From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 24 23:07:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA10929; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199806250307.XAA10929@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #101 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jun 98 23:07:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fall VON Additional Info (Al Niven) AT&T News Conference at Noon EDT (Monty Solomon) Final Boundaries Approved for 619 Three-Way Area Code Split (Tad Cook) 900 Numbers Are a Cautionary Tale (Monty Solomon) AT&T 50% Price Increase - Fair? (Robert Eden) Bogus Dialtone in Airport Payphone Scam (Tad Cook) Anonymous Callers Soon to be Shut Out by Pac Bell (Monty Solomon) Please Join tollfree-l@makelist.com (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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: alniven@earthlink.net (Al Niven) Subject: Fall VON Additional Info Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:55:58 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Fall '98 Voice on the Net: Sept 14-17 in Washington, D.C. Our 3rd Annual Fall '98 Voice on the Net Conference takes place September 14-17, 1998 in Washington, D.C. at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center (1300 Pennsylvania Avenue.) At Fall '98 VON you will have an opportunity to not only listen to the senior executives responsible for driving the industry forward, but you will have a great opportunity to meet with these players and take advantage of the unique business networking opportunities. Conference keynotes includes: Ascend, AT&T Worldnet, Bellcore, Cisco, FCC, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Level 3, MCI, Microsoft, NTIA, and QWest. From the "Big Boys with Fiber" to the traditional carriers and NextGen Telcos you will have an unique opportunity to meet with the players who are driving the industry. In addition to hearing first hand information from the carriers and service providers who have been early implementers of VON technologies, this conference will be paying special attention to "Carrier Grade" Applications and the relationship between the converging IP and Intelligent Network/SS7 worlds. Attention will also be given to the emerging IP Voice over Cable industries as well as the standards (H.323) and the alternative protocols (SIP / SGCP) which have been the focus of recent VON industry debate. Since the venue is in Washington, D.C., there will be several sessions focusing on the Regulatory aspects of IP Telephony (both Domestic and International) and we will have keynotes from both the FCC and the National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA) which should provide a leading indication on where the Administration and the FCC see Internet Telephony Industry headed in the United States. On September 14th we have four pre-conference workshops including: - The NextGen Telco Summit - Building the IP Based Central Office - The H.323 Workshop (H.323 Ver 3.0 Preview, Gateways, Gatekeepers, Applications) - IP/PSTN Gateways, Gatekeepers and Billing Solutions Our exhibit hall (with over 50 exhibitors) will be open Tuesday- Thursday with a special pre-conference screening on Monday night from 5.30-7.30 pm. We have made arrangements with 13 hotels to provide rooms for conference delegates. The two closest hotels are: The Marriott at Metro Center (+1.202. 737-2200) and the JW Marriot (+1.202. 393-2000). If you are planning on attending the conference, we strongly suggest that you make your hotel reservations today. To register for the conference please vist: http://pulver.com/von98/fall98 or call +1.516.753.2640. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:42:24 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T News Conference at Noon EDT AT&T and TCI to Merge; AT&T To Create Separately Traded Unit to Provide Consumer Communications and Entertainment Services NEWS CONFERENCE - AT&T will hold a news conference at NOON EDT today at its world headquarters at 32 Avenue of the Americas in New York City. AT&T Chairman C. Michael Armstrong and TCI Chairman John C. Malone will co-host the news conference. SATELLITE COORDINATES - A satellite feed of the news conference is available at the following coordinates: Ku band satellite TELSTAR 5, transponder 11. Downlink polarity, vertical; downlink frequency, 11929 Mhz; location, 97 degrees west. NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 24, 1998--AT&T announced today that it has signed a definitive merger agreement with Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) for an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $48 billion. Under the agreement, AT&T will issue 0.7757 shares of AT&T common stock for each share of TCI Group Series A stock and 0.8533 shares of AT&T for each share of TCI Group Series B stock. Immediately following the merger, AT&T will combine its current consumer long distance, wireless and Internet services units with TCI's cable, telecommunications, and high-speed Internet businesses to create a new subsidiary - AT&T Consumer Services. The company will trade as a "letter" or "tracking stock" on the New York Stock Exchange and have a significant public ownership. AT&T will also issue separate tracking stock to holders of TCI's programming arm, Liberty Media Group, to continue the holders' interests in the assets now represented by those shares. AT&T Consumer Services will provide the broadest set of consumer communications services -- including local, long distance, wireless and international communications, cable television, dial-up and high-speed Internet access services -- all under the AT&T brand name. AT&T Consumer Services will own and operate the nation's most extensive, broadband local network platform. Following the merger, the new unit intends to significantly accelerate the upgrading of its cable infrastructure, enabling it to begin providing digital telephony and data services to consumers by the end of 1999, in addition to digital video services. "Today we are beginning to answer a big part of the question about how we will provide local service to U.S. consumers," said C. Michael Armstrong, chairman and CEO of AT&T. "We are merging with TCI not only for what it is but for what we can become together," Armstrong explained. "Through its own systems and in partnership with affiliates, AT&T Consumer Services will bring to people's homes the first fully integrated package of communications, electronic commerce and video entertainment services. And it will do it with the quality and reliability that people have come to expect from AT&T." "This merger is a tremendous growth opportunity for TCI's shareowners and employees," said John C. Malone, chairman and CEO of TCI. "As TCI continues the large-scale deployment of advanced digital set-top devices, AT&T's extraordinary brand and resources are ideal complements to TCI's broadband cable distribution and operations. AT&T Consumer Services will offer consumers a wide variety of entertainment, information and communications products, which thoughtfully address personal tastes, needs, choice and convenience." John D. Zeglis, currently president of AT&T, will be chairman and CEO of AT&T Consumer Services and will remain on the AT&T Board of Directors. Leo J. Hindery, Jr., currently president of TCI, will be the new unit's president and chief operating officer. Malone has agreed to become a member of the AT&T Board of Directors. AT&T Consumer Services will provide its services to consumers through a combination of its own broadband networks and services it will procure from others, including AT&T. The new unit will include all of the cable television systems AT&T is acquiring in the merger with TCI, as well as AT&T's fixed wireless technology and related spectrum rights covering more than 90 percent of the nation. When the merger and pending TCI cable system transactions are complete, AT&T Consumer Services' wholly owned and affiliated cable systems will pass 33 million homes. ------------------------------ Subject: Final Boundaries Approved for 619 Three-Way Area Code Split Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:38:48 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Final Boundaries Approved for 619 Three-Way Area Code Split New 858 Area Code - California's 25th - Begins Service on June 12, 1999; New 935 Area Code - California's 30th - Begins Service on June 10, 2000 SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 23, 1998--The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently approved final boundaries for the three-way geographic split of the 619 area code. The split will create two new area codes. The introduction of the new area codes, which are California's 25th and 30th area codes, is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for additional phone numbers in the 619 area code and across the state. Local telephone service competition as well as the explosive demand for high-technology are driving the demand for more phone numbers. The approved boundaries split the existing 619 region into three portions, northern, central and eastern. The 619 area code will be retained in the central portion. The northern portion will receive California's 25th area code on June 12, 1999, and the eastern portion will receive California's 30th area code on June 10, 2000. The details are as follows: - Central Portion - The central area will retain the 619 area code. Some of the cities and communities in this area include the downtown portion of the city of San Diego and small portions of Lemon Grove and National City. - Northern Portion - The northern portion will receive the new 858 area code. It will begin service on June 12, 1999. Some of the cities and communities in this area include Rancho Santa Fe, Solano Beach, Del Mar, La Jolla, Poway and the northern portion of the city of San Diego. - Eastern Portion - The eastern portion will receive the new 935 area code. It will begin service on June 10, 2000. Some of the cities and communities in this area include Coronado, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Lakeside, El Cajon, Alpine, Pine Valley, Campo, Jacumba, Imperial Beach, Santee, the majority of both Lemon Grove and National City and the southern portion of the city of San Diego. Permissive Dialing Periods During the permissive dialing period, people calling from outside the area can dial either the old 619 or the new area code to reach customers in the new area code. Also during this time, customers in the 619 and new area codes can call between the two area codes using seven-digit dialing (prefix plus four digit number without area code). A six-month permissive dialing period for the northern region will begin June 12, 1999 with the introduction of the 858 area code. A six-month permissive dialing period for the eastern region will begin June 10, 2000 with the introduction of the 935 area code. Mandatory Dialing Periods The mandatory dialing period for the 858 area code begins on December 11, 1999, mandatory dialing begins on December 9, 2000 for the 935 area code. When mandatory dialing begins, callers must use the correct area code to complete their calls. For three months after the beginning of mandatory dialing callers who forget to use the new area code will receive a recorded message reminding them that the area code has changed, and they will be required to redial using the proper area code. The recorded reminder ends for the 858 area code on March 11, 2000, and on March 10, 2001 for the 935 area code. The 858 area code is expected to accommodate the need for new telephone numbers for 11 years and the 935 area code is expected to last 21 years, while the 619 area code is expected to last 13 years. Price of Calls Will Not Be Affected California Area Code Relief Coordinator, Doug Hescox, who oversees area code relief efforts on behalf of the California telecommunications industry, said the introduction of the 858 and 935 area codes 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 determine the cost of a call, not whether or not you dial an area code.` Things to Remember Hescox said the permissive dialing period is a great time for customers to get used to the new area code and make important changes. Some of those changes 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 their wireless phone and paging service providers as well as Internet Service Providers to see if reprogramming is required Area code relief plans are collectively developed by a telecommun- ications industry group composed of more than 30 companies including AT&T, AirTouch, the California Cable Television Association, Cox California PCS, Cox Communications, GTE, ICG Telecom Group, L.A. Cellular, MCI, Mobilemedia Communications, Pacific Bell, Pacific Bell Mobile Services and PageNet. California-Nevada Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. The California Public Utilities Commission makes final decisions on all area code issues. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: 900 Numbers Are a Cautionary Tale Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:12:39 -0400 Netly News ... http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/ 900 Numbers Are a Cautionary Tale by Steve Baldwin Could the Net become a discredited medium like the 900-number phone business? So claims Jeff Richards, executive director of the Internet Alliance , a 15-year-old trade group previously known as the Interactive Services Assocation whose members include America Online, AT&T, Intel and assorted other industry biggies. "Remember, 900 numbers were designed to provide us all kinds of fascinating, highly personalized services," says Richards. "But once a swiftly moving perception that 900s were 'rip-offs' took hold, the business went from a booming $2 billion a year to a half-billion a year. It happened very quickly and the damage was irreparable." Richards believes that the Net's best chance of escaping the fate of the 900-number business is for its leaders to address difficult concerns such as privacy, spam, fraud, taxation, content regulation and marketing to minors head-on. He also realizes that getting the online industry to march in step is difficult to do, and suggests that a well-known actor or celebrity might be needed to provide a unified, trustworthy voice expressing industry concerns. If the Net could benefit from having its own Charlton Heston to plead its case to the masses, where will this leader come from? "The problem is to find someone with enough gray hair to impress the policy-makers, but someone young enough not to alienate the Net entrepreneurs", Richards says. Tom Hanks with a Palm Pilot? ------------------------------ From: Robert Eden Subject: AT&T 50% Price Increase - Fair? Date: 23 Jun 1998 10:38:50 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services As mentioned previously in this forum, AT&T has increased Texas In-State rates under their "One-Call Plus" plan from 0.10 to 0.15 (a 50% increase) effective 6/1/98 without notification to existing customers. The way I see it, I had a contract with AT&T to provide flat rate service. What right do they (or any service provider) have to change said agreement in effect retroactively. (With the exception of this forum, I would have not known about it until the bill arrived.) What protects me from a LD provider changing to $100/minute after I switch to them? Sure, they will be dropped like a lead balloon, but who knows how many calls will be made before I get the bill. I have no problem with any company raising rates. My problem is the lack of sufficient (or any) notice. Robert ------------------------------ Subject: Bogus Dialtone in Airport Payphone Scam Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:57:11 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (I wonder if these guys used some scheme so that the phone never went on-hook? It seems they would need to do that so that the connection would not be broken. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com) Bogus dial tones used in airport calling card scam NEW YORK (Reuters) - Five people were charged Friday with running a scheme using bogus dial tones to steal telephone calling card numbers from travelers at major U.S. airports, including Chicago and Houston. Federal authorities said some 47 phone carriers were affected by the scheme and that losses could be in the millions of dollars. AT&T, Bell Atlantic and MCI cooperated in the investigation, prosecutors said. According to charges filed in Manhattan federal court, the defendants were able to dupe unsuspecting callers by generating false dial tones on airport pay phones. They then recorded the tones as victims punched their card numbers into the phones. The defendants allegedly sold the calling card numbers after they were stolen. Prosecutors said telephone records revealed that between fall 1997 and Thursday, hundreds of calls were placed from apartments in Manhattan and the Bronx to airport pay phones. The defendants, three men and two women, allegedly used a conference call feature on their phones to generate what sounded like a dial tone on the airport pay phones. When travelers picked up one of the phones, many believed they had an outside line and tried to use their calling cards to charge calls. The defendants allegedly recorded the tones generated when callers punched in their card numbers and used a decoding device to translate the tones into corresponding telephone keypad numbers. A device labeled a "Voice Controlled 5 Hour Dialed Number Recorder" was found in each of the four apartments searched, prosecutors said. They said it recorded both telephone conversations and dialed numbers and converted dialed tones into their corresponding numbers. In addition, other telephone devices, lists of calling card numbers, telephone numbers of airport pay phones and tapes were seized at the apartments. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Anonymous Callers Soon to be Shut Out by Pac Bell Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:50:38 -0400 Anonymous callers soon to be shut out Pac Bell service won't accept cloaked calls BY STEPHEN BUEL Mercury News Staff Writer Californians who told Pacific Bell to block their phone number from appearing on Caller ID boxes soon won't be able to complete their calls to some of those numbers. Using a new feature that Pacific Bell plans to offer in about two months, such callers will instead hear a recording that tells them their call won't go through. It will give them three options for completing their call: unblocking their line, calling from another phone line or making a 95-cent operator-assisted call. The California Public Utilities Commission gave Pacific Bell permission Thursday to offer the service, called Anonymous Call Rejection. It is viewed by the company as a privacy-enhancing new feature. Customers who use the service -- particularly those who've already signed up for Caller ID -- will be able to selectively block communications from any caller unwilling to reveal their number, even those with unlisted phone numbers. In approving Pacific Bell's request to sell the feature, the PUC rejected the criticisms of consumer advocates who say the service will violate the privacy of customers who want the right to make phone calls without revealing their phone number. They worry that some people will be forced to divulge numbers that should remain private, such as psychologists who work from home, or abused spouses who nonetheless need to stay in contact with their ex. Privacy concerns turn up on both sides of the dispute -- Anonymous Call Rejection enhances the privacy of people who receive phone calls by stripping away a bit of the caller's privacy. ``What about the people receiving the call?'' asked Pacific Bell spokesman John Britton. ``They have a right to privacy too ... Californians are going to love this product because this is going to enhance their privacy.'' The PUC gave Pacific Bell the go-ahead to offer the service for two years. But before the company can do so, it must engage in a public education campaign and secure commission approval of the exact wording of its marketing materials. Consumer groups agree After months of wrangling over the issue, even the consumer advocates at the Utility Reform Network ended up cheering the commission's ruling Thursday. Although they say they would have preferred for the commission to deny Pacific Bell's application entirely, they didn't expect that to happen and were pleased that the PUC agreed to exercise controls over the way the company will be able to spread the word about its service. ``When we reviewed Pacific's plans, we really felt that they were using Anonymous Call Rejection as a way to market Caller ID,'' TURN Telecommunications Research Director Regina Costa said. ``What the commission did was very good. At least they said that the commission staff will track the situation and at least they required Pacific to provide neutral information.'' Pac Bell will work with the PUC on the language of its bill insert, white pages information and the recorded message encountered by customers who fail to connect with the person they're trying to call. Costa's agency and the PUC's staff have been critical in recent months of many of the marketing methods used by Pacific Bell to encourage customers to sign up for Caller ID. PUC consumer advocates have sought to have the company slapped with a cease-and-desist order, charging Pacific Bell with using unethical, high-pressure sales tactics to push its phone products, including Caller ID. Although Caller ID and Anonymous Call Rejection will be marketed as separate products, they clearly are intertwined. Deployment of Caller ID in California has lagged far behind that of other states because of a state-mandated public awareness campaign that encouraged many consumers to ask Pac Bell to block their lines. With 46 percent percent of all residential lines in California blocked from working with Caller ID, would-be subscribers to the $6.50 monthly service have found it much less useful than people in states where more calls are actually ID'd. That's one reason that only 7.5 percent of Pac Bell customers have signed up for Caller ID, far lower than the roughly 50 percent of all Texas consumers who've signed up for similar service from Pac Bell's parent company, Texas-based SBC Communications. Texas does not grant consumers the option of blocking Caller ID. ``It's going to be very interesting, when so many people block, to see what happens,'' said M.J. Purcell, a regulatory analyst with the PUC. Although the PUC will need to approve the exact prices, the company hopes to make Anonymous Call Rejection free for the duration of 1998 and then charge customers 50 cents if they already subscribe to Caller ID and $2 if they don't. Customers whose calls are rejected by the service will have three options, Britton said. They can temporarily unblock their line by dialing ``*82.'' They can ask an operator to assist them with the call, at a cost of 95 cents per call. Or they can call from a different, unblocked phone line, such as a pay phone. Anonymous Call Rejection is not new. It's been offered in other states and even in California. Customers served by GTE Corp., which serves Los Gatos and Morgan Hill in the South Bay, have had the service since May 1997. Impact on businesses Still, widespread deployment of Anonymous Call Rejection will make life difficult for large companies that block their outgoing lines but use phone systems that won't permit individual users to unblock their lines, such as telemarketers, newspapers or bill collectors. Companies whose high-volume phone traffic requires them to have call-switching systems inside their buildings aren't technically able to let individual phone users block or unblock their lines, said Joan Mataraci, Pacific Bell's product manager for Caller ID. If such companies wish to continue blocking their outgoing phone lines, they'll have to install new lines or resort to the operator in many cases. It's not clear how many companies this might affect. Patrice Cottle, owner of the San Jose telemarketing firm American Marketing Services, said it wouldn't hobble her company because all her phone lines willingly reveal their numbers to Caller ID customers. ``We have nothing to hide,'' she said, conceding that some other companies in her field may operate differently. ``We run a pretty straight and narrow ship.'' Before the PUC staff will permit it to offer the service, Pac Bell also will need to provide assurances that all the back-and-forth traffic generated by unsuccessful calls that encounter the company's new recording won't cause the company's phone network to crash. The commission asked for Pac Bell to provide it more information on how this worst-case scenario will be avoided. ``There was concern on the part of some of the commissioners that you have these calls going back and forth and not going anywhere,'' Purcell said. ``Is it going to create a glut on the system? ... I don't know; it's really something we have to find out.'' ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 1998 21:53:01 -0000 From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Please Join tollfree-l@makelist.com Reply-To: tollfree-l-sc.898725181.cmaplnoadephlbopmghj-editor=telecom-digest.org@makelist.com This is an invitation to join the tollfree-l mailing list. Here is a welcome statement provided by the list manager: ------ You are invited to subscribe to Toll Free-l, a new moderated internet mailing list for the discussion of management, marketing, policy, engineering, logistical and regulatory matters related to the business use of toll free service and toll free numbers. List manager/moderator is Judith Oppenheimer, publisher of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS (http://icbtollfree.com) and president of ICB Toll Free Consultancy (joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com). ------ To accept this invitation, simply reply to this message; your mail program should have a 'reply' feature that inserts the correct subscription address automatically. Alternatively, you can accept by going to the following Web location: http://www.makelist.com/subscribe?email=editor@telecom-digest.org&list=tollfree-l&code=95620461 If you do not wish to join, please just discard this invitation. If you have questions, please feel free to contact the manager of this list at joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com --- A mailing list hosted by FindMail. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I want to wish Judith Oppenheimer the very best of luck with her new mailing list. I know many of you will want to participate with her also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #101 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 25 00:38:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA14945; Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:38:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199806250438.AAA14945@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #102 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Jun 98 00:38:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft Appears to be the Winner (TELECOM Digest Editor) Telecom Update (Canada) #138, June 22, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Updates: Numbering/Dialing/Translations/Routing Issues (Mark J. Cuccia) ADSI / Powertouch Tricks (Gregory Stewart) Multiple Electronic Use of Same Phone Line Boosted (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! Monopoly Power! (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3140 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 1998 23:00:00 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Microsoft Appears to be the Winner In the news Wednesday morning, in addition to the report of AT&T's latest merger/aquisition was a report that Microsoft appears to have won its battle with the Justice Department. I say 'appears to have won' because although the judge came down on their side in most respects where the current controversy about the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows is concerned, there are still a few issues the government can raise if it chooses to do so. It is not at all clear that the government will continue its pursuit of the matter at this point. In the same proceding, the court tossed Larry Lessig out on his ear. Lessig was the government's choice for 'special master' in the case; but his ability to be impartial in the matter -- as any person in his position appointed by the court should be -- was questioned on several occassions by Microsoft as a result of things Lessig had written which spoke negatively about the company before the case even got underway. Lessig dealt with his dismissal by the court in an honorable way: he was quoted saying that 'Microsoft had every reason to question his impartiality based on things he had written ... he had no objections to being removed and wished the best to Microsoft in the days ahead'. I suspect in a way Lessig *was* glad to be done with the matter. Some readers here have pointed out that he received a huge amount of abuse in the form of email from netters questioning Lessig's impartiality, etc. Readers will recall I spoke poorly of his appoint- ment in this Digest myself for the same reason. He was very gracious in accepting his dismissal by the court, and I hope netters who castigated him in the past will now take a minute to write him and express their thanks for him at least having been willing to try and help; something that few others would have wanted to get entangled with owiung to the complexity of the case and the people involved. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:15:59 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #138, June 22, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * =20 * Number 138: June 22, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE:=20 ** Bell, Cogeco, Hydro-Quebec to Build Fiber Link ** Call-Net Ups Bid for fONOROLA ** NBTel Says Price Cap Rules Won't Work ** MetroNet Begins Build in Quebec City ** Bruncor Sells Stake in Genesys ** fONOROLA Fields Small-Business Plan ** Speech Recognition Speeds Quebec 4-1-1 Service ** Vision.Com Registers as CLEC ** Clearnet Sells Phones on Line ** Look's Wireless Cable Starts in August ** Ottawa Seeks Comment on Wireless LANs=20 ** TIW Expands Brazil Cellular Holdings ** AT&T, General DataComm Begin Multimedia Demos ** BCE Purchasing Rest of ExpressVu ** Entrust Launches IPO ** 10,000 Customers for Cantel's Pay-as-You-Go ** Bell Mobility Adds Text, Prepaid Services ** Stentor's Stephenson to Chair ITAC ** Clarification on AT&T Canada ** 25 Telecom Strategy Reports BELL, COGECO, HYDRO-QUEBEC TO BUILD FIBER LINK: Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable, and Hydro-Quebec have agreed to share a new $12-Million optical fiber link between Quebec City and Rimouski. Construction, managed by Cogeco, is to finish in October. CALL-NET UPS BID FOR fONOROLA: Call-Net Enterprises has raised its bid for fONOROLA to $67 a share from $60; the new offer expires June 26. fONOROLA says it continues to seek an alternative bidder. NBTEL SAYS PRICE CAP RULES WON'T WORK: On June 18, just six months after the new price cap regime began, NBTel told the CRTC that "the price cap rules ... are not workable." The= telco has asked the Commission to make major changes in the plan and allow it to cut contribution rates. ** NBTel wants its 1998-99 business rates to be reduced less than the Commission ordered under its first price cap rulings. METRONET BEGINS BUILD IN QUEBEC CITY: MetroNet Communications says it will complete a $17-Million 40-km fiber network in the Quebec City region by the end of 1998. BRUNCOR SELLS STAKE IN GENESYS: New Brunswick's Bruncor has sold its 3% holding in California-based Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories for $21 Million. Bruncor says the companies will continue joint work developing network-based call center products. fONOROLA FIELDS SMALL-BUSINESS PLAN: fONOROLA now offers Line One, a small-business plan featuring flat-rate calls in Canada for 12.5 cents/minute and U.S. calls for 15 cents. SPEECH RECOGNITION SPEEDS QUEBEC 4-1-1 SERVICE: Bell Canada directory assistance in Quebec now uses Nortel's Frequently Requested Listing service, which provides certain business= numbers without operator intervention. VISION.COM REGISTERS AS CLEC: Vision.Com, the cablecos' R&D organization, asked the CRTC on June 12 to register it as a competitive local exchange carrier, so that it can participate as a shareholder in the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium. ** Vid=E9otron, the only Canadian cableco to register as a CLEC so far, told the CRTC on June 4 that it has met all= requirements to operate as a local service provider. It will initially provide service in Montreal. CLEARNET SELLS PHONES ON LINE: Clearnet Communications now sells its phones and accessories at its Web site; secure real-time online payment is provided by InternetSecure. http://www.clearnet.com LOOK'S WIRELESS CABLE STARTS IN AUGUST: Look Communications, majority owned by Teleglobe, says it will start wireless cable (MMDS) service with 80 channels in the Toronto area in August. Pricing will start at about $20/month. OTTAWA SEEKS COMMENT ON WIRELESS LANS: Industry Canada is seeking public input on a proposal to allow unlicensed wireless LANs in frequency bands in the 5 GHz range. Comments are due by September 21. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/spectrum TIW EXPANDS BRAZIL CELLULAR HOLDINGS: Telesystems International Wireless is negotiating a partnership with Brazilian pension funds to bid for two Brazilian cellular companies being privatized in July. TIW has just raised $162 Million through an equity offering. AT&T, GENERAL DATACOMM BEGIN MULTIMEDIA DEMOS: AT&T Canada LDS and General DataComm are beginning demonstrations of ATM-based voice-video-data services in Toronto and St. Laurent, Quebec. BCE PURCHASING REST OF EXPRESSVU: BCE is buying the 10% stake in ExpressVu held by Cancom and WIC for $15.3 Million. ENTRUST LAUNCHES IPO: Entrust Technologies, a BCE-owned company which makes encryption technology for the Internet, has announced a US$100-Million initial share offering on NASDAQ. 10,000 CUSTOMERS FOR CANTEL'S PAY-AS-YOU-GO: Less than one month after the product launch, Rogers Cantel says it has signed up more than 10,000 customers across Canada for it analog Pay-as-You-Go cellular service. BELL MOBILITY ADDS TEXT, PREPAID SERVICES: Bell Mobility has introduced enhanced text messaging to its digital PCS service and launched a prepaid option for analog cellular. STENTOR'S STEPHENSON TO CHAIR ITAC: On June 18, Carol Stephenson, President and CEO of Stentor Resource Centre, became Chair of the Information Technology Association of Canada. http://www.itac.ca CLARIFICATION ON AT&T CANADA: AT&T Canada has non-exclusive agreements to use prepaid phonecard platform services of both Telesonic Communications Inc, ACC's phonecard partner, and Phonetime International; both use the underlying AT&T network. Telecom Update #136 mentioned only Phonetime as a platform provider. 25 TELECOM STRATEGY REPORTS: Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive a free copy of Telecom Strategies Today: 25 Reports for Canadian Decision Makers, a collection of recent Telemanagement articles. Included in the bonus: ** Competition Goes Local ... and Global (5 reports) ** New Technologies, New Choices (8 reports) ** Competitive Strategies (12 reports) ** "Angus's Laws for Understanding and Surviving (and Possibly Profiting From) the New Telecom" (bonus report) For more information about this Bonus offer, visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html or call 1-800- 263-4415, ext 500. HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE=20 Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There=20 are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the messag should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:59:20 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Updates: Numbering/Dialing/Translations/Routing Issues There are _SEVERAL_ numbering/dialing/translations/switching/routing issues mentioned in this post, regarding: AT&T, BellSouth (local/landline telco), BS-COCOT payphone chips, BellSouth Mobility, and Cellular South (Gulfport MS). AT&T _FINALLY_ was able to route to NPA 450 (PQ)! :) The first test call I made via AT&T thru _VARIOUS_ access methods that were all successful was as of 6:15am Central Daylite Time, Saturday (13 June 1998). Other LD-carriers were beginning to route to the new 450 NPA at various times on Thursday and Friday. BellSouth's "COCOT-ized" payphones _finally_ have toll-free SAC NPA 877 loaded into its chips, as a free-call! They also have 1+ coin for NPA 450 (PQ) loaded in as well, at US$ 5.00+ from Louisiana/Mississippi. They _DON'T_ have any NPA's after 13-June-98 loaded into their "chips" for 1+ coin-toll, unfortunately. NPA 786 for the _overlay_ for the Miami FL area takes effect on 1-July-1997 and _this_ NPA will _NOT_ have a 'permissive' dialing period using the 'old' NPA, as this is an _OVERLAY_. If BS-COCOTS don't have NPA 786 loaded into its "chips" for 1+ coin-toll by then, one will _NOT_ be able to reach such 786 numbers paid by coin! :( BS-COCOTs _STILL_ are missing four _other_ _DOMESTIC-rated_ NPAs from their "chips" for 1+ coin-toll calling, and these are _all_ now mandatory-dialed using these NPA's as 1+NPA: 787 Puero Rico, 340 US Virgin Island, 670 CNMI, 671 Guam The _NON_ US NANP-Caribbean as well as 011+ International/Overseas dialing is not in the "chips" for "sent-paid" coin-toll dialing, as the "coinage" for the first three minute period (as well as additional minute periods) is probably _too_large_ for the "escrow" bucket to hold. And since these BS payphones are now using a COCOT-like interface with the network, BellSouth and AT&T Operators can _NOT_ assist on _ANY_ coin-paid calling anymore! :( I _did_ try several recent US/Canada NPA's as 1+ from the BS-COCOT, and these _were_ loaded into the "chips" for 1+ coin-toll, including NPA 867 in Northern Canada (Yukon's split from NPA 403 Alberta, _ALL_ of NWT/Nunavut's split from NPA 403 Alberta and 819 part of Quebec). BS-COCOTs charge (US) $5.40 for the first three-minutes for NPA 450 in Quebec and (US) $5.60 for the first three-minutes for NPA 867 in Yukon/NWT/Nunavut! BS-COCOTs consider 203-xxxx to be invalid, however. But 203-xxxx numbers _DO_ work from my cellular. I dialed it during an overnite and weekend time-frame (which for me is 'free' airtime), so I'll see if it itemized on my bill, albeit as $0.00-charged airtime. Since BellSouth's COCOT-ized payphones _do_ allow (101-XXXX)-01+CC+nn+('#') dialing, I was able to get to UIFN numbers from these phones, via AT&T, as: (10(10)288)-01-800-xxxx-xxxx-('#'). Other 0+ carriers/AOSlime do _NOT_ (yet) seem to allow 01+ routing to CC +800, so if the inTER-LATA 0+/01+ chosen carrier of the payphone is _NOT_ AT&T, you will need to dial AT&T's 10(10)288+ CAC first. Of course, BellSouth's COCOTs don't allow (101-XXXX)-011+ calling, not even to CC +800 UIFN. Speaking of UIFN, on Saturday, I called up (US/AT&T) "Toll-Free Directory", 800-KLondike-5-1212, and asked for a listing for "Hong Kong Direct". She told me to 'hold for the listing' and put me on auto-quote (and I'm going to paraphrase here): "NOTICE: This is a toll-free international number. Dial zero-one-one, eight-hundered, two-zero-zero-zero, two-thousand" Incidently (011)-800-2000-2000-(#) isn't (yet?) available from our good-neighbor to the north. (Surprising, with the number of Hong-Kong refugees/immigrants in Britsh Columbia ... but _MAYBE_ Hong-Kong Direct's UIFN is dialable from GTE-BC-Tel territory?) I called back to 800-555-1212 and asked her if there were a _US_ Domestic (NANP) 800- number for HK-Direct. She only had the UIFN number. While on the phone with one of my Canadian friends this weekend (he's in Toronto ON), he 3-wayed to (Bell-Canada / Stentor provided) 800-555-1212 and asked for HK-Direct. There is _NO_ such number listed (whether NANP-based 800/888/877, or UIFN +800). I was on the Mississippi Gulf Coast on Sunday (late afternoon and early evening). I usually have turned my cellular phone _OFF_ or set it for no-roaming when about to cross over the state line, and out of the BS-Mobility (New Orl) service area, into the Cellular South (Gulfport) service area, as roaming/airtime/toll charges can be QUITE high. But yesterday, I decided to _KEEP_ the phone on and in a roamed mode, for incoming calls, and to do some tests ... Prior to leaving home, early Sunday afternoon, I called up BS-Mobility Customer Service, to verify the roaming-on/off codes, and to see if when roaming were turned off (as well as the cellphone itself), would my voicemail service from BS-Mobility in New Orleans would pick-up those calls. Well, GUESS WHICH SERVICE-REP ANSWERED THE LINE?!?! You got it, "Suzie"! Well, this time she was _very_ helpful and polite! Roaming from BS-Mobility into Cellular-South (MS) had "Auto-Call Delivery" for incoming calls. I do _NOT_ have to enter '*18-SEND' anymore (I used to about two years ago to activate incoming calls when roamed-to there). If I'm in Cellular-South (MS) and need to turn-off the phone, for my BellSouth Mobility voicemail (New Orleans) to take incoming messages, I will need to de-activate romaing before turning the phone off, with '*19-SEND'. I don't have to enter '*98-SEND' to turn-on the mobile-memo incoming message service - anyhow, since I'm not a Cellular-South (MS) customer- only roamed-to there, it probably wouldn't know what to do. When I turned the phone on an hour later, I still needed to enter '*18-SEND' to reactivate roaming for incoming calls ... Just prior to entering *18-SEND, I used a nearby payphone and dialed (with my AT&T-Card) my cellular number (504-460-etc). It seemed to stay routed only within BS-Mobility New Orl, and was about ready to go into Mobile Memo. Incidently, while the phone was turned off, I did have an incoming message left in my Mobile Memo voicemail! But I wouldn't have been able to retrieve it while in Mississippi, with *99-SEND... I could dial either the voicemail retrieval number which would 'bill' as long-distance from MS whether dialed from cellular or card/payphone- but I dialed, with my AT&T Card from a payphone, my cellular number, and it went to voicemail right away since there was at least one 'new' not yet listened to message- I hit '*' when I hear my outgoing message, and then BS-Mobility asks for my passcode to be punched in. But when I entered *18-SEND on my cellular and then dialed to it from a payphone with my AT&T-Card the call routed to my cellular and it rang! I hit '#' right away on the payphone (billing to AT&T Card), for a 'sequence' call, since I didn't 'answer' the ring to my cellular. Now, for Cellular-South in Mississippi ... I dialed an 800- ANI Readback (non-suping) number, and it quoted: 228-000-0000. '00' went to AT&T's OSPS, with FULL initial automated menus, just as it does from my residential line, or when I dial (10(10)288)-0('#'/0) at (most) payphones. Yet, when using BS-Mobility in New Orleans, '00' goes to "(musical jingle) AT&T. Please hold for Operator Assistance. AT&T-how may I help you?", withOUT the usual initial automated menus! :( One benefit of having AT&T auto-prompts/menus on '00' Operator access is that one can DTMF-enter a NANP destination number (1/0)-ten-digits or non-NANP destination number 01(1)-CC-nn-(#), and then get a verbal prompt for card-billing or option to cut-thru to a live operator. But if one enters a NANP-based toll-free number 800/888/877-seven-digits or a UIFN (worldwide/global) toll free number as 01(1)-800-xxxx-xxxx(#), such toll-free dialstrings get the response "Thank you for using AT&T", withOUT needing to enter any card-numbers! Of course, if the NANP-based 800/888/877 number is _NOT_ one handled by AT&T you will get a recording from the AT&T #4ESS toll-switch that the #5ESS=OSPS switch routes thru. One might think that by simply asking an AT&T operator to connect one to a UIFN 011+800-xxxx-xxxx number might be all that is needed when one can't dial it direct. It isn't all that easy. It doesn't seem that all AT&T Operators and Supervisors have yet been trained on +800 UIFN. When I've asked Operators (and Supervisors) about +800 UIFN, some have told me that "there isn't any 'country' code 800 - that I must be referring to domestic-based (+1) 'area' code 800 toll-free numbers which call-forward overseas". One supervisor _did_ seem to know about +800 UIFN, and said that AT&T is referring to it as "International Toll-Free 800". This supervisor told me that _any_ AT&T Operator can simply key-in 011-800-etc. for me, and the call will go through at no charge to me, billed automatically to the called party wherever in the world the number terminates. But when I called '00' from my cellular phone (while in BellSouth Mobility New Orleans), and went directly to a live operator, who did seem to know about 011-800-, she told me that her board wouldn't allow the call to proceed! Another explanation is that maybe the controls for her position aren't yet programmed for UIFN +800 translations. There are AT&T Operator Centers and positions all over the US, and these days, when one reaches an AT&T Operator from anywhere in the US, the operator could likewise be located 'anywhere'. Whichever operator is first available 'anywhere' is the one that the calling customer is connected to. Continuing with Cellular-South (MS) ... Cellular-South (MS) properly database-dipped, translated, and routed Toll-Free 877! :) BellSouth Mobility (New Orleans) has also now been properly database-dipping, translating, and routing properly for about a month now! :) BS-Mobility allows 01+CC+nn+SEND okay - I go to the 'bong' tone at AT&T OSPS in Jackson MS, however BS-Local doesn't seem to have UIFN toll-free CC +800 in its tandem which BS-Mobility 'homes' on- I'm usually blocked with a local/wireline recording from the tandem when I enter 01+800-xxxx-xxxx+SEND from my cellular. BS-Mobility sends 0-NPA-NXX-xxxx+SEND to AT&T's OSPS in Jackson MS for a 'bong' tone if the NPA-NXX-xxxx is out-of-LATA, and to the BellSouth TOPS in downtown New Orleans for their 'bong' tone if the NPA-NXX-xxxx is within the LATA. However, Cellular-South in MS (and maybe BellSouth local? in that LATA) don't know how to properly translate and route 0+/01+ from a cellular phone. Maybe it was because I was a 'romaer' and not an accounted local cellular customer of Cellular-South, in Gulfport. When I was roamed into their area, 01+CC+nn+SEND went to a recording from their MTSO. 0+NPA-NXX-xxxx+SEND went to a BellSouth local/wireline recording, which seemed to be a local end-office recording rather than a 'tandem' recording. I wonder if Cellular-South in MS is a type-1 interconnection rather than a tandem-based type-2 interconnection with local BellSouth? The recording from BellSouth local/landline when I entered 0+ten-digits(NANP)+SEND was the "We're sorry, you must first dial a '1' or '0' plus the area code code when calling this number". Obviously, 011+ for direct-dialed sent-paid international/overseas is blocked at the Cellular-South MTSO. BellSouth Mobility customers are also 'default-blocked' from 011+ calling, unless they specifically request access to it. I haven't, as I don't make that many calls to non-NANP locations, and from a cellular the rates would be even more than from my residential phone. SAC NPA 700 works from BellSouth Mobility! When I enter (1)-700-KL.5-4141 plus 'SEND', I get the (non-suping) AT&T verification recording. But Cellular-South's MTSO rejected my attempts to reach SAC NPA 700. I'd wanted to see which IXC my '1+' cellular toll calls from Gulfport MS would have routed through and been billed by. Cellular-South in Mississippi _ALSO_ had "CAC" dialing blocked in their MTSO. I was _UNABLE_ to reach _anything_, other than their MTSO recording when dialed as: 10(1X)XXX+ {1+/0+/011+/01+} +etc. BellSouth Mobility in the New Orleans MTSO _DOES_ allow "CAC" dialing for inTER-LATA calling as 10-XXX+ {0+/01+} +etc. At this point in time, it is _only_ the 'five-digit' 10-XXX CAC codes. I have reported to their Tech-Support department that 101-XXXX+ expanded seven-digit CAC dialing needs to be allowed prior to 1-July-1998, as the expanded version becomes _MANDATORY_! Some of the above dialstrings not properly translating or routing in Cellular-South territory _might_ be attributed to the fact that I was _roaming_ and not a 'home' customer. But that doesn't explain why I was able to reach long-distance numbers from Mississippi (as 1+) on _most_ area codes (those around for decades), yet I was getting _blocked_ in their MTSO for calls to those area codes which only took effect last year or earlier this year! That's right! Placing 1+ type calls to such area codes as: 678 (GA, 1998, OVERLAY!), 435 (UT, 1997), 336 (NC, 1997), and many others were _BLOCKED_ by the MTSO, as if they hadn't been loaded into MTSO-translations! :( And I'd thought that BellSouth Mobility was sloppy in various 'special' translations! :) On Monday, I called up an 800- number for Cellular-South (MS), to report the mis-translations or missing NPAs from their translations. They told me that it would be better for me to call _my_ cellular provider (BellSouth Mobility) and report such problems during Sunday's roaming in Cellular-South territory. BS-Mobility tech-support would then relay the problems to Cellular-South. So, I reported all of this to my good tech-support contact with BS-Mobility in Baton Rouge. One more thing. And this regards BellSouth inTRA-LATA 0-/0+ TOPS services. I've noticed that _sometimes_ when dialing 0-/0+ from within a BellSouth exchange (in the New Orleans LATA), I am routed directly to an operator on 0- who simply answers "Operator", or routed to a 'bong' tone on 0+. I am _supposed_ to get a 'branding' of a pre-recorded "Bell-South" prior to "Operator" or 'bong'. And recently when in the Baton Rouge LATA, and yesterday in the Gulfport MS LATA, from BellSouth payphones incidently, dialing 0+ inTRA-LATA calls which do route to TOPS, while getting the 'branding' identification "Bell-South" were not going to the automated 'bong'! I was getting a brief ring and then a live "Operator". But I'd dialed 0-PLUS, and _NOT_ 0-MINUS! ? Anyhow, One Bell System _SURE_ did work! :) NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.B-C-D Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA Opr.Svc.Tndm "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) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLATUDS0?(PBX NEC-2400 504-862-3/8xxx, 504-865-4/5/6xxx) NWORLACACG0 (BellSou.