From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 17:41:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA23880; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:41:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906162141.RAA23880@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #151 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 99 17:41:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland (Steven J Sobol) Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints (Steve Winters) Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (someone@teleport.com) Question About Telephone Numbers (Aoife Morrissy) Bank Sued Over Client Data Sale (Monty Solomon) Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back (Hugh Pritchard) Seeking 'Telephone Techniques' Publication (Partners & Staff) Seeking Information on Camel Phase 3 (mamits_k@my-deja.com) Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (Andrew Green) Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction (John B. Hines) Followup on The DuPage Seven (Riklef Flor) Implementation of VON/IP Technology (webnerd@beta.rwu.edu) Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation (Daniel Brody) Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts? (Steve Winters) Re: Internet Regulatory Freedom Act (J.R. Phillips) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Herb Stein) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing in Cleveland Date: 15 Jun 1999 22:19:02 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On 14 Jun 1999 01:59:33 GMT, bob@cis.ysu.edu allegedly said: > I really wish these folks would cut up area codes once and make it > stick. We just went through a switch from 216 to 330 in 1996. When > splits/overlays are needed, why not split/add codes to last more than > just a couple of years?? It seems to me that the Youngstown area doesn't typically experience as much growth as Cleveland or Columbus or Akron. Maybe when they estimated how many new numbers would be needed, they underestimated?? Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) Subject: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:45:19 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: support@sellcom.com OK, update. I have been receiving requests for the FCC contact info. I am talking with the FCC right now and am being advised that they prefer to receive complaints about unsolicited FAXes by mail. Please mail a cover letter stating that the person or company recieved an unsolicited FAX that contained an advertisement and that the person or company has no business or personal relationship to the sender of the FAX. Also please include the date and time of the FAX and be sure to include a copy of the FAX you are complaining about. Provide as much information as possible and send it as soon as possible. The address is: FCC Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement Consumer Protection Branch Room 5A863 Washington, DC 20554 Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is Steve, aren't these the people who get around to opening/reading their mail six or eight months after it arrives? By that point in time, the junk faxers might well be out of business and/or set up shop under a new name on the other side of the country. I had hoped, based on earlier messages in this thread, that the FCC might be a bit more responsive, but your statement that they 'prefer to receive things by mail' is not a good sign. Readers should also note that FCC can be contacted at their web site which is http://www.fcc.gov and I would suggest looking at that also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: someone@teleport.com Subject: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 Organization: As server security goes, it's as if NT wears a 'Kick me' sign. Reply-To: usbcpdx.teleport.com@teleport.com ( at ) ( dot ) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:02:59 GMT Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)? ------------------------------ From: amorrissy@altavista.net (Aoife Morrissy) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:32:37 EDT Subject: Question About Telephone Numbers Hi Patrick, I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number versus a "bad" number. So far I haven't been able to find much information but I happened across your site and I thought I would just check to see if you would have any ideas? Any guidance would be gratefully appreciated. Kind regards, Aoife Morrissy amorrissy@altavista.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 'good' and 'bad' are subjective terms and depend on your intentions for the number. Years ago, numbers ending in two or three zeros, that is 'hundred' or 'thousand' were considered very desirable by many business places. Numbers consisting of repetitive digits, ie xxx-1515 or xxx-1212 are considered to be desirable by some. Businesses generally want easy to remember numbers. Numbers which can be translated into words are considered good, since they are usually easy to remember. Numbers consisting of all the same digit are helpful, such as the {Chicago Tribune} newspaper's classified advertising 'counselors' (another name for the person who takes your advertising request over the telephone); they have 312-222-2222. Judith Oppenheimer would agree that where toll-free numbers are concerned, having well-known, easily understood words and phrases made from number combinations is quite important, such as 800-FLOWERS. On the other hand, would you want to have 554-1212, 556-1212, or any number off by only a digit or perhaps by a digit transposed from that of a very popular, often-used number such as the local weather fore- cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do think your intended application is all-important here. I was once chatting with a friend who asked for the phone number to something. I looked it up and told him; it was something like 528-9037 and after hearing that, his response was, 'oooh! ick! how awful! ...' About 35 years ago, I had 312-RAVenswood-8-7425 which really spells PATRICK. And do you know, I did not catch that for about a month after the number had been assigned to me? I found out later the telco service rep from Illinois Bell who had assigned me my number had deliberatly picked it out as a joke on me. Then one day, a friend mentioned it to me and I looked at my number more closely, and thought back to the day I had ordered the service and my conversation with the rep. The exchange in Chicago known as 312-744 has a similar glorious history. It is exclusively an exchange used for City of Chicago muni- cipal government. Until the middle 1960's, when cord switchboards were in use by city government, City Hall was RANdolph-6-8000 and the Police Department administrative offices were WABash-2-4777. Police were cut over to centrex first, and a new exchange had to be started. In those days, police were often called the derogatory term 'pigs' and a very vocal anti-war (Vietnam) protestor who was employed by Illinois Bell as a central office technician cleverly selected the prefix 744 (guess what it spells!) for the new exchange. Nothing was said about it; no associations were made with the word, the exchange was started with police getting cut over first and then a couple months later the rest of City Hall offices. Once it was too late to do much about it, then the {Seed}, which was an 'underground' and anti-war newspaper of the time was pleased to announce that henceforth all city officials and police officers could be reached by telephone at their new direct dial numbers, which was simply PIG followed by the four digit extension they had used prior to the cutover. 'Just dial PIG-xxxx, where xxxx is the extension of the pig you wish to speak with. The main number for all pigs, if you want information is PIG-4000'. As it came to light, King Daley the First (the present mayor's father) insisted that 'we are not pigs, we are just regular people'. A few police officers had fun with it by answering their phones using the phrase 'oink oink' for a couple days until they were told by administrative fiat to cut it out. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:46:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bank Sued Over Client Data Sale Deal sparks outcry over privacy violations By Kim S. Nash 06/14/99 The state of Minnesota last week sued U.S. Bank for allegedly selling Social Security numbers, account balances and other sensitive customer data to a telemarketing company in exchange for commissions. A federal official said last week that several other banks are hawking customer information, which raises serious privacy concerns. It also gives a boost to pending legislation, security and privacy experts said. http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/990614AE82 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23 EDT From: Hugh Pritchard Subject: Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back Organization: MCI WorldCom > Some time ago, MCI Mail decided to block TELECOM Digest from delivery > to mcimail.com sites thinking that it was 'spam'. It was explained to > me by someone at wcom.com at 'one of our operators thought it was spam > and put a block on the Digest which has now been removed.' Even before WorldCom bought MCI, internal users of MCI Mail (domain name MCIMail.com) were being urged to use the newer, POP3-based service called Innermail, which had a domain name of MCI.com. A few months ago, someone decided that "MCI.com" just didn't reflect the true nature of MCI WorldCom, so the Innermail domain name was changed to WCom.com. Hugh.Pritchard@WCom.com (or 9007944@pageMCI.com to my pager) (703) 341-6995; page 1-888-900-7944; FAX (703) 341-9126 ------------------------------ From: Partners & Staff Subject: Seeking 'Telephone Techniques' Publication Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:30:43 -0600 Hello there, I was wondering if it is you who emails out the Telephone Techniques newsletters. We received them about 3 years ago and then stopped getting them. We are now interested in receiving them again. If you are the ones could you please put us on your mailing list. Our email address is bpp-ca@telusplanet.net. Thanks Colleen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, not me. Maybe some readers might know where to find this publication, if it is still around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mamits_k@my-deja.com Subject: Seeking Information on camel phase 3 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:06:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Anyone know the current status of camel phase 3 specification? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:16:03 -0500 Our Moderator notes: > Cruz was released and on investigating the 'evidence' a little > further, the claims made by the police officers totally fell apart. > Cruz filed suit, as to be expected, and the stench became so > bad after the {Chicago Tribune} started working on it that the > seven law enforcement guys had to be put on trial. [...] All > seven will likely be convicted. Pat, apparently you were out of town recently, or something ... Two of the defendants had the charges dropped by the judge at the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation, and the remainder were found Not Guilty at the conclusion of the trial. This happened about a week and a half ago. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the update. I did not know about this. Aren't those the same guys who were complaining that they would recieve unfair treatment because of the coverage given by the {Chicago Tribune} and how the trial would have to be postponed indefinitly or else moved out of town because of the prejudice shown in the Tribune articles? For those unfamiliar with it, a week prior to the trial of the so-called 'Dupage Seven' -- the prosecutors and police officers on trial for their role in the Rolondo Cruz case -- the {Chicago Tribune} ran a five part, very lengthy, very detailed series in the paper on the subject of police and prosecutor misconduct in criminal cases in the Chicago area. They documented a dozen or more cases in which the state had to dismiss charges, or the defendant had to be released from prison -- usually death row -- once the lies (or to be kind, let's call them 'distortions of the truth') told by police officers under oath came to light, or when witnesses came forward to say that prosecutors had coached them how to get on the witness stand and lie. They summarized a dozen more cases. It seems of the several men released from death row last year in the USA, the majority or most were from northern Illinois. The Tribune also gave the names of the prosecutors and others involved in the travesties, and explained how for the most part they were still employed by the state as prosecutors, having gone unpunished. Oooh, did the manure hit the fan! This, a few days before the Dupage Seven were to go on trial. Attornies for the seven castigated the Tribune saying now the guys would never get a fair trial. The Tribune had a most appropriate response, saying, "Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? Isn't that why police officers and others come to our reporters and whisper in their ears about 'certain defendants' in the hopes the newspaper will print the whispers as truth and as a result generate community hostility against the defendant-of-the- day, thus removing any hope for a fair trial? It would never do to have a fair trial for someone who was innocent would it; the person might actually be found not guilty." Anyway Andy, are these the same seven guys who a few months ago were weeping and wailing and wringing their hands about how they would never get a fair trial now that the Tribune had screwed them over? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: Phone Call Leads to NYC Police Conviction Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:10:22 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Carl Moore: > Cruz was released and on investigating the 'evidence' a little further, > the claims made by the police officers totally fell apart. Cruz filed > suit, as to be expected, and the stench became so bad after the {Chicago > Tribune} started working on it that the seven law enforcement guys > had to be put on trial. After all these years, one cop is now the > Chief of Police in one of the suburbs, two of the prosecutors are > now private attornies, and one of the prosecutors is a judge. All > seven will likely be convicted. The case against two of them was kicked, after the prosecution failed to make a case in the judge's eye. The other five were aquitted of all charges, and later seen partying with the jurors after the case at a local restaurant. Cruz was blamed yet once again, that his lies and efforts to blame someone else was the problem. A civil suite is still pending, I think. The good ol' boy network is alive and well at the county courthouse here in DuPage County. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (sarcastically) ... so I have heard. But Carl Moore explained it succinctly: when someone in the fraternity known as the 'corrections industry' falls short of the glory of Janet Reno, they have to be given professional courtesies from others in the same line of work. Somehow I don't think that Carl meant it quite like I am phrasing it however. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Riklef Flor Subject: Update on the DuPage Seven Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:03:18 -0500 PAT, Ok...you've probably gotten LOTS of replies back on this one already ... The DuPage 7 were acquitted of all charges two weeks ago. The defense did a fairly good job of showing that Rolando Cruz is a pathological liar, and that no one is exactly sure what the real story is. For the most part, though, I agree with you ... the poor kid has gone through the ringer ... and the fact is ... he was acquitted. Leave the poor guy alone. Of course, the Nicario family will continue their witch-hunt ... which is a sad thing. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled TELECOM Digest Keep up the good work! Rik [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mr. and Mrs. Nicario were the parents of the six-year old girl who was raped and murdered now some fifteen or more years ago. They *thought* the matter was resolved and that there would finally be closure when Rolando Cruz was sent to death row. Their living hell began the day their daughter Jeannie was missing. It was abated or mitigated somewhat when days later, the youngster's naked body was found dumped in a deserted area and they realized that at least the child was now safe from further harm; that the child would realize no further pain and suffering. Over five years they went through two trials for Cruz, both of which ended with a higher court ruling there had been a mistrial, and ordering it to start all over. The *third* time the state brought Cruz to trial, a dozen or so years after the first trial -- itself a couple years after the offense had occurred -- Cruz was released. Then a few months later the officials involved were put on trial. Jeannie Nicaro's parents had to deal with all this, as well as an unrelated man in prison (Brian Dugan) who mocked them publicly and said he would confess to the crime (he is a likely suspect) only on the condition the state would not seek the death penalty. Since it is difficult and has little effect to further punish someone already in prison, and since the prosecutors were out for blood, they ignored Dugan's con- fession and put Cruz on trial a third time. In the midst of these events last year, you may recall the twelve year old girl in Chicago who was raped and murdered. She was found by the two children (were they seven and eight years old?) who then were themselves accused of the crime and newspapers around the world headlined the next day that 'two youngest killers ever in history' had been arrested in Chicago. Within a couple days, 'evidence' the police had gathered was exposed as a total sham, and the two young 'accused killers' were advised by their attorney to never, ever speak to a police officer again about the case. As a result, the the only possible hopes the police might have had for solving the crime (the kids had seen an older person nearby) vanished when the kids were taught 'police officers will lie about you if you give them a chance'. That crime is still unsolved also. Like the message sent by 'the Baker Family' yesterday said, just call me a bitter old man, frustrated by my own lack of accomplishments in life. I would not wish living in Chicago on anyone, and certainly not the 'Chicago style of justice'. Its time for more telecom stuff. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:12:22 -0400 From: webnerd@beta.rwu.edu Subject: Implementation of VON/IP Technology Could I request more discussion regarding real world implementation of VON/IP technology? Pat, Keep up the good work ! \/\/eb/\/erd [Bitter old man replies: Sure, you can request whatever you like around here. I do not charge anything extra for people who wish to make requests. If other Nerds see your request and wish to act on it, no doubt my mailbox tomorrow will dictate what the content of the Digest for the day after that will be. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Brody Subject: Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:53:00 -0400 Dear Editor, I have been researching a company called "Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation" to see what has come of the organization. I have found some information about a company called Postal Telegraph Co. but I do not know if they are one in the same. Please let me know if you have heard of "Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation" and if you have any knowledge of what happened to this early telecommunications corporation. Please respond to: ADBrody@Erols.com Thank you. Sincerely, Daniel Brody [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure they were one and the same. When this company was discussed here a few weeks ago, John Levine provided information about them going out of business and merging with Western Union in 1943. Perhaps if this is not correct, John will give a followup. PAT] ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) Subject: Re: Siemens 2420 Purchase - Any Thoughts??? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:45:08 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: support@sellcom.com Robert spake thusly and wrote: > Given your distance requirements, you might consider a new digital > cordless telephone system that has a range of 5 miles in open terrain, > and over 11 floors through an office building. We distribute this new > product and you can find an image and details on our web site at: We also carry that phone system at www.sellcom.com While the EnGenius SN-900 Ultra has the longest range of anything we have tried, the 5 mile part is a bit of a stretch for any "real-world" application that I am aware of. I would like to see an "honest" rating system for cordless phone systems, maybe like the car gas ratings of "city" and "highway". Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM ------------------------------ From: j.r.phillips@uk.pwcglobal.com Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:44:22 +0200 Subject: Internet Regulatory Freedom Act I am interested in any opinion about the recent bill introducted in the Senate called the Internet Regulatory Freedom Act. ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:11:30 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) There doen't seem to a a problem getting flat-rate service in St. Louis either. Residential or business. In article , hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) wrote: > aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones >> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 >> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered > Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of > this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area > calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of > our more temperate suburbs). Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #151 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 16 18:34:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA26766; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:34:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906162234.SAA26766@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #152 TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Jun 99 18:34:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Doug Reuben) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Mark Crispin) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Mike Desmon) Question About CEPT Signal (Alonzo Alcazar) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:35:22 EDT In article was written: > Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still > haven't figured out why, and I'm hoping someone here knows the answer. > I was just in Canada, and I drove for three hours from Toronto to > Thousand Islands, and I have five bars of signal on my (digital) phone > for the whole trip. The second I crossed the border into the US, I > lost the signal. I've travelled in Israel, Norway (100 miles north of > the artic circle!), Geneva, and London, and seen five bars of signal > almost everywhere. But here in the US, I can't drive from Boston to > NY without losing signal. This is obviously not a technology problem. > What politicial or economic forces are making it impossible to create > a good digital phone network in the US? (I would add that even when I > >have< signal, as often as not I can't receive calls when roaming on > AT&T.) I'd actually omit the "digital" :) And the AT&T Digital One Rate "failed" Call-delivery problem is well-known; see below. Although I agree you have an exceedingly valid point (and I'm glad someone else has observed this), the areas you are comparing may not best serve to exemplify the assertion that coverage outside the US is much more seamless and integrated than it is here. I'm not sure exactly where you were, but the topography in Ontario just north of the US border (and Quebec for that matter) is mainly level, while shortly after you cross into the US (eg, a bit south of the Thousand Islands, and very much so from Quebec to Vermont) you start getting some hills and mountains, etc. Not that this should make a difference, but is likely that covering the relatively flat expanse just north of the border between Toronto and Quebec is a bit easier than covering the somewhat hillier terrain of northern New York and Vermont. That being said, there are a number of reasons I can think of why coverage is comparatively poor in the US as compared to elsewhere: 1. The US system was initially designed around 3-watt mobile phones mounted in cars or used as transmobile phones. As a result, early network architecture and investment into plant and equipment was based around this model, and even after 11 years, many systems still reflect this mode of thinking (for example, Cell One/VT 00313 has an excellent system covering a variety of challenging areas, but their system is still optimized for 3-watt phpnes and has terrible handoff problems with handheld .6 watt phones. They do NOT offer digital service despite their promotions offering a "digital" airtime plan -- the digital means nothing, it is just a sales ploy.) 2. The US system was apportioned into many small systems, so that geographically interrelated areas can and frequently are served by different (and sometimes competing) carriers. For example, the NY Metro "A" market is served by ATTWS (00025) and Bell Atlantic in CT (00119). But Bell Atlantic is also the "B" carrier who competes directly with ATTWS in the NY 00025/00022 market. As a result, they don't always cooperate on things. For example, handoffs between the two systems are generally poor, and you can't travel far between the two systems without being dropped. This is not a technical problem, but a business decision on the parts of ATTWS/BAMS. In order for a mobile to hand off from one carrier's switch to another, there needs to be a T-1 or some other communications link between the two switches. ATTWS has many switches in NY, yet BAMS only connects to a few of them. Thus, a call initiated in CT which roams into NY will initially be handed off into one of the ATTWS NY switches, but shortly after ingressing further into ATTWS's territory, it will drop since BAMS does not connect to more "distant" ATTWS switches. They are both aware of this, and have *opted* not to do anything about it, yet there is no *technical* reason why calls can't hand off all the way. Indeed, if you initiated a call in the NY market right before crossing into CT, and you hand off to CT successfully, you can proceed far into CT since only one switch covers you for quite a while in BAMS's CT A market. 