operator connects, and the ringing indication can be heard through her receiver. A train is passing just outside of her room, and the rumbling can be heard. Then, you hear Agnes begin to scream "NO! NO! PLEASE, DON'T COME NEAR ME! NO! HELP!" Just then, the train lets out a loud whistle and horn, and Agnes lets out one high-pitched blood-curdling SHREAK! As she dies, the (metal-housing) telephone clangs to the floor. However, the ringing-tone of the connection to the Police can still be heard. They haven't yet answered. Finally, a voice comes from the receiver, "Police Department, Precinct 43, Sergeant Martin speaking". The voice can be heard repeating it a couple more times. Then a man's voice is heard in the late Agnes' bedroom speaking into the phone: "Police Department??? Sorry, this must be a wrong number. Don't worry, everything is OK, here". (Music up- end of episode) --------------- There are some references in the dialogue that the story takes place in New York City, although for most of its run, Suspense was produced in Hollywood. Therefore, New York Telephone (later NYNEX, now Bell Atlantic) would be the local exchange telephone company. Also, I have described the story as I have heard it on several of its performances by Agnes Morehead on Suspense. A motion picture version of "Sorry, Wrong Number" was also done, starring Miss Barbara Stanwyck. who also starred in the "Lux Radio Theater" recreation of the movie version. I have seen only part of the movie (I think that AMC, American Movie Classics has run the "Sorry, Wrong Number" movie before), and I did once hear a tape of the "Lux Radio Theater" version, which was an expanded story over the "Suspense" radio version. Now, lets flash-forward to a post-divestiture telephone environment. And here is where I will give two different scenarios, with some sarcasm. Also, while 911 is the 'standard' emergency access number in the North American Numbering Plan, one can always call the Operator in the case of an emergency. The operator has (is supposed to have) a special bulletin at her position indicating the emergency reporting numbers (or operator routing codes to such) of various emergency agencies and jurisdictions in the territory where she might receive calls from. Also, not every part of the US and Canada necessarily have the 911 emergency number in operation. The first scenario is the late 1980's or early 1990's. While AT&T and its now-divested local Bell Operating Companies had separated basic operator services, with AT&T retaining the older pre-divestiture TSPS Operator network, and the LECs starting up their own new (usually TOPS although some LECs have OSPS) operator systems for intra-LATA 'only' services. Dialing a '0' would get the intra-LATA 'only' LEC operator (the 'new' operator system in most parts of the US), while dialing '00' would route to the operator services of your primary IXC's operator services, if they offered such. If your chosen primary long-distance carrier didn't have any operator services, '00' would route to either a re-order, a recorded announcement, or in some cases, the operator services of a different long-distance carrier which had contacted with your LD-carrier, to provice operator services. Now, let's assume that Agnes' line is presubscribed to AT&T. Around the late 1980's, for a few years, AT&T operators and TOPS/OSPS would _NOT_ be able to assist on intra-LATA calls. Even calling-card sequence-calls via AT&T could only be to points _outside_ of the LATA you were calling from. That has since changed ... AT&T live operators and the OSPS system can be used for intra-LATA calls (at AT&T's prices which could be lower - or sometimes higher - than what the LEC would charge for the same call), but AT&T's "no inTRA-LATA assistance" was problematic for about a year or two during the timeframe mentioned here. Okay. Agnes dials '0' for the operator to ask for the Police. She forgets that 911 could also be dialed (New York City has had 911 for emergencies, for DECADES, since probably the late 1960's). Now, when one dials '0', there is a three-to-five second delay before connecting with the (LEC) Operator switch. Since there 'could' be digits to follow the (initial) '0', such as in 0+ calls, '00' (i.e., a _second_ '0' after the initial '0'), or IDDD calls 01(1)+country-code-etc., there is this delay before your local end-office times-out and connects you with your LEC '0' TOPS (or OSPS) although you could DTMF a '#' button right after the single '0', which is supposed to time-out right away, cutting through to your LEC TOPS. However, Agnes is in a highly frantic state. When she doesn't hear anything right away after dialing '0', she dials it a second time, before she would have timed-out to the NYNEX TOPS operator. Now, her end-office routes a '00' call over to the operator services of her primary carrier. In this case, it would route to AT&T's TSPS/OSPS. A live AT&T operator comes on the line, "AT&T Operator, how may I help you?". Agnes screams "Get me the POLICE, PLEASE, HURRY!". However, the AT&T operator comes back "I'm sorry, Ma'm, but that call is in your NYNEX LATA. You will have to hang-up and dial your local NYNEX operator with a SINGLE '0'", and then disconnects! Of course, even though the LEC operators aren't (usually) allowed or even capable of handling (most) inTER-LATA calls ... and circa 1990, AT&T's operators weren't supposed to be handling inTRA-LATA calls, there have always been ways to over-ride such blockings at the TOPS or TSPS/OSPS equipment, in case of emergencies. Such inTRA-LATA over-ride by AT&T _would_ have been handled in the above situation. Also, if a county straddled multiple LATAs, and the Sheriff's office was not in your LATA, a LEC single-0 operator would always be able to over-ride and connect to them even though it is 'technically' outside of the LATA of the requesting calling party. Now, lets fast-forward again, to a second scenario, mid-to-late-1990s and onward. Again, Agnes dials '0', followed within five-seconds by a second '0', since the POTENTIAL extra-digits delay is confusing. Again, she routes to the AT&T OSPS, but this time, not to a live human AT&T Operator, but rather the AT&T 'sparkle' jingle and AT&T audio branding logo. Next comes a pre-recorded menu: "This is AT&T. To place a call, please enter the number you are calling. For AT&T 'double-oh' information, please press or say '1'. For all other assistance, please say 'information', 'credit', or 'operator', now". In her frantic state, Agnes begins to scream: "HELP! POLICE! ... EMERGENCY!" Would the automated system then state: "I'm sorry, I did not understand your voice-response. Please say 'information', 'credit', or 'operator', now. OR, please stay on the line, and an operator will answer" ??? Or is the system 'smart' enough to attempt to recognize such words as: 'help', 'police', 'emergency', 'fire', 'ambulance', 'hospital', etc. to connect a live AT&T operator _RIGHT AWAY_ who will assist in such an emergency situation? All of these pre-recorded auto-prompts _could_ delay one in receiving live operator assistance in a bona-fide emergency situation. As I mentioned earlier, not all originating locations have any active 911 service. And whether or not a location has 911 service, the telco operator is always supposed to be available for Emergency assistance. But since single-0 most of the time includes a 3-to-5 second delay before timing out to a LEC operator (due to POSSIBLE additional digits following an initial '0'), some might dial a _second_ '0' within the delay period, thus routing to the operator services of one's primary LD-company. Of course, one could dial '0' followed by (DTMF-ing) a '#' (pound-button) thus cancelling the 3-to-5 second delay, and cutting thru right-away to the LEC operator, but how my people of the 'general public' would even _know_ to use the '#' button!? And what about the many rotary dial phones out there! I do expect that AT&T, MCI and Sprint-LD operators (when a live human operator is finally reached) would be properly trained to know how to handle emergency call situations. But it is going to get more-and-more complicated with local telco competition, and also as AT&T operators begin to receive calls from larger and more varied geographic territory. I mentioned in an earlier post, that when I call an AT&T operator from New Orleans, the AT&T #5ESS OSPS switch that serves me is located in Jackson MS (601-0T, JCSNMSPS06T), however the operators themselves are located on the southern part of the east coast, anywhere from Maryland to Florida - i.e. Bell Atlantic's former C&P Telephone territory (MD, DC, VA, WVa) and Bell South's former Southern Bell territory (NC, SC, GA, FL). And as for A-O-Slime operators serving private "COCOT" payphones, I _have_ read of situations where these operators have COMPLETELY BUNGLED emergency calls. I don't know if anyone actually lost their life due to such A-O-Slime incompetancy on handling emergency calls. However, many of us know that these companies are now using _all kinds_ of automated menus and prompts on "0-" (zero-minus) types of dialed calls. This can delay reaching operator assistance in an emergency, as well as the COCOT (and even telco-owned) 'chip-dialing' payphones will delay for a few seconds on the customer entering '0' into the payphone, which is then followed by the payphone grabbing a loop with the telco central-office, and _then_ dialing out (single) '0', _OR_ in the case of A-O-Slime, dialing out an 800/888/950 number or 10(1X)XXX+0 of the A-O-Slime entity, and _then_ when connected with the A-O-Slime switch, the payphone DTMF's out various identification digits. THEN the customer has to put up with various menu prompts! :( So, as I mentioned in my earlier posting, IMO, AT&T should route '00' and 10(10)288-0(#/0), i.e. calls dialed for AT&T's own 0- (zero-minus) operators, LIVE AND DIRECT to a LIVE HUMAN BEING, rather than menus and prompts. Actually, IMO, all LECs and IXCs _should_ do the same thing for calls to _their_ 0/00 type operators! If I wanted to place a '0+' type of a call, I WOULD HAVE DIALED (10(1X)XXX)+0+ten-digits or (10(1X)XXX)+01+international, or accessed the operator/card services with an access number for the carrier - 800/888/950/etc. If I wanted directory assistance, I would have dialed (10(1X)XXX)+1/0+NPA-KL.5-1212. And with all of these NPA splits (and now overlays), many (though not necessarily all, and not always 'neat and clean' or clearcut) DA systems allow the operator to check multiple/nearby (and soon overlaid) NPAs for directory lookup inquiries. When I dial something 0/00 'zero-minus', I want to go directly to an operator! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:09:51 -0600 From the "Rocky Mountain News", Denver, September 24, 1997 http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0924west2.htm US West launches wireless with a twist Home number ringing on mobile phone is a first in U.S., company says By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer (C) Rocky Mountain News US West Communications turned up its new wireless service in the Denver area Tuesday with a twist the company says is a national first: A customer's home number can be programmed to ring on the mobile phone. The Denver-based phone giant is the sixth company to enter the wireless phone market in the metro area and the third this year to launch personal communications service, or PCS. US West mounted an elaborate multimedia event at the Denver Museum of Natural History to make its long-anticipated announcement. The company also said it will offer free admission all weekend to the museum and three other cultural attractions to promote the service. Playing on its role as the virtual monopoly local phone service provider, US West will market the Access2 wireless phone service primarily as an add-on to regular service. Customers can choose their existing home or small-business office numbers as their PCS number, and incoming calls to that number can be routed directly to the mobile phone for $4.95 a month. Or customers can use the separate number assigned to the PCS phone. An existing voice mailbox can be used for messages on the PCS phone, and users can get immediate notification of messages left at home or work. Other familiar features such as Caller ID and call waiting are also available. "Access2 gives people their own portable 'one-stop-shop,' putting all the power and convenience of their home or office phone in the palm of their hand,'' said US West Communications President Sol Trujillo. "It's so advanced, it's actually simple to use.'' Trujillo said prices would be competitive. The company's Sony Qualcomm PCS phones sell for $199 with packages ranging from $24.95 a month for one hour to $69.95 a month for five hours. The idea is to provide convenience for customers in an era when "some of us need a poster-sized business card to hold all our phone numbers,'' Trujillo said. Peter Mannetti, general manager of US West Wireless, was introduced on a video screen talking on a PCS phone in the rain in front of sea lions at the Denver Zoo. Trujillo reached Mannetti by dialing his home phone number. After arriving at the museum, Mannetti explained that the technology allowing customers to use one number for both wireless and regular phones was developed at US West's Advanced Technology Center in Boulder. The company spent more than $100 million preparing for its launch, with about 155 towers in metro Denver. US West is launching its service after winning auctions from the federal government later than its PCS rivals. Sprint PCS and Western Wireless, which both launched service earlier this year, paid more than $64 million each for 30 mega hertz of spectrum. US West paid only $5.3 million for a third as much space -- 10 megahertz. Mannetti said that was "more than sufficient spectrum'' to meet its needs. The service launched Tuesday reaches from Longmont to Castle Rock and from Golden to Aurora, with plans to expand. Major rivals were unimpressed. "We applaud them in recognizing the future of this technology but its hard for us to be overwhelmed when in less than a year, we've launched in 65 markets and 500 cities,'' said Bob Kelley of Sprint PCS. US West is launching "a variation on something we've been offering for three years,'' said Mary Ireland of AT&T Wireless. And Craig Cavey of Western Wireless' VoiceStream noted his company's PCS service covers a wider area: from Cheyenne to Pueblo. But Mannetti said the market is growing fast. Predictions are that in five to seven years half the population will have a wireless phone, Mannetti said. "This is the biggest expansion of telephony since Alexander Graham Bell,'' he said. September 24, 1997 Submitted by Don Heiberg, Denver (303) 589-1539 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:46:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 888 Shortage Hits Toll-free Phone Industry 888 Shortage Hits Toll-free Phone Industry By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON - The toll-free telephone business is in a crunch -- a numbers crunch, that is. Industry officials warn that demand for 888" and 800" toll-free numbers is so strong they need to conserve the pool of unused numbers. They want to avoid using up toll-free "resources" before a new 877" code is deployed next April. There seems to be sort of a run on toll-free numbers," said Sally Mott Freeman, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the industry group that monitors the allocation of toll-free numbers. ATIS has asked the Federal Communications Commission for a hand to implement a conservation plan" in the face of booming popularity for toll-free digits among companies and consumers, who clearly like the convenience and price of the product. The use of the numbers in pagers, faxes and other gadgets also has contributed to the squeeze, industry officials said. The toll-free codes let callers dial, free of charge, the party assigned the number. Users, like mail-order companies, airlines and parents of college students, pay a phone company or other toll-free provider a flat fee for use of the number. Availability of 800 numbers essentially dried up in early 1996 after nearly 20 years. The 888 code was introduced in March 1996 and was expected to last through spring 1998. We'll be lucky if it lasts two years," said Freeman. There are roughly eight million numbers available with each toll-free prefix. As of Sept. 20, there were 12.1 million 800 and 888 numbers in use and 2.6 million available, according to Morristown, N.J.- based Bellcore, whose subsidiary operates the database that distributes the numbers. The proposed conservation plan would limit the number of 800/888 numbers that phone companies and other toll-free providers can reserve for use by businesses and consumers. Currently, the roughly 210 companies that assign toll-free numbers face a ceiling of 2,000 a week, or 7.5 percent of all numbers they have available for use -- whichever is larger. Industry officials are proposing the FCC to sharply lower the cap applicable to each company. The cap would vary from company to company, depending on the number of toll-free numbers each company has deployed for actual use. ATIS told the FCC earlier this month that 401,051 new toll- free numbers were assigned in August, up from a monthly average of 344,113 for much of the year. Further increases, the group warned, would exhaust" the available pool before next April's 877 launch. At this point, however, officials don't anticipate the kind of crunch that happened in 1995 with 800 numbers. The FCC at that time crafted a plan to slow the depletion and smooth the deployment of the 888 code. Among other things, the introduction of the 888 code was moved ahead by a month. FCC officials are monitoring the latest situation. The convenience of toll-free numbers helps explain their popularity, especially among mail-order businesses and other companies keen on having customers call them. Industry officials also cite these factors as likely, or possible, contributors to the depletion: -- Greater use of electronic pagers, fax machines and voice mail based on toll-free digits. -- More use of personal toll-free numbers by consumers, such as parents who have a student at college and want to give that person a cheap way to call home. -- The approach of the holiday season, which prompts catalog companies to request more toll-free numbers. -- Next year's launch of 877, which has spurred companies to try and reserve remaining 888 numbers before they dry up. Once it was technically possible for many new categories of customers to use them, the market found a way to use them," Ken Branson, a Bellcore spokesman, said of toll-free numbers. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 21:50:30 EDT Subject: Fun in Elkhart, IN (was Re: Radio Vigilantes) Maybe it's me, but my bullshit detector pinned when I read the story about the guys who (allegedly) bought a TV, hacked it to make a ham frequency jammer, and then reboxed it and returned it for resale. C'mon, now. Isn't this a bit much? For starters, how can these guys be sure that the hacked TV will be sold to someone who lives close enough to the repeater to make a difference? Won't the extraneous RF output louse up the PURCHASER'S reception enough to make him/her suspicious right off the bat? Isn't it an enormous amount of trouble to go to, given that there are easier, cheaper and more effective ways to jam a signal? *I* think it's a modern urban legend. For those unfamiliar with the term, I commend you to any of the several books on the subject written by Jan Brunvand, Professor of English at the University of Utah. Two of them, "The Study of American Folklore" and "Readings in American Folklore" are fairly scholarly; the others, "The Mexican Pet", "The Choking Doberman" and "Curses, Broiled Again" are considerably more accessible, and are funny as hell. You'll see that many, many stories that you've probably heard a hundred times before (and accepted as true without question) are actually a form of modern legend. ObTelecom example: Johnny Carson, or Steve McQueen, or Paul Newman, or Sammy Davis, Jr., or Robert Redford, or Burt Reynolds, or (... you get the idea ...) won a gigantic settlement against AT&T (or MCI, or Sprint, or ...) as a result of which Johnny/Steve/Paul/Sammy/Robert/ Burt/etc is giving out his credit card number publicly so that the unwashed masses can help him eat up the settlement money. Completely untrue; allegedly, one iteration of this legend, in 1981, cost the Wabash Telephone Company, of Louisville, IL about $100,000.00 in unrecoverable charges billed to "Burt Reynolds' credit card number", which turned out to be one of theirs. That is, I believe, PAT's neck of the woods (or at least a whole lot closer than Philadelphia is). Source : Curses, Broiled Again, P. 235, by Jan Brunvand (c) 1981 - published by W.W. Norton & Co. (ISBN 0-393-02710-4) Great exercise for the critical thinking muscles. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #260 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 25 21:44:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA25466; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:44:33 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709260144.VAA25466@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #261 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Sep 97 21:44:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Bradley Ward Allen) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Roger Fajman) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Louis Raphael) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Kevin R. Ray) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Tom Betz) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Laura Twombly) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Shankar Unni) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John McGing) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Mark Brukhartz) Its Time to Make a Change (Judith Oppenheimer) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: 25 Sep 1997 19:44:00 -0400 Organization: Q My opinions should be obvious, but I think they bear repeating: 1. When I was kid, we were given six months to change. I didn't think it was enough then, for those people that call only once every one or two years, but for just about every other purpose, including printing stationary, changing signs, printing phone books, notifying all your correspondents and relationships, and updating all your equipment, I always regarded six months as magically "just (barely) enough", and therefore acceptable. 2. Therefore, when I read that three months was all that will be given, then I automatically agree with the side that says to raise it to six months. What I do not understand, however, is the alarm company's problem with the three months: since they are large and organized, they can make arrangements with the phone company to convert the customers in the order of which numbers get switched first; with area code splits, often the phone company is able to incrementally effect more and more numbers, allowing certain numbers to go through via the old area code for longer than other numbers. This of course does need coordination between both companies, and is a cost that should be paid by local "RBOC's" that are not organized enough to get their new area codes in time to have a six month permissive period. 3. I point out that overlays would fix this situation, as long as seven digit within-area-code dialing is still permitted, at least as a long grace period (such as one or two years). 4. Finally, I have a question. With full number portability, will area code splits ever be necessary again? I mean, all the "2002, we will need a split in XYZ area code" charts that Bellcore puts out will be of a smaller "doomsday" importance, in that they will only be a chart of places that will have new area codes, but no splits? What I'm saying, is after the numbers in an area code are exhausted (which will not happen for a long time since portability will allow many current companies to use numbers for a long time), a new area code could be overlayed at any time, and suddenly new numbers for all phone companies would come out of the new area code, and it would not matter what area a particular line is in; the portability would decouple the locality concept of phone numbers; anyplace that requires the "older" area codes can be put on a waiting list for new "old" numbers, and then portability those numbers over to the requestors. 5. Because of #3 and #4, I protest the FCC requirement for 10 digit dialing, specifically that it should *never* require ten digit dialing, and only that 1+ dialing always work without being put into long distance companies for the suggestion, and furthermore that within-area-code seven digit dialing should be permitted since there will still be applications where that is useful. 6. I repeat what I already posted earlier, that I finally understand overlays to be anticompetitive, and it took me some time to realize this. Number portability will also fix this. 7. As an aside, in order to keep my home phone number during a short move in NYC, I had to put an order into Bell Atlantic's Business division to change my residential account to a business account for the affected line ($82.05) and subscribe to Business "Remote Call Forwarding" ($19.88/month + business rate usage for the forwarded calls, in this case all local, but long distance I think also would work); because the number I need to keep is the same number used as the accounting structure's "main" number (and line) for my account (and what starts out my account number), and I'm keeping other lines, those other lines need to be seperated in a Residential order before the number can be turned into a business account; because one of the lines that needs to be turned into the new "main line" must be an ISDN line (as there are no other non-ISDN lines), this order needs to be referred to the ISDN department; therefore, to obtain an entirely simple software-controllable in-switch change, it takes at least four to six departments, perhaps a set of twenty competent paper-pushers at Bell Atlantic working quite responsively (in my experience -- not only did they call me back from many different departments and leave lucent messages almost twice a day concerning necessary steps and my able to return those calls and leave messages in response, except for once (oops, where's that #? I think I already did ...)) and I just checked the status and they are doing quite well, and the original order was only placed earlier this week!), and what they predict will be about two weeks! Will this, too, change, with number portability (i.e., I move to Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx, and I can keep my 212# as a side-effect of number portability)? ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:19:46 EDT Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change > Bell Atlantic is also appealing to the DPU to forgo a system that > would require callers to dial 10 numbers (the area code and number) > when calling people who are in the local calling area but in a > different area code. Bell Atlantic says the system is confusing > to customers. That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. Until recently, 10 (or 11) digits were mandatory for local calls to a different area code and optional within the same area code. Now, in Maryland, 10 (or 11) digits are required for all local calls, in preparation for the new area codes to be overlayed on 301 and 410. I believe that in DC itself and in Virginia, 10 (or 11) digits are still required only when a local call is to a different area code. ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 02:47:48 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Judging by my IN.spam box, I'd say that the latest plug-pulling dealt with about 1/2 of the spammers (by volume) out there. There aren't that many spammers -- it's just that they are harmful out of proportion to their numbers. My IN.spam box receives about 2-3/day, compared to about 5-10 before 'Promo went down. Louis ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:40:05 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies FYI, the following article was just posted on news.admin.net-abuse.email: Ok - now this will likely be preliminary only. (Nothing big will necessarily happen - dates will be set, etc.) However, from a well written article at: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,14429,00.html?dtn.head Wallace, AGIS to face judge By Janet Kornblum, Stephanie Miles, and Jeff Pelline September 24, 1997, 5:25 p.m. PT update A federal court judge is set to hear a request tomorrow by Cyber Promotions president Sanford Wallace to make backbone provider AGIS reconnect the mass emailer. The hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Anita Brody comes after Wallace sued AGIS for breach of contract. AGIS disconnected Cyber Promotions, as well as Integrated Media Promotions and New Hampshire-based Quantum Communications sometime last week, according to AGIS spokesman Jason Delker. But Delker declined to detail when or why the spammers were kicked off. "We're going to attempt to get a temporary res- training order to get a connection," he said [Wallace] So there will be argument as well to attempt to get a TSO! ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 13:54:16 GMT Organization: The Windy City TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Patrick Tufts : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has anyone attempted to contact him > at his office (or home or wherever) and get the details on these > latest allegations; i.e. money owed to Compuserve and his plans > for the future? Is there any activity at his office at all such > as phones being answered, a customer service rep on duty, etc, or > is his office abandoned? Does anyone have his {current} home number? I just tried their "offices" and all the extensions -- got voice mail on all of them. His technical updates did ask that his customers fax him a statement how much money they are losing, etc, etc, etc. Why don't we all drop a dime and fax him at 1-215-628-9762 or 1-215-628-2523 stating how much money we are SAVING with our systems being idle, users not calling our tech departments, wasting time hitting "d", etc, etc, etc. And if we did fax him with this is it not true that it is not solicitation (ie: illegal) and not harassment if we *ALL* do just one ... not to mention his poor fax machines would die a horrible death and his customers would be able to get through to him. :) > The other day I was helping someone who has a problem with rodent > infestation in their basement. I put out lots of 'nice, tasty food' > the little guys would be sure to like -- heh! heh! -- and already > today the results were obvious. Several bloated and quite dead > little carcasses near the food dish I had prepared. This leads me > to my final question for this issue: how severe is this rodent > infestation on the net? Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] My guess would be around 1,000. There's still a TON of their bulk emailing software in the hands of unknowing people just WAITING to use it -- and to have their personal ISP accounts pulled. My filters have gone from nuking about 100 messages a day (to me personally) to about one every TWO days. I don't miss Spammy ... ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Date: 25 Sep 1997 23:58:41 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) in : > In nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) > writes: >> I suggest simply redirecting any spam you get from anybody, >> especially if it has any forged address information, or any hint of a >> false health claim or other scam, to the new Federal Trade Commmission >> spam reporting point, "uce@ftc.gov". > I suggest you DON'T do this. I can't find the article now, but the FTC > recently put out a statement that the large numbers of people who were > doing this is putting severe strain on the systems. Seems many have set > their procmail scripts to do forwarding on any suspected UCE/spam. > According to the FTC, they don't want to see the messages unless it's > definately fraud related and overall abuse will result in them pulling > the plug on the address or tracking the person down who is flooding > their systms. That was the IRS, not the FTC. The IRS has an address for tax fraud schemes, Ponzi scammers who mention "Tax-free" income, and the like. They complained about being on autoresponders, and want only tax-related spam. The FTC hasn't complained, yet. Last I heard, the FTC was welcoming all UCE to that address. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: it's time we tried education. | | I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split Date: 24 Sep 1997 21:15:30 GMT Organization: ESAC jf@oxy.edu wrote in article ... > Why can't MedicAlert just purchase remote-call forwarding or > foreign-exchange lines or work out something with the phone company? > What am I missing here? I'd like to take a crack at this. The first issue is whether or not something could be done so that MedicAlert could keep their 209 number even if Turlock was changed to the new NPA. While this is not technically impossible, it is 1) an administrative nightmare in that this exception would have to be maintained indefinitely and the whole world would have to be notified, and understand, this exception, plus 2) it would be enormously unfair to the rest of the customers in that prefix who would also be forced to stay in the 209 area, even though their city was in the new NPA. The second issue is whether this state of affairs was brought about because of MedicAlert in the first place. My understanding of the NPA split process (which I admit is imperfect), is that there is an attempt made to leave the old NPA with the area that is growing faster, and give the new NPA to the area that is growing slower. The reasoning is that if another NPA split is needed, it should be imposed on the folks that haven't just had one, rather than the folks that just went through an NPA split. I also understand that Turlock, and its surrounding area, appear to be the most rapidly growing part of the 209 area. Which means that Fresno would have gotten the new NPA and Turlock would have been left in the old NPA whether or not MedicAlert existed. Theoretically. Laura T. ------------------------------ From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:53:30 -0700 Organization: None John R. Levine wrote: > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. The Linux term for this is IP Masquerading. It's not 100% transparent, but most network clients work fine with it. You designate one Linux box as a firewall with IP Masquerading, to talk to the outside network on one IP address. Hopefully your cable modem is one that is usable by a Linux box (some cable modems come with required host software that is only available for Windows). The Linux box must have another ethernet card to talk to the local network, and you can put all your other hosts on that network, with some private IP address like 10.* or 172.16.*. The Linux box will act like a router, translating the private address to the public IP address in a way that allows the reply packets to be translated back to the original private IP address. This also means that incoming connections cannot be made to the private network, an added level of security. It takes a little skill and savvy to set this up, but the upside is the cost (free beyond the hardware cost of the PC itself, and even if you have to buy a separate box, you can equip a decent 486 PC these days for under $500, especially if you get it used and upgrade any components yourself; and a 486 w/ 8 or 16MB is all you really need to run a dedicated Linux firewall.) Shankar Unni shankar@webnexus.com Powertel Global, Inc. (408) 378-9745 ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:16:02 GMT Organization: @Home Networks On 23 Sep 1997 05:53:53 -0000, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get >> and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. Check out the FireSock software from the makers of Trumpet Winsock. I saw it at TUCOWS, and it looks just like what you are looking for and isn't very expensive. ------------------------------ From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:19:39 GMT It would be more elegant to reserve a set of ten area codes for toll-free numbers, such as 880 through 889. That would permit eight-letter words to be used as telephone numbers. ``Call 1-88-BUY-STUFF. Operators are standing by.'' Since 880 (and 881) end with letterless numbers, they would be ideal for pager, personal toll-free and other non-branded telephone numbers. The existing 800 (and 888) numbers would be preserved forever. Everyone would win. Callers to branded numbers would need to remember only the word. Seven letter words would be in area code 800. Eight letter words would be in ``area code'' 88. There'd be about nine times as many branded numbers from which to choose (800 and 882 through 889). Other users would benefit from the large block of non-branded numbers for pager, mobile and personal toll-free use (880 and 881). Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:56:54 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Its Time to Make a Change New York 09/25/97 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) Recent industry reports to the FCC indicate that 888 numbers may run out before 877 is scheduled for release in April 98. Indeed, the industry is quietly seeking ways to speed up the introduction of 877. Minutes from a February 97 SNAC (SMS/800 Number Administration Committee) meeting, note that based on the average usage during the prior three months of November, December and January, 888 exhaust would occur sometime in July, 1998. Given the 30-year run of 800, even that 3-year 888 shelf-life is absurd, further strengthening arguments for toll-free SAC partitioning as necessary for resource management, as well as marketplace application, survival. What is accelerating the depletion even beyond industry expectations? Didn't the FCC's April Report and Order set in place mechanisms that were supposed to stem this tide? Wasn't that, after all, its sole purpose? Marketshare Versus Depletion by RespOrg RespOrg Share of Working 800 Numbers as of October 1, 1996 MCI 26.06% AT&T 22.34% WILTEL/LDDS WORLDCOM 13.53% SPRINT 7.97% FRONTIER/ALLNET/RCI 6.07% STENTOR 2.51% LCI 2.25% NYNEX/BELL ATLANTIC 2.05% PAC BELL/SW BELL 1.45% CABLE & WIRELESS 1.20% ALL OTHERS 14.57% INDUSTRY 100.00% In October, 1996, the two largest RespOrgs, AT&T and MCI, had 1.6 and 1.9 million toll-free numbers, respectively. That's combined 800 and 888, business and residential service. Today, AT&T insiders report a slight decrease in toll-free revenue, combined with a growth in toll-free minutes, and a nmarketshare increase who's growth is fairly consistent with the industry as a whole. Bringing their total toll-free number base, as of September 1, 1997, to 2,112,312 -- an increase of a half-a-million toll-free numbers, encompassing both 800 and 888, over the course of past the year. Some other carriers as well, have actually maintained or lowered their share of numbers in recent weeks, whether by attrition or otherwise, but certainly not lining their coffers at this critical time. Those carriers include Allnet, Stentor, Cable & Wireless, and US West. But what of the rest? MCI, according to industry insiders, lost marketshare in minutes, yet increased its toll-free number base during the past year by 1.6 million, to 3,521,538 -- nearly doubling its entire pool. Indeed, during the week of August 23 to September 1 alone, MCI increased its holdings by 25,000 numbers. During that same week, AT&T acquired 10,500, Sprint 22,980, and Wiltel 24,000 toll free numbers. In total, there are now only 2.6 million toll-free numbers left to last through April 98, with 115,000 pulled out in the last week alone. Clearly there are some RespOrgs performing reasonably responsibly, such as Cable & Wireless, and others mentioned above. Similarly, with its huge customer base overall, we do not begrudge AT&T a half-a-million- number increase over a 12 month period. Indeed, AT&T recently told ICB that it intends to shift its focus away from marketshare, to profitability, caring less how many numbers it has in its vast stable, than how much revenue each account is driving. A reasonable business proposition, to be sure, and one that coincidentally does not conflict with resource management as a whole. Additionally, AT&T has publicly supported user-rights measures that would further alleviate depletion and promote a stable number resource foundation -- a stand-up move in a cut-throat business that is forthright, bold, and forward-thinking. Given snowballing depletion, vast statistical discrepancies in a very competitive marketplace, and AT&T's leadership support of some unorthodox, yet very practical solutions, we have to wonder how long it will take the FCC to reconsider its April Report and Order. Because its 'resource management' mechanisms are clearly running 800 into the ground. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #261 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 27 02:22:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA23486; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 02:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709270622.CAA23486@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #262 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 97 02:22:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Bill McMilleon) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (John Lydic) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (David Abrams) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Nils Andersson) Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (Fred R. Goldstein) Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Stephen B. Kutzer) Can You Say Partitioning? (Judith Oppenheimer) Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Eric Florack) Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome (Judith Oppenheimer) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill McMilleon Reply-To: billmc@mtco.com Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:33:26 -0500 On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 01:27:05 -0400 Marc Baime wrote: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to > get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable > modem. Can both machines run at the same time? Do I need a > multiplexer? A hub? Where does the cable need to be split? Before > coming into the cable modem? Coming out of the cable modem? > I have a NEC2000 ethernet card I used to use for a two PC Novell lan > that I had set up in my home ... can I use this card? Are there any > books on this subject? Any literature on the web? All replies > appreciated. Please respond to mbaime1@tampabay.rr.com with any > information on this subject. Probably be nice if you responded to the > group also as I'm sure many inquiring minds would like to know. Should be no problem to do this... Use use WinGate (http://www.wingate.net/) as a proxy server - works on Win95 or NT. There's lots of documentation at their website about how it works. Sounds like you can use the ne2000 compatible cards for your "at home ethernet" too. I use an eight port netgear 10 base T hub and have unshielded twisted pair cable connecting multiple machines at home. The nice thing about WinGate is that its "free" if you only need one active proxy connection at a time. Bill McMilleon LAN Administrator/Applications Developer 360 Communications ------------------------------ From: John Lydic Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:43:45 -0400 Organization: Cuttler-Hammer Automation Reply-To: lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com.etn.com John R. Levine wrote: >> If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to >> get and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > The short answer is "you can't". The cable modem is a modem that > plugs into a single PC and gives you a single IP address. > The slightly longer answer is that there are systems that let your > entire network hide behind a single IP address, doing translation on > the fly. (The three-letter acronym is NAT.) Dedicated NAT boxes tend > to be expensive but you might be able to find freeware for Linux. > If you can get NAT set up, you'd plug the cable modem into the box > running NAT, then connect all the other computers to that one using a > regular Ethernet separate from the cable modem. If this sounds like > it's more trouble than it's worth, you're probably right. IP proxy or spoofing is freely available for Linux, (it came with the RedHat distribution) and is relatively easy to setup. I'm in the process of doing that now. The only thing that can't be automatically routed behind the proxy is UDP (RealAudio, etc) which as I understand it may be assigned to a specific local IP address. John lydicjw@idt.ch.etn.com ------------------------------ From: David Abrams Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:57:21 -0400 Organization: Galactic Industries Corp Search for a shareware product named "WINGATE" I have not used it but my understanding is it is a win95 internet gateway which allows an internal network to share a single external IP address. A proxy server will do the same thing. We use the MS proxy server and have illegal internal IP addresses. Only the proxy server external net card has a valid IP address. David Abrams Galactic Industries Corp dea@galactic.com www.galactic.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:53:34 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers? It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same technicians with the same level of training and the same level of desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's offer may be better, but only marginally so. So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:21:45 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca says ... > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right ? The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All quite fast. > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be ? > This would remove the need to constantly split area codes since there > wouldn't be "area codes" anymore, just 10 digit telehone numbers. > Need a new line, just grab the next available number. With more and > more cities being split into different area codes, dialing 10 digits > for ALL numbers might become more natural than having to decide > whether one has to dial 7 or 10 digits. That's essentially what the FCC's mandated Local Number Portability will do. As of a phase-in beginning in 1998, once anybody asks to port a number, that prefix must change from today's handoff-to-CO into a database lookup. In other words, all calls to that NPA-NXX prefix must be checked against an LNP database by the "n-1" switch. The LNP database supplies a "location routing number" (LRN), which identifies the specific switch that the number now lives on; that switch then receives the dialed number. The FCC rejected an alternative wherein the terminating switch would say "this number has been ported elsewhere, go look it up". Under that scheme, only ported calls would have caused database lookups, making calls to non-ported numbers faster. The selected scheme slows everyone down, making it "fairer". (I realize that Digest readers could editorialize on endlessly here, and I choose not to belabor the point.) There's stuff about this on the FCC web site. > Also, when one person moves, one could keep the same telephone number > and the telco would simply change the routing tables. If one changes > supplier of dial tone, same would happen. Keep your number, change > routing table. Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well into the future. Technically easy, of course. > This would be quite similar to the internet domain name system. But there is no explicit distance-based charging on the Internet. PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens PAT> occassionally now with 800. A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block New York. It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so un-ported numbers might still work. I think this will end up with third parties in charge. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:13:01 -0400 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In article , J.F. Mezei writes: > 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 > number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, > right? > Why not do the same for *ALL* NAP numbers ? You dial any number, > and the telco translates it to an actual "network address" wherever > that phone might be? There is another issue, albeit of diminshing importance. COST. Both the caller and the PBX or equivalent behind which the caller is sitting might want to know if this is a call across the street (1c/min or so) or to Barbados ( about 50c/min, IIRC). The same is true for e.g. the payphone systems. The proposed plan necessitates a standardized way to carry back this info both in voice coded and machine-readable form, BEFORE the call is finalized. This is not to say that it cannot be done, just that this is a bigger job than the original poster may have realized. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option Date: 26 Sep 1997 15:08:38 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , brian@his.com says ... > And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option > on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 > CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added > about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; > however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been > able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally > got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the > only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is > 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. > So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get > a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first > time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the > option. Why? "Dunno." I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air interface ... what additional privacy is needed? From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough to make the reverse channel audio audible. The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks are so short. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:10:54 -0400 From: Stephen B. Kutzer Subject: Two ISDN Devices on One Line A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide dial-tone to both lines)? Many thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:42:52 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Can You Say Partitioning? Partitioning - that's FCC-speak for separate domains for different toll-free SACs. The industry originally denied the feasibility of partitioning with 888 because it needed to drain more and more numbers for pager and other data services prior to the provisioning of 888. Now that provisioning can be speeded up, there's no more excuse. The current system is bad for business, bad for customers, bad for consumers - and terrible for resource management. Let's fix this - quick - before it's too broke to fix. Judith Oppenheimer ------------------------------ "888" shortage hits toll-free phone industry By Roger Fillion WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuter) - The toll-free telephone business is in a crunch -- a numbers crunch, that is. Industry officials warn that demand for ``888'' and ``800'' toll-free numbers is so strong they need to conserve the pool of unused numbers. They want to avoid using up toll-free ``resources'' before a new ``877'' code is deployed next April. ``There seems to be sort of a run on toll-free numbers,'' said Sally Mott Freeman, spokeswoman for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the industry group that monitors the allocation of toll-free numbers. ATIS has asked the Federal Communications Commission for a hand to implement a ``conservation plan'' in the face of booming popularity for toll-free digits among companies and consumers, who clearly like the convenience and price of the product. The use of the numbers in pagers, faxes and other gadgets also has contributed to the squeeze, industry officials said. The toll-free codes let callers dial, free of charge, the party assigned the number. Users, like mail-order companies, airlines and parents of college students, pay a phone company or other toll-free provider a flat fee for use of the number. Availability of 800 numbers essentially dried up in early 1996 after nearly 20 years. The 888 code was introduced in March 1996 and was expected to last through spring 1998. ``We'll be lucky if it lasts two years,'' said Freeman. There are roughly 8 million numbers available with each toll-free prefix. As of Sept. 20, there were 12.1 million 800 and 888 numbers in use and 2.6 million available, according to Morristown, N.J.-based Bellcore, whose subsidiary operates the database that distributes the numbers. The proposed conservation plan would limit the number of 800/888 numbers that phone companies and other toll-free providers can reserve for use by businesses and consumers. Currently, the roughly 210 companies that assign toll-free numbers face a ceiling of 2,000 a week, or 7.5 percent of all numbers they have available for use -- whichever is larger. Industry officials are proposing the FCC to sharply lower the cap applicable to each company. The cap would vary from company to company, depending on the number of toll-free numbers each company has deployed for actual use. ATIS told the FCC earlier this month that 401,051 new toll-free numbers were assigned in August, up from a monthly average of 344,113 for much of the year. Further increases, the group warned, would ``exhaust'' the available pool before next April's 877 launch. At this point, however, officials don't anticipate the kind of crunch that happened in 1995 with 800 numbers. The FCC at that time crafted a plan to slow the depletion and smooth the deployment of the 888 code. Among other things, the introduction of the 888 code was moved ahead by a month. FCC officials are monitoring the latest situation. The convenience of toll-free numbers helps explain their popularity, especially among mail-order businesses and other companies keen on having customers call them. Industry officials also cite these factors as likely, or possible, contributors to the depletion: Greater use of electronic pagers, fax machines and voice mail based on toll-free digits. More use of ``personal'' toll-free numbers by consumers, such as parents who have a student at college and want to give that person a cheap way to call home. The approach of the holiday season, which prompts catalog companies to request more toll-free numbers. Next year's launch of 877, which has spurred companies to try and reserve remaining 888 numbers before they dry up. ``Once it was technically possible for many new categories of customers to use them, the market found a way to use them,'' Ken Branson, a Bellcore spokesman, said of toll-free numbers. -------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem > Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, > but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any > guesstimates? PAT] That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take his place?" Consider: Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a smile. But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take his place? Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the idea that it's not a good PR move. /E [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly, Spamford was going to court to get an order requiring AGIS to reconnect him. Does anyone know the outcome of that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Re: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:55:46 -0400 Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Pending Rulings, Advocates Urge FCC to Protect Interests Of Toll-Free Vanity Numbers; AT&T Lends Support NEW YORK, Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Pending rulings by The FCC that will affect how toll-free numbers are assigned and managed, ICB Toll Free, experts in toll-free application and management, urge The Commission to institute regulations that will, specifically, protect the interests of toll-free vanity number users, such as 1-800-FLOWERS, as well as resolve broader issues of toll-free number depletion. While it took 27 years for demand to deplete roughly eight million 800 numbers, experts estimate that the inventory of toll-free service area code (SAC) "888," established in 1996, will be exhausted in less than three years. An April 1997 Report and Order by the FCC cited concerns that RespOrgs, groups comprising predominantly carriers that are responsible for toll-free number assignments, are influencing depletion by "warehousing," toll-free numbers; that users are "hoarding" numbers they have taken, but have no plans to use, and that both groups are "brokering" numbers on the open-market. All three practices are against FCC regulations that demand numbers be allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis, and are rooted in carriers' and end users' desire to protect their investment in toll-free vanity numbers. Industry insiders explain that carriers who market vanity numbers, as well as commercial end-users, who invest money to build equity in their vanity numbers through advertising and marketing campaigns, believe they should be able to protect their interests in specific numbers. Judith Oppenheimer, ICB President, an expert and consultant on the use of toll-free numbers, and a user-group advocate, explains the problem: "Confusion, costly misdials and loss of business can and do occur," Ms. Oppenheimer says, "if for example, 1-888-FLOWERS is assigned to anyone other than the operator of 1-800-FLOWERS. Such end users want the right, therefore, to either replicate their 1-800 number when a new SAC is launched, or to be given right of first refusal." However, "replication" and "first refusal" are, Ms. Oppenheimer admits, only short-term solutions: "The real reason that toll-free numbers are flying out of inventory so quickly," she says, "is largely due to the proliferation of data and personal communications devices, such as pagers, that are devouring SACs almost as quickly as they are created. In a market crowded by personal and commercial toll-free numbers, we believe all numbers should not be treated equally. Possible solutions to the problem are evolving along two lines: First, a system, such as the one that presently exists for creating domains -- website and Email addresses -- on the internet, presents an excellent model for future toll-free number allocation. Notwithstanding its own inherent problems, the benefits of the domain system are that it is open, allowing users, if they wish, to register for and secure the particular address they choose, versus the current toll-free number system that subjects users to carrier-controlled assignment. A second solution involves partitioning, which the FCC is investigating, and which would dedicate the 800 SAC to traditional sales, customer service and marketing applications, and provide other non-branded toll-free SACs such as 888 and 877 for paging, voicemail, and other one-to-one applications that require the utility, but not the brand, of toll-free. This would permit carriers and users to treat 800 numbers, not just as an access code, but as a brand that is readily recognized by consumers, and can be openly promoted." Ms. Oppenheimer points out that, for once, ICB and AT&T are on the same side of the issue. AT&T, in fact, supports a recommendation to continue to resolve toll-free numbering issues, by helping to put an existing toll-free number customer of record in touch with a "number seeker." John Cushman, Director of Toll-Free Services for AT&T also supports ICB's view that specific toll-free numbers have intrinsic value. While he stopped short of supporting a proposal to legalize the private commercial exchange of numbers, Cushman did indicate a desire to pursue this area. "I believe the arguments that ICB makes, relative to toll-free number value, are supported by the history of the toll-free industry, current RespOrg to RespOrg practices, and our customers' positions on vanity number protection," he says, adding, "We are putting our heads in the sand if we believe that number brokering is not taking place in the marketplace today." An advocate for user interests, both carrier and corporate, and visible presence on the toll-free scene, ICB has been advising business owners, corporate marketers and the telecom industries since 1993. ICB publishes ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, the online journal of toll-free marketing, regulatory and political issues. ICB TOLL FREE NEWS web address is http://www.icbtollfree.com. SOURCE ICB Inc. CONTACT: Judith Oppenheimer of ICB Toll Free Consultancy, 212-684-7210, joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com --------------------- 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #262 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Sep 27 20:49:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA21351; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:49:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709280049.UAA21351@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #263 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Sep 97 20:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Michael P. Deignan) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Mark W. Schumann) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Robb Topolski) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Bill Garfield) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Trey Valenta) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jim Youll) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (amp@pobox.com) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Steven Lichter) Spamford Rides Again! (Richard M. Sander) Moron Spammer Provides Toll Free Number (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Derek Balling) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Barry Margolin) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Ryan Tucker) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Bear) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.nospam (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 17:06:07 -0400 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Eric Florack wrote: > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. That sounds like a good idea. Are there any databases on the Internet that list companies who use spam as a marketing tool? For instance, a list of company names, telephone/fax numbers, and addresses would be really helpful. If a sizeable number of Internet users spent a few minutes and a few dollars in postage each week, maybe companies providing Spamford with his business would think twice if they got 25,000 letters that all effectively said "it has come to my attention that your company uses spamming as a marketing tool. For this reason, I have added your company to my list of "never buy from" companies." Or, something to that extent. MD ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 19:07:33 -0400 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Eric Florack wrote: > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. Gather what? I don't know he had ANY repeat customers. Sure, he ran their ads more than once, but that doesn't mean the customer was actually paying for the repeat or even wanted it. Image is everything. Mark W. Schumann | catfood@apk.net Why should I change or hide my return address to deter spammers? I just loop the garbage right back at 'em. ------------------------------ From: rmt@bigfoot.com (Robb Topolski) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:11:42 GMT Organization: KJ7RL On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT, Eric Florack wrote: > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 million basically free e-mail ads. Robb Topolski Hillsboro, OR ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org (Bill Garfield) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:01:53 GMT Organization: You only wish you were this organized Reply-To: wdg@hal-pc.org On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:34:55 PDT, in comp.dcom.telecom Eric Florack wrote: >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] > That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take > his place?" Perhaps, but hasn't someone now discovered what ammunition is effective in bringing the offending host network to its knees? Spamford's off the air, right? Seems to me what finally took him down could be used to bring him down again and again, as often as it takes. If it works for one, might it not also work for others? It's pretty hard to defend against a router storm. > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. > Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a > smile. Grinning from ear to ear. > But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take > his place? Oh I'd bet on there arising from Spamford's ashes -several- to fill his void. Though perhaps AGIS might think twice before hosting this type of operation again (burned child fearing the fire syndrome). > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. You might as well try shoving soft butter up a wildcat's backside. These advertisers are only going to fold their tents when it ceases to be profitable to operate via UCE and usenet. Boycotting and complaining had only minimal results. ------------------------------ From: trey@zipcon.net (Trey Valenta) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 27 Sep 1997 16:42:57 GMT Organization: Alternate Access Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly, Spamford was going to court > to get an order requiring AGIS to reconnect him. Does anyone know the > outcome of that? PAT] He did go to court and hearings lasted about all day. The judge has said that she intends to issue her decision on Monday. Trey Valenta trey@zipcon.net Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:55:41 -0400 Organization: Agent Zero Communications Eric Florack wrote: >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] > That's not the issue. The issue should be: "How many will rise to take > his place?" > Consider: > Spamford was merely responding to a market that already existed. The > people buying what he was selling, assumed that the reaction to the > ads he posted for them would be responded to with purchases of the > product advertised ... enough to cover the costs Spamford imposed on > those customers. To some large degree, that must be a correct > assumption, given the number of repeat customers I gather he had. I disagree. He created a segment of that market by inventing demand (i.e. 'willing recipients' and the myth that people WANT to receive get-rich quick scams and pornos in their e-mail). He also built the business on the premise that "selling" means forcing your message on your victims until they submit and buy your ridiculous product. This is not a legitimate premise for business, and cannot be sustained in any market. > Him going away under any conditions is certainly something to raise a > smile. The flow of trash into my systems is slowed considerably, and I am getting more work done. This is good. > But will it solve the problem, or will someone else come in to take > his place? If someone does, they too will be forced off the net. It's untenable. > Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the > people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the > idea that it's not a good PR move. Companies that understand anything about PR and marketing do not do this. At the worst, they do it a couple of times and realize they really blew it. And companies that haven't even tried it yet (real companies with real products and real customers) are learning from the mistakes of the first misguided pioneers, and will not be included to follow blindly. You will not see Procter and Gamble sending you ten to twenty ads per week through masked points of origin. Legitimate companies know that antagonizing potential customers DURING THE SOLICITATION is not a particularly good way to actually make a sale. Point made, I guess. Real companies don't do a LOT of things because they have nothing to gain by pissing people off. Sanford's customers have nothing, and so have nothing to lose. It's quite different. ------------------------------ From: amp@pobox.com Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 08:23:10 -0500 Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) wrote: > Judging by my IN.spam box, I'd say that the latest plug-pulling dealt > with about 1/2 of the spammers (by volume) out there. There aren't > that many spammers -- it's just that they are harmful out of proportion > to their numbers. My IN.spam box receives about 2-3/day, compared to > about 5-10 before 'Promo went down. The spam problem had gotten so bad with my mcimail address, that I finally made use of the filtering options provided by mci to automatically reject all email from the internet. Sounds pretty drastic eh? Considering I'd not sent any email of note from this account for over three years, one would think the spam would eventually taper off, but it just kept increasing. Somehow I got on one of those lists a long time ago (most likely from my PGP key), and it hasn't let up because the address was obviously good. It's good to hear that someone is actually doing what needs to be done to shut Spamford down. Like Pat, I would =never= condone violence against spammers. Nor would I tie them to the back of a train by the neck with a nice, sturdy bit of hemp rope. However, human nature being what it is, I'd advise spammers like Wallace to get good bodyguards that don't have email addresses. (If they used email they'd be too likely to do the scum in themselves). Name: amp E-mail: amp at pobox dot com Date: 09/27/97 Time: 08:23:11 Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp Become an International Arms Trafficker! Forward this sig everywhere! -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL #!/bin/perl -sp0777i Subject: Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Here is an article that should explain what is about to happen. I have noticed that most of the UCE I get has dropped, but there is still a lot. AGIS PULLS THE PLUG ON BULK E-MAILERS DEARBORN, Mich., Sept. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Apex Global Internet Services, Inc. (AGIS) the nation's fourth-largest carrier of Internet traffic is the hot topic of discussion after disconnecting several unsolicited, bulk e-mailers late last week for security reasons. "The attacks were of a nature which not only threatened portions of our global, public network, but other parts of the Internet as well," said AGIS CEO Phil Lawlor. "Our engineers simply followed AGIS standard security procedures in shutting their service down." Cyberpromotions filed suit against AGIS in a U.S. District Court in Philadelphia for allegedly breaking its distribution contract. Thursday; Judge Anita Brody heard arguments from both sides before she would make her ruling Monday. AGIS would not comment on the pending litigation, however further comments will be made publicly following the proceedings on Monday. AGIS confirmed that all virtual private networks remained secure. The Company plans to announce more stringent acceptable use policies. AGIS ( www.agis.net ), founded in 1994, provides Internet access to millions of users via its extensive customer base of Regional Bell Operating Companies, content providers, large corporations and Internet Service Providers. Always the technology leader, AGIS was the first National Service Provider to offer commercial 155Mbps connections to the Internet, the first to reduce points of failure in a network by using switching technologies and the first to degign a wholesale business model (so as not to compete with customers by selling retail access). AGIS offers Internet connectivity from 56Kbps to 155Mbps. SOURCE Apex Global Internet Services, Inc. 09/26/97 /CONTACT: Jason Delker of AGIS Public Relations, 313-730-1130/ SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ From: Richard M. Sander Organization: GLOBALnet/The Sandrose Group, Inc. Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:13:07 -0500 Subject: Spamford Rides Again! Hi Pat! Here's the text of a fax we received today from Spamford Looks like he's pulling out all the stops --- text of fax follows --- GOOD TODAY ONLY! [note: we received it at 4:00pm EDT] CYBER PROMOTIONS HALF PRICE ** BLOW OUT** SALE! (proceeds will go towards Cyber Promotions' high profile lawsuit against AGIS who single handedly injured thousands of small business people by disconnecting their lifeline with no prior notice!) All of the following packages are now available on CD-ROM and shipped 2nd day air to your door! EMAIL LIST: 500,000 unblocked, deliverable money-making email addresses. Compatible with all popular email programs. Cyber Promotions has carefully selected these names of people who have not asked to be removed from email solicitation lists. Get these lists today, and make big money tomorrow! HALF PRICE --> $249 LIST X: Collect thousands of targeted email addresses every hour with this unbelievable software! Now you can harvest web *surfers* too! You won't believe the features included with this package! HALF PRICE --> $174 STEALTH BOMBER: Send out 50,000 emails an hour while cloaking your account id. This is the ultimate mass mailer! HALF PRICE --> $499 CALL NOW! THIS SALE IS GOOD TODAY ONLY! CALL 215-628-9780 and ask for BRIAN or ALAN! Help support the fight to do business through email! --- end of fax --- Need I say more? GLOBALnet is a division of The Sandrose Group, Inc. 2870 Peachtree Road NW * Atlanta GA 30305-2918 USA +1 770 801-1998 Fax: +1 770 434-7569 http://www.sandrose.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So let's all call 215-628-9780 and talk to Brian or Alan ... in a non-threatening, non-violent way of course. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 23:58:51 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Moron Spammer Provides Toll Free Number Well, how kind of this spammer to give us not only a toll free number but a valid email address to contact him ... Return-Path: Received: from vcn.bc.ca (root@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id XAA16637 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from emerald.accessv.com (root@emerald.accessv.com [206.221.248.8]) by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17488 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mhady (port091-86.accessv.com [209.50.86.91]) by emerald.accessv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17338 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:03:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3429F08F.33CE@accessv.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:03:11 -0700 X-UIDL: 875300501.001 From: Maher Hady Reply-To: mhady@accessv.com Organization: Trade Gate Co. To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Subject: Additional Income helps! Dear Babu, I would Like to introduce Alive International manufacturer and distributer of superior products for The exploding health and nutrition industry. I'm a mechanical Engineer having my own company for Export to the Arabian Gulf. I joined Alive International as an executive Advisor and I started doing this business through the Internet this really helped me to build a steady income online, Have the Internet work for you while you sleep! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Somehow I 'accidentally' erased most of this message while editing this issue ... so sorry! Oh well, I did save the most important part; his name, address and phone. PAT] For more information Visit my web site: http://www.accessv.com/~mhady/alive/ or - Send me an E-Mail: mhady@accessv.com or - Send a Fax to : (416) 352 5095 or you can call the Toll Free FAX on demand: 1- 800-750-8781 Maher Hady Toronto, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:18:34 -0500 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? > It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the network > load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single number, > every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For instance, > think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert > going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same > number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is > on top of the normal call volume traffic. So you handle it the same way the current DNS system works, with cached versions of the numbers, with say a 12 or 24 hour lifetime before re-lookups are required. > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the service > they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's offer is > compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number > portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be > over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same > technicians with the same level of training and the same level of > desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. > Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's > offer may be better, but only marginally so. True but using national databases of this system as opposed to local ones, you could eliminate the problems caused by small rural areas using 2% of their exchange. (e.g. map the dialed number to a CKT-ID#, and you can spread that underused exchange over a couple different CO's) You could also, if implemented on a national scale, allow TRUE number portability - something like the NPA-500 numbers were. You have your number, and its yours, take it wherever you want, just update the "Database" when you get to your new home, and the calls to your number are now mapped to your NEW house instead of your old, regardless of where you move. Does that require a little "rethinking" in terms of how people think and dial? Yes. But think about it this way -- by mapping a telephone number to a circuit ID using a databasing system like that, the database query could return back all sorts of information -- toll or local, mileage, rate information, and PBX's could be programmed just ONCE how to react. No more dealing with AC splits and having to reprogram your PBX every six months. Your PBX behaves just like it always has -- It queries the number, gets the CKT-ID [and presumably a path of how to connect to it], the rate information, etc. and confirms whether or not to complete the call based on the PBX's programming. For consumers afraid of making accidental long distance calls, the system could simply sound a tone upon completion of the lookup, indicating that the call is free or local, or some other way to be determined. Just a thought. Derek J. Balling dredd@megacity.org http://www.megacity.org/ ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Re DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 27 Sep 1997 12:45:58 -0400 Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA In article , Dave Stott wrote: > think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling Stones concert > going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for the exact same > number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every minute. This is > on top of the normal call volume traffic. Caching is your friend. That's how the DNS system works. Once a CO looks up a number in the central database, it can keep it in memory for a while. So if thousands of people in the same area are calling the same number it shouldn't require thousands of database lookups. > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. Unless they expect ported numbers to be extremely common, it seems to me that a better scheme might be to distribute a list of ported numbers to all the CO's periodically. The CO would check for the dialed number in this list; if it's not found it will route the call based on the prefixes. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA Support the anti-spam movement; see Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups. ------------------------------ From: rtucker@crasher2.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 26 Sep 1997 22:29:25 GMT Organization: TTGCITN Communications, Des Moines, Iowa (www.ttgcitn.com) On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:18:20 -0500, Mark J. Cuccia spewed: > Also, I have described the story as I have heard it on several of its > performances by Agnes Morehead on Suspense. A motion picture version > of "Sorry, Wrong Number" was also done, starring Miss Barbara > Stanwyck. who also starred in the "Lux Radio Theater" recreation of I decided to check on that, and it looks like it's playing on Turner Classic Movies on October 19th at 8:30pm Central: Sorry, Wrong Number (Suspense) A wealthy hypochondriac overhears a murder plot. (B/W) Barbara Stanwyck, Burt Lancaster. (1948) (1 hr. 29 mins.) TCM - 119 Oct 19 (8:30P) If you don't get Turner Classic Movies, then call your local cable or satellite operator, yadda yadda. *grin*... -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ UIN: 1976881 finger rtucker@ttgcitn.com for PGP pub key/contact info there's something quite bizarre i cannot see.. -Mansun/Wide Open Space Origin address not hidden. Why? http://www.internz.com/SpamBeGone/ ------------------------------ From: Bear Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:35:43 -0700 Organization: Sherwood Forest. Delete 'army' to reply by email Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > I am _NOT_ titling this post with "Last Laugh" as part of the subject > line. While I do intend some sarcasm/irony further down, the > fictitious situation described here is _NOT_ funny. [snip - to save bandwidth] An excellent parody - masterpiece! Thanks Mark. But BTW, I could swear I saw a TV or movie version of this just in the past couple of years. I recall her being in a pink (or white) penguoir type gown. And I have a flash-back of the husband calling from a wall-mounted payphone in an airport or train station corridor. It was bone-chilling. Was there a movie or TV version? Or just getting senile? Bear please note: my "real" email address: eddyj(at)agcs(dot)com ****************************************************** NOTE: My "From" address in *newsgroup* post headers is munged to foil commercial spambots. To reply by e-mail please remove "army" from my ID. ****************************************************** ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #263 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 28 09:27:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA24125; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:27:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709281327.JAA24125@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #264 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Sep 97 08:27:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Carl Knoblock) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (junk-2-junkies) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Marc Baime) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Dave Padgitt) Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? (Melvin Klassen) Sprint Billing Disagreement (Sylvia Caras) Help With Line Noise Please (Tony Ward) Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone (Gordon S. Hlavenka) US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) (Bill Levant) RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference (Eric Florack) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Paul Schmidt) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Tom Watson) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 15:26:15 -0400 From: brian Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) replied to me: > In article , brian@his.com says: >> I've never heard of an IS-95 call being particulary tappable at the air >> interface ... what additional privacy is needed? > From my reading of the IS-95 summary at www.cdg.org, it appears that > in the "reverse" direction (mobile to base), the phone chooses a > spreading code based on among other things its ESN, which of course is > never sent in the clear. If you don't have the spreading code, it's > probably impossible or nearly-so to decode it. > In the forward direction, I'm not so sure about the security, since > it's not evident that there are unique codes for each "channel", just > separate phases of a common code. But I may be missing something. > Anybody know? If this is weak, then wireline-end echo might be enough > to make the reverse channel audio audible. > The keypad (not ESN) encryption method (CMEA) has been demonstrated to > be extremely weak, as it was one of those "NSA secret" developments > that left out the crypto community and turned out to be "hahaha" weak > encryption. But that doesn't encode the voice or the ESN, and in > practice may not be crackable off the air since the cyphertext blocks > are so short. Fred, You have missed the point of the thread. I was replying to a message about how Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile doesn't seem to understand how their CDMA network works in certain regions and thus gives out erroneous information. I was continuing that topic by trying to make the point that BANM promised me one thing and delivered another. I wasn't commenting on the actual privacy option. It's like if when Caller-ID first came out and the phone company told you that they would provide Calling Number only but in a year they'd provide Caller-Name. So you go out and buy the more expensive Caller-ID Delux unit now instead of the Caller-ID unit on the promise that the service would be provided. You ended up wasting money because you didn't need the extra feature. I paid more for a phone with the promise of security now and super security later. Later apparently will never come. Brian And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ From: Carl Knoblock Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Organization: Novia Internetworking - Omaha, NE Date: 28 Sep 97 00:07:46 GMT Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 > locations. To date, I've only connected to one of these at a > time. That will be changing in the near future when I will be > connecting 2 PCs. Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? I > guess I'm a little confused on the "bonding" that takes place which > ends up, from my naive perspective, giving me dial tone on my two SPID > numbers. FWIW, I plan on connecting both PCs with external Motorola > Bitsurfer "modems". I understand that I can only have a dual-channel > connection from one PC at a time. But I'm wondering if (a) I can run > one PC across one SPID and the other on the second SPID, and (b) if I > can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog ports of > each of these modems (in other words, will both locations provide > dial-tone to both lines)? Your NT1 is an interface between the line (U interface) and teminal equipment that runs on the S/T interface. Only one NT1 can be connected to a line at one time. Several (up to 8) S/T devices can be connected to the NT1. As long as your Bitsurfers can use the S/T interface, you can do what you want to do. If they have built-in NT1 interfaces that cannot be bypassed, you'd better look for something else. Carl G. Knoblock Metro Apple Computer Hobbyists cknoblo@oasis.novia.net Follow the Yellow Brick Road to cknoblo@delphi.com KansasFest 10, July 22-26, 1998 ------------------------------ From: junk-2-junkies@sdem1.surplusdirect.com Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:22:16 -0400 Organization: Erol's Internet Services This will better be answered in the ISDN newsgroup, but here is what I know: Stephen B. Kutzer wrote: > Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? No. The U interface (that is the 2-wire ISDN line that comes to the demark box in your house) can only connect to one NT-1. If you want to connect multiple devices, you have to do that on the S/T side of the NT-1. In the USA, most ISDN devices come with builtin NT-1, and no S/T bus interface, that does limit what one can do. > But I'm wondering if (a) I can run one PC across one SPID and the > other on the second SPID, and There are only a few ISDN TAs that let you do that. I think there is an ADTRAN 2x64. The way you describe your setup -- no you can't. > (b) if I can have phones and faxes connected to the external analog > ports of each of these modems (in other words, will both locations > provide dial-tone to both lines)? Again, possible, but you would need a diffrent setup, where you have an NT-1, connected to TAs (or routers, or...) that have an S/T interface on one "side" and analog ports on the "other side" There are some great ISDN web-pages, see www.ccg4isdn.com or www.isdn.ocn.com (and there are more...) ------------------------------ From: Marc Baime Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:11:35 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Here's a response I received which wasn't posted here but which, I believe, will work: It is relatively easy to add computer to Cable Modem. You need to buy a 4 port 10BaseT Hub with uplink, another ethernet card for the second computer and 2 pieces of UTP RJ45 cable. I have a 3 com ISA ethernet card in the original computer. I bought a Netgear PCI ethernet card for the second computer. I bought Netgear 4 port hub and a 3 foot UTP and a 50 foot UTP cable. The 10baseT that currently plugs from cable modem to ethernet card gets moved to the uplink port of the hub. Push button in for uplink. I have the short 3 foot cable going from Port 1 of the hub to the first computer. I have the 50 foot cable in port 2 of the hub to the second ethernet card on the second computer. That is all the hook-up. Now you need to configure your account on roadrunner and add a sub account. You assign ID and password. The second user will log in and change his password. You will need to add a line to: in Control Panel/Internet/Connection/Advanced-Exceptions [ams-server;login-server:8080;ftp://;gopher://] without brackets. The master computer will have port 8080 or what ever you have now. The second computer will have 8081. Add the exceptions line to all systems. Change all proxy port numbers on sub-computers. Their, now you have two or more computers that can access Road Runner at the same time with out speed loss. Mine works great. I'll never go back to modem ISP's. ------------------------------ From: Dave Padgitt Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:57:29 -0500 Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Reply-To: dp@enteract.com On a related note, I have heard of networks that can distribute info around the house over phone lines instead of coax. Does anyone know where I can find such a product? Any thoughts as to quality, reliability, cost, etc? ------------------------------ From: klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: Hooking Up Two Computers to a Cable Modem? Date: 26 Sep 1997 16:34:30 -0700 Organization: University of Victoria Marc Baime writes: > If possible, I would appreciate some detailed direction on what to get > and how to setup for a second computer on a single cable modem. > Any literature on the web? For the IBM OS/2 Warp environment, see "My Little LAN"; the URL is: http://www.iinet.net.au/~summer/OS2/MyLan.html > Can both machines run at the same time? > Do I need a multiplexer? A hub? > Where does the cable need to be split? > Before coming into the cable modem? > Coming out of the cable modem? Yes. No. No. Not physically, but "electronically" inside the first machine. ------------------------------ From: sylviac@netcom.com (Sylvia Caras) Subject: Sprint Billing Disagreement Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:19:40 GMT Sprint Unclear on Billing Practices I'd like to show Sprint that I have some who agree with me. I was referred here by one of the members of the spam-l list. Please telephone, in the U S, 1 800 877 4646, and press enough voice mail menu buttons to get to a live operator. I don't know the Canadian service number; it may be the same. Or email, if you know a good address. All I could find that didn't bounce was webmaster@www.sprint.com Please let them know you are calling/writing in reference to Cust # 182448994, 408 426 5335, and that you read about the controversy here on the Internet. And I hope you will suggest to them they should adjust my bill. Sprint changed me to their Sprint Cents plan a few months ago on their own initiative. While I did later find out about the change, I never received any written details. What I thought I knew is that from 7 PM to 7 AM, calls to "1 area code prefix four digits" (1 xxx xxx xxxx) were 10 cents a minute. One evening after 7 PM, I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute instead of 10 cents. Sprint told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have known I was making an international call to Canada, that the international rates applied here and were different and that despite there being no different country code for Canada and despite the number format being the same 10 digits as for within the United States, that it was up to me to have known the charge I was incurring. Are they right? They won't bend and have already billed my credit card (because that was how I had authorized the billing duh!). I've cancelled Sprint and am planning to call the card company and protest. As well, I'd like Sprint to know that I am not alone in thinking what they have done is wrong and hardly furthers relations between the United States and Canada. Goodness - open borders and closed telecommunication! I've been with Sprint for about 15 years. Bills have always been paid timely and average $50 a month. Calls have always been at prudent times. They don't even seem to care that I cancelled. I'd like it if you'd call, and or e mail to webmaster@www.sprint.com Thanks, Sylvia Caras, owner, MADNESS coordinator, the family of mad lists on LISTSERV@maelstrom.stjohns.edu and at www.madnation.org SylviaC@netcom.com 1 408 426 5335 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No Sylvia, they really don't care that you cancelled after fifteen years. To their way of thinking, a new sucker is born every minute. We've had lots of discussions here in the past about Sprint making changes in their programs without bother- ing to tell anyone, and flat out simply violating their own contracts in the middle of a promotion when they decided it was not to their advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like that for as many years as we have written about them here. Good luck in getting an adjustment. My suggestion is you handle it by telling your credit card company not to pay it rather than by trying to get an adjustment from Sprint. What would you like to wager that if anyone reading the Digest did call, Sprint would either refuse to discuss it or claim that no such customer number existed, etc? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony Ward Subject: Help With Line Noise Please Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:17:48 -0500 Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so how?). Many MANY thanks for your help. Tony Ward tonyeo@black-hole.com ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: Denver: Home Number Ringing on Mobile Phone Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:42:00 -0500 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > From the "Rocky Mountain News", Denver, September 24, 1997 > http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0924west2.htm > Customers can choose their existing home or small-business office > numbers as their PCS number, and incoming calls to that number can be > routed directly to the mobile phone for $4.95 a month. Or customers can > use the separate number assigned to the PCS phone. > After arriving at the museum, Mannetti explained that the technology > allowing customers to use one number for both wireless and regular > phones was developed at US West's Advanced Technology Center in Boulder. > Major rivals were unimpressed. And so am I. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, on a plain old analog AMPS cellphone, for $1.20 a month; I just ordered "Busy Line Transfer" and "Alternate Answering" from Ameritech. These services cost 60 cents each, per month. (Actually, it was an Ameritech rep who turned me on to this.) People can call me on the landline number and if I don't answer, after 4 or 5 rings the call goes to the cellphone. If I don't answer _there_, it goes to the cellular voicemail. Having the Busy Transfer feature as well makes the whole thing work as if I had landline voicemail. But I don't bother with voicemail on the landline; I use the cellular voicemail exclusively. Details in the "free advice" section of my website. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:49:59 EDT Subject: US West Hype-O-Matic (was Re: Denver: Home Number ...) In issue 260, Donald Heiberg posted an article from the __Rocky Mountain News__ that said, in part ... > ...US West Communications turned up its new wireless service in the Denver > area Tuesday with a twist the company says is a national first: A > customer's home number can be programmed to ring on the mobile phone. The company may SAY it's a "national first", but to this hype-impaired reader, it sure sounds like "call-forwarding variable" on the home number. Period. Now, if they meant to say that incoming calls ring in BOTH places simultaneously, well that's a horse of a different color, but if so, their flacks did a lousy job of getting the word out, because this story DOESN'T SAY THAT ! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 06:47:33 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: RBOCs Few at Telephony Conference From TIPWORLD.COM: ** RBOCs few at telephony conference Regional Bell telephone operating companies were conspicuous by their absence at this week's Voice on the Net show at Boston's World Trade Center. Bell Atlantic registered just one representative, U.S. West also sent one, a source told Internet Daily. New media consultant Vin Crosbie said "the telephone companies are here in one-sies and two-sies, while the long distance companies, like AT&T, MCI and Lucent are here with armies." The 30 exhibitors were primarily technology- focused. Show awards went to Selsius Systems, Inc. for a LAN-based PBX system allowing just one network to be used for data and voice Internet transfers, and Voxware, for its VIPSuite software tools designed to improve the speech quality of Internet-carried calls. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 20:42:30 -0500 From: Paul Schmidt Organization: pschmidt at viaduct.custom.net Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the 1970's there were a lot of > guys with the knowledge and equipment to convert CB radios into ten- > meter transceivers. Then there were those of us who did it *LEGALLY*. Those boards made by Cybernet (with numbers in the corners like PTBM039AOX) were lots of fun for those of us on limited budgets during the sunspot peak of the late '70s. I remember the thrill of working stations in England and Russia on AM just below 29 MHz; of adding an FM detector chip and tossing some audio onto the VCO to use one on 29.6 MHz FM; of turning on the transmit oscillator to (kind of) demodulate SSB signals ... Sure, I knew how to run them all over the illegal frequencies; but I was in my late teens, with both amateur and commercial FCC licenses, and was going for an EE degree, I saw no reason to risk my future.. (although no doubt it would have probably been very profitable). There are still some of us who believe in right and wrong. I made enough money working on legal CB's when I was in high school, then working in the repair shop for a ham equipment dealer when I was in college. I got the degree a couple of years after that, and now spend my days making computers talk to each other... It's nice to remember some of the low-budget fun of those days -- and I don't regret passing up the opportunity to make some quick (illegal) bucks. Paul Schmidt Bloomfield, IN USA Amateur Radio K9PS http://viaduct.custom.net/pschmidt ARRL Life Member PGP fingerprint: 24 9F D3 BD AE E3 50 72 QCWA Life Member 26711 Linux 2.0.pre-31 23 AB A0 64 BB 9E 2B 8D Cnhy Fpuzvqg : rot13 for SpamBots! ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:26:59 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , James Bellaire wrote: <<>> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: <<>> > once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after > that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] It wasn't Johnny Cash, it was "C.W. McCall". "The rubber duck". tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you, and I stand corrected. But as we have noted here in the past, accuracy of the details is not all that important ... anyway, it was that very popular song in the middle/late 1970's about the convoy of truckers running through the toll-plaza without stopping to pay the toll which caught the ear of so many people and made CB very popular. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #264 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 09:03:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA25878; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709301303.JAA25878@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #265 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 09:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll Free Domains (Greg Monti) Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (David Leibold) Spam Analysis (oldbear@arctos.com) Now There is Spam in the Chinese Language (Robert Casey) Cellular Phone Purchase (Lisa Hancock) Just for Fun: The Payphone Project (oldbear@arctos.com) Long Distance Wholesale Club Free Calling Offer (Eli Mantel) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (J.F. Mezei) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Perry Quan) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (J.D. Baldwin) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jeremy Radlow) Re: Spamford Rides Again! (Bill Walker) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:18:51 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Toll Free Domains I've been reading with interest Judith Oppenheimer's postings to TELECOM Digest advocating a concept of toll-free domains. Correct me if I'm wrong. You advocate that business sales departments and customer service centers should be the only parties allowed to have NANP telephone numbers beginning with the magical digits 1-800. All other users currently having 1-800 numbers shall be summarily booted out into one or more other Special Access Codes, such as 1-888 or 1-877. When a new user requests a toll free number from his or her long distance carrier of choice, he or she will be asked (under penalty of what?) just what the new number will be used for. If it will be for a sales department, the user will get a number beginning with 1-800. If it is for, say, a pocket pager, the user will get one beginning with, say 1-888. If the user *lies* to get a number beginning with 1-800 and routes it to a pocket pager, what happens then? Does the customer go to Telecom Jail and do penance by being strapped to a step-by-step switch until his or her hearing is nonexistent? What new government agency will administer this punishment? Will the taxpayers pay for this enforcement? In spite of its unworkability, doesn't your plan of dividing toll free numbers into groups based on what they are used for simply postpone the inevitable? Even if all cell phones, personal toll free numbers, and pagers are kicked out of 1-800, won't 1-800 fill up eventually anyway with legitimate sales departments and customer service users? What do we do when the 7,900,001st customer calls up and wants a new 1-800 number and all of them are gone? Do we open a new code, say 1-866, and assign them a number there? Suppose the customer chooses 1-866-FLOWERS? Or suppose 1-866-FLOWERS is *chosen randomly* for the customer? Doesn't that put us right back where we are today? What will your solution be then? Actually, I am largely in agreement with you. I say: - Let customers have whatever toll free numbers they want. Customers should have ownership rights in their toll free numbers. - Let 'em hoard as many numbers as they want. - Let 'em pay $100 for two years to reserve a number, same as they do with domain names from InterNIC. The $100 charge would apply to telcos as well as to end user customers. Every time a number is removed from the pool and taken posession of by any entity, it's another $100. No refunds if used less than two years. When it changes hands from telco to end user customer, it's another $100. Every time it changes hands, another $100 to the database administrator. - Let people buy, sell, reserve, lease and trade toll free numbers at will, at any price the market will bear. It's like concert tickets. Scalpers welcome. - Let the owner of 1-800-FLOWERS sue the owner of 1-888-FLOWERS to enforce his property rights, just like they would do with a real estate boundary or a brand name logo. Perhaps in another five years, people will finally get it through their thick heads that toll free numbers are not "free." They are premium-priced long distance, which is marked up and charged back to you, the consumer. By then, maybe the FCC will have come to its senses and dropped the distorted policy of subsidies that is driven by exhorbitant access charges. Domestic long distance calls will be two cents a minute during weekdays. Hell, that's almost free. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:18:56 EDT From: David Leibold Reply-To: David Leibold Subject: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario A major cable cut occurred in the Mississauga, Ontario phone service over the weekend, affecting the Bell Canada Streetsville exchange (Pearl Street DS0 central office, at least as of a few years ago). Listed NPA 905 NXXes affected are 542, 567, 812, 813, 819, 821, 826, 858. CBC Television news tonight reported that some phones could be out of order until Friday, though most service should resume before that. The reports showed temporary payphone setups in affected neighbourhoods, apparently with free local calls available during the inconvenience. An early report with some of the details was in the Toronto Star, 28 September 1997, which should be web-accessible for about a month: www2.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19970928/news/970928A04_CI-PHONE28.html (or failing that URL, go through www.thestar.ca into Back Issues...) And the moral of the story ... "Call Before You Dig" (the telco repair/cable locating folks, that is). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:02:54 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Spam Analysis Pat: The following is something I did about two months ago to get a better understanding of the kind of "unsolicitied commercial email" that is being spewed into my mailbox. Readers of TELECOM Digest may find it of interest, particularly the observations about: 1. the *size* of the typical spam email message versus the that of the typical legitimate individual message; 2. the volume of spam compared with legitimate messages (other than subscribed mailing lists and other solicited bulk mail); 3. the apparent evolution of a subset of standard English punctuation which might be called 'spammese'. From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: the case of the telltale exclamation point ! Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:48:18 -0400 Since the beginning of the year, rather than deleting email SPAM, I have been filtering it off into a file called "SPAM" for purposes of intellectual curiosity. Well, it being a slow Friday afternoon, I decided to do some analysis. First, let me say that I already filter the 'from:' field to sort mail from subscribed lists and newsletters into appropriate folders. That reduces the mail volume in my general in-box considerably. I also filter mail from about ten individuals from whom I regularly expect to receive mail into a priority folder. That left 2,195 messages as "general" in-box material, or for the 213 days, an average of 10.3 unclassified messages per day. Of these 2,195 messages, I had manually sorted out 715 "spam" messages, or roughly 32% of the total unclassified message traffic. It should be noted that on a 'number of bytes' basis, the percentage of "spam" is much larger, totally 3,385KB of 6,809KB, or 50%. This means that the average "spam" email is 4.74KB compared with the average "real" e-mail being only 2.31KB including headers. A very scary statistic. Having noticed that spammers are not only verbose, but have a propensity to use needless exclamation points in the subject line, I decided to see what would happen if I filtered out any email message from the unclassified message traffic which contained a "!" in the subject line. Of 715 spams, 262 messages were selected -- a detection rate of 37%. Of 1480 "real" messages, 75 were selected -- a false positive rate of only 5%. A further examination of the "false positives" showed that 22 of them related to the contact management software "ACT!" made by Symantec and about which I had been in correspondence with several other users at one point earlier in the year. Obviously, an unfortunate choice of product name. Another 20 messages were replies to subject lines containing "!" which I foolishly had originated myself, such as "Happy birthday!" and "thanks!" -- something I pledge never to do again. That brings random "false positives" to 33, or 2% which may or may not be an acceptable level to any particular email user. In summary, based upon my sample (your mileage may vary), just filtering for exclamation points intercepts 37% of incoming "spam" while erroneously intercepting only 2% of bona fide message traffic. Personally, manually trashing ten messages per day is not so onerous that I would risk losing 2% of my valid unclassified email. But it does provide some indication of how "intelligent" filtering might be possible under current circumstances. Unfortuantely, 'professional' spammers eventually will figure out the filtering algorithms much like professional tax advisors have figured out what provokes an electronic IRS audit flag, or how shrewd job applicants have figured out what will get their resumes flagged by personnel departments which use electronic scanning. Even so, most of the annoying amateur multi-level marketing and chain letter garbage is so stupidly constructed that taking it out of the mailstream should be relatively easy -- even though doing it at the end point remains a tremendously inefficient use of resources. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Now There is Spam in the Chinese Language Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 21:01:56 GMT Yesterday in "rec.audio.tubes" saw a post that was unreadable (not just a language that uses the ASCII character set, but special code to send info to special reader software to write the message in Chinese characters). Figured that some audiophile in Japan or similar posted something related to audio, and just forgot to translate it first into English and ASCII. Dumb move, but I've done dumb things before myself. Posted a followup asking for English. Another person in the newsgroup says that it's just a spam message from Taiwan. Nothing to do with audio. A good friend of mine owns an advertising and PR firm. Talking about the Internet with him, told him "don't ever send mass e-mail (spam) because it will just anger millions of people". He hasen't gotten on the 'net yet, and unsure how to advertise (properly) using it. Told him about SPAM and how hated it is. I wanted to make sure he doesn't get sold a "bill of goods" by some spammer "service" and cause him (and all of us) a lot of grief! AFAIK, a web page is an acceptable method of advertising something. It doesn't get in your face like SPAM does. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Cellular Phone Purchase Date: 28 Sep 1997 19:35:50 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS Well, I finally broke down and joined modern civilization. I bought a cellular phone today. On the one hand, it's pretty slick. They gave me the phone and after a few minutes charging, it was ready to use. On the other hand, dealing with them was very frustrating. These phones are very expensive to use, and getting accurate rates from them was hard because I kept getting conflicting information. * One brochure said I was billed from SND to END, regardless if the called party answered. Another brochure said busy/no answer aren't billed. This could mean a BIG difference in cost, esp since they bill by the minute, including fractional minutes. I don't want to waste a $1 on a busy signal. That's ridiculous. * One brochure described a large extended home area of 59c/minute for all calling plans. Another brochure said the Basic Plan didn't offer that. Sales people were also contradictory on this. * Sales people were clueless on how and when "long distance" charges were billed for calls within the home area. The home area is rather large, and it's possible it may be cheaper for me to use my cellular than my regular long distance carrier off peak. Also, they were contradictory if their long distance charges were _in addition to_ or _instead of_ the regular air time fees. * No one could tell me how to use the phone outside its home area, if or when I'd want to switch "A" to "B", or how I'm billed. I received no information on roaming. They said if I were, say in Chicago and had my phone on, someone could dial my number and reach me. I find that surprising. * Per my request, they sold me an auxillary battery. But later I found out there's a lighter yet longer-life one (albeit at higher cost), that I wanted. I assume they'll let me exchange. * One salesperson said I could use the phone while charging off a wall outlet. Another said no. (It appears not, given the design. However, the automobile charger appears to be designed to work that way.) * They couldn't tell me the cost to replace the phone itself it was stolen or destroyed during my "contract year". They said it depended on whatever was on promotion at the time. * One salesperson said there's a $15 charge to switch between plans, another said no charge. * There's a "landline charge" per call. Some said 10c, some said 12c, they all said "sometimes you're charged". By this point I was so confused I didn't bother to ask, other than to ensure it was per call. * The same carrier gave out contradictory brochures at different locations. I bought this phone primarily for use in emergency, I have little need for it otherwise. It appears given the billing system, that's how I'll use it. (Or I guess I should said I won't use it.) Unfortunately, pay phone charges have become just as uncertain, even with a traditional "Bell" payphone. In some cases, even at $1/minute, it may be cheaper to use the cellular for quick calls than a payphone since they hit you with calling card charges up front. (For long calls, the payphone is cheaper.) You know, I wonder if the Bell's are happy to let pay phone service go away, since they'll make more money off cellular. Poor pay phone service (COCOTS, unable to ring back, unpredictable charges) is a big reason I got this phone. Lastly, I didn't see any models with rotary dialing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think regarding the billing time the clock does run from 'SPEND to END' however if the dialed number is busy or does not answer then you are not charged. If the party does answer then you are billed from when you first started the call, i.e. first pressed the S[P]END button. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:07:18 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Just for Fun: The Payphone Project Amazing how people on the internet spend their time. TELECOM Digest readers may be amused by this web site, as announced by its webmaster below: --- Forwarded message follows --- From: sorabji@SPAMLESS.paranoia.com (Mark A. Thomas) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce Subject: The Payphone Project Date: 25 Sep 1997 00:25:07 -0400 Lines: 13 The Payphone Project, on the internet for over two years, has been re-built and re-organized. Use this site to find payphone numbers from throughout the United States and Canada, and add your own payphone numbers to this ever-growing collection. THE PAYPHONE PROJECT http://www.paranoia.com/~sorabji/resources/payphones/ ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Long Distance Wholesale Club Free Calling Offer Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:44:01 PDT Several months ago, I got an offer to use the services of Long Distance Wholesale Club (a divsion of Telco Communications) by dialing their 10xxx carrier access code. They offered interstate calls at 9.5 cents a minute, subject to a monthly fee which would be waived the first month. Additionally, they promised 20 minutes of free interstate calls. I made about six hours of calls under their plan in the first month, and as promised, I was billed at 9.5 cents a minute and there was no monthly fee. However, I never got the 20 free minutes, and each time I called, they said they would put in a credit for me, but it would take two months to show up on my Pac Bell bill. It's now six months since that first bill came, and I'm getting the same useless story from Telco Communications. I've called Pac Bell, and they're apparently going to resolve it. Admittedly, there's less than $2 at stake here, but I'm wondering whether this is an isolated incident, or whether they've given anybody the credit without having to demand it, or if they only gave the credit to people who used their service after the first month. I would appreciate hearing from anybody else who took Telco up on this deal. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <[non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:51:05 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: [non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca >> Obviously Spamford was one of their leaders, >> but how many of the vermin still remain to be exterminated? Any >> guesstimates? PAT] Isn't SPAMFORD aware of all the hatred against him? If extremely unpopular politicians fear for their lives, shouldn't he? Does anyone know if he has to take extra steps to protect his own security? Or is he so naive to think that he is popular and is doing the world a great service/favour? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:59:21 -0400 From: Perry Quan Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Michael P. Deignan wrote in article : [snip] > list of company names, telephone/fax numbers, and addresses would be > really helpful. If a sizeable number of Internet users spent a few > minutes and a few dollars in postage each week, maybe companies > providing Spamford with his business would think twice if they got > 25,000 letters that all effectively said "it has come to my attention > that your company uses spamming as a marketing tool. For this reason, > I have added your company to my list of "never buy from" companies." > Or, something to that extent. This would be an excellent idea if the Spamford's customers were reputable outfits. But they aren't. The spam consists of frauds, pyramid schemes, and sex sites. Any form of consumer boycott won't work with these spammers since they don't care how many people they annoy. Since the cost of spamming is low, the spammers need only a very miniscule return to profit. It's not going to stop until the cost of spamming oustrips the return. ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:23:02 GMT In article , Jim Youll wrote: >> Seems to me that to cure the problem, we need to get across to the >> people spending money to have their ads spammed across the net, the >> idea that it's not a good PR move. > Companies that understand anything about PR and marketing do not do > this. At the worst, they do it a couple of times and realize they really > blew it. And companies that haven't even tried it yet (real companies > with real products and real customers) are learning from the mistakes of > the first misguided pioneers, and will not be included to follow > blindly. I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes & Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. And over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 22:01:56 -0400 From: Jeremy Radlow Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Robb Topolski wrote: > I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or > Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG > doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 > million basically free e-mail ads. But now that nobody in the US will host spamhouses, maybe solutions that were rejected out of hand a year ago can be utilized today. I remember hearing about a plan by ISP's to filter out spam at the source -- mail has to go to TCP port 25, so you can easily prevent your customers from connecting to any SMTP server except your own, and then throttle traffic passing through your SMTP server. I really doubt that a typical user needs to send more than 1,000 mail messages per day, so restricting users to that level of traffic wouldn't get in the way of non-spammers, but would stop spammers before they could get started. 0.5% of 1,000 (and I bet the response rate isn't anywhere near that high) is pretty insignificant. This idea seemed impractical a year ago, because there was no lack of places for Joe Spammer to go if he got kicked off one ISP. With ISP's consolidating, and spam factories being kicked off the net, asking ISP's to keep their users in check seems a lot more reasonable now. Jeremy Radlow radlow@acm.org ------------------------------ From: Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: Spamford Rides Again! Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:09:18 -0700 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. In article , Richard M. Sander wrote: > Here's the text of a fax we received today from Spamford > Looks like he's pulling out all the stops > --- text of fax follows --- > GOOD TODAY ONLY! [note: we received it at 4:00pm EDT] > CYBER PROMOTIONS HALF PRICE ** BLOW OUT** SALE! > (proceeds will go towards Cyber Promotions' high profile lawsuit > against AGIS who single handedly injured thousands of small business > people by disconnecting their lifeline with no prior notice!) Did you have a business relationship with Spamford? If not, then he just sent you junk fax, and you can take him to court on it under 47 USC Sec. 227. Gee, if every one of these solicitations for money to help fund his lawsuit ended up _costing_ him $500 (plus legal fees), I wonder where that'd leave his suit? Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA Bill_Walker@qualcomm.com Support the anti-spam amendment. Join at ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #265 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 09:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA28874; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 09:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709301347.JAA28874@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #266 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 09:47:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Dave Stott) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Al Varney) Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (Bob Savery) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Dave Stern) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Louis Raphael) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Eli Mantel) Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement (Orin Eman) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:56:49 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? In TELECOM Digest #263, Derek Balling wrote, in reply to my earlier post: > Does that require a little "rethinking" in terms of how people think > and dial? Yes. Indeed, it requires a massive 'rethinking' of number dialing in the NANP. As you point out, we would no longer know which calls are local and which are toll, and by extension, we no longer know if we are dealing with local or distant businesses. This is very similar to ordering something from an 800/888 number. We don't really care where the call center is located as long as they mail us the right item, and we really don't care if the call is local or not -- since we're not paying the bill, it really doesn't matter. When I look up a lawn rental equipment shop, though, I skip all the ones whose telephone numbers begin with '9', because there are no exchanges near me that begin with the number '9'. Instead, I focus on the 831's, the 820's, the 345's, etc. I don't want to call a 212-621 number because to me that means New York - quite a drive to rent a trencher that has to be back by 5pm today. > the database query could return back all sorts of information -- toll > or local, mileage, rate information. . . That's all well and good, but I can figure most of that out in my head today by looking at the number. If it starts with something other than 602, I have to pay. When we split or overlay 602 next year then I know that 602 or XXX means local (i.e. free). Your plan would also involve 10-digit dialing across the country, even in the areas not affected by it today. Most of the country (geo- graphically, if not by population) does not require 10-digit dialing. Under your plan every call would require both 10-digit dialing and a lookup, just to determine if it was toll or not. > and PBX's could be programmed just ONCE how to react. No more dealing > with AC splits and having to reprogram your PBX every six months. > Your PBX behaves just like it always has -- It queries the number, > gets the CKT-ID [and presumably a path of how to connect to it], > the rate information, etc. and confirms whether or not to complete > the call based on the PBX's programming. Hopefully, it also tells the PBX user why it can't complete the call if its programming won't allow the call to be placed. > For consumers afraid of making accidental long distance calls, the > system could simply sound a tone upon completion of the lookup, > indicating that the call is free or local, or some other way to be > determined. When we already have a pretty good system in place, why are we changing it? Today, whether it's seven or ten digit dialing, we (and most other people, I'd venture) generally know if a call is local or toll. There may be some confusion when ten digit dialing is first encountered, but people learn pretty quickly. If there is no rationale to the assignment of numbers, we lose our capacity to identify local vs toll without trying the number. There is an economic penalty associated with dialing a toll number vs a local number, so there is a large disincentive to put such a plan in place. Once the penalty is removed (either per minute pricing for all calls at the same rate no matter what the location of the number you dial, or by having someone else pay the cost of the call) then we can move to nongeographic numbering. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <[non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:45:49 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: [non-spam]jfmezei@videotron.ca Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Yes, but remember billing is based on the dialed number, so if you > move to a different area, and keep your number, the cost of porting it > becomes your responsibility. This opens a can of worms, so it's well > into the future. Technically easy, of course. However, I have this *impression* that more and more, long distance companies are going for fixed fee pricing (10 cents a minute anyone?) irrelevant of where it is going in USA. Also, local companies would love to be able to charge for every call and some already do it. Once local calls are charged X amount, and long distance are charged Y amount, and the gap constantly narrowing, I do not think it inconceivable that a lon distance call anywhere in Canada/USA might just cost as much as a local call. At that point, dialing a number would cost the caller the same amount if that person happens to be "rerouted" to another city or be your next door neighbour. Lets take this a few steps further (ok, science fiction mode on). Your telephone number becomes each household's internet domain name and routers route both voice and IP calls to your household. This would make much more efficient use of adress space by sharing voice and data over the same network adresses (voice calls go to port X, email to port 25 etc). It would also make some very interesting competition situations (or lack thereof). ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: 28 Sep 1997 13:36:17 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > In article , jfmezei@videotron.ca > says ... >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right ? > The originating local exchange looks up the 800 number to determine > which IXC owns it. That IXC then presumably does its own lookup to > figure out how to handle it, which might map to a standard phone > number or to a designated internal address on its own network. All > quite fast. If the Toll-free number happens to be "supported" by the LEC, then the first lookup will return an intra-LATA geographically-based number, rather than an IXC. > PAT> Also, I have to wonder about database failures as happens > PAT> occassionally now with 800. > A risk, of course. But there will not be one big fat national LNP > database; rather, each ported prefix code will have its own ported > numbers, and the telcos can figure out on a local or LATA basis how to > sort them out. So a failure in, say, the Chicago database won't block > New York. So far, inter-LATA calls route from the originating switch to the IXCs just as they do pre-portability. This includes the intra-LATA Toll cases, if the LEC isn't the pre-subscribed carrier. In general, each LEC will have redundant databases supporting a few LATAs. So a failure of multiple databases of a given LEC will affect only intra-LATA calls FROM that LEC TO the failure area. Calls from other competing LECs (or calls routed to an un-affected IXC via 101XXXX dialing) will terminate normally. (Note that LECs may share databases.) Database failure in an IXC network will affect calls via that IXC terminating in a few LATAs, although some IXCs may initially cover a large number of LATAs with one database pair. Any failure should not affect other IXCs, or LEC-handled calls in that area. (IXCs may also share databases.) > It wouldn't surprise me if, when the database failed, calls > defaulted to the ILEC owner of the prefix (pre-portability) so > un-ported numbers might still work. This is an option in some jurisdictions. What happens on a query failure is that the call is continued TOWARDS the dialed prefix's switch. Each switch in the path may decide to requery (there isn't any indication that a query failure occurred). Ultimately, the switch supporting that prefix could be reached, and it to will attempt to query -- unless the number isn't ported. So a failure in only the originating LECs network may not block any calls, unless the originating & prefix-owning switches are in the same network. Then only calls to ported numbers from that network will fail. > I think this will end up with third parties in charge. I'm not sure I understand what will lead to that scenario. Third parties may (or will) be in charge of coordinating number moves. I can't imagine a reason for a third party to own/control databases that will ultimately offer different services to different LECs. In article , Dave Stott wrote: > In TELECOM Digest #256, J.F. Mezei wrote: >> 800 (and 888) numbers are "router" based, right ? When I dial an 800 >> number, the telco translates this to a standard telephone number, >> right? >> Why not do the same for *ALL* NANP numbers? > Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to satisfy > the desire of a small number of people who are only willing to change > phone companies IF they can keep their old number. I believe the argument to the state PUCs and the FCC was that the desire of several large LECs to enter the long-distance market required a "level" field in opening up the local-exchange market. Several studies concluded that there were more than a "small number" of people/businesses that were unwilling to change numbers unless the price differential was significant. Long-term, I don't see how there can be a significant price differential. So folks would be "locked" into their original provider. The exact same rationale lead to 800-number portability, and a significant market change occurred as a result (vs. the IXC-ownership of Toll-free prefixes). I don't believe SERVICE dis-satisfaction was considered a big driver in the local exchange market. PRICE dis-satisfaction was, and competition is supposed to fix that. But only if not artificially constrained by the reluctance to change telephone numbers. I'll go on the record as being willing to change local phone companies ONLY if I can keep my old number. After you've had a number for >20 years, you'll feel the same way. (Of course, I'm not sure my $23/month bill will attract a lot of new competitors.) Al Varney ------------------------------ From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery) Subject: Re: DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:31:00 GMT Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666 DD> It seems like a good solution, yet I have to wonder about the DD> network load associated with such a plan. Looking up every single Does anyone have statistics on the number of phone calls placed? Is there a computer system available that could even handle that number of transactions? DD> number, every time a call is placed would be a massive job. For DD> instance, think about a radio contest, or tickets to a Rolling DD> Stones concert going on sale -- every caller requires a lookup for DD> the exact same number, thousands or tens of thousands of times every DD> minute. This is on top of the normal call volume traffic. I would think it would be fairly easy to special route calls to these numbers. Telco's already do this in large market areas. DD> Consider, also, that we are looking up every single number to DD> satisfy the desire of a small number of people who are only willing DD> to change phone companies IF they can keep their old number. IF the Looking at residential areas, this would be true. But business's are the ones really driving for LNP. Some for economic reasons, some not. I work for a large health system. In our case, changing certian phone numbers (ie..ER, the Poison Center, etc...) could have deadly results. Marketing types love magnets and such with phone numbers on them. We own the entire 354 exchange, yet we're forced to maintain about 40 of our old numbers (we completed the conversion about 3 years ago) because people still dial them. At one of our other hospitals, I recently assigned what I thought was a free phone number. It started receiving 10-15 calls a day from people wanting various departments of the hospital. I just happened to mention the problem to one of the operators who'd been there forever (she cut her teeth on a cord board). Turns out this number used to be one of the main hospital phone numbers ... over 15 years ago! DD> service they are receiving is so bad today, or IF the new entrant's DD> offer is compelling enough to change, we wouldn't need local number DD> portability, but let's face it -- in most cases the service will be DD> over the same outside plant facilities, maintained by the same DD> technicians with the same level of training and the same level of DD> desire to do a good job and only the switch will be different. DD> Consequently the level service won't change. And the new entrant's DD> offer may be better, but only marginally so. Again ... this is true in residential areas. But CLEC's (at least here in Omaha) are laying fiber as fast as they can dig trenches. But you won't see a TCG or AT&T truck in a residential area! Over the last couple of months, I've had offers from three different companies to install their fiber directly into our phone rooms if we switch to their service. DD> So is the investment in LNP worth the price to provide virtually the DD> same level of service at virtually the same cost? Not in my DD> opinion. And yes, I do have a business that relies on my phone DD> number being accessable and somewhat constant, but I don't make DD> service decisions based on the cost of stationery. If I have to Neither do we. The decision to convert to the 354 exchange was mandated by the old exchange running out of numbers. Had that not happened, we'd not have changed. And having gone through that, and having to still dealing with the aftermath 3 years later, we will not be changing phone numbers again. DD> change my number, it's just one more reason to communicate with my DD> clients and remind them that their business is valuable to me. If it were only that simple! See Ya! Bob * RM 1.31 3192 * "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates,1981 ------------------------------ From: Dave Stern Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 16:32:46 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Columbus, Ohio According to the internet movie database (http://us.imdb.com) there was a tv movie in 1989 that is described as a remake of the 1948 movie. There was also a hit for a 1977 French movie (Prostite, ne tot nomer...!) aka SWN. Dave Stern dstern@lucent.com ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 29 Sep 1997 03:27:13 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Two summers ago, I was in such a place, and needed the police, at 3am, from a public phone, in a relative hurry. True, the phone number must have been listed in the attached phone book, but I was very happy indeed to have an operator connect me, pronto. In stressful situations, the last thing one wants to be doing is looking up a phone number. 911 is a good thing, and should connect to an operator automatically where 911 service isn't available. I believe that this is done in some places. Louis ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:08:17 PDT Sylvia Caras (sylviac@netcom.com) wrote: > ...I made a call that lasted 73 minutes and was startled > yesterday to receive a bill for $73, $1 a minute ... Sprint > told me, when I questioned the charge, that I should have > known I was making an international call to Canada, that > the international rates applied here ... When I read this message, I thought you must have been mistaken, and that the calls were to some Caribbean country. I called up Sprint customer service, who transferred me to sales, who seemed to be unable to quote me rates for calls from California to Canada. When I called back, I was told that the rates to Canada on the Sprint Sense California program (without the international option) were 10, 25, or 40 cents a minute, depending on the time of the call. But then I was told that these rates had just gone into effect about three weeks ago, and that before that, they were $1.05 a minute! I don't think these are typical "basic" rates for calls to Canada, so I expect that Sprint simply created artificially high rates for these calls as a way of offsetting their 10 cent a minute rate on weekend calls to Canada. To be sure, it is the customer's responsbility to realize that they are making an international call, notwithstanding the fact that under the North American Numbering Plan, calls to Canada and to the Caribbean use area codes instead of country codes, and that charges for these calls are usually higher than for calls within the U.S. However, the practice of long distance phone companies notifying customers of rate changes by small, incomprehensible ads in the Wall Street Journal (which meets the legal requirements because the rates are technically still regulated) stretches the notion of what constitutes a legally enforceable contract. In fact, rates are not regulated, so why should notice by publication in the Wall Street Journal still be considered sufficient notice? Obviously, it shouldn't. IMO, although it's reasonable to expect that you'll realize you're calling Canada, it's not reasonable to expect you to know about the high rates Sprint charges for such calls, when they never notified you of those rates. Essentially, Sprint has committed "deception by omission", highlighting their lower rates, while failing to mention that their charges are outrageous at other times. By the way, I have a web page of "Sprint Lies". Check my web site under Telecom Scams. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note" A web page for Sprint's various lies? Amazing ... was your system administrator willing to allow you that much space on the system? I thought at geocities the amount of space per user was quite limited. ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Disagreement Date: 29 Sep 1997 18:58:17 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C > advantage to continue as it was written. Even if ten cents per minute > to Canada was not the established rate, a dollar per minute seems > rather excessive, but Sprint has used 'bait and switch' tactics like FYI: I'm on AT&T's 10c a minute plan, but calls to Canada don't count either. I just happened to have an example here - 9:06AM, Everett WA to Vancouver BC - 3 minutes $1.29. Not too bad since GTE will charge over 30c a minute for some intraLATA calls (fortunately AT&T can now carry those at 10c a minute and sendhelp.com help out with the Everett to Seattle calls). Orin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #266 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 30 21:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA18871; Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:37:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710010137.VAA18871@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #267 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Sep 97 21:37:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toll Free Domains (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Jeff Carter) Re: Spam Analysis (mustang@acy.digex.net) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Lars Poulsen) Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line (Gordon Croft) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Ed Ellers) Re: Radio Vigilantes (Bill Newkirk) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Stanley Cline) Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change (Bill Fenner) Kidnap Victim Phoned From Car Trunk (Tad Cook) Silly Me! I Lost the Number ... (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: * telecom-request@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:07:31 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Re: Toll Free Domains Greg Monti wrote: > I've been reading with interest postings in TELECOM Digest advocating > a concept of toll-free domains. Correct me if I'm wrong. You advocate > that business sales departments and customer service centers should be the > only parties allowed to have NANP telephone numbers beginning with the > magical digits 1-800. I'm advocating that, along with your suggestions: > - Customers should have ownership rights in their toll free numbers. > - Let 'em hoard as many numbers as they want. [for the sake of clarity, in RespOrg-speak this is called "reserved numbers." In the rest of the business world it's called "inventory."] > - Let 'em pay $100 for two years to reserve a number, same as they do with > domain names from InterNIC. The $100 charge would apply to telcos as well > as to end user customers. Every time a number is removed from the pool and > taken posession of by any entity, it's another $100. No refunds if used > less than 2 years. When it changes hands from telco to end user customer, > it's another $100. Every time it changes hands, another $100 to the > database administrator. I've no problem with that. > - Let people buy, sell, reserve, lease and trade toll free numbers at will, > at any price the market will bear. That just as 900 is for pay-per-call, and 500 will follow you around, 800 should be for toll-free voice of the commercial variety, whether your commercial entity is a small consulting firm or IBM. The marketplace has defined 800 as toll-free, many-to-one, for purposes of responding to advertising, marketing, customer service, etc. It's worked just fine for 30 years, to everyone's benefit -- telco's that carry the traffic, customers that receive and pay for the calls, and consumers that get the services they need. I call this a win/win/win situation. Pages and other primarily one-to-one toll-free applications, that have every right to the *utility* of toll-free, and have no need for the brand of 800, and indeed often suffer when confused with branded 800 numbers, would be much better served with non-branded toll-free SACs of 888, 877, etc. > All other users currently having 1-800 numbers shall be summarily booted > out into one or more other Special Access Codes, such as 1-888 or 1-877. Yes, pagers can be moved (as I was myself years ago for my pager from 212 to 917.) And as individuals and companies are today, across the country, with all the area code changes. > When a new user requests a toll free number from his or her long distance > carrier of choice, he or she will be asked (under penalty of what?) just > what the new number will be used for. If it will be for a sales > department, the user will get a number beginning with 1-800. If it is for, > say, a pocket pager, the user will get one beginning with, say 1-888. I don't want a 900 or 700 or 500 number for my 800 applications. Similarly, why would I request an 888 or 877? I again remind you here, as stated above, your reference to "sales department" is misguided. I'm neither suggesting, nor would I condone, any discrimination in this regarding small vs. large businesses. It's not size, but application that I'm distinguishing. > If the user *lies* to get a number beginning with 1-800 and routes it to a > pocket pager, what happens then? The benefit to this "liar" would be what? If I'm a home-based business requesting an 800 number for customers to reach me, (a) there's no lie, and (b) I have a good reason to want that number. If, however, I'm a parent seeking a toll-free number for my child to call home from college, why in heavens name would I want a number that is going to be mistaken for an advertised number and cost me in misdials, rather than a number that I'm only giving to my children anyway? The truly residential user (personal use) doesn't WANT a lot of calls. The business-residential user does. I don't see where anyone would benefit from asking for other than what they need. > Does the customer go to Telecom Jail and > do penance by being strapped to a step-by-step switch until his or her > hearing is nonexistent? What new government agency will administer this > punishment? Will the taxpayers pay for this enforcement? Yes, in the cell next to those found guilty of violating the FCC's April Report & Order. ;o) > Doesn't your plan of dividing toll free numbers into groups based on > what they are used for simply postpone the inevitable? Here's where your suggestions kick in. If I want a particular 800 number -- and it's already in the secondary marketplace, as most are -- and I can approach the user of that number and negotiate to transfer it to me -- I've not depleted the resource at all. I'll also remind you that as of only one year ago, the two largest marketshare telco's, AT&T and MCI, had between them only 3.5 million toll-free numbers in service out of 7.8 million possibles, and that included both residential and business, 800 and 888. All the rest are on pagers and other data applications. Separate out pagers alone, and watch the resource replenish demonstrably. > Let the owner of 1-800-FLOWERS sue the owner of 1-888-FLOWERS to enforce > his property rights, just like they would do with a real estate boundary or > a brand name logo. Here I agree with you. BUT, under current law, were 888 FLOWERS to go to some small business as a haphazard assignment, it carries the freight for the misdials, and so is not well served at all. Also under current law, it cannot sell that number to 800 FLOWERS, but must return it to the pool, to be picked up by some other poor fool to go through the same thing. There is no business sense in this, and no one served. What's worse, what happens when a large marketer is assigned an 888 where the matching 800 is already in the marketplace? Aer Lingus recently started advertising 1 888 IRISH AIR, a new number for them. However, the 800 version has been with a financial firm in Wisconsin for years. All of a sudden, this Wisconsin firm started getting the airline's phone calls -- tying up their lines, and costing them plenty in non-revenue-producing dollars. Who benefits here? Not the airline. Not the 800 user. Not the telco's. Certainly no consumers seeking either travel or financial services. So Aer Lingus bought the 800 number from the financial firm, in order to self-correct the misguided call-traffic pattern. Above and beyond unnecessary cost and inconvenience to both companies, they were literally forced to break the law (as did the participating carrier, who facilitated -- aka brokered -- the transfer.) Is anyone suggesting to me that this makes any sense at all? 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: 30 Sep 1997 16:02:42 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Jeremy Radlow wrote in article ... > Robb Topolski wrote: >> I don't know about you but I'm not getting SPAM from Ford, Intel, or >> Avon. I'm getting SPAM from RGG at Box 14A in Anytown USA. RGG >> doesn't care about PR. He's happy with the 0.5% of return on 14 >> million basically free e-mail ads. > But now that nobody in the US will host spamhouses, maybe solutions > that were rejected out of hand a year ago can be utilized today. Am I being paranoid, or are we all jumping to a big conclusion here? Phil Lawlor, the head of AGIS still thinks that spam can be a good thing and that they can come up with a reasonable way of handling it. About the only thing that we know for certian is that the spammers were kicked off and that AGIS is going to revise their AUP (see the press release at http://www.agis.net). For all we know, AGIS finally decided to strictly enforce the IEMMC guidelines requiring all spammers on AGIS to filter through the IEMMC SMTP server. Since Scamford and others weren't doing this they may have finally pissed off AGIS enough (what with the continuing complaints, etc.) that AGIS finally reacted and canned them. For all we know, AGIS could take Scamford and the others back as long as every single piece of UCE sent out by them and their customers is routed through the IEMMC server. All AGIS would have to do is modify their AUP so that it says something about a single complaint regarding spam that didn't go through IEMMC or that contained forged headers, etc. being grounds for immediate termination of service. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carter Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 12:47:41 -0400 Organization: Interware, Inc. J.D. Baldwin wrote: > I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes & > Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. And > over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. Well, my reaction to almost any spam from a "real" company is to reply to the source, and explain that due to their spam I will not buy any products from them. Real companies understand that annoying their customers is not a good business strategy (it helps if you are actually a current $$-spending customer and inform tham that you are taking your business elsewhere). I've never gotten a second spam..... Most non-scam spammers are less-than-savvy new Internet users who have heard about the "great bucket o money" to be made on the Internet, and have been duped by SPAMFORD and his ilk. I use the opportunity to educate them. A useful URL is the Internet Black List: http://www-math.uni-paderborn.de/~Eaxel/BL/ ------------------------------ From: mustang@acy.digex.net (Todd) Subject: Re: Spam Analysis Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:39:47 GMT On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 19:02:54 -0400, Bear wrote: > Unfortuantely, 'professional' spammers eventually will figure out the > filtering algorithms much like professional tax advisors have figured > out what provokes an electronic IRS audit flag, or how shrewd job > applicants have figured out what will get their resumes flagged by > personnel departments which use electronic scanning. You may be interested in the filter I've been working on. Instead of filtering based on undesirable key words, it filters based on desirable key words. For instance, anyone who sends me a message with my first name "Todd", "mail-key", or "qwer" is automatically added to my "accept list." Once on the accept list all mail from them will not be filtered. It's been extremely effective over the last 2 weeks since I started working on it. There are still some bugs with my implementation, but I think I can get around most of them. If you're interested at all, there's a link to the procmail filter at: http://g27.goes.com/zerospam The neat thing about this reversed method of filtering is that it will make it much harder for spammers to get into my mailbox. Sure, a spammer could read my Usenet posts and realize that all they have to do is type "qwer" in a message to get through the filter. Of course, this is a lot harder to do than having a spam-bot harvest addresses from newsgroups. I am convinced that there is a technological solution to spam. I'm also convinced that a technological solution is the only one that will be completely effective. I think if people start thinking along the lines of a "secure" mailbox system they might be on the right track. I've been trying to envision how such a system would work. If every mailbox had a "welcome message" associated with it, the sender's client could access it to see what "key" is required to send mail to the mailbox. The welcome message would have to be read by a person to determine what the key is. Now, when I receive the e-mail (assuming the sender entered a key,) my e-mail client has a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down button. Thumbs-up, the sender is added to my "accept list" and doesn't have to be concerned with entering keys. Thumbs-down, the sender is added to my "deny list" and all future e-mail from the sender is bounced. One down-side to this is that you'd have to manually add any mailing lists or auto-responders to your accept list. For some people this won't be a bother, for others it could be somewhat annoying. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas on how such an implementation could work. I've already been flamed by plenty of CAUCE activists who seemed irritated by the idea that a technological solution might be more effective than a law. So, please, no flames :) Todd Type "qwer" anywhere in your message if responding by e-mail. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:51:11 -0700 From: lars@anchor.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Organization: RNS / Meret Communications In article is written: > A quick ISDN question: I have ISDN to my house with RJ45 outlets in 4 > locations. ... Can 2 NT-1's be connected to separate outlets? No. The intended wiring plan is to have the NT1 where the line enters the premises, then have S/T-type devices attach behind that. The S/T bus is designed for attachment of multiple devices. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@OSICOM.COM OSICOM Technologies (Internet Business Unit, formerly RNS) 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Telephone: +1-805-562-3158 ------------------------------ From: Gordon Croft Subject: Re: Two ISDN Devices on One Line Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:53:31 -0700 Organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications Reply-To: gordon_croft@bc.sympatico.ca Sorry Steve, only one NT1 at the U interface (your RJ45 outlets) at one time. You can connect multi-devices at the S/T interface, but that's not easy. gordon_croft@bc.sympatico.ca Gordon Croft Surrey, British Columbia Canada ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: 30 Sep 1997 21:07:56 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Our Moderator noted in reply: > Thank you, and I stand corrected. But as we have noted here in the > past, accuracy of the details is not all that important > ... anyway, it was that very popular song in the middle/late 1970's > about the convoy of truckers running through the toll-plaza without > stopping to pay the toll which caught the ear of so many people and > made CB very popular." Actually the CB boom started in 1974 -- a year or so before "Convoy" came out -- apparently touched off by network TV news stories about truckers using CB radios to trade "Smokey reports" so as to evade the new 55 mph speed limit. "C.W. McCall" was a character that first appeared in local commercials for Old Home Bread in Omaha; the song was actually performed by Chip Davis, later known for his Mannheim Steamroller group, though he didn't disclose until 1983 that the two were connected. (Details can be found at American Gramaphone's Web site at http://www.amgram.com.) ------------------------------ From: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: Radio Vigilantes Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:53:36 -0400 Organization: Rockwell Collins, Inc. Reply-To: wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com Tom Watson wrote: >> once the general public found out about CB radio then shortly after >> that (with Johnny Cash's song) it was ruined for everyone. PAT] > It wasn't Johnny Cash, it was "C.W. McCall". > "The rubber duck". AKA Mannheim Steamroller. Bill Newkirk Collins General Aviation Division Publications Department Rockwell Collins, Inc., Melbourne Florida wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stan Cline) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:43:17 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:52:41 -0400, The Old Bear wrote: > The state's area code problems appear to be far from over, as=20 > alarm companies warned yesterday that tens of thousands of their=20 > customers won't have working alarms if the initial phase-in=20 > period for the new area codes is not extended beyond Dec. 1. The same arguemnts came up in the Atlanta overlay/split argument, largely because of the requirement for 10-digit dialing. Alarm companies complained that they would not have enough time to fix everyone's alarm systems, for those that needed to be reprogrammed (i.e., any in 770 that were dialing numbers within 770, and any in 404 that were dialing numbers within 404.) What I find strange is: Why were the alarms originally programmed to use 7-digit dialing, even though 10-digit dialing has been allowed permissively from the start of the *404/770* split? If the alarm companies had thought ahead, they would have used 10-digit dialing in the first place, and they would not have a problem now. Or they could have switched to 800/888 or 950 numbers, which are not affected by 7/10/11-digit dialing. (Many large national alarm companies with regional/national dispatch centers already use 800/888/950 numbers; it is the smaller companies that still use normal local numbers and are unhappy.) The Georgia PSC did give a special six(?)-month extension for numbers used to reach alarm companies' central stations -- such numbers, and ONLY such numbers, may STILL be dialed permissively as 7 digits even after January 1 (the date at which 10-digit dialing becomes mandatory in the area.) That will give the alarm companies more time to fix everyone's alarm systems -- not enough time, say the alarm companies. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) Subject: Re: Security Alarm Problem due to Area Code Change Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:02:39 PDT Organization: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center In article , Roger Fajman wrote: > That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've > had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the > Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not confusing would have been confusing =) Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Kidnap Victim Phoned From Car Trunk Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:57:09 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Kidnap victim saved by the bell GENEVA (Reuter) - Swiss police at the weekend foiled a hijacking attempt after receiving a distress call -- from the trunk of a car. Police in the capital Berne were able to act after a telephone tip-off from the victim himself, a Serbian man who had been bundled into the back of a car by his Macedonian kidnapper. The 21-year-old Serb managed to call the police from inside the trunk using his cellular telephone as his kidnapper drove away, police officials said. Shortly afterwards, he was rescued by a police patrol that chased the car in the back streets of Berne. The victim knew his kidnapper and was able to give the police the necessary information. The motive behind the incident was not known. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:10:44 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Silly Me! I Lost the Number ... I had the number to NAVOBS modem line in a 'clock program' script on an old DOS 386 machine. It would call that number every day or so to adjust the time on the computer. Somehow it got erased; the file it was in got zapped. Someone give it to me please. Also, what about Fort Collins' modem number? Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #267 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 2 20:46:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA22972; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:46:14 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710030046.UAA22972@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #268 TELECOM Digest Thu, 02 Oct 97 20:46:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Todd) Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem (Anthony Argyriou) Spammer Tollfree Number (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Slammed - Fraud? (jseder@syntel.com) Re: Slammed - Fraud? (eddyj@agcs.com) TCX128 Help!!! (Derek Uttley) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Jonathan I. Kamens) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Brian Elfert) Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today (Leonid Broukhis) Newbridge 8230/31 Component Source (shickle@concentric.net) Wanted: Power Supply for Vodavi TelPlus 1648 (Gerry Wheeler) Voicemail to E-Mail (W. Hughes) Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (David Leibold) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:20:38 -0400 From: Todd Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem J.D. Baldwin wrote: > In article , Jim Youll > wrote: > I hope you're right, but the early indications aren't good. Barnes > & Noble and amazon.com are "real" companies and engage in spamming. > And over the weekend, I got spam from Bell South. Grrrrrrrr. FWIW, I e-mailed Amazon regarding spam and received this canned (no pun intended) response: Subject: Amazon's spam policy? Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT) From: info@amazon.com To: Todd Dear Todd, Thanks for writing to us at Amazon.com with your comments. I want to assure you that Amazon.com does not spam. Spamming is bad for the Internet, and it's against our policy (and has been since our inception). We use email to communicate with our customers and subscribers about their orders, new services, and other newsworthy information. We have never obtained email addresses from newsgroups or other sites: we believe that's unethical. We communicate only with Amazon.com customers and Amazon.com visitors who have given us their email addresses of their own accord. In every email we send -- whether it's an Editors mailing to which customers have subscribed or a news update -- we include an unsubscribe option to allow customers to remove themselves from future mailings. We are very sorry if our recent announcement was in any way unwelcome to you. If you would prefer not to receive such announcements from us, please send a blank email message to no-news@amazon.com. We do not want our customers to receive anything from us that is not entirely satisfactory. [ I don't know what the previous paragraph is about--that's why I assume this is a "canned" response. --Todd] Again, please accept our apologies, and thank you for shopping at Amazon.com. Best regards, Richard Berman Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/ Earth's Biggest Bookstore ========================= >Subject: Amazon's spam policy? >To: info@amazon.com >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (WinNT; U) >From: Todd >Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 16:32:19 -0400 > >There's been a lot of discussion on news.admin.net-abuse.email >regarding Amazon's spamming policy. Some claim that Amazon used to >spam, some claim that you still do. Please let me know your current >stance on unsolicited commercial e-mail. > >I've used Amazon several times and have been very happy with your >service. I'd hate to have to find another online bookstore--one that >doesn't spam. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:25:57 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Re: Spamford Leaving Won't Solve the Problem Jeremy Radlow wrote: > I really doubt that a typical user needs to send more than 1,000 mail > messages per day, so restricting users to that level of traffic > wouldn't get in the way of non-spammers, but would stop spammers > before they could get started. 0.5% of 1,000 (and I bet the response > rate isn't anywhere near that high) is pretty insignificant. Most of us "typical" users won't need to send 1000 e-mails per day, but what about mailing-list maintainers? There may be other users who have _legitimate_ need for mass e-mailing. > This idea seemed impractical a year ago, because there was no lack of > places for Joe Spammer to go if he got kicked off one ISP. With ISP's > consolidating, and spam factories being kicked off the net, asking > ISP's to keep their users in check seems a lot more reasonable now. Whatever happened to the idea of requiring a valid e-mail return address? If forging addresses and headers were made a _crime_ (a subspecies of wire fraud), then even allowing spam factories to exist would not be as bad as it is now, because people would be able to complain to (and retaliate against) the spammer. Also, whatever happened to using reverse DNS for screening? I don't remember any technical objections to the idea, only a complaint that a very popular mailing-list refused to use it. With the spam factories temporarily out of business, ISPs should be able to enforce this on all customers, so that when spammers return, they have to identify themselves, even without criminal sanction. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 19:07:31 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Spammer Tollfree Number I got the following spam today in my box: Return-Path: Received: from vcn.bc.ca (root@opus.vcn.bc.ca [207.102.64.2]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id FAA27749 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 05:14:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ganda@crushnet.com Received: from mail.crushnet.com (mail.crushnet.com [151.196.87.10]) by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA12376 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.crushnet.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id PAA12751; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:27:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:27:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199709251927.PAA12751@mail.crushnet.com> To: Mail.Delivery@crushnet.com Subject: Test Players/Avid Golfers Wanted (com/msg) Reply-To: Jeffg@crushnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Spam deleted, just information on how to contact the 'company'. PAT] For more information visit our web site at: http://www.smartsport.com Or, call TOLL FREE 888-2GOLF-12 MON-FRI 10:00AM-5:30PM PACIFIC and ask for information on our test play program or you may email me at michele@smartsport.com. THANKS. ... more locations scheduled! 1-888-2GOLF 12 Don't forget to bookmark our web site! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe this should read, "don't forget to pollute our phone lines and mailboxes the way we have done to yours ..." PAT] <><><><><><><><><><><><><> This offer brought to you by Electronic Direct Marketing, Inc. Responsible targeted marketing is an extremely effective method for marketing your products and services. Call us for rates on targeted marketing at 1-888-551-7600 or email us at Ganda@greatoffer.com If you wish to be removed from our email distribution lists, send a removal request to remove@greatoffer.com ------------------------------------------ You'll note that it includes a toll free number to which everyone can call to inquire about their spam services. Maybe inquire several times, to compare rates, or whatever. Maybe just call to talk. They never learn... ------------------------------ From: jseder@remove.this.syntel.com Subject: Re: Slammed - Fraud? Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:37:19 -0700 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Reply-To: jseder@remove.this.syntel.com Complain to Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau Federal Communications Commission Mail Stop 1600A2 Washington DC 205545 Send copies of the documents in the case with a brief statement of facts. Also, write to your local telco and tell them not to switch your long distance carrier without written authorization. It may just have been a goof, or it may be fraud - if it's the latter, the FCC will see it in the large number of complaints (which is why it is _important_ to write to the FCC), and they will act. I got slammed and wrote the appropriate letters (and wasn't the only one to do so). The FCC imposed a $200,000 fine on the slammer, and my state's PUC fined them another several hundred thousand dollars and pulled the plug on them for 40 months! ------------------------------ From: eddyj@agcsarmy.com Subject: Re: Slammed - Fraud? Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:39:26 -0700 Organization: Sherwood Forest. Delete 'army' to reply by email Charles Beatty wrote: > We were recently slammed. The story is a little more unusual and > disturbing than simply being slammed though. Last month a service > charge from Accutel of Boca Raton, FL showed up on our bill. I finally > got through to a vice president at Accutel. She told me that they had > purchased the cutomer base of a company called Christian Communications > Group of Savannah, GA. The owner of Christian Communications is one > Pastor Ralph Davis. He may also be doing business as Least Cost > Routing. > Now I don't believe for a second that Davis is a pastor, or that > Christian Communicatons is anything but a scam. The disturbing part is > that they have my wife's social security number. This is apparently > sufficient to authorize a switch of LD carriers. > Has anyone heard of Christian Communicatons? Least Cost Routing? > "Pastor" Ralph Davis? Is there anything we can do to limit the > distribution of my wife's SS# ? Do we have any kind of legal recourse? > This is particularly upsetting since my wife's mother was just the > victim of credit card fraud because someone got her SS#. There's been a lot of heated discussion about SS# abuse in the misc.legal ng recently (if you have access to it.). I don't know if it's winding down or still going full steam, but you could post to the group and see. Bear ------------------------------ From: Derek Uttley Subject: TCX128 Help!!! Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 10:45:58 -0400 Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation Reply-To: duttley@spamnewbridge.com My church installed a donated TCX128 telephone system by Tie Communications when it was built about 4 years ago. It is working fine. However, programming manuals were not provided and I am having difficulty locating one. I want to inhibit long distance access to some of the extensions, which I am aware can be configured using the dial pad of one of the phones. Without the manual ...? If anyone can help I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks in advance. D. ------------------------------ From: jik@cam.ov.com (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Date: 02 Oct 1997 15:07:31 GMT Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc. Reply-To: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us My wife and I just bought a house, and in the process of undoing the phone-wiring madness the previous tenants inflicted on it, I've learned a few important tricks for reducing noise on phone lines (I've tried to list them in order from most to least important, as I see them): * If you're using the standard flat "quad" cable, don't use both wire pairs in the same cable when one of them is a modem line. In the days when phone lines were really used for voice, it didn't matter much that there would be a little crosstalk between the two pairs in the cable. However, if you're using one of those pairs for a modem, then you *will* get enough crosstalk from the modem tones on the voice line to be annoying, and you *will* get enough crosstalk from the voice calls on the modem line to interfere with good performance. Either use separate quad cables for your voice and modem lines, or use cable with some sort of crosstalk cancellation. For example, you can use Category-5 network cable for your phone lines with no trouble. Since I'm planning on having our electrician pull network cables into a number of the rooms in our house, I'm going to have him pull extra cables into the rooms we want to have phones in and use those for our phone circuits. * Unwire *every unused wire in the house*. After buying our house, we discovered that there were six phone cables ascending from the basement into various parts of the house, and the wires in those six cables were all twisted together (i.e., all six green wires were twisted together, all six red wires were twisted together, etc.). Worse, some of the jacks at the ends of those six wires had additional cables attached to them with additional jacks at the ends of them. It was a real mess. Any cable segment that is wired into your plant, even if it is currently unused, can cause problems. The more cable you have wired in, the more chance there is that there will be a short or noisy cable somewhere. Furthermore, the more cable you have wired in, the more of an "antenna effect" you're going to see -- your cables will act like an antenna and pick up radio stations, random atmospheric radio noise, or whatever. I unwired both ends of every single cable in the house, and then wired only three jacks -- to with our voice line, and one directly up to my office with our modem line. The voice and modem lines do not share the same cable anywhere. * If the phone cables in your house are old, test them for noise and/or just replace them. Old cable wears down for various reasons (e.g., the sheathing gets worn and the wires end up closer together or even intermittently shorted) and acquires more noise as it gets older, and besides, old phone cable is often crap. Buy some high-quality quad phone cable and replace the old cable with it; if you do it carefully (e.g., don't make any sharp bends in the cable, don't pierce the cable with staples when fastening it down), you will almost certainly reduce noise. * Check all your connections. Make sure that the connections are solid at the junction box and at other locations where wires are twisted together. It wouldn't hurt to undo connections that have been around for a long time, clean off rust and other accumulated coatings, and redo the connections. Also, make sure that there are no exposed connections -- if you've got wires twisted together anywhere, put wire nuts on them. Of course, it goes without saying that you should minimize the number of connections that are necessary. * Make sure your phone cables aren't running parallel to power cables. If they are, you probably want to relay them with a different path or replaced them with cable with noise cancellation (e.g., Category-5 cable). ------------------------------ From: belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Date: 02 Oct 97 17:06:11 GMT Tony Ward writes: > I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. > My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio > station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to > modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or > 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection > speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). > Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference > and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better > to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so > how?). Are you using a line noise suppressor or a RF suppressor? I think they make RF suppressors that should work better for your case. Isn't the phone company required to help in cases like this? Exactly how close are you to the radio transmitter? I am within 1/3 mile of a tower with no phone problems. Brian ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: Suspense: Sorry, Wrong Number - Yesterday and Today Date: 02 Oct 1997 15:07:16 -0700 Dave Stern writes: > According to the internet movie database (http://us.imdb.com) there > was a tv movie in 1989 that is described as a remake of the 1948 > movie. There was also a hit for a 1977 French movie (Prostite, ne tot > nomer...!) aka SWN. The phrase "Prostite, ne tot nomer" is in Russian, not French. The movie, judging by the director filmography, is most likely Czechoslovakian-Soviet coproduction. Leo ------------------------------ From: shickle@concentric.net Subject: Newbridge 8230/31 Component Source Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 14:31:17 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Can someone point me to a source for used Newbridge equipment? I'm looking for components for the 8230 and 8231. Thanks, Steve Hickle ------------------------------ From: gwheelerX@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) Subject: Wanted: Power Supply For Vodavi TelPlus 1648 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 18:45:40 GMT Organization: SpectraFAX Corp. Reply-To: gwheelerX@gate.net Our key phone system (Vodavi TelPlus 1648) has bitten the dust. There is an external power supply that produces 24VDC, and a supply inside the cabinet that uses this to produce +/- 5VDC. The internal supply has quit. I got an estimate of $850 (!) for a used one, because they're so hard to find. Any ideas on how I can get this beast running again? Gerry Wheeler gwheelerX@gate.net (remove the X) SpectraFAX Corp. Phone: 941-643-8739 Naples, FL Fax: 941-643-5070 ------------------------------ From: W. Hughes Subject: Voicemail to E-Mail Date: 29 Sep 1997 07:59:50 GMT Organization: Devon County Council I run voicemail on my PC at home, and I would like it to attach any messages that come in through the day to an E-Mail and have it sent to my PC in the office automatically. Does anyone know of any software that can do this for me? I am currently running Cheyenne Bitware to manage my voicemail, I have a 33.6 modem and run on Windows95. BiLLY ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 22:10:55 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario A new report appeared a few days ago (30 September) in the {Toronto Star}, after I posted the original Digest blurb about the Streetsville phone interruption. In that report, a contractor's association insists that the company doing the Mississauga digging called Bell regarding cable locations before making the dig. There will now be words between contractors and Bell. Meanwhile, I retract any suggestion in my post that the contractor did not call Bell. It's just that calling before digging is a wise thing to do in general. Meanwhile, a Toronto radio report today indicated about half of the affected phone customers should have their service restored by now. The repairs continue ... Ref: www.thestar.ca website, back issues to 30 Sept 97, article entitled: "Contractors blame Bell for Streetsville phone woes -- But telephone company insists it acted properly" David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #268 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 3 09:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA21535; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:29:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710031329.JAA21535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #269 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Oct 97 09:29:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors (Douglas Reuben) Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls (Douglas Reuben) Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service (oldbear@arctos.com) Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" (Rob Slade) Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts (Greg Monti) Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice (Linc Madison) Spamford v. Agis (Bill Levant) The Even Hand of the Law (oldbear@arctos.com) WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Chris Moffett) NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code (Danny Burstein) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Bell Atlantic Digital Bill - Many Errors Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:49:12 EDT Well, after weeks of waiting to see if Bell Atlantic's Digital service rates for the New England region are really what they promised, I received my first bill for our new digital account today. I must admit I was expecting a disaster -- high priced roaming charges for markets which they promised would be free (for off peak, as on my account I asked for the free off peak option), local call charges, roaming daily charges, etc. After reviewing the bill, I must same I am pleased that it is not as bad as I had thought, and they got it substantially correct. Bell Atlantic/CT (00119) has offered a weekend off peak plan for over a year now (as do most BAMS properties), as well as the first incoming minute free on certain plans (a very nice feature -- I give out my cell numbers much more liberally now), and more recently, off-peak airtime for free (between 8PM and 7AM, and all day on weekends and select holidays). Although initially they had billing problems with some of these, current bills are flawlessly correct when it comes to the above categories of calls for their analog service, and the digital is no different. All my calls with the digital phone were billed correctly in the CT market. (Note that by "digital" I mean calls placed with my digital account; it makes no difference if you are in digital or analog mode. Additionally, the digital account includes all of Connecticut, even Litchfield, which is serviced by AT&T Wireless. Bell Atlantic has had a series of plans which rated Litchfield/AT&T calls at the same "home" rate as the rest of CT, so the fact that they got this correct on their digital plan bills doesn't suprise me either.) The New England Digital plan also allows for "home airtime" rates over a large section on BAMS's "B" side systems, from Boston/NH/RI (00028), Eastern NH (00428), Vermont (00300), Albany (00078), Valley Cellular/Columbia County/Catskills,NY (01516 - except you can't place or receive calls there, how nice :( ), Poughkeepsie (00486) and Orange County NY (00404). For calls placed in the 00028 system, everything was billed perfectly! All calls appeared as "home" calls, ie, no special roaming charges, peak rates were billed as your peak home airtime rate (40 cents/minute, in my case), off peak was free, local calls were free, and in general, I was billed as if it were one, large seamless system. (Note toll charges ARE incurred if you place or receive calls to/from OUTSIDE of the market you are in, generally, but this is clearly stated in the policy sheet, and is more or less the norm in the industry.) For the Albany 00078, Poughkeepsie 00486 and Orange County NY 00404, this is not the case, and calls were billed at either $.99 per minute (standard roaming, even though there are BAMS properties!), $.59 per minute, or $.49 per minute (discounted "B" roaming on BAMS properties for other BAMS customers.) Local call charges were also incurred, and the free off peak airtime and free incoming minutes were not accounted for. I have yet to receive a bill for the other areas which are included in the Northeast plan. Additionally, the monthly charges are listed in such a Byzantine fashion that it is incomprehensible. There are 2 charges for monthly no answer transfer service, and then 3 credits for it (it is supposed to be free), one charge for voicemail and then a credit and then a prorated charge, credits for service, then charges for compensate for these credits, then more credits. I gave up; I figure this is due to my initiating service in mid-cycle (I have it billed to one of our other accounts which has been in service with them since 1987 when they were Metro Mobile). Hopefully, subsequent itemizations for recurring service will be less confusing! After reviewing the bill, I called BAMS to get the NY system(s) calls credited. I expected the worst -- in the the past when I have called BAMS for credits, I usually received a condescending "We'll give you credits this time just to be nice, but if you do it again, you will have to pay" or "Your home airtime rate doesn't apply outside your home state even though the brochures say 'home airtime rates apply' in Boston, Albany, etc." To my suprise, the rep. at BAMS looked over the bill (which was over $500 due to all the roam calls which were incorrectly billed), and after 30 seconds, said "Oh, I'm terribly sorry, it is obvious that there is some mistake in the billing. I will get a full printout in the morning, get the correct amount fo credits, and also make sure that our billing department corrects this so that you and other digital customers don't have this happen again." I was shocked -- it's rare to hear a cust. service rep. at a cell company not only agree with you, but indicate that something will be immediately done to resolve the problem in my (and their other customers') favor. Most impressive ... I figure either (a) a lot of people called about this already, (b) there are extensive notes on our account with them saying "just do what the customer says or he won't give up" :), or (c) they genuinely want to keep customers of their digital service and prevent churn (I would have cancelled in two seconds had she said "Well, the brochures are wrong, and you have to pay roaming charges et. al. when outside your home state.") As to a separate matter, I posted a few weeks ago regarding voicemail notification (on the phone's display, not the tones you hear when you place a call) not working outside of Connecticut. Well, someone must have done something, because all of a sudden, it is working everywhere! As a matter of fact, it is too much -- if I have a voicemail present, it beeps me whenever I enter into a new system, and perhaps each time I travel to an area covered by a different switch. It can be slightly annoying to receive all those beeps for just one voicemail (ie, if you don't check it, it just keeps beeping and beeping every so often as you hit different switches/systems), but at least it WORKS now, so it is certainly an improvement. No improvement yet with my e-mail paging in most on NYC, RI, and the other markets where it doesn't work, or with the silly 55 character alpha limitation. I guess I'll just have to wait for those ...:) Also, for the careful readers of my posts :), the 01516 system STILL does not allow outgoing calls (for some BAMS customers, mainly those from CT with 860 numbers), and doesn't have ANY incoming calls at all for BAMS customers. This is *supposedly* a BAMS property, yet BAMS customers can't really use it (it is jointly owned by BAMS and some hicks living up in the hills there who don't know how to run a system, and NO, people living in Columbia county aren't hicks, just the people who administer (ha! what a misnomer ...) the 01516 system are). BTW, my GTE Mobilnet/CA phone works fine there, both in terms of placing AND receiving calls. So BAMS has really dropped the ball there, and needs to do something to integrate that system with the rest of its properties. BTW, although I don't encourage it since I think it is a good deal overall, if you want to get out of your BAMS digital [or any] contract, you can tell them "Geez, well, if I can't get calls in the 01516 market, then the phone really isn't that useful to me -- I mainly bought it just to use in my home market any my country home in Columbia County, NY". They may tell you that you can switch to the "A" side to place calls, but this is only true for some BAMS customers, and you can not receive calls on the "A" side (01515) unless you are a CT/00119 "A" customer. Hopefully, they will fix service there so people don't have to get out of contracts and switch carriers just to be able to get calls there. If I can get calls in the 01516 system on my GTE CA 00040 account from 3000 miles away (which utilizes the same switch, the Autoplex, which BAMS does), then I *should* be able to receive and place calls in that market with my BAMS account as well. (BTW, the 01516 is not an Autoplex switch, or at least it has different confirmation tones than do other Autoplex switches. But if GTE can deliver calls to it, I think BAMS should be able to as well.) Overall, though, I am becoming increasingly impressed with the totality of th BAMS digital service in the Northeast. From the coverage areas and "extended" home airtime areas, to the free features, voicemail notification now working in most places, increasing alpha messaging territory, and (hopefully improving) billing, the service is well worth the money. I still think the sound quality of digital and audio delay is nothing to write home about, but overall, it is an attractive service, which will grow increasingly so as they increase the alpha messaging footprint and fix up systems like the 01516 which despite it being a semi-BAMS property does not really support any BAMS customers. Finally, I am planning on setting up a WWW site (www.wirelessnotes.org) on Interpage's server to host (modestly :) ) my posts, but more importantly, I'd like to have a regularly updated, system by system list of known problems, issues, interesting facts, billing and roaming billing practices, etc. It will be free, of course, and serve a repository for any problems in a given market which will be updated as they are corrected, etc. I invite anyone with any such information or problems of a systemic nature in a given cellular, PCS, etc. system to submit messages to wirlessnotes@interpage.net (I didn't set up the .org mailing addresses yet) for inclusion, now or at any time in the future. In a submission, please have the Cellular Operator's name (ie, Cell One/Boston), the SID number if available (00007 for Boston, or if you don't have the SID then indicate if it is A or B, PCS, etc.), the nature of the problem or issue, how long it has been going on, and other information along those lines. Paging notes and observations dealing with paging systems are also gladly welcomed. I'd like to stay away from individual issues such as "I asked for credits on my bills and they never gave it to me" or "My phone broke and now there is no backlighting and XYZ Cell co. doesn't want to pay for a new one", etc., and instead have a system by system listing of general problems, issues, or interesting facts which would be of benefit to the entire wireless community. Thanks in advance for any submissions! Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Reuben Subject: Cell One / Albany Charging For Incomplete Calls Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 03:32:55 EDT I recently reviewed a series of bills for our company detailing roaming charges in the Cellular One/Albany, NY (00063) system. It seems that for ALL of our accounts, EVERY call, even unanswered calls of a few seconds, are being billed! We have accounts with a number of "A" carriers from Boston, NYC, Connecticut, Vermont, California, New Orleans, and New Jersey. All of them reflected both incoming and outgoing calls which no one answered and were significantly less than 45 seconds. Additionally, I was billed a $3 (daily charge) and $.99 on our Boston (CO/Boston, 00007 account, not to mention their "Pizza Fund" rip-off $4 "roamer administration charge" -- I've already cancelled two accounts with them as a result of this outrageous charge and moved them over to Bell Atlantic and AT&T), and $.99 on our Bell Atlantic/CT 00119 bill, for the privilege of entering "*350" to turn on call delivery! (I had called Cell One/Albany about two years ago to ask them if they billed for incompletes, both incoming and outgoing (incoming incompletes are sometimes refered to as "ringtime"). There were similar problems back then, and after a series of calls, CO/Albany took care of it. They also told me that they do not bill for incoming/outgoing calls which are not answered as long as they are shorter than 45 seconds.) After a few months of just figuring that these bills were correct, I decided to do some tests, since it recently seems to have happened over and over. I called non-working numbers from a variety of our accounts while roaming in the Albany 00063 system. I also placed calls from the "B" side (Bell Atlantic/Albany, 00078, which, like most responsible "B" carriers, does not charge for incomplete calls) to the various "A" side carriers I utilized while roaming on the 00063 system. EVERY call to a non-working number, even ones where I hung up right after I pressed SEND, was billed airtime, taxes etc. It was not, however, billed a toll charge, since the dialed number was not in service, and thus not a billable call (Wow, they managed to get that part right ... miraculous! ;) ) EVERY incoming call, even if I let it ring just once, was billed, but again, there was no toll-delivery charge. Thus, by way of example, if I were using our Cell One/VT 00313 account, which was set to roam on the Albany/A 00063 system, when a call was placed to the Cell One/VT number, and the phone rang in Albany, the call was billed airtime by Cell One/Albany, but CO/VT did NOT bill me the toll charge to "deliver" the call from the 802 number which was dialed to my (temporary, automatically assigned, "TDN" number) phone in the Albany system. This is a clear indication that the Albany system is charging airtime for "ringtime", in violation of their own stated policy. I am in the process of addressing this issue with our carriers who charged us (or passed along the charges) for roaming in the Albany system. I am insisting on complete credits, and an investigation as to why we were charged when we were told a number fo times by Albany that we would not be charged for incompletes, especially after bringing this problem a few years ago. When I told ATT/NY (00025) about it, the first rep I spoke with gave me a rather hard time (ie, "Oh, they are allowed to do that, there is nothing we can do"; wrong, the NY system is billing us for the calls, they are Albany's agent in effect, if Albany promised us not to bill for calls less than 45 seconds and they did then the NY system should either take it up with Albany or credit the calls and have Albany try to collect from us directly. Then I got the usual "Why did you call numbers which you knew were not working?" (because neither you nor Albany bother to check these things yourself and someone else, unfortunately, needs to test these things), "Why did you place so many incoming calls, that seems odd?" (Because I didn't want to give you misinformation and needed to be sure by performing a grand total of 6 calls), etc.) Eventually, after pointing out the fact that I was billed airtime charges but not toll charges, I convinced him, and he issued a credit. More importantly, AT&T/NY later said that (at least as far as AT&T/NY goes), the problem was fixed, and incomplete incoming/outgoing calls while in the Albany/00063 system will not appear on subsequent bills. I hope so, AT&T is usually very quick to fix these things, even if their front-end help can use some better training. (I dunno, something about being drilled about my calling patterns just to show them that they may have a problem is a bit disconcerting :( ). I am still pursuing the matter with the other carriers, and will insist that Cell One/Albany either correct the billing, or give roamers correct information if they do indeed bill for incomplete calls of less than 45 seconds. Cell One/Boston should be fun -- they fight tooth and nail just to keep the $4 roamer fee, $3 daily charge, and $.99 per minute roam rate. Unbelieveable -- $7.99 just to press *350! That's why I am slowly dumping them as our accounts pass the contract period in favor of Bell Atlantic (Nynex) -- the offer a wider coverage area from Rhode Island to New Hampshire, no local call charge on most plans, unlimited off-peak, no airtime charge for voicemail deposition, and no petty, cheap "roamer admin" charges for giving you the "privilege" of roaming. Additionally, I believe that the Cellular One organization does not allow carriers to charge for feature activations, such as enabling call delivery via *350. (I may be wrong, but I will check with them.) If I find out this is correct, and CO/Albany insists that it may charge for hitting *350 and other features, I will bring this to the attention of the Cellular One organization for them to deal with. If you roam in the Albany A system, or have in the past few months, you may want to check your bill(s) for incomplete/unanswered calls and contact your local carrier if you feel you were incorrectly charged. Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 23:35:12 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: Baltimore's 3-1-1 Service This came to me from Robert Vroman who particiaptes in an Emergency Services Discussion List. He says original source was the {New York Times} web site on 10/2/97. I personally find this a worrysome idea. It would seem that the 911 staff should be able to better triage incoming calls. I wonder what will happens when someone calls 3-1-1 because they only have a "small fire" or didn't want to call the regular 9-1-1 number because they were not absolutely sure they were having a heart attack. The fact that Baltimore was dispatching emergency personnel to non-emergency situations sounds more like a staff training problem in their dispatch center than any kind of technological issue. 311 Takes Pressure Off Overburdened Emergency Phone System By Michael Janofsky BALTIMORE -- Until a year ago, the owner of a cat stuck in a tree and the spouse of a shooting victim would likely call the same number for help: 911. But under a pilot federal program that is likely to expand quickly around the country and beyond, Baltimore is using a different telephone number for non-emergencies, 311, a change that has reduced the number of 911 calls to local police by nearly 25 percent, enabling operators to handle life-threatening situations more efficiently and giving officers more time to patrol the streets. In announcing the results of the program on its first anniversary, local, state and federal officials said the 311 experiment has been so successful that more than 100 other jurisdictions, including bigger cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, are eager to try it. "The results here have exceeded my expectations," said Joseph E. Brann, the director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing in the Justice Department. "The importance to the rest of the country is that this was a community willing to use a new strategy to solve an old problem." Most regions have used 911 as an emergency alternative to a seven-digit number for the local police station since the early 1970s. But here in Baltimore, Thomas C. Frazier, the police commissioner, said the steady increase of calls to 911, an average of 5 percent a year in recent years, was forcing many officers to spend their entire eight-hour shifts responding to calls -- many of which were not true emergencies -- at the expense of department efforts to increase the time officers patrol neighborhoods by car and foot. "We are trying to create more discretionary time for officers." Frazier said at a news conference, "and this enhances our ability. It has freed up an amount of time for them to be proactive, rather than reactive." As part of the Clinton administraton's comprehensive 1994 crime act, the Justice Department last year had a small grant -- $349,787 -- available to test a program that would combine new technology and a city's willingness to wean residents from 911 for non-emergency needs. Baltimore jumped at the chance. After a year, Frazier pronounced the program "a huge success," with 24.8 percent fewer calls to 911 and better service for those who still needed it. A department analysis of calls made after 311 was implemented showed that 911 operators now answer within an average of two seconds, rather than six seconds; that 78.5 percent fewer callers get a busy signal, and that 82.2 percent fewer get a recorded message asking them to not to hang up. In addition, a police survey of people who called 311 found that 98.2 percent of them were satisfied with the response even after learning that an officer would not be immediately dispatched. For example, someone returning from vacation to discover a burglary had taken place would probably be told by a 311 operator that police would respond, but not necessarily right away. More significant, Frazier said, the availability of 311 to solve non-emergency problems led to an immediate decrease in the frequency with which the police were dispatched. After 311 was introduced, Frazier said, the number of times police were dispatched fell enough to give an officer an additional hour a day for community policing. Frazier added that the overall crime rate in Baltimore has fallen 15 percent in 1997, compared with an 11 percent drop in 1996. The success of the 311 option here probably will lead to its implementation in other cities. Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who helped lobby for the federal grant, said Maryland's other populous regions, including Montgomery County and Prince George's County, which surround Washington, would soon get 311 systems. And John F. Reintzell, a spokesman for the Baltimore police department, said that the department has received inquiries from 150 police departments in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and South Korea. Brann of the Justice Department said that the federal government did not intend to offer further financial support for 311 but that several current studies the government was monitoring could help localities decide how they might amend the way they handle emergency calls. Dallas is offering a 311 line for access to all city agencies, and Buffalo, N.Y., is beginning a public awareness campaign to familiarize residents with seven-digit police station numbers. "Agencies all over the country are interested," Brann said. "But we're not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It should be a local agency determination." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:40:53 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 "NetResearch: Finding Information Online", Daniel J. Barrett, 1997, 1-56592-245-X, U$24.95/C$35.95 %A Daniel J. Barrett %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-245-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 240 %T "NetResearch: Finding Information Online" In a way, all use of the Internet involves a search for information. The search may be informal, or even completely serendipitous, but it exists, nonetheless. In that regard, the title of this book is appropriate. What is provided here is a fairly generic, brief Internet guide. There is an emphasis on search tools related to various net applications. An emphasis, but not terribly detailed or specific. Tools are listed, and sometimes explanations of use or even tips are included. The finer points of searching, though, are hardly ever touched on. Nor are there particulars of the advantages of one system over another. Barrett starts out by saying that the book will concentrate on graphical client software, but, in fact, almost no details of any interface are given. The content leans very heavily on the use of Web search engines, and relies on Web interfaces even where telnet or email options exist. For the rank novice, only just starting to explore the net, this does provide an accessible source of search tools, as well as explanations of the construction of domain names and URLs (Uniform Resource Locators). In addition, Barrett, while emphasizing Web tools, does provide some information on Usenet, mailing lists, and email addresses. (Veronica only gets a mention, and WAIS doesn't even get that.) In comparison to Gilster's "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW), "NetResearch" is more up to date, but only a beginner's primer. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNTRSCH.RVW 970327 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: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:12:45 -0400 From: Greg Monti Subject: Bell Atlantic Toll Alerting in Massachusetts On 30 Sep 97, fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) wrote: > In article , Roger Fajman > wrote: >> That's a rather odd position for Bell Atlantic to take, since we've >> had 10 digit dialing for local calls for some time now in the >> Washington, DC area, which is Bell Atlantic territory. I think this topic is missing a key item buried in a Bell Atlantic press release. Background: Massachusetts was recently (and may still be) a "partial toll alerting" state. Calls within the same area code are alerted as to whether they are toll by a 7-digit vs. 11-digit dialing plan. Calls which cross area code boundaries, even if they are local, are all dialed with 11 digits. I assume there is some historical or technical reason for this. Perhaps some switching equipment could not comprehend a 10 digit string that was not prepended with a "1". The story now: I think that the technical reason no longer exists, so the Mass. DPU is intending to force Bell Atlantic to go back to "full toll alerting" in which cross area code local calls may be dialed with 10 digits, while cross area code toll calls must be dialed with 11 digits. The trouble is, they want BA to implement this in a "general way" so the people who have the most common type of unlimited local service get the toll alerting correctly. People who buy the "extended area" local calling service (which increases the number of prefixes in your local calling area for an additional monthly fee) would still be required to dial 11 digits to reach those additional prefixes, even of the call is local and free, and even if it is in the same area code as the caller. *This* is what Bell Atlantic is saying is confusing. That toll alerting is correct for some people, but not for others. They're going through all this trouble to re-implement full toll alerting, but it won't be correct for everybody. BA's position is "why have toll alerting at all?" They want Massachusets to go to 7 digits for within area code, 11 digits for outside, both regardless of toll. Just another reason why toll alerting through dialing plans is a bad idea. Why not have the recorded sound of a cash register play just after the last digit is dialed to indicate toll? > Well, Bell Atlantic inherited that system when they acquired C&P > Telephone. Changing it to whatever Bell Atlantic thinks is not > confusing would have been confusing =) Not true. Bell Atlantic already owned C&P Telephone from Bell Atlantic's moment of birth on January 1, 1984. The 10-digit dialing plan (for cross area code local calls) in the Washington Metropolitan area was not implemented until October 1, 1990. When I moved into the Washington Metro area in late 1979, 10-digit dialing on local calls was specifically disallowed. From 301, you'd get a fast busy immediately after dialing "202". Obviously, that restriction was lifted sometime between 1979 and 1990. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Perhaps 888 Was a Poor Choice Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 03:42:27 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I was having a discussion with a neighbor whose business has an 800 number that is getting a large number of wrong-number calls for the company that now has the same number in 888. It occurs to me (with 20/20 hindsight) that 888 was a poor choice for the second toll-free SAC. It just doesn't jolt the average Joe enough as being distinct from 800. A different choice -- maybe 822 -- would have been more distinctive, and might have resulted in fewer problems. There could've been ads with the jingle "8-2-2 is toll-free, too!" Of course, I think that the root of the problem is that there seems to have been no coherent attempt at a public education campaign for 888. Too many phone books still refer to 800 without mentioning 888. ** 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: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:17:25 EDT Subject: Spamford v. Agis According to this morning's __Philadelphia Inquirer__, (10/1/97), U.S. District Court Judge Anita Brody granted Spammy a temporary injunction against AGIS, which forces AGIS to reconnect Cyberpromo for the next fifteen days. Evidently, Spammy's contract with AGIS required thirty days' notice before cancellation; since AGIS didn't give thirty days' notice, they have to reconnect him (why only 15 days wasn't made clear in the article, but the judge probably counted the initial disconnect as "notice", and that was about 15 blissfully-spam-free days ago; 15 + 15 is, of course, 30). Spamford is reportedly looking to purchase a backbone provider, so as not to be at the mercy of an upstream provider ever again (assuming any would still host him); AGIS is considering an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 17:45:58 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: The Even Hand of the Law Pat: From what I can tell from this wire-service story, it looks like the court made the correct legal decision -- my personal feelings notwithstanding. I place more blame on AGIS and its counsel for not having prepared and negotiated a document with better protection of AGIS under these circumstances. Now, if the denial-of-service attacks (and/or UDP) on AGIS resume, AGIS could find itself in a position where it would be unable to deliver services to any of its customers -- placing it in default of its obligations under its other contracts. While there is an important lesson here concerning the need for some legislative action on spam, the bigger lesson of this particular skirmish may be the poorly drafted and administered contractual used by virtually all internet providers -- and the superficial level of understanding of the internet by the lawyers who are providing legal advice to internet providers. If one plans to contract with the Devil, one should first be sure one has a damn good lawyer to review the documents. Cheers, The Old Bear ------------- Junk E-mail Company to get Internet Access Services Restored {Associated Press} PHILADELPHIA (AP) 01-OCT-97 - Cyberspace's leading junk e-mailer must have its Internet access restored, at least temporarily, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ordered Apex Global Internet Services Inc., also known as AGIS, to reconnect service for Cyber Promotions Inc. through Oct. 16 or until the company secures comparable Internet service. Cyber Promotions, of Philadelphia, sued the Dearborn, Mich.-based Internet provider for terminating its Internet account Sept. 16. Cyber Promotions was dropped by its secondary provider, WorldCom Inc., in June. Brody, while noting her `"strong personal distaste for Cyber's business," prevented the termination of its service without 30 days notice, as stipulated by contract. Cyber Promotions has been targeted by Internet users for sending an estimated 80 percent of all unsolicited bulk e-mail, also known as spam. About 10,000 customers pay Cyber Promotions to send 18 million to 20 million junk e-mail messages each day. AGIS terminated Cyber Promotions followed a massive "ping attack" on AGIS's network, which disables computers attached to the Internet by flooding them with repeated information requests, the judge said in her memorandum. AGIS maintains the attack was directed at Cyber Promotions. "Many computer users find the receipt of bulk e-mail annoying and intrusive," Brody wrote. "However, the fact that Cyber is an unpopular citizen of the Internet does not mean that Cyber is not entitled to have its contracts enforced in a court of law or that Cyber is not entitled to such injunction relief as any similarly situated business." ------------------------------ From: Chris Moffett Subject: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:38:00 -0400 NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Wall Street stocks moved higher at the opening bell Wednesday as traders focused on telecommunications issues in light of a surprise suitor for MCI Communications. [snip] The biggest news on Wall Street Wednesday was long-distance provider WorldCom's surprise offer to buy MCI Communications for $30 billion, or $41.50 a share. The bid jumps right in the middle of British Telecommunications' planned $18 billion acquisition of MCI. Shares of MCI (MCIC) jumped 5-7/8 to 35-1/4, while BT (BTY) rose 5-1/2 to 72-1/8. WorldCom (WCOM) was off 7/8 to 34-1/2. Merrill Lynch stirred the punch bowl a bit more when it raised its rating on WorldCom to "accumulate" from "neutral." WorldCom, which has been on a takeover frenzy that includes purchases of MFS Communications and CompuServe, also said it will spend $2.4 billion to acquire Brooks Fiber Properties. Brooks' (BFPT) stock soared 8-5/16 to 55. [snip] Full story at www.cnnfn.com This is a clip from the CNNfn web page and I was looking for comments on this offer from other readers. Do you think this will be allowed (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force in the telecom world? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 21:08:14 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: NYS PSC Recommends "Overlay" For New NYC Area Code As an FYI, I testified at one of the public hearings, in favor of an overlay (as opposed to to a geographic split). I added two suggestions to the overlay concept: a) I suggested that given some recent Federal court decisions, the FCC may have acted ultra-vires in their refusal to allow anyone new area codes which were exclusive to wireless, and I therefore recommended that another one be set aside in the NYC area for specifically thet group. (Currently the "917" code is the only one in the nation which is exclusive to pagers/cellulars [1] b) I also requested that instead of using the plebian area code of "6-4-6" which is kind of a throw-away, that they adopt the "6-9-2" one and overlay it citywide. I felt this would be particularly fitting for NYC and might even generate its own demand... [1] 917 is also used by some voicemail groups and some specilized other purposes. ************* STATE OF NEW YORK Public Service Commission John F. OMara, Chairman Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: (518) 474-7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY 97076/96C1158 PSC FAVORS USE OF NEW "646" AREA CODE FOR MANHATTAN AS AN OVERLAY Albany, September 30 -- The New York State Public Service Commission today began its consideration of methods for providing a long term supply of phone numbers for Manhattan and indicated that an overlay of a new 646 area code over the current 212 code appeared preferable to splitti ng Manhattan into two area codes. Similarly, the Commission indicated its preference for using an overlay when necessary in the near future to provide new local numbers in the 718 area code serving the other boro ughs of New York City. However, before making a final decision, the Commission directed its staff and the parties to provide additional information on an outstanding competitive issue by the end of October. The overlay approach has significant advantages because it avoids forced number changes, it will not impose unnecessary expenses on existing businesses for reprinting advertising a nd other material, and it prevents potentially controversial geographic divisions, noted Public Service C ommission Chairman John F. OMara. However, it is critical that the overlay be implemented in a competitively neutral manner. During the course of the Commissions proceeding, two main alternatives for addressing the imminent exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan were developed: the use of an overlay and the separation of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street. Either proposal would use 646 as a new area code -- the one designated for use in Manhattan by the national North American Numbering Plan. Staff determined that the advantages of the overlay outweighed the disadvantages raised in the case and that the overlay was preferable to the geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes. In addition, the weight of public comment solicited by the Commission from throughout New York City favored using overlays, with strong support coming from senior citizens, the handicapped and businesses. An overlay in Manhattan would superimpose 646 over the existing 212 area code. In doing so, it would allow all current customers to retain their existing phone numbers and their cu rrent area code, thereby eliminating the expense and inconvenience of changing phone numbers. Further, it would provide the longest period of relief, estimated to be about 6.5 years. By contrast, a geographic split of Manhattan into two area codes at 23rd Street would force over one million customers to change their area code, with thousands of them also forced to change their local 7-digit telephone number as well. These changes could be confusing, especially to the elderly and visually-impaired, and expensive for business customers who would have to change part or all of th eir telephone numbers. The Commission postponed final action today on adopting the overlay approach pending the outcome of a special staff/industry task force examination of number pooling, an outstanding competitive issue. Number pooling refers to the process of pooling all remaining, unassigned local numbers in the 212 area code and assigning them to customers on an as-needed basis without regard to the company serving the customer. The Commission today endorsed staffs belief that resolution of this issue, in conjunction with the scheduled implementation of permanent number portability, will alleviate competitors concerns about the overlay. The Commission directed staff to lead a task force in developing a plan to implement number pooling as soon as possible. Staff will report back to the Commission on its progress by the end of October. The Commission also expressed concern about the existing Federal Communication s Commission (FCC) requirement that all calls throughout the area covered must be completed using 11-digit dialing (1+area code+local number) when an overlay is implemented. According to the FCC, this requirement is designed to ensure that competing local phone companies are not disadvantaged by a system that may result in calls by or to their customers being more likely to entail dialing 11 digits because the company was assigned more 646 numbers. While Manhattan customers are accustomed to 11-digit local dialing for calls to other boroughs, the Commission believes that the FCC requirement for 11-digit dialing for all calls within Manhattan would be inconvenient, confusing and would be unnecessary if number pooling and permanen t number portability are implemented as envisioned by the Commission. As such, the Chairman directed counsel to take all necessary steps to avoid the imposition of mandatory 11-digit dialing. In developing its proposal to use an overlay to address the exhaustion of local phone numbers in Manhattan, Commission staff worked collaboratively with industry and consumer representatives and considered comments from six public statement hearings held throughout New York City. In addition, staff made more than 15 presentations to residential and business organizations in Manhattan and the other boroughs. Staff also participated in eight meetings of community and small bus iness leaders, observed focus group meetings sponsored by NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic), and provided information at two large expositions in New York City (the Getting Down to Business Fair and the Black Expo). In announcing it also favored the use of an overlay for the current 718 area code, the Commission recognized that, although estimates vary, that area code could run out of local numbers as early as 1999. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #269 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 4 00:19:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA16750; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 00:19:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710040419.AAA16750@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #270 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 97 00:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The NANP (and Area Codes), Fifty Years Ago, Oct 1947 (Mark J. Cuccia) 100,000 Protest PR Telco Sale (Tad Cook) 206/425/253 Split, Usual Problems (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Community Networks" by Cohill/Kavanaugh (Rob Slade) FCC Toll-Free Conservation (aka Rationing) Plan (Judith Oppenheimer) 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@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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:30:26 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: The NANP (and Area Codes), Fifty Years Ago, Oct 1947 As we now begin the month of October 1997, it was sometime during October fifty years ago (in 1947), that the original area code format was 'finalized' by AT&T. Thus, the North American Numbering Plan was born. There _were_ two preliminary plans of assigning area codes. There was a plan indicated as a map of the US in 1945 in issues of both {Bell Laboratories Record} and {Bell System Technical Journal} magazines, in articles on future automated toll dialing and switching - first to be dialed by operators and later by customers. The 1945 map indicated the (continental) US only, and indicated some 60 individual regions. No codes were shown in the regions in the map -- only the possible boundaries. Canada wasn't even indicated on the 1945 map in the Bell magazine articles, although one of the articles did indicate 7-digit (2L-5N) dialing across NPA boundaries with 'protected' central office digits where a metro area straddled an