#1A Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-; PBX 'homes' on) 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: Gregory Stewart Subject: ADSI / Powertouch Tricks Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:22:07 GMT Organization: Bell Solutions Hello all, I just bought a used powertouch (vista) 350, and was wondering if anyone has played with these from the experimenters viewpoint. Has anyone out there created any strange "ADSI phone tricks" for their own amusement? I am pretty sure a USR Courier V.Everything modem can generate the required 1200 V.23 FSK half duplex modem signals, (as well as send and recieve all 16 touch tone characters...) It just seems like something that would be fun to experiment with. The only thing you couldn't do with the modem is generate the appropriate CPE alert signal, but then you could use your computers speaker to do that ... "Stupid phone tricks" could range from emulating call waiting when calling someone else, to making up amusing ADSI scripts, (which would definitely require access to the BELCORE specs I'm sure) ... Pointers to any websites with ADSI specs (in detail) would be appreciated ;) Greg ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Multiple Electronic Use of Same Phone Line Boosted Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:30:47 -0400 http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/business/docs/homenet22.htm Published Monday, June 22, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News Alliance pushes multiple-use phone line system Plan would boost networking for home PC users BY JON HEALEY mailto:jhealey@sjmercury.com Mercury News Staff Writer A personal computer, like a teenager, often demands its own phone line. But what does a family do if it has more than one computer, and more than one person eager to log on to the Internet? Install multiple phone lines, or take turns? And if a line is shared, who gets first dibs, and for how long? A group of computer-industry heavyweights has joined forces to promote a simple solution to this problem, which would enable multiple computers to dial into the Internet simultaneously on a single phone line. Their proposal, based on technologies developed by two Bay Area companies, also would permit computers and other electronic gadgets to share information at high speed through a home's phone wiring, eliminating the need for extra cables or multiple printers. The Home Phoneline Networking Alliance, which expects to have its first products out later this year, sees a bigger payoff down the road. In a few years, alliance members say, people could connect a host of electronic gadgets -- video cameras, televisions, DVD players, computers, scanners, Internet-enabled phones and the like -- to each other just by plugging them into ordinary phone jacks. The alliance will push for new, international standards for high-speed, in-home networks that use existing phone lines. Such standards, members say, will encourage the makers of electronic devices to build in the necessary networking technology. Rich Doherty, an industry analyst at the Envisioneering Group, said he expects home computer users to react enthusiastically to the prospect of easy networking, despite the initial price tag of up to $200 per home. ``The cost to pay for this comes out of dollars that used to go to multiple printers,'' Doherty said. On the other hand, Boyd Peterson, a telecommunications analyst at the Yankee Group, said he didn't see much of a market yet for home networks. Demand will grow, he said, only if innovative companies develop products and services that make a home network seem compelling. For the computer industry, making it easier for consumers to link their PCs encourages people to have more than one such device in their home. That's important to the industry because growth in the number of homes with computers appears to be slowing. The alliance argues that the number of homes with more than one computer is already great enough to fuel the need for easy networking. Dataquest, a company that tracks the computer industry, estimated that 15 million homes have multiple PCs, and that 60 percent of all new computer sales go to families that already own one. The alliance's 11 initial members include Compaq Computer Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and International Business Machines Corp.; Intel Corp., Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and Rockwell Semiconductor Systems; and 3Com Corp., Lucent Technologies Inc. and AT&T Corp. The key phone-line technology comes from Tut Systems Inc. of Pleasant Hill and Epigram Inc., a Sunnyvale start-up. Notably absent at this point are Microsoft Corp., the world's leading manufacturer of operating systems for personal computers, and any consumer electronics companies. Both Microsoft and Sony, a consumer-electronics powerhouse, have been proponents of an extremely high-speed connection protocol known as ``firewire'' that today's phone lines cannot support. Other companies are developing wireless links and connections that use the home's electrical outlets. The alliance, which is accepting new members, says its goal is to allow people to combine several different networking technologies -- including those built on phone lines, firewire, electrical wiring and wireless links -- into a single system. One core principle of the alliance, though, is that people not have to string new wires in their homes in order to create home networks. Connecting two PCs today typically requires extra networking gear and additional wires -- a logistical challenge when the computers are in separate rooms at opposite ends of the house. The alliance's approach would eliminate the extra wires, although adapters would still be required in most cases. The alliance is backing Tut Systems' ``HomeRun'' technology as the way to create phone-line networks this year. The HomeRun adapter boxes and plug-in cards encode digital information into electronic signals, which they transmit over phone lines at high frequencies. The frequencies are far higher than those used by conventional phone traffic, freeing the lines for calls while information is being passed between devices. The signals move 1 megabit of data per second, about 20 times as much as the fastest conventional computer modem can deliver. That's enough speed to handle the accelerated Internet connections that the phone companies are starting to deploy, as well as providing the capacity for up to 25 devices to pass information simultaneously. Where it falls short, though, is when video is added to the mix. Each high-quality video signal, such as those transmitted via cable television, consumes more than 1 megabit of capacity per second. To accommodate those beefier signals, the alliance plans to propose a standard in the second half of 1999 that will move at least 10 times as much information on in-home phone lines. One of the founding members of the alliance already has developed such technology: Epigram, a company formed in 1996 by former employees of several Silicon Valley computer and networking firms. Tony Zuccarino, marketing vice president at Epigram, said his company's technology enables people to transmit signals from a digital satellite dish, VCR or DVD player through the phone lines to TVs or PC monitors in any room in the house. A high-speed connection from the Internet to the home -- for example, a cable-modem service or a phone company's digital subscriber line -- could deliver high-quality audio and video from the World Wide Web to a central home computer, which in turn could distribute the sounds and pictures to PCs or monitors around the home. Any new standards the alliance proposes in 1999 won't make obsolete equipment bought under the standards to be proposed by September, said Mark Carpenter, director of home networking for Compaq. Under the alliance's approach, at least two pieces of additional equipment will be required to run a home network: an adapter to transmit the signals at high speeds, and another adapter to receive them. These adapters can be reduced to microchips, however, meaning that they could be built into computers, cameras, cable converter boxes and any other device one might want to connect to the network. The alliance estimated that separate adapter boxes would cost less than $100. If the technology were built into an electronic device, however, the cost would be much less -- ``in the low tens of dollars,'' Craig Bender of Tut Systems estimated. The home networks will communicate in a standard networking format known as Ethernet. That means devices will have to be equipped with Ethernet circuitry in order to link to the network, or users will have to buy adapter boxes that can convert information into Ethernet format before transmitting it at high speed. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED More information on the alliance is available at its Web site (www.PhoneLAN.org), which was scheduled to be activated today. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon" From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Monopoly Power! Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:02:34 -0400 -- forwarded message -- From: "jrosenberg@usa.net (Jim Rosenberg) " Reply-To: jrosenberg@usa.net Subject: Monopoly Power! AT&T is reportedly interested in buying America Online. If this occurs, federal regulators are concerned the merged corporation will have a total monopoly on busy signals. [Original material from http://www.wirecom.com/jim] Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to funny@netfunny.com. Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply. Web users, you can read a random joke from the archives just by bookmarking http://www.netfunny.com/cgi-bin/randomurl/rhf/jokes/masterlist This joke's link: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/Jun/signals.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #102 ****************************** ISSUE 103 GOT MAILED OUT OF SEQUENCE AND IN THIS ARCHIVE IT APPEARS *FOLLOWING 104 AND 105*. IN OTHER WORDS, 101, 102, 104, 105, 103, 106. From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 2 22:11:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA25548; Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:11:00 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807030211.WAA25548@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Jul 98 22:10:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 56th UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin) NANP Caribbean; NANP (US) Pacific (Mark J. Cuccia) Puerto Rico no se vende (Dale Wharton) [tollfree-l] What is TOLLFREE-L for? (Judith Oppenheimer) Ameritech, and a Supposedly FCC-Mandated Charge (Steve Sobol) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu (Bill Goodin) Subject: 56th UCLA Engineering and Management Program Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:37:26 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles September 20-25, 1998, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for experienced first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals (engineers, scientists, and software professionals) with high advancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 28 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Amgen, Boeing, Walt Disney Imagineering, 3D Systems, Sony Pictures Imageworks, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Tanner Research, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses and instructors. The program fee of $2,095 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For additional information and a complete program booklet, please contact Beverly Croswhite at: Phone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815 e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:28:24 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NANP Caribbean; NANP (US) Pacific On Wednesday, 1-July-1998, I tried dialing Guam/CNMI via _MCI_ (101-0222+), and as 01(1)+ country-code '+671/670'. While AT&T and Sprint had _BLOCKED_ 01(1)+ cc '+671/670' access to Guam/CNMI _LAST YEAR_ when those two US Pacific areas officially became part of the N.American Numbering/Dialing Plan and domestic billing from the US, MCI continued to allow one to place calls as 01(1)-671/670-etc. On 1-July-1998, I got an MCI rejection recording when I dialed both 01(1)+671/670-etc, indicating that I needed to simply dial 1+, not 011+. Of course, Frontier (101-0444+) has my line 'blocked' against placing calls on their network, since I am not an 'accounted customer'. But some other carriers I tried dialing 101-XXXX+ calls to Guam/CNMI as 01(1)+671/670-etc. either went through to (!), or else got a 'generic' rejection recording or re-order (fast-busy) from that carrier. Today, 1-July-1998, is supposed to be the mandatory date for calling Guam/CNMI as (+1) and _NPAs_ 671/670, but not all carriers have blocked the non-NANP access yet. Also, today, 1-July-1998, is _supposed_ to be the mandatory date of dialing seven-digit 101-0XXX+ CACs (four-digit '0XXX' CICs) for previously existing five-digit 10-XXX+ CACs (three-digit 'XXX' CICs). When I tried to dial 10-XXX+ this morning, my local central office _ALLOWED_ such dialing/access! It may take some time for the telcos to block such outmoded dialing in their switch translations. They'd better do it ASAP, since LM-IMS-NANPA is _eventually_ going to begin assigning 101-2XXX CACs (2XXX CICs), and this will conflict with any 'old' 10-12X CACs (12X CICs), the 'old' ones must _NOW_ be dialed as 101-012X! Canada doesn't begin mandatory seven-digit CAC dialing until about the spring of 1999. Also, what is described now is something that has been a PROBLEM for MANY YEARS NOW ... And it can only get WORSE! :( :( Many NANP-based (as well as non-NANP) Telcos and LD carriers are _STILL_ showing the NANP-Caribbean and NANP/US-Pacific islands' +1 NANP area codes (NPAs), "as-if-they-were" ITU/CCITT-assigned _COUNTRY_ codes, which they are _NOT_! These errors are in the instruction pages in the front of local telco directories, as instructions, lists of NPAs and CC's, and/or maps ... or else in instructional literature from the IXC's. Even a Sprint _OPERATOR_ [Hello, Ron H.] recently told me to dial 01(1)+868+seven-digits to place a call to Trinidad and Tobago!!!! ???? _MOST_ local directories which have this error _do_ correctly indicate Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands as NANP-based NPA codes, 787 and 340, respectively (unless they are erroneously still showing NPA 809). But the non-US but still NANP-based Caribbean is frequently erroneously indicated as separate country codes, or even all 'defaulted' to (WRONG) "Country" code 809!!!! ???? BellSouth and BellAtlantic are _BOTH_ guilty of this error in the front instruction/list/map pages of their directories. Bermuda REALLY is +1 NANP NPA-code 441, NOT "country" code +441 Trinidad REALLY is +1 NANP NPA-code 868, NOT "country" code +868 etc. !!!!! I recently got a copy of the Poughkeepsie NY white/yellow pages, dated December 1997, which my dad picked up for me when my parents (retired) were recently vacationing in the Hudson River Valley. The directory indicates Bell Atlantic all over (no more NYNEX). The Area Code list (numerical) in the front of the directory is one of the most 'unique' I've ever seen in a 'public' telephone book, as it includes such SAC NPA codes as 456 (International Inbound), 500 (Personal Communications), 600 (Canada TWX), 700 (Carrier Services), _710_(US Government)_, 888 (Toll Free 888) - as well as 800, 880 and 881 (Paid 800/888 calling), and 900. Most (but not all) of the new NPA's through 1997 are shown in this list, including 787 PR and 340 USVI. However, 671 Guam, 670 CNMI, 867 YT/NWT/Nunavut, and _all_ non-US (but still NANP) Caribbean NPAs are omitted! Such are shown on the "international" pages, as if they are "country" codes, including many with "country" code 809. Yet in the 'numerical' list of NANP area codes, 809 is shown as "Caribbean Islands". I don't know if any telcos/carriers in Canada are in error in their public literature regarding the NANP-Caribbean. I do know that there are _some_ overseas (non-NANP) telcos have erroneously indicated the NANP-Caribbean area codes "as if they were country codes" as well. As for Guam/CNMI being shown as (+1) NANP area codes 671/670, it may take a little while for the reprinting of directories, literature, etc. to indicate the _PROPER_ numbering/dialing. I must say that Pac*Bell in California _DOES_ show the NANP-Caribbean as it _REALLY_ is supposed to be! The US-NANP-Caribbean (PR/USVI) is shown in the 'domestic' and Canada section of maps/lists. And while the non-US but still NANP-Caribbean is shown separately near the "international" section, it _IS_ shown as dialed as a NANP-based call, 1/0+NPA+seven-digits, although it is _BILLED_ as an international/ovs call. _WHY_ can't the _OTHER_ LECs/Carriers/etc. in the NANP (and the world) follow Pac*Bell's CORRECT identification of such areas! I think it is time that ATIS/Bellcore/LM-IMS-NANPA/TRA/etc. _REMIND_ all carriers via PL's, Emergency Notification letters, in meetings, conference calls, etc., of the NANP-Caribbean status, and the erroneous info being distributed by the offending service-providers!!! If I am calling Anguilla, (+1)-264-etc., I _DON'T_ want to be told by some operator or telco/carrier literature that I'm 'supposed' to dial 01(1)-264-etc. instead of 1/0-264-etc. I want my call to route/rate to _ANGUILLA_, _NOT_ Namibia/SWAfr.!!! In other numbering/dialing/translation/etc. issues, my local BellSouth central office (504-24x) now has all NPA's known to become active (at least in permissive dialing) through 3Q 1998, already loaded into originating switch translations. This includes: 786 (Overlay on 305 FL), effective 1-July-1998 727 (Split from 813 FL), permissive 1-July-1998 831 (Split from 408 CA), permissive mid-July-1998 651 (Split from 612 MN), permissive mid-July-1998 (*) 251 (Split from 504 LA), permissive mid-Aug-1998 720 (Overlay on 303 CO), effective 1-Sept-1998 (*) this split is a 'crazy' one with the duplications of NXX c/o codes in certain communities... AT&T has all of these NPA codes already loaded into their OSPS switches which I have the chance to access (Jackson MS, Dallas TX, Sherman Oaks CA, New York City). And AT&T has all of these NPA codes already loaded into (or in the case of NPA 651 is in the process of loading them into) their national network of #4ESS toll switches. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.B-C-D Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA Opr.Svc.Tndm "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) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLATUDS0?(PBX NEC-2400 504-862-3/8xxx, 504-865-4/5/6xxx) NWORLACACG0 (BellSou.#1A Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-; PBX 'homes' on) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:59:59 edt From: Dale Wharton <1@dale.CAM.ORG> Subject: Puerto Rico no se vende THE NEW YORK TIMES June 30, 1998 STRIKE OVER SALE OF PHONE COMPANY THREATENS TO SPREAD By Mireya Navarro SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico--A coalition representing tens of thousands of workers has called for a work stoppage to protest the government's sale of a majority interest of the publicly owned telephone company here, turning an uproar that has roiled the island for weeks into one that threatens to paralyze it. The Greater Committee of Labor Organizations, which claims 58 unions with at least 150,000 government workers and thousands more employees in the private sector, voted Sunday for a work stoppage of unspecified duration to be announced just hours before it starts. The action, expected this week, would broaden a strike by 6,400 telephone workers that began June 18 into one involving workers in electrical, public transit, water, and sewer and other industries. Already, the strike has been accompanied by intermittent stoppages by other unionized workers, acts of sabotage that have cut service to as many as 345,000 telephone users, and bombings by a clandestine political group and others. Many countries, particularly in Latin America, have sold or tried to sell their telephone monopolies over the last decade. The deals were ways of raising money while improving telecommunications services by letting others make the investment necessary to modernize the utilities, telecommunications experts say. But the $1.87 billion sale of a controlling stake of Puerto Rico Telephone Co. to a consortium of investors led by GTE Corp. of Connecticut, has sparked a burst of nationalism seldom seen on behalf of a phone company, the experts say. "We're defending the Puerto Rico Telephone Co. not only because it's our rice and beans but because it's a national patrimony," said Annie Cruz, president of the Independent Brotherhood of Telephone Workers, one of two telephone unions on strike. Telephone workers fear large numbers of layoffs and higher telephone rates after privatization, and argue that the telephone is a basic service that should remain in the public domain. But they also criticize the government for negotiating the sale in secrecy and agreeing to what they view as unfavorable terms in order to get money to help fulfill election campaign promises. Suspicions are heightened because the sale is part of an aggressive privatization program under Gov. Pedro Rossello, whose administration has already sold off the island's shipping company and is selling publicly owned hospitals and hotels. And because the governor is pushing statehood for Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory with 3.8 million residents, political opponents also charge that privatizing is another way to make the island more palatable to Congress, which is considering a bill to allow a vote here on Puerto Rico's political status. "There's no doubt that there's a strategy to eliminate things that differentiate us from the states," said Anibal Acevedo Vila, a representative in the Puerto Rico House and president of the Popular Democratic Party, which advocates Puerto Rico remain a commonwealth. But in 1990, it was Acevedo Vila's party that proposed selling Puerto Rico Telephone to finance improvements in education and public works. Acevedo Vila said the company was not sold because no buyer would meet the price and rate and job guarantees required then. But if the two main parties here have played politics with the "Telefonica," as the company is known, public opposition has been consistent. The most recent newspaper polls show that up to 65 percent of Puerto Ricans oppose the sale. Under the terms of the sale, the government of Puerto Rico will receive $1.87 billion for a 50 percent-plus-one-share stake in the telephone company. A consortium that includes GTE, Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, and other local investors will pay $375 million for that majority stake. The other $1.5 billion will come from a commercial loan taken by the privatized telephone company. The money from the sale would establish a $1 billion fund to invest in infrastructure. The telephone company was once in private hands, but thrived only after the government bought it in 1974. Profitable and technologically modern, the company pays about $80 million a year in lieu of taxes to municipalities, education, and the island's public broadcasting station, and is considered so productive its unofficial symbol is "Fortunata," a dewy-eyed cow. But Rossello says legislation passed by Congress in 1996 mandates that the company end its monopoly on intraisland calls. Rossello regards that as a cue to get out as he tries to reduce the role of government in competitive areas in order to invest in those where he said it can be the most productive, like education and public safety. Telecommunications experts say privatization usually results in expanded services and bigger reach, although layoffs occur and rates sometimes go up. Opponents are directing much of their ire at Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, which is identified through advertising and civic sponsorships with Puerto Rican culture. The bank has been denounced by the unions as a "traitor," and its branches have been the target of boycotts, picketing, and small bombings, including one by the Boricua Popular Army, a clandestine group known as Los Macheteros. In a letter sent to The Associated Press here, the group said: "The sale of the Puerto Rico Telephone Co. is nothing more than a declaration of war. Now they will know what war is." Despite the protests, the Puerto Rican Legislature approved the sale this month. The transaction is expected to be completed by the end of the year, pending approval by the Federal Communications Commission and other regulatory requirements. To complicate matters, Spain's Telefonica Internacional last week made a purchase offer which the company says surpasses GTE's and which the government must consider while a sale is finalized. The unions want to stop any sale or, at the very least, negotiate with the new owners over better terms for the workers. Some are also calling for a referendum on the sale. Rossello said there are no plans to change course. "I know this is the right thing to do," he said. ------------------------------ Reply-To: tollfree-l@makelist.com Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:59:30 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: [tollfree-l] What is TOLLFREE-L for? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Last week a message here gave instructions for subscribing to the new mailing list dealing with toll free numbers. As I pointed out shortly thereafter, the information was incorrect and would be reposted shortly. The message which follows from Judith gives details for subscribing. PAT] ------------------------------------------- I had occasion today to speak with a subscriber of tollfree-l, who'd signed on due to his involvement in the industry -- but who has not a clue as to what a mailing list is, or what to expect from this list in particular. So it occured to me that perhaps many of you are very busy and indeed, may not be participants on other mailing lists. Which may account for the stark lack of activity here, even though we've attracted almost 70 subscribers in less than one week online. That said, here's the lowdown on mailing lists for the novices among you (extrapolated from Liszt, a mail list server service). What's a mailing list? Internet mailing lists aren't for ads, as some people mistakenly believe. Send any ads to this list, and demons will come and pull out your toenails. Neither is this list for news broadcasts - for that, you can sign up for ICB TOLL FREE NEWS (http://icbtollfree.com). Rather, Internet mailing lists are usually just communities of people sitting around discussing one of their favorite topics by e-mail. For example, other telecommunications lists include RITIM (Telecommunications and Information Marketing), TELECOM Digest, an electronic journal devoted mostly telecommunications topics, and telecomreg, which covers a broad range of regulatory issues. Internet mailing lists have been around since about 1975. It was the first and original type of online community, pre-dating Usenet, IRC, and the rest of the gang. The mailing list format lends itself to calm, thoughtful, literate, mature discussion, where relationships between the list members actually grow and deepen over an extended period of time. (Yes, even in our volatile business, thoughtful discussion can ensue. ) Most Internet experts feel that the mailing list format is the most civilized type of online community. So, that said, TOLLFREE-L is for the business discussion of toll free issues and concerns, of which there are certainly a good number on any given plate. Do 877 numbers work from PBX'es? Should the FCC's anti-brokering rules be rescinded? How should payphone companies be compensated for toll free calls? Should they be compensated at all? Are there any global 800 (UIFN) numbers producing for anyone yet? The email address to post messages to this list is tollfree-l@makelist.com. Introduce yourselves. Ask your questions, state your opinions, air your gripes. Be calm, be thoughtful, be literate, be mature! But at least, be present. your humble (and impatient) moderator, Judith Oppenheimer ------------------------------------------------------------- TOLL FREE SERVICE USERS LIST (TOLLFREE-L) To POST MESSAGES, email tollfree-l@makelist.com TOLLFREE-L is a moderated internet mailing list for the discussion of management, marketing, policy, engineering, logistical and regulatory matters related to the business use of toll free service and toll free numbers. TOLLFREE-L is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS service, and President of ICB Toll Free Consultancy. ICB NEWS service offers a 15-day free trial subscription, at http://icbtollfree.com. =====> To SUBSCRIBE to TOLLFREE-L mailing list, send an empty email =====> message to tollfree-l-subscribe@makelist.com =====> To UNSUBSCRIBE to TOLLFREE-L mailing list, send an empty email =====> message to tollfree-l-unsubscribe@makelist.com To POST MESSAGES, email tollfree-l@makelist.com To CONTACT THE LIST OWNER on administrative matters, etc., email tollfree-l-owner@makelist.com 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. Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/tollfree-l/ To unsubscribe, email to tollfree-l-unsubscribe@makelist.com To subscribe, email to tollfree-l-subscribe@makelist.com -- Start a FREE E-Mail List at http://makelist.com ! ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@nstc.com (Steve Sobol - BOFH) Subject: Ameritech, and a Supposedly FCC-Mandated Charge Date: 30 Jun 1998 15:03:51 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET This has appeared on my June 19th, 1998 Ameritech residential phone bill. LOCAL CALLS Local Calling Plus Calling Area A Minutes - Initial - 8am-9pm - x minutes billed at $ .04 each Additional at .01 each Minutes - Initial - 9pm-8am - x minutes billed at $ .02 each Additional at .005 each This page contains itemizations for three calling areas, A, B, and C. There are charges on this page. Now, I'm still getting itemized charges for local toll calls, and the flat rate I pay every month has not changed. Ameritech flat-out refuses to tell me what phone numbers I called that generated "local calling plus" charges; when I asked who I called that I got charged for, I was told "We don't have that information." Now, it's not a big deal to pay the grand total of 7 cents on the June bill, but I have a feeling I am going to be charged more than that in the coming months, and I don't imagine Ameritech will be any more forthcoming with information on why they are charging me or how they are computing these charges, except for the information already offered to me detailing which local communities are in which calling area. Flat rate is flat rate, period, end of discussion. And I'm already getting charged toll rates for local toll calls that I make. What the hell is going on? Should I write PUCO (the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) and the FCC, and complain that Ameritech is cramming? Am I way off base here? Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corporation [www.nstc.com] Sales reps wanted! Call 1.888.480.INET or e-mail sjsobol@nstc.com Fight unsolicited broadcast email! http://www.ybecker.net http://www.cauce.org "My nose is on fire, and my trousers appear to be full of weasels." -- Steve "Blighty" Atkins ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #104 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 4 18:38:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA16241; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:38:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807042238.SAA16241@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #105 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Jul 98 18:39:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "ADSL and DSL Technologies", Walter Goralski (Rob Slade) Telecom Update (Canada) #140, July 6, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) AT&T Backs Off 50% Texas Intrastate Increase (Robert Eden) AT&T New Communications Services Through Excite, Lycos (Mike Pollock) CRTC Opens Pay-phone Competition (Chris Farrar) Code For New Chicago NPA Announced (Adam H. Kerman) Even More LM-NANPA Planning Letters (Mark J Cuccia) Folklore: Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them (Michael Covington) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:25:23 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "ADSL and DSL Technologies", Walter Goralski Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKDSLTCH.RVW 980409 "ADSL and DSL Technologies", Walter Goralski, 1998, 0-07-024679-3, U$45.95 %A Walter Goralski %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1998 %G 0-07-024679-3 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$45.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 379 p. %T "ADSL and DSL Technologies" I first saw the effect on calls to my ISP (Internet Service Provider). Instead of getting a busy signal, I would get a voice interrupt telling me that all circuits were busy. (This, incidentally, played havoc with my automated redialing attempts.) Since my ISP happens to also be a long distance provider, one could assume that the problem lay with a certain lack of cooperation between the two corporate telecom entities. However, these voice interrupts are becoming more frequent in local voice calls from all parts of the city. It seems clear that BC Tel is seeing a milder form of the "brown down" Goralski describes in his introduction, and for which ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) is a possible solution. Most people see ADSL simply in terms of faster Internet (and usually Web page) access, whereas the Goralski points out that there are advantages for the telco as well. Chapter one gives a historical background to the Internet and the World Wide Web, pointing to the nature of the connection to, and traffic with, the end user. The argument being developed is extended somewhat in chapter two with an overview of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Chapter three starts to get close to ADSL technologies by dealing with the increasing digitization of the PSTN, and also the physics and engineering involved in the local loop. The final factor in the mix is the difference between circuit switching (necessary for voice traffic) and packet switching (the most efficient use of bandwidth in data networks), covered in chapter four. Chapter five looks at the various technologies that compete in the market to provide higher speed access to the home or small business, including high speed modems, cable modems, ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network), satellite, and so forth. Each has significant limitations not shared by ADSL. ADSL is only one of a family of DSL (sometimes referred to as xDSL) services, and these are introduced in chapter six. Chapter seven explains High-bit-rate DSL (HDSL), a symmetric technology often used to terminate T-1 lines. The ADSL signalling is covered in chapter eight. The interface and frames are explained in chapters nine and ten. Chapter eleven looks at applications and use. (I was amused, recently, to have to explain to a company that the asymmetry involved in ADSL was a necessary function of the fact that the telco would be able to "push" data at you faster than they could "suck" it from your system. They had envisaged being able to get faster than T-1 speeds, bi-directionally, by getting two ADSL lines.) The telco side of ADSL is the Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) discussed in chapter twelve. One of the advantages of ADSL is the ability to use much of the existing infrastructure without extensive refitting. Chapter thirteen looks at migration issues from analogue service to ADSL, and from ADSL to possible followons. One such followon is Very High-speed Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL), described in chapter fourteen. While ADSL is starting to become available, a number of questions are raised in chapter fifteen that remain to be addressed. An additional collection of international issues are presented in chapter sixteen. Appendix B lists a very useful set of contact information for members of the ADSL Forum. Goralski`s exposition here is every bit as good as good as that in his explanation of SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) (cf. BKSONET.RVW), albeit more people know, or think they know, what ADSL is. The mass appeal of ADSL will probably mean that most users will be looking for something a bit shorter, although the explanations contained in this book are clear enough for anyone. Every ISP, though, should have a copy on hand in order to determine what *they* (the ISPs) need to do (see chapter twelve), and to field the inevitable questions as ADSL starts to roll out beyond the trial areas. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKDSLTCH.RVW 980409 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 15:24:47 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #140, July 6, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 140: July 6, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Telecom Update Takes a Holiday ** CRTC Opens Payphone Competition ** Call-Net Replaces fONOROLA Executives, Board ** Stratos Buys Teleglobe Satellite Assets ** Nortel Wireless Expands in Calgary, Winnipeg ** Carriers Told to Improve Services for Visually Impaired ** CRTC Sets Rate for Bell Wireless Access ** CRTC Denies Telus Bid for Separate Signaling Hookup ** Bell Mobility Expands PCS Coverage ** Bell Mobility to Unify Ontario Government Two-Way Radio ** NBTel, Balisoft to Develop Internet Call Centers ** Northwestel Told to Upgrade Rural Wireless ** Northwestel Reduces Toll-Free Rates ** BC Tel Installs Internet "Payphones" ** Rogers Sells Security Division ** Microcell Expands Resale ** PowerTel Changes Name ** "Managing in Surprising Times" ============================================================ TELECOM UPDATE TAKES A HOLIDAY: We're taking a short summer break: the next issue of Telecom Update will be published on July 13. CRTC OPENS PAYPHONE COMPETITION: On June 30, CRTC Telecom Decision 98-8 opened the local pay telephone market to competition. Prices of alternative providers are not regulated, but they must register with the Commission and abide by consumer safeguards. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d988_0.txt CALL-NET REPLACES fONOROLA EXECUTIVES, BOARD: Call-Net Enterprises, which assumed ownership of fONOROLA June 26, has dismissed 31 of fONOROLA's senior managers, including CEO Jan Peeters, and replaced fONOROLA's Board of Directors with Call-Net nominees. (See Telecom Update #139) STRATOS BUYS TELEGLOBE SATELLITE ASSETS: Toronto-based Stratos Global Corp. is paying Teleglobe $82 Million for its Inmarsat mobile satellite business and its 29% stake in Stratos Global's wireless subsidiary. Stratos Global is majority owned by NewTel Enterprises. NORTEL WIRELESS EXPANDS IN CALGARY, WINNIPEG: Northern Telecom has opened a new wireless lab in Calgary to check product conformance to regulatory standards. Nortel is also expanding its Calgary wireless manufacturing facility and is building a new broadband wireless R&D lab in Winnipeg. CARRIERS TOLD TO IMPROVE SERVICES FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED: CRTC Telecom Order 98-626 tells carriers to provide bills and billing inserts, upon request, in Braille, large print, or on computer diskette. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98626_0.txt CRTC SETS RATE FOR BELL WIRELESS ACCESS: CRTC Order 98-623 sets the paging and telephone-number access rates paid by wireless carriers to Bell Canada at 14 cents/month per active number and 4 cents/month per reserved number. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98623_0.txt CRTC DENIES TELUS BID FOR SEPARATE SIGNALING HOOKUP: CRTC Order 98-625 denies a bid by Telus to require wireless providers to connect to the CCS7 signaling network on Telus territory. The Commission says the CCS7 network is "effectively a Stentor network," so interconnection can be made anywhere in Stentor territory. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98625_0.txt BELL MOBILITY EXPANDS PCS COVERAGE: Bell Mobility has extended its PCS digital network to cover Brantford, Kitchener-Waterloo, and an Ottawa-Quebec City corridor. BELL MOBILITY TO UNIFY ONTARIO GOVERNMENT TWO-WAY RADIO: Bell Mobility has signed a $300 Million 15-year deal with the Province of Ontario to build a unified digital radio network, replacing the five separate radio dispatch systems now run by Ontario public safety agencies. NBTEL, BALISOFT TO DEVELOP INTERNET CALL CENTERS: NBTel is working with Toronto-based Balisoft Technologies to develop products that equip call centers to serve callers over the Internet. Balisoft was founded in 1997 by former Delrina President Mark Skapinker. NORTHWESTEL TOLD TO UPGRADE RURAL WIRELESS: CRTC Order 98- 622 sets a usage rate of 4 cents/minute for all airtime on Northwestel's Ruraltel remote-area service and tells the telco to file action plans to upgrade the quality of Ruraltel service. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98622_0.txt NORTHWESTEL REDUCES TOLL-FREE RATES: Northwestel has the CRTC's okay to bring its per-minute toll-free rates closer to those offered south of 60 and to reduce the disparity between rates in its eastern and western operating areas. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98636_0.txt BC TEL INSTALLS INTERNET "PAYPHONES": BC Tel has installed two "NetLink" terminals in the Vancouver convention center that provide high-speed Internet access plus use of word processing and spreadsheet programs. Users pay 35 cents/minute plus 23 cents per printed page. ROGERS SELLS SECURITY DIVISION: Rogers Communications has sold Rogers Canguard, Canada's fifth-largest security alarm company, to California-based Protection One. MICROCELL EXPANDS RESALE: Microcell's wireless service now has a second reseller, Vancouver-based start-up CityFone Telecommunications. POWERTEL CHANGES NAME: Calgary-based PowerTel Communications has changed its name to Equess Communications. "MANAGING IN SURPRISING TIMES": Bell Canada President John MacDonald discusses the telco's plans to acquire new capabilities for the next millennium in "Managing in Surprising Times," an exclusive interview in the July-August issue of Telemanagement. The July-August issue, available this week, also features: ** A critical look at the Teleglobe/Excel merger by Ian Angus; ** A report on early implementations of fax-over-Internet by Gerry Blackwell. To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Robert Eden Subject: AT&T Backs Off 50% Texas Intrastate Increase Date: 02 Jul 1998 18:10:26 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services http://www.Austin360.com/biz/07july/1/1att.htm The _Austin American Statesman_ reports that AT&T will refund the 5 cent increase to "One Rate Plus" subscribers charged since 6/1/98. The original 10 cent rate will revert until 9/1/98 when the new 15 cent rate will take effect. The article doesn't mention if they will actually *NOTIFY* One Rate Plus customers of the increase before it is re-imposed 9/1/98. Yesterday, I got my bill with the "new" rate. The increase was not even mentioned but shown in the call detail. Complaints to various regulatory and consumer agencies were going to go out this weekend (they refused to adjust my bill yesterday). In response to a previous post, people had asked about fine print in the AT&T offer. Both on my first bill under the plan and in a separate letter, the rates were detailed without a "rates subject to change without notice" message. The welcome letter even states: "With AT&T One Rate Plus, you always know in advance what each call is going to cost." Yea sure ... Robert ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: AT&T New Communications Services To Be Offered Through Excite, Lycos Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:12:14 -0400 I saw a link to this during a recent Anywho search, but I haven't gotten up the gumption to try it. --------------------------------- Monday June 29, 8:33 am Eastern Time Company Press Release AT&T Unveils New Communications Services, Combining Power of Internet With At&t Voice Network First AT&T Inter@ctive Communications To Be Offered Through Excite, Lycos BASKING RIDGE, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 29, 1998-- AT&T (NYSE:T - news) today introduced the first of a family of AT&T Inter@ctive Communications services that enable consumers to engage in a variety of new communications experiences using the Internet. Developed by AT&T Labs, these new services place a variety of communications capabilities at Internet users' fingertips. Now, consumers can turn any online chat into a phone conversation, initiate and manage a conference call with up to seven people, and utilize other services that leverage the power of AT&T's voice network and the World Wide Web. ``These new services add voice to today's most popular Internet activities and applications, including online chat sessions and Web directories,'' said Dan Schulman, President of AT&T WorldNet(R) Service and AT&T Interactive Communications. ``As the Internet evolves into a rich multimedia experience, AT&T will be there, driving the transformation from text-based communications to voice-enabled applications.'' AT&T Inter@ctive Communications are an integral part of the company's strategy to enable Internet users to go anywhere on the Web to experience the IP communications of tomorrow - today. Beginning today, these services are accessible through leading portals Excite (Nasdaq:XCIT - news; www.excite.com) and Lycos (Nasdaq:LCOS - news; www.lycos.com), as well as the AT&T Web site (www.att.com) and the AT&T WorldNet(R) Service site (www.att.net). Available now, the first AT&T Inter@ctive Communications services require one telephone line separate from the Internet connection. They are: AT&T Chat `N Talk (www.chatntalk.att.com): What is it?: Internet users can add the warmth of voice to a textual online chat session. Make a phone call to anyone in a chat room while retaining confidentiality. How does it work?: Chat participants who want to have a one-on-one phone conversation click on an AT&T Chat `N Talk icon, enter their phone numbers and billing detail, and then establish contact through their second phone lines. The AT&T network connects both parties without revealing phone numbers. AT&T Click2Dial (sm) Conferencing (www.click2dial.att.com): What is it? Internet users set-up and control their own conference with up to 7 people at any time, without operator assistance. How does it work? The conference host uses a Web interface to enter the telephone numbers of the people they want on the call. They can then oversee a variety of conference functions, including the ability to mute, add or delete participants. AT&T Click2Dial (sm) Directories (www.click2dial.att.com): What is it? People can auto-dial a person found in AT&T's Anywho (sm) directory (www.anywho.com) with the simple click of a button. How does it work? Enter the name and state of the person to be contacted, and a second later, the phone number and address of every person matching the criteria appears. Simply click on the appropriate person and connect with him or her on a call. AT&T Inter@ctive Communications are economical and easy-to-use. Click2Dial Conferencing and Click2Dial Directories are available for $0.15 cents per minute, per each person called anywhere in the continental United States, Hawaii and Alaska. There are no additional fees for using Click2Dial Directories. AT&T Chat `N Talk has a set-up fee of $0.50, with a charge of $0.25 cents per minute. To expedite the evolution of AT&T Inter@ctive Communications, AT&T will open up the service's APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) for licensing later this year, empowering developers to create additional applications. These applications will eventually benefit online gamers, shoppers, educators and others seeking to enhance their communications experiences on the Web. System requirements: 486 or higher PC, running Windows 95 with at least 16 megabytes of RAM; Internet Explorer 3.02 or above, Netscape Navigator 3.0 or above; one phone line separate from an Internet connection. About AT&T AT&T is the world's premier voice and data communications company, serving more than 80 million customers, including consumers, businesses and government. With annual revenues of more than $51 billion and some 121,000 employees, AT&T provides services to more than 280 countries and territories around the world. AT&T runs the world's largest, most powerful long-distance network and the largest digital wireless network in North America. The company is a leading supplier of data and Internet services for businesses and the nation's largest direct Internet service provider to consumers. AT&T's businesses are backed by the research and development capabilities of AT&T Labs, which is working to create the information services and communications network of tomorrow. About Excite Founded in 1994, Excite, Inc. is a global media company offering consumers a personalized Web start page on www.excite.com and a `back to basics' Web search service on www.webcrawler.com, and advertisers the best one-to-one marketing services available online. The Excite Network consists of two of the largest brands on the Web, Excite and WebCrawler, and its subsidiaries; Classifieds2000, MatchLogic, Inc., Excite Japan Co., Ltd. and Excite UK, Ltd. Localized versions of Excite are available in France, Germany, the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and Australia. Based in Redwood City, Calif., Excite, Inc. has strategic relationships with America Online, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., CUC Investments Inc., Intuit Inc. [Nasdaq:INTU - news], Netscape Communications Corp. [Nasdaq:NSCP - news], Prodigy Internet and Tribune Company [NYSE:TRB - news]. About Lycos Founded in 1995, Lycos, Inc. is a New Generation Online Service that combines all aspects of community, leading Web navigation resources and cutting-edge business and consumer e-commerce solutions. Located at http://www.lycos.com, Lycos - ``Your Personal Internet Guide'' - is dedicated to helping each individual user locate, retrieve and manage information tailored to his or her personal interests. Through the acquisition of Tripod, Inc., the leading community site on the Web, located at http://www.tripod.com, Lycos has become the most full-featured community-oriented home base on the Internet, providing free personal homepages to all users. Headquartered near Boston in Waltham, MA, Lycos maintains U.S. offices in New York City, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Los Angeles and San Francisco. International offices are located in Japan, Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Spain and The Netherlands. Click2Dial is a service mark of AT&T -------------------- Contact: Jonathan Varman AT&T ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Subject: CRTC Opens Pay-Phone Competition Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 22:46:31 GMT Organization: Bell Solutions In the Canada Day (July 1, 1998) edition the Toronto Star reports that the CRTC has ended the last remaining monopoly in the telephone industry in Canada, pay-phones. Currently, all pay phones are owned by the phone company. Michael Janigan the executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa refered to the news as "Competition in the pay-phone industry is a solution in need of a problem. Most people are quite happy with the service that exists. And if you look to the U.S., where the market is deregulated, it has led to higher prices and consumer ripoffs." Having has the U.S. model as a case study, the CRTC has tried to avoid similar problems in Canada through more stringent regulation. Any company deciding to enter the pay-phone market will have to comply wiht the following consumer safeguards: Pay phone providers will have to provide access to emergency services through 911 or 0. Pay phone providers will have to provide access to all long distance carriers. Pay phone providers will have to prominently display the rates for local calls. Pay phone providers will have to display the name of the long-distance company it has choses as the default. Pay phone providers will have to dispalay the amount (if any) of the surcharge non included in the price of the call. Access for the physically disabled must also be provided. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) intends to review the impact of the decision over the next three years. Canada Payphone Corp. of British Columbia is expected to be the first on the scene with COCOTs. The company has been gearing up for deregulation for the last two years. The service will launch in Toronto & Vancouver by August, and then fan out across the country. CPC's phones will be branded with the AT&T Canada logo (their default LD carrier). In return, CPC ges access to AT&T's business sales team. It should be noted that in Bell Canada territory (Ontario & Quebec), pay phones are still 25 cents (Canadian) per call no matter how long you talk. Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 12:47:02 CDT From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Code For New Chicago NPA Announced The code for the new Chicago NPA has been announced: It's 224. However, the Illinois Commerce Commission has not issued the order. It is assumed that a "creeping overlay" will be implemented, starting with 847 (north and northwest suburbs) and spreading to the other local area codes (630 far west suburbs, 708 near west and south suburbs, and 773 and 312 in Chicago). And, when it's overlayed, it'll mean mandatory use of the 1 dialing prefix for intra-NPA calls! Aargh. There are NO possible intra-NPA toll calls within 847. And, of course, Chicago has NEVER used the "1" dialing prefix for toll alerting. Prior to 1982, toll calls within the original NPA 312 were quite common, depending on what "Call-Pak" a business or residential customer subscribed to. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my remarks on this 224 code following the next message by Mark Cuccia. According to Mark in the message following, 224 is now 'permissive'. See my notes after his article on what happened when I tried using it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 14:56:08 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Even More LM-NANPA Planning Letters LM-IMS-NANPA has _SEVEN_ recent Planning Letters over the past few weeks! :) On Monday 15-June-1998, LM-IMS-NANPA added five new Planning Letters (PL's) to their website. On Wednesday 01-July-1998, there were two additional PL's added! These are downloadable/viewable/printable FOR FREE ! :) in Adobe-Acrobat .pdf format from: http://www.nanpa.com/planning_letters/planning_letters.html PL-NANP-122 (dated 9-June-1998) regards an extraordinary jeopardy situation in all four eastern Massachusetts NPA codes (508, 617, 781, 978). PL-NANP-123 (dated 9-June-1998) regards the split of NPA 504 here in Louisiana, with new NPA 225 splitting off covering the Baton Rouge area. PL-NANP-124 (dated 26-May-1998) regards an extraordinary jeopardy situation in NPA 914 in New York state. PL-NANP-125 (dated 26-May-1998) regards the overlay of NPA 310 in the Los Angeles CA area, with new NPA 424. PL-NANP-126 (dated 12-June-1998) regards the extension of permissive dialing in Utah, in the 801/435 NPA split. The two PL's added on 01-July-1998 are: PL-NANP-127 (dated 30-June-1998) regarding the overlay of the north suburban Chicago IL area's current NPA 847, with new NPA 224. PL-NANP-128 (dated 30-June-1998) regarding the 3-way split of NPA 619 in Southern CA, with new NPA's 858 and 935. In PL#123 (504/225 Louisiana Split) it is mentioned that permissive dialing begins 17-August-1998, and mandatory dialing begins 5-April-1999. There are _two_ test numbers: 225-291-6715, for the Baton Rouge LATA termination BTRGLASBDS0 Baton Rouge SB = "Suburban" switch 225-874-7712, for the Jackson (MS) LATA termination N.Cornor LA ratecenter, served out of the WDVLMSMADS1 (Woodville MS) switch BellSouth has _both_ test numbers up and running now, and _neither_ one returns "off-hook billing supervision"! :) i.e., they are _supposed_ to be _FREE_ of any toll, coin, airtime/roaming, etc. charges to call them. The recorded verification announcement is identical for each number. At this point, NPA 225 can't be reached via most LD carriers, but I have been able to replace NPA 225 with 504 to reach the test numbers recordings. AT&T is already routing calls to the test number NXX c/o-code prefixes when dialed with NPA 225. There are some errors/ommissions in this PL. It is not NANPA's errors/ ommissions, but seems to be that of BellSouth. Three 504-NXX codes which are remaining in NPA 504 are ommitted from that part of the PL. These three 504-NXX codes are outside of the New Orleans LATA: 504-444 Offshore LA, in LATA #999 (special services) 504-548 S.Osyka LA, in the Jackson MS LATA (served out of the Osyka MS switch) 504-531 Pearlington LA, in the Gulfcoast MS LATA (served out of the Pearlington MS switch) And there are two NXX codes which are in the New Orleans LATA, but not in NPA 504, which are 'shown to be continuing as part of 504'. The ratecenter of Crossroads is in the state of _Mississippi_, although associated with the New Orleans LATA, and is served out of the Bogalusa LA switch. The two NXX codes shown are 772 and 958. The 601-772 code has been around for decades, but I am unaware of the (601)-958 code! Incidently the 958 prefix is frequently reserved in most NPAs for test functions! I called up both the BellSouth and AT&T Operators and asked for "nameplace" on both 601-958 and 504-958. According to both operators, the 958 prefix doesn't exist in either NPA 601 or NPA 504, although they 'could' be used for testing. PL#125 for the overlay of NPA 310 in Southern California with new NPA 424 mentions that 'formal' permissive 1+ten-digit local dialing begins on 17-July-1998. Mandatory 1+ten-digit local dialing begins 17-April-1999. New 424-NXX codes are to become effective for service on 17-July-1999. The test number is 424-654-0424. PL#127 for the overlay of NPA 847 in the Chicago IL area with new NPA 224 mentions that 'formal' permissive 1+ten-digit local dialing for the entire Chicago metro area began on 11-May-1998. Mandatory 1+ten-digit local dialing for at least calls within NPA 847 begins on 07-Nov-1998, when new line-numbers and NXX codes within the new 224 NPA code are to take-effect. The test number is 224-444-1234. While not mentioned in the LM-IMS-NANPA Planning Letter, it is assumed that this overlay will be a "creeping" overlay, which will eventually cover all of Chicago metro's area codes, i.e. the region once covered by NPA 312, prior to 1989, when NPA 708 first split off. (I wonder if the boundaries between all of Chicago Metro's area codes will eventually be 'erased', similar to Atlanta, and what is expected for Houston and Dallas. Well, with number-portability between LECs _within_ a ratecenter, it probably will be de-facto anyhow!) PL#128 for the 3-way split of San Diego Metro's NPA 619 mentions that the northern suburban area will split off into new NPA 858, permissive on 12-June-1999, mandatory on 11-December 1999. The test number is 858-745-0858. The southern/eastern suburbs will split off into new NPA 935 about a year later, permissive on 10-June-2000, mandatory on 09-June-2000. The test number is 935-745-0935. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Cl.5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMT01T (BellSouth DMS-100 "Metairie" Tndm; Cellular routes thru) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 inTRA-LATA/fg.BCD Tndm "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:inLATA OprSvcTndm "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) JCSNMSPS14T (AT&T #4ESS Class-3 Toll 040-T / 601-2T; OSPS routes thru) NWORLATUDS0?(PBX NEC-2400 504-862-3/8xxx, 504-865-4/5/6xxx) NWORLACACG0 (BellSou.#1A Cl.5 Lcl "Carrollton" 504-86x-; PBX 'homes' on) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark says, 'formal permissive 1+10 began in Chicago area May 11', and 'test number is 224-444-1234'. I do indeed note that 1+847 works here on my calls within 847 (I had not thought to try it before), however a/c 224 is definitly *not* in service from my central office 847-675. If I dial 1-224-anything or just 224-anything my call is immediatly intercepted after the 224 portion -- before anything else is dialed -- with an intercept saying 'we were unable to trace the last call you received. Ameritech customers can call the Ameritech Call Annoyance Bureau at . Thank you.' Dialing just 444-1234 (from 847-675) reached an intercept saying the number was not in service. Unable to trace the last call I received ?? I thought that is what *51 was used for ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael A. Covington Subject: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 11:05:44 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Recently I was warned by a well-meaning netizen that I should not challenge spammers because if challenged, they'll do all kinds of things like mail-bomb me, steal my credit card numbers (how?), turn me in to the police on false charges, etc. etc. Balderdash. That sounds like a rumor started by a spammer. In three years as computer security chairman at the University of Georgia, I've never encountered a spammer with any detectable amount of courage. If anybody actually tried to do those things, we'd gleefully catch and prosecute them. One *sure* way to turn a neighborhood over to criminals -- either in physical space or in cyberspace -- is to get everybody afraid of *imaginary* crimes that haven't happened and haven't even been threatened. Criminals love it when that happens. Let's not let it happen to the Net. Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington <>< [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bravo! Amen! In the case of real neighborhoods and real people (as opposed to the net) those stories are often spread by the police; they do not like citizens trying to horn in on their 'law and order' monopoly. Consider how the police always like to give you the BS about 'if someone tries to rob you or hold you up (at place of business for example), never resist, always give them whatever they want; why, they might try to hurt you or they might have a gun, etc.' ... to which I always tell the cop he is full of it. If someone tries to hold me up or assualt me, my response is to try and kill them; yours should be too. Certainly I value my own life, but I am the sort of stubborn person that if some person wants to rob me of five or ten dollars, I'd just as soon see them -- if they get caught -- be tried on murder charges as well. You might try living your life in the manner Johann Sebastian Bach lived his; he was not afraid of death, in fact he welcomed it. His attitude was 'take me anytime, Lord ...'. I am neither afraid of death, nor do I 'welcome' it; but if I cannot live my life in peace and quiet and harmony with others then damned if I am going to let my assilant do it either. *Never* submit to a crime against yourself with at least making the assailant wish he had left you alone. Blind him, maim him, cripple him, whatever. That way the police can have something real to complain about instead of their all-to-frequent nonsensical belly aching. Now regards the same principle and the net: When you have some form of practical and effecient recourse against a spammer, **use it**. Stay within the law -- even in a physical assualt you should try to do only what is necessary to stop the act -- but definitly make the spammer come to grips with the realities of the net ... make certain he goes away realizing his spamming was not a smart thing to do. We often times have tell-free numbers for them; use those numbers in a way to make sure the spammer understands the vast readership on the net and how so many millions of people saw his message. . If he has a *valid* email address, I suggest punishing his ISP if the ISP otherwise won't assist. Make sure they feel the wrath. Make certain they go away wishing they had never even gotten an internet access account. As Mr. Covington points out, most of them are cowards. And if they want to steal your credit card numbers or use your address for their email, I say **good** -- great in fact. Cause now you really have a good beef with them, and a way to force the issue and see them in jail. Why settle for erasing spam all day and complaining about it when maybe you can induce one of the goofs to act out against you so you can *really* kick his ass good? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #105 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 7 21:54:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA09632; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:54:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807080154.VAA09632@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #103 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Jul 98 21:54:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Airport Pay Phone Taps Used to Steal Calling Cards (Tad Cook) Pacific Telecommunications Council: Essay Prize 1998 (Puja Borries) New Codes Causing Glitch in Phone Systems (Monty Solomon) 800's and Lax Computer Security (Judith Oppenheimer) Legal Recourse for Telemarkedorks? (Victor Escobar) Is AT&T Learning Customer Service From TCI? (David A. Jensen) [Note: Somehow issue 103 did not go out correctly last week, so I am sending it out now, although number-wise it is out of sequence. Sorry about that! PAT] TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Airport Pay Phone Taps Used to Steal Calling Cards Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:14:32 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (This story has greater detail than the one recently on using 3-way calling to steal calling card numbers. tad@ssc.com) Airport pay phone taps used to steal calling cards New York Times NEW YORK -- Federal investigators said the scam was ingenious in its simplicity: Five people in New York City would tap into public pay phones at major airports across the United States, and then steal calling-card numbers punched in by unsuspecting travelers. After a seven-month investigation by the Secret Service, the scheme ended last month with the arrest of four men and one woman. The case, which investigators and telephone-company officials said is the first of its kind in the nation, is only the latest machination in a $4 billion-a-year telephone-fraud industry that keeps reinventing itself. "This is something new that we have not seen before," said Boyd Jackson, the director of network security at AT&T Corp. and one of the industry experts who helped federal investigators on the case. "And there is nothing I am aware of that customers can do to fully protect themselves." Federal investigators, who said that calling-card theft costs telephone companies and consumers millions of dollars annually, have yet to establish an exact figure for how much this scam netted. And because of the scheme's simplicity, and the fact that a thief can tap into phones from hundreds of miles away, the authorities are fearful of copycat crimes. Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, whose office is prosecuting the case, left open the possibility of more arrests, saying an investigation was continuing. Investigators said the suspects stole hundreds of calling-card numbers by dialing into public telephones in O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, Houston International Airport and Denver International Airport. Federal documents say the scheme worked this way: The defendants would call phones at the airports. When someone waiting to use a phone picked up a ringing phone, they would hear what sounded like a dial tone, which was activated when the suspects initiated the phones' conference-call feature. Even if the caller was startled by the dial tone and hung up, the tap remained activated for 15 seconds, ensnaring callers if they picked up the phone again or if someone else waiting in line tried to use the phone. Calling-card numbers that the victims punched in were recorded by the suspects, who then would translate the tones back into corresponding numbers using a device called a dial-number recorder, prosecutors said. Such recorders are commonly available at electronics stores. "This is the first time we have ever seen this type of setup with these dial-number recorders," said Denise Gibson, a spokeswoman for the New York City field office of the Secret Service. "Unfortunately, these are well-known and readily available electronic devices." After obtaining the calling-card numbers, thieves typically make a profit by selling them on the black market to other criminals and unwitting consumers. The Secret Service, a branch of the Treasury Department that investigates financial crimes, was tipped off to the scam by AT&T, Bell Atlantic Corp. and MCI Communications Corp. after they received an unusually high number of complaints from customers who had recently used their calling cards in airports. On June 18, Secret Service agents arrested Benito Lopez, Juan Morel, Miriam Mercado Florian, Julio Olivo and Gladys Brito, all of New York. In the suspects' apartments, investigators said, they confiscated dial-number recorders, audiotapes, lists of public-telephone numbers and lists of calling-card numbers. The five suspects, who each could face a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of fraud, could not be located for comment. They were arraigned and released on bail last week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, where they are scheduled to reappear for a preliminary hearing July 20. Federal and telephone-company officials said they were concerned about not being able to prevent copycat crimes because under such a scam, a thief does not have to be on location and there is no way for consumers to differentiate between fake and real dial tones. Calling-card scams began with the actual theft of cards. That scheme was foiled by telephone companies providing customers with personal security codes not printed on the cards. Thieves responded by glancing over the shoulders of callers and writing down their calling-card numbers and security codes as they punched them into telephones. Telephone companies say they put a dent in this so-called "shoulder surfing" by furnishing pay phones with automatic card readers, and plastic shields and other measures to obstruct the view of potential thieves. In recent years, more enterprising thieves have obtained calling-card numbers and security codes by contacting customers and telling them they were telephone-company operators who needed to verify their card numbers. One federal official expressed a grudging admiration for the latest scheme. "From a personal perspective, I thought it was rather ingenious," Gibson said. "It has alerted us to a potential problem that we are sure other criminals will be able to duplicate." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 11:21:32 -1000 From: Puja Borries Subject: Pacific Telecommunications Council: Essay Prize 1998 Announcement for PTC's Essay Prize 1998 The Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC) is a non-profit, international membership organization that promotes the development and beneficial use of telecommunications in the Pacific Hemisphere. Eligibility The PTC is pleased to announce an essay competition designed to promote fresh inquiry into telecommunications-related topics, as enumerated below. The competition is open to all individuals who are either actively working on a degree or have obtained undergraduate or graduate level degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, Ph.D., etc.) within the last five years. PTC willtake no interest in race, national origin, creed, ethnicity, sex or age of the participant. $$$ A maximum of three prizes, which include a monetary award in the amount of US $2,000 for each prize, will be awarded to the authors of the best paper(s) in the following research areas: Research Areas 1. Electronic Commerce: including sub-issues such as Internet regulation, encryption, and different tariff, tax and content issues. 2. Telecommunications and development, particularly with respect to the present financial situation in developing countries. 3. Information technology and education/distance learning: for the Asia/Pacific/Americas region with large, dispersed rural population. Deadline for submission is July 31, 1998. Winning entrants will be invited to present their papers at a session of the 21st Pacific Telecommuncations Conference, Honolulu, in January 1999. Travel assistance will be made available, if needed, for this purpose. For information and application contact: Ms. Puja Borries Publications & Publicity Coordinator Pacific Telecommunications Council 2454 S. Beretania St., Ste. #302 Honolulu, HI 96826 Tel: 808 941 3789 ext. 122 Fax: 808 944 4874 Email: puja@ptc.org ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Codes Causing Glitch in Phone Systems Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:19:42 -0400 Posted at 7:01 p.m. PDT Monday, July 6, 1998 New codes causing glitch in phone systems Knight Ridder News Service A low-profile change in the nation's long-distance routing system has stymied telephone systems around the country, leaving calls mysteriously connected to nowhere. The glitch -- which primarily affects businesses with computer-driven phone systems -- stems from the July 1 addition of ``10'' to the front of each of the long-distance access codes. The codes allow users to choose a specific carrier before making a long-distance call. For example, 10-321 has become 10-10-321 and 10-288, AT&T's access code, is now 10-10-288. The Federal Communications mandated that the extra digits be added, effective July 1, because of the high demand for area codes that the old style needlessly consumed. For calls dialed directly, the change simply means punching two extra buttons. But private branch exchange or switchboard systems might require reprogramming to include the new digits -- and therein lies the problem. People such as Elizabeth Ruese, an administrative assistant for Armanasco Public Relations in Monterey, Calif., discovered that without including the extra digits, calls go nowhere. ``Nobody told us,'' she said. ``We've been having problems with the phones all day (July 2).'' Other businesses might have the glitch without anyone knowing yet. ``There are some people who are being affected and they may not even realize what's wrong right now,'' said Sam Bishop, president of Totlcom, which sells and maintains business telephone systems in Central and Northern California. Bishop said that the access-code change hasn't been widely advertised. ``I didn't know about it until two or three weeks before,'' he said. The heaviest promotion of the code change has been by 10-10-321, a carrier which depends primarily on direct dialing by residential customers. But many businesses use other long-distance access codes in an attempt to save money, and some route their local toll calls through the access code of a national carrier. ``Businesses often have their telephone system preprogrammed to be smart enough to do that,'' Bishop said. ``Companies have put this in and forget about it. As of (Wednesday), when they dial particular area codes, it's not going through.' Totlcom workers anticipated the snarl, and already have fixed the systems of most customers, said Bishop. Anyone still having problems connecting calls should contact the vendor who sold the phone system, or seek help from the appropriate long-distance carrier. Steve Dandy, a technician for MCI, said his company's service lines have been swamped with customers seeking a repair for the glitch. The company has set up a special hot line, (770) 284-3277, to offer a remote fix for its customers. ``It's not been a complete disaster,'' he said. Nilda Weglarz, spokeswoman for AT&T, said the company is not directly affected, since it no longer sells equipment. Customers having trouble should call their phone system vendors. Sprint also was inundated Thursday with calls for help, according to one of the company's operators. Sprint customers who have trouble dialing out can try 10-10-333 to connect the call, according to the service operator. ------------------------------ Reply-To: tollfree-l@makelist.com Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 20:02:31 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: 800's and Lax Computer Security CMP Media's TechWeb reports that a number of Australian companies that operate toll-free phoneline connections to their computer networks are leaving themselves open to security breaches, according to a new study. According to the article, Australian security company Shake Communications used a modem to dial up every toll-free number it could locate in Australia. Two percent of the 48,000 numbers called let Shake connect to a computer system, some of which offered no resistance to intrusion. Shake's modem was able to connect to 1,389 computer systems, and to get information from 166 of them without breaking the law. Under Australian law, any attempt to penetrate a computer system is illegal, so Shake was limited to dialing the phone number, seeing what was at the other end, then hanging up. Shake's modem took more than 500 hours to dial all the numbers. Of the 166 phone numbers connected to computers, 16 of them had no authentication procedures, two allowed callers to bypass log-in procedures, and another three gave callers access to the computer's root directory, usually reserved for system administrators. Just over one-third of the computers revealed their operating system and version. Only four of the systems connected to appeared to have a sophisticated means of establishing user authentication, said Shake's technical director, Simon Johnson. "I was astounded at the lack of security," he said, adding that banking and finance companies, followed by IT and media, appeared to be the most lax. "In some cases, we were automatically logged on to their internal networks," he said. The article concludes with the obvious lesson: Don't use 1-800 numbers for internal corporate access, Johnson said. "If you do -- and I advise not to -- at least have some strong authentication," he said. Also noted: Ben Barton, business-development manager with the Australian Computer Emergency Response Team, a Queensland computer-security company, said Australia was probably little different in regard to lax computer security than anywhere else, especially the United States. The level of computer security in Australia is unlikely to be significantly lower than in the United States, said a computer-crime specialist with the Australian Federal Police. Judith Oppenheimer TOLL FREE SERVICE USERS LIST (TOLLFREE-L) To POST MESSAGES, email tollfree-l@makelist.com TOLLFREE-L is a moderated internet mailing list for the discussion of management, marketing, policy, engineering, logistical and regulatory matters related to the business use of toll free service and toll free numbers. TOLLFREE-L is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS service, and President of ICB Toll Free Consultancy. ICB NEWS service offers a 15-day free trial subscription, at http://icbtollfree.com. To SUBSCRIBE to TOLLFREE-L mailing list, send an empty email message to tollfree-l-subscribe@makelist.com To UNSUBSCRIBE to TOLLFREE-L mailing list, send an empty email message to tollfree-l-unsubscribe@makelist.com To POST MESSAGES, email tollfree-l@makelist.com To CONTACT THE LIST OWNER on administrative matters, etc., email tollfree-l-owner@makelist.com 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. Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/tollfree-l/ To unsubscribe, email to tollfree-l-unsubscribe@makelist.com To subscribe, email to tollfree-l-subscribe@makelist.com ------------------------------ From: sydbarrett@rmond.mindspring.com (Victor Escobar) Subject: Legal Recourse for Telemarkedorks? Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 14:28:34 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: spamsucks@shovespamupyourarse.com I was interrupted from slumber early this morning (~6am) to this woman who asked for a Gary Mendoza. I told her that I've had this number for years and she said, `Our records show you as being Mr. Gary Mendoza. What is your name so I can update your records?' I said, `Who are you and why do you want my information???' Her answer was that she sold LD and was I interested in signing up for 15c/min continental US calls? There are a couple of suspicious themes here: #1: When I asked for the name of her company, she said she couldn't give it to me, but could only say that she sold LD time wholesale. #2: 15c/min was the prevailing rate, what, 10 years ago? What idiot would think I'd go from paying 9.5c/min (with Excel) to 15? Is there any legal recourse in case this happens in the future? Luckily I gave her bogus info (including a bogus name) and told her I'd contact her (which will be when trees sprout wings and start singing Zippity Doodah). ------------------------------ From: David A. Jensen Subject: Is AT&T Learning Customer Service From TCI? Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:57:35 -0500 PAT- I hadn't used my AT&T calling card (with the old style account numbers) for quite a while, so I was unpleasantly surprised to see my telephone bill last month. I called AT&T to see if there was an error. The customer service rep told me that $0.40 per minute was the correct rate because I had not used an AT&T card and did not have an AT&T account (one line is PICed to Frontier, the other is AT&T). Informing her of the number that was PICed just moved her back to the "you don't have an AT&T Calling Card." I was not pleased with their incredibly high rate, but, didn't check the card at the time to see if it was an Ameritech or AT&T card. After I got off the phone, I checked the card. It was an AT&T card and only had AT&T information on it. I called AT&T back asking for their $0.30 per minute, "we gouge you less" rate, for AT&T calling card customers. (The CSRs claimed that $0.40 and $0.30 were the only calling/charge card rates. Is that accurate?) The CSR claimed that this was not an AT&T calling card. I informed her that it was. She speculated that it came before the breakup. No, this card could be no older than 1990 and only had AT&T and the deathstar logo. AT&T only sends their cards to those who ask for it. Yes, I have one. No, you don't. Could she have the charges rerated? No, this is not an AT&T card. May I speak to your manager? Yes. [hold....] After ten minutes, I was cut off as the tape was telling me that I would not be.... AT&T customer service had gotten better in the early nineties, far better than their 1980 nadir, but it appears that they are trying to fit into TCI's culture. What is it about the big LD carriers with their own networks? Each seems to have an extensive collection of totally unhappy customers and ex-customers and a culture that seems incapable of understanding that they may have made a mistake. Is Bob Metcalfe right? Are telco executives as stupid as he believes? Dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #103 ****************************** ISSUE 103 WAS MAILED OUT OF SEQUENCE. ISSUES 104 AND 105 APPEAR BEFORE IT. ISSUE 106 FOLLOWS NEXT. From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 11 23:45:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA28479; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:45:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807120345.XAA28479@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #106 TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 Jul 98 23:45:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 106 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Toby Nixon) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Walt Auch) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Adam Kerman) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Glen Roberts) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Phil Leonard) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (Lou Raphael) Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" (John Levine) 16th International Teletraffic Congress (Dave Songhurst) Nader, CPT Ask FCC Proceedings on ISDN Tariffs, Release Survey (M. Solomon) Who Compares Cellphones and Services? (Chris Norloff) Re: Can CellularOne do This to Me? (Brian Turnbow) Cellular Networking Perspectives, July 1998 (David Crowe) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 14:46:34 -0700 In TELECOM Digest V18 #105, Michael A. Covington wrote: > Recently I was warned by a well-meaning netizen that I should not > challenge spammers because if challenged, they'll do all kinds of > things like mail-bomb me, steal my credit card numbers (how?), turn me > in to the police on false charges, etc. etc. > Balderdash. That sounds like a rumor started by a spammer. It isn't balderdash, in my experience. Here's what happened to me. I received a spam that included a fax number but no identifiable email address. Being relatively new to receiving spam and not understanding the fact that responding just makes your email address more valuable as "confirmed active", I sent a fax to this spammer demanding to be removed from their mailing list. Well, sure, I sent it a few times -- I wanted to make sure that it was received. After about a half-dozen times, their line was busy and wouldn't accept any more calls (I wonder why?). I didn't report them to any government agencies, just faxed to them directly. I didn't even think about the fact that my fax software sends out our fax number in the header of the first page (even though I suppressed the cover page). Well, within a day, I received several one-page faxes, through Microsoft's main fax number, each of them indicating that it was from a different, perverted magazine (bestiality, pedophilia, wife-swapping, you get the idea). Each fax was formatted like a letter, expressing "regret" that I had discontinued my "subscription" after so many years. Well, of course I had never subscribed to any such thing. The letters were intended to get me fired -- or at least start rumors about my engaging in disgusting practices. At a smaller company, that might have succeeded -- the inbound fax machine is often just there in the mailroom, and whoever happens to notice a received fax grabs it (reading part of it, of course) and puts it in the mail slot of the recipient. At Microsoft, inbound faxes go into a central server and get distributed by email, and are never printed in paper form -- the only person who sees them, besides the addressee, is the fax server operator who reads the cover sheet, looks up the email ID, and routes the fax as an email attachment. I scrambled to contact the supervisor in the fax room and make sure she knew these letters were false and in retribution, and she said not to worry -- the fax operators handle lots of private and confidential faxes and are sworn to secrecy regarding what they might see on the cover page while scanning for a name to route to. I let it drop -- and have since been much more careful about how I respond to spam. Basically, if I see something that is clearly a pyramid scheme or other scam, I forward the mail to the FTC and Washington attorney general's office, but otherwise I just delete them -- it's not worth the time or risk to contact the spammers directly. Sometimes when I get really pissed I send email to the ISP, but in my experience 99% of headers are forged -- or, if they give an email address in the body of the message, it is false and intended as a mail-bomb of the target. The spam I get these days has obviously false email addresses in the headers (or no addresses at all, most of the time), and the source IP address fails when you try to do a reverse DNS lookup. At least I'm not personally paying for connect time. Interestingly, I'd SWEAR I'm getting MORE spam these days, since the new Washington state anti-spam law went into effect. But if you forward a spam to the attorney general's office, they just auto-respond to you with a huge questionnaire to fill out about all the things you've done personally to try to get off the spammer's mailing list -- which is no help at all. -- Toby ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:55:57 -0500 From: Walt Auch Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Regards the Editor's Note which was attached: Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally, an editor who will not only publish an article on self reliance, but will endorse and promote it. I certainly didn't expect this breath of fresh air from the land of "Teddy the Huge" or "mit.edu". Walt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your kind words. I just felt I had to comment on that one; it is extremely common these days for people, when confronted, to just back down and hand over whatever is demanded. Well, I am sorry, but I do not have that much of anything available to me to just hand over what I do have without a fight. You can come here and ask me for anything I have in a decent way and if I can I will share it or just give it to you. I have all in life I *really* need anyway. If you feel you need to point a gun at me to gain my cooperation, my advice is you might as well go ahead and pull the trigger. When you get caught, which is likely, you'll be the loser, not me. I've already had a full, rich and mostly rewarding life. You on the other hand will get to spend the rest of yours in a prison, which I think is a great idea. And seriously, most of those punks will back down, and run off like scared little rabbits. They are as afraid of you as they are hoping you will be of them. Do not accept police BS to the contrary. About fifteen years ago, I witnessed a crime -- a small minor thing -- in the building where I lived. The cops signed me on as a witness, and a couple days later the two bozos involved showed up at my door and tried to 'convince' me to forget what I had seen. My response was to go to the State's Attorney's office the next morning and relay this information. The State's Attorney who I chatted with and the police officer who sat in on the meeting both smiled and liked what I had to say. The SA said to the cop, "Go out and see them tomorrow and let them know what they did is known as 'Felony Contact With State's Witness'; ask how *they* want to handle it. :)" . Sure enough, the cop was at their door the next day and told them very succinctly where things were at: 'you want to stay out on bail until your court date or you prefer to wait sitting in jail? Stay the f--- away from the witnesses or I'll lock your asses up. You've been warned.' They stayed away. The key here is take an agressive stance right from the beginning. Don't wimper, don't run and hide, don't act scared. On the net, admittedly it is easier many times to just erase the spam and get on to other things. But when you have a 'hook' into the identity of the perpetrator, i.e. an 800 number, a *valid* email address, etc, don't hesitate to give them all the grief you can. And when you have a valid email address, let the ISP know you are sick of him also. Speaking of which, I sure would like to find out who is sending out that 'Bulls Eye Gold' spam; I get that one about ten times per day -- seriously -- but the rules I use to filter it with are that it is always between 6000-6300 bytes in length and there is *never* a subject line. If an email fits that criteria it goes in the trash. Plus, the phrase 'Bulls Eye Gold' will always be in one of the first three lines of text. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Date: 11 Jul 1998 01:24:10 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access In article , [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > Consider how the police always like to give you the BS about 'if > someone tries nbto rob you or hold you up (at place of business for > example), never resist, always give them whatever they want; why, they > might try to hurt you or they might have a gun, etc.' ... to which I > always tell the cop he is full of it. If someone tries to hold me up > or assualt me, my response is to try and kill them; yours should be > too. Certainly I value my own life, but I am the sort of stubborn > person that if some person wants to rob me of five or ten dollars, I'd > just as soon see them -- if they get caught -- be tried on murder > charges as well. What's with the death wish tonight? Windows95 not behaving? I really must point out that if you are dead, you won't "see" them tried on any charges at all. I'd like to believe that if I'm ever in a life threatening situation, that I can accurately assess whether the enemy truly intends to kill me whether or not I cooperate, and then act to preserve my life. Not having had experienced such a situation, I really don't know. > You might try living your life in the manner Johann Sebastian Bach > lived his; he was not afraid of death, in fact he welcomed it. His > attitude was 'take me anytime, Lord ...'. Jealous musicians were the major threat he faced, hardly the same thing. And, his wives did most of the work raising all those kids. ------------------------------ From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Date: 11 Jul 1998 13:34:35 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago I had ONE spammer threaten me. He said if I didn't remove the email harvesting block from my web pages (actually, it is my own version of wposion), he would spam with my email address for the return address. The end result? The hotmail account he used to threaten me, canceled. The CABLE internet account he used to harvest email addresses from the web (and probably spam from), canceled. I suspect that cable account won't be quite as easy to get another one ... as compared to dialup accounts! Glen L. Roberts -- "political provocateur" -Newsday (3/30/97) The Stalker's Home page: http://www.fulldisclosure.org/stalk.html "His ironically named Stalker's Home Page has become the definitive source for information about how your privacy can be violated online" - Time Magazine Full Disclosure Live -- Daily: Midnight Live: WGTG (5.085 mhz) True Spech (anytime): http://www.fulldisclosure.org ------------------------------ From: pleonard@newsguy.com (Phil Leonard) Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:30:27 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com/~pleonard In article , from the [comp.dcom.telecom] newsgroup: > Recently I was warned by a well-meaning netizen that I should not > challenge spammers because if challenged, they'll do all kinds of > things like mail-bomb me, steal my credit card numbers (how?), turn me > in to the police on false charges, etc. etc. What responding WILL do, though, is tell your spammer that he/she has a live address. Never respond to spam. Never reply to get off of their mailing list. That will just subscribe you. Go ahead and complain to their postmaster all you want with a full header. Unfortunately, even a traceroute will often become fruitless when you realize that your complaints to the postmaster are in fact going to the owner of the site who is the spammer him/herself. I've come to the conclusion that the best remedy is to filter it locally and forget about it. It's like swimming against the tide. ------------------------------ From: raphael@cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1998 22:25:41 EDT Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Amen to this as well ... Personally, I'm not afraid of death ... but serious injury is another matter. Long ago, however, I decided that I could no longer live with myself if I let a goblin get my five or ten dollars (or whatever) without at least a fight in such a case, so I decided I'd take my chances if I had to, which I hope I never do. In the case that I /should/ have to "deal" with someone, woe to him if I should come out on top, though ... Louis [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A dear old lady I know (seriously, she is old, in her middle to late sixties) owns two apartment buildings on the west side of Chicago in a *terrible* neighborhood. She goes over to collect the rent every month, and to her credit she keeps the buildings very nice looking and well-secured. She just drives over, gets the money from tenants, gets back in her car and drives away. I asked her if she was not concerned about getting robbed. Her answer was, "someone can try to rob me if they want; they may succeed or maybe they won't ...". She told me she has a gun in the car; the serial number on it is defaced. She obtained it from someone, somewhere. She said in a worst case scenario she would shoot the person if she had to, "... then I would leave as fast as I could get out of there and ditch the gun in the river after I had wiped it clean.' And if the police stopped her for some reason and found the gun in her car? " ... it is just a minor violation to have an unregistered gun, a violation most cops in that neighborhood would laugh at; I have no prior record; I would get probation at worst." This came up in a 'social issues' discussion group we both go to now and then at a synagogue in Chicago. A very liberal rabbi by the name of Louis Berman was moderating the discussion. He looked absolutely horrified and said 'if everyone acted in the way you propose, there would be anarchy in the United States ...' My answer to him was, "Lou, we already have anarchy in the USA; we have had it for years now. What's the big deal?" ... to which several people in the audience applauded me. He looked all the more horrified at that. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 1998 04:17:27 -0000 From: johnl@abuse.net (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Folklore: "Spammers Will Hurt You if You Challenge Them" Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Recently I was warned by a well-meaning netizen that I should not > challenge spammers because if challenged, they'll do all kinds of > things like mail-bomb me, steal my credit card numbers (how?), turn me > in to the police on false charges, etc. etc. > Balderdash. I agree. I run the fairly high profile abuse.net service (see www.abuse.net for details) and am a board member of CAUCE. I've never even had a spammer call my phone number, which is listed, much less mail bomb me or otherwise try digital vandalism, even though I've sent of close to 10,000 spam complaints so far this year. Regards, John Levine, postmaster@abuse.net, http://www.abuse.net, Trumansburg NY abuse.net postmaster PS: I can't wait for them to turn me into the cops. The local police chief and I would certainly get a good laugh out of that. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 11:17:56 +0100 From: Dave Songhurst Subject: 16th International Teletraffic Congress Organization: Lyndewode Research Hi folks, The Call for Papers is out for the 16th International Teletraffic Congress, ITC16 "Teletraffic Engineering in a Competitive World" to be held at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Scotland, UK 7-11 June 1999 . It is on-line at http://www.iee.org.uk/Conf/ITC16/ ITC16 will reflect three major themes: * New Performance issues arising from the development of new technologies and the convergence of telecommunications and multimedia. * The impact of an increasingly competitive market. * The Gathering pace of technical development. Electronic submission is the strongly preferred route, with papers due by the 9th October 1998. The proceedings will be published by Elsevier. Papers submitted by students will enter a student papers competition. Further details from the Web page or from ITC-16 Secretariat, Institution of Electrical Engineers itc@iee.org.uk Many thanks, Peter Key Technical Programme co-chair Microsoft Research Ltd, Cambridge, UK Dave Songhurst ITC Council member (UK) Lyndewode Research Limited dave@song.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:01:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nader, CPT Ask FCC Proceedings on ISDN Tariffs, Release Survey --- forwarded message --- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:49:48 -0400 From: James Love Subject: Nader,CPT ask FCC proceedings on ISDN tariffs, release survey Message-ID: <3594339C.C01D6D8D@cptech.org> ------------------------------------------------------------ Info-Policy-Notes | News from Consumer Project on Technology ------------------------------------------------------------ June 26, 1998 - Ralph Nader and CPT ask FCC Chair Kennard to hold public hearings on ISDN pricing. The letter asks Kennard to examine six policy questions. - CPT releases survey of state ISDN tariffs http://www.cptech.org/isdn/6-98-survey.html fmi Jamie Love Michael Tofias 202.387.8030 The letter to FCC Chair Kennard follows Ralph Nader P.O. Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036 Ralph@essential.org James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176 http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org June 26, 1998 William E. Kennard Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street N.W. Washington DC 20554 Dear Chairman Kennard: We are writing to provide your office with evidence that pricing of residential digital ISDN lines is irrational from both economic and policy perspectives, and to ask that the FCC hold a public proceeding to consider the following issues. 1. For what percent of the U.S. population is ISDN likely to be the best alternative to POTS service over the next seven years? 2. What does it cost Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) to convert residential POTS lines to ISDN lines? What does it cost an ILEC to route ISDN traffic to an ISP, either through a circuit or via a packet transport? Is it appropriate to estimate Internet usage costs using older average cost pricing models based upon voice traffic that has sharp peaks and low daily loads on switches? 3. How much did consumers pay (already) to switch analog switches to digital technologies, and why aren't the ILECs providing reasonably priced digital modulation to consumers for Internet connections? 4. Are ILECs deliberately reducing support for analog line quality to reduce the efficacy of so-called 56K modems, and what connect speeds do consumers actually get over these devices on typical POTS lines? 5. In what ways would broad deployment of low cost residential ISDN threaten ILEC profits from "features" services such as call waiting, or the sale of second lines? 6. What changes in regulatory models are needed to ensure that consumers can benefit from mature and inexpensive digital technologies? Consider particularly those consumers who live in areas that are not likely to benefit from cable modems or high end xDSL technologies in the foreseeable future. The attached is a survey of residential ISDN tariffs in all 50 States plus Washington, DC, under 12 carriers. (http://www.cptech.org/isdn/6-98-survey.html). As you can plainly see, there are huge differences in the tariffs, which are often extraordinarily high. Moreover, as indicated in several filings before FCC, ILECs have indicated that the non-traffic sensitive costs of BRI ISDN service are only about 12 percent higher than the NTS costs for POTS line. It is also not difficult to demonstrate that ILECs have often made straightforward misrepresentations of traffic sensitive costs for Internet usage. For example, see, the attached excepts from "ISDN Pricing, What Went Wrong," (http://www.cptech.org/isdn/wrong1.html) (paper presented June 24, 1998, at the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project Policy Roundtable on Next-Generation Communications Technologies: Lessons from ISDN, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD). We look forward to receiving your thoughts on this issue. Sincerely, /s/ Ralph Nader /s/ James Love INFORMATION POLICY NOTES: the Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org, 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5127. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/ Subscription requests to listproc@cptech.org with the message: subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 11:05:42 -0400 From: Chris Norloff Subject: Who Compares Cellphones and Services? Hi, I recently signed up for AT&T Digital PCS in the Washington,DC area, with a Ericsson LX77 (PD328) digital/analog phone. Lousy is the best way to describe it. Fine when it connects at full-signal strength in the digital mode, and unusable otherwise (like at home and at work - where I need it). Its fall-back analog mode puts me into CellularOne's analog network, which just so happens to never put my call through. So, who compares services? Those digital coverage maps are a joke - I'm 30 miles inside the border, 10 miles from the center, and I can't get digital? Since each company says THEY'RE the best, are there any unbiased sources of info? And, who compare phones? The phones seem to be sold purely on the basis of features, but I should think some are better phones, that is "radio transmmitter/receivers", than others. Are there any unbiased sources of comparative info about cell phones? Many thanks, Chris Norloff cnorloff@norloff.com ------------------------------ From: Bturnbow@my-dejanews.com (Brian Turnbow) Subject: Re: Can CellularOne do This to Me? Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 07:26:09 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , james1416@hotmail.com wrote: > I have cellular service from Cellular One -- base rate $11.95 per > month. Recently I switched jobs. Cellular One sent me a letter > telling me that since I don't work for the original employer, I am not > eligible for the rate I was being offered; the new rate will be $24.95 > per month. > I read carefully through the service agreement that I signed. Nowhere > does it say that the lower rate I was offered was because I was > employed at this particular company. Nor does it say that the rates > are contingent upon my continued employment. The service is > not being paid by the employer; it is not a business service, I am > paying for it for my personal use. > So I wrote to Cellular One saying that they should either a) cancel my > cellular service AND waive any early cancellation fees or b) keep my > rate at the originally agreed upon rate. > More than a month has passed and no response to my letter. Now, I > received the latest bill from them where they have retroactively > applied the increased rate beginning two days before the date on which > they informed me that they are going to increase the rates. > Am I screwed and stuck paying the higher rate? Any advice or > suggestions are deeply appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you *certain* there was no promo- > tional rate or deal at the time you began the service which involved > your previous employer? If you did not tell them that you had changed > employers, then how did they find out (other than your former employer > telling them; why would that have happened unless former employer was > subsidizing part of the bill and did not wish to subsidize a former > employee)? If you are certain none of the above occurred -- regardless > of whether it is in the printed contract or not -- then my sugggestion > would be to to pay on a prompt basis at the old rate, each time in- > forming them in a note with your payment that the monthly rate by > contract is the lower amount, in a contract which does not expire > until whatever date. PAT] I worked for a Cellularone authorized dealer in S.F. Cal. They got so bad with us we refused to renew our contract with them! Look on your contract to see what rate plan they signed you up on, they have many plans that are corporate plans but are billed and paid by employees. Unfortunatly C1 generally refuses to help you unless you spend an arm and a leg every month on your cellular bill. I personally know how nasty they can become. I wish you the best of luck. Brian Turnbow ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Networking Perspectives, July 1998 From: 71574.3157@compuserve.com (David Crowe) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1998 16:30:45 -0600 Organization: Cellular Networking Perspectives Ltd. The July (encrypted) quiz for Cellular Networking Perspectives is available at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/quiz.html In this month's issue are the articles: 1. CALEA Deadline Extended Until October 1, 2000 2. Y2K and Wireless (a CTIA certification program) 3. Near Chairman for Analog Standards Subcommittee TR-45.1 4. New Subcommittee for Wireless Network Management Standards: TIA TR-45.7 5. Enhanced Wireless 9-1-1 (E911), Part III 6. Status of IS-41 Rev. C and TIA/EIA-41-D Implementations 7. TIA TR-45.1 Analog Air Interface Standards Report For more information on the monthly Cellular Networking Perspectives standards and technology bulletin surf to http://www.cnp-wireless.com or phone 1-800-633-5514. - David Crowe, Editor ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #106 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 17 09:31:57 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15450; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:31:57 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807171331.JAA15450@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #107 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Jul 98 09:32:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 107 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (areacode-info) Long-Distance Calls on Internet May Be Bargain for Some (Tad Cook) New 800 Leadership at AT&T (Judith Oppenheimer) New Telemarketing Regs Passed in NYS (Danny Burstein) Telephone Speed Dial tip (ggreco@netcom.com) Did You Know That You May be Sharing Your Telephone Line! (Mike Pollock) Caller-ID: Any Way to Automatically Screen Calls? (Robert Maas) AT&T Publicphone 2000 Update (73115.1041@compuserve.