3. Digital also has its problems ... if I am using my CDMA phone on the BAMS Boston 00028 system, and drive down I-84 to CT to (hopefully) hand off to the SNET/B 00088 system, the digital signal should drop to analog so it can hand off (in analog) to SNET's system (SNET doesn't use CDMA). But this never happens, and instead, the call degrades to the point that it drops. If both SNET and BAMS used CDMA this may not be a problem, but since SNET uses TDMA and BAMS CDMA, the handoff issue is trickier, and neither carrier has really spent the time to try to get it to work. (If you put your phone in analog mode BEFORE you make/receive a call, and then commence a call before you hand off it *will* work, but the protocol to hand off from CDMA to analog doesn't seem to either exist or work between the two carriers. At the very least, BAMS should drop the call to analog before it hits SNET, but CDMA has this annoying (although sometimes useful for other reasons of system differentiation) habit of always going for the CDMA signal, even if it is too weak to carry on a conversation, despite a siginificantly stronger analog signal being present. But if a CDMA signal can be "downgraded" to an analog within a given system (which it can and regularly does when you leave the CDMA area), the same can be done right before you hand off to another non-CDMA system; SNET and BAMS just haven't done this yet. 4. There are many areas of the country where there are only 2 wireless carriers (ie, the A and B carriers) and no PCS or other competition like Nextel or Sprint. As a result, the A and B carriers are very happy to sit on their relatively high airtime rates and roamer fees and basically do little to build out their systems other than what is required by the FCC to keep their licenses (although this duopolisitc lethargy is getting harder to come by because even these carriers see the writing on the wall and realize they won't have a duopoly forever). In some markets, there is only one carrier with any real coverage, such as along US-7 in CT where ATTWS, which owns a small piece of northwestern CT, has superior coverage over SNET, so if you want cellular coverage along that corridor, you need to go with AT&T -- there is no other wireless carrier with service in that area. Where the duoploy (or the even worse monopoly situation) still exists, there frequently is no incentive to put towers where revenue is anything less than optimal, and many carriers, either strapped for cash or just dumb and not forward-looking don't spend the time to worry about gaps in their network. 5. Tower siting is also a big issue here -- in some states, like NY, every little town (as it currently stands) can make rules governing tower siting and placement. Just to get a new tower up takes over a year if you are lucky, and if there is some objection or someone from the local town board doesn't want a tower on top of a hill because it ruins his sunrise view 2 days out of the year when the sun is directly aligned with the tower, well, he can stall the process for months. (Recently BAMS got final approval to put a tower up along the NY-22 in Dover, NY, after about 3 years of fighting with the town board ... This is only ONE tower covering maybe 6 miles of NY-22 ... NY is a big state ... imagine what they have to go through to get their entire territory covered ...). NY State is making some progress by trying to reconcile the interests of landowners with *legitimate* (non-Not-In-My-Back-Yard) siting concerns with new legislation designed to streamline and codify the process, but there are still plenty of states like CT with thier zoning bodies such as the CT Siting Board which make it VERY difficult to put up new towers. I've even noticed in areas of LA there are towers much shorter than you see elsewhere and shorter than one would expect would be needed for optimal performance, perhaps as a eslut of local ordinances restricting tower hieght. Obviously there are some legitimate siting concerns, but having this hodge-podge of rules and ordinances from one city to another all over the country makes it very difficult to plan ahead for coverage if you don't know how many towers you will need from a given company if some town board will come back and say "Oh, the new one you are putting up, well, it must look like a pine tree and be no more than 150 feet tall" (take a look at the Garden State Parkway just north of the I-287 JCT by about 5 miles ... there's a weird looking "tree" there on the northbound side.) 6. Roamer gouging: In many cases, carriers see other carrier's customers as mobile expense accounts, which can be charged as needed to supplement subscriber revenue. In Canada, Bell operates most of the B network in eastern Canada, and Cantel/ATT the A network. They have an incentive to make sure they their switches talk to each other, that handoffs work well as you drive from system to system in their networks, and have central means to coordinate and remedy problem reports (or so they say :) ) which is not common in the US with its fragmented market. Roaming is not oriented as much towards revenue generation as it is to keeping customers on YOUR network. In the US it is a little bit different :). Carriers see roaming outside of their networks as money making opportunities, and are much less concerned with seamless handoffs, feature interoperability, call delivery, etc., as they are optimizing roaming prices, or in cases like Southwestern Bell's Cell One Boston 00007 system, charging YOUR OWN CUSTOMERS $4 per month each time they roam! Other carriers provide roaming services to the extent that it (apparently) suits their purposes, forgetting that the customer's functionality and utility which he derives from the phone is (or should be) they key issue. For example, ATTWS/NY Digital One Rate customers generally can't receive calls when in the Boston or ComCast/NJ markets and outside of the Digital One Rate area (ie, while roaming on networks other than AT&T but "near" areas where AT&T has its own towers). Callers just get a busy signal or go to voicemail (I've tried this and verified this with two 917 ATTWS/NY digital one rate numbers, and the results are the same -- callers either get a busy signal or go right to voicemail, even though the phone is on and roaming very well in analog mode and outgoing calls work fine. This may be important for AT&T customers (and perhaps to ATTWS, although they save money with this system so perhaps they secretly approve of this "problem"), but to Comcast and Cell One/Boston it's not a major issue and it takes quite a while to gather up the right people at ATTWS and their counterparts at ComCast and CO/Boston and try to get the matter resolved. 7. US Customers are more interested in price, or rather competition in some of the major markets has focused the primary consumer issue on price rather than quality of service, despite the carriers' ads promoting their own networks as superior. Take Sprint PCS for example: Absolutely horrible coverage and very poor service in the areas which they do cover. I've been dropped so many times in LA, NY, Boston and DC on my Sprint CDMA phone that I'm just used to it. In the same areas, I am rarely, if ever dropped on my analog phone, and sometimes dropped on my CDMA phone. (IMO, CDMA digital is pathetic for most applications, and BAMS and GTE and/or Qualcomm have still not figured out a way to stop drops in perfect coverage areas ... the phone will just drop even though you are right near a tower ... not to mention all the other problems associated with CDMA when coverage chracter- istics aren't as good.) Yet people flock to Sprint ... Why? For probably the same reason I did: A package of services for one low price, same price anywhere in their markets in the US, first incoming minute free, no long distance/toll delivery charge, etc. In other words, I don't feel as if I am being nickle-and-dimed by Sprint like I do with so many other carriers, such as Bell Atlantic for "toll delivery" charges within their own system. So I use my Sprint phone to get calls, and the important ones I transfer to my other accounts where needed. It appears then that customers in the US, either by conditioning or out of mere frugality, are more interested and thus sensitive to pricing than service quality. Otherwise, how could one explain why Sprint, which really doesn't work outside of major metro areas (unless you roam and pay $.69 per minute) and in these areas coverage is so poor and sound quality laughable, can obtain so many customers so quickly. (And Sprint in many markets, including NY, Boston, and most BAMS markets, is NOT the least expensive carrier; it is just marketed as such an appeals to people tired of the nickle-and-diming behavior of some of the cellular carrier ... NO ONE after using a Sprint phone keeps the service becuase the voice quality is better! ;) ) In general, the US system is comprised of many small satrapies of frequently bickering, petty, carriers who due to either their own shortsightednes, regulatory, or financial concerns are unwilling or unable to make improvements to their own networks or to reach out to other carriers and form regional "alliances". This in turn results in the comparatively poor quality of coverage in some markets and poor integration between systems. In the long run, when carriers like AT&T, BAMS/GTE, Sprint and Nextel cover significantly larger footprints in the US, these other "non-alligned" carriers may begin to finally take note and stop trying to gouge for revenue and otherwise ignore each other's customers and work together to form wide-area, ubiquitous and seamless networks to compete effectively with the larger carriers. While I am not suggesting they communally form a large entity in which they each become immersed and lose their local identity, there will be little reason for me to maintain an account with Cell One/VT (00313, Atlantic Cellular) for use in Vermont, if and when Bell Atlantic builds out its system them and provides seamless coverage (handoffs, etc) to the Boston, CT, and Albany markets. The same will be true for people residing in those areas: Why use Cell One VT, which will limit your use of its phone (ie, fixed number of romaing minutes) outside of its market when you can just as well use Bell Atlantic, and, by virtue of it's ultimately controlling a large chunk of the east coast market (to a greater extent than it currently does), will be able to offer its customers home / unlimited use of its entire network and much more seamless coverage as compared to its competitors. And this is not to say that Cell One/VT is not a good carrier -- quite the opposite is true. Cell One/VT covers some very challenging areas, and generally does so quite well. Yet if a Cell One/VT customer roams to New Hampshire's seacoast, considerably higher per minute charges will apply, regardless of any roaming plan (which offers a limited number of included minutes). Should Bell Atlantic build out its VT system, and acquire the relatively small and obscure US Cellular 01484 system covering southern VT and NH, it will have a network comparable to Cell One/VT AND be able to leverage all of its properties in Albany (00078), Boston (00028), CT/Western Mass (00119), and Manchester (00428), as well as the rest of its network (possibly augmented by the GTE properties) to offer (hopefully) seamless coverage and same rate servic, which Cell One/VT, under the currently limited intercarrier regime, could only offer by "eating" the charges of the roaming carriers it works with in the same areas and subjecting it to large amounts of cost exposure in terms of its paying for Cell One/VT customers to roam on other networks, a cost BAMS will not have to incur (since it will own all of the system involved). But back to the main question, there are many reasons why coverage and interconnectivity suffer in the US as compared to other countries, and I've tried to outline my thoughts on the issue above. In terms of what can be done, I think it is more than just a series of technical fixes between carriers or in a given carrier's home market. Neddless to say these are needed and will be taken care of, if not because the FCC requires that a given percentage of a licenses coverage area be covered within 5 years, then because customers demand it. But more globally, seeing that customers primary interest in a carrier appears to be based more on price than anything else, farsighted local carriers, if they intend to be in business 10 years from now, will start *now* to work on building regional relationships where they do not gouge each others roamers and where they work together to build seamless networks *before* Sprint, Nextel, AT&T, and the plethora of other regional and nationwide lisencees come into their territory and steal away the best, highest spending, least customer support intensive customers. Because as soon as I can get the same coverage with AT&T Digital PCS or Sprint of Bell Atlantic in a given market (Vermont for example), I have the benefit on unlmited airtime off peak (Bell Atlantic), or free incoming minutes with no toll delivery charge (Sprint) or..well, I don't know what's with AT&T..they don't like giving unlimited things :(, and don't suffer the restircitions that I do with a Cell One/VT account in terms of roaming or paying a premium (either up front or when the bill comes in an itemized manner) to roam, I'll drop my Cell One/VT account so I have one less account to worry about and one fewer phone to carry on trips. Many carriers will say these aren't important issues to their customers, and that they wish to concentrate on building their own system and not worrying about interconnect since most of their customers stay in one area. I question this assertion -- mobile phones are exactly that -- mobile, and people tend to drive and visit other friends or conduct business, etc. over increasingly larger areas. In many cases they may not use their phone outside their local area for months, but when they do, and get socked by high charges or get dropped on an important business call as they hand off from one system to another, they will complain, and if an alternative is available, opt for that instead. Moreover, fostering a greater degree of integration between carriers and offering reciprocal airtime rates is probably one of the lowest cost ways for carriers to keep their customers; it doesn't require an entirely new technical solution or massive investments into new equipment. The cost of T-1's between switches, or retuning towers to optimize inter-system handoffs, or reworking billing arrangements to offer roamers from visiting carriers the same rates as home (even unlimited off peak or special toll plans) is considerably less than building even one new tower or opening a few customer service centers, and has system-wide implications. Yet it is rare to see smaller MSA or most RSAs care too much about this on anything else the the most traveled routes or areas where there is high intersystem traffic (and even in many cases where there is these issues are ignored, such as between BAMS and 360/Altell along I-80 and I-78 in PA, or the "A" carriers along I-80, etc.) (Note this lack of integration and reasonable roaming is also, IMO, hurting the CDPD Digital Wireless IP services which carriers like BAMS, ATTWS, Vanguard, GTE, etc., offer ... the minute you roam off of their networks and onto another carrier you can rack up packet charges very quickly. This is a service which if all the carriers offered at some unlimited flat rate natiownide could serve to bring in new customers to a service which supplements (and generally does not detract from) cellular revenue, yet the carriers penny-wise pound-foolish attitude and application of the cellular model to this service has handicapped it from the outset.) One would hope that the carriers serving such areas begin to see the light and remedy some of the issues that the initial poster promulgated with his questions before the natiownide lisencees come to their respective areas and either run the locals out of business or relegate them (by drying up new subscriber growth and feeding off of churn) to second rate carriers focusing on limited local regions for specialized (and likely low margin) applications. Regards, (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / http://www.interpage.net dsr1@interpage.net +1 (617) 696-8000 (510) 315-2750 ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:43:09 -0700 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: > Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones > in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 > years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered > "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large > geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've > encountered in the past 25 years of reading and auditing phone bills > has been in GTE or Rochester Telephone territories where the carrier > chose not to install sufficiently sophisticated equipment to to pick > up and calculate the charges. Every RBOC I've encountered used a > graduated method for charging local calls, but NONE were open-ended > flat-rate. That's strange. With the exception of the People's Republic of New York City, I've never encountered a locale in the US which didn't have flat rate billing. I always thought that the lack of flat rate in the PRNYC was typical rip-off of New Yawkahs whose knowledge of the outside world effectively ends at the Hudson River ... something about there being cows in Joisey. In those areas that I have encountered which offer both flat rate and measured billing, the RBOC won't let you put measured billing on a line if any of your other lines are flat rate. Measuring billing seems to be offered solely as a means of providing inexpensive dial tone to low-income individuals who place few calls. As for the size of flat rate calling areas, my significant other lives over an hour away by car, on the other side of a major body of water and in a different county. Yet, we're in each other's flat rate calling area. Our flat rate calling areas are growing in size, and now incorporate multiple LOCs in multiple area codes. [Special memo to New Yawkahs: you live in the greatest place in the world. You don't want to visit any place else, and you especially don't want to move there. There is nothing outside but desolate wilderness. Those places let people have guns, not like NYC where everybody is safe. No need to go there. Stay home.] -- Mark -- * RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. * * Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message. * Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:00:00 -0700 From: Mike Desmon Reply-To: mdesmon@gate.net Organization: Cybergate Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is >> no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a >> cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here >> like it ... Actually, CO Finder will tell you. Enter the NPA-NXX and it will tell you who the carrier is, what rate center it's in, etc. It's a pretty good program. ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar) Subject: Question About CEPT Signal Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:47:52 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. What is a CEPT signal? Alonzo ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #152 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 17 12:26:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA29775; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906171626.MAA29775@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #153 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jun 99 12:26:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson It's Time to Register For MobiCom'99 (Jason Redi) Internet Access Thru Cable (Raymond D. Mereniuk) 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (Someone) 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Jim Van Nuland) Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (David Vinograd) Re: Qwest and US West (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Qwest and US West (Jin Hwang) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Adam H. Kerman) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Steven J. 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Jason Redi Subject: It's Time to Register For MobiCom'99 Organization: BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:57:18 GMT IT'S TIME TO REGISTER FOR MOBICOM'99 The Fifth Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking August 15 - 19, 1999 Seattle, Washington, USA http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com The advance program is _complete_ and _available_ on our web site. We invite you to register now to join us for this ground-breaking conference in August. Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE Technically Co-sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society In cooperation with ACM SIGCOMM, SIGOPS, SIGMETRICS, and SIGMOD; the USENIX Association; the IEICE; and the IEE + Supported by the following leading-edge companies + American Mobile, Bell Atlantic Mobile, GTE / BBN Technologies, BellSouth, Compaq Research, CUE, Harris Semiconductor / Prism, IBM Research, Infowave, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft Research, Nettech Systems, Proxim, SmartServ, Symbol, WAP Forum, Wireless Knowledge, and Xerox CONFERENCE BACKGROUND 1999 marks the fifth (and best!) year of the MobiCom Conference Series. We have done much to make this last MobiCom of the century a memorable affair for all attendees. Please allow us to share some of the noteworthy achievements for this year's event. 1) MobiCom '99 has set an all time record in the number of papers it received for review. We received 170 submissions this year, beating '95 by 121%, '96 by 91%, '97 by 69% and '98 by 15%. The task of identifying the best-of-the-best was challenging. 2) MobiCom '99 received the highest number of tutorial proposals ever, up 184% from last year. The quality of these proposals and the qualification of the instructors was remarkable. 3) MobiCom '99 is being endorsed by a record number of professional organizations from all over the world. Several organizations are cooperating with MobiCom for the first time like the IEE (UK), the IEICE (Japan), the USENIX Association (US) and the ACM SIGMOD (US). 