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: webmaster@areacode-info.com From: webmaster@areacode-info.com Subject: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:49:48 -0400 For further information, contact: Dave Pacholczyk, 312-750-5205, david.a.pacholczyk@ameritech.com Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With = Bootlegging Local Phone Numbers. Company's Illegal Scheme Devours Precious 847 Numbers. CHICAGO -- Consumers and businesses in Chicago's numerous area codes are being shortchanged by one local phone company's misuse of scarce phone numbers, Ameritech is charging in a complaint filed today with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) Ameritech charges that Chicago-based Focal Communications is skirting the operating rules for the use of possibly hundreds of thousands of phone numbers in the state and violating its interconnection agreement with Ameritech by incorrectly billing calls made to Focal's customers. Customers in 847 may soon have another area code to contend with, and those in other areas are running low of phone numbers, in part because of Focal's anticompetitive, anticonsumer business scheme," said Doug Whitley, president of Ameritech Illinois. What Focal is doing is creative, but it's also illegal and patently unfair to customers. We think the ICC ought to remind them of the rules of the market they've chosen to enter." According to Ameritech's complaint, Focal's "Virtual Office" offering ties up Chicago area numbers, and "improperly manipulates" the phone numbering system, giving phone numbers in suburban area codes to Focal customers elsewhere. In Focal's scheme, Ameritech's complaint points out, the numbers are not assigned to "local" customers in the area code at all, but rather to businesses with locations in downtown Chicago. Here's how it works: Ameritech, as the local phone number administrator, doles out phone numbers at Focal's request. Under prescribed industry guidelines, those phone numbers are to be used in the areas in which they're assigned. For example, 847 numbers would normally be given to consumers and businesses in the 847 area code, 630 numbers to customers in that area code, and so on. But in Focal's scheme, the local numbers are typically assigned to business locations in downtown Chicago. When an employee of those companies, working from home, calls what would appear to be a "local" phone number in the outlying suburbs -- such as Schaumburg or Aurora -- the call is actually sent to an office location miles away in Chicago, thereby tying up a phone number that could be assigned to customers in those suburban areas. Focal is amassing "a large store of local telephone number prefixes for Virtual Office purposes ... in areas where it does not provide local exchange service," the complaint says, which "unnecessarily aggravates the mounting problem of telephone number exhaustion within area codes." We're concerned that this may be the tip of the iceberg in how phone numbers are being misassigned," said Whitley. "We're strong advocates of local phone competition and support companies wanting to enter the local phone market. But competition is no excuse for any company to bend the rules to disadvantage consumers." ------------------------------ Subject: Long-Distance Calls on Internet May Be Bargain for Some Consumers Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:09:34 PDT From: tad@ssc.co (Tad Cook) Long-Distance Calls on Internet May Be Bargain for Some Consumers By Leyla Kokmen, The Denver Post Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jul. 14--It's the coach class of long distance. It'll get you where you want to go, but there won't be any free cocktails. Internet telephony. Phone calls that travel over the Internet, or similar The calls are cheap, cheap, cheap. But the quality varies -- and it isn't always great. And you'll have to get your fingers in shape to punch the 20 or more digits you may have to dial in order to make a call. "Now, we make a price and quality trade-off," said Christopher Mines, a director at Forrester Research, a Cambridge, Mass., research firm. Prices are as low as a nickel a minute, but sound sometimes comes across like you're under water -- more like a cell phone than a land line. The Denver area is a hot spot for this burgeoning industry, with companies including Rocky Mountain Internet, Qwest Communications International and ICG Netcom rolling out the services here and nationwide. Those services probably won't appeal to everyone, Mines said, but if you make a lot of long-distance calls -- especially to foreign countries -- it's something to consider. Also, people who are used to pre-paid phone cards, or those who use calling cards and don't mind punching in a lot of numbers, are likely customers for the services. Internet telephony is no gee-whiz computer nerd kind of service. In fact, you don't even need a computer to use it. It's simply a different way of carrying calls from phone to phone, city to city, country to country. Those phone calls, also called IP telephony because they use the Internet protocol, differ from traditional circuit-switched long distance. In that method, a steady amount of capacity is dedicated to a phone call; the same amount of space is used for the connection, even if you put your phone down and don't say anything at all. But when you make an IP call, your voice is compressed and broken into packets, or small parcels of data, that are electronically coded and sent through the network to be reassembled at their destination. The same pipeline can be filled with packets from many different phone calls. That uses the network more efficiently, which cuts costs, as well as the price to customers. While it's a new technology that makes this possible, that's not the thing that turns customers on to the service. "You put in your number, and your party answers it," said Bernie Friedberg, a Denver real estate investor who uses IP telephony service from IDT Corp., a Hackensack, New Jersey company. He uses it for business and personal calls, and his son uses it to call home from Oberlin College. "If the call is actually coming in through Finland, you're not aware of it." Low prices, in the end are what's building the buzz around IP telephony. "It's inexpensive, and it works," Friedberg said. "There's no need to make a call for 15 cents a minute when you can make it for a nickel." IDT offers its Internet long-distance service for 5 cents a minute in 50 cities, including Denver. Outside those 50 cities, IDT offers an IP phone rate of 8 cents a minute. Right now, the bulk of the savings on costs for IP telephony providers comes because they don't have to pay access charges to local phone companies to use their networks, like traditional long-distance carriers do. That may change over the next year or two, but for now it helps these companies offer bargain-basement call rates. Some of the equipment to route the calls over the network is also cheaper than traditional phone switches. The sound quality of the call, Friedberg said, is occasionally worse than a traditional long-distance call. But "90 percent of the time, I don't think you could tell the difference." The IP industry has started to bloom over the past couple of years, Mines said. He estimates that U.S. customers will spend about $50 million on Internet telephony service this year, but that could rise to $350 million by 2000 and $2.5 billion by 2004. While that's still only a small percentage of the total long-distance market -- about $50 billion this year -- it's a significant amount. Pioneers in the market were companies such as IDT and the Israeli company Delta Three, which primarily uses IP technology to offer cut rates on international calls from the United States. IDT now has about 50,000 customers, and Delta Three has about 25,000. More recently, spry companies such as Qwest, Rocky Mountain Internet and ICG Netcom have broken into the market, using their fiber-optic, data-driven networks and Internet backbones to offer IP telephony. Rocky Mountain Internet began offering its Ephone services in Denver and Colorado Springs earlier this year and plans to begin a heavy marketing push soon. Qwest launched its Q.talk service in February in Denver, California, Salt Lake City and Kansas City, and plans to have 125 cities hooked up by year's end. ICG, which bought the California Internet service provider Netcom earlier this year, will use that company's network to roll out its IP telephony service, first in 15 cities next month, then into 151 more by the end of the year. And finally, long-distance giants such as AT&T have started moving into the IP arena. AT&T is the furthest along, offering a trial of IP long distance in Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco. Other major long-distance companies such as Sprint, MCI and Frontier all say they are planning to offer IP telephony in the near future but have not released detailed plans or price lists. So how does this service work? Right now, there are at least five companies that offer, or are about to offer, IP telephony service to Colorado customers: Delta Three, ICG Netcom, IDT, Qwest and Rocky Mountain Internet. Each has slightly different service plans and prices, but there are similarities between them. Most route the calls over their Internet backbones or private networks, not through the public Internet, which can be heavily congested and cause poor sound quality. Rocky Mountain Internet, IDT and Delta Three are like pre-paid calling cards; to set up your account, you use a credit card to buy an amount of calling time. Then, whenever you make a call, the company debits your account and lets you know how much calling time you have left. ICG Netcom requires a credit card to start the account, but it's billed monthly only for the amount you spend on calls. Delta Three also has a similar post-payment option. Qwest offers monthly billing for the service, so you'll get an invoice in the mail. To place a call through most of the services, you must first dial a local access number, then enter your account number, code number and finally, the long-distance number you want to call. That can mean upwards of 20 digits to place a call, although it's possible to program a speed dial to do that. When you dial that local access number, you're calling into a server that compresses your voice into the packets of data before routing it over the network to the point you're trying to call. If traffic is high, people might get busy signals when they dial the access number. ICG Netcom, instead of having customers dial in through a local number, lets you simply dial 1 plus the area code and number you're dialing, like traditional long-distance services. But while other services allow you to place the call from anywhere, as long as you're within that local calling region, with ICG Netcom you must place the call from home, said David Gandini, president of long-distance services. That's because the system uses your home phone number to verify who you are and whether you have a valid account. To use the Delta Three service, the access number you dial is an 800 number, similar to a calling card. More digits, but you can call from anywhere in the country. Worth noting, however, is that Delta Three's rates within the United States, at 20 cents a minute, aren't very competitive. But Kim Malone, Delta Three's executive vice president for business development, stresses that the greatest cost savings come from international calls placed from the United States to developing countries and places where Delta Three is building its network. Delta Three calls to Hong Kong, for example, cost 19 cents a minute, to Israel, 30 cents a minute, to Sao Paulo, Brazil, 40 cents a minute, which is well below the standard rates of other carriers. Most of the services have little hitches consumers should be aware of when shopping around. For example, ICG Netcom offers rates of 5.9 cents and 8.9 cents a minute; to get the lower rate, calls must begin and end on the Netcom network. So if you're calling a city other than the 166 ICG will have online this year, you'll pay 8.9 cents a minute. And to sign up for Qwest's service, it could take seven to 10 business days, while the other services activate their accounts immediately. Most of the services let you sign up online if you want, and you can check your current balance and phone activity on the Web site. Rocky Mountain Internet's new Web site for the service was scheduled to go up today, at www.ic-ephone.net, said Michael Schaefer, vice president of marketing. Qwest also plans to offer online sign-ups in a couple of weeks, said Catherine Perkins, program manager for Q.talk. But as far as the technology goes, said Mines, it's improving all the time. Now, it's a little hit or miss; sometimes, you'll have crystal clear connections, sometimes it'll come through a bit tinny, or you'll "trip over" the person you're talking to because the connection is slow. But eventually, "they will match and ultimately they will exceed the quality of the traditional phone network." It will take time for IP telephony and data networks to supercede today's more dominant long-distance networks, Mines said. But in the distant future, packet-based networks are likely to merge with and overtake that infrastructure. "This is like rebuilding the railroad system," he said. "This is something that's not going to happen quickly." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:56:32 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. 15 Day FREE Trial: http://icbtollfree.com Subject: New 800 Leadership at AT&T John Cushman, the now-former head of AT&T Toll Free Services who drafted the original replication proposal at SNAC, has been promoted and now has responsibility for AT&T's Business Electronic Services and E-Commerce applications. Over the years John has been both accessible and rational, a rare voice of reason in toll free issues. His replacement as the new head of AT&T Toll Free Services is Tom Angeline, who's worked with John since last fall and was responsible for AT&T's rollout of 877. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher, ICB TOLL FREE NEWS News & Information Source for Service Providers, & Commercial Users, of Toll Free Service 15-day, no-obligation FREE trial: http://icbtollfree.com Moderator, TOLLFREE-L Read this list on the Web at http://www.FindMail.com/list/tollfree-l/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 20:49:18 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: New Telemarketing Regs Passed in NYS Linkname: GOVERNOR: LEGISLATION PROTECTS CONSUMERS FROM TELEMARKETERS URL: http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/july13_98.htm [Note: I have to wonder, given that the Feds have preempted lots of other "local" telecom regularions (including payphone charges!!) whether this new law will hold up.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 13, 1998 Governor: Legislation Protects Consumers From Telemarketers [INLINE] Governor George E. Pataki today signed into law a new consumer protection that gives New Yorkers an important new way to avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. "Whether it's protecting New Yorkers from telephone slamming or helping to safeguard seniors from mail fraud, our commitment to consumers has never been greater," Governor Pataki said. "This new law adds another weapon to our arsenal to help protect consumers from annoying or unscrupulous telemarketers," the Governor said. "All of us have been hassled by a telemarketer who interrupts dinner, story time with our children or the few hours we have to relax after work or on the weekends. Now we have a way to fight back." The new law will prohibit telemarketers from blocking identification of their names and telephone numbers on consumers home caller identification-devices which will help to alert them that they may be receiving a telemarketing phone call. "This bill provides consumers with another means of determining whether to take a telemarketing phone call, making it their choice," the Governor said. "It will help end the questionable practice of hiding a phone number so that consumers are unable to choose whether they want to answer a telemarketing phone call." State Consumer Protection Board Chairman and Executive Director Timothy Carey said, "Governor Pataki and I have made it a priority to fight telemarketing scams and unscrupulous telemarketing practices. From prize offers, to checks in the mail, to out-and-out deception, telemarketers have tried everything in the book to get your business. This new law will help to inform consumers that they may be receiving a telemarketing phone call enabling them to choose whether to take the call or not." Governor Pataki also advised consumers who wish to be left undisturbed by telemarketing that they may exercise several other options designed to eliminate unwanted telemarketing calls. These include: Federal law allows a consumer to place his or her telephone number on the telemarketers "do not call" list; Contacting the Federal Trade Commission. Telemarketers not adhering to those consumer requests may be fined by the Federal Trade Commission; Consumers who do not wish to be disturbed by calls from any entity that does not reveal its own telephone number can purchase a "block the blocker" service from his or her telephone corporation--such services do not connect calls for which callers block transmission of identifying information; and, Consumers may use answering machines to screen their calls. For more information, consumers can call Governor Pataki's consumer hotline at the State Consumer Protection Board toll-free at 1-800-697- 1220. dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: ggreco@netcom.com Subject: Telephone Speed Dial Tip Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 01:51:37 GMT If you use the long distance telephone service of Sprint, MCI, AT&T, etc., and you have to dial their code when making a "local toll call" outside of your area, you now have to dial a seven digit number. All companies have added another "10" to their code number. For example, say your long distance carrier is the XYZ company and their special code is 1010789. If you make a "local toll call" you have to dial 1010798 and then the phone number 123-4567. Otherwise, your "local toll call" will automatically be billed by your local carrier (Pacific Bell, etc.) probably at a different rate. This only applies to nearby "local toll calls", as your "long distance" calls should be automatically handled by your long distance carrier. A "local toll call" is that calling area between "local", or free, calling and "long distance" calling. If you put the new telephone numbers into your Speed Dial (memory) buttons you may have a problem. You may need "18 digits", but many Speed Dial (memory) buttons only have the capacity to hold a number 16 digits long. Using the above example of the XYZ's 1010789 code, to dial a "local toll call" outside your telephone area code (to area code 408, etc.) you have to dial the telephone number 1010789-1-408-123-4567, which is "18 digits long". Many telephones allow you to enter part of the 18 digit telephone number using one Speed Dial (memory) button and the rest of the number using another button. For instance, to call area 408, Speed Dial button #1 can be 10107891408. And, Speed Dial button #2, or #3 etc., can be 1234567. First press Speed Dial button #1 and listen for the number to be dialed. Then press Speed Dial button #2, or #3 etc. The call should be dialed properly. ggreco@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: NOTICE! Did You Know That You May be Sharing Your Telephone Line! Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:01:47 -0400 The following piece of propaganda was handed to me in the form of a blue piece of laser-printed paper as I waited for my Long Island Rail Road train into Manhattan this morning. We've got four lines coming into our house. Is this something I need to care about? -------------------- NOTICE DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU MAY BE SHARING YOUR TELEPHONE LINE! You pay the full rate for your service each month, but many of you are sharing your line with your neighbor and don't know it! Instead of adding new cable or repairing old ones, BELL ATLANTIC is using a line sharing device called AML, where two customers, or maybe as many as eight customers share one pair of wires. This can affect your service in many ways, particularly if you use a computer modem, have a door answering device, or your neighbor has line trouble. CALL 890-6611 and demand to know if your service is being provided on an AML. If so, demand your own line. After all, YOU PAY FOR IT! This message has been brought to you by the CWA as a public service message. ------------------------------ From: Robert Maas Subject: Caller-ID: Any Way to Automatically Screen Calls? Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:56:14 -0800 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > There is no way to 'reach back' from your end to the central office > and get it to release the calling party's number. ... Your only real > recourse is to refuse to accept phone calls from 'private' callers. Is there any equipment that can do that automatically, so when I get twenty calls in a row while I'm trying to sleep, each with UNAVAILABLE instead of a number, I don't have to wake up twenty times in a row to bitch at the caller and hang up, and don't even have to hear the phone ring each time? Pacific Bell says as far as they know there's no such unit, but I should call private companies such as Radio Shack or Fry's to ask if they sell any such unit. Both Circuit City and Fry's say they don't have any such unit. I haven't tried Radio Shit yet because of their shoddy quality of things I purchased from them previously (portable 6-band radio, reel-to-reel recording tapes, cassette tape recorder, cassette tapes). ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: AT&T Publicphone 2000 Update Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 02:07:23 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com AT&T has recently updated the software in the Publicphone 2000s around the country. These are the phones with the built-in keyboard and VT100 emulation that were disabled for all but phone use due to a lawsuit over what could be offered without regulator approval some 10 years ago. The new software pretty much eliminates visual references to anything except standard telephone services. Ken ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #107 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 17 12:50:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA02151; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:50:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807171650.MAA02151@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #108 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Jul 98 12:50:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 108 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FBI Seeks Access to Cellphone Locations - NYT (Monty Solomon) Preferential Treatment of Wireless in Overlays (Linc Madison) Re: Who Compares Cellphones and Services? (Howard Eisenhauer) Remote Control of Call Forwarding/3-Way Calling? (Andrew Grell) Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines (AKA Extender, Diverter (dieselboy37) Three-Way Split For Long Island (516)? (Linc Madison) Blocking International Collect Calls (Louis Cifer) Telcomine: A Telecom & Technology Newsletter With a Difference (S. Dhawan) Baby Bells Out to Gut Telecom Act (Monty Solomon) Internet Phone Leader Vocaltec Eyes Deals (Monty Solomon) UCLA Short Course on "Optical Fiber Communications" (Bill Goodin) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 17 Jul 1998 09:40:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FBI Seeks Access to Cellphone Locations - NYT NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI has asked a Senate committee to add language to a Justice Department appropriations bill to require phone companies to provide police with the precise locations of cellular phone users, the New York Times reported Friday. Quoting civil liberties groups, the newspaper said that FBI Director Louis Freeh met last week with members of the Senate Appropriations Committee about the proposal. The paper said Freeh asked that the locations be provided without a court order in certain "emergencies." Those would include the suspicion of a felony, the pursuit of a fugitive or cases where human safety is deemed to be in jeopardy. The paper quoted FBI officials as saying that the agency needed to keep up with rapidly changing technology that was confounding law enforcement agencies. Attorney General Janet Reno is scheduled to meet Friday with Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard to make the case that such legislation is needed if the agency is to keep up with evolving technology that allows criminals to use mobile phones to avoid detection. Civil liberties groups and the telecommunications industry have begun marshaling opposition to the proposal, the newspaper reported. Privacy advocates say it is a dangerous and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, and the telecommunications industry predicts that implementing such a law would cost billions of dollars. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Preferential Treatment of Wireless in Overlays Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:31:52 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I just sifted through the prefix lists for the upcoming three-way split of area code 619 in the San Diego area. One item that caught my eye was that *almost* all of the prefixes scheduled to remain in 619 are in the "San Diego: San Diego" rate center. However, there are twelve prefixes that will remain 619 even though they are assigned to rate centers that are changing to either 858 or 935. All twelve are cellular prefixes, located in Chula Vista, La Jolla, La Mesa, El Cajon, Poway, Mira Mesa, and Linda Vista. No existing cellular prefixes are being moved to either 858 or 935. The language of the FCC regulations is quite clear: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 47 CFR 52.9 General requirements. (a) To ensure that telecommunications numbers are made available on an equitable basis, the administration of telephone numbers shall, in addition to the specific requirements set forth in this subpart [includes 47 CFR 52.19]: [...] (2) Not unduly favor or disfavor any particular telecommunications industry segment or group of telecommunications consumers; and (3) Not unduly favor one telecommunications technology over another -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- No other telecommunications technology is being allowed to disregard the geographic boundaries in the 619/858/935 split. This decision is clearly "unduly favoring" one particular telecommunications industry segment/technology (cellular) over another (wireline). It's not okay to favor wireline over cellular, but it's fine to do the reverse. That's what we call a "level playing field." ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: aa988@chebucto.ns.ca (Howard Eisenhauer) Subject: Re: Who Compares Cellphones and Services? Date: 16 Jul 1998 14:37:43 GMT Organization: Chebucto Community Net There's a website at web.globalserve.net/~punter/ that gives very good comparisons between the variuos phones and also gives you a good idea of the strengths/weaknesses of the different network technologoies. It's very highly thought of by people in the cell/PCS industry, even when it points out some of the warts on your own network ;>. It's really aimed at the Toronto area, but most of what's there should apply to any system in North America. You may also want to check out some of the "alt.cellular" newsgroups as well, although I havn't seen any dedicated to AT&T. From what I've read in some of the groups a lot of people are not happy with the Cntel/AT&T system up here north of the border which uses the 800Mhz IS136 TDMA system, which is what I believe AT&T proper is using in the States. Chris Norloff (cnorloff@norloff.com) wrote: > Hi, I recently signed up for AT&T Digital PCS in the Washington,DC area, > with a Ericsson LX77 (PD328) digital/analog phone. > Lousy is the best way to describe it. Fine when it connects at full-signal > strength in the digital mode, and unusable otherwise (like at home and at > work - where I need it). Its fall-back analog mode puts me into > CellularOne's analog network, which just so happens to never put my call > through. > So, who compares services? Those digital coverage maps are a joke - I'm 30 > miles inside the border, 10 miles from the center, and I can't get digital? > Since each company says THEY'RE the best, are there any unbiased sources > of info? > And, who compare phones? The phones seem to be sold purely on the basis of > features, but I should think some are better phones, that is "radio > transmmitter/receivers", than others. Are there any unbiased sources of > comparative info about cell phones? Howard Eisenhauer on Chebucto Community Network Halifax Nova Scotia aa988@ccn.cs.dal.ca ------------------------------ From: Andrew Grell Subject: Remote Control of Call Forwarding/3-Way Calling? Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:20:31 -0400 Organization: Digital Telemedia Inc. My mobile phone package includes unlimited calling to any one number I select, and I've chosen my home phone number to be that target. Now, at home I have three phone lines and a variety of computers and modems and stuff. I think that I should be able to call my house from my mobile and remotely transfer my call to some other number, which I would then pay for at a land rate rather than a mobile rate. Any suggestions? My local provider, RCN, is not too clear about whether or not they offer variable/remote call forwarding and I'd like to be able to do this on my own. Thanks ag [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For further discussion on this see the next message in this issue on call diverters and call extenders. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dieselboy37@hotmail.com Subject: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines (AKA Extender, Diverter, Gold Box Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:17:16 -0500 I just found the TELECOM Digest homepage and one of the first things has caught my attention is the talk of WATS extenders and such. Phreaks build their own extenders called "diverters" or "gold" boxes. These work the same way but are much more crude and there is virtually NO security designed into the basic gold box module. These boxes (and most others) can be made from over-the-counter parts. Allthought many boxes have been defeated by advances in technology there are still many more in use today. Kevin (Circuit$ativa) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Years ago, when there were substantial differences in the price of local and long distance calls, many companies used extenders/diverters of the type you mention to cut back on the expense incurred by employees outside the office needing to make long distance calls. Instead of paying several dollars at a pay phone, the employees (as well as unauthorized persons, unfortunatly!) would dial in to the company phone network as a local call, and then dial out via one of the devices mentioned. You can still buy the parts to build one, but these days I **DO NOT** recommend building one or installing one found elsewhere without making sure it includes very good security. Years ago, large companies never bothered with security on their phone systems, and like Unix administrators they had to learn some tough lessons the hard way, in some cases to the tune of millions of dollars in fraud. This kind of device however might be just the perfect solution for our other correspondent in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Three-Way Split For Long Island (516)? Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 19:46:23 -0700 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I happened across a Bell Atlantic web page today that seems to hint at a three-way area code split for Long Island (area code 516). The map shows the 516 divided into three zones. The westernmost zone looks like it's Nassau County, plus the town of Oak Beach. The other two zones divide up Suffolk County. All three are labeled as 516, and the only other text is a notation that an update is being prepared. The web page in question is: Does anyone have details on plans for relief in 516? Of course, from looking at the corresponding page for 914, there is also the possibility that these colored zones have to do with something completely unrelated. The map for 914 shows four zones, not coinciding with county boundaries. The 1998 COCUS (which has just been re-uploaded in a different format, ) shows 516 as running out of numbers by the end of 1998, so we certainly ought to be hearing something about proposals, at least -- if there is any consideration at all of a geographic split, it needs to get underway immediately. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: eldemonio@hotmail.com (Louis Cifer) Subject: Blocking International Collect Calls Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 01:09:55 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Does anybody know if there is a way to block collect calls from abroad? My local telco, Sprint local (in San Diego, CA) said that they can't do it and the big long distance companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.) also said the same thing. I beleive that they can, but choose not to because they would be losing a very lucrative source of income. Since all my efforts have failed to persuade my significant other not to accept these calls (she tells me to take it out of her share of our disposable income every two weeks, which I've done with no financial strain on my part), I've seriously toyed with the idea of not paying AT&T and MCI but I am leary of having them report the charges to the credit bureaus (although I have never given them my social security number to identify me). Any ideas on how I should proceed? and please, no snide, self righteous remarks about yours truly dumping his mate (divorce,and possible alimony and child support payments are hardly money saving ways to go). Thanks, Louis Cifer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Several months -- maybe a year -- ago, a reader in Iowa asked a similar question regarding a person he was responsible for; I am not sure if it was a guardianship arrangement, or if he was doing it just to help the person. It seems the person that our reader was assisting had a son who could not be convinced through normal ways to stay away from 900/976 numbers; the bill each month was outrageous as a result. All conventional wisdom had failed; reasoning with the person had failed; our correspondent was reduced to chanting. ... I finally recommended violence. I suggested he have telco disconnect the service entirely, and that he personally remove all the phone instruments and mutilate the phone jacks and wiring inside the premises. Then as a final effort, take the worthless son and toss him out of the house, change all the locks and then watch the phone bill the next month and see if there had been any improvements! ... You say you do not wish to file for divorce, and I assume if you can avoid beating her senseless you would prefer to do so (police action can be a pain also). That leaves one thing which will work and solve your problem at least a little bit, some of the time: have your local telco add ** Billed Number Screening ** to your lines. This is a 'negative listing' type database of phone numbers around the USA which do not wish to accept collect calls under any circumstances. If your local telco is one of the traditional Bells (by whatever name in these current times) or GTE or several of the (traditional) 'independents' which always worked along with Bell on everything in the past, then you can probably get Billed Number Screening added to your lines. The major long distance carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint) all dip the database and honor any billing restrictions noted. A few other long distance companies also honor the negative database. What this means is that in the future, any *domestic* long distance caller attempting to call you 'collect' or attempting to bill their call to you as 'third number billing' will be rejected. Typically, they will get a recorded intercept (or an operator will tell them) that, 'The number you have given does not accept collect or third-number billed calls. Please hang up, select some other method of paying for your call, and dial again.' I will not get into all the nitty-gritty here, but this will block 90-95 percent or more of the *typical, average* user's long distance bill where that type of call had been a problem. No guarentees can be given if you are a pervert or into phone sex like that worthless son in Iowa who brought such disgrace to his mother ... ... by the way Bruce, how did that matter ever turn out? Did you ever get him under control or finally just wash your hands of it? Ah, but your inbound collect calls are *international* rather than *domestic*; will being listed in the negative database for Billed Number Screening still work? It will if the telecom in the other country also dips the datebase, and some of them, like British Tele- com do use it. Some do, some don't; the worst that can happen is you'll find the telecom admin in the country where your calls are coming from does not. But even then there is sometimes hope. The way incoming calls are handled from foreign countries means that some of them will land on AT&T circuits when they reach this country; some will land on Sprint or MCI, etc. 'Little differences' in the way the call is handed over means that in some cases the domestic USA carrier will 'see' that the foreign carrier is attempting to call collect and will do a database dip for them anyway. Someone who tested this internationally found that in cases where the foreign carrier did not automatically dip the database (as I am told British Telecom always does) about a third of the time the USA carrier which got the call handed to it went ahead and dipped anyway, then tossed the call back to the source with the 'subscriber does not accept collect calls' message. It depended on it the call was dialed direct with digits on the front for 'operator handling' (like our international '011' versus '01') and if through the operator, how she keyed it in, etc. There were lots of variables. By all means, get Billed Number Screening on your lines from the local telco. You won't lose anything and you may find it does the job you want on international calls as well as domestic ones. Don't bother the rep with all the outrageously boring details above, just ask that Billed Number Screening be put on your line. The Bells do it all the time, I am sure Sprint Local serivce can as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seemad@my-dejanews.com (Seema Dhawan) Subject: Telcomine: A Telecom & Technology Newsletter With a Difference Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:36:37 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I am happy to present before the readers of this group, the index for the seventh issue of Infozech's newsletter on Telecom and Technology. In a brief period of 6 months, this monthly bulletin has earned a reputation for itself of recording trends and developments in frontline IT Technologies. With a current subscriber base of 3000+ people, this service is free. To subscribe please send a mail to nl@infozech.com. Previous issues are available at http://www.infozech.com/telcomine.htm *****TELCOMINE************ Wealth of Information about Telecommunications Volume 7, July 1998 1 Software on hire online from IBM, Microsoft: Piracy may be reduced. With IT giants Microsoft and IBM-Lotus, plunging into the software renting business, it seems that in the future software needs may be largely met by the Internet. 2. Etching 1.6M Microfilms on a Disc Norsam Technologies of Los Almos, Mexico, claims to have found a way of directly etching 1.6 Million pages of microfilm on a single disc making information everlasting 3. Direct Satellite linked Mobile Phones coming The mobile phone need not be "cell" bound anymore. Very soon a new mobile phone directly linked to a global network of 66 satellites should be available at any point on earth , providing "a truly universal global mobile service". 4. Handhelds to overtake PCs for Net Access Desktop PC may be supplanted by cheap handheld devices for Internet access by the mass-market within the next six years. 5. Instant Credit Card Processor: ICVerify Producing packages for instant processing of credit cards has come as a big challenge to the software industry. ICVerify is one such product. 6. Y2K litigation costs to surpass $1 trillion The litigation costs over Y2K service and product failures could soar to an alarming $ 1trillion or more. 7. After Korea, Ebill set to enter China and Europe After expanding its successful American operations into Korea, Infozech now looks to the Chinese and European Markets for its billing solution, eBill. For more details on eBill please visit http://www.infozech.com/ebill.htm Thank you. Seema Dhawan INFOZECH Software for Telecom Service Provider Newsletter: http://www.infozech.com/telcomine.htm email: seema@infozech.com Visit us at http://www.infozech.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Baby Bells Out to Gut Telecom Act Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:35:45 -0400 http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/13519.html Baby Bells Out to Gut Telecom Act Reuters WASHINGTON -- Regional Bell telephone companies will ask a federal appeals court this week to toss out parts of a 1996 telecommunications law and allow them to offer long-distance service immediately. If the court agrees, the Baby Bells could become big players in the US$80 billion long-distance market while important incentives in the law to promote competition in the $100 billion local market would be erased, attorneys and analysts said. San Antonio-based SBC Communications Corp. (SBC), which provides local service in seven states from Texas to California, filed the lawsuit a year ago in a bid to overturn parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Few in the industry thought SBC, later joined by US West Inc. (USW) and Bell Atlantic Corp. (BEL), had much chance of success until a surprise New Year's Eve ruling by a federal judge in Texas. The decision by US District Judge Joe Kendall rocked the stocks of the telecommunications companies, sending the Baby Bells higher and knocking the shares of AT&T Corp. (T) and MCI Communications Corp. (MCI) lower. The long-distance companies had joined the government and urged the courts to uphold the law. The ruling upset the delicate balance struck by Congress in the 1996 law requiring the Bells to open their local networks to competitors before being allowed to offer long-distance service to customers within their regions. So far, the Federal Communications Commission has rejected all four long-distance applications by Bells, including one by SBC, finding the companies had not opened their local networks enough. While the Bells have sued, they are also trying to further open their networks to comply with the act. "The case goes right to the fundamental premise of the 1996 Telecommunications Act," said Kathy Wallman, a former top telephone regulator at the FCC and now a consultant in Washington. "Upholding it would be a very troubling change to that basic premise," she said, referring to Kendall's ruling. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the case, with a decision expected a few months later. Constitutional scholar and Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, representing the Bells, will square off against Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein in the hour-long session. Although a decision either way will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, investors are likely to bid up the Bells if they win again, said industry analyst Scott Cleland at the Legg Mason Precursor Group. "SBC and the Bells have a better chance at victory in this court that most anticipate," Cleland said, noting the three judges hearing the case were all appointed by Republicans. "The Bells got very lucky in the draw. They need judges who are more skeptical of government for their argument to gain traction." SBC's legal argument is based on an obscure clause in the Constitution designed to prevent Congress from acting as judge and jury. Under the clause, Congress is prohibited from passing laws aimed at punishing specific individuals. The so-called bill of attainder clause has been used only five times by the Supreme Court to strike down laws such as those barring employment of former members of the Communist Party. Unlike most regulations enacted by Congress, the 1996 telecommunications act does specify by name the 20 Bell companies that were created in the 1984 break-up of the old AT&T and now constitute units of the five regional Bell corporations. "The essence of our case is that Congress has made a judicial-type distinction of who's good and who's bad," said SBC general counsel James Ellis. "If Congress is permitted to single out these 20 companies, then God help us when they go after less-favored people." Government lawyers respond that the clause has never been read to prohibit economic regulations on companies. And, they argue, the Telecom Act's restrictions on the Bells are actually less severe than those contained in the 1982 breakup agreement and therefore cannot be considered punishment. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Phone Leader Vocaltec Eyes Deals Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:45:37 -0400 Reuters By Neil Winton, Science and Technology Correspondent LONDON (Reuters) - VocalTec Communications Ltd. of Israel, which pioneered cheap phone service over the Internet, plans to maintain its market lead with an aggressive acquisitions program. In an interview with Reuters Television, VocalTec Chairman Elon Ganor said the money-losing company hopes to become profitable in the medium term. VocalTec wants to expand its fax business and move into video conferencing. VocalTec of Herzliya, Israel, wrote the book on Internet telephone service software. This provides long-distance service at the fraction of the prices charged by traditional service providers like British Telecommunications Plc and AT&T Corp. Analysts said the cheap service offered by companies like RSL Communications Ltd.'s Delta Three Inc., which use VocalTec software, was a direct challenge to the bottom line of the traditional telephone service providers. German giant Deutsche Telekom AG showed what it thought of the threat from Internet telephony last December when it bought a 21.1 percent stake in VocalTec for close to $50 million. Analysts say that the likes of BT and France Telecom SA are quietly planning their own Internet telephone services. AT&T has already started a service in Japan. The potential market is said to be huge. Research company Datamonitor said in a recent report that more than 10 percent of international telephone traffic will be carried over Internet networks by 2002. Revenues will reach $2.5 billion in the same year. VocalTec expects this burgeoning market will ease its way to profitability. ``Our goal right now is fundamentally to get as high market share as possible and we hope to be profitable in the future. We certainly hope to be profitable and not in the extremely long term,'' Ganor said in the interview. In the first quarter of 1998, VocalTec lost $2.4 million on revenues of just under $5 million. Vocaltec will seek acquisitions and partnerships in its quest for growth, Ganor said. ``Since the early days, we've been looking around for shortcuts to other markets or technologies. We are always looking for opportunities and we will pursue those,'' he said. In March, VocalTec bought Radlinx Ltd., an Israeli developer of Internet fax products. Last month, VocalTec and Compaq Computer Corp.'s Digital Equipment Corp. announced a strategic alliance to build large-scale Internet telephone networks. Internet telephony works by turning analog sound into data packets, pinging them across networks, then turning them back into voice again at the receiving end. According to Garon, there were two main reasons for the low cost of Internet telephony: The regulation of the voice business by monopolies that are often government-owned kept prices artificially high. Switching voice into data, which was often unregulated, allowed Internet phone prices to be significantly cheaper. The cost of equipment for traditional voice service was high. ``The switch equipment that the traditional products companies use is pretty expensive; around five to 10 times more expensive. This is significant for a newcomer that wants to provide telecom services.'' Datamonitor analyst Gavin Parnaby agrees that big, traditional telephone service providers are poised to launch their own Internet phones. ``Datamonitor believes that 1999 will be the year when the vast majority of service providers begin to offer IP (Internet Protocol) telephony,'' Parnaby told Reuters. And that might spell the end of VocalTec's independence. ``VocalTec was a pioneer in this field, but it is a small player and will probably be bought out by someone else in the end,'' said Parnaby. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Optical Fiber Communications" Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 19:00:40 -0700 On October 6-9, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Optical Fiber Communications: Techniques and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Tran V. Muoi, PhD, President, Optical Communication Products; Del Hanson, PhD, Principal Engineer, Hewlett-Packard; and Richard E. Wagner, PhD, Manager, Optical Network Research, Corning. This course offers a review of optical fiber communications fundamentals, then focuses on state-of-the-art technology and its applications in present and future communication networks. The course begins with the major building blocks of optical fiber communications systems (fiber and passive components, sources and transmitters, detectors and receivers). Actual design examples of fiber optic links for short-haul and long-haul applications are studied, and recent technological advances in addressing problems due to fiber loss and dispersion are presented. The impact of fiber optic technology on communications is highlighted in the latter half of the course. Recent developments in local and metropolitan area networks to support multimedia traffic (i.e., data, voice, and video) and their evolving architectures and standards are fully covered. The treatment on telecommunications systems includes various technological options for subscriber networks, exchange networks, and the global undersea networks. Network architectures evolving from the traditional telephone and CATV networks are contrasted. Technology trends and directions for realizing the so-called information superhighway are examined as well. Finally, optical networks using wavelength routing and multi-wavelength cross-connects are presented. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1994. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #108 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 18 19:00:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA12331; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:00:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807182300.TAA12331@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #109 TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Jul 98 19:00:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 109 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Focal Communications Corporation's Response to Ameritech (dmeldazis Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (Blake Droke) Funny PBX Problem Involving Voicemail (Robert G. Schaffrath) Identification of Pacific Telephone Area (Pat Bradley) Spam Law Bares Teeth (Monty Solomon) Incoming 800 Numbers (Pete Holsberg) Massachusetts Equivalent of "Filed Rate Doctrine?" (Jeremy Greene) My Experience With AT&T's IP Telephony Product (Joseph Norton) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: dmeldazis@focal.