4) A record number of corporations are financially supporting this year's conference and a record number are participating in an exhibition that we are trying out for the first time. All of this gives a clear indication of the strength of this year's program, and of the continued excitement in the field. SOME HIGHLIGHTS The main program consists of nine paper sessions and two panel sessions. The paper sessions are single-track, while each of the panel sessions consists of two parallel panels. This will allow you to attend all paper presentations and two of the four panels. This year: 1) We are introducing a new "Next Century Challenges" session with five visionary papers on the future of mobile computing and wireless networking. Details available at http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/tp.htm 2) We are offering the highest number of tutorials ever. After careful deliberation and thought we have picked a total of 8 tutorials covering a gamut of topics useful to you whether you are a novice or an expert in this field. T1. Understanding the Wireless Physical Layer and its Impact on Other Layers - Magda El Zarki, UPenn. T2. Understanding Code Mobility - Gian Pietro Picco, Washington University at St. Louis T3. Wireless Ad Hoc Networking Protocols - David A. Maltz and Josh Broch, CMU T4. Mobile IP and Mobile Networking in the Internet - David B. Johnson, CMU, and Charles E. Perkins, SUN Microsystems T5. Designing Energy Efficient Mobile Systems - - Mani B. Srivastava, UCLA T6. Multicast Communications Over Wireless Networks - - Upkar Varshney, Georgia State Univ. T7. TCP for Wireless and Mobile Hosts - Nitin H. Vaidya, Texas A&M University T8. Wide Area Wireless Data Communications - - Satyajit P. Doctor and Jennifer Yin, Award Solutions Detailed descriptions are provided at: http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/tutorials.htm 3. We have organized a record number of cutting-edge workshops that are co-located with MobiCom 99: W1. Data Engineering for Wireless and Mobile Access (MobiDE)'99 W2. Discrete Algorithms and Methods for Mobile Computing and Communications (Dial M) '99, W3. Wireless Mobile Multimedia (WoWMoM) '99 W4. Modeling and Simulation of Wireless & Mobile Systems (MSWiM)'99. Information about these workshops can be found in http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/workshops.htm 4. We have organized four panels on topics that are timely and with panelist who are passionate about these subjects. P1. Global Satellite Communication Networks P2. Future of Local area Networks P3. Electronic Books P4. Wearable Computers Information about these panels and the panelist can be found in http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/panel.htm 5. We will have a corporate exhibition area, where you can see the latest mobile communication products and services first-hand and find out about breakthroughs in mobile networks, systems and applications. You can meet with the people and companies who are designing and developing the new mobile systems and setting the standards. Information on MobiCom '99 supporters is available at: http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/workshops.htm SOCIALS Several interesting social events in nice settings are part of this year's Conference: S1. Monday Evening (August 16, 1999) Chairman's Welcome Reception Join the organizing team in an informal setting also browse the exhibition area S2. Tuesday Evening (August 17, 1999) Student/Faculty Get Together This will be a three hour cruise of the Puget Sound, with food and spirits provided S3 Wednesday Evening (August 18, 1999) Conference Dinner Banquet Join your colleagues at the Space Needle (a landmark of some significance for Seattle) for some lively entertainment and dinner In addition to the above, we will be providing conference luncheons to all attendees on all three days of the conference. Lunch will also be provided to people attending the workshops on Friday and to those attending the full-day tutorials on Sunday and Monday. LOCATION The conference will be held at the beautiful state of art Bell Harbor International Conference Center -- this is one of the finest conference facilities in all of Washington. Check out the URL. http://www.bellharbor.org/index.html REGISTRATION Thus, don't delay and register today for MobiCom '99. It is THE conference to attend. With a great location, Seattle, Washington, in the heart of downtown, you can't ask for anything more. We look forward to seeing you there. Important URL http://mobicom99.research.microsoft.com/registration.htm Important Dates: July 23, 1999 -- MobiCom '99 and Hotel Registration discounts end August 1, 1999 -- Early registration for MobiCom '99 ends. ------------------------------ From: Raymond D. Mereniuk Organization: FBN Technical Services Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:12:41 -0800 Subject: Internet Access Thru Cable A few years ago no one wanted anything to do with Internet on cable and many said it would be a failure. Now that it is proving to be successful everyone wants a piece of it. I believe the cable operators should be given the privilege of another five to ten years of exclusive operation of their system before they are forced to open it to other service providers. The Telcos had a pretty good run with no competition, why shouldn't the Cablecos have the same treatment? AOL and the other whining ISPs who bet their future on Internet over circuit switched voice quality facilities should suffer the consequences of their previous bad decisions. If the Telcos had the vision they could have invested resources in building high bandwidth pipes to their users many years ago, the technology was available, they knew it had to be done, but they close to do nothing. What good would it do me to allow AOL onto the cable system? Maybe they will made ADSL or some other DSL technology work in the near future. It would be great if the consumer had a true choice in high-speed Internet service providers. The cable company gives me high-speed Internet access for $40/month, so damn cheap competition is not required. And, their service is not that bad either! I frequent websites where I get fast response. If the site is too slow I don't bother to go back much. If UUNET will not peer with @Home and I get poor response going to a UUNET hosted website I will not go back. The UUNET customer loses business and if they care they will either force UUNET to peer with @Home or they will go find a new bandwidth provider which gives @Home customers good website responses. The free market system will work, it just takes time. Plus, I have a choice, if I don't like @Home I can get another ISP. Virtually, Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbn.bc.ca "The Ultimate Enterprise Security Experts" http://www.fbn.bc.ca/sysecurt.html ------------------------------ From: Someone Subject: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:04:00 -0700 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's I get copies of US West Network Disclosures in the mail all the time. I noticed that when #439 arrived, regarding the 971 NPA overlay in Oregon's NPA 503, it began, "On May 14, 1999 Lockheed Martin announced implementation of area code relief for the 503 NPA in the State of Oregon." Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact is a Lockheed person in D.C. What's the deal with that? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and we'll all be dialing many digits. I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to calling (say) to another state? Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory? --Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:48:33 GMT From: David Vinograd Reply-To: d.r.vinograd@city.ac.uk Subject: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat People, Perhaps you can help. We live in London and get back to the US two or three times a year. While we are there I like to call friends etc and do so using my combined ATT credit and calling card. But the rates are silly - $6 for a ten minute call from Boston to Portland, ME. Can you suggest any other way to do this with the following constraints: * No min or monthly charge; * Not tied to a US phone number as we do not have one; * Must be usable from public and private (friends) phone; Thanks, David Vinograd mailto:D.R.Vinograd@city.ac.uk Director of Computing Services http://www.city.ac.uk/~sh392 City University, Northampton Square Phone +44-171-477-8170 London EC1V 0HB, England FAX +44-171-477-8565 ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Qwest and US West Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc. Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:25:33 GMT In article , Wulf Losee wrote: > Regarding Qwest's hostile bid for US West: Hmmm, there's more here > than meets the eye, I think. > Fact: Qwest is making a big push for voice over IP services. > Fact: US West's long distance revenue dropped off 15 percent last > quarter! (That will be very very painful to them if that trend keeps > up). > Fact: Qwest saves a lot of money on Internet phone calls, because as > an "ISP" they don't have to settle up with the local players (i.e. US > West). False. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or whether your backbone carries voice as IP packets, ATM cells, circuit switched TDM bit streams, or anything else. If you terminate a voice call from a LEC and carry it across LATA boundaries, you pay access ("settle up") period. Qwest's general Long Distance offering "settles up" just like any other carrier. (In fact, in at least some cases, their Long Distance offering carries calls on circuit switches -- IP isn't even involved.) > Fact: US West is making lots of waves with FCC to mandate that long > distance carriers who use "packet switching protocols" be forced to > cough up interconnection fees to the local players. (Hmmm, sounds like > an attack on Qwest's modus vivendi). False. The protocol on the backbone doesn't impact access ("interconnection fees"). Now, if you make a modem call to a local ISP, and then, within that modem data stream, send packets that correspond to voice, and those packets happen to transit LATA boundaries, there is no requirement that anyone pay access. But that's completely separate from Qwest's LD offering, and it never applies to "Direct-dialed" long distance -- only to people who want to dial an ISP, packetize their voice themselves, and make their own arrangements for getting it unpacketized on the other end. The FCC, incidentally, isn't much interested in these arguments anyway. It first surfaced many years ago when LECs claimed that the packet networks of the day were IXCs and should pay access -- this gave rise to the "modem tax" rumors. The FCC didn't agree. They tried again once VoIP became viable (for low-quality definitions of viable). They lost again. > CONCLUSION: Qwest wants to, (A) either buy up US West lock stock and > barrel to shut down their yapping, On the theory that no other LECs would ever yap about this, even though they are similarly situated to U S West!? > or (B) they'll be willing to withdraw their hostile offer if US West > makes some concessions. Personally, I think its the former reason > (A). Especially since US West, which has been unable to sell > long-distance services to areas outside its region, but could do so > (under current FCC regs) if it were via those dang "packet switching > protocols". Again, not really true. You only get special exemptions for "those dang packet switching protocols" if the end user does the packetization and depacketization. If the call is made from a POTS line to a POTS line, voice the whole way, it's treated as a plain-old-long-distance-call, with the same regulations and same access charges. Heck, Stratacom (and others) have been selling commerically viable, toll-quality, voice packet (cell) switches for a long time. If all Sprint or MCI or ATT had to do to avoid access was install such things, no one would be paying access these days ... - Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger .sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | brettf@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Jin Hwang Subject: Re: Qwest and US West Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:44:04 -0700 I agree with you since my inside source has told me today that Qwest will be aquiring US West after having a teleconference with Joe Nacchio. Wulf Losee wrote in message news:telecom19.150.7@ telecom-digest.org: > Regarding Qwest's hostile bid for US West: Hmmm, there's more here > than meets the eye, I think. > Fact: Qwest is making a big push for voice over IP services. > Fact: US West's long distance revenue dropped off 15 percent last > quarter! (that will be very very painful to them if that trend keeps > up). > Fact: Qwest saves a lot of money on Internet phone calls, > because as an "ISP" they don't have to settle up with the local > players (i.e. US West). ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX since 1982 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:48:48 GMT In article , Herb Stein wrote: > There doen't seem to a a problem getting flat-rate service in St. Louis > either. Residential or business. Uh, huh. Try calling across the state line. When I lived in St. Louis during 1992, I recall intraLATA toll calls outside the prepaid zone and interLATA to call to the Illinois side of the metropolitan area. At one time you had protected prefixes that were not duplicated in both the Missouri and Illinois sides of the metropolitan area, but I never saw that. There were people on the Illinois side who could still obtain (I think it was called) "metropolitan" numbers that would be billed as if they were in St. Louis. So you could call those numbers prepaid in some zones. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: 16 Jun 1999 23:33:32 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On 16 Jun 1999 03:44:25 GMT, hillary@hillary.net allegedly said: > aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones >> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 >> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered > Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of > this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area > calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of > our more temperate suburbs). Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address? IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: 16 Jun 1999 23:40:03 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:38:45 -0400, aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET allegedly said: > But chances are pretty good you weren't using the phone all the time, > and the carrier you accessed probably wasn't Sprint, itself (don't > forget, Sprint is not a cellular carrier). Yes, they are. But you can't use Sprint as a reference. They love to tout the network they've "built from the ground up"; but the fact that it's a new network means you have a ton of places where you have no access (with a digital-only phone) or expensive roaming (with a dual-mode phone). I've been with GTE for six years, and their cell network has been around since before *that*. Use GTE or BAM or Airtouch or someone that has a mature network if you're going to talk about coverage. Steve Sobol, President, North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net * www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net System Admin and Founding Member, FREE - http://www.spamfree.org IRC:sjsobol> Anyone have Lil-Red's e-mail address? IRC:heller> No. If they had it, it wouldn't be hers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #153 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 17 14:28:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA06123; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:28:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906171828.OAA06123@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #154 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jun 99 14:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso (Rob Slade) Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Derek Balling) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Michael David Jones) Re: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints (Steve Winters) Re: Question About CEPT Signal (Andrew Emmerson) Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (Brian Charles Kohn) Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? (ellis@ftel.net) Chance for a Free Book - Electrical and Computer Engineers (SpectraCom) EarthWeb E-Leaning Expo Live on Internet (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 17 Jun 1999 08:43:56 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTDET.RVW 990423 "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso, 1999, 0-9666700-7-8, U$49.95 %A Edward G. Amoroso eamoroso@mail.att.net %C P. O. Box 78, Sparta, NJ 07871 %D 1999 %G 0-9666700-7-8 %I Intrusion.Net Books %O U$49.95 973-448-1866 fax: 973-448-1868 order@intrusion.net %P 218 p. %T "Intrusion Detection" This is not (very much not) to be confused with the identically named, and almost equally recent, book by Escamilla (cf. BKINTRDT.RVW). Where Escamilla's is basically a large brochure for various commercial systems, Amoroso has specifically chosen to avoid products, concentrating on concepts, and not a few technical details. The text is based on material for an advanced course in intrusion detection, but is intended for administrators and system designers with a security job to do. Chapter one, after demonstrating that the term means different things to different people, gives us an excellent, practical, real world definition of intrusion detection. This is used as the basis for an examination of essential components and issues to be dealt with as the book proceeds. Five different processes for detecting intrusions are discussed in chapter two. Each method spawns a number of "case studies," which, for Amoroso, means looking at how specific tools can be used. (This style is far more useful than the normal business case studies that are long on who did what and very short on how.) Intrusion detection architecture is reviewed in chapter three, enlarging the conceptual model to produce an overall system. Chapter four defines intrusions in a way that may seem strange, until you realize that it is a very functional description for building detection rules. The problem of determining identity on a TCP/IP internetwork is discussed in chapter five, but while the topic is relevant to intrusion detection, few answers are presented. Correlating events is examined in chapter six. Chapter seven looks at setting traps, primarily from and information gathering perspective. The book ends with a look at response in chapter eight. The bibliography is, for once, annotated. While I do not always agree with Amoroso's assessments; I think he tends to give the benefit of the doubt to some who primarily deliver sensation; the materials are generally high quality resources from the field. Books and online texts are included, although the emphasis is on journal articles and conference papers. The content is readable and, although it seems odd to use the word in relation to a security work, even fun. I suppose, though, that I must point out that your humble "worst copy editor in the entire world" reviewer found a significant number of typographic errors. (And some that can't be put down to typos: I think you'll find that it's "berferd" rather than "berford.") This book works on a great many levels. It provides an overall framework for thinking about security. It thoroughly explains the concepts behind intrusion detection. And it gives you some very practical and useful advice for system protection for a variety of operating systems and using a number of tools. I can recommend this to anyone interested in security, with the only proviso being that you are going to get the most out of it if you are, indeed, responsible for designing network protection. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKINTDET.RVW 990423 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com On the other hand, you have different fingers. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:17:04 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers And Pat Replied.... > On the other hand, would you want to have 554-1212, 556-1212, or any > number off by only a digit or perhaps by a digit transposed from that > of a very popular, often-used number such as the local weather fore- > cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are > repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from > people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for > example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do > think your intended application is all-important here. A similar problem exists in my old residence of Fort Wayne, Indiana. GTE is *BIG* there, (one of the city's top 5 employers), and most everyone know's at least one or two people who work for them, either in their Regional Offices, their call centers, or as a tech. The GTE customer service 800 numbers are 800-483-3x00 (the x varies from region to region). It's important to note that in the 219 NPA, 483 is a valid exchange serving ... you guessed it ... Fort Wayne. MANY is the person who would look at the 800 number, see the 483, know they're calling across town, and just dial 483-3600 (which would be the North Region call center ... if they'd put the 800 before it). Instead they would of course bother some local resident. It got so bad that they actually put notices in the phone books REMINDING people that "Just because the 7D number looks like a local number, you REALLY need to dial the 1-800 part as well". There are two really funny after-stories to that (one of which I am NOT permitted to tell under penalty of pain and suffering from a former roommate of mine who still works at the Pit of Despair , er um, I mean GTE North call center, although I CAN say that it involves work orders entered by/for employees, additional listings, and rude names *G*). For more info, see the 1996-97 Fort Wayne phone book, if you can find a copy. ;-) The story I *CAN* tell is that my roommates and I used to have, in Ft. Wayne, 483-3200. (It's nice to be able to look at the telephone number bucket and find yourself something nice). This wasn't much of a problem, since 3200 was GTE-Florida, and the problem didn't occur too often. Occasionally, though, people would call trying to reach GTE-FL when one of us would answer the phone. It was always either a disconnect of service (because the person either moved to Ft. Wayne, or it was a winter home they were turning off service in) or someone who was behind on their bills. In either case, especially knowing the telco "lingo" and manner of talk, it was quite easy to amuse ourselves endlessly, letting them believe that their service was "all well and good and cancelled effective immediately", or in the case of billing problems, make ludicrous payment arrangements that any sane person would think is completely bogus ("Sir, how much do you owe?" [nice leading question for info, since I don't HAVE their info] "1,200 dollars? and you want to pay $50 every month until its paid off? Sure, that's acceptable. No your service won't be disconnected." But unfortunately, GTE made us change the telephone number after less than a year (cuz of the first story) and we got something incredibly dull after that ... See, Pat? You're not the only one with amusing anecdotes from telephone history. ;-) D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know how old you are, or how long you have been in Fort Wayne, but perhaps you recall how prior to sometime in the late sixties or early seventies the phone numbers there were five digits in length with the prefix 'Anthony' .. they were dialable locally as five digits I think, but you could not dial into Fort Wayne from anywhere else. Fort Wayne reminded me then of Lafayette and West Lafayette, another GTE-bastion in northern Indiana with (at the time) a peculiar dialing sequence: telephone numbers in the early days of automatic dialing were seven digits, however Purdue University had its own numbering scheme which worked out to be seven digits as well. Everyone had a seven digit number *except* for Purdue, which had the number '90'. That two digit number could be dialed from anywhere in Lafayette or West Lafayette and would reach the Purdue telephone operator. If one knew the five digit extension desired at Purdue, it could be reached by dialing '92' plus the desired five digits. Or you could call 90 then verbally pass the other five digits to the operator if you wished to do it that way. For a long time after area codes were routinely in place across northern Indiana with 219 for the geographic area which included Fort Wayne and 317 for the geographic area which included Lafayette, direct dialing into those -- or any community served by GTE was impossible. For several years after points served by various AT&T telcos were direct-dialable, one still had to use the operator to call a GTE point. I think the operator did 317+473+121 for calls to Lafayette and 219+483+121 for calls to Fort Wayne, even though the Anthony-xxxxx style numbers persisted there. When the operator in Lafayette or Fort Wayne answered, then the operator in Chicago passed the desired number verbally. In West Lafayette one day at a pay phone I placed a long distance call to Chicago, and asked the operator (in these words) for 'area code 312 (number)' and the operator hastened to inform me "sir, it is *not* 312" (her emphasis) "it is 'Chicago' and the seven digit number when calling from here ..." and she then dialed 312+121 if you knew the number you wanted or 312+141 if it was necessary to get the number from directory assistance, or 'Information' as it was called in those days, and she would be the one to get the number from Information, never the subscriber directly. If you 'just happened' to dial 317-555-1212 and ask the operator for information in Lafayette (as opposed to asking your local 'long-distance operator' (available by dialing 211) to get it for you) she would say to hold on, that she would have to connect you to Lafayette to get the number. There would be a ringing sound once or twice, and when Lafayette answered, the 555-1212 person would say, "Operator, this is a call for information only, do not connect the party." Sometimes 317-555-1212 would refuse to do it at all, and would tell the caller "you have to get that through the long distance operator in your community." I am assuming GTE's subscriber database was not available to AT&T's oper- ators in those days. 