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:31:29 -0500 Subject: Focal Communications Corporation's Response to Ameritech CHICAGO, July 13, 1998 - Focal Communications Corporation (Focal), a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), attributes the following statement to Robert Taylor, Focal's President and CEO, regarding an Ameritech complaint filed with the ICC claiming that Focal is improperly utilizing phone numbers. "This accusation is truly absurd. The numbers speak for themselves. We have fewer codes within the 847 area than other carriers. Of the 679 codes assigned in 847, Ameritech has assigned itself approximately 50% or 336 codes. Further review shows that several other entities serving the 847 area are assigned many more codes than Focal; 57 codes to one, 43 to another, 40 each to two others and 31 to another, and on and on. Focal ranks 11th on this list. Furthermore, Focal understands that some of these CLECs do not currently utilize any of the codes in the provisioning of local phone service in the Chicago area. Focal's 10 codes hardly "devour" the 847 area code as Ameritech alleges. "As of March 31st, Illinois Bell had nearly 7 million access lines in service while Focal had 11,535 access lines in service. This represents an access line ratio of 0.00167. We are amazed but hardly surprised that Ameritech would choose to attack Focal, one of the smallest of all their competitors in Illinois. Focal made clear its concerns regarding the proposed SBC/Ameritech merger in a June 24th testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee claiming that the merger would make life much more difficult for CLECs. Focal urged Congress against approving the proposed merger without significant safeguards to protect competition. Now, Ameritech is bringing the weight of its huge monopolistic corporation against Focal. "It is clear that Ameritech's strategy is to litigate and to challenge every issue with its small competitors in order to drive them out of the market place. Focal will continue to focus its resources on providing high-quality local phone service, while Ameritech attempts to protect its aging monopoly through the court system. Ameritech appears to believe that local competition is illegal competition. Its actions underscore the concern expressed by others with the proposed SBC/ Ameritech merger: If they act in an anti-competitive manner now, what will they be like to deal with if they're allowed to merge with SBC resulting in a monopoly controlling one third of all telephone lines in the United States? "Ameritech is clearly trying to use heavy-handed legal tactics to win back customers it has lost in the market place. Ameritech has more lawyers at its beck and call than Focal has employees. Ameritech in its complaint, has called Focal's use of numbers to provide one of its services an "illegal scheme", yet Ameritech provides similar services." Focal has been assigned numbers in accordance with the North American Numbering Plan, which is administered by Ameritech in the Chicago area. Focal has as many numbers as it needs to comply with and compete with Ameritech's arcane rate structures, 911 system architectures and number portability requirements. Ameritech in its unfounded attack has specifically singled out Focal's use of numbers as one of the reasons that the 847 area code will soon be exhausted. On Tuesday, July 14th, Robert Taylor will discuss the anticompetitive impact of the proposed Ameritech/SBC merger before the Telecommunications Policy Committee of the ICC. The day-long meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. CST and conclude at approximately 3:30 p.m. CST, on the fifth floor, room C-500, of the State of Illinois Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago. Focal Communications Corporation, headquartered in Chicago, is providing sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities based, switched local telephone service. Focal currently serves 6 MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) in Chicago and New York, is under construction in 22 MSAs and on track to reach a total of 43 MSAs in ten metropolitan markets by the end of 1999. Focal is privately held by several major institutions and its employees. Focal offers unique communication services to major corporations, Internet Service Providers and value-added partners. Focal is focused on providing customers with the diversity, reliability and sophistication that they demand. Additional information can be found on Focal's website at www.focal.com. ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:00:21 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com webmaster@areacode-info.com wrote: > Here's how it works: Ameritech, as the local phone number > administrator, doles out phone numbers at Focal's request. Under > prescribed industry guidelines, those phone numbers are to be used > in the areas in which they're assigned. For example, 847 numbers would > normally be given to consumers and businesses in the 847 area code, > 630 numbers to customers in that area code, and so on. > But in Focal's scheme, the local numbers are typically assigned to > business locations in downtown Chicago. When an employee of those > companies, working from home, calls what would appear to be a "local" > phone number in the outlying suburbs -- such as Schaumburg or Aurora > -- the call is actually sent to an office location miles away in > Chicago, thereby tying up a phone number that could be assigned to > customers in those suburban areas. > Focal is amassing "a large store of local telephone number prefixes > for Virtual Office purposes ... in areas where it does not provide > local exchange service," the complaint says, which "unnecessarily > aggravates the mounting problem of telephone number exhaustion > within area codes." > We're concerned that this may be the tip of the iceberg in how phone > numbers are being misassigned," said Whitley. "We're strong > advocates of local phone competition and support companies wanting > to enter the local phone market. But competition is no excuse for > any company to bend the rules to disadvantage consumers." I'm wondering, how does this differ from the Remote Call Forward service that has been available for years, from both CLECs and ILECs? Take for an example in my area (Memphis, TN), many, many businesses in Olive Branch, MS (about 14 mi. southeast of downtown Memphis) have RCF numbers from the Memphis Main central office. Olive Branch is a long distance call for most Memphis telephone customers, but most businesses there get RCF numbers in the Memphis Main exchange. For example, I have a pizza restaurant coupon, listing all their numbers in Metro Memphis, when it comes to their Olive Branch location they list the number as: Mississippi: 601-895-xxxx Tennessee: 901-527-xxxx Both numbers are routed to the same place. This is an agreement between two ILECs, BellSouth in Memphis and CenturyTel in Olive Branch. (Despite the state line, both areas are in the Memphis LATA.) Is this article saying that CLECs should be barred from such arrangements? It does seem strange that ILECs have been doing this sort of thing for years, and it didn't seem to be a waste of numbers, until a CLEC tried to get into the act. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, there is no difference, except that Ameritech does it and gets away with it (legally, I might add; there is nothing unlawful about the type of service offered) while the competition is not supposed to market the same product or service. Let's look at one of the oldest service offerings available: foreign exchange service, also known as an FX line. An associate of mine who has operated the bus station in Skokie, IL for a number of years has the usual type of phone service one would expect from the local exchange (a couple of public information lines and a fax/modem line) which is 847-675. He also has had for many years an FX line out of 773-539. The reason for having this number is obscured by the passing of time; it was set up many years ago when Bell's local calling rates made it a useful thing for calls to/from downtown Chicago. It began in service as 312-539 and became 773 when that conversion occurred. I urged him to disconnect it and put an additional Skokie-based line in its place (there are times an additional line is really needed), and when Ameritech found out, they encouraged him to keep the (now-days) mostly unused FX line for umpteen extra dollars per month. So how about it? Is Ameritech squandering numbers and depriving someone physically in 773-land of a number by encouraging an 847 person to keep their unneeded FX line? No, Ameritech does not waste numbers. Only their competitors waste numbers to hear them tell it. I hope Focal Communications stomps them good on this one. I have problems of my own with the CLECs, but as usual Ameritech is trying to play the role of innocent middleman in the affair. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert G. Schaffrath Subject: Funny PBX Problem With Voicemail Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:08:26 -0400 Organization: Totally Disorganized A rather humerous problem occurred recently with a Lucent Partner ACS (with Partner Mail VS) phone system. I had installed this system in a friends office three months ago and it had been working fine. One of the features he wanted enabled for his voice mailbox was outcalling so he could be notified offsite when there was voicemail waiting for him. About three weeks ago, his secretary, who uses the system mailbox #10, had several strange messages which appeared to be corrupted. When you played the message the system would tell you it was transferring you to extension 11 (which is my friends extension). There were several of these "corrupted" messages and due to the problems I decided to do a reset of the mailbox. The problem seemed to go away for a awhile but started up again. Lucent technical support had been contacted by folks in the office and were told that it sounded like the voicemail hard drive had a bad spot and that I should call them up for instructions on how to relocate the system mailbox to another location on the hard drive. Well I got into the office this Friday and my friend said he had 40 messages waiting on his voicemail. When we proceeded to play them, the system would come back with additional instructions that did not work when you pressed the button you were told. I cleaned out the mailbox and then proceded to do some unrelated work while the office was empty. While I was sitting in an adjacent room, I kept hearing my friends extension ring. With no one else in the office, I decided to do a remote call pickup and was surprised to hear the voicemail system talking. I hung up and decided to get Lucent on the phone as soon as everyone returned. I got a different technician who said the problem with the voicemail system was that the system was recording its own instructions probably due to cellphone calls which were being dropped. I was told there is no workaround but that anytime we pressed 0 to hear a message and got the voicemail system that it was only a recording and not the actual system. While we were talking about this, the secretaries phone rang and the LCD display said "Voice Messaging System". I was rather surprised and asked the attendant what was going on. She said it sounded like outcalling was in operation. When I said I did not think anyone had activated outcalling, my friend who was on another call and overheard me nodded his head yes. At that same moment, the display suddenly changed to indicate it was forwarding the call to extension 11. The technician immediately had me turn off call forwarding and then advised me to check the outcalling setup. This is were it gets funny. Three weeks ago my friend had decided to test the outcalling feature by having it call his 800 service. He had entered 1-800-###-#### but had forgotten to dial a 9 first. The result was that the system was dialing extension 18 rather than outside the system. Extension 18 currently has no phone attached so after 4 rings it would forward to the secretary. When she was not in to answer messages, the voicemail system would leave a message on her mailbox confusing the heck out of us and lead us to believe it was corrupted (during the day, no messages appeared in my friends mailbox because she handled all of his calls). This past Thurdsay, because of the suspected corruption with her mailbox, she decided to forward all calls from her extension (#10) to my friends extension (#11) so that his voicemail would pickup the message and nothing would be lost. Well what wound up happening was: a message would get stored in mailbox 11. The voicemail system would initiate a call to extension 18. After 4 rings extension 18 would forward to the secretary on extension 10. Extension 10 would forward to extension 11 which would answer the phone and dutifully accept the message from the voicemail system. It would then proceed to initiate outcalling to extension 18 and start the whole process all over again! Needless to say, it was an interesting afternoon. | Robert G. Schaffrath, N2JTX | mailto:rschaffrath@acm.org | | (914) 425-9819 or (516) 676-2971 | mailto:rschaffrath@computer.org | | http://tonto.netsurftech.com/rgs | mailto:rschaffrath@ieee.org | | ALL SPAM IS REPORTED IMMEDIATELY! | mailto:n2jtx@weca.org | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:25:31 -0700 From: Pat Bradley Subject: Identification of Pacific Telephone Area Would you have any idea how I could find out the boundaries of the service area of Pacific Bell for the phonebook area known as "Campbell, Saratoga and San Martin" of Santa Clara County, California in l979? Or, even at the present date of 1998? I have called over thirty people at Pacific Bell and they will not tell me what geographical area this phone company services. I need to know if it was done by boundaries of the cities, by zip code area, etc. Info is crucial to us. Thanks for any help you can give me. Pat Smith email pat@bayarea.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:12:11 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Spam Law Bares Teeth http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/13783.html Spam Law Bares Teeth by Ed Murrieta 2:10pm 16.Jul.98.PDT Anti-spam advocates welcomed a Seattle man's US$200 payoff today from a company that sent him unsolicited commercial email. The settlement is apparently the first of its kind under Washington state's new anti-spam law. "It's a good example of why we support the private right of action," said John Mozena, co-founder of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. "Obviously when you give people a financial incentive to track down the sender of a spam, they're going to work harder and maybe more people will work at it," said Mozena. Washington's anti-spam law, which went into effect 11 June, allows recipients of unsolicited commercial email to collect $500 in damages for each piece of spam. Internet service providers may collect up to $1,000. The law applies only to email sent or received from Washington state. Bruce Miller, a contributor to computer publications, had received a spam from an Oregon outfit pitching Tahitian Noni Juice. He called an 800-number listed in the spam and received an order form for the product. After a bit more research, he printed out the original spam and wrote to juice distributor Stan Smith, essentially threatening legal action, but adding: "p.s. I'm willing to settle for $200." This past weekend, he received a money order from another distributor of Noni Juice who had come up with a juice promotion spam scheme. "I'm sure people will be very happy to see somebody claim a victory for the Net," said Miller, who spent about an hour seeking recourse. John James, a California distributor who described himself as someone with a part-time job who is just trying to make a buck, said he paid Miller only because he wanted to keep Smith out of trouble -- since it wasn't his idea to spam. "Bruce Miller was using extortion and blackmail techniques against Stan," James told the Seattle Times. "If Bruce thinks he's striking a big blow at a spammer, he's wrong." Anti-spam advocates would have to concede that point to James. "It sounds like this guy [Miller] was lucky in his ability to narrow where this spammer was and locate him quickly," said George Nemeyer, a spokesman for the Internet Service Providers' Coalition. "Others probably won't find the spammers as [quickly]. Going after the spammer is a gamble." It's a gamble that Miller is apparently willing to take again. He said he's spent an additional 12 hours sending "demand" letters to 30 other spammers. "Obviously it is a landmark," Nemeyer said of the payment Miller received. "[But] I'm cautions to say that it will open the floodgates. What I do hope is that word will go around to spammers that at least Washington will prevent them from doing it. But then again, spammers have proven themselves to be notoriously clueless." Nevada has a law in place which penalizes spammers who don't comply with recipients' requests to be removed from lists, and anti-spam legislation is being considered in Congress. But anti-spam advocates say Washington's state law may be the only type that truly protects consumers. "If the FTC or some other regulatory bureaucracy were charged with investigating spams such as this, it would be years before anything happened," Mozena said. "This shows that when consumers are given the right to defend themselves against unscrupulous marketers they will exercise the right themselves and don't need the government to intervene," Nemeyer said. "But the problems with junk email is that under present federal law there's no clear legal right defined to allow consumers to recover their costs or damages." ------------------------------ From: pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) Subject: Incoming 800 Numbers Date: 16 Jul 1998 18:14:06 GMT Organization: The College on the Other Side of U. S. 1 We have a terminal server with 30 incoming analog phone lines. We also have faculty and administrators who travel and dial in to get their email. The college reimburses them for the long distance charges. Recently, a VP indicated that the process he had to go through when on a trip was quite awkward, and asked if there was any kind of simple incoming 800 number that we could get. We can give up one of the 30 lines for a dedicated 800 line, but I wonder if there's any other option. I'll eventually turn this over to our chief telephone operator but she knows as little about computer communications as I do about phone systems, so any help you can offer will be appreciated. Thanks, Pete [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All you need is a single 800 number which is programmed to ring on the first line in your existing hunt group. That is, whatever number you tell your users to dial in on, have the 800 number programmed to call in on that number as well. Now, you will be able to receive as many 800 calls at the same time as you have lines otherwise available. Do not bother with a 'dedicated' line for the 800 number; those are expensive and not really needed. The only reason you might want to use a dedicated 800 line would be if you want only one 800 call at a time, and if you want to have that line go through a special password-checking process so you can easily detirmine *who* made the incoming call for the purpose of billing it or charging it against their budget, etc. In that case, that one line would terminate on your computer on a port that required extra valid- ation of some sort. But you can still accomplish the same thing with a 'regular, non- dedicated' 800 number by taking the *last* number in your hunt group and having the 800 number routed to it instead. Then, if someone is calling in via 800, that line will be busy and subsequent calls will have no where to go. Have that one line go through whatever special treatment you want on your network to specifically identify the caller. In other words, use the first line in the hunt group if you want the flexibility of receiving many 800 calls at one time (but having no real way to separate them from 'regular' callers for the purpose of requiring additional billing information from them or putting any additional restrictions on them) or use one of the back lines (or *the* very last line where no further hunting is possible) and the user cannot 'get lost' among all the other callers. Be sure and tell the 800 carrier you want real-time ANI if possible for billing purposes, or at the very least a full printout with each month bill showing where calls came from, and at what time, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Massachusetts Equivalent of "Filed Rate Doctrine?" Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:04:14 -0400 Organization: UltraNet Communications , an RCN Company http://www.ultranet.com/ I am familiar with the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming that, as a result of the "Filed Rate Doctrine," the tariff a telco has filed with the FCC is the only contract that binds the provider and the customer with regard to rates and services. My questing is: does anyone know if the State of Massachusetts has adopted a similar attitude towards tariffs? Also, in Massachusetts, are customers "conclusively presumed" to know what theses rates are? I have tried to obtain answers from the Mass. Dept. of Telecommuni- cations and Energy, but the employees there are not very informed, and their lawyer will not be able to respond to my question until next week. One of their employees said that she thought the tariff did not weigh very heavily in my case because my case involves a business buying from a CLEC. [As opposed to a residential customer buying from an ILEC.] She seemed to be saying that we and the CLEC could have a contractual agreement and it wouldn't have to be filed as a tariff. I thought that _all_ providers were required to file tariffs and charge customers accordingly. Thanks for any advice you can give ... -Jeremy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You talk about the public serpents who staff PUC offices and how ill-informed they are, you should try Illinois sometime and the Illinois Commerce Commission office in Chicago. If you call them to complain about something Ameritech did or said, they'll either tell you to call Ameritech to straighten it out (duh, been there, tried that) or they'll tell you someone will get back to you and they will have someone from Ameritech call (of course, already tipped off due to the source that you are, in Ameritech's parlance, a Complainer) to resolve it. On occassion, a staff member may talk to you, or rather, talk down to you, and tell you why Ameritech is correct in whatever it was they did or said. For years, and maybe still, most telcos have three categories of customer service priorities for how problems get resolved: the first priority are the Commission complaints; i.e. those customers who have gone to or called the PUC. The PUC will almost invariably call someone at telco and tell them to 'work it out with the customer' however needed. Rarely will the PUC ever specifically order telco to do anything on a customer-by-customer basis. They 'just assume' telco is handling things correctly. The second priority at telco is handling Management complaints; that is, those customers who have appealed to the Chairman or the President's Office. No one ever actually *speaks directly with* the chairman or president of course; response to the customer comes from a highly-placed flunky who is authorized to make responses in the name of the chairman or president ('Mr. Chairman received your letter/phone message and was quite concerned about your problem; because he is very busy at the moment but wanted you to have an immediate response he asked me to reply/take your phone call ...'). Chances are likely the highly-placed flunky used to be (in actuality still is) a customer service representative like all the rest but with a difference. S/he is entitled to use the name of the company's officers in a limited way to resolve whatever the Complainer wants done, and usually has the authority to make write-offs with a higher dollar amount than the 'average' representative. Last, as time permits each day after responding to the Commission complaints and the Management complaints are the subscribers who dialed in on the phone and have been waiting on hold 'for the next available representative' to assist them. So even though a lot of PUC staffs may be as good as useless, still they hold enough authority over telco that it makes sense to use them for complaints now and then, even if they do nothing more than call a supervisor at telco and ask them to 'look at his account and then call him back and try to satisfy him.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Norton Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 18:12:34 -0400 Subject: My Experience With AT&T's IP Telephony Product Hi all: Recently, I signed up with AT&T's Connect 'N Save service. This is AT&T's initial entry into the IP Telephony business. I would like to share my initial impressions and findings with the list. Availability The AT&T Connect 'N Save service is only being offered as a limited market trial in Atlanta, Boston and San Francisco. You do not need to live in these cities to use the service, however, you probably will not benefit much from the service unless you can dial the local access number without incurring additional charges. The service is accessed via various local access numbers (see AT&T's Web Site at for a list of the three access numbers currently available). Otherwise, the service works much like any prepaid phone card. AT&T says they plan to add portability to the service in the near future. Initial Signup There are two ways to sign up an AT&T Connect 'N Save account. The preferred method is to use your Web-browser. To do this, point your browser to and follow the links. For those of you who do not have a browser capable of accessing "secure" sites (url's beginning with "https:") or those who do not have a computer AT&T provides a toll-free number for customer service. Call 1-800-345-0995 Monday-Friday between 9:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time for more information or to sign up. In either case, the charges for the service must be billed to a major credit card. You will be asked to choose a prepaid amount of $25.00, $50.00 or $100.00 and this amount will be charged to your card before you can use the service. You can replenish your account at any time by using the Web form or calling Customer Service. You will also be asked some questions (e.g. First Name, Last Name, E-Mail address etc.). There are a few answers that are optional--you are asked for (but not required to give) your Social Security number for account validation when speaking to a Customer Service rep in the future. After you have provided the required information, you will be given your account number, pin and local access number and should be able to start using the service within minutes. Rates This is probably the major drawback for this service. The domestic rate for making calls varies depending on the city you access the service from. Currently, the rate for calling from San Francisco is 7.5 cents per minute, 8.0 cents per minute from Boston and 8.5 cents per minute from Atlanta. AT&T does not recomend using the service for international calls, instead, they recomend you use a rate plan such as AT&T's International One-Rate plan. AT&T says they may offer additional discounts on international calls later. After the marketing trial ends on September 30, 1998, AT&T will also charge a $2.00/month minimum for those who have not used their account for the past month. This will cause your account to eventually "run down" if you do not use the service for a long period of time. Usage Basically, the service is pretty strait forward. You dial the local access number and are prompted for your account number and pin. The system tells you your current account balance and prompts you for the number you wish to call. Dial the area code and telephone number for domestic calls. Dial 011 plus country code, city code and number for international calls. The system will tell you how much time you have remaining for the current call and then puts the call through. There is no provision for making sequence calls. Technical issues The audio quality of the service could be said to be a little better than that experienced usingmost digital cellphones. This is due to the audio being highly compressed for transmission over AT&T's IP network. If either party sends DTMF tones, they will be decoded, sent over the network as part of the data stream and re-encoded at the far end. This is because the DTMF tones can be slightly distorted in transit due to the audio being highly compressed. An unpleasant side-effect with this is that, due to the way this "feature" is implemented, the DTMF tone is re-sent as a short burst of a few hundred milliseconds at the far end no matter how long the person at the other end sustains the tone. Also, the voice path of the sender of the DTMF is muted as long as the tone is sustained. This may make it impossible for a user of the service to use any system (e.g. some answering machines) which requires long DTMF tones. Calls from all three cities currently seem to be routed through the same AT&T 4-ESS machine (011-T). The irony is that, the closer you are to this particular 4-e machine, the more expensive the call will be. Of course, AT&T may route calls to other 4-E's during conjested periods, but, it's impossible to be conclusive on this. It would seem to be more efficient to route calls through the IP network to the 4-E closest to the destination number rather than sending all calls to 011-T and then routing the call in the normal manner. Of course, this may change as the trial progresses. Disclaimer The above observations are merely those of the author. For official information, refer to . --Joseph (Joe) Norton N4ZWX Dalton, Georgia, U.S.A.--The Carpet Capital of the World! Spellchecker not found. Press --[DEL: to continue ... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #109 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 23 04:41:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA12484; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:41:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199807230841.EAA12484@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #110 Subject: TELECOM Digest Latest Issue TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Jul 98 21:24:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 110 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nurse Fired in Hotline Mixup (Jim Weiss) The Ultimate Long-Distance Combo Deal (jarettk@removethis.aval.com) Florida to Weigh $5.5 Mllion Fine For AT&T Slamming (Monty Solomon) Area Code 314 to Split Again (areacode-info.com webmaster) Telecom Update (Canada) #141, July 20, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Line Quality For Modem Connections (Steve Liu) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 16:47:19 EDT Subject: Nurse Fired in Hotline Mixup In a message dated 98-07-19 11:52:51 EDT, AOL News writes: Nurse Fired in Hotline Mixup .c The Associated Press By DEBORAH HASTINGS FONTANA, Calif. (AP) - Nurse Linda Reno was working the night shift at San Bernardino Community Hospital when a distraught man called. He said he was the convicted stalker of a teen-age girl. He needed a toll-free crisis hotline, someone to talk to when he felt manic. Ms. Reno searched a resource directory kept at the nurse's station but found nothing. So she looked in the white pages. In the newest GTE phone book, under ``Crisis - A 24-Hour Emergency Help Line,'' Ms. Reno found an 800 number. She gave it to him. That simple act launched a series of events that got her fired. It also highlights a problem the telephone industry says it can't do much about: the reassignment of defunct crisis line numbers to the adult sex industry. The man dialed the number. ``Get it hot ... with the naughtiest girls around,'' said the tape-recorded female voice, who then explained how a conversation with an underage girl or a porn queen could be charged to a credit card. The man called the hospital back and complained. When Ms. Reno learned about his angry call, she feared she'd taken the number down wrong. Double-checking, she confirmed that, yes, she'd given the listed crisis line number. But it had been disconnected, the number reassigned. She set out to solve the problem. On her day off, she called phone companies, the state Public Utilities Commission and the attorney general's office. The calls, she said, were exercises in futility. ``No one was listening to me,'' she recalled. ``I said, `Listen, this has to be taken care of right away. Anyone in a crisis, if they called that number and got a sex tape, that could be their last call.' ``I just kept getting transferred, or referred to other numbers. At one point, I think I ended up in the warehouse where the phone books are printed.'' So, she called her local newspaper. On May 28, The Sun of San Bernardino ran a front-page story about the hotline, and quoted Ms. Reno. The next day, she was fired. ``They said I put the hospital in a bad light,'' the 15-year employee said. ``But I just don't understand how that can be.'' A hospital spokeswoman declined comment but faxed this statement: ``Community Hospital of San Bernardino believes it acted appropriately regarding the situation with this employee.'' Ms. Reno has consulted an attorney and may sue over her dismissal. She is not the only person who tried to get the sex line unplugged. Pat Pina, executive director of Hotline Help Center Inc., a nonprofit crisis intervention service in Orange County, tried in early May to get the number disconnected, based on complaints to her agency. ``AT&T said they couldn't do anything. We complained to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and they said they couldn't do anything,'' Ms. Pina said. She knows of two similar incidents this year, Ms. Pina said. Mental health advocates keep no national statistics on this issue. But they often hear of it. ``If someone is calling a crisis line and they get this stupid, horrendous sex message, it might just push them over the edge,'' said Helen Riddick, who publishes a social services directory for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Ms. Riddick has distributed a written warning to her customers - including churches, social service agencies, police departments and hospitals - advising them to call numbers before giving them to clients. The sex line in Ms. Reno's case was operated by Network Telephone Services and Pacific Marketing, a phone solicitation firm in Woodland Hills, Calif. Company attorney Dan Coleman said the toll-free number was disconnected May 27, after officials learned of the hotline mix-up from a Sun reporter. ``We obviously wouldn't want to use a number that had been a suicide hotline,'' he said. The crisis line apparently went out of business last July without notifying authorities. Its number reverted to an industry-run pool, from which toll-free numbers are reassigned to new customers. ``To stop this, it's almost impossible,'' Ms. Pina said. ``There's no one policing it. There's no kind of monitoring going on.'' Industry officials acknowledge she is correct. But little can be done, they say. The FCC has little involvement in the highly competitive market for toll-free numbers, said spokeswoman Anna Gomez. Mostly, its regulations affect only how numbers are allocated - on a first-come, first-served basis. There are no rules that prevent a suicide hotline number from being reassigned to a phone sex line. Incorrect phone book listings cannot be changed between publications. The 1998-99 phone books won't be published until fall. ``Outside of removing a bad number from directory assistance, there is nothing GTE can do,'' said spokesman Larry Cox. AT&T spokeswoman Janet Wyles said the phone company has no authority to disconnect numbers under such circumstances or to force customers to change numbers. Ms. Reno, who is divorced and now unemployed at age 53, wonders what can be done for her. ``People say, `You didn't do anything wrong.' But then why did I get fired?'' she asked, her eyes filling with tears. ``I'm the one who's terminated. No one is going to want to hire me.'' A licensed vocational nurse, Ms. Reno says she had never been disciplined in her decade and a half at Community Hospital. She said hospital officials classified her as an ``at will'' employee who worked without a contract and could be fired without reason. The day the Sun story ran, Ms. Reno said she was called to her supervisor's office and told she was immediately suspended. The next day, she was fired. She doesn't regret trying to help. ``I tell you, I felt awful having given that guy a sex line number. Of all people, to give someone like him that number. It must have seemed like a sick joke to him.'' ------------------------------ From: jarettk@removethis.aval.com Subject: The Ultimate Long-Distance Combo Deal Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 21:54:53 GMT Organization: NetVista Info Corp Here's my version of the ultimate discount long distance deal, which uses a combination of two carriers. First, sign up for Sprint's Fridays are Free business service. To do so, you'll have to demonstrate your status as at least a part-time business to Sprint. This is easier to do if you've already filed IRS form SS-4 and gotten your federal tax ID number. If not, you'll have to use a social security number, which is what some sole proprietors use to identify their businesses. Sprint will give you up to $1000 per month of free use on Fridays, for calls within the USA. You have to spend at least $50, or they'll charge you the deficit. As a safety measure, you'd better put a PIC freeze on your line if you plan to rack up the Friday calls! The next step is to apply for several calling cards and give them out to any and all associates who can be trusted to make calls only on Friday, and to reimburse your business for any of those annoying 30-cent payphone surcharges. All calls made within the US on these cards are free on Fridays, except for the payphone surcharges. This multiplies your one business line into many free lines on Fridays. Unless you go absolutely nuts giving out cards, you'll be in no danger of exceeding the $1000 monthly free usage limit. Because international calls are never free, and because Sprint's international rates, while reasonable, are far from the lowest available, you can easily make your $50 minimum on international calls. A side benefit of this approach is that international calls count toward the $50 minimum before the 20% discount is applied. This can lower your minimum usage to as low as $40. What if you make a lot of international calls, and you'd really like to get better rates? Easy: just guesstimate your $40 worth of calls using Sprint, then switch to another service. The one I've found is Quest Communications, at (800) 466-0116. They use IP telephony on their own fiber optic backbone. There's a slight delay, similar to that of a satellite hop. Quest will sign you up without changing your default carrier (you didn't forget the PIC freeze, right?) and you just dial 1010056 in front of your international calls. Their rates to Europe are 40% below Sprint's, and their Caribbean rates are simply amazing. No, I don't have any affiliation with Quest. So there you have it. Spend $40 per month at normal rates to get up to $1000 of free calls on Fridays, and get the very best rates on the rest of your calls. This deal is better than anything to come along since two and a half years ago when when Sprint went temporarily insane and included international calls in Fridays are Free. Keith Jarett jarettk "at" aval.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Florida to Weigh $5.5 Million Fine For AT&T Slamming Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:30:44 -0400 By Michael Peltier TALLAHASSEE (Reuters) - Florida utility regulators will decide Tuesday if AT&T Corp. should pay $5.5 million for switching customers' phone service without their consent. The Florida Public Service Commission was scheduled to decide how severely to punish the U.S. telecommunications giant as part of its continuing attack on the practice, called slamming. AT&T was the latest target in the commission's efforts to combat an increasingly common practice, PSC spokesman Dick Durbin said. Last year, MCI Communications Corp. agreed to pay $240,000 in fines associated with slamming, and a defunct company called Phone Calls Inc. was fined $860,000. The commission also has drawn up stricter slamming sanctions, which are being challenged by AT&T and the rest of the industry. ``The public service commission has really focused on the problem of slamming here in the last year or so,'' Durbin said. ''We've opened up 14 or 15 dockets against companies.'' Between Jan. 1, 1997 and May 18, 1998, the PSC recorded 183 confirmed cases of slamming against AT&T, Durbin said. In many of the cases, customers were switched back to their original companies and received refunds of a few dollars in response to their formal complaints. Among the complaints was one from a Pensacola, Fla., woman who said her phone service was switched based on a faked signature alleged to have been made by her dead husband. PSC staff members who investigated the complaints determined that AT&T has not gone far enough to shore up its marketing efforts to eliminate slamming and recommended fines of $30,000 per incident. ``It appears to staff that AT&T believes it is more cost-efficient for the company to issue rate adjustments and apologies in response to complaints than to investigate the cause of (and cure) many of its slams,'' staff members wrote in a 52-page recommendation. If the commission approves fines Tuesday, AT&T will be given time to show why such fines are excessive or inappropriate. An AT&T spokeswoman Thursday commended the PSC staff for their attempts to protect consumers but said the proposed fines are ``totally inappropriate.'' ``No other long-distance company has done more to curb this industry-wide problem,'' spokeswoman Julie Spechler said. ''We've said this before, that AT&T is committed to a zero tolerance policy against slamming.'' In March, AT&T proposed a series of anti-slamming procedures, including suspending the use of marketing firms that were not meeting quality standards, she said. In addition, the company has set up a 24-hour slamming resolution center to handle complaints and will charge companies that resell AT&T services if valid complaints are found. ``We have done a lot to clean up our own house,'' Spechler said. ------------------------------ Reply-To: areacode-info.com webmaster From: areacode-info.com webmaster Subject: Area Code 314 to Split Again Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:26:49 -0400 314 to Split, Pooling to be Implemented PSC DECIDES 314 AREA CODE ISSUE Jefferson City (July 22, 1998)---The Missouri Public Service Commission has determined that a geographic split and a new area code should be used to alleviate the exhaustion of available telephone numbers in the current 314 area code. Exhaustion is due to occur in the fourth quarter of 1999. At the same time, the Commission has opened a new case to evaluate and implement number conservation measures designed to lengthen the time before number exhaustion occurs again in the St. Louis area. "The Commission has placed this case on an expedited schedule in order that we may quickly evaluate and then implement various number conservation measures to extend the life of these two area codes," stated Commission Chair Sheila Lumpe. Regarding a geographic split for the current 314 area code, the Commission reached its decision based upon the recommendations of the Office of the Public Counsel (OPC) and those citizens who attended local public hearings and/or wrote letters on the issue. The Commission found that evidence concerning customer impacts clearly and unequivocally tipped the scale in favor of a geographic split over an overlay. An overlay had been recommended by several parties in this case. At local public hearings, customers stated it would be simpler and more convenient to continue to dial seven digits for local calling within their own area code than to dial ten digits on every call within both area codes. The Commission noted in its decision: "The customers have made their assessment of these issues clear on the record before the Commission, and the Commission therefore finds that, from the standpoint of customer impacts, a geographic split is preferable to an all services overlay at this time." In its decision, the Commission has determined that the St. Louis principal zone as well as the exchanges of Spanish Lake, Florissant, Hazelwood, Bridgeton, Ferguson, Riverview, Overland, Creve Coeur, Ladue, Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Sappington, Mehlville and Oakville will retain the 314 area code as proposed by the Office of the Public Counsel. A new, yet to be determined, area code will be issued for all of the other exchanges currently in the 314 area code (such as St. Charles, Wentzville, Jonesburg, Washington, Union, DeSoto and Festus). The new area code number assignment will be made by Lockheed Martin, administrator of the North American Numbering Plan. A proposed three-way geographic split was rejected by the Commission because it would result in such small area codes that the benefits of a geographic split would be significantly reduced. It is important to note that even with a geographic split, there will be some customers dialing ten digits to complete a local call (area code + the seven digit telephone number of the called party). For example, subscribing customers of the Metropolitan Calling Plan (MCA) will have to dial ten digits to call to another exchange in the MCA plan if that exchange is in a different area code. That call is still a local call. If the customer can complete the call using the ten digit number without using a 1 in front of the number, that call is still a local call even though it may be in a different area code. The primary advantage with a geographic split is that it retains seven digit local calling, it retains a geographic identity associated with the unique area code, and it minimizes or eliminates claims of competitive disadvantage associated with overlays. A technical committee formed in 1995 to evaluate area codes issues in Missouri has been ordered by the Commission to develop an implementation schedule for the conversion to the new area code for affected customers. That schedule is to include a public education process for the new area code, as well as dates when the permissive dialing period will begin and when mandatory dialing will occur. During the permissive dialing period, a customer can begin using the new area code. In addition, calls placed to the new area code using the old 314 area code would still be completed during the permissive dialing period. A report is to be filed with the Commission no later than August 6, 1998. Number conservation issues: Parties in this case offered a number of methods for conserving number resources including 1,000s block number pooling, sequential number assignment and rate center consolidation. The Commission has determined that none of these methods are ready for immediate implementation. However, the Commission finds that "1000s block number pooling, sequential number assignment and rate center consolidation have significant potential for promoting the efficient utilization of numbering resources in the future and could dramatically prolong the lives of the NPAs (numbering plan areas --- area codes) if implemented as soon as possible." As a result, the Commission has established a separate case for the purpose of addressing the above three methods of number conservation. Parties in this case are to file a sequential number assignment report within three months; a report on rate center consolidation within five months; and number pooling (1000s block number pooling) within seven months. Some of the technical changes that would be required to implement 1000s block number pooling are currently being discussed at the national level and national standards for implementation are being developed. ---0--- Case No. TO-98-212 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:50:09 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #141, July 20, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 141: July 20, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** RSL and Mike Kedar Buy Westel ** Bell Cuts Overseas Rates ** No Regulation for Cableco Internet Rates ** CRTC Prescribes Interim LNP Solution ** Sprint, BC Tel Offer Flat-Rate Calling ** Microcell, Clearnet Sign Up 50,000 Each ** Rogers, TelcoPlus Register as CLECs ** City Dial Buys Montreal Reseller ** BC Tel Bundled Services Approved, Appealed ** New NBTel Business Rates Approved Under Price Caps ** Bell Centrex Changes Rejected ** MT&T Centrex Changes Approved ** MT&T to Test "One-Stop Shopping" for Business Telecom ** U.S. Regulators Okay Teleglobe-Excel Merger ** Stentor Cuts Fees for 900-Number Access ** Videotron to Provide High-Speed Link to Quebec Schools ** QuebecTel Must Consider Requests for New EAS Links ** Cogeco Adopts @Home Internet Service ** Cantel Extending Wireless Data Coast to Coast ** How to Tame the E-Mail Flood ============================================================ RSL AND MIKE KEDAR BUY WESTEL: Long distance carrier Westel Telecommunications, owned by a BC government corporation, has been sold for $55 Million. The buyers are Bermuda-based RSL Communications, headed by Ronald S. Lauder of Estee Lauder cosmetics, and MK Telecom Network Inc., a new company owned by Mike Kedar, the founder of Call-Net. BELL CUTS OVERSEAS RATES: Bell Canada has reduced Advantage Optimum overseas rates by an average of 28%. UK calls anytime now cost 28 cents; calls to Japan are 82 cents. FirstRate residential rates now start at 24 cents for off- peak UK calls. NO REGULATION FOR CABLECO INTERNET RATES: CRTC Telecom Decision 98-9 says that the Commission will not regulate the prices charged by cable TV companies for retail Internet access, or for security, telemetry, videoconferencing, LAN, or WAN services. The CRTC will regulate the rates and terms under which cablecos provide services to other Internet Service Providers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d989_0.txt ** Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-14 seeks comment on the provision and tariffing of high-speed access services provided by cablecos or telcos over cable TV facilities. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p9814_0.txt CRTC PRESCRIBES INTERIM LNP SOLUTION: In Telecom Order 98- 678, the CRTC affirms that Local Number Portability is to be available by July 28 in Calgary and Vancouver, and August 31 in Toronto and Montreal. If commercial service on the Lockheed Martin LNP database is not ready by then, competitors may manually input numbers to the Stentor LNP database. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98678_0.txt SPRINT, BC TEL OFFER FLAT-RATE CALLING: ** Sprint Canada now offers residential customers unlimited off-peak calling in Canada for $20/month. Weekday and U.S. calls are 22 cents/minute. ** BC Tel's North American residential plan offers 250 minutes of Canada-U.S. off-peak calling for $22; extra minutes are 22 cents (peak) or 10 cents (off-peak). MICROCELL, CLEARNET SIGN UP 50,000 EACH: ** Microcell's Fido PCS service gained 52,679 new customers in the second quarter, bringing its total to 149,846. (See Telecom Update #128) ** Clearnet signed 52,410 new wireless customers, 35,754 of them for PCS. Its PCS customer base reached 120,462. Clearnet users now receive automatic U.S. roaming. (See Telecom Update #127) ROGERS, TELCOPLUS REGISTER AS CLECS: Rogers Communications and Toronto-based start-up TelcoPlus Communications have registered with the CRTC as Competitive Local Exchange Providers. CITY DIAL BUYS MONTREAL RESELLER: City Dial Network Services has purchased Gescom F.R.L., which provides Extended Area Flat-Rate Calling in Greater Montreal. BC TEL BUNDLED SERVICES APPROVED, APPEALED: On July 7, the CRTC approved BC Tel Solutions for Small Business and BC Tel Residential Package, which bundle a single access line, one hour of LD service, and up to three SmartTouch or Integrated Voice Messaging services. ** The Canadian Cable Television Association appealed this approval on July 8. The Commission will consider this appeal together with the earlier appeal of telco bundled services filed by a group of competitors (see Telecom Update #134). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98669_0.txt NEW NBTEL BUSINESS RATES APPROVED UNDER PRICE CAPS: On July 10, the CRTC set NBTel business line rates at $31.10 (single lines) and $54.50 (more than four lines) retroactive to May 19. These rates comply with the existing Price Cap formula. NBTel's application to revise the formula is still under consideration. BELL CENTREX CHANGES REJECTED: The CRTC has turned down two applications by Bell Canada to revise its Centrex tariffs: ** Telecom Order 98-680 rejects a new "Centrex Essentials" package for customers with under 10 lines, on the grounds that it would not be available for resale, and the rates in Band D (rural and remote areas) would not cover Bell's costs. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98680_0.txt ** Telecom Order 98-702 rejects Bell's proposed restructuring of Centrex service charges as "unjustly discriminatory against Centrex resellers." http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98702_0.txt MT&T CENTREX CHANGES APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 98-668 approves an MT&T proposal to simplify and reduce rates for its small Centrex (under 29 lines) service. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98668_0.txt MT&T TO TEST "ONE-STOP SHOPPING" FOR BUSINESS TELECOM: In September, MT&T will begin customer trials of integrated billing for business local telephone service, long distance, wireless, paging, and Internet services. Trial participants will also have a single point of contact for sales and customer service. U.S. REGULATORS OKAY TELEGLOBE-EXCEL MERGER: Teleglobe and Excel Communications have been granted early termination of the waiting period for their merger required by U.S. antitrust legislation. STENTOR CUTS FEES FOR 900-NUMBER ACCESS: Charitable organizations signing up for Stentor's Advantage 900 now pay a $350 application fee, reduced from $1,500. The same reduction applies to qualified business or government organizations. VIDEOTRON TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED LINK TO QUEBEC SCHOOLS: Videotron Telecom will provide 10 megabit fiber access to the schools of the Marie-Victorin School Board in Greater Montreal and the Decouvreurs board in Sainte-Foy. QUEBECTEL MUST CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR NEW EAS LINKS: QuebecTel asked the CRTC in February to approve a moratorium on all new requests for extended area service links for 1998, so that it could develop a new EAS rate structure. In Telecom Order 98-689, the CRTC denies the moratorium request. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98689_0.txt COGECO ADOPTS @HOME INTERNET SERVICE: Cogeco Cable has bought an 18% stake in @Home Canada, which caches popular Internet sites to provide faster service, and will relaunch its Internet service under the @Home name in September. (See Telecom Update #78) CANTEL EXTENDING WIRELESS DATA COAST TO COAST: Rogers Cantel has announced plans to complete most of its Mobitex wireless data network from Halifax to Victoria by the end of the year. (See Telecom Update #122) HOW TO TAME THE E-MAIL FLOOD: The July-August issue of Telemanagement explains how to optimize your handling of increasing volumes of customer e-mail: ** "New Management Tools Help Tame the E-Mail Flood," by John Riddell ** "Preparing Your Call Center to Handle Customer E-Mail," by Todd Tanner To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Steve Liu Subject: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:52:10 -0400 Hello, I just got a 56k modem and have still not been able to ever get any connection above 26.4kbs. I understand that 56kbs is actually not possible currently but I expected at least 40kbs. So, I called Bell Atlantic about this and asked if there was anything that can be done and the CSR just told me that the lines are only guaranteed for 9.6kbs, is this true? She said that nothing can be done unless I get an ISDN line? Does this mean that I have no chance of getting connection above 26.4kbs unless I pay more for ISDN? I find this incredible because so many people have 56k modem or at least 28.8 modem and I have trouble believing that everybody would just put up with getting less than what is possible and not be able to do anything to get better connection. What should I do? Thanks, Steve Liu liu@amarex.com Product Manager - Amarex Technology Inc. Phone: (212) 759-0838 Fax: (212) 888-2386 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #110 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 23 22:52:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA27299; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:52:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807240252.WAA27299@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #111 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jul 98 22:52:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 111 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Payphone Fee on 800 Numbers (Louis M. Taff) Seattle Man Makes Spammer Pay (Monty Solomon) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (Jack Decker) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (Fred Goldstein) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (Operator) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (John Gilbert) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (P. Stemwedel) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Louis M. Taff Subject: Re: Payphone Fee on 800 Numbers Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:31:22 -0400 Pat - I sent this response to a comp.dcom.telecom posting a few weeks ago. However, I haven't seen it appear, and since I've had some trouble in past sending mail from my browser, I thought I'd give it another try. I've emailed the original poster directly, but thought others might be interested as well. Lou Taff Barton Fisher wrote: > This fee has added almost 30% to our telephone bill. Actually, we > would perfer not to accept any calls from a payphone. Currently we > are on four T-1's with WorldCom. They do not (can not or will not) > offer us blocking. I'm ready to switch to a company that can provide > this feature. > Any help out there? > Bart I forwarded this posting to people who should know, and I was told that AT&T offers the ability to block calls from payphones. Email me if you have a problem ordering this service from AT&T. Lou Taff: ltaff@att.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:04:28 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Seattle Man mMkes Spammer Pay http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/spam_071598.html by Peter Lewis Seattle Times staff reporter Chalk one up for the anti-spam forces. A Seattle man is celebrating a $200 money order he received after demanding payment from a Salem, Ore., distributor of Tahitian Noni Juice that pitched the product over the Internet using unsolicited commercial e-mail, popularly known as spam. Bruce Miller, a longtime contributor to computer publications, thinks he may be the first person in the state to collect under Washington's new anti-spam law, which went into effect June 11. It outlaws unsolicited commercial e-mail that contains false information about how it moves across the Internet, which most spam does, experts say. When Miller received the Noni Juice solicitation last month, he telephoned the 800 number mentioned in the e-mail. He asked for more information about the product, which was pitched as a cure-all, and from Stan Smith, the Salem-based independent distributor, Miller received a packet in the mail that included an address for ordering. Miller then did a bit more research on the distributor, printed out the original spam, and sent a letter demanding compensation. He cited Washington's new law, which provides that individuals may recover up to $500, and Internet Service providers $1,000, or actual damages, for each piece of unwanted spam. All told, Miller figures he spent about an hour on his personal enforcement action. Miller decided he would settle for $200, figuring it was fair compensation, and also that the spammer might view it as a reasonable sum to avoid paying more. This past weekend, Miller received the $200 money order. It was paid for by John James of Orange County, Calif., another distributor of Noni Juice. It was James who came up with the idea of using e-mail to promote the product. In a telephone interview last night, James said he paid Miller only because he wanted to keep Smith "out of trouble" since it wasn't his idea to use mass e-mailing. "Bruce Miller was using extortion and blackmail techniques against Stan," James contended. "If Bruce thinks he's striking a big blow at a spammer, he's wrong." James said he paid $99 to send 100,000 e-mails around the country, and got 20 responses, which more than covered his investment. "We're just people with part-time jobs trying to make a buck, and that (the e-mail promotion) was an experiment," he said. Still, James said that in the future, he'll stick to "safe lists," meaning he'll send only to recipients who have specifically consented to receive bulk e-mails. In the meantime, Miller has posted a notice of his victory to an Internet newsgroup, and in less than 24 hours, he has received more than two dozen congratulatory messages. Miller also received congratulations from Washington state Assistant Attorney General Paula Selis, who pushed for the new law and may be filing enforcement actions on behalf of consumers. "To my knowledge, this is the first time it (payment from a spammer) has happened," Selis said. "It's a fabulous result, and I think it's empowering to individual recipients (of spam). I hope they take Bruce's experience as an example and run with it." Miller said he has about 30 other "demand" letters outstanding to other spammers, on which he has spent an additional 12 hours or so in complaint and collection efforts. "I'm sure people will be very happy to see somebody claim a victory for the Net," he said. Peter Lewis' phone message number is 206-464-2217. His e-mail address is: plewis@seattletimes.com Copyright ) 1998 The Seattle Times Company ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:23:55 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 03:49:48 -0400, webmaster@areacode-info.com wrote: > CHICAGO -- Consumers and businesses in Chicago's numerous area codes > are being shortchanged by one local phone company's misuse of scarce > phone numbers, Ameritech is charging in a complaint filed today with > the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) Every so often it's nice to have an example of how a company like Ameritech can put a spin on something to make it sound like their position is the right one, even though they're dead wrong. Apparently they realize that the ICC is going to see through their interpretation, but they are hoping that the telephone-illiterate public won't, so they are cranking up the PR machine on this one. If I'm reading the article correctly, all that the competitors are doing is offering FX ("Foreign Exchange") service. This is something that almost all telephone companies, including the baby Bells that became Ameritech, used to offer through at least the first part of the 70's, and possibly well into the 80's. It was a service where one could obtain a local line from a distant phone exchange and use it as though you were actually located in the same city as the exchange (with no toll charge on calls placed or received via that line). Generally, you only paid mileage charges on the line, plus some additional charges for equipment to extend the local loop. What you did not pay was any kind of per-minute charge. That all changed sometime in the last couple decades, when Ameritech discontinued the flat rate FX service in favor of a revised service with per-minute charges. Those that had the old FX service could in many cases keep it (and I believe that you can still find pre-divestiture FX service installed in a few places), but if a business moved or went out of business, they were migrated to the new version of FX with per-minute charges attached. Many businesses found it cheaper to simply place outgoing calls via a discount long distance service, and receive calls via a Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) line. Now it appears that one of Ameritech's competitors has discovered that there is still a desire to purchase the old-style FX service, and if I'm reading between the lines correctly, that is what they are offering. Of course Ameritech would hate this because it cuts into the little local call gouging scheme they have set up in Chicago (isn't it true that in the metropolitan Chicago area, any call of over 8 miles distance is charged a per-minute rate?). It has absolutely nothing to do with any shortage of area codes, but that's the only way they can frame the issue to make their side plausible to the general public. It has everything to do with Ameritech's Chicagoland cash cow, which is now being gored. In any other state, I can't imagine that the PUC would fall for this for a moment. But Illinois is a very strange state politically, and if Ameritech has an "in" with the right people, they may be able to hamstring their competition's efforts temporarily, at least until that company can appeal to a higher authority. I can't imagine that Ameritech can make this stick - after all, if a competitor wants to offer different local calling areas than Ameritech does, or FX lines, or any other service, it ought to be none of Ameritech's business. That would be like AT&T telling Sprint that they can't offer free Fridays because of some trumped-up reason. Once the area code "shortage" in the Chicago area is relieved (something that probably won't happen as soon if Ameritech perceives a shortage to be to their benefit), I'll bet Ameritech tries to come up with some other reason that their competitors shouldn't offer this service. This is also exactly why viable local competition is need. As long as Ameritech is as big and powerful as it is, it can pull these sorts of shenanigans. They need to learn how to compete fairly, by giving customers the services they want at a fair and reasonable price. But, that sort of thinking is apparently simply not in the mindset of Ameritech executives. Jack Michigan telephone users: The next rewrite of the Michigan Telecommunications Act takes place in 1999! Subscribe to the MI-Telecom mailing list via the web page at: http://www.maillist.net/mi-telecom.html To reply via e-mail, please make the obvious modification to my return e-mail address. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 16:27:00 GMT In article , webmaster@areacode- info.com says ... > Ameritech charges that Chicago-based Focal Communications is skirting > the operating rules for the use of possibly hundreds of thousands of > phone numbers in the state and violating its interconnection agreement > with Ameritech by incorrectly billing calls made to Focal's customers. Ameritech has been on a bender, trying to screw CLECs out of their reciprocal compensation payments due on ISP-bound calls. This is just another Big Lie in their campaign. It's almost libelous against Focal and the dozens of other CLECs -- and possibly a few ILECs -- who do the same thing. .... > According to Ameritech's complaint, Focal's "Virtual Office" offering > ties up Chicago area numbers, and "improperly manipulates" the phone > numbering system, giving phone numbers in suburban area codes to Focal > customers elsewhere. .... > But in Focal's scheme, the local numbers are typically assigned to > business locations in downtown Chicago. When an employee of those > companies, working from home, calls what would appear to be a "local" > phone number in the outlying suburbs -- such as Schaumburg or Aurora > -- the call is actually sent to an office location miles away in > Chicago, thereby tying up a phone number that could be assigned to > customers in those suburban areas. What Focal is doing is offering a form of Foreign Exchange service. This is something Ameritech has been doing forever. What makes it different is that Focal, like almost every other CLEC, doesn't have separate switches in every little town. They have one switch in Chicago which serves the whole region. In general, CLECs operate that way, with one switch (or a small number) per region. Since they're not delivering analog loops *directly* from those switches, this works well. If a CLEC wants to deliver analog lines to a bulk business customer (eg, Centrex) or to a mix of customers in an area, they typically put a multiplexor in that area, perhaps in a telco colo cage (to use ILEC loops) or on site. They get LOCAL numbers for that location, either their own prefix or, more recently, ported pre-existing numbers (Local Number Portability). They can stick these muxes (also called DLC, SLC) anywhere, for hundreds of miles, where they have bandwidth. Remember, they CANNOT put switches in telco colo rooms (not allowed), and usually CANNOT run voice-frequency analog lines from their switches into telco colo cages, even if they wanted to! They mux lots of sites onto one switch. THEREFORE the CLEC metropolitan switch has a LOT of prefix codes on it, based on the areas it serves. Now, let's say a company, say, Sears, decides it wants to have dial-in "telecommuter" service. If they went to Ameritech, Ameritech would run FX lines (usually over T1s) back to the COs they were serving. So besides their downtown location, they might pay intra-LATA FX mileage (usually around $20/mile/T1) to get numbers local to other places. (Ameritech-IL only has an 8-mile local radius.) A Kankakee number pays mileage to the Kankakee switch. But by using Focal, they connect to the same switch, and simply assign a Kankakee number in addition to the Chicago number. No FX mileage, since it's the same switch, though Focal has to connect its switch to the same Bell (Ameritech) tandem that Ameritech's Kankakee CO connects to. In other words, CLEC metropolitan switches do FX more cheaply (not a tariff artifact, but really cheaper) than ILEC switches. Focal has a "full house" of prefix codes in Ameritech's Chicago LATA. That means that they have as many prefix codes as it takes to be local (within 8 miles) of every Ameritech exchange. They all come back to one switch. And they AGGREGATE these prefix codes onto the same hunt group, so 312-abc-9876 for Chicago Loop and 773-def-9876 for Chicago-Kedzie and 847-ghi-9876 for Waukegan, etc., all point to the same lines. This is wonderful for dial-in pools. Lots of ISPs have moved to Focal, as have other businesses. And number aggregation is what CLECs do everywhere. MFS/UUNET all over. PacWest all over CA. GlobalNAPs and XCOM in Massachusetts and soon elsewhere. Brooks all over. Phone Michigan out of Flint. Lots of others. Many prefix codes on one switch, so it's local to everybody. And it's what some ILECs do! PacBell for years has had "San Francisco" rate center numbers in their suburban switches, so they could provide FX without hauling the calls all the way. GTE has "Fairfax" prefix codes in its Dulles, VA switch, so airport-area subscribers can have local-to-Metro-DC numbers without having to get them from Bell COs. SNET even has its own "full house" service now in Connecticut, where 12 well-selected prefix codes are aggregated for statewide coverage. This not only pleases the ISP subscribers, but it takes all that "pesky" ISP traffic off of the local COs, some of which weren't, after all, sized for heavy incoming loads, but just happen to be local to the right places. So far as I know, number aggregation (combining FX prefixes onto one line) was actually pioneered in the UK, by Energis, a few years ago. They map dozens of local numbers onto your selected ports. No LATAs there to deal with, either. Number conservation is important. Number portability and prefix-sharing should be implemented, to allow CLECs to have local numbers wherever they want them without wasting entire prefixes. Focal is only doing what they have to do under today's inefficient rules. But that's not what Ameritech is upset about. They just don't like competition. Period. 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: Operator Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: 23 Jul 1998 15:23:50 GMT Organization: KRAY Consulting Does everyone here realize who Focal's primary customers are? And ILLEGAL is a strong statement to make ... they found and use a loophole in the 'rules' to OUR BENEFIT. Their primary customers are ISPs. Without them your costs would go from the typical $10-$15/mo back to $30-$45/mo that it used to be years ago. So companies in downtown Chicago have remote POP's in the 708, 630, 847, and 815 area codes supplying customers IN THOSE SAME AREA CODES. So what? Another area code in 847? I don't doubt it. Don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with Ameritech not being able to implement a overlay area code properly so that anything in my 847 dialed from area code can be dialed as seven digits and anything else as the standard 11 digits. Confusing? No more so that it has already become in dealing with 815 (a lot of LOCAL calls to there for me from here, some to Focal lines :), even some 708 numbers are local. Some 815 is long distance. Most of 708, 312, 773, and 630 are local toll. What's one more area code in the area when you think about it? OVERLAY IT ALREADY! I would have NO PROBLEM getting a another line in XYZ area code or calling my neighbor 11 digits (and knowing it's local). It a switch programming nightmare that they are worried about and avoiding. Sounds to me like Ameritech just doesn't like some healthy STRONG competition! This email address is used for posting purposes ONLY. Incoming email is NOT allowed here and doing so will cause your IP block to be denied at the router level for future connections (PAT @ the telecom digest excluded of course :). If you have something to share post it. ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:56:07 -0500 Organization: Motorola LMPS > But in Focal's scheme, the local numbers are typically assigned to > business locations in downtown Chicago. When an employee of those > companies, working from home, calls what would appear to be a "local" > phone number in the outlying suburbs -- such as Schaumburg or Aurora > -- the call is actually sent to an office location miles away in > Chicago, thereby tying up a phone number that could be assigned to > customers in those suburban areas. Gee, isn't this what used to be done by the telcos using "Foreign Exchange Service?" Doesn't Ameritech now provide an identical service to the "Focal Scheme" using call forwarding setup at the time of the order without any physical telephone line to the suburban customer's telephone? Sounds to me like a very poor attempt at squashing competition from the little guy ... John Gilbert | Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector IL02/2523 KA4JMC | Private Trunked Systems johng@comm.mot.com | 1301 East Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60196 ------------------------------ From: Peter Stemwedel Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:44:59 +0000 Organization: InterAccess Co. Blake Droke wrote: > I'm wondering, how does this differ from the Remote Call Forward > service that has been available for years, from both CLECs and ILECs? > Take for an example in my area (Memphis, TN), many, many businesses in > Olive Branch, MS (about 14 mi. southeast of downtown Memphis) have RCF > numbers from the Memphis Main central office. Olive Branch is a long > distance call for most Memphis telephone customers, but most businesses > there get RCF numbers in the Memphis Main exchange. I believe Ameritech claim may be that they have a switch physically located in each call center; Focal only has one switch. Of course every time you order a T1 with riders from Ameritech they assign a separate number for each DS0. Focal only has one number assigned to each hunt group. (I'm not sure if that's a function of them using a DMS500 rather than a 5E or not, but even with a T1 terminating into a Nortel from Ameritech they assign 24 numbers to it.) Peter ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #111 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 23 23:37:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA29315; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:37:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807240337.XAA29315@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #112 TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Jul 98 23:37:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell to Hang up on Firms That Cram Bills (Tad Cook) PacBell, MCI May Get Unprecedented Contract (Monty Solomon) Manhattan Telephone Problems Looking for Solutions (John Sanders) Book Review: "Killer Whale", Elizabeth Quinn (Rob Slade) Radio Commercial Promotes Toll-Free 877 (Mark J. Cuccia) UCLA Short Course: Digital Signal Processing for Cellular (Bill Goodin) Ameritech's New Call Screening Service (David Sorkin) AOL Reveals User Name in Court Case (Monty Solomon) Long Distance Joke (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Pacific Bell to hang up on firms that cram bills Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:17:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Stephen Buel Mercury News Staff Writer Pacific Bell no longer will provide billing services for 20 companies accused of bilking thousands of consumers by charging them for telecommunications services they didn't order. The suspensions were among a series of steps Pac Bell announced Wednesday in response to a new phone-industry campaign against the practice known as "cramming." A growing problem for local phone companies, cramming occurs when unscrupulous businesses load up consumer's phone bills with fraudulent charges. Heeding a plea from the nation's top telephone regulator, the regional Bells and other local phone companies unveiled voluntary guidelines Wednesday to combat the phantom charges. The guidelines, which Pac Bell generally plans to follow, should help keep unauthorized or indecipherable charges off consumers' bills. At least a half-million California consumers, and probably many more, are thought to have received bills for services they never ordered -- although there are no good estimates of cramming's pervasiveness. Many customers don't study their phone bills long enough to detect these renegade charges, which industry officials say frequently result from deceptive phone pitches or bogus sweepstakes entry forms. "It's obviously extremely lucrative for it to have become such a big deal in such a short amount of time," Pac Bell spokesman Stevan Allen said. The genesis of the problem is the federal requirement that telecommunications companies be permitted to bill their customers on the local phone company's monthly bill -- a change aimed at promoting competition. For Pac Bell, this requirement has produced billing relationships with hundreds of communications and information companies, from long-distance titans like AT&T and Sprint to tiny local firms offering paging, voice-mail, Internet access, and even phone-sex services. The 20 businesses booted by Pac Bell were of the smaller sort -- so small, in fact, that the phone company required them to submit their bills through a separate billing clearing house, Allen said. As a result, Pac Bell didn't have a contractual relationship with any of the firms, and in some cases it didn't even know their locations. Allen said Pac Bell is renegotiating its contracts with such clearing houses to give it a better picture of what kinds of services it's billing consumers for. Identities withheld Pac Bell declined to identify the 20 companies, citing company policy and the possible legal ramifications involved with publicly accusing the alleged crammers of fraud. "With the competitive landscape being the way it is, we are extremely sensitive to any accusations that this is anti-competitive," Allen said. "We have tried to work with companies throughout." Allen said the firms generally were providers of services for which there were monthly fees, such as psychic hotlines, debit cards and calling cards. All of the firms also generated a high volume of customer complaints or requests for refunds, he said. In many cases, Allen noted, the products or services were completely unrelated to telecommunications. Pacific Bell will no longer bill for any service with regular -- and often questionable -- monthly fees, he said. Wilson Lewis, chief of enforcement for the consumer services division of the California Public Utility Commission, said fraudulent charges often turn up under official-sounding names. For instance, the acronym FTC, which consumers might reasonably take to be the Federal Trade Commission, was actually the acronym of accused crammer Future Telephone Communications. While not necessarily on the list of companies Pac Bell will no longer do business with, the firm was convicted of defrauding consumers in Southern California, Lewis said. "It's a problem that we're very concerned about," Lewis said. "It's probably the most out-of-control problem that we have right now in the enforcement branch." In perhaps the most far-reaching charge of cramming yet reported in California, PUC officials recently raided the offices of Coral Communications, a Florida firm that Lewis said has been accused of cheating about 500,000 consumers out of a total of $5 million. The push to come up with an industrywide response began with an April 22 letter by William Kennard, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. In that letter, and again in a May 20 workshop, Kennard urged the telecommunications industry to develop a set of voluntary guidelines to help solve the problem. The guidelines announced Wednesday call on phone companies to screen the products and services that companies bill consumers for, verify that consumers actually have authorized the services they're charged for and provide enough billing detail for consumers to recognize and dispute questionable charges. Consumers also should be provided the option of controlling whether third parties have billing access to the phone bill. Industry task force The recommendations came from an industry task force that included representatives of GTE Corp. and Pac Bell's parent company, SBC Communications Inc. A GTE spokeswoman said Wednesday that many of the guidelines originated with her company, which largely plans to abide by them. In the Bay Area, GTE provides local phone service in Los Gatos and Morgan Hill. The PUC's Wilson praised the steps taken Wednesday by Pac Bell. "What they're doing is welcome here," he said. "It's not going to cure cramming, but it's a step in the right direction." ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: PacBell, MCI May Get Unprecedented Contract Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:52:43 -0400 BY KAREN KAPLAN AND ELIZABETH DOUGLASS Los Angeles Times California is poised to hand over its statewide phone system to a team made up of Pacific Bell and MCI, giving the companies a $1-billion contract that for the first time would privatize the government's telecommunications network, according to sources familiar with the decision. The contract, put out for bid last fall, would provide government employees with a range of services, including 300,000 phone lines, long-distance service, data transmission, Internet access, calling cards and video conferencing. Officials from the California Department of General Services and the state Department of Information Technology will announce the winner of the 10-year contract Tuesday morning in Sacramento. The phone network will replace CalNET, an in-house system the Department of General Services has run for the state since 1991. If CalNET were an independent business, it would be the third-largest phone company in California. By buying telecommunications services from private companies, the state hopes to save millions of dollars a year and avoid paying for costly equipment upgrades. Privatizing the phone network was one of the major recommendations proposed by Gov. Pete Wilson's Task Force on Government Technology. ``This is going to save a great deal of money -- the California taxpayer will be very happy with our announcement,'' said Pete Dufore, a spokesman for the General Services Department. ``Running a telephone system as large as this one with all the new technology is not necessarily the core competency of the state government.'' The MCI-PacBell team bested rival bids from long-distance giant AT&T and local phone company GTE. GTE led the team that built CalNET in the early 1990s and currently operates the network as a subcontractor to the state. State government officials would not identify the winning bidders late Monday. PacBell declined to discuss the announcement, and MCI and GTE spokesmen said they did not know who had won the contract. AT&T could not be reached. The deal is likely to be challenged in court, as is often the case with big-money contracts. Equipment-maker NEC America, ousted early in the bidding process, is said to among those planning to fight the pact in court. As part of the deal, MCI and Pacific Bell would essentially buy CalNET's physical assets. The companies would then invest in the network to upgrade switches and other key elements, said Dana Hoelzel,, assistant director of the State and Consumer Services Agency. When the contract ends, the two companies would own the network. After seven years, the state can again put the contract out to bid. Some observers have questioned the legality of the deal, citing a prohibition on the sale of state assets without first gaining approval from the legislature. Dufore said the transfer is legal. ``This has been gone over by our legal folks, and they feel that we're doing everything well within the spirit and the letter of the law,'' he said. In addition to benefiting from lower rates, the state will be relieved of $25 million in equipment debt and will no longer need to spend $10 million to relocate switches from buildings that have been damaged by earthquakes. The fate of the GTE employees now working on CalNET is unclear, but officials said state employees will not lose their jobs. ``However, their duties may change a little bit.'' Dufore said. One state telecommunications systems analyst, who asked not to be identified, said many CalNET employees are worried that they may be transferred to non-telecommunications positions. The employee also questioned the wisdom of selling off the state's network now that it has become self-sufficient after years of losses. The 35,000 state employees who use the phone network will not notice any difference, because the changes will affect only behind-the-scenes telecommunications equipment. Tens of thousands of workers at cities, counties, schools and other institutions around the state use the phone system as well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:26:19 -0400 From: John Sanders Reply-To: dejola@computer.net Subject: Manhattan Telephone Problems Looking for Solutions Organization: Computer.Net I oversee our telephone system in an office of roughly 60 people in Manhattan. I am not a trained telecommunications professional. We have a Rolm 9200 phone system and an Octel Overture 250 voice mail system. Our local carrier is Bell Atlantic and our long distance carrier is Frontier. Lately we have been plagued by sporadic problems completing calls, some of them local and others long distance. In addition we have had incoming problems. We have 16 DID trunks. Outside callers have reported they dial a direct dial number and the phone just rings and rings, or they receive busy signals, even though we later learn the intended recipient has been by his or her phone and off the phone. Sometimes when someone answers a phone they hear harsh intermittent buzzing. We usually call our phone vendor and a tech comes by usually within 24 hours and either finds a problem or tells us its a Bell Atlantic problem, at which time we turn the job over to Bell Atlantic. Sometimes we find out from Bell Atlantic that one or more (as many as eight recently) of our DID trunks are down (not blinking). Then our vendor talks to Bell Atlantic and reseats one or both of our DID trunks, which clears the problem and the formerly down trunks are blinking again in the central office. Case closed ... until next time. And lately there is always a next time. Other instances have occurred where we have found that on an intermittent basis we cannot make outgoing calls. With our system when you pick up the phone you randomly grab a c.o. line, one of 16. If the line you grab happens to be bad you go no where -- dead air. Eventually, if you're lucky, you grab a good line and complete your call. In these kinds of problems techs, both our vendor and Bell Atlantic, have found loose or disconnected pairs at demarcs either in our phone room forty floors above street level, or in the building's basement phone room which is said by techs to be a mess, a crow's nest with a gaggle of wires and cables, many in need, they say, of rehabilitation. I'm wondering what happens that can make our DID trunks go down and necessitate their being reseated. One Bell Atlantic tech told me that our building's DID trunks are very fragile and the slightest line noise or other anomoly can cause them to go down. He also said Bell Atlantic had been doing some badly needed rehabing in that basement phone space but they were pulled off the job because Bell Atlantic started getting so many trouble calls from the building's tenants, including us. How these pairs keep getting loose or disconnected is another mystery. Does anyone have any comments or know how one can get to the bottom of the recurring problems so that we can enjoy reliable telephone service on a sustained basis? Some in our office say we need a new phone system. Others say we need a different local carrier. Still others feel we need to hold Bell Atlantic's feet to the fire and demand that they do what they have to do to fix the problems permanentely I will be most grateful to hear from you. Thanks, John ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:07:18 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Killer Whale", Elizabeth Quinn Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKKLRWHL.RVW 980519 "Killer Whale", Elizabeth Quinn, 1997, 0-671-52770-3, U$5.99/C$7.99 %A Elizabeth Quinn ebarnard@magick.net www.magick.net/~ebarnard %C 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020 %D 1997 %G 0-671-52770-3 %I Simon & Schuster/Pocket Books %O U$5.99/C$7.99 +1-212-698-7541 %P 241 p. %T "Killer Whale" This book was *not* supposed to make it into the series. After all, how many mysteries set in America's last frontier and with a strong environmental emphasis do you expect to have some technical content? But it does, and the content is very good, at that. Email is used effectively and realistically, even to the point of being able to retrieve your email from a variety of computers. Some of the plot turns on the recovery of files that have been deleted. The one instance of data corruption is just a *tad* too convenient, and UNDELETE is not the only means of recovering data, but in comparison to most other mysteries and thrillers that have touched on computers this gets a very strong nine out of ten. The fact that the author has both an email address *and* a Web site comes as no surprise. Looking at other aspects of the work, the characters are very sympathetic and attractive. Background is solid, and backed up with a bibliography at the end of the text. (I was just a bit surprised that net references were not present.) The plotting is interesting and well paced. (I did figure out whodunnit about two thirds of the way through, but what do you expect from a professional paranoid?) I very much enjoyed it, I liked the fact that the computer content didn't make serious errors, and being able to put it into the series is a bonus. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKKLRWHL.RVW 980519 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:11:52 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Radio Commercial Promotes Toll-Free 877 I've started hearing a new nationally produced radio commercial, mostly on network/national programs on the ABC Radio Network's Dallas-based Satellite Music Network, promoting the new NANP Toll-Free SAC-NPA 877. The commercial is 'generic' in nature -- i.e., it doesn't promote any specific Long Distance nor Local telco. All it does is 'generically' inform the listening public that there is now a _third_ toll-free area code in use (in the NANP), 877, in addition to 800 and the recently (just shortly over two years ago) introduced 888 toll-free area codes. The 'tag-line' mentions that the commercial was sponsored by "SMS/800". SMS (if I remember right) is the "Service Management System", which is the 'top-level' administration/maintenance body for NANP-based toll-free (800/888/877/future) numbers. I think that either Lockheed-Martin Toll-Free's NASC body (Number Assignment Service Center) or Bellcore's DSMI subsidiary (Data Base Service Management Inc) presently is the "SMS/800" body. (But I'm not 100% certain _who_ actually 'owns' the SMS, though.) Now if the telco/carrier industry could have a generic radio/TV/ print commerical or advertisement mentioning that there are new area codes when the permissive date gets close, or during the permissive dialing period. Such an "industry" sponsored commercial or advertisement could also be 'generic', carrier-neutral. 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: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Digital Signal Processing for Cellular Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:45:46 -0700 On October 19-21, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Digital Signal Processing for Cellular Mobile Wireless Communications" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Zoran I. Kostic, PhD, Member of the Technical Staff, AT&T Bell Laboratories; and Babak Daneshrad, PhD, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering, UCLA. This course describes the application of digital signal processing to several practical cellular systems now deployed or to be deployed in the future. Basics of digital signal processing theory and cellular wireless communications systems are presented, followed by examples of TDMA and CDMA-based systems that describe step-by-step implementation of transceiver functions and subsystems. Architectures, algorithms, and software and hardware designs are presented, and algorithms used for physical layer transceivers are described, such as pulse shaping, synchronization, demodulation, equalization, interference rejection, and error correction coding. Floating point and fixed point issues are addressed as well, along with C-code and DSP assembly code designs. Lectures discuss the use of digital signal processors, ASICs and micro-controllers, including partitioning functions into the hardware. Hardware interfaces, interrupt structures, process flows, and sw/hw timing are addressed, and aspects of the course are devoted to the application of simulation tools for communications system design and performance evaluation, along with the use of digital signal processing in system-level simulations. One section of the course is devoted to the presentation of digital signal processing algorithms and techniques that are candidates for application in third-generation mobile wireless communications systems. The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials. The course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: David Sorkin Subject: Ameritech's New Call Screening Service Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:18:09 -0500 Organization: MCSNet Services This notice appeared in my Ameritech bill (local residential phone service) dated July 7, 1998: CALLER ID USERS CAN SCREEN OUT UNWANTED CALLS WITH PRIVACY MANAGER Ameritech will begin offering our new Privacy Manager with SalesScreener to Cller ID users, on a phased-in basis, starting July 14, 1998. This service protects your privacy by requiring callers to announce their name on calls marked "private", "out-of-area" or "unavailable" on your Caller ID display. You can then choose to answer or ignore the call. The SalesScreener feature lets you send a pre-recorded message to telemarketers informing them that you do not buy from telemarketers and legally requesting that your name be removed from their calling list. With Privacy Manager, you can protect your privacy at home by keeping telemarketers and unwanted calls from disturbing you. Privacy Manager with SalesScreener is just $3.95 per month, plus the monthly rate for Caller ID with Name. Order before August 13, 1998 and receive free installation. To subscribe or for more information, call us at 1-800-244-4444. Some restrictions apply. Not available in all areas. ----- [Ameritech charges $8/month for Caller ID with Name.] I called Ameritech's 800 number on July 15 and was told that the new Privacy Manager service was not yet available, and had been delayed because it wasn't ready. The representative couldn't pull up any other information about the service on his computer screen. He mentioned "anonymous call rejection" but implied that Privacy Manager is something slightly different -- perhaps because it gives the caller a chance to get the call put through. I believe I've heard that a similar service may be available in California or elsewhere. Can anyone who's used such a service (one offered by a phone company, not a Radio Shack plug-in device that does something similar) address these questions? - Can the service distinguish between an intentionally blocked number (e.g., a telemarketer hiding behind a Centrex system, or a harasser who blocks Caller ID on a per-call basis) and a caller whose phone isn't capable of sending Caller ID data (e.g., a cellular phone user)? - How does the caller "announce" his or her name -- by speaking it to a computer (as in a collect call), or by typing in his or her own phone number? Based upon what the Ameritech rep's supervisor guessed, the former is true, and then the computer rings the called party and asks whether he or she wants to accept the call. How much of a delay is introduced by this process (for both caller and called party)? - If one frequently receives both "good" and "bad" calls without Caller ID data, does the burden this service would place on the "good" callers outweigh the relief from the "bad" callers? David Sorkin http://www.sork.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:12:00 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AOL Reveals User Name in Court Case http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2120868,00.html By Michael Fitzgerald, ZDNN July 18, 1998 11:39 AM PT In a case that may stifle free speech online, America Online Inc. has provided the real identity of one of its users to the Orange County Register, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that AOL has revealed to the Register the identity of a user who ran a Web site devoted to the Santa Ana, Calif. paper. The site featured anonymously submitted rumors, gossip and complaints about the paper, the Times said, and was run by an AOL subscriber who used "Slave4OCR" as a tag. The Times said the site had been taken down this past Wednesday. The Times said AOL (NYSE:AOL) released the name on Tuesday, after it was subpoenaed by Freedom Communications Inc., an Irvine, Calif. company that owns the Register. Freedom has filed a trademark infringement suit against two "John Doe" defendants for running a site called the "Orange County unRegistered Press," the Times said. AOL notified "Slave4OCR" that it would reveal its owner's identity to Freedom, the Times said. The Times quoted legal experts as saying they were concerned that the suit might result in the limit of First Amendment rights on the Internet, and noted that it was ironic that a news organization of the libertarian bent of the Register could be responsible for this. Unlike a recent case where a customer service representative gave the U.S. Navy the name of a user, which then resulted in the beginning of a nasty court case. The Times said Freedom obtained the name by using a loophole in AOL's terms of service policy. AOL says that it will release a member's personal information to comply with a valid legal process, such as a search warrant, subpoena or court order. Once notified, AOL contacts the targeted member and alerts him of the legal action, the paper said. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Long Distance Joke Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:44:22 -0400 http://www.arrgh.pair.com/jokes/files/joke9522.htm ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #112 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 28 23:47:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA04748; Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:47:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807290347.XAA04748@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #114 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Jul 98 23:47:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 114 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Fleet Bank Requires 900 Number to Verify Funds (Phil Leonard) How to Fix Erroneous Pay-Phone Surcharges? (keith@tcsi.com) Re: The Ultimate Long-Distance Combo Deal (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging (Ed Ellers) TCG Applauds Federal Court Decision for ISP Traffic (areacode-info.com) 900 MHz Phone to Laptop Modem ... How? (Samir Agarwal) Pocketalk, Pocket-Sized Portable Answering Machine (Mike Pollock) 424 Mandatory 11 Digit Dialing Starts Early - For GTE (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Dave Perrussel) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Melvin Klassen) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Mats Wichmann) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Thomas P. Brisco) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Reed) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections (Steve Sobol) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: pleonard@newsguy.com (Phil Leonard) Subject: Fleet Bank Requires 900 Number to Verify Funds Date: Tue, 28Jul 1998 23:21:34 GMT Organization: S.P.O.T.D. http://extra.newsguy.com/~pleonard An "interesting" problem occurred at work yesterday. I had to verify funds on a returned check that was drawn on Fleet Bank in Boston. After wading through a slew of menu options, there was no option for a non-Fleet customer trying to verify funds, so after listening to about 15 different options, I was instructed to dial "0" for customer assistance. After being put on hold and listening to some silly commercials for another 5 minutes, an operator tells me I have to dial a 900 number to verify the check. Once I heard 900, I of course asked, "How much?" and I was told that a $2 US charge would appear on my phone bill. Since this was a $6500 check, it was worth it. Problem is, that our company (as most companies do) had blocked all 900 outgoing calls. After dialing "900" failed, and no one in our company could do anything about it, I used an employee's cell phone. For some reason that was blocked as well once I hit "900". I vaguely remembered that we did have a Fleet account somewhere during my "futile frustration" and went through the whole set of menu options again finding the number to enter for Fleet Bank customers verifying a customer's check, and was simply asked (by computer) for our Fleet account number (no other verification whatsoever) in order to waive the $2 charge. Of course the check was still no good after all of this. Thoughts include what an absolute waste of time (certainly more than $2 of my time) and what an inconvenience for a non-Fleet bank customer and why wasn't this 900 option available in the original menu and banks are really starting to rip off the public and don't these sort of decisions ever get made after talking to the ultimate users? etc. etc. Simply amazing. ------------------------------ From: remove_this_part_to_email_keith@tcsi.com Subject: How to Fix Erroneous Pay-Phone Surcharges? Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:51:16 GMT Organization: NetVista Info Corp I have an ongoing problem with payphone surcharges for calling card calls from a particular phone which is *not* a payphone. I'm pretty sure that this is due to an erroneous database at the local telco (Bell South), but getting it fixed has proved intractable. Nobody at Bell South seems to know how their system flags pay phone-originated calls when they are delivered to the long-distance network, or even that such a system exists. Given that fact, it's not surprising that they can't identify the trouble. Are there any magic words that I need to use to describe this problem, or a special department that I need to ask for? Keith Jarett jarettk "at" aval.com Please edit my email address when replying ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: The Ultimate Long-Distance Combo Deal Date: 28 Jul 1998 03:27:16 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Followup to: By author: jarettk@removethis.aval.com In newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom > What if you make a lot of international calls, and you'd really like > to get better rates? Easy: just guesstimate your $40 worth of calls > using Sprint, then switch to another service. The one I've found is > Quest Communications, at (800) 466-0116. They use IP telephony on > their own fiber optic backbone. There's a slight delay, similar to > that of a satellite hop. > Quest will sign you up without changing your default carrier (you > didn't forget the PIC freeze, right?) and you just dial 1010056 in > front of your international calls. Their rates to Europe are 40% > below Sprint's, and their Caribbean rates are simply amazing. No, I > don't have any affiliation with Quest. Here is a carrier I have tried with reasonable success: Telegroup, Inc. http://www.tgld.com/ Their rates to some specific countries (e.g. UK, Sweden, Australia) are *very* good compared to the Big Three ($0.12, $0.14, $0.16 respectively); these probably reflect the countries they have their own wires into, I would guess. I use their auxilliary service (dial an 800 number, like a calling card.) Their chief disadvantage (besides the problems I had getting subscribed to their service in the first place) seems to be a high rate of disconnects; and it seems a call is *always* terminated shortly after 90 minutes. To me, this is mostly a nuisance, but I probably would not recommend them for business use (making a customer think you hung up on them can be expensive!) I have no affiliation with Telegroup except as a mostly satisfied customer. -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 I am Bahai -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Miserables ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Ameritech Charges Illinois Competitor With Bootlegging Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:50:49 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Blake Droke wrote: "I'm wondering, how does this differ from the Remote Call Forward service that has been available for years, from both CLECs and ILECs?" The difference is that RCF and FX are both based on the use of a CO *in the desired area.