'Database' of course back then simply meant a *huge* collection of telephone books on a large table in the center of a room and several people wearing headsets who walked around the table picking up the desired books to look at. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:58:41 GMT >> In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman >> wrote: >>> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still >> Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on >> a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches >> [...] But: > but I still can't carry on a continuous mobile conversation in lower > Manhattan, still can't reliably make or receive a phone call anywhere > in Jersey City, and the cell site that covers where I live is often > completely blocked during evening hours. That's my point. Here in the New York area, some of the major highways have NO coverage, the airports aren't covered reliably, and the system is often just flakey -- both AT&T and BA. In response to my earlier post (wherein I described driving for three hours in CA with 5 bars of signal, and then finding nothing when I crossed into the US at 1000 Islands) some people suggested that my phone has problems. But the bottom line is the same phone that didn't get any signal in the US had 5 bars in Canada. Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what the problem is? -Joel ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: 17 Jun 1999 10:21:51 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Mark Crispin writes: > aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones >> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 >> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered >> "flat-rate" service back in the 60's, the area served was not a large >> geographic expanse. The only flat-rate landline service I've ...snip... > That's strange. With the exception of the People's Republic of New > York City, I've never encountered a locale in the US which didn't have > flat rate billing. I always thought that the lack of flat rate in the > PRNYC was typical rip-off of New Yawkahs whose knowledge of the > outside world effectively ends at the Hudson River ... something about > there being cows in Joisey. And it doesn't even extend up the river into Bell Atlantic (ex-NYNEX, ex-New York Tel) land. We've had flat rate local around Albany as long as I've been here (1978). I can probably call not quite a million people in my local calling area. ...snip... > [Special memo to New Yawkahs: you live in the greatest place in the > world. You don't want to visit any place else, and you especially > don't want to move there. There is nothing outside but desolate > wilderness. Those places let people have guns, not like NYC where > everybody is safe. No need to go there. Stay home.] What he said. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu The cow may be black, but the milk comes out white. - Russian proverb ------------------------------ From: support@sellcom.com (Steve Winters) Subject: Re: Contact Info For Unsolicited FAX Complaints Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:24:01 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: support@sellcom.com > The address is: > FCC > Common Carrier Bureau Enforcement > Consumer Protection Branch > Room 5A863 > Washington, DC 20554 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem is Steve, aren't these the > people who get around to opening/reading their mail six or eight > months after it arrives? By that point in time, the junk faxers might > well be out of business and/or set up shop under a new name on the > other side of the country. I had hoped, based on earlier messages in > this thread, that the FCC might be a bit more responsive, but your > statement that they 'prefer to receive things by mail' is not a good > sign. Readers should also note that FCC can be contacted at their web > site which is http://www.fcc.gov and I would suggest looking at that > also. PAT] Well, Pat, when I was speaking to the person who gave me that address to publish here, she mentioned that I should ask people to get them the complaints in time to do something about it. She mentioned that someone had sent them a year old FAX spam and that was too old to do anything about (I know, it would be interesting to see the postmark on that). From what she told me, they are big time serious about pursuing FAX spammers. She also mentioned that they had online thingies for filing complaints, but for FAXes, they had to have a copy. I mean, sure it's "gummit", but its *our* gummit.... ;O) BTW, I don't get so many spam FAXes as I used to..... Steve Winter http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: Question About CEPT Signal Date: 17 Jun 1999 13:47:32 GMT Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk > What is a CEPT signal? Short for interCEPT? CEPT is the standing conference of European post and telecomms administrations, an international policy-making and discussion body based in Switzerland. Regards, Andrew Emmerson. ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:48:51 GMT Organization: Road Runner A Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:04:00 -0700, en comp.dcom.telecom, Someone escribi en el mensaje de noticias : > I get copies of US West Network Disclosures in the mail all the time. > I noticed that when #439 arrived, regarding the 971 NPA overlay in > Oregon's NPA 503, it began, "On May 14, 1999 Lockheed Martin announced > implementation of area code relief for the 503 NPA in the State of > Oregon." > Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was > a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact > is a Lockheed person in D.C. > What's the deal with that? Lockheed Martin administers the North American Numbering Plan. just bicker ------------------------------ From: ellis@ftel.net Subject: Re: 503 Overlay / Lockheed Martin? Date: 17 Jun 1999 18:02:26 GMT Organization: Franklin interNet http://www.franklin.net In article , Someone wrote: > Attached to this usual announcement, with its usual US West logo, was > a three-page attachment on Lockheed Martin letterhead, and the contact > is a Lockheed person in D.C. > What's the deal with that? Lockheed runs the North American Numbering Plan administration. See http://www.nanpa.com. http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/ ------------------------------ From: spectracom_research@my-deja.com Subject: Chance For a Free Book - Electrical and Computer Engineers Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:05:30 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hello, If you are an electrical or computer engineer, you are invited to participate in an online survey to review books for an Electrical and Computer Engineering Book Club. SpectraCom, a market research company, is conducting the survey. You will not be asked to join the club and will not receive any follow up mailings. Please go to the address below and complete the short screening questionnaire; those who qualify will be eligible to participate in the survey and receive their choice of a free book as a thank you gift. The survey is limited to US respondents only. We recommend using Netscape or Internet Explorer 3.0 or higher. To participate in the project, please go to the following Internet address: http://www.spectracom.com/cgi-bin/doubleday/engineering/screener.pl You will be prompted for the following user name and password: User name: doubleday Password: research If you know of other engineers who would be interested in participating, please forward this message to them. The number of survey participants is limited, so please respond soon. The screening and survey questionnaires will take from 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Thank you, SpectraCom Research Staff ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: EarthWeb E-Learning Expo Live on Internet Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:53:38 -0500 I am passing along this annoucment I received yesterday which may be of some interest. PAT ----- Original Message ----- From: JavaScripts.com To: Subject: Special Announcement Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:34:12 -0400 Reply-To: "javascripts.com info" Subject: Special Announcement Pardon the interruption... An event we thought you'd like to know about (both for its subject matter, and because it's a cool, virtual-world type of thing): EarthWeb's e-Learning Expo will take place "live" on the Internet on June 28, 1999. There are two sessions: - CORBA Enabled: An Evolution in Applied Distributed Technology ($free) - Distributed Java: Programming with CORBA ($49 for advance registration if you're an OMG member, $99 all others) You'll be "present" in the form of a 3-D rendered avatar, and can wander among the symposia and vendor booths. You'll experience video and audio Webcasts teaching you all about CORBA. In short, a seminar/trade show without the travel. To sign up (or just to get more information) for either or both, go to: http://www.earthweb.com/corporate/events/eelu/index.html Thanks. When it's over, please let us know what you thought of it! The Editors at EarthWeb (Now back to your regularly scheduled lives.) ************************************************************ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #154 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 18 03:19:32 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA05338; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906180719.DAA05338@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #155 TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jun 99 03:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America (John Harris) Largest Market, Not MarketS (Joey Lindstrom) Pac Bell CIDCW is Up in Southern CA (Alan Adamson) Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) NYC Local Calls (Jon Solomon) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Thor Lancelot Simon) We Are Looking For a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC Chip (sky78300@skynet.be) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Allan M. Olbur) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Steven J. Sobol) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Internet Access Thru Cable (Tim Keating) Re: Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex" (Terry Kennedy) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:30:15 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers Aoife Morrissy amorrissy@altavista.net wrote: > I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on > telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number > versus a "bad" number. and Patrick said, > Judith Oppenheimer would agree that where toll-free numbers are > concerned, having well-known, easily understood words and phrases made > from number combinations is quite important, such as 800-FLOWERS. Patrick and Aoife, 800 vanities go well beyond comprehension and 'memorable.' 800 vanity numbers trigger a markedly elevated response and a pronounced buying behavior, delivering tangible, bottom-line results. A number of years ago, ICB researched 800 vanity number use in the marketplace, specifically choosing mainstream companies with existing advertising experience and track record (versus vanity-specific companies like 800 FLOWERS.) Prodigy operations and call center execs explained to me how a television campaign test of 1 800 PRODIGY versus their numeric 800 number, pulled a full 25% greater response, over a 24 hour longer period of time, every time the commercials aired. Prodigy went on to attribute significantly increased customer retention (in a churn-sensitive business), and measurably increased customer satisfaction ratings, to the use of the 1 800 PRODIGY vanity number. Evidently, they said, it wasn't just easier to remember, as they'd thought, but provided additional, tangible utilities: an ease of use and access of service that well exceeded the initial response, extending the sale into a customer. Jeep Eagle shared similarly enthusiastic results based on its 1 800 JEEP EAGLE commercial experience. The vanity number had been reserved only for high-end print ads. The company was gun-shy about incurring 1-800 costs on a mass television scale, and didn't want to attract, or pay phone bills, for underqualified, tire-kicking browsers. It took the TV plunge advertising 1 800 JEEP EAGLE on the Super Bowl. Results were so successful that 1 800 JEEP EAGLE was rolled out to broader tv exposure. (Note that this vanity is nine characters long, one of many successful, longer vanity numbers that debunk the myth that only seven digit vanities can be effective.) 1 800 JEEP EAGLE response rates exceeded expectations -- and the company discovered an elevated caliber of respondent, people both more inclined, and more financially qualified, to buy. Conversion follow-up provided confirmation. Within twelve months of the first call to 1 800 JEEP EAGLE, 50% of callers bought either a Jeep Eagle, or a comparable brand. ICB heard similar stories from Bally's Health and Fitness, as well as other marketers. Callers to Bally's vanity numbers (at the time they tested using two, 1 800 WORKOUT and 1 800 FITNESS) "were raising their hands, asking to buy", according to one call center manager. We know that 800 numbers trigger response, identifying prospects at varying levels of qualification. But 800 vanity numbers -- brand names, recognized vernacular, calls to action -- trigger an elevated response over numerics, as well as a pronounced buying behavior. According to the mainstream marketers we spoke with, 800 vanity numbers attract more callers, who are more qualified by both desire, and ability, to buy. FYI, in a recent study, "Toll-free Numbers in Radio Advertising" (http://www.800response.com/Studies/radiostd/index.html), toll-free vanity numbers yielded 14 times more phone calls than toll-free numerics. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com) WhoSells800.com (http://whosells800.com) ICB Consulting (http://800consulting.com) Moderator, TOLLFREE-L (http://www.egroups.com/list/tollfree-l/) email;internet:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: John Harris Reply-To: Subject: Re: US West's Plan to Abandon Rural America Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:15:24 -0500 Under Part 54.305 an acquiring carrier will only receive the same USF as the selling carrier. There will be no new USF to these exchanges. We specifically communicated this to US West in April when we reviewed the properties being sold. What is really happening is that US West (and GTE) are shedding their high cost areas, but not the areas which were providing the internal support or subsidy (i.e. urban to rural). Therefore, their profit margins will increase. Further, there are parties willing to pay substantial sums ($3500 per access line and higher) for these properties on the premise that either new technology will justify the price or that the acquiring company is eventually going public and they hope for the higher multiples that the public market is putting on pipes to the home (refer to AT&Ts purchase of Media One). While I have no love for US West I have to say that they are simply responding to the market signals provided them by the FCC. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:47:56 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Largest Market, Not MarketS On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:26:24 -0400 (EDT), Steven J Sobol wrote: >> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones >>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 >>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered >> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of >> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area >> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of >> our more temperate suburbs). > Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and > Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio. Possibly because every last one of those posts misunderstood him. He talks of "the largest market in the US", not "the largest markets in the US". He was speaking strictly of New York City. From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU Today's history note: In 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was assassinated by Serbian terrorists in Bosnia. So Germany invaded France. World War I: Because Wars Don't Have To Make Sense. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:09:41 +0000 Subject: Pac Bell CIDCW is Up in Southern CA From: Alan Adamson FYI, Pacific Bell now has Caller ID Call Waiting service (it's about time). I confirmed this today by ordering the service (available as of today) in San Diego and it's up and running at my house. No provision for Centrex users however. Speaking of Centrex and Caller ID. We still do not have CID Name delivery on our Centrex lines. No one at Pac Bell can seem to explain why not and when (if ever) this will happen. Does anyone have any thoughts on why CID number only is supported by Centrex? I wonder if they are running SMF or MMF through the Centrex ports? -Alan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:01:00 GMT > [Re a calling card] > Can you suggest any other way to do this with the following constraints: > * No min or monthly charge; > * Not tied to a US phone number as we do not have one; > * Must be usable from public and private (friends) phone; I'm pretty sure that Voicenet is not tied to a US phone number. You give them a credit card, and then you can make calls at will. Their Us rates a high (seventeen and a half cents per minute), but their international rates are not bad ($0.37 to Switzerland, $0.84 to Israel) compared to other calling cards. The quality of international calls isn't always very good, though. They can be reached at 800/500-9028. I use to use them a lot until I started using AT&T's personal network calling card. -Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:05:48 EDT From: Jon Solomon Subject: NYC Local Calls I hear BA is offering unlimited calling as an option in the NYC area. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: 17 Jun 1999 14:32:01 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >>> In article , Dr. Joel M. Hoffman >>> wrote: >>>> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still >>> Not in my experience. I spent last summer crisscrossing the West on >>> a rock climbing trip, going from St. Louis to Denver to the upper reaches >>> [...] > But: >> but I still can't carry on a continuous mobile conversation in lower >> Manhattan, still can't reliably make or receive a phone call anywhere >> in Jersey City, and the cell site that covers where I live is often >> completely blocked during evening hours. For the record, I live in lower Manhattan, and have no such trouble. > That's my point. Here in the New York area, some of the major highways > have NO coverage, the airports aren't covered reliably, and the system > is often just flakey -- both AT&T and BA. You might consider another carrier. Neither Sprint nor Omnipoint appear to have these problems in the New York City area; Nextel is also an option. > In response to my earlier post (wherein I described driving for three > hours in CA with 5 bars of signal, and then finding nothing when I > crossed into the US at 1000 Islands) some people suggested that my > phone has problems. But the bottom line is the same phone that didn't > get any signal in the US had 5 bars in Canada. Your evidence fails to support your conclusions. At least one poster responded with a story which was almost exactly the opposite of yours. You're talking about, between the U.S. and Canada, *millions of square miles of area*, some of it with extremely rugged geography. It's ridiculous to assume that there will ever be 100% perfect coverage -- there are plenty of places where even satellite phones don't work, and quite possibly never will. In addition, which network you're on will substantially impact your ability to roam, and the model and settings of your phone will impact how much signal you "see", particularly when you're outside your carrier's network. > Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't > believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or > economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what the > problem is? The problem, it seems to me, is your extrapolating from your sample size of one to the general case. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: sky78300@skynet.be Subject: We Are Looking For a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC Chip Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:41:06 GMT Organization: Sky Reply-To: sky78300@skynet.be We are looking for a Rockwell (Conexant) V.FC chip it is: * RC288ACi/VFC R6670-20 Quantities: any up to 500 Regards, Mike Verdugt Visit http://www.tron.be Allied Data Technologies ------------------------------ From: dtm37@aol.com (Allan M.Olbur) Date: 18 Jun 1999 03:45:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs Dave: Please contact me at our Service Bureau 847-934-0580 and I would be glad to answer your questions. Pls feel free to visit our web site at http://209.172.186.90 for E-911 information. Regards, Allan M. Olbur InfraTech Inc. http://209.172.186.90 ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Date: 18 Jun 1999 04:07:41 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.INET On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT, jvn@svpal.org allegedly said > My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and > we'll all be dialing many digits. > I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when > calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area > code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to > calling (say) to another state? > Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between > my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory? Because if you have, say, 1-408-555-1234, someone in the new area code could also have 555-1234, and if you don't dial ten digits, and the AC is an overlay, there would be no way to tell which person was supposed to get the call. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Didn't you miss the point here? He said when *calling within his own area code, when not calling outside his area code ...* in other words, he wants the 555-1234 that is within his area code. In that case, why is ten or eleven digits (if you count the '1' on the front) needed? PAT] ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Organization: Netcom Online Services, Inc. Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:51:10 GMT In article , Jim Van Nuland wrote: > My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and > we'll all be dialing many digits. > I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when > calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area > code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to > calling (say) to another state? > Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between > my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory? Because, initially, most people will have 408 numbers. Therefore, if seven-digit intra-NPA dialing is allowed, it would be easier for most people to call 408 numbers than to call numbers in the new area code. That wouldn't be fair to people in the new area code. Therefore, you have to dial the NPA for all calls. This is generally how it's done when a new area code is overlayed -- it's nothing special just for 408. - Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger .sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | brettf@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you know, this is getting to be very ridiculous. How far must we go to accomodate all the various kinks and twists that are appearing in the industry these days? Each new carrier wants certain kinds of arrangements so *their* customers will not be 'discriminated against'. Cellular carriers will not accept new area codes. Local competitors will not accept certain kinds of numbers. I get to dial seven digits; you have to dial ten digits so instead of telling your carrier that if he would release back into circulation ninety percent of the numbers he is hoarding that he will never use, thus eliminating the need for a new area code entirely, instead, let's inconvenience all the other customers by making them dial ten or eleven digits also. A cellular carrier thinks it is discrimination to be in an area code assigned for that purpose, so instead let's divide the village down Main Street with a different area code on each side of the street and screw all those people instead. There are some places on the northwest side of Chicago where people routinely need *three* area codes just for local calls around their neighborhood (773, 847, 708). Ah, but we don't dare tell Joe Doe's Pager Service that they cannot have several blocks of ten thousand numbers each for new paging accounts they might possibly get sometime in the next ten years. That would be terrible discrimination. Why, some of his customers might eventually have to dial eleven digits. I suggest it is time for municipalities who are getting inconvenienced by area code splits and overlays to begin filing suit against telco and forcing telco to (a) submit to a complete audit of all its avail- able stock of numbers; (b) retrieve the thousands upon thousands of numbers set aside for competitors that will never be used in any reasonable period of time; (c) ditto the wireless carriers and their huge excess of numbers; (d) appoint an impartial committee to salvage this excess and serve as the final arbitrator who who gets what number subject to the present technical limitations. Lockheed Martin comes to mind for this purpose. So you request new service; the service rep would call the arbitrator and say 'this is (name of) telco'; I need a new number for residential service at (address). The arbitrator would supply the number, and that, as they say, would be that. Take the number or leave it. I would venture to say probably thirty percent or more of our existing stock of numbers not in service are out of reach due to some telco or cellco hoarding them. I would force it to stop; then go back in a couple years and see if another area code overlay is needed or not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: NotForJunkEmail@mediaone11.net (Tim Keating) Subject: Re: Internet Access Thru Cable Organization: Keating Consulting Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:35:57 GMT On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:12:41 -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote: > A few years ago no one wanted anything to do with Internet on cable > and many said it would be a failure. Now that it is proving to be > successful everyone wants a piece of it. I believe the cable > operators should be given the privilege of another five to ten years > of exclusive operation of their system before they are forced to open > it to other service providers. The Telcos had a pretty good run with > no competition, why shouldn't the Cablecos have the same treatment? Oh, your so kind, The cable co's have yet to make their first dime and you're already proposing turning them into a common carrier. In ten years, the cable co's will be in competition with cellurised satellite, local wireless, and telcos for local high speed service. > AOL and the other whining ISPs who bet their future on Internet over > circuit switched voice quality facilities should suffer the > consequences of their previous bad decisions. If the Telcos had the > vision they could have invested resources in building high bandwidth > pipes to their users many years ago, the technology was available, > they knew it had to be done, but they close to do nothing. What good > would it do me to allow AOL onto the cable system? AOL and the baby-bells are both whining about the latest cable-co technology leaves them both out in the cold. > Maybe they will made ADSL or some other DSL technology work in the > near future. It would be great if the consumer had a true choice in > high-speed Internet service providers. The cable company gives me > high-speed Internet access for $40/month, so damn cheap competition is > not required. And, their service is not that bad either! Agreed, I like my cable service the way it is. No bandwidth caps, reasonable price, good performance, decent AUP, all items that would change for the worst if access where mandated. > I frequent websites where I get fast response. If the site is too > slow I don't bother to go back much. If UUNET will not peer with > @Home and I get poor response going to a UUNET hosted website I will > not go back. The UUNET customer loses business and if they care they > will either force UUNET to peer with @Home or they will go find a new > bandwidth provider which gives @Home customers good website responses. > The free market system will work, it just takes time. Plus, I have a > choice, if I don't like @Home I can get another ISP. UUNET is quickly becoming a minor player. There is a LOT of IP bandwidth coming on board shortly both domestically and international. Either they wake up, and smell the roses(start peering) or they'll lose customers. Note: They're not supposed to have most of those customers, they where supposed to give them all to a British firm C&W as a condition of the MCI-Worldcom merger. They reneged, and are now being sued. Tim Keating ktcnslt32@mediaone1.net, (Note: remove numeric digits from email address before responding.) ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: "We Don't Service Centrex" Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 06:49:52 GMT Alan Boritz writes: > Got this response, when I called in a problem to Bell Atlantic that > prevented callers from Jersey City, NJ, from reaching my home phone in > Mahwah, NJ. Seems that the central office repair guy didn't know what > a centrex was, or that he was responsible for maintaining it, and he > was calling from the CO where that particular centrex lives. Gee, I > wonder who B-A allows to come in to their CO's to service the centrex > portions of their switches. Are the calls originating from the 201-200 5ESS switch (which got the old 201-332 1A rolled into it a few years back)? If so, let me know and I'll have the appropriate people flogged (I've got 4000+ lines on this switch). Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing erry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #155 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 18 15:31:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA29817; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906181931.PAA29817@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #156 TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Jun 99 15:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecom Terms (Rob Slade) Re: Largest Market, Not MarketS (Jack Hamilton) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (John Benedetto) Canadian Cell Phone Service (Carolyn Meraw) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Brian Charles Kohn) Re: Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam! (eclectijim@aol.com) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Michael Quinn) Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat (Joseph Singer) Signing up With AllAdvantage.com (Corazon DeGuzman) Looking For Old AMX/81 Docs (Eric Wampner) FTC Sues Three Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:43:45 -0800 Subject: Book Review: Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKGLTLTM.RVW 990611 "Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms", National Communications System, 1996, FED-STD-1037C %A National Communications System Technology and Standards Division %C 470 East L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8100, Washington, DC 20407 %D 1996 %G FED-STD-1037C %I General Services Administration Information Technology Section %O 202-755-0325 %T "Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication Terms" This is, of course, the standard. Or, one of the standards, anyway. Government issue, definition by committee, no frills. As opposed to works oriented to business or the general public, frills would seem to include computer terms. Other than those strictly related to data communications or networking, computer hardware and software is noticeable by its absence. There is a solid presence for radio technology, and telephony gets good coverage as well. Military jargon spawns a number of entries, including some initially surprising expressions like "air portable." There is fair representation from the engineering and scientific side of things. The definitions are generally sound, although not necessarily easy. It's very hard to find outright errors, although awkward constructions are common. This is more of a reference for professionals than a guide for newcomers: if you didn't know what the technology meant coming in, the definitions here aren't likely to give you much help. (The listing for virus isn't great, but it isn't too bad.) This glossary does share one great advantage with Shnier's "Computer Dictionary" (cf. BKCMPDCT.RVW): it's available online at http://ntia.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/. The user interface is a bit idiosyncratic, but it does work. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKGLTLTM.RVW 990611 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has no excuse. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Largest Market, Not MarketS Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:01:53 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1999 by Jack Hamilton Reply-To: jfh@acm.org Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Possibly because every last one of those posts misunderstood him. He > talks of "the largest market in the US", not "the largest markets in > the US". He was speaking strictly of New York City. Perhaps a definition of "market" is needed. Are you speaking of New York City itself, or of the New York State portion of the NY-NJ-CT-PA metropolitan area, or of the entire area? In terms of population, there are some cuts that would make Los Angeles larger. Or in terms of area? Or in terms of residential phones? Or total phones? Jack Hamilton Broderick, CA jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: John Benedetto Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:43:04 -0400 dsr1@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) wrote: > Thus, a call initiated in CT which roams into NY will initially be > handed off into one of the ATTWS NY switches, but shortly after > ingressing further into ATTWS's territory, it will drop since BAMS > does not connect to more "distant" ATTWS switches. Not true. BAMS need only connect to the ATTWS switch that serves the cell first encountered when crossing into NY. The ATTWS network will then carry the call as if it started on their network. A drop further down the line means ATTWS does not have adequate coverage. OR What often happens is that you don't initially make the inter-network handoff, and you actually stay on a BAM cell a few miles into NY. Inter-network handoffs often take longer for the switches to process and need to be coordinated and tested by two parties, so they don't often get optimized as well as intra-network handoffs. Once you get further into NY, your call may have carried past the first cell in ATTWS territory and a handoff is not designed to pass to the second cell. In addition there is no way for the average user to know which system is serving the call, since the ROAM light will not come on until the call is ended. ------------------------------ From: Carolyn Meraw Subject: Canadian Cell Phone Service Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:45:43 -0400 I'm looking for an easy way to compare cell service in Canada -- Alberta to be specific. Do you have any recommendations? Thanks. C. Meraw ------------------------------ From: bicker@nospam.com (Brian Charles Kohn) Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Reply-To: Brian Charles Kohn Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:12:54 GMT Organization: Road Runner A 18 Jun 1999 04:07:41 GMT, en comp.dcom.telecom, sjsobol@NorthShore Technologies.net (Steven J Sobol) escribi en el mensaje de noticias : > On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:11:23 PDT, jvn@svpal.org allegedly said >> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and >> we'll all be dialing many digits. >> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when >> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area >> code when *not* calling out of it? I doubt there is any technical requirement; however new commercial enterprises would be at a distinct disadvantage for a long time since long-standing local businesses will be accessible by seven-digits while newer local businesses would, by comparison, appear to be a long-distance call, with harder-to-remember numbers. just bicker ------------------------------ From: eclectijim@aol.com Date: 18 Jun 1999 13:19:48 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Survey Sez: People REALLY Hate Spam! > See the article at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/279768.asp It seems to me that common courtesy would dictate that at least a re-cap of the survey results be supplied with the URL for full details. I (and many others of my acquaintance) refuse to follow blind links. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You raise a good point about following blind links. Sometimes the writers here send very short, terse comments (such as links like above, with no other text, trying to be considerate in saving bandwidth in the Digest. If the main link is known to be trustworthy i.e. a decent site, with reputable content and not just web-spam or there to collect names, etc, I will usually print it as is. MSNBC is one such example; it is relatively free of commercial links and in the opinion of many, a good source of daily news. I thought also in the case mentioned here, that his subject line was as good a summary or re-cap as any, If it had been a totally 'blind link', that is to say I had never seen it or heard it it before and had no idea of what its contents were likely to be, I probably would have written it up a bit further after looking at it first. I do suggest that in the future, writers should add at least a couple sentences of their own regards what the link is about. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:21:11 -0400 From: Michael Quinn Organization: BAH Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Here in the Washington DC area, we have 3 area codes available to each other as local calls: 703 (Northern VA), 202 (DC) and 301 (suburban MD). 1 is not required, nor is it necessary to dial the area code if you are originating a call in that same area code. I believe I heard that there will be in overlay in Northern VA next spring, which will require all 10 digits for all calls, even those originating in the same area code. I agree -- it doesn't seem to make much sense on the surface. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 07:27:52 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Low Cost Calling Card For Visiting Expat joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > I'm pretty sure that Voicenet is not tied to a US phone number. You > give them a credit card, and then you can make calls at will. I also use the Voicenet card, but on calling them I've found that in order for them to assign you a card you have to have a US phone number and a US mailing address to have the card. This may be partly because the card number is your ten digit telephone number plus a four digit PIN. Of course if you are going to be in the states and can receive billing in the US you could use that address and I would guess you could use any US phone number as your number. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess he could pick any number, as long as he does not pick mine. (: I've a feeling that the requirement for a US phone number goes a bit deeper than just merely having some number to use to fill in a blank space on the card. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Corazon DeGuzman Subject: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:57:23 +0200 Dear Friends, I recently joined a new Internet service called AllAdvantage.com. You should definitely consider becoming a member. AllAdvantage.com is the Internet company that pays its members while they surf the Web ($.50 an hour). It's free to join and it takes about a minute (no survey to fill out). Just go to http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=3DCVI461 Members are paid for their own Web browsing and for referrals. Please tell as many of your friends about this program as possible. Be sure to enter my ID# (cvi461) when you join. Remember, it's easy to sign up and it will never cost us a dime! Details below. Let me know how you like it. Regards, Cora DE GUZMAN How AllAdvantage.com membership works: Get Paid to Surf the Web. As a member, AllAdvantage.com will pay you 50 cents an hour while you surf the Web for up to 40 hours per month. That's up to $20 per month just for browsing the Internet the way you normally do. All members download the AllAdvantage.com Viewbar(tm). The bar is standard ad height, about one-half inch on most screens. The bar can be minimized with a single click to eliminate it from the screen at any time. Refer friends to AllAdvantage.com and receive 10 cents per hour while they surf the Web. And receive an additional 5 cents per hour from the extended referrals that come in from your referrals (for new members extended as far as four referrals from your original referrals!) ========================== [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Corazon DeGuzman has long been a VIP -- very important person -- in the production of this Digest, because it is through her effort that the gears get greased and a push is given each quarter to process the grant from ITU which the Digest receives to offset my expenses in its production. It is a long way from here to Switzerland, so when my faxes go off occassionally to ITU as part of their procedures, I know that when Ms. DeGuzman receives it, it is in good hands. ITU's grant is the main reason this Digest has continued publication over the years. I've always sincerely appreciated it. We've had short discussions about AllAdvantage.com here in the past. I have not yet heard from anyone who has actually received a check from AllAdvantage so I cannot vouch for the program. Quite obviously, money is one thing which would carry a lot of weight and add authenticity to their program. Has anyone yet been paid anything? On its face, it seems like a worthwhile thing; Lord knows there are enough sites with annoying advertising on the net these days and since it is unlikely/impractical to assume most of us will ever get five cents for all the spam we have to sort through in a day's time, if some companies want to pay us something for our tolerance, then God bless them, even if it is maxxed out at twenty dollars per month per user. But there are other factors involved as well. In order to get that twenty dollars per month, there has to be a name and address to mail it to. I assume if AllAdvantage.com is going to feed me a ribbon message across the bottom of my screen, they are also going to know what pages I was viewing at the time their messages were being presented. Where before, all certain sites had was an accumulation of cookie data which with some logic and effort could possibly eventually be matched with a name, address and credit card number, now all the guesswork is taken away. Now it just becomes a matter of 'my name is John Doe, I live in Anytown, USA, here is what pages I have been viewing, and here are the sites where I made purchases ...' ... and it would seem to me that twenty dollars per month is giving away that personal infor- mation rather cheaply. This of course says nothing about the banner ads, the double-clicks and assorted other intrusions which will continue to come our way. I do not think they will stop showing up on the screen merely because AllAdvantage.com says 'here are a few more ads for you in addition'. None of the others are going to *cease* sending their stuff just because the user has an agreement with AllAdvantage.com to look at theirs instead, and how many ads can be on the screen at the same time while still having some room for the requested information to be displayed? If a user tends to do all or most surfing at non-commercial web sites such as this one and lots of others where ads are non-existent, I see little to be gained by letting AllAdvantage.com place a ribbon or banner on the bottom of the screen merely to pick up an extra twenty dollars per month with all the risks to privacy that it entails. And that is assuming that they *are* for real, that they *do* actually make payments, and that they are not just another in the long, never- ending line of scams which come our way. Big assumptions, eh? I've not yet met anyone who got paid, and I wish someone would clarify or confirm this ASAP. If they are a scam, we can stop the discussion here. If they are for real, we can talk about it a bit more if anyone wishes. In any event, I am sure they expect to get more for their twenty dollars than just having you glance occassionally at the bottom of the screen. If a user tends to visit mostly commercial sites, all I see happening is just one more part of the screen clogged up, and yes, they said they would pay for it, but their payment is just a pittance against the larger backdrop of ads, privacy invaders, etc. Perhaps you say that twenty dollars monthly is what you pay your ISP, and that therefore by running the AllAdvantage.com banner or ribbon for two days straight at the start of the month (assuming you stay nailed down; you only get paid by AllAdvantage for forty hours at fifty cents each) you have met the cost of your ISP and get the essence of 'free' service the rest of the month. Well sweetheart, if it is free service you want, any number of places will give you twenty megs for your web pages, all the free email you can use, home pages with news, weather and you name it until you can't begin to use it all. Consider geocities.com or xoom.com for starters: they say take all you can use, we will just plaster your web site and email with advertising. At least with the sites which give you everything for free in exchange for advertising you can remain 'somewhat anonymous'. None of them actually send you something that requires a real name, address or signature as a check for twenty dollars -- if that ever materializes -- would require. Overall, I have a hard time recommending AllAdvantage.com at least until their honesty is demonstrated and I see what information they actually collect and what they do with it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Wampner Subject: Looking For Old AMX/81 Docs Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:15:09 -0400 Organization: Orlando Software Group, Inc. I just thought I'd ask again to see if anybody had any *OLD* Dialogic AMX/81 documentation. I believe the piece I am looking for is _AMX/8x Audio Multiplexer Hardware Reference Manual_. This should have been published around 1989 or so. I have tried several times to get some sign of life out of Dialogic support, but they continously reference me to some PDF files on their web site which don't cover what I am after. Please, if you have some old Dialogic documentation from that time, take a quick look and see if you have that particular manual. You will be saving the life of millions of innocent brain cells. Thanks in advance, Eric Wampner Orlando Software Group, Inc. eww@kataent.com Software Engineer (407) 366-0909 wampner.e.w@orlsoftgrp.com Systems Administrator fax (407) 366-2721 eww@iag.net ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Sues Three Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:09:02 -0400 FTC Sues 3 Web Site Providers For Illegal Billing of Small Firms By Margaret Webb Pressler Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 18, 1999; Page E03 The Federal Trade Commission, as part of a new crackdown on Internet business fraud, said yesterday it has sued three World Wide Web site providers for illegally "cramming" charges for their services onto the phone bills of unsuspecting small-business owners. More than 300,000 small businesses nationwide were targeted by the Internet telemarketing companies, the FTC said, with an unknown number of those firms becoming victims of illegal charges that often went undetected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-06/18/060r-061899-idx.