* Here's another good example -- a company in Louisville, Kentucky, that does a lot of business with Fort Knox might want to have either RCF or FX to provide a local phone number in Radcliff. If they do it through the ILEC the call goes to a CO in Frankfort and then is either forwarded, or transported, from there to the customer's real CO and then to the customer. If the customer makes a call to Fort Knox on the FX line that call is transported to the Radcliff CO and then handled in the usual way in that area. Now here's the tricky part. If a hundred Louisville companies each have RCF or FX in Radcliff through the ILEC, that will consume a hundred numbers in whatever NXX(s) they are in, since the ILEC already has a CO there. If, however, a facilities-based CLEC starts providing FX-to-Radcliff to Louisville customers using a Louisville switch -- without going through an existing switch in Radcliff -- they will need an entire NXX of their own (10,000 numbers) in Radcliff to do it whether or not they're actually providing local service in Radcliff. If Focal is really using a block of 10,000 numbers to serve a few hundred lines in a given suburb, I'd say that's a waste. But if they are in fact providing local service in a real way in the suburban areas involved, then that would be very different. ------------------------------ Reply-To: areacode-info.com webmaster From: areacode-info.com webmaster Subject: TCG Applauds Federal Court Decision for ISP Traffic Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 05:08:19 -0400 CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 22, 1998-- Ameritech Must Comply With Its Illinois Contracts Teleport Communications Group Inc. (TCG/NASDAQ: TCGI) today applauded the decision of a federal court judge finding that Ameritech must resume paying TCG compensation for terminating local calls to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The federal court affirmed the earlier decision of the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) requiring Ameritech to comply with its contracts and pay TCG for use of its facilities. Ameritech paid TCG compensation for such calls for months, but unilaterally ceased making these payments in July of 1997. This case was initiated by a TCG complaint to the ICC. "We are pleased that Judge David H. Coar affirmed the ICC decision and reached the same conclusion as two other federal courts, one state court and 19 state public utility commissions: local telephone calls from a consumer to an ISP are just that, local telephone calls," said Madelon Kuchera, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for TCG's Central Region. "We hope that this decision will encourage Ameritech to honor its contracts and pay us for the call termination we provide to Ameritech." Teleport Communications Group is the nation's first and largest Competitive Local Telecommunications Carrier (CLEC), using both fiber-optic and broadband wireless service to provide information-intensive businesses with an array of advanced local and long distance voice, data, video and Internet services. TCG currently operates in 83 major markets. On January 8, 1998, AT&T and TCG agreed to merge in a transaction that at the close of business that day was valued at $11.3 billion. The agreement is subject to state and federal regulatory approval. For more information on TCG, visit its website at www.tcg.com. ------------------------------ From: samir@tcsi.com (Samir Agarwal) Subject: 900 MHz Phone to Laptop Modem ... How? Date: 28 Jul 1998 22:53:50 GMT Organization: TCSI, Berkeley, California Hi, I have done my rounds of CompUSA and Radio Shack without any luck and decided to seek shelter in this newsgroup. I have a 900MHz cordless phone. The handset has an opening where you can plug in a headset jack (like the ones you see on walkman headphones). I am looking for a cable whose one end is a jack such as the headset's and the other a regular phone jack (RJ11?). I can plug the phone jack into the laptop modem and then I could move with my laptop and phone anywhere in the house with no (phone) strings attached. Radio Shack tells me that such things are not made and not feasible. Perhaps someone out there has thought of this (or done this). Please let me know. Thanks, Samir Agarwal TCSI | email : samir@tcsi.com 1080 Marina Village Pkwy. | Work : (510) 749-8730 Alameda, CA 94501 | ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Pocketalk Pocket-sized Portable Answering Machine Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:55:12 -0400 I'll take one! --------------------- Friday July 24, 9:39 am Eastern Time Company Press Release Pocketalk, the Pocket-sized Portable Answering Machine, is Launched in the Tri-state Metro Area by CONXUS Product Supported By Motorola Voice Messaging Technology Debut in New York City on July 27 GREENVILLE, SC--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 24, 1998-- Building on positive results from in-market trials of advanced voice messaging service in New York, CONXUS(TM) Communications today announced the launch of Pocketalk(TM), ``the answering machine for your pocket,'' in the Tri-State New York City metro area. With an installed user base already running ahead of projections, Pocketalk is one of the most successful ``new technology'' product launches in recent memory. It is estimated that nearly 90 million people in major cities will be covered by the various network systems. The product, which combines the user-friendly functionality of an answering machine and the convenience of wireless technology, will be available to New York City area residents beginning July 27, 1998. The coverage area for the product includes all of New York City as well as Bridgeport and Greenwich, CT extending into southern Westchester, all of Rockland County and Long Island northeast past Glen Cove and southeast beyond Patchogue. In New Jersey, the coverage area includes Edison extending southeast to Middletown and northwest past Morristown. ``We are excited to have the opportunity to bring advanced voice messaging service to Tri-State area consumers,'' stated Bill deKay, President, CONXUS. ``What's so compelling about this development is that it is a sophisticated new technology for messaging that offers the human touch of a voice message.'' The product, manufactured by Motorola, is being rolled out to major markets across the country by CONXUS. Initially, it was launched in South Florida markets, including Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, and the Washington/Baltimore metro area. In early 1998, Pocketalk service was made available in Dallas and Houston, Texas, Orlando and Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida, as well as Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta. New York joins Philadelphia as the most recent market launched. Ideal for people on the go, Pocketalk receives private messages in the caller's own voice -- eliminating the need to find a phone to check messages. ``When you consider that 80 percent of U.S. households use answering machines, it's easy to see why Pocketalk appeals to a broad range of consumers for their everyday communication needs,'' added deKay. ``This pocket-sized device is equipped with familiar features, making it ideal for both current answering machine users and for those new to wireless technology. It's truly a user-friendly way to stay in touch.'' ``There is significant consumer interest and enthusiasm for voice messaging, which offers the benefits of a fully functioning answering machine in a convenient, go-anywhere communications tool,'' according to Ellen Foreman, Director of Marketing, Global Two-Way Subscriber Product Division, Motorola. ``Motorola will help drive awareness of the pocket answering machine through an aggressive marketing program in top metro areas over the coming year.'' Pocketalk operates on a special wireless network based on Motorola's InFLEXion(TM) technology, which allows high-speed transmission of voice messages and translates to reliable -- and assured -- voice message delivery. ``We have learned from experience the importance of a reliable, high-quality network,'' noted Cecil Duffie, CEO of CONXUS. ``Our engineering team has designed and built a system that offers consistent in-building penetration throughout a sizable coverage footprint. Each market was then thoroughly grid- tested with literally thousands of pages to ensure that rigorous system performance standards were met.'' Service for Pocketalk will be offered by CONXUS, through its telecom industry distribution partners and hundreds of local resellers. ``We are excited by the enthusiastic response to Pocketalk by our broad network of distribution partners,'' added Steve Cook, COO of CONXUS. ``This product is widely viewed as one which can expand the industry.'' The systems for Pocketalk utilize technology and equipment supplied by Motorola (NYSE: MOT - news) and Glenayre Technologies (NASDAQ: GEMS - news). CONXUS(TM) Communications, Inc., headquartered in Greenville, S.C., is developing a nationwide narrowband PCS network based on Motorola's InFLEXion technology. The company launched its first service, Pocketalk(TM) pocket answering machine, in 1997, which will be followed by Pocketext(TM) portable email. For more information about Pocketalk, visit the CONXUS website at www.pocketalk.com. Glenayre Technologies Inc. is a worldwide provider of telecommunications infrastructure products and systems serving the paging, cellular, PCS, telco, voice processing and point-to-point wireless service provider markets. Glenayre's net sales exceeded $390 million in 1996 and the company employs approximately 2,400 people worldwide. Motorola is one of the world's leading providers of wireless communications, semiconductors and advanced electronic systems, components and services. Major equipment businesses include paging and data communications, cellular telephones, two-way radio, personal communications, automotive, defense and space electronics and computers. Motorola semiconductors power communication devices, computers and millions of other products. Motorola's 1997 sales were $29.8 billion. ---- Contact: Geltzer & Company, Inc., 212/575-1976 Steve Slutzky, sslutzky@geltzerpr.com Paula Goldstein, pgoldstein@geltzerpr.com ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: 424 Mandatory 11 Digit Dialing Starts Early - For GTE Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:28:25 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. Looks like it's been fixed now, but for some GTE exchanges, it appears as though 11 digit dialing was made mandatory. We couldn't get to certain 310 GTE exchanges from our MCI-provided local service in 310-land, though 11-digit dialing to those same sites via our IXP worked fine. MCI says other customers had the same problem, but it looks like MCI fixed it in their own switch (or likewise with GTE, though I have my doubts that they could do that on such short notice.). Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: bbscorner@juno.com (Dave Perrussel) Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:57:47 GMT Organization: The BBS Corner On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:52:10 -0400, Steve Liu wrote: > I just got a 56k modem and have still not been able to ever get any > connection above 26.4kbs. I understand that 56kbs is actually not > possible currently but I expected at least 40kbs. So, I called Bell > Atlantic about this and asked if there was anything that can be done > and the CSR just told me that the lines are only guaranteed for > 9.6kbs, is this true? She said that nothing can be done unless I get > an ISDN line? Does this mean that I have no chance of getting > connection above 26.4kbs unless I pay more for ISDN? I find this That's that most local telcos guarantee is a 9.6k connection. In most instances you should get more. It also depends on what local telco switch you get and if your lines are multiplexed. Local switches - if you have a modern switch (DMS-100, 5ESS or similar all-digital switch) then 56k is POSSIBLE (actually 53k due to FCC regs) but is not guaranteed. If you are on an older switch (1AESS or similar - or even older step-by-step or crossbar) it is not possible to get much better than 28.8k since the way that 56k works is that there is only one D/A conversion (digital to analog). If you have more than one D/A between you and an ISP, then its not possible to get the high data rate. Multiplexed lines - you did not mention whether or not you have more than one phone line in your house. If you have more than one line, the telephone company may have "multiplexed" the lines where 2 or more lines (sometimes up to 4 or 8) can be placed on one pair of wires. Where you used to have only one line on one pair of wires can be changed so you can share the same wires using multiplex technology. There's a "baseband" (regular) and a "multiplexed" line where its modulated at a high frequency (analog) or digitized (digital) and demultiplexed in the central office switch. That's fine and dandy for most cases for voice. However, when it comes to data this does not work well. My step son's data line was put on a multplexed line and he only got 24k at best. On the voice line (baseband) he got 40k or better. You and your neighbors can also be sharing a multiplexed line so even if you had one line you could suffer the same problem. Of course you can tell the phone company to switch what line is what - if you have a copper pair all to yourself. Hope this sheds some light on the matter. Dave Perrussel Webmaster - Telephone World http://phworld.home.ml.org or http://members.xoom.com/phworld ------------------------------ From: Klassen@uvic.ca (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: 28 Jul 1998 20:59:36 GMT Organization: University of Victoria On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:52:10, Steve Liu wrote: > I just got a 56k modem and have still not been able to ever get any > connection above 26.4kbs. What should I do? Surf the web, to: http://WWW.56K.COM and read about "slow connects". ------------------------------ From: xyzmats@laplaza.org (Mats Wichmann) Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:33:19 GMT Organization: Southwest Cyberport Reply-To: xyzmats@laplaza.org (Mats Wichmann) On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:52:10 -0400, Steve Liu wrote: > I just got a 56k modem and have still not been able to ever get any > connection above 26.4kbs. I understand that 56kbs is actually not > possible currently but I expected at least 40kbs. So, I called Bell > Atlantic about this and asked if there was anything that can be done > and the CSR just told me that the lines are only guaranteed for > 9.6kbs, is this true? It's more like 14.4kbps. Mats Wichmann (Anti-spam stuff: to reply remove the "xyz" from the address xyzmats@laplaza.org. Not that it helps much...) ------------------------------ From: Thomas P. Brisco Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:55:44 +0000 Organization: American Interactive Media Whats amusing is that when I used to call in about 9600bps modems, Bell Titanic would claim that the lines weren't guarenteed for anything about 2400 baud ... (which is probably more correct given the characteristics for the line designed for a human voice) Thomas P. Brisco (v) 212 539 0706 Network Architect (f) 212 538 8380 American Interactive Media tbrisco@featfirst.com ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:12:20 -0600 Have you read all the FAQs at www.56k.com and www.v90.com ?? It is very possible for you to never get "56K" speeds, for a variety of reasons. If you read all the fine print, nobody ever *guaranteed* that anybody would get "56K" speeds. (for that matter, even 28.8/33.6 is not "guaranteed". Various State PUCs control what is minimum quality of local phone service (not the FCC), and most have no rule re modem speeds specifically anyway (or they are ridiculously low like 2400bps). The modem speed you can wring out of a *specific* local loop is very much a hit or miss situation. That's partly why Cable Modem and xDSL services are being rolled out and accepted. ISDN is now only used if they are not available (yet). Also lurk awhile at comp.dcom.modems and see what others experince is. Personally I went from consistent V.34/28.8K connections to K56flex/50K connections when I replaced V34+ modem with K56/V90 model. (ISP is K56) Waiting for Cable Modem(1-2 years away) Good Luck, Reed ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:22:35 -0400 Organization: The Cesspool There are a couple of things that could be causing your problem. The first is that you might have a bad pair. This is common in Bell Atlantic's New England territory. 56K connections require that there's only one analog to digital conversion, or else they won't give stellar performance. Your only mistake was mentioning that is was a modem line. Never, never, ever tell a phone company drone what the line is for, just say there's noise on the line. And harass them constantly. That's the only way to deal with "The Phone Company", and as far as Bell Atlantic is concerned, they don't have to care because they're the phone company. That's why I don't use Bell Atlantic anymore. Tony ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@nstc.com (Steve Sobol - BOFH) Subject: Re: Line Quality For Modem Connections Date: 28 Jul 1998 04:09:40 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET Rumor has it that liu@ny.amarex.com said: > So, I called Bell > Atlantic about this and asked if there was anything that can be done > and the CSR just told me that the lines are only guaranteed for > 9.6kbs, is this true? This is what most telcos will tell you. It IS true that the 56K modem protocols *really* *really* stretch the limits of an analog phone line ... however, there are several things to consider when making a 56K connection. 1. Obviously you must be running the same 56K protocol as your ISP. 2. The distance from the telco Central Office servicing your line influences how likely you are to be able to make a good connection. 3. Sometimes the telco will put splitters on the lines at the CO that will allow them to service more phone numbers without making a significant investment in equipment. This may be affecting your ability to connect at high-speed. In your case, since (according to your signature) you are in an area with many more phone lines than many other metropolitan areas, I think this definitely may be a factor. 4. If you have noisy lines, this affects the ability to make a good connection with any modem. High-speed modems are especially sensitive, and just because you don't *hear* noise doesn't mean there isn't any. Bell Atlantic should at least be willing to check your line for noise. > She said that nothing can be done unless I get an ISDN line? ISDN isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's digital both ways (as opposed to 56K analog, which isn't) and does not suffer from analog problems like line noise. Of course, I don't know if ISDN is a practical idea for you. I happen to have the good fortune to live in an area with some of the lowest ISDN rates in the country (and I'm using ISDN now and would not want to switch back). You may not have ISDN available to you, or it might be quite expensive. > What should I do? As mentioned, first ask BA to check for line noise. Also, talk to your ISP, since they will undoubtedly know more about the phone lines in the New York area than I do, and may have suggestions that I have failed to give you. I live in Cleveland, myself, and have no clue how telephone service is out in NYC, and I've never had to deal with Bell Atlantic. :> Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corporation [www.nstc.com] Founding Member/ISP Liaison/Network Administrator, F.R.E.E. [www.ybecker.net] Occasional Tech Support Droid, New Age Consulting Service Inc [www.nacs.net] Providing Dialup Internet Access and Web Hosting & Design to Northern Ohio and the World... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #114 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 30 00:14:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA04865; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:14:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:14:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199807300414.AAA04865@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #113 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 Jul 98 13:30:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 113 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #142, July 27, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Bell Atlantic and GTE - Reportedly Talking Merger (Jon Stahl) Seeking Introductory Texts on Cellular Standards (Misha Davidson) US Telecom Merger Frenzy Continues (Tad Cook) Outgoing But no Incoming Service Because of Cable Shortage? (Roy Smith) Book Review: "The Web Navigator", Paul Gilster (Rob Slade) Wanted: GR-303 Test Site (5ESS, DMS100, etc.) (Mike Dorin) US Worst Slamming? (Anthony Argyriou) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 28 Jul 1998 11:12:13 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #142, July 27, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 142: July 27, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Telus Offers Flat-Rate LD ** Local Number Portability Starts This Week ** CRTC Favors Deregulation of Telco Internet Services ** Cablecos Rename, Reprice Internet Access ** Bell Writes Off TV Trial ** Lucent Wins Sprint Local Phone Equipment Deal ** BC Tel Offers Anonymous Call Block ** AT&T, BT Form Global Venture ** Distributel Announces Flat-Rate Plan ** Rate Rebalancing for Northwestel ** Videon Intros 10 Mbps Internet Access ** Bell in Telecom Venture Fund ** BC Tel Takes InfoInterActive ICM ** AT&T-Teleport Deal Okayed ** Rates Set for Directory File Service ** Stentor Adds U.S. Calling Option ** Microcell & Nortel Join for Wireless Data ** Canada Payphone Plans Internet Kiosks ** Cantel Extends "Pay As You Go" Plan ** Teleglobe-Excel -- "Worse Than Corel-WordPerfect" ============================================================ TELUS OFFERS FLAT-RATE LD: Telus's new "Your Way Unlimited" plan offers Alberta residential customers unlimited evening and weekend long distance calls in Canada for $19.95 a month. Daytime weekday calls in Canada, and all U.S. calls, are 22 cents/minute. Telus says it will refund the difference if a customer would have paid less using the main calling plans offered by AT&T or Sprint. LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY STARTS THIS WEEK: Local Number Portability, which allows customers to change local phone companies without changing phone numbers, will be commercially available in Calgary and Vancouver on July 31. Toronto and Montreal will get LNP at the end of August. CRTC FAVORS DEREGULATION OF TELCO INTERNET SERVICES: In Telecom Public Notice 98-17, the CRTC invites comment on its "preliminary view" that it would be "appropriate to forbear from regulating" the Internet services provided by telephone companies and other carriers. To participate, notify the CRTC by August 21; comments are due by August 31. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1998/p9817_0.txt CABLECOS RENAME, REPRICE INTERNET ACCESS: Cablecos Shaw and Rogers have changed the name of their "Wave" high-speed Internet access service to Shaw@Home and Rogers@Home, and cut the monthly fee to $39.95. BELL WRITES OFF TV TRIAL: BCE Inc's second-quarter financial statement includes a complete write-off of its "TotalVision" multimedia trial in London, Ontario, and Repentigny, Quebec. The $100-Million charge reflects Bell's decision to compete in the TV market using the ExpressVu satellite service rather than a fiber-coax network. ** Bell President John MacDonald discusses Bell's changed view of broadband and multimedia services in an exclusive interview in the current issue of Telemanagement. (To subscribe, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225.) LUCENT WINS SPRINT LOCAL PHONE EQUIPMENT DEAL: Sprint Canada has awarded Lucent Technologies a contract worth up to $400 million, to provide the switches, access systems, and software for Sprint's planned local telephone service. Sprint says it will enter the local telephone market early in 1999, and roll out to 25 cities within three years. BC TEL OFFERS ANONYMOUS CALL BLOCK: BC Tel's new Anonymous Call Block, activated by a star code, blocks calls from callers who block the display of their names or numbers. It is free to Call Display Plus users. AT&T, BT FORM GLOBAL VENTURE: AT&T Corp. and BT (British Telecom) are forming a joint venture with US$11 Billion expected annual revenues to provide and market global communications services. DISTRIBUTEL ANNOUNCES FLAT-RATE PLAN: Distributel now offers unlimited evening and weekend residential calls in its Ontario-Quebec calling area for $15.95/month; daytime minutes are 15 cents. RATE REBALANCING FOR NORTHWESTEL: CRTC Telecom Order 98-717 approves Northwestel's rate rebalancing proposal, which includes a $4 local service increase, effective August 1. VIDEON INTROS 10 MBPS INTERNET ACCESS: Winnipeg businesses can now get 10-megabit-a-second Internet connections from Videon FiberLink for $549/month, including Internet access charges. BELL IN TELECOM VENTURE FUND: Bell Canada is the corporate partner in CenCom V, a new "electronic communications venture incubator" formed by New York-based North River Ventures. Other partners Centennial Funds of Denver and Vanguard Venture Partners of Palo Alto. BC TEL TAKES INFOINTERACTIVE ICM: BC Tel will deploy Halifax-based InfoInterActive's Internet Call Manager, which notifies users when a voice call is waiting on a line connected to the Internet. (See Telecom Update #139) ** InfoInterActive says that Bellcore (Bell Communications Research) has agreed to help distribute ICM in the U.S. AT&T-TELEPORT DEAL OKAYED: On July 23, the Federal Communications Commission okayed AT&T's $11.3-Billion purchase of Teleport Communications Group. Teleport is the parent company of Canadian long distance reseller ACC TelEnterprises. RATES SET FOR DIRECTORY FILE SERVICE: In Telecom Order 98- 728, the CRTC sets the rates that directory publishers must pay to obtain telephone listings from Stentor. The Commission cut the rates sought by the telcos by about 25%. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o98728_0.txt STENTOR ADDS U.S. CALLING OPTION: The Stentor alliance has established a toll-free number, 1-800-555-1111, which allows customers, while in the U.S., to connect directly to Stentor's network and use their Stentor calling cards. MICROCELL & NORTEL JOIN FOR WIRELESS DATA: Microcell, Northern Telecom, GSM Capital, and Omnipoint Communications have formed a joint venture to develop information, e- commerce, locating, and other data services for PCS wireless phones. Market trials are to start by year end. (See Telecom Update #133) CANADA PAYPHONE PLANS INTERNET KIOSKS: Canada Payphone has placed a $1.1 Million order for "hundreds" of multimedia Internet kiosks from Toronto-based King Products; deployment begins in October. (See Telecom Update #128) ** Calgary's Palco Telecom, has signed a deal to distribute payphones made by Missouri-based Acoustics Development Corp. CANTEL EXTENDS "PAY AS YOU GO" PLAN: Eight weeks after its launch in seven Canadian cities, Rogers Cantel's Pay as You Go prepaid analog cellular service has 20,000 customers and has begun a rollout in 25 additional cities. (See Telecom Update #134) TELEGLOBE-EXCEL -- "WORSE THAN COREL-WORDPERFECT": In the July August issue of Telemanagement, Ian Angus explains why he thinks the Teleglobe-Excel merger "is worse than Corel's decision to buy WordPerfect." ** Also in this issue: Henry Dortmans reveals "How to Waste Money on a Consultant." ** For subscription information, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week, at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (Jon Stahl) Subject: Bell Atlantic and GTE - Reportedly Talking Merger Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:02:15 +0000 The following 'hit' the news wires 7/27. This is clipped from Bloomberg News at their web-site (URL: http://www.bloomberg.com): Mon, 27 Jul 1998, 11:42am EDT Bell Atlantic, GTE Reported to Be Discussing Merger Worth Up to US$55 Bell Atlantic and GTE Discuss Merger, Person Says (Update4) (Updates with attribution to person familiar with discussions.) New York, July 27 (Bloomberg) -- Bell Atlantic Corp., the largest U.S. local phone company, and GTE Corp. held talks about a merger valued at about $55 billion that would give the companies control of a third of the U.S. local service market, said a person familiar with the discussions. An agreement could come as soon as this week, though the talks may still break down, the person said. Bell Atlantic President and Chief Executive Ivan Seidenberg declined to comment, as did officials at GTE, the No. 3 local company. The combined company, with about $53.5 billion in annual sales and 63 million phone lines, would be a stronger competitor to SBC Communications Inc., the No. 2 local phone company, which recently agreed to buy Ameritech Corp. for $70.3 billion. The global phone industry is consolidating at an unprecedented pace as markets open to competition and companies seek to offer a full range of services through one bill. ``We're seeing a battle of Titans,'' said Jeffrey Kagan, president of market researcher Kagan Telecom Associates. ``The companies all feel like they've got to get bigger.'' The combination, first reported by the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, is sure to draw close scrutiny from U.S. regulators. Bell Atlantic and GTE have extensive and overlapping local and wireless operations. Bell Atlantic is prohibited from providing long-distance services, while GTE has more than 2 million long-distance customers. ``These are two companies that would have probably gone head- to-head against each other,'' Kagan said. Stamford, Connecticut-based GTE has been moving quickly to push into the fast-growing data market. Last year, it paid $616 million for Internet service provider BBN Corp., a pioneer in the industry, connecting companies to the global computer network. ========================== It is surely beginning to look like what many of the telecom industry analyst's have been predicting for some time: the telecommunications and data markets will soon be 'controlled' by just a few (maybe one?) very large corporation(s). Too bad the old 'Bell System' wasn't left alone because there must be something in that old phrase that says something like: "what comes around, goes around." Because an almost exact replica of its old self is seemingly starting to reamerge from it's ashes - albeit under a different name but it is coming back, as surely as day follows night (or is that night following day?). ------------------------------ From: Misha Davidson Subject: Seeking Introductory Texts on Cellular Standards Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 19:52:59 +0400 Dear all, Could you please point me to web sites where I could find some introductory texts on current cellular standards AMPS, GSM, CDMA, DCS, NMT. I am interested in both technology and economics (cost structure, economies of scale etc.) of those standards, and also comparisons of their relative advantages and disadvantages. I would appreciate your responding to either news group or directly to my e-mail davidson@skate.ru. Thank you, Misha Davidson ------------------------------ Subject: US Telecom Merger Frenzy Continues Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 21:49:41 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Jessica Hall NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. telecommunications companies continue to race for partners as the voice and data business becomes increasingly global and the Internet blurs country borders. "Everyone's in play. Everyone's always in play for the right price. ... The people who are the busiest right now are the investment bankers coming up with proposals on how to roll up these different companies," said Daniel Briere, president of industry consulting firm TeleChoice Inc. Bell Atlantic Corp. and GTE Corp. are holding merger talks to create a combined company with revenues of about $53 billion and control of about one-third of the local telephone market, a source familiar with negotiations said Monday. These talks follow the announcement Sunday by AT&T Corp. and British Telecommunications Plc that they would merge their international operations in a $10 billion global partnership. These deals, on the heels of other megamergers in the industry, puts new pressure on the other regional carriers and long-distance companies to find a mate before all the prime partners are gone. "Competition of the future is nothing like that of yesterday, and the phone companies of the future look nothing like they did in the past," said Jeffrey Kagan of Kagan Telecom Associates. Each new deal stretches the concept of a telecommunications giant, creating a large scale on which companies must compete. Companies must be able to provide a wider range of services to customers who want the convenience of having their telephone, Internet, wireless and paging service from one provider on one bill. Traditional voice telephone carriers are increasingly becoming data companies due to the explosive popularity of the Internet and data services. Corporate clients also require a more sophisticated level of service as their own businesses become more global and more fast-paced and competitive. "Solo companies can survive. But they will not thrive if they can't compete on the same level as the titans," Kagan said. Telecommunications companies have been snatching up rivals to acquire new businesses or expertise such as data services or wireless technology, and to extend their geographic coverage to serve a wider range of customers. The AT&T-BT alliance "puts a lot of pressure on Sprint. They need to their act together with GlobalOne. Sprint is really at the crossroads where they could really fall behind," Briere said. GlobalOne is Sprint Corp.'s international partnership with Deutsche Telekom AG and France Telecom. Sprint has said in the past that it believes it can thrive on its own. but analysts expect the company would agree to a takeover for a high enough premium. The possible GTE-Bell Atlantic merger shows the need for both geographic reach and new technology, analysts said. A combined GTE-Bell Atlantic would result in a company with local phone operations in 41 states. The deal would also allow the two companies to link GTE's national fiber optic network with Bell Atlantic's Fiber Optic Link around the Globe, or FLAG, analysts said. GTE's data business would accelerate Bell Atlantic's efforts to build its own data network. "Competition is one piece. Another piece is their own growth rate. Together they can do more and grow faster. The transition of customers from (a) voice-only world to (a) packet data world is changing the business," said William Vogel, a telecommunications analyst with NationsBanc Montgomery Securities. Over the past nine months, the U.S. telecommunications industry has seen two Baby Bells, Ameritech Corp. and SBC Communications Inc., agree to merge in a $61 billion deal. Industry upstart WorldCom Inc. made a surprise $37 billion bid for MCI Communications Corp., wrestling the long-distance carrier away from BT. AT&T also announced two deals to buy Teleport Communications Group Inc., which provides local telephone service to businesses, and Tele-Communications Inc., a huge cable television operator. "There are these big, grand old telephone companies that are reinventing themselves. The new emerging companies that have the network of today are looking for the customers and traffic," Kagan said. The merger frenzy has led to a strong run in telecommunications stocks, pushing the American Stock Exchange's North American Telecom Stock index up 30 percent this year, compared with an 18 percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. The rise in stock prices gives each company a stronger currency with which use in a transaction, but it also makes each potential takeover candidate more expensive. Still, analysts don't expect the merger rush to quiet down any time soon. Companies such as BellSouth Corp., and emerging companies such as Qwest Communications International Inc. and Level 3 Communications Inc. are seen as potential takeover targets. As AT&T shifts its international strategy away from its largely unsuccessful WorldPartners and Unisource alliances to work with BT, some of those foreign carriers may look for new allies in the United States. Strong foreign carriers such as Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. of Japan may also be attractive partners for U.S. companies. "I would bet Bernie is brushing up his Japanese, and Bill Esrey, too," said Briere, referring to WorldCom Chief Executive Bernie Ebbers and Sprint Chairman Bill Esrey. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:36:56 -0400 From: roy@endeavor.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Outgoing But no Incoming Service Because of Cable Shortage? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing I ordered new phone service last week at a house I just bought. The previous phone service had been turned off. There was still dial-tone, but you couldn't place any calls. Over the weekend, outgoing service began to work, but not incoming. Talking to the phone company, I was told that they are having trouble with the cables in the area and are pulling new cable, and that's why they can't give me incoming service. They estimate another week. Does this many any sense at all? If I've got dial tone and outgoing service, obviously, I have a good loop back to the CO, right? Actually, it's a relatively remote part of the city, with the nearest CO several miles away, so I'm reasonably sure the local loop goes to some kind of concentrator/slik type thing then some sort of trunk back to the CO. Not sure if that makes any difference. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Do you have an update now that a few additional days have passed? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:04:25 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The Web Navigator", Paul Gilster Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKWEBNAV.RVW 980523 "The Web Navigator", Paul Gilster, 1997, 0-471-16495-X, U$24.95/C$34.95 %A Paul Gilster gilster@interpath.com %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1997 %G 0-471-16495-X %I Wiley %O U$24.95/C$34.95 fax: 416-236-4448 lwhiting@jwiley.com %P 490 p. %T "The Web Navigator" Since the rise in popularity of the World Wide Web to *the* interface of choice to the Internet we've had all the various introductions to the Internet that concentrate solely on the net via browser. Now comes the useful one. Chapter one states outright that the view of the net in this book is limited to the browser window, in contrast to most works in the genre that imply the Web is all there is. There is the obligatory collection of different types of sites on the Web, but Gilster manages to use the space to point out features and ideas rather than simply presenting a montage of KEWL! screen shots. The history of the Web is accurately and interestingly portrayed in chapter two. Getting connected to the net can never be completely covered but chapter three manages to present an astounding range of information. It is also backed up by a very useful appendix dealing with dial up networking in Windows 95. Gilster admits his choice of Netscape Navigator in chapter four before going on to give a review of the major browser functions. Unfortunately some material is specific not only to the browser but to the release as well, but this is unavoidable with the graphical interface. Chapter five, dealing with plug-ins and other components, is valuable, but also shows how quickly these items go in and out of style. The advice on email covers not only configuration, but also advanced topics such as netiquette in chapter six. Most of chapter seven concentrates on accessing Usenet news via the browser, but it also deals with telnet and gopher functions. Advanced or coming technologies like Java, Internet telephony, and the Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) are quickly reviewed in chapter eight. Searching, in chapter nine, covers all aspects including search engines, directories, people finders, and agents. Publishing on the Web is discussed more in concept than in detail in chapter ten. Issues of security and privacy are covered clearly in chapter eleven. While the book starts very strongly indeed, matching the quality of "The Internet Navigator" (cf. BKINTNAV.RVW) and "Finding it on the Internet" (cf. BKFNDINT.RVW), later chapter are sound but not quite as vital. Still this book would have to have serious consideration as possibly the best introduction for those approaching the net through the Web interface. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1998 BKWEBNAV.RVW 980523 ------------------------------ From: mdorin@my-dejanews.com (Mike Dorin) Subject: Wanted: GR-303 Test Site (5ESS, DMS100, etc.) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:34:07 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion EDI Enterprises is currently looking for a site to test our Embedded Operations Channel software. Using our test device, we would simulate a GR-303 RDT. We would need the following: 1) A small place to setup equipment 2) 2 DS1's (connected to an IDT with TMC/EOCs provisioned) 3) We would like to provision perhaps a half dozen analog lines 4) A 5ESS switch running 5E9(2) software or later. If anybody is interested in working with us or knows somebody who is please email me at mike@chaski.com. I would sincerely appreciate any help in this matter. Mike Dorin EDI Enterprises, Inc. www.cmise.com ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: US Worst Slamming? Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 02:29:03 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com Yesterday at work, I got a call asking for the "Accounts Payable". I asked who it was, and what they wanted. The woman gave a name, said she was from Pacific Bell, and said it was about the phone bill. So I gave the call to the boss (there're three of us), who told me afterwards that the woman started fishing around for the name of our Long Distance carrier. He didn't give it to her, and asked for her name and number on the pretense of calling her back later. She gave the same name, and a number which turned out to be US West. Something fishy is going on here -- does US West offer LD in PacBell Land? Or is some sleaze LD company giving out US West's number to get them in trouble? Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #113 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 9 15:13:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA16280; Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:13:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199808091913.PAA16280@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #115 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Aug 98 15:13:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 115 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Net Domains Doled Out by Japan `Cartel' (Tad Cook) The Caller-ID Wars Continue (Monty Solomon) Meeting Held in Geneva to Privatize DNS (Ronda Hauben) Canadian Flat-Rate Unlimited LD (Ralph Doncaster) E-mail Flaw May Make Net a Perilous Place For Months (Monty Solomon) East Coast Telco Strike and Other News (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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Net Domains Doled Out by Japan `Cartel' Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:13:40 PDTo telnet From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) By Michael Zielenziger Mercury News Tokyo Bureau TOKYO -- The Internet, that agile new technology that offers instant access to global commerce and communication, supposedly flouts political boundaries. Just point and click, proponents say, and the technology of the "virtual world" can easily defy the trade barriers that inhibit conventional commerce. Not so in Japan, as entrepreneurs like David Shepherd are learning. Tangent Computing Ltd., Shepherd's software distribution company, was bounced off the World Wide Web in late July by Japanese authorities after he switched to a U.S.-based Internet service to host his company's e-mail accounts. It seems that a group of Japanese-based Internet providers, operating with the approval of the government, controls who gets to play -- and how much they pay -- to get access to the World Wide Web in Japan. "Basically, we were shut down for not using a Japanese Internet provider," said Shepherd, a Canadian, who does 90 percent of his software distribution business through the Net. Dozens of entrepreneurs such as Israeli businessman Todd Walzer have found they could not use their Internet addresses in Japan -- known in Internet parlance as a "domain names" -- unless they also used a Japanese Internet service provider. Japanese firms, however, are usually slower and far more expensive than overseas providers, foreign businessmen say. The lack of competition is a key reason that Japan, despite its reputation for high-end technology, lags far behind the United States and other developed economies in its use of the Internet. Japan has only 40,000 domain names. The United States, a bit more than twice Japan's size, boasts more than 1.2 million. Moreover, while the United States is fourth in domain names per person, Japan ranks 21st, according to data compiled by Michael Borrus, co-director of the Berkeley Roundtable on International Economics in California. The Japan Network Information Center, or JPNIC, the quasi-governmental group that assigns domain names to users, is essentially run by Japan's Internet service providers. These firms pay about $3,500 to join the association and another $2,150 in annual dues. As members of JPNIC, these providers have the power to "approve" new domain addresses -- but they approve only those new addresses that use Japanese Internet providers, according to Naomasa Maruyama, JPNIC vice president. Not unusual ... Mysterious, cartel-like organizations that set prices are not unusual in Japan. Steel manufacturers, concrete producers, construction companies, stevedores and dozens of others have been accused of conspiring to regulate prices, keep foreign competitors at bay and regulate domestic competition. But even some Japanese are surprised to hear that a cartel of Internet providers decides who can be assigned a Web domain address within Japan -- those domains that carry the "jp" address. "It's really an obstacle, isn't it?" said Yuichiro Anzai, dean of the faculty of science and technology at prestigious Keio University. JPNIC officials, however, insist they are the real free marketeers. "There is a difference between freedom and a free ride," said Maruyama. "We are very proud the Japanese Internet developed without the support of the government." Maruyama also rejected the argument of JPNIC critics that some of the center's policies have stifled Internet use in Japan. According to JPNIC policy, for instance, only a company registered for business in Japan can obtain a ".jp" domain name. No individual can obtain a domain name. And any corporation can obtain only a single domain listing. No such rules apply in the United States or in many other countries. Aimed at scams ... Maruyama said JPNIC's strict rules were created to prevent individual "cyber scammers" from buying up the domain names of famous companies so they could later sell them back to the companies. (A case such as this occurred in America this week, when a Silicon Valley man was paid some $3.3 million by Compaq Computer to relinquish the "altavista.com" domain name. AltaVista is an Internet search service acquired by Compaq when it bought Digital Equipment Corp.) But Bradley Bartz, an early Internet pioneer in Japan, said JPNIC is a cartel that conspires "to make any .jp address the most expensive domain name in the world." Registering a domain name, which costs about $75 in the United States, can cost four times as much in Japan, he said. "It's an Old Boys club designed to protect the growth of Internet," Bartz said. "It's all about control. By preventing the growth of domain names, they are preventing entrepreneurs from expressing themselves and preventing the expansion of commerce." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 15:30:01 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Caller-ID Wars Continue Excerpt from PRIVACY Forum Digest V07 #13 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 98 08:57 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: The Caller-ID Wars Continue Greetings. It's starting to look pretty clear--there's a new war over caller-ID, especially for California telephone subscribers. When per-call ID blocking was mandated nationally, and complete (all-call, with selective unblocking) blocking was made available in states like California, it looked like the protracted battle over caller-ID was over. Far from it. As has been discussed in the PRIVACY Forum in the past, there have been increasing reports of what some would call "high pressure" sales tactics by Pacific Bell representatives attempting to sell caller-ID services, and also attempting to convince persons to switch from complete to "selective" (per-call) blocking--the latter sends the ID on all calls by default. PacBell's latest hope to increase their caller-ID related services is the implementation of "anonymous" call blocking, which blocks incoming calls unless the caller is willing to provide the number of the phone line they are calling from (and often now the name associated with that line) to the caller. In a fascinating move, PacBell is even marketing this service to people who don't subscribe to caller-ID and couldn't see the number/name of the line calling in any case! PacBell has gotten extremely aggressive in their add-on services sales to any subscriber that calls for almost any reason--I can verify this myself. Unfortunately, reports are that they're even pushing some of these expensive services on persons who call to order low income "lifeline" plans. The problems have reached a level where the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has begun looking into PacBell's sales tactics. The problems, risks, and failures associated with caller-ID services have been well documented in the past here in the PRIVACY Forum in previous issues, so there's no point to reiterating them here. But this escalation in PacBell's aggressive sales efforts seems to be correlated with their acquisition by Southwest Bell (SWB), who apparently has set very specific goals to try to drastically raise the number of subscribed "features" per telephone subscriber in California. SWB is used to much higher rates of caller-ID service penetration in their home state of Texas, where per-line complete blocking is not available. It obviously is distressing to them to have to deal with a state like California, where about half the phones lines are subscribed to complete blocking, and more than half the lines are reportedly non-published. When I recently spoke at length with PacBell spokesman John Britton, he made it clear that PacBell had every intention of marketing these services to their utmost, and suggested that the excessively high-pressure sales tactics reported by some were aberrations by individual sales representatives, not company policy. He seemed to blame the high percentage of complete blocking in California on the educational campaign that the CPUC had mandated. I asked him about a statement from the San Jose Mercury News where he was quoted as saying, "If consumers don't like it, they can stand up. They don't need a lot of pushy people at ORA [Office of Ratepayer Advocates] standing up for them." He acknowledged the essential accuracy of the quote, but admitted that, in retrospect, he perhaps should have left out that comment about the ORA. Pacific Bell certainly has a right to market their services. But given that they still operate in what amounts to effectively a monopoly position when it comes to residential local service (theoretical competition in local service notwithstanding), I think it's reasonable to hold them to the highest standard in their dealings with their subscribers in this and other areas. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum http://www.vortex.com ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Meeting Held in Geneva to Privatize DNS Date: 7 Aug 1998 17:04:21 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu Following is an account of what happened in Geneva at the meeting to create a private organization to privatize the DNS. It is important that this all gets discussed online and that people who care about the Internet and its future find a way to deal with what is happening. Ronda ronda@panix.com ----------- Report from the Front Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privitize the Internet DNS and root Server System by Ronda Hauben ronda@panix.com There's a battle being waged today, one that is of great importance to the future of society, but most people have no idea it is taking place. I just returned from Geneva, Switzerland where a meeting was held Friday July 25 and Saturday July 26 to create the organization that Ira Magaziner, advisor to the U.S. President, has called for. It's an organization to privatize key aspects of the Internet, the Domain Name System (DNS) and the control of the root server of the Internet. The meeting was the second in a series that are part of the the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (1). The U.S. government, without discussion by the U.S. Congress, the press or the public, and contrary to the direction of the U.S. court (in the case ACLU vrs. Reno) is throwing a bone to the private sector and offering them the possibility of making their millions off of the Internet. And while in Geneva, I saw folks from several different countries grabbing at the bone, in hopes of getting themselves some of the same kind of exorbitant profits from selling gTDL's (generic Top Level Domains) that the National Science Foundation (NSF) bestowed on Network Services Inc (NSI) several years ago by giving them the contracts for selling gTLDs. There's money to be made, or so these folks seem to think, and so any concern for the well being of the Internet or its continued development as "a new medium of international communication" (ACLU vrs Reno) has been thrown to the wind by Mr. Magaziner, IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) under the direction of Mr. Postel, which has the U.S. government contract to administer the Internet Addresses and Names and to administer the root server, and the others who, without any ethical considerations or social obligations are rushing through this process and sqelching discussion and dissent. It's called "consensus" we are told. I went to the session setting up the Names Registry Council provisions for the bylaws of what we are told is to be the new private organization controlling these key aspects of the Internet. At the beginning of the meeting, I made the mistake of objecting when all were asked to register their consensus with the provision for a Names Council. I wanted to hear some discussion so I would know what I was voting on. I was scolded by one participant for asking for a discussion as, he claimed that they were *not* here for people who had not read the bylaws proposal that appeared online only a few days before. I had read the bylaws proposal but was naive enough to think that one would hear discussion and clarification before being asked to declare one's adherence. In that way I thought one would know what one was agreeing to. Instead, however, I soon learned that that was *not* how business (or really religion) was being developed in the session I attended. After harrassing me for asking for clarification and discussion, the meeting continued. The Chairman asked people to brainstorm and list the functions for the council. When I asked that the activities of the council be reported online and that there be online discussion with anyone interested being allowed to comment on all issues concerning the council, the scribe miswrote what I had proposed. When I asked it be corrected, I was told by the Chair that there was no "wordsmithing" allowed, i.e. that it wouldn't be corrected. After a number of people had listed functions for the council, it was announced that the meeting would vote on the functions to determine if there was "consensus". Then a vote was rammed through on the items. However, instead of counting the numbers for or against each function, there was a declaration of "consensus" if, we were told, it seemed as if there were 60% of those voting who had voted for the listed function. For the first few functions those opposed were allowed to voice their objection. The meeting was being tape recorded, we were told, and there would be a record kept of it. But that soon ended as someone in the room objected to hearing any objections. The Chair said that this was how this was done at the telecom meetings he knew of, as there the players were large corporations with large bank accounts that could afford big law suits. Here, however, it seemed those in control of the meeting judged this was not the case. A short break was called. After the break it was announced that those with objections could no longer voice them on the record during the meeting but were told to come up after the meeting was over. So the vote continued on, consensus continued to be declared for most of the items voted on, despite the fact there were those indicating their opposition to all of these items. But the record would no longer contain any note of the objections. The Chair and others marvelled at the roll they were on. Even though it was time for the meeting to end, one of the Chairs of the plenary meeting allowed this meeting to continue as it on such a roll. Then to the Plenary meeting. Here there was joy and praise for this democratic process from the Chair and spokespeople from the different sessions. When I tried to go to the microphone and say that the consensus in the session I had been in to determine functions for the Names Council represented "no discussion allowed and no noting of those who objected," the Chair of the Plenary Meeting told me I was not allowed to speak there. This all followed the invitation that had been extended in the press lunch on Tuesday, July 21 at INET, where all members of the press were invited to come to the Friday and Saturday sessions of the IFWP and were were invited to participate. However, by Friday and Saturday the invitation clearly had changed, especially if one had a question or objection to raise about what was happening. And this is how the supposed new private organization that is to administer and make policy for the Domain Names System that is the nerve system of the Internet and the Root Server System, is being created. No one with any but a private commercial interest (in normal language, a conflict of interest) is to be allowed to participate in the process, no discussion to clarify what people are being asked to vote on is allowed to take place, and no objections could be voiced in the session creating the Names Council, which is one of the crucial aspects of the organizational form, as it is groups with a commercial interest in the sale of gTLD's who have decreed to themselves the right to set policy and recommend actions regarding the gTLD's. What's the significance of this process as a way to create an organization to take over control and administration of the nerve center of the Global Internet? The Internet was developed and has grown and flourished through the opposite procedures, through democratic processes where all are welcomed to speak, where those who disagree are invited to participate, and to voice their concerns along with those who agree, where those who can make a single contribution are as welcome as those with the time to continually contribute. (See Poster "Lessons from the early MsgGroup Mailing List as a Foundation for Identifying the Principles for Future Internet Governance" by Ronda Hauben, INET '98.)(2) Also historically, the processes for discussion ------------------------------ From: Ralph Doncaster Organization: DCI Subject: Canadian flat-rate unlimited LD Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:14:03 GMT Sprint started last month with $20/mth for unlimited within-canada calling on evenings and weekends. Other telco's quickly followed with similar programs. What I don't understand is how this works. Canadian like US LD requires contribution charges. I'm in Ottawa, Ontario, so when I use sprint, they have to pay 2c/min to Bell Canada. They may also have to pay ~2c/min to the terminating telco (i.e. MT&T if I was to call Halifax, Nova Scotia) but I'm not sure of that part. Even assuming just 2c/min contribution charges, if I use 17 hours of LD on the evg and weekend sprint would loose money. Am I misunderstanding the regulations regarding contribution charges or is Sprint just playing the averages and assuming the typical customer will not use many hours? Ralph Doncaster, Doncaster Consulting Inc email: ralph(at)doncaster.on.ca 2816 Richmond Rd. Ottawa, ON K2B 6S5 ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: E-mail flaw may make Net a perilous place for months Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 21:49:36 -0400 E-mail flaw may make Net a perilous place for months BY DAVID L. WILSON Mercury News Staff Writer The danger posed by the devastating hole in some of the most popular electronic mail software in the world likely will persist for many months, or even years, putting many thousands of people at risk. The extremely widespread nature of the flaw, which was revealed publicly last week, combined with the difficulty of ensuring that patches for the flaw get installed, is likely to make the Internet a much less stable environment as malevolent Internet users begin using the flaw to disrupt activities on the Internet. The situation illustrates the difficulties of developing secure systems, particularly as the software that runs on computers gets more complex and unwieldy. And it's a taste of the difficulties that lie ahead as more and more of the nation's everyday activities become tied to the Internet. The flaw allows an outsider to send a booby-trapped piece of electronic mail. Under some conditions, the booby-trap can be activated without any action on the part of the victim. The poisoned e-mail can execute code on the targeted computer, up to and including erasing the hard drive. One self-described member of the ``black hat'' hacker community -- black hats are malevolent hackers, sometimes known as ``crackers'' -- said his group is working on a number of variants of booby-trapped e-mail. The plan, he said, is to send out thousands of such booby-trapped e-mails to users around the world. Bomb has two stages The payload on these bombs would be delivered in two stages. In stage one, the booby-trapped e-mail directs the host e-mail application to send out thousands more booby-trapped e-mails. Once that task is completed, the original e-mail will attempt to reformat the host hard drive to complete stage two, which is designed to make tracking the assault back to its originators that much harder. All those new e-mails will attempt to do the same thing on any host computer where they become active, creating a tidal wave of assaults throughout the Internet that could bring things to a grinding halt. Experts say it may not be an empty boast. ``Clearly the person has some idea what's involved,'' said Eugene H. Spafford, director of the new Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security at Purdue University. ``But this would not be a trivial thing to do.'' The description of the attack is strikingly similar to a technique used 10 years ago by Robert T. Morris, a graduate student at Cornell University, to bring down the entire Internet using an electronic ``worm,'' a bit of software whose only goal was to spread through the system and make copies of itself. Patches for the holes exploited by Morris soon were deployed. The current e-mail problem is different in that the fix isn't aimed at the high-powered machines that keep the Internet humming but on the standard desktop machines, which often must be serviced one by one. ``We would rank it as a fairly significant problem, one that's unusual because it affects consumer-level software more than the kind of software that internet service providers might run on their server machines,'' said Shawn Hernan, leader of the vulnerability handling team at the CERT (formerly the Computer Emergency Response Team) Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute. Many people suspect that the problem will be around for many months because people will fail to install the patches as they become available or neglect to upgrade their e-mail software. Update -- or else ``Now that the crackers know how to exploit this, people who don't update will be hurt,'' said Paul E. Hoffman, director of the Internet Mail Consortium. ``Unfortunately, that might be the majority of people.'' Corporate computer system administrators today often find themselves overwhelmed inside a company. Security concerns often take a back seat to the more pressing matters of installing a bigger hard drive or monitor. ``We have no plans to patch company-wide immediately,'' said David Hart, who works in the Internet industry. ``We'll probably patch laptop users right away because they go for longer periods of time without hard drive backups. We'll probably roll out Communicator 4.5 (with the patch included) in October or November. Our network is set up in a way that damage caused by a hack would be reduced and more easily reparable compared to most other PC network configurations,'' he said. ``Please don't print my employer's name. I'd hate someone to interpret my boast as an invitation to hack.'' Long time to create patch The flaw has been confirmed in three programs: Microsoft Corp.'s Outlook Express and Outlook 98 and Netscape Communications Corp.'s Messenger Mail, which accompanies versions 4.x of the Communicator Web browser software. Researchers are continuing to study other software packages to see which are vulnerable and under what circumstances. Oftentimes a patch for a security hole can be created within a day or two. Because of the variety of ways this flaw can be exploited, it's taking companies an exceptionally long time to build something that guards against all the possible permutations, yet doesn't interfere with function or create new problems. Experts remain concerned that users will be less likely to install the patches if the process takes too long. ``Vendors need to be very proactive in getting the word out,'' Hernan said. ``This story has received a lot of public attention, so there is some hope that it will get a larger level of the public mindshare.'' ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Telecom Strike on East Coast and Other News Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 14:00:00 EDT Pardon me for not being around much this past week. A bit of illness combined with an overwhelming amount of work helping my friend Jim at his bus station (this is August, and a very busy month in the bus business) have made other things difficult to manage. Then too, a small problem with the computer that took a good part of a day to get repaired added to the backlog. In the news Sunday morning comes word that Bell Atlantic/Nynex employees went on strike as of midnight Saturday night. I do not yet know the details, except that a contract had expired and the new terms were not yet agreed upon. These days with so much of telecom totally automated, it is hard to say what effect the strike will have on users, if any. I suppose new installations will be affected, and the usual amount of sabatoge can be expected. Readers who wish to report any experiences as a result of the strike are welcome to write. In other news, I *may* have a new corporate sponsor for the Digest of the magnitude (financially) or better as Microsoft. I won't confirm it until I have absolute evidence of it, but suffice to say I am going to my post office box daily looking for a window envelope with a 'pay to the order of' visible when the envelope is held up to a strong light. The new sponsor, if it happens, has three letters as the abbrev- iation to its name, and it is not AT&T or MCI. They'll want something for their money of course. More details when I can print them without making a fool of myself (this week, I still reserve the right to take that posture on other occassions -- smile!) PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #115 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 16 22:17:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA02293; Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 22:17:16 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199808170217.WAA02293@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #116 TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Aug 98 22:17:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 116 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Many Small Towns in West Still Without Phones (Babu Mengelepouti) Commentary on Some Towns Without Phones (Babu Mengelepouti) AT&T Charges GTE with Unjust Access Fees (Monty Solomon) Court Upholds Phone Regulation (Monty Solomon) New Area Codes: Dallas 469, Houston 832 (Greg Monti) Media Coverage of Privatizing of Internet Root Server System (Ronda Hauben) What's With Ameritech Pay Phones in GTE Territory? (Jack Decker) 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 16 Aug 1998 08:41:14 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Many Small Towns in West Still Without Phones I ran across this article in the {Seattle Times}, but it's originally from the {Oregonian}, based in Portland. I think that it's very well written, and should be published in the Digest. The URL is http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9808/st080214.html and I've included the text in case the link is dead by the time you read this. Granite, Ore.: Outside the loop The tiny mountain community of 25 residents, once a booming mining town, has never had phone service Sunday, August 2 1998 By Su-jin Yim of The Oregonian staff The cream-colored business cards that lodge owners Pat and Mitch Fielding hand out must be a rarity in the lodging industry. The cards ask customers to "please write for reservations." The Fieldings don't live in the 19th century, but their communications link to the outside world does. Granite, a tiny mountain town located about two hours south of Pendleton, does not have phone service. That means fellow businesswoman Lucy Myers, who owns the general store, can't order supplies out of her distributor's online Web site. Instead, she uses a 2-year-old catalog when she calls her sales rep on her cell phone. Late-night gabbing is a near impossibility, unless you want the neighbors to hear. The town's de facto local phone network is CB radio. Granite's situation highlights the consequences of living in remote rural America, where the lack of basic services that urbanites couldn't live without are widening the gap in an information-driven society. In essence, the United States, one of the most connected nations in the world, is creating two worlds: those with access and those without. Some experts predict those consequences are bound to get even more dire as telecommunications needs expand beyond basic phone service into access to advanced services, such as the Internet, telemedicine and distance learning. More than 6 million U.S. households, roughly 15 million people, lack basic telephone service for one reason or another, according to the federal government. The 1996 Telecommunications Act was supposed to change that. Among other things, the now much-criticized act, designed to bring competition to the monopolistic industry, promised equal access to every American. But two years later, the national battle over rural telecommunications is raging as federal regulators and politicians push and pull to force the act to live up to its promises. That's left places like Granite; Pearl, Idaho, and small rural communities in the South unconnected. "What you'll find in a community lacking basic infrastructure, basic telephone service, basic education, basic health care is . . . we're paying for more of their child care, their food stamps," said Scott Duff, Oregon director of rural development for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "If we disinvest in rural America, it will have a cost." Isolated by economics Granite, whose population has tripled from eight to 25 full-time residents in two years, has never had phone service. A once-booming mining town founded at the turn of the century, the growth dried up when the dredges did. The town can get satellite TV and has electricity, but there are no Internet addicts here. No one surfs the Web, sends electronic mail or even faxes. Other services lag too: the town gets mail only three days a week and has no local emergency services. US West, which is looking into ways to provide phone service, says it alone can't afford to pay the nearly $1 million price tag of running fiber-optic cable to the roughly 30 people in and around Granite. The town, reached by winding, two-lane mountain roads, is surrounded by the Umatilla National Forest on all sides and sits on rocky terrain. The closest land-line phone and central telephone office is in Sumpter, 17 miles away. "We are hard up against the tyranny of distance and density," said Larry Huss, US West Oregon vice president. US West's proposed solution would have each Granite customer pay their share of the total equipment and construction costs. That's roughly $30,000 per person. "That's going to be a real problem if they come to a price everybody has to pay. We'll never get a phone," said Myers, who is on the town council. It isn't surprising that Granite, with a median income of $15,000 and median age of 58, isn't a priority for US West. Like other regulated phone companies who are laboring to compete in the post-Telecom Act world, the Denver-based Baby Bell is feeling pressure on nearly every front. Its new rivals, called competitive local exchange carriers, are cherry-picking the most lucrative customers -- businesses -- while leaving the traditional phone company with the headache of providing expensive, but less profitable, rural service. During the past several years, US West has been selling off old rural phone exchanges throughout its 14-state territory. "That gives you a sense about where they see their business going," said securities analyst Bob Wilkes, who follows US West for Brown Brothers Harriman in New York. Before the Act passed, US West's reluctance would have easily left the door open for Pine Telephone, a tiny company in Halfway almost at the state border, says Pine president Rodney Huff. But now, his company, which wrote an engineering study and planned to provide service, also can't afford to loop in Granite without promises of subsidized loans from the Rural Utilities Service. Serving rural areas has become more complicated since 1996. The federal government and industry giants are squabbling over how large the universal access fund that would subsidize costs should be, and how the money would be handed out. Without the promise of federal aid, rural service is a riskier proposition for the small telephone companies that serve hundreds of customers ignored by the Bell operating companies. Leaving the city behind Not everyone in Granite is aching for phone service. The townspeople are mavericks, says Mayor Mike Hammer, a former air traffic controller. Many of the residents moved to this mountain community precisely because they wanted less contact, not more, with the bustle of urban life. But that puts them out of touch, and for the few businesses in town, that's especially difficult. The Fieldings say they poured $400,000 into building their gleaming wood lodge with a spacious wrap-around deck, on the perennial promise that phones were coming. Pat Fielding recently removed the Lodge's Web site from the Internet. The immediacy of the Internet just didn't make sense when potential customers couldn't even call for more information or to make reservations. Former US West employee Dee Schnitzer, who joined her husband in Granite last year, can't take advantage of the free phone service she earned as a longtime employee. The consequences can be dire. After a 40-year career that pushed his family all around the West, Oregon native Glenn Myers wanted to come home. So the retired midlevel executive and his wife, Lucy, moved back to Eastern Oregon and bought the town store. The town's lack of amenities didn't deter the high school sweethearts who had met while attending school in Baker City, about 50 miles from Granite. But when Glenn Myers, 58, had a heart attack in May, their cell phone spit static at them. Daughter-in-law Diane Myers called for an ambulance, but couldn't make out the dispatcher's instructions. Panicky moments led to a tortuous hour of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation before an ambulance reached town. "I wanted them to quit," said Lucy Myers, a quiet-spoken woman wearing a blue Granite Store T-shirt. This year, Paul Schnitzer, a city councilman and reserve deputy who performed CPR on Myers, has written numerous letters to politicians and others. Few of the recipients, who included state legislators, utility commissioners, President Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, had an answer. Some states force companies to serve rural areas. Alaska's Public Utility Commission told Alascom, a subsidiary of AT&T, that it had to provide phone service to any town of 25 residents or more. Alascom uses low-orbiting satellites to bounce electric signals from earth stations hooked up to wired central offices. But Oregon's PUC says it won't force US West to offer service to Granite at a loss. Alaska's satellite system, the early beginnings of which came about to link the state's military outposts with the rest of the nation, wouldn't work in Granite because it doesn't have any land lines to begin with. And US West isn't pursuing that technology. Huss, the US West Oregon vice president, said an early 1990s satellite trial in Wyoming provided poor service and cost too much. The company hasn't found any other low-cost technology that would help, he said. Huss says Granite's situation speaks to the larger issue of universal access and blames slow-moving regulators on the company's inability to provide service economically. Huss, who grew up in Montana, said the FCC needs to take action before it leaves rural America behind permanently. "At some point in time, US West, GTE and others will not serve these areas, because they can't afford to serve them," Huss said. "There's no question we will create a society of technological haves and have-nots for basic service." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 08:46:15 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Commentary on Some Towns Without Phones I have a comment on this article, too: US West claims it would cost a million dollars to run fibre to Granite. Why in the world would they do this? Clearly, if cellular service is available, it should be possible to establish a microwave link, and probably at substantially less cost. They do this already in Fields, OR -- they run a SLC to there from (if I remember correctly) Burns. I think that this is just political posturing, and it's leaving the residents of Granite without phones in the meantime. US West continues its reign as one of the slimiest telcoes in existance. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Charges GTE With Unjust Access Fees Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:37:20 -0400 AT&T Charges GTE with Unjust Access Fees Company says Michigan Telephone Customers Unjustly Penalized August 13, 1998 1:34 PM EDT LANSING, Mich., Aug. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Stating that GTE (NYSE: GTE) refused to negotiate an access charge reduction that would benefit the state's long-distance telephone users, AT&T (NYSE: T) today filed a complaint with the Michigan Public Service Commission asking the commission to order GTE to reduce access charges to comparable rates in its other Midwest states. If the fees were reduced, the reduction would amount to $21.5 million. "GTE's charges for toll access services are excessive, unreasonable and discriminatory when compared to the access charges it imposes in AT&T's other central region states," said Ray O'Connell, AT&T public relations vice president, central states. "As a result, the monies GTE generates in carrier access fees in Michigan place a disproportionate burden on Michigan's long-distance customers." In its complaint, AT&T indicated the company had been unsuccessful in getting GTE to agree to negotiate a reduction in its intrastate Primary Interexchange Carrier Charges (PICCs) which far exceed the comparable GTE PICC rates in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. "Such an arbitrary rate design unjustly penalizes Michigan long-distance customers and is inconsistent with the procompetitive intent of the Michigan Telecommunications Act," added O'Connell. According to AT&T the PICC rates established in January by GTE in Michigan are the highest among those of the five-state AT&T central region and ensure that Michigan long-distance telephone customers pay more for telephone services in Michigan than do consumers in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. "For example," continued O'Connell, "a Michigan customer who uses approximately 10 minutes of telephone service per day will pay approximately twice as much for access than an Illinois customer." In addition, in its filing AT&T is seeking a reduction in other rate levels so that the revenues GTE generates in Michigan are more in line with Michigan's "fair share." If AT&T's proposals are adopted, GTE Michigan's common line revenues would decrease from 36 percent of its total access of the five-state region to 20 percent. "This figure is equitable given that 20.7 percent of GTE's total five-state access lines are in Michigan," added O'Connell. "With these high access charges we're at a competitive disadvantage," said O'Connell. "We're simply asking the Michigan commission to order GTE to reduce the access charges. If it does, we will pass any savings on to our long-distance customers in Michigan." SOURCE AT&T ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Upholds Phone Regulation Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:38:07 -0400 Court Upholds Phone Regulation August 10, 1998 6:53 PM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) _ A government regulation aimed at helping companies provide competing local phone services was upheld Monday by a federal appeals court in St. Louis. The court's ruling preserves the status quo and won't have any immediate impact on local telephone customers. But the Federal Communications Commission was pleased to finally score a victory after losing several court cases involving its efforts to break open the $110 billion local phone business to competition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld an FCC decision requiring major local phone companies to lease out to rivals certain network facilities _ mainly trunks and switches _ that carry calls between local phone switches and long-distance companies. These facilities, dubbed shared transport, carry the traffic of multiple phone customers or phone companies. GTE, Bell Atlantic and other local phone companies asked the court to overturn the ruling. The FCC, long-distance companies _ AT&T, MCI and WorldCom _ and others that want to provide local phone services argued that the rules be retained. The FCC's regulation was part of its efforts to implement a 1996 telecommunications law, which freed local, long-distance and cable companies to get into each others' businesses. ``We conclude that the plain meaning of the statute supports the FCC's determination,'' a panel of three judges wrote in an unanimous decision. The court's ruling may help the FCC in another, crucial case pending before the Supreme Court, said a FCC attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity. Last year, the 8th Circuit said the FCC lacked the authority to set prices for would-be rivals to lease pieces of existing local phone networks or to buy local service and resell it to customers. Only the states can do that, the court said. The decision has deterred companies from getting into the local phone business. Given this ruling, FCC attorneys said they don't expect Monday's decision to have an immediate impact on local phone customers. Still, the most recent ruling is important to would-be local phone providers, the FCC attorneys said, because they'll have access to these ``shared'' facilities and won't be forced to lease more expensive dedicated lines to route calls. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:22:15 -0500 From: Greg Monti Subject: New Area Codes: Dallas 469, Houston 832 In the Tuesday, August 11, 1998, {Dallas Morning News} is an article on page A1 entitled, "Dallas, suburbs to ring in 469 as third area code". A summary: Beginning on December 5, 1998, the boundary between the 214 and 972 area codes will be erased and either code can be assigned on either side of the line. On the same day, all local calls in the Dallas area will need to be dialed with 10 digits. 7 digits will no longer be allowed. No change to toll calling: will be 1+10 digits, same as now. Beginning in July, 1999, new numbers will begin to be assigned in the 469 area code. Ten digit dialing for local calls is already in service in Maryland, Atlanta and Miami. The article notes that "officials believe that this will be the last new code that Dallas it its suburbs will need until at least 2005." More than half of the 800 possible area codes in North America have already been assigned or reserved. The story says the three-digit area code system will exhaust in about 2025 and the number of digits required for a local call may rise "to 12 or 15," according to Texas code administrator Bill Adair. Houston will also get a third area code, 832, in January, 1999, also using the overlay method covering the 713 and 281 areas. Greg Monti Dallas, Texas, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Media Coverage of Privatizing of Internet Root Server System Date: 16 Aug 1998 16:17:09 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu "The domain name issue is of critical importance... for the continued well functioning of the Net..." I have been doing some research on these issues. I found a meeting on July 30-31 1997 on the subject and the report of that meeting noted: "As many have noted, the domain name system is a running service, used by millions every day. It is also a sensitive system, where a small mistake can cause a lot of damage...." Yet a significant change in who controls this system is being made with no public attention and oversight over what is happening. Questions: Are some industry entities taking this over and why is this being done in such a shroud of darkness? Who will have the control? How can a crucial aspect of a vital communications infrastructure be be handed over to something that is not accountable to any public process or entity? I wondered if anyone has seen any media coverage of the changes that are being planned in how the Internet Domain Name System is administered and in the control over the root server system that is the nerve center of the Internet. It is interesting that this is such an important aspect of the proper functioning of the Internet and yet I have seen very little press coverage of the issues and controversy involved in this. If there is no accountability in how these are adminstered and controlled all who are on the Internet are at the mercy of those who have control of these vital functions. There is a meeting going on in Singapore now to plan this privatization and there was a meeting last month in Geneva and there seems to be no responsibility taken by those doing this privatizing to explain the importance of these systems and the great amount of control over the Internet that those who gain control of this private organization will have. It is a sorry symptom of our times that more of the press (I am mainly speaking of the U.S. but wonder what the situation is abroad as well) is not shedding any light on what is going on so Internet users and the public can know what is happening and that the important questions are being asked. (Unfortunately, my experience is that the folks doing this change don't allow for any questions. Instead they are rushing to declare "consensus" with their plans and activities.) Also it is important that there be discussion and debate on this on Usenet and the Internet. There are some mailing lists where I have heard this is being discussed but it is not even clear where they all are -- I know of one or two. How can this issue be opened up to public scrutiny? What seems to be the problem is that the Domain Name System is being used in a way not originally intended. It was originally intended as a way to identify organizations online and there was a hierachical architecture which meant the organization was responsible for getting messages to the machines in its organization. So an address xxxx.xxxx.xcollege.edu would go to xcollege and xcollege would have to take over the responsibility to send the messages onto their proper recipient at their site. Now there seems to be an effort to use the DNS to advertise products and to insist on increasing the top level domains rather than respecting the need for the hierarchical architecture. There is also a lawsuit against the NSF going on to increase the number of top level domains and it doesn't seem that the NSF was defending against the lawsuit. Thus those who are pushing through the privatization seem to be those who want to be able to add more top level domains (gTLD's) which can mean big bucks for those who get to sell them. But instead it would appear that a directory service is what is needed for the names of products and that the Domain Name System shouldn't be used as a means of advertising a product. This is a serious question and along with the DNS will go the root server system which is the nerve system for addressing all messages on the Internet. The Internet is a computer system not a public relations system and its integrity is at stake in the current push to privatize these key aspects. I welcome comments, suggestions etc. toward having these issues discussed much more broadly before the Sept. 30 fiat that is being planned to grab control off these vital systems. Ronda ronda@panix.com See also http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ and http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/dns-supplement.txt Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISDN 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:40:57 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: What's With Ameritech Pay Phones in GTE Territory? I've started to notice something unusual recently: Ameritech pay phones in a GTE service area, namely Muskegon, Michigan. I first noticed these in Meijer stores (Meijer [rhymes with "tire"] is a large regional department store/supermarket chain that is probably more popular than K-Mart or Wal-Mart in its home region, which includes parts of Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky and perhaps one or two other adjacent states), and thought that perhaps Meijer had some sort of contract with Ameritech that let them put pay phones in all Meijer stores. But then I noticed Ameritech pay phones popping up at other locations, such as the Clark gas station down the road from Meijer. These phones have the standard Ameritech logo plastered all over them, and the card on the phone says that AT&T is the carrier for calls outside the LATA, and that Ameritech handles calls inside the LATA (I don't think they actually used the term "LATA", but that was the gist of it, and I didn't have a pen and paper to write down the exact phrasing). Well, as best I could determine, that's not quite true. In my very limited testing, it appears that from those phones, ALL toll calls go to AT&T, unless you dial "zero" only to place a call, in which case you get the GTE operator. If there is any way to get an Ameritech operator from those phones, or have a call routed over Ameritech's network (without going through some other company first), I couldn't discover it. Also, the phones have local phone numbers (associated with the local GTE exchange), so they're not being backhauled to any Ameritech switch. I'm just kind of curious as to why one LEC would place pay phones in another LEC's territory, when they otherwise seem so unwilling to compete. What I mean by that is that if you live on a street that is the boundary line between a GTE exchange and an Ameritech exchange, and you want service from the company that serves the homes across the street from you, and there is a pole right across the street and all they'd have to do is drop a normal drop wire to your home, they still won't do it because you're in another company's service area, and those exchange boundaries are respected as though they were an international border or something to that effect. If we are supposed to be in a new competitive era, why are the big phone companies apparently so unwilling to go into each other's territories? The smaller companies seem less inhibited in this regard. For example, the Allendale Telephone Company (which I have praised from time to time for their great service and extremely great rates) is expanding their service into Coopersville (both localities are far suburbs of Grand Rapids, Michigan). Coopersville is currently served by GTE, and the Allendale Telephone Company appears to be laying their own cables and putting in their own pedestals, so that in some locations you see what appears to be a shiny new Allendale Telephone Company pedestal alongside a somewhat older GTE pedestal. This, to me, is how local competition should work - the competitors should build their own cable plant and use their own switches, and not just resell the incumbent phone company's service. But even though a few of the small companies seem willing to compete, the big LEC's seem to have a "hands off" policy toward each other - with the aforementioned exception of Ameritech pay phones in GTE territory. I've never seen the reverse (A GTE pay phone in Ameritech's service area, although that doesn't mean that none exist, it just means that I haven't run across any). Anyone have any ideas as to why Ameritech has decided to cross the almost-sacred exchange boundary to provide pay phone service? Jack (To reply via e-mail, please make the obvious modification to my e-mail address.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #116 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Aug 25 18:47:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA15809; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:47:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199808252247.SAA15809@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #117 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Aug 98 22:36:00 EDT Volume 18 : Issue 117 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Line Complication and Bellsouth (Res Judicata) Telecom Update (Canada) #144, August 10, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) Book Review: "RISKS-FORUM Digest", Peter G. Neumann (Rob Slade) Bell Atlantic and CWA Reach Agreement on New Contracts (Mike Pollock) Network Connection Centers (iiicom@my-dejanews.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * 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: 847-675-3149 ** 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Res Judicata Subject: Telephone Line Complication and Bellsouth Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:15:27 GMT I move into a new house week before last. It was pre-wired with a three-pair cable. I have three telephone lines (A, B, and C). Bellsouth ran two cables to the network interface box. Line A, the main line, has one of those cables. Lines B and C, share the other one. I was planning to use line B for my 56K modem. However, I could never make a connection with my ISP over 24000 bps on that line. Out of curiosity, I connected to line A. Voila! I was hitting 40K and above, depending on the time of day. Why, the difference? Okay, so I call Bellsouth with what I thought was a real simple request, since we didn't need a real clean line for voice calls. I asked them to flip-flop the line number assignments between lines A and B. Holy smokes did that simply request ever start a n avalanche of frustration! They can't get it right. I figured it would be as simple as doing a central office procedure. First they started calling, and went through a series of questions about all sorts of unrelated troubles with the line. Then they sent a repairman out, who said his order listed things like multiple voices on the line. I explained to him what I wanted. He switched the facilities around, but that didn't affect what I wanted. It did, however, cause some heretofore unnoticed occurrences, like the sound of a number being dialed while I'm on a voice call, a hissing sound on the line, periodic clicking during a conversation, as well. I called them back to tell them as much. About an hour later, a woman from the "data transmission resolution center" called to tell me that the FCC only required 19.2 line quality, that line A and line B were on different kinds of cable, blah, blah, blah. Geezus! All I want is for B to have that A's cable assignment, lady. Can anybody `splain to me what gives with these folks? Is what I requested all that complicated a deal? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:25:46 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #144, August 10, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 144: August 10, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** BC Tel Bundles Long Distance, Local Services ** More News From Flat-Rate Front Lines AT&T Canada BC Tel MTS Telus ** Resellers Can't Be CLECS ** Ottawa to License Rural Fixed Wireless ** Cantel Adds 25,000 Subscribers ** Cantel, Royal Bank Offer Wireless POS Transactions ** Clearnet's Mike Connects Wireless Business Communities ** BC Tel Parent Merges With Bell Atlantic ** ISPs Seek Public Notice on Bell ADSL Tariff ** Newbridge Reorganizes ** Payphone Competitors Register ** Telesystem Buys Brazilian Cellcos ** SaskTel Extends High-Speed Internet Services ** Financial Reports Amtelecom CGI Group Rogers Cantel Teleglobe ** Web Site Resources Aid Telemanagement Readers ============================================================ BC TEL BUNDLES LONG DISTANCE, LOCAL SERVICES: BC Tel's new Value Bundle offers residential customers a package of long distance, local, and SmartTouch services for about 15% less than they would cost separately. (See Telecom Update #141). MORE NEWS FROM FLAT-RATE FRONT LINES: ** AT&T Canada's Dime Time residential plan now caps charges for off-peak Canada calls at $20/month; other Canadian and all U.S. calls are 20 cents/minute. AT&T also offers a 5% pre-authorized payment discount and an Aeroplan Miles bonus. ** BC Tel's No Limits Canada caps charges for 10 cents/ minute off-peak Canada calls at $20; other Canadian and all U.S. calls are 22 cents/minute. ** MTS' First Rate Unlimited charges Manitoba customers 9 cents (Saturdays) and 10 cents (Sundays and evenings) to a maximum of $19.95; off-peak calling card calls are 10 cents (Canada) and 20 cents (U.S.). ** Telus says its Your Way Unlimited flat-rate LD plan signed up 25,000 Alberta customers in its first week. Sixty percent transferred from other long distance companies. RESELLERS CAN'T BE CLECs: CRTC Decision 98-12 turns down ACC TelEnterprises' request that "non-Canadian carriers" (in particular, foreign-owned resellers) be allowed to become Competitive Local Exchange Carriers in Canada. The Commission reiterates its May 1997 ruling that only facilities-based carriers may be CLECs, because it would be unable to enforce CLEC obligations on resellers, which are not regulated carriers. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/decision/1998/d9812_0.txt OTTAWA TO LICENSE RURAL FIXED WIRELESS: Industry Canada says it will immediately begin licensing fixed wireless communications in the 3.4-3.7 GHz frequency band for voice and data service in rural areas. Bell Canada has been using this frequency in parts of Ontario, under experimental/ developmental licenses, to upgrade multiparty customers to single-line service. CANTEL ADDS 25,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Rogers Cantel posted a net second-quarter gain of 24,900 subscribers, twice the number of the previous quarter. About 400,000 Cantel subscribers (25% of the total) have digital service. Monthly disconnects rose to 1.87% (last year: 1.5%). (See Telecom Update #131, #143) CANTEL, ROYAL BANK OFFER WIRELESS POS TRANSACTIONS: The Royal Bank has certified wireless point-of-sale transaction processing via Rogers Cantel's AirPOS service, which runs over the Mobitex data network. CLEARNET'S MIKE CONNECTS WIRELESS BUSINESS COMMUNITIES: Clearnet's Mike wireless service links 650 construction businesses and 4,000 users in a "wireless community," which offers instant phone contact via two-way radio. Other "Industrynet" services have been launched in six additional sectors. BC TEL PARENT MERGES WITH BELL ATLANTIC: GTE, which owns a majority of BC Tel and QuebecTel, plans to merge with Bell Atlantic in a US$53.4-Billion deal. "It's good news," BC Tel CEO Don Calder told the Financial Post, since the West Coast telco will "fill a gap" for Bell Atlantic. ISPs SEEK PUBLIC NOTICE ON BELL ADSL TARIFF: Bell Canada Tariff Notice 6249 proposes an ADSL access service for Internet Providers who wish to provide ADSL to business customers. The Canadian Association of Internet Providers has asked the CRTC not to approve the tariff without a "full public process." http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/proc_rep/telecom/1998/8740/b2-6249.html NEWBRIDGE REORGANIZES: Newbridge Networks is dividing its networking business into three groups -- telecom switches, Internet and networking products, and access products. The change was announced by new President Alan Lutz, who joined the company from Compaq in June. PAYPHONE COMPETITORS REGISTER: Canada Payphone Corporation and Paytel Canada have registered with the CRTC as Competitive Pay Telephone Service Providers. TELESYSTEM BUYS BRAZILIAN CELLCOS: Telesystem International Wireless, which is controlled by Charles Sirois, heads the consortium which has won the bidding for two newly privatized Brazilian cellular companies. Bell Canada International failed to win either of the Brazilian cellcos it bid for. SASKTEL EXTENDS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICES: SaskTel's Sympatico High-Speed Internet service, which uses ADSL technology, is now available in Weyburn. FINANCIAL REPORTS: ** Amtelecom, an independent Ontario telco, took a $2.5- Million charge in the second quarter, mainly to pay for downsizing its unprofitable U.S. courier/fulfillment business. Revenue was $34 Million, 16% above last year; the net loss was $1.2 Million. ** CGI Group, buoyed by its acquisition of Bell Sygma, recorded $158 Million in revenue for the three months ending June 30, a 123% increase over last year. Net income rose 218% to $7.7 Million. (See Telecom Update #115) ** Rogers Cantel's second-quarter revenue dropped 0.7% from last year to $306 Million, as revenue per subscriber fell 8.7%. Net loss was $10.3 Million, down from a $19.7- Million loss in the previous quarter. Rogers Communications lost $44 Million, while revenue increased 6% over last year to $716 Million. ** Teleglobe's second-quarter earnings were $45 Million, up 33% from last year. Increasing U.S. and European traffic boosted revenue 21% to $575 Million. WEB SITE RESOURCES AID TELEMANAGEMENT READERS: Many of the resources on the Angus TeleManagement Web site are designed to assist readers of Telemanagement: The Angus Report on Business Telecommunications in Canada. ** The Web site's Telecom Resources section gives Internet links to all communications organizations mentioned in Telemanagement. ** The Web site Telecom Calendar provides links to events mentioned in Telemanagement's Calendar. ** Comprehensive Web site subject indexes and content lists enable readers to locate past articles on any topic. Visit the Angus Web site at http://www.angustel.ca For Telemanagement subscription information, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225, or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:31:00 -0800 Subject: REVIEW: "RISKS-FORUM Digest", Peter G. Neumann Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca MLRISKSF.RVW 980607 "RISKS-FORUM Digest", Peter G. Neumann, 1985 - , , free %E Peter G. Neumann risks@csl.sri.com %D 1985 - %O news:comp.risks http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks %P ~ 20 articles 3 times per week %T "RISKS-FORUM Digest" RISKS-FORUM Digest, generally referred to simply as RISKS, is not the oldest mailing list on the net, nor even the oldest moderated list. It is definitely long lived, extremely consistent in this most ephemeral of worlds, and, quite simply, one of the best. RISKS explores the hazards and failures of technology, and specifically computer technology. However, this is no mere neo- Luddite decrying of the dehumanization of civilization, bu