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #156 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 19 15:24:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA08876; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:24:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906191924.PAA08876@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #157 TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Jun 99 15:24:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (John Benedetto) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller) A Bell Tolls - Long Distance Phone & Telecom Clearinghouse (Mike Pollock) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Jan Ceuleers) Re: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com (Tom Betz) Re: NYC Local Calls (Tom Betz) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Ray Pichulo) U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Eric Morson) Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Gary Chatters) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (George Yanos) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Herb Stein) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: John Benedetto Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:17:23 -0400 joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Something is clearly wrong with cell service in the US. I can't > believe it's a technical problem, so it must be a political or > economic one. And so I repeat my question: does anyone know what > the problem is? Is it a digital phone? Many of the new digital sets can and are being programmed with a combination of "favored" "friendly" or "negative" SIDs. Some phones, after registering on a network with a negative SID (even where there is plenty of signal), will show no signal once they see the SID and have been programmed to ignore it. So the signal is really there, but the phone is told to ignore this. Most analog phones don't do this, they will simply find the strongest signal on the A or B band (whatever the phone is defaulted to) Cell providers do this to keep you on their own networks or those with whom they have the best roaming agreements, particularly when the different networks are A side in some areas and B side in other regions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:09:05 -0700 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US The following exchange from TELECOM Digest Vol 19 Issue 153: >>(don't forget, Sprint is not a cellular carrier). > Yes, they are. Well, it all depends. If you are talking about "Sprint Spectrum," then they are a cellular carrier only in the generic sense of the word, but they are actually a PCS carrier. If you are talking about "Sprint Cellular," then they are an honest-to-goodness cellular carrier. The distinction is important (or at least can be) because the "no roaming/no long distance" deals tend to be significantly different in practical application depending on which type of system you are on. For example, if you read the fine print in the AT&T Wireless plan (at least the one being marketed here in the DC area), it says you won't pay roaming while you are on their digital network. That ain't worth horse puckey when you go out of the 2 GHz PCS coverage area and fall back to digital or analog cellular. Then you are at the mercy of whether and with whom they may or may not have roaming agreements. The no roaming deal I have through Bell Atlantic Mobile has no such qualifications -- it says no roaming, period. So far I've traveled to various parts of the country (including areas well outside Bell Atlantic territory, e.g., California and Colorado) and this has held true -- no surprise charges on my bill when I return home. The service is cellular only (digital cellular, falling back to analog cellular if digital is not available), which I figure is more than good enough for now. While I don't have 2 GHz PCS coverage, I figure that (at least for a few years to come) if I am in an area of the country that does not have analog cellular coverage, it will be unlikely to have PCS coverage anyway. Bob Keller (www.his.com/~rjk) ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: A Bell Tolls - Long Distance Phone and Telecom Clearinghouse Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:46:36 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! Here's an interesting site. I make no claims about its accuracy, and I have no connection to it, despite the fact that one of the guys behind it has the same last name. We're not related. --Mike http://www.abelltolls.com/ The 1982 Consent Decree between the U.S. Dept of Justice and AT&T divested 'Ma Bell' of its Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). Today the U.S. consumer enjoys the lowest priced, widest ranging suite of telecommunications services in the world. Sadly, this telecommunications nirvana has passed over the monthly phone bill and finding straightforward information on pricing is challenging, to say the least. As a final customer service U.S. telecommunications companies appear to have adopted the 'hire-a-comedian' approach to information dissemination. Enter A Bell Tolls, The Long Distance Telephone and Telecommunications Clearinghouse. We're dedicated to providing consumers and businesses information for making intelligent decisions in their quests for telecommunications nirvana. The creators of A Bell Tolls were sitting around a fine restaurant table one evening talking about the state of the telecommunications industry and realized that although the internet is the bridge to the 21st century, and all that jazz, that it could also serve as a wonderful information source for the plain old telephone industry (POTI?). They batted around the idea for a bit and decided to create a central location for information on the telecommunications industry. It would be a place to find all the webpages of long distance carriers, find information about the best rate plans (we all know that rate plans are way too complex for consumers to track!), and find some interesting tidbits about the industry. If you have tidbits to share feel free to send them to us! We'd especially like to collect old Ma Bell, MCI and Sprint stories from pre-1982 participants. If that's you, send in your story! Interested in how we compose our charts and why? Read the full story. Scott McCoy is the Networked PC Specialist (the Intel guy) at an intimate public institution of higher learning set in a redwood forest overlooking the Monterey Bay. He believes that clear pronunciation and ascii text are the keys to good communication. He has 3 phone lines into his house and plans to launch his personal satellite communications system, Jan 1, 2001 (built-in Y2K compliance). Justin Pollock is a graduate student at a snooty, private institution of higher learning instead of a cool, hip, public institution where people learn to think for themselves rather than about themselves. He likes Friday night dates and playing with the Ur-dog, Reka (all too frequently on Friday nights). Marc-David Seidel is an assistant professor of management at The University of Texas at Austin. He is also the founder and president of Airlines of the Web. Marc-David has a huge phone bill that he always tries to minimize. ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:32:57 +0200 Organization: the Experimenter Board Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org Arthur Ross wrote: > In the EU countries operators are REQUIRED to run an ETSI-approved > standard, of which right now there is one: GSM. They have leveraged > this into world-wide dominance -- the GSM organization has more than > 300 operator members in something like 130 countries. There are far > more GSM subscribers world-wide than CDMA, even though the latter is a > far-superior technical standard. Even with different frequency plans, > it would not be difficult to run the same air interface and network > protocols if they really wanted to. > I personally think this is an appalling situation. And so does the US > government. There have been nastygrams exchanged between Washington & > Brussels over the last few months regarding this Euopean use of its > regulatory regime to exclude competition and manipulate markets. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this excludes competition. In the markets for GSM infrastructure and terminals, American companies are quite successful, you know. Americans are also well represented as shareholders of European and other GSM operators. Moreover, the fact that so many operators use the same technology also means that in many cases there are several competing operators in the same service area, all using GSM technology. This once again encourages competition, as it reduces the barriers for users to switch to another operator. As you rightly said elsewhere, the GSM market is huge. It's not limited to Europe. The bigger the market, the more attractive it becomes for equipment manufacturers. The standard is open and widely available. Where are the barriers to competition you are talking about? Also: unlike CDMA, there are no licensing strings attached to GSM. Jan ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Signing up With AllAdvantage.com Date: 19 Jun 1999 09:08:51 -0400 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Corazon DeGuzman in : > I recently joined a new Internet service called AllAdvantage.com. You > should definitely consider becoming a member. It's a pyramid scam, and this submission is just another spam for it. I'm surprised Pat let this go through to the list. [ Pat said: ] > Overall, I have a hard time recommending AllAdvantage.com at least > until their honesty is demonstrated and I see what information they > actually collect and what they do with it. PAT] I'd take it further; just stay away from it. |We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist | |for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE:| |it's time we tried education.| | || YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED!| [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, maybe it is a scam and maybe not. It certainly is not a 'traditional' pyramid scheme in any event. In those, new participants are asked to put forward some amount of money which is divided among earlier participants; in order to recover the money one 'invested' (threw away?) it is necessary to get still more people participating under you. The AllAdvantage.com people, on the other hand, ask for no money from participants; only the right to display advertising messages on your screen for which they will pay you money -- they claim -- and a smaller amount of money for persons who join the same program at your behest. Presumably the advertisers pay all the money into the pool, and the viewers draw all the money out of the pool, less AllAdvantage.com administrative costs and profit. On its face, it seems to be a good deal for internet advertisers. Their ads are getting exposure with a highly-qualified audience: persons who have specifically stated they are willing to read advertising while surfing the net. My questions instead are these: Are they are actually paying as promised, or was this just a way of getting netters to submit personal information about themselves for other purposes? If so, shame on them, and they need to be exposed in widely circulated media such as this newsletter. If they are paying as promised, precisely what information are they collecting from participants if any -- I cannot imagine they would not be at least collecting a little information -- and what are they doing with that information? They've already got your name and address on file; they had to get that in order to mail your money each month. If they are not paying as promised, is there something nefarious behind it all, i.e. getting netters to expose themselves either out of trust (remember when we all had trust in each other here years ago?) or per- haps out of greed on the part of netters who think they can Make Money Fast and Retire Early by participating. Or perhaps, some of both. Many con games depend heavily on a cooperative victim; someone who suspects they will get to share in the loot but then they get outwitted by others in the scheme; i.e. 'bank examiner', 'I found a purse with money on the sidewalk, share it with me', etc. Or perhaps if they are not paying, there is nothing nefarious about it at all; perhaps AllAdvantage.com simply has not been able to secure any (or enough) advertisers to make it work, and I am sort of leaning in this direction in my own thinking about them. Maybe the people behind it sat down one evening, had a great idea for providing a useful service to the net, and it simply has not worked out. It would not be the first time. After all, if advertisers can throw together sort of cheap and cheesy banners which can be transmitted constantly for essentially free on any number of 'banner exchange networks' on the net and send email for 'free' (we know how that goes!) then why should they pay a group like AllAdvantage.com a relatively hefty sum of money to qualify the people who get their messages? This approach would insure that their messages went in an inoffensive way to netters who were willing to see them, but who cares about that sort of thing around here anymore? Despite their web site assurances to the contrary, and their press releases that all is well and business is thriving, my hunch is that business on the net is *horrible* for about 95 percent of the banner advertisers and small business people on the net. They keep their chin up and say positive things about themselves and their efforts, because if a netter does come along willing to spend money rather than take what is offered for free, would he rather spend the money on a winner or a loser? Our tradition over the years of freeware and shareware has made it very difficult for them. Does anyone actually bother to try and *sell* software on the net any longer? That's where I think AllAdvantage.com might be at. If they came here to spam and scam and enlist the services, unwitting or otherwise, of netters who hoped to get a slice of the pie, then they need to be exposed. I am glad I could help do that. If they mean well, and just can't get things together, then I am glad to tell about them also. To be sure, *money* is the essence of it all. If some people want to write and say 'yes, I received a check from them' and show us what the little banner looks like, etc, I for one will start to feel a little more comfortable with their efforts. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: NYC Local Calls Date: 19 Jun 1999 09:16:45 -0400 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Jon Solomon in : > I hear BA is offering unlimited calling as an option in the NYC area. I can't speak for the five boroughs, but I have unlimited regional (as opposed to local) calling for about $12/month (doubled from the $6/month it was four years ago when I signed up for it) in Westchester. I could have had local as well for a small incremental addition, or unlimited local calls alone, but I make very few local calls, so to save money, I opted for regional only. Since my Internet provider has dialups outside my local area, I use them exclusively for my dual-channel DOV ISDN calls, and make more than $700 worth of local calls a month for that $12. |We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist | |for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: | |it's time we tried education.| | || YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! | ------------------------------ From: Ray Pichulo Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:05:12 GMT Organization: RP Laboratory Yep ... I lived in DC and marveled at the simplicity of the numbering plan within the three NPA's. HOWEVER, when one considers that Washington DC is literally under the Fed's collective noses, it makes sense to keep those people happy. Unfortunately for those of us living in the rest of the country, there is no such incentive :( Michael Quinn wrote: > Here in the Washington DC area, we have 3 area codes available to each > other as local calls: 703 (Northern VA), 202 (DC) and 301 (suburban > MD). 1 is not required, nor is it necessary to dial the area code if > you are originating a call in that same area code. I believe I heard > that there will be in overlay in Northern VA next spring, which will > require all 10 digits for all calls, even those originating in the > same area code. I agree -- it doesn't seem to make much sense on the > surface. Ray Pichulo - W1IRH - | Email:ray@pichulo.REMOVETHIS.com RP Laboratory | WWW: http://world.std.com/~rplab Carlisle MA 01741 | "Life is like a dog sled team - if you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes." ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:28:30 -0400 Subject: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel I have BAM Dual mode CDMA/AMPS service and will likely be going to Israel later this year. I know that Israel uses the same AMPS system we do here and they have lots of TDMA, and are rolling out CDMA 800MHz (NON-Sprint PCS 1900MHz CDMA). Does anyone know: 1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM? 2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls and calls back to the U.S.? Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: gc@rat.cen.com (Gary Chatters) Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers Organization: Century Computing, Inc., Laurel, MD Date: 18 Jun 1999 18:25:21 -0400 In article , Aoife Morrissy wrote: > I'm writing from Ireland where I am trying to do some research on > telephone numbers and the theory behind what makes a "good" number And Patrick annotated: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 'good' and 'bad' are subjective [...] > cast or time of day message? The owners of some numbers which are > repetitive digits often get plagued with 'wrong number' calls from > people seeking a transposition of the same repetitive numbers, for > example, 2141 might get a lot of calls from people seeking 4121. I do This is a very familiar pair. A few years ago my residence was -4121 and a nearby doctors' office was -2141. I guestimated my home phone regularly received about three calls per day for the doctors. I didn't have to answer most of them since I wasn't home during the day, but it could get interesting when someone would call in the evening with an urgent problem and start giving me details about their medical troubles before I had a chance to tell them they had a wrong number. I finally switched to a new suffix, -9022, which very rarely gets wrong numbers. gc [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh gee, I thought maybe you were going to say that you sued the doctors to get them to change their phone number or you started giving out bogus medical advice over the phone to teach the patients a lesson for dialing the wrong number. It is quite common here in the USA that when someone has a phone number which is frequently confused with that of some large corporation (for example, a hotel reservation service or a customer service department whose 800 number resembles your own seven-digit number) to make trouble for the company by suing them or abusing their customers, or both. Regards the dim-witted customers, I can almost agree with any proposals made about them ... but some have gone so far as to suggest, actually demand, that the company should be forced to change its number as well. Remember reading here a couple years ago about the lady who was having trouble with the new hotel built in her town whose phone number was similar to her own? And who can forget Mike Royko, the crude and ignorant columnist for the {Chicago Sun Times) -- until they fired him, and the {Tribune} took him instead -- who actually suggested it was the fault of AT&T that so many of their customers forgetting to dial 800 first were winding up on his direct-dial line in his office. He wanted AT&T to change their number; it was up to them to placate him, poor abused consumer and all that. But you chose to change your number instead, to one that was very unlikely to get misdialed calls, although as my aquaintence would say on reading the '9022' part: oooh! ick! what kind of number is that and why would anyone want it? Someone who wants peace and quiet I guess. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:44:16 CST From: George Yanos Subject: Re: Reply to editor@telecom-digest.org on Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:19:32 -0400 (EDT) > said when *calling within his own area code, when not calling outside > his area code ...* in other words, he wants the 555-1234 that is > within his area code. In that case, why is ten or eleven digits (if > you count the '1' on the front) needed? PAT] Something I've been wondering about for some time. Once we have to dial an area code for every call, why do we need to continue with the 1- prefix? It would seem that there is no longer a need to anounce that you will be dialing 10 digits because you always dial ten digits. George Yanos 708-205-6788 GYanos@uic.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra money. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:38:51 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) This beond the doubt the dumbest assortment of laws that I've ever seen. I have a phone system (behind a PBX/EPBX) for my convenience, no one else's. I'll route 911 calls to DIAL-A-PRAYER if I choose. We need less rules. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many times administrators of large institutional settings would *prefer* that their own staff respond first to calls from the public for police or fire department assis- tance. Then, the appropriate staff person will decide whether or not police department or fire department intervention is required. This presupposes of course that you have well-trained and profess- ional security people on your staff; it makes the assumption that your building engineer knows the difference between an odor of smoke or a smoke detector going off as a result of a motor which needs oil or someone who carelessly threw a lighted cigarette in a trash disposal unit versus a real, actual, out of control fire. Building managers will tell you that certain tenants of the building or visitors/employees will call 911 at the slightest provocation; i.e. they saw a 'suspicious person' in the vicinity or they 'smell smoke coming from somewhere'. In their hysteria, they will report some major incident to police/fire that does not exist. As a result it may be best for a *well-trained* -- that is the key phrase here -- staff person to first evaluate the circumstances. No one operating a large complex, whether it is a factory, a cluster of offices, a school, a residential building or whatever likes having police or fire personnel there frequently for essentially false alarms. It disrupts the activities of others, and gives the place a sort of 'bad reputation' amongst emergency response agencies. Where you wind up in trouble however when you intercept 911 calls via your own staff is that there may be an actual situation where a minute wasted was a minute too many. Then the user sues you for delaying his call for emergency intervention, especially if someone gets hurt or killed. Years ago, when AT&T ran everything through its 'Bell System', one part of the 'same system for everyone' rules involving training for PBX operators dealt with security matters. Those privatly employed switchboard operators for large institutions, etc none the less had to be certified by Bell to be allowed to run the switchboard. It was part of the tariff. The rules were that unless the operator(s) were personally in danger (i.e. a fire in the phone room), they were to do these things upon report from an extension user reporting a fire: (1) place their switchboard on emergency-call-only status; (2) immediatly notify the building engineer or other maintainence employees;(3) those employees would then report that either they would attend to the matter or that indeed the Fire Department was needed; (4) the telephone operator was the ONLY person authorized to call the Fire Department and would do so in a calm manner making certain the address and location within the premises was clearly understood; (5) based on instructions from building engineer or maintainence staff the operator would respond to the numerous callers instructing the callers in evacuation procedures if such were needed, or perhaps instructing the callers to remain in their room/office with their doors closed by an open window for fresh air while awaiting further instructions, etc; (6) if fire department does order evacuation, begin calling several extensions at once with all lines bridged open and begin repeating over and over into the open line the instructions given by firemen or building employees; simply keep pulling as many ringing keys at one time as your fingers can reach, all talking paths open and saying your message over and over again, etc. A fire at the Chicago Union Stockyards in 1935 showed how it was to be done and Bell operators got that as part of their training. The YARds telephone exchange (now 773-927) sat almost in the middle of the stockyards complex. In a fire that lasted eight hours and burned most of it down, with intense black smoke drifting for a couple miles in any direction into the residential neighborhood known as 'Back of the Yards' understandably there was much panic among neighborhood residents. The phone operators sat there the entire time, coordinating communications between firemen in different parts of the complex (there was no radio communication among emergency personnel as is possible today) and telling some thirty thousand neighborhood residents who were constantly calling the operator in a panic that things were under control; that if the fire were to spread, they (the operators) would be there to notify them and instruct them what to do based on messages from the firemen, etc. That was Bell System's way of dealing with emergencies either at community level or perhaps just in a part of the community. The operator's duty to coordinate emergency communications as needed in the community were taken very seriously. Of course, we do not have a Bell System any longer. Judge Greene did not think it was necessary, and that it was unfair to the newcomers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #157 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 20 16:17:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA17070; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:17:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906202017.QAA17070@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #158 TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jun 99 16:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Julian Thomas) Re: Question About Telephone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Jeffrey William McKeough) Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel (Danny Bateman) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Robert Alexander) Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Stan Schwartz) Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Patrick Tufts) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Robert Alexander) Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize (srini_v@my-deja.com) Anybody Speak 3Com? (L. Shaping) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (wdg@hal-pc.org) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Bill Levant) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:45:12 GMT Don't know what makes a good number, but one class of BAD numbers are those numbers where one digit is one off from a local movie theater. I've had several such numbers over the years (unfortunately, before machines were available to screen the calls). Julian Thomas: jt 5555 at epix dot net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove numerics for email Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Prior to dialing, when all calls were placed by verbally passing the number to an operator, this was even then a problem with movie theatres or other 'popular places' with telephone information lines attached to them. In Whiting, Indiana for example, with which I am familiar, the number '1234' was assigned to the Hoosier Auditorium Theatre, a downtown Whiting place for movies (and in still older times) vaudeville shows, etc, for the purpose of information on show times, prices, and reservations. I think they had '1235' as their office/administrative number. From about 1956 onward, it was on an answering machine (as such existed in those days) giving the information mechanically to callers. People asking the operator for the number would quite often say '2134' by accident and they would get connected to the family who owned that number instead. Or they would ask for '1243' -- although not quite as often, the first two digits being verbally transposed more often than the final two digits -- and that person would get annoyed instead. It apparently happened often enough that the plug for 2134 on the switchboards was marked a certain way to catch the operator's attention and the operator was supposed to quickly ask the caller, 'do you want the theatre?' and if the person said yes, then put them on 1234 instead after telling the caller they had asked for the wrong number. Ditto for the Fire Department administrative offices which were on 2131 versus the local high school which was 3121. For the few actual emergencies which came along there was no literal number assigned, people were to 'tell the operator you want to report a fire' or 'tell the operator you want to speak with police', but the administrative numbers for both, because they were deliberatly repetitive, easy to remember digits were often times tossed around by callers in error looking for other things. In smaller towns like that, the operator usually knew what the caller wanted, regardless of what the caller actually said, although strictly speaking, they were to give the caller what he actually asked for, without any questions asked. And of course invariably the operator got blamed for the wrong connection; the caller never considered himself to be at fault; sometimes it was the operator's fault however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 11:54:46 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: Question About Telephone Numbers > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... It is quite common here in the USA > that when someone has a phone number which is frequently confused with > that of some large corporation (for example, a hotel reservation > service or a customer service department whose 800 number resembles > your own seven-digit number) to make trouble for the company by suing > them ... ] In a related scenario, a company sued because the carrier assigned it a previously high-volume 800 number. The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania referred this matter, Unimat, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., Civ. Action No. 92-9541, to the FCC. The FCC ruled in favor of the carrier, MCI (TOLL-FREE NUMBERS ORDER, FILE NO. ENF-96-07, DA 99-983), saying in part, "absent any extenuating circumstances ... which might indicate the presence of willful or gross negligence, we first find that a carrier may assign a particular toll-free number to a subscriber, without disclosing that number's history to the prospective subscriber." ... also, "from MCI's governing toll-free service tariff, the pertinent term of its limitation of liability provision states: MCI shall not be liable at all for the use, misuse, or abuse of a customer's 800 Service by third parties, including, without limitation, the customer's employees or members of the public who dial the customer's 800 number by mistake." Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com) WhoSells800.com (http://whosells800.com) ICB Consulting (http://800consulting.com) Moderator, TOLLFREE-L (http://www.egroups.com/list/tollfree-l/) email:internet:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: sandris@spdcc.com (Jeffrey William McKeough) Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:23:10 GMT In article , Eric Morson wrote: > 1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a > temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM? > 2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls > and calls back to the U.S.? There's an Israeli cellphone FAQ at that might be useful. Jeffrey William McKeough sandris@spdcc.com sandris@homosexualmenace.com jwm@spdcc.com "I don't remember what the Fast of Gedaliah is about, but it sure sounds girly to me." -Gavi ------------------------------ From: Danny Bateman Subject: Re: U.S. Cellular Service in Israel Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 06:50:35 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Eric@AreaCode-Info. com (Eric Morson) wrote: > I have BAM Dual mode CDMA/AMPS service and will likely be going to > Israel later this year. I know that Israel uses the same AMPS system we > do here and they have lots of TDMA, and are rolling out CDMA 800MHz > (NON-Sprint PCS 1900MHz CDMA). > Does anyone know: > 1) If my service will allow automatic roaming, or will I have to get a > temporary Israeli number in a spare NAM? Automatic roaming will only work if you have GSM. I don't know anyone who has done it, but the spare NAM might work. I have heard of people that moved here and got an acount with cellcom (see below) . > 2) What sort of charges should I expect to pay for intra-Israeli calls > and calls back to the U.S.? Cellphone calls are cheap in Israel, and Calling Party Pays, so you don't pay for incoming calls. Israel has three providers: 1. Cellcom - CMDA service, cheapest provider, a cellcom to cellcom call is about $US0.12 per minute! Calls to Bezeq, the PSTN, cost more. http://www.cellcom.co.il:80/framemain2.html (English). 2. Orange, aka Partner, the new boy on the block, provides GSM service. More expensive than cellcom. Hebrew only web :( , http://www.orange.co.il/ 3. Pelephone. The original provider, TDMA and digital (CDMA?) service. The most expensive provider. Hebrew only web :( , http://www.pelephone.co.il Calls back to the US are via of the the three international providers and are cheaper than calls from US to Israel. Get more info from cell provider or international provider (Bezeq International, Kavei Zahav [Yellow lines] or Barak. Danny Bateman bateman at shani.net ------------------------------ From: R.M.A.@pdq.net (Robert Alexander) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:46:50 GMT On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:00:22 -0400, Ken M. wrote: > Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >> Except that in the US cell phone coverage is very poor. I still I don't live in the US, I live in Texas which is a part of the United States of America. Anyway, it depends on your carrier. GTE has worked for me almost everywhere ... but in some places you need to call the operator before making calls. Aerial has been fairly good to extremely good everywhere they have service with the note that sometimes I cannot call from within certain structures. Houston Cellular (ATT) works everywhere (almost) but their voice quality could be improved alot. ------------------------------ Reply-To: stannc.no1spam@yahoo.com From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 01:35:28 -0400 In TD V19 #157, Telecom Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the > front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of > the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user > that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra > money. PAT] This would be a nice idea if it was standardized all over the country. While on a recent trip to Seattle, the local (USWest) phone book's dialing instructions directed callers to dial the area code for all calls within the 206 NPA (it was still permissive in the area that I was in), but be sure NOT to dial 1+206 because even a local call could get billed as a toll call. This is ludicrous!!! Once the NANP standardizes on NPA+7D dialing for local calls, 1+NPA+7D should be used for "a toll may apply". However, that only seems logical (to me) so it could never work. Stan ------------------------------ From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier Date: 20 Jun 1999 06:04:01 GMT Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA George Yanos writes: > Once we have to dial an area code for every call, why do we need to > continue with the 1- prefix? Training for the day when we have country code overlays. --Pat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Gasp of Indignation: Oh really! Its probably not far off at the rate things are going. PAT] ------------------------------ From: R.M.A.@pdq.net (Robert Alexander) Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:46:47 GMT On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 20:01:34 -0700, "Someone" wrote: > I see that beginning 3/15/99, US West is charging all telephone > subscribers 53 cents per line for "Service Provider Number > Portability." Great! Now that I'm paying for it, where can I get it? > There are no alternative companies from which I can get dialtone! Is > this just another "hidden tax?" We are compelled to pay the phone > company as a de-facto tax-collection arm of the federal government, > while getting nothing in return. I dunno about that tax but YES, the government in general knows how to waste and steal money from the people who put them into power ... often times deceptive. ------------------------------ From: srini_v@my-deja.com Subject: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:41:01 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi, A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was switched to the new company. My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch. The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to my local telephone company a year back. My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch, is it legal? Thanks, srini ------------------------------ From: NoSpam@mindspring.com (LShaping@...) Subject: Anybody Speak 3Com? Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 05:01:42 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises I need updated drivers for my Internet Discovery Suite modem. At 3Com's web site http://www.3com.com/products/index.html that modem is very easy to find. From there, you follow path (Modems > U.S. Robotics 56K Modems > 56K Internet Discovery Suite) But at 3Com's software driver search page http://dcms.3com.com/softwarelibrary/search.htm I have no idea what to search for to find the drivers for this modem. Does anybody know specifically how to find the drivers for this modem at 3Com's site? Thanks, LShaping [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you tried asking the webmaster or other person in charge of that web site where to find things? I am sure they would be more likely to know than anyone here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 03:13:31 GMT Organization: You only wish you were this organized On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:38:51 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many times administrators of large > institutional settings would *prefer* that their own staff respond > first to calls from the public for police or fire department assis- > tance. Then, the appropriate staff person will decide whether or > not police department or fire department intervention is required. > This presupposes of course that you have well-trained and profess- > ional security people on your staff; it makes the assumption that > your building engineer knows the difference between an odor of > smoke or a smoke detector going off as a result of a motor which > needs oil or someone who carelessly threw a lighted cigarette in > a trash disposal unit versus a real, actual, out of control fire. [snip] As defacto sysadmin of a fairly large (3600-port) enterprise class PBX, I feel somewhat qualified to comment. To satisfy my legal beagles, I "bridge" rather than intercept 911 calls. The call proceeds on to the PSAP normally, but does so over a separate, small dedicated analog loop-start trunk group (911 traffic only). There are audio bridges on these trunks which feed plain-Jane Orator monitor speakers located in three areas; building security, the nurse's station and building maintenance. The PBX gives me the calling extension in real time (at the initial onset of the call) which is splashed against a database of internal numbers. This gives me the originating extension, location and the assigned user name, date and timestamp, again all in real time, within ten seconds of onset of the call. This information is sent to small serial "instrument" printers (via short haul modems) in the three aforementioned areas. There is a multi-line analog key system bridged onto these trunks so that bldg. security can "join" the call should the need arise. Their Orator speaker is wired through the off-normal contacts of the switchook of their emergency phone to mute it and preclude feedback. During a typical 911 call the following things occur: 1. Most important from a legal standpoint, the call proceeds to the PSAP uninterrupted and in real time; 2. Security, overhearing the call on their monitor and seeing the location on their printer, dispatches two CPR-trained guards to the location, mostly for 'onlooker control' though they are trained to assist if called upon; 3. The company nurse, overhearing the call on her monitor and seeing the location on her printer, also proceeds to the location with a medical 'crash' bag that just recently now includes a cardiac defibrillator; 4. Building maintainence dispatches a person to the street in front of the building to meet the arriving emergency personnel and escort them to the scene; 5. Building maintainence dispatches a second person to "hold" the freight elevator for exclusive use by emergency personnel; 6. Yes, it's recorded. All the above begins happening while the original caller is still on the phone with the PSAP. All of the internal personnel responding are in radio contact with each other. I do not have problems with inappropriate 911 calls or accidental 911 misdials, in spite of the fact that the routing tables in the PBX will accept *either* 911 or 9-911. I have programmed the routing tables to look for any additional 'superfluous' digits and intercept those calls and send them to building security without outpulsing them on the 911 trunk group. Thus the only way to dial 911 is to dial those 3 digits explicitly and no other digits to follow or to explicitly dial 9-911, again with no additional digits to follow. Yes, this causes the genuine article 911 call to pause in the route tables momentarily (4 seconds), but is a necessary evil when your legal dept mandates that both 911 and 9-911 be handled in the same way. The legal dept had no problem with the 4-second call processing delay, which incidentally can be bypassed with the '#' terminator. (The nurse and building security both know this.) > Building managers will tell you that certain tenants of the building > or visitors/employees will call 911 at the slightest provocation; I have never found that to be the case in my building. Even in the face of some pretty extensive "blood in the hallways" layoffs a few years ago, there were no disgruntleds maliciously dialing 911. I did have one instance where a fire pull station was maliciously activated, but that's once in 12 years with over 1,000 employees in the building. > Where you wind up in trouble however when you intercept 911 calls > via your own staff is that there may be an actual situation where > a minute wasted was a minute too many. Then the user sues you for > delaying his call for emergency intervention, especially if someone > gets hurt or killed. This is exactly the reason that I do not divert or intercept 911 calls. To do so, IMO, is an open invitation to an expensive lawsuit. std. disclaimers apply. I do not represent my employer in this forum [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your setup seems to me to be ideal; it is about as close as you can come to having control over emergency situations which arise and whether or not there is an actual emergency. I should have also pointed out before that building managers do not like having emergency personnel showing up with them in the dark about some alleged incident. ("We got a call that there was a lot of smoke in the hallway on the fourteenth floor ... do you know anything about it?") And of course staff knows nothing about it and come off looking like idiots. Your PBX operator also needs training in handling emergency calls which come to the switchboard first, and training in handling a massive number of calls i.e. the switchboard being lit up like the proverbial Christmas Tree, which come in from anxious and hysterical tenants and employees, etc when they see fire engines arriving or police running around through the complex. What about calls from outside which the PBX operator gets first such as a bomb threat? Has the operator been trained to respond calmly and courteously to a person making a bomb threat? The operator needs to obtain all the details possible such as where it is located, when it will explode and why. Does the caller have a grudge against the institution for some reason? Details like this can be extremely important at a later time. Is there a procedure in place for the operator to use in notifying selected members of staff? Does the operator have their pager numbers, or in the event of overhead paging, are there agreed upon code words and phrases the operator should use in stressing to management or security people that an emergency exists while not getting everyone else frightened and distracted from their own work? Can the operator place calls on the loud speakers you mentioned in your security and maintainence departments in the same way calls to 911 or 9-911 are placed on those loud speakers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:42:59 EDT Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regs In issue #157, Herb Smith wrote, ungrammatically ... > We need less rules. Uh, Herb. We think you mean "fewer" rules. This time we'll let you off with just a warning. ;) --- The Grammar Police [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Uh, sir, if you are from the police, I'll have to ask you to get a warrant before you come in this newsgroup snooping around. In conclusion, a short note from Allan Olbur at 847-934-0580 sent to Herb -- or really anyone interested -- points out that 911 response systems for managers of PBX / centrex type situations in large commercial or institutional settings are available which will minimize potential liability and provide equal access to E-911 in a workplace setting from his company Infratech. His website is http://209.172.186.90 for persons interested in pursuing this, or readers are invited to call. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #158 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 21 17:44:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03134; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:44:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906212144.RAA03134@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #159 TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jun 99 17:44:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #188, June 21, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) How is Roaming in Montana? (Jerome Yuzyk) 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (David Esan) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Ron Walter) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Wrong Number) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Tad Cook) Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Joseph Singer) Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (David Jensen) Telecom in Coffeehouses - Need EE (Greg Ladner) Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Carl Moore) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:10 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #188, June 21, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 188: June 21, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CBTA Declares Bankruptcy; TeleCon Cancelled ** Intrigna Launched in BC, Alberta ** Purchase Gives MaxLink National LMCS License ** Primus Buys Local Service Reseller ** New Rate Plans at Bell Mobility ** Canadian Wireless Ranked World's Most Affordable ** Number Portability Comes to Halifax ** C1 Registers as Local Carrier ** ITU Adopts Voice Over Internet Standard ** Northwestel Payphone Rates to Stay at 25 Cents ** Voice Mail Now a Local Call from QuebecTel Payphones ** ExpressVu to Provide In-Flight TV ** NBTel Sues Fundy for Unpaid Bills ** Telus Offers E-Commerce Service ** Switchview Provides Web Access to Telecom Data ** Web Site Targets Call Center Staffing ** Dave House to Leave Nortel ** Phil Lind Honored as Cable Pioneer ** NBTel, Union Sign Contract ** Siemens, Fujitsu Merge Computer Businesses ** Qwest Joins Bidding for U S West ** Nine Days Left for Telemanagement Bonus CBTA DECLARES BANKRUPTCY; TELECON CANCELLED: The Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance, Canada's largest organization of business telecom users, has declared bankruptcy and cancelled its annual TeleCon conference and trade show. All but one of the organization's employees have been laid off, its office is closed, and its Web site is no longer on line. ** The 37-year-old CBTA attributes its financial crisis to "a low level of trade show sales for TeleCon '99," which was to be held in Toronto in October. The Alliance's Board says it was unable to find other sources of funds. INTRIGNA LAUNCHED IN BC, ALBERTA: On June 21, MTS and Bell Canada announced that their joint venture to offer local telephone service to businesses in BC and Alberta, in competition with Telus, will operate under the name Intrigna. The company's President and CEO is Murray Korth, former President and CEO of ISM Alberta and a former Telus executive. PURCHASE GIVES MAXLINK NATIONAL LMCS LICENSE: MaxLink Communications, which holds an LMCS license for 33 markets, has bought the other two licensees, WIC Connexus and RegionalVision, giving it the ability to offer wireless broadband service in 207 cities and towns across Canada. ** As part of the deal, Newbridge Networks is dropping its $1-Billion suit against WIC Connexus for breach of contract. (See Telecom Update #172) PRIMUS BUYS LOCAL SERVICE RESELLER: Primus Telecommunications has paid US$5 Million to acquire Telephone Savings Network, a Windsor-based Centrex reseller which has some 12,000 local business lines in operation. Primus aims to be a facilities- based local carrier. NEW RATE PLANS AT BELL MOBILITY: Bell Mobility's new RealTime plans eliminate roaming charges in Canada. The first two of six price levels are $29 for 150 minutes and $49 for 400 minutes; extra minutes are 25 cents. Most previous plans have been withdrawn. ** Bell Mobility now offers a tri-mode handset, the Nokia 6185, which provides digital service at the 800 MHz frequency used by Mobility companies in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia. CANADIAN WIRELESS RANKED WORLD'S MOST AFFORDABLE: A Yankee Group rating of average wireless airtime costs relative to average monthly salaries ranks Canada as the world's "most affordable" country for wireless, followed by Finland and Italy. Canada's average per-minute cost (25 cents) is the world's sixth-lowest. NUMBER PORTABILITY COMES TO HALIFAX: MTT reports that Local Number Portability will be available in Halifax on July 12. C1 REGISTERS AS LOCAL CARRIER: C1 Communications has registered with the CRTC as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. C1 is continuing the commercial business of Fundy Communications, whose residential business was sold to Shaw in April. (See Telecom Update #181) ITU ADOPTS VOICE OVER INTERNET STANDARD: The International Telecommunication Union has defined a new standard for the control of gateways between circuit-switched and packet-based networks. Target date for final approval is February 2000. NORTHWESTEL PAYPHONE RATES TO STAY AT 25 CENTS: The CRTC has turned down Northwestel's bid to raise payphone rates to 35 cents. The Commission says the lower rate -- charged in most of Canada -- is necessary to keep telephone service affordable in the North. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0529.htm VOICE MAIL NOW A LOCAL CALL FROM QUEBECTEL PAYPHONES: Quebec-Telephone is giving its voice mail customers access to their messages from any of its payphones as a local call, starting July. EXPRESSVU TO PROVIDE IN-FLIGHT TV: Bell ExpressVu is joining with California-based Airshow Inc. to broadcast satellite TV to private aircraft over Canadian airspace. Airshow already provides service in the U.S. through DirecTv. ** Oshawa-based Comlink Systems has won a $4 Million contract to supply earth station facilities to ExpressVu. NBTEL SUES FUNDY FOR UNPAID BILLS: NBTel is suing Fundy Cable for $2 Million, alleging that the cableco failed to pay the full amount due for use of the telco's telephone poles. TELUS OFFERS E-COMMERCE SERVICE: Telus's new Interactive Enterprise service supports applications such as customer self-service, bill presentation, cataloging, Web procurement, and knowledge management. ** Telus has announced plans to offer e-mail, Internet access, and fax services through 25 kiosks in the Calgary Airport. SWITCHVIEW PROVIDES WEB ACCESS TO TELECOM DATA: Waterloo-based Switchview Inc. has announced Telecom Web Page, which replaces paper reports with Web-based access to telecom management data. Availability: August. WEB SITE TARGETS CALL CENTER STAFFING: Job Bus Canada, an Internet employment site, has launched CallCareers.Com, which provides staffing information for call centers in Canada. http://www.callcareers.com/ DAVE HOUSE TO LEAVE NORTEL: David House, who one year ago led Bay Networks into its merger with Nortel, will resign as President of Nortel Networks this summer. Bill Hawe, also from Bay Networks, has become Nortel's Chief Technology Officer. PHIL LIND HONORED AS CABLE PIONEER: Phil Lind, Vice-Chairman of Rogers Communications, is the first Canadian to be honored as an industry pioneer by the U.S. National Cable Television Association. NBTEL, UNION SIGN CONTRACT: NBTel and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union have signed a new contract covering the telco's 600 unionized employees. (See Telecom Update #181) SIEMENS, FUJITSU MERGE COMPUTER BUSINESSES: Siemens and Fujitsu are merging their computer manufacturing units in a new company called Fujitsu Siemens Computers. QWEST JOINS BIDDING FOR U S WEST: Qwest Communications International, the fourth-largest U.S. long distance company, has bid $55 Billion to acquire Denver-based U S West, which provides local service to 25 million customers, and Frontier, a long distance company. (See Telecom Update #184) NINE DAYS LEFT FOR TELEMANAGEMENT BONUS: Until June 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement receive "Tips, Tricks and Traps," a collection of 22 practical reports and resources by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans. Included in the collection: ** "Eight Ways to Stretch Your Phone Budget" and other techniques to cut costs without reducing quality; ** "Those '50% of Savings' Deals" -- a self-defense guide against ill-advised contingency proposals; ** "Angus's Laws for Understanding and Surviving (and Possibly Profiting From) the New Telecom." To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.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 1999 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: jerome@supernet.ab.ca (Jerome Yuzyk) Subject: How is Roaming in Montana? Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:20:00 -0700 Organization: BRIDGE Scientific Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada Reply-To: jerome@supernet.ab.ca With all the discussion of the (lack of) quality cell coverage in the US, I am wondering about a future trip from Alberta to Montana, driving south to Big Sky, near Yellowstone via Great Falls, Helena and Butte. I have an analog Motorola 650e*. This is the first time I've had a cell in the US. What should I expect for coverage and reception? J e r o m e Y u z y k | jerome@supernet.ab.ca BRIDGE Scientific Services | www.tgx.com/bridge Sunbeam Alpine Series II #9118636 | www.tgx.com/bridge/sunbeam I'm going to SUNI III... Are You? | www.newsource.net/suni3 ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) Subject: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:16:17 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. I recently switched long distance carriers from AT&T to Destia, (formerly Econophone). I have not yet received the dreaded AT&T $3 minimum letter (even though AT&T was my carrier on both the landline and the cellphone). I switched because Destia offered 17 cents a minute to Israel, which is my most expensive call. After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia. A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA? Is there a difference between the numbers? David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company. Note for example that you can force 4141 to pass you to any carrier 'welcome' message you desire by prefixing the call with the carrier access code. For example in the past, 10288+1+700-555-4141 *always* produced the 'welcome to AT&T' message, while 10222+1+700-555-4141 *always* produced 'welcome to MCI'. Ditto, using 10777 and the above would cause you to receive a greeting from Sprint. My understanding is that 4141 employs software which examines the PIC information then 'forwards' your call to the number which will give the appropriate answer-phrase or greeting/welcome message. You might want to investigate this in more detail. The other thing to remember is that many 'carriers' these days are not really carriers, they are 'switchless resellers' meaning all they are doing is brokering long distance service on the switch of some other company. The ones which do a better job of hiding their true identity (as an independent company on its own merits) can usually fix things so that even the most obscure tell-tale signs that some other company actually owns the facilities and network are covered. For instance, in the earliest days of Frontier reselling cellular phone service via various companies depending on where you were located in the USA, they took care that no matter where you were at, things like *611 routed to them rather than the 'real' company. They fixed things so that intercept messages from the switches gave their identification rather than that of the 'real' company. It was Frontier, period, and that is all the customer was supposed to know. But after joining their service and doing some initial experimentation with known conditions that would produce indentifications from switches, what do you suppose we heard one day but an announcement from Ameritech which Frontier had somehow forgotten to have diverted to themselves in the event one of their customers landed there. Then on calling the Ameritech Cellular business office (had to dial the 1-800 version rather than the *611 version since it kept getting intercepted by Frontier) and giving our cellular phone number to the Ameritech rep who answered, we were told, 'I cannot help you with that account; I do show it here, but it is a corporate bulk account handled through one of our resellers; they are the only ones who can discuss it, that is part of our contract with them.' The same thing happened with a small, practically unknown landline carrier: the rep insisted to me, 'we have our own facilities and network; everything is handled through us.' When I asked for the number to be used to make calls via their network from a phone which was not PIC'ed to them, she told me to use 10222. My response was, 'in other words, you are a reseller for MCI'. 'Well', she said in sort of an annoyed tone of voice, 'we do not describe it in that way'. So you might want to see if Destia in fact resells Frontier, who the last I heard was reselling Sprint. No matter if they are, your contract is still with Destia subject to their rates and terms, even if the rates, credit conditions, etc are different. The very, very large resellers waving around lots of $$ and with a huge customer base to stick in front of the nose of a company like Sprint or MCI or AT&T usually get their way with things like alterations in the switch recordings and routing of customer service calls, etc. You might also try to find out from Destia what carrier access code is to be used if/when you wish to use them from a non-subscribed line. Let's see if it is a code we all recognize for another biggie. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:44:50 -0500 From: Ron Walter Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc. Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? In Telecom Digest V19 #157: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the > front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of > the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user > that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra > money. PAT] There is an equipment consideration. Many home telephones, key systems, and PBX's have toll restriction features that look for the first few digits dialed to determine whether to allow calls to go through. Most systems, especially the older ones, look for a 1 at the beginning to make that determination. If you want to allow local calling at particular phones but not allow long distance calls, you need that toll restriction feature. If you remove the 1+, many businesses are forced to replace their systems or add on equipment that can keep a table of which numbers are long distance and which are local. It also requires you to spend a great deal of time keeping up with what are local and what are not. This usually means spending more money on having the system vendor take care of those things. An example in Southeast Nebraska came when the Local Exchange Carrier, Aliant Communications, introduced a new enhanced calling area plan. Part of that plan allowed people to call to communities within a 25 mile radius by simply dialing a 7 digit number. Those numbers would have toll charges related to them. It created quite a problem with places like schools and manufacturing plants who had students or employees who lived in those areas and who could now call those numbers because their systems' toll restriction feature was rendered ineffective without the 1 in front of the numbers. It led to either replacing their phone system, paying for their equipment vendor to come out and build toll restriction tables, or just stop allowing calls altogether. Companies in the interconnect business got some good benefit out of it (by the way, guess who the largest vendor of phone systems and PBX's in the area is? Aliant Communications). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Years ago we used to look for zero or one as the first digit and zero or one as the second digit (since only area codes had zero or one in the second spot) and deny the call on that basis. You can still deny on zero as the first digit and have billed number screening in place (no manual charges to be placed on this number by an operator) but screening for one as the first digit won't even work in a place like Chicago where crossing of area code boundaries is still considered a local call in many cases. And of course with overlays there will be a lot of 1+ calls just around your own neighborhood. I do not know any effective way to screen the digits dialed these days except for using a table which says to deny all except (these three) or something like that. Radio Shack sells a toll deny device which can go in some secret place at the head end of your pair, right before it reaches the demarc so that everyone has to pass through it. The admin can program it remotely using a password, and other passwords can be used by callers as 'authorization codes'. The admin can tell it to (for example) allow 312,630,708,773,800,847,888,877 as the only acceptable combinations with a '1' in front (all are local or no- charge combinations in the Chicago area) and to disallow all other combinations which began with '1', also to deny 900 by virtue of it being disallowed because of '1' on the front, deny 976, 555 or 411 (premium charge for directory assistance), etc. Trouble is, you have to keep the little box itself well-hidden, since anyone who unplugs it for a minute or does a 'hard reset' will cause it to forget everything it knew before. On the other hand, if someone steals root from the admin by getting his password, all he has to do is go unplug the device and start over with the factory defaults again. If the admin only wants a certain phone to be restricted, then the little box is placed in series on that local portion of the pair; others ahead of him are unrestricted. If it is placed in series at the head -- which would seem to be the only worthwhile way of doing it -- then everyone downstream is toll-restricted. A user dialing a forbidden number hears a second or two of silence, followed by a 'click' and fresh dial tone. You need one device for each outgoing trunk especially if you cannot be sure which outgoing trunk will be seized by the user at any given time, such as dialing '9' on a PBX and getting an available line. I think root gets a six digit passcode while other users get a four digit bypass code if authorized to make calls. I hope Radio Shack has not taken that out of stock; so many of their more esoteric and seldom-sold phone products are no longer available. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:33:16 -0700 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US In TELECOM Digest Vol 19 Issue 157, I wrote: > If you are talking about "Sprint Cellular," then they are an > honest-to-goodness cellular carrier. John R. Levine reminded me that Sprint divested itself of its cellular operations, so it is likely that the Sprint service the original poster was referring to was indeed PCS (Sprint Spectrum) and not cellular. Bob Keller (www.his.com/~rjk) ------------------------------ From: Wrong@home.net (Wrong Number) Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US Date: 21 Jun 1999 02:30:21 GMT Organization: Your Organization Reply-To: badams@infi.net In article , rjk@telcomlaw.com says: > For example, if you read the fine print in the AT&T Wireless plan > (at least the one being marketed here in the DC area), it says you > won't pay roaming while you are on their digital network. That ain't > worth horse puckey when you go out of the 2 GHz PCS coverage area and > fall back to digital or analog cellular. Then you are at the mercy of > whether and with whom they may or may not have roaming agreements. Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance. HOWEVER, let's say you have the 600 minute plan ... 600 minutes for $89.95/month. If you use 595 minutes every month because of delayed billing for roaming you may only show 400 minutes on your bill (no problem right .... still only $89.95 right) .... then next month your bill may show not only the 595 minutes you actually used that month but also the 195 minutes which wasn't billed the month before. Even though thoses minutes were used in a previous month (in which you didn't go over your 600 minutes) they are added to the present months total. In other words, you are bill for 790 minutes ... after subtracting the 600 minutes in your plan you owe an additional $0.25/minute for 190 minutes. There is always a "gotcha". Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:57:24 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) PAT wrote: > Is there a procedure in place for the operator to use in notifying > selected members of staff? Does the operator have their pager numbers, Proctor & Associates (www.proctorinc.com) of Redmond, WA makes a device that will monitor your 9-1-1 trunks and autodial pagers as well as drive wall displays or local printers with the location info during a 9-1-1 call. It is called 9-1-1 Call Alert, but I don't think it is on their website yet. They also make PBX-ANI-Link, which generates 9-1-1 trunks from your PBX in addition to doing the local alerting. PBX ANI-Link is at http://www.proctorinc.com/prod03.htm and the application note describing the whole problem of locating 9-1-1 calls behind PBX systems is at http://www.proctorinc.com/Sys%202%20Briefx.htm You can reach Proctor at 425-881-7000. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:47:10 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier Stan Schwartz wrote: >In TD V19 #157, Telecom Digest Editor wrote: > >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many people believe the '1' on the >> front does more than just alert the switch regards the context of >> the next three digits dialed; it also serves to remind the user >> that a toll call is happening, a call that may cost them extra >> money. PAT] > This would be a nice idea if it was standardized all over the country. > While on a recent trip to Seattle, the local (USWest) phone book's > dialing instructions directed callers to dial the area code for all > calls within the 206 NPA (it was still permissive in the area that I > was in), but be sure NOT to dial 1+206 because even a local call could > get billed as a toll call. This is ludicrous!!! I live in Seattle and yes those instructions are ludicrous if only because that caution in the directory "Dialing "1" before dialing a local ten-digit phone number could result in charges from your long distance provider" is utter bull pucky. If you dial 1+areacode+number on a local call it simply will not go through. You'll get the recording: a SIT and then the recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and dial again." You will not be billed for your call contrary to what the directory says. The call just will not complete. I guess USWest doesn't even bother to check out how their own system works! When they were proposing the new area codes and dialing arrangement for the area I had asked why permissive 1+area code+number dialing would not be implemented and the answer that I got was that GTE didn't want to go to the trouble of updating their translation table! It would have been nicer if they gave some uniformity to our dialing arrangement so that if someone was visiting or using a modem dialup they wouldn't have to guess on the dialing arrangement in the area, but it was decided otherwise unfortunately. Such are the anomalies of dealing with multiple telephone companies. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 707 516 0561 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought that everyone knew that dealing with multiple telephone companies was for Your Own Good. We do not want any monopoly arrangements where a competitor can cover for its own ineptitude by wailing about discrimination. PAT] ------------------------------ From: djensen@madison.tds.net (David Jensen) Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier Organization: At My House Reply-To: djensen@madison.tds.net Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:15:16 GMT On 20 Jun 1999 06:04:01 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom zippy@cs.brandeis. edu (Patrick Tufts) wrote in : > George Yanos writes: >> Once we have to dial an area code for every call, why do we need to >> continue with the 1- prefix? > Training for the day when we have country code overlays. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Gasp of Indignation: Oh really! Its probably > not far off at the rate things are going. PAT] But of course, 95% of the numbers won't be assigned. ------------------------------ From: gregladner@aol.com (Greg Ladner) Date: 21 Jun 1999 19:00:46 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Telecom in Coffeehouses - Need EE We are financiers planning a line of coffeehouses with telecommunications rooms for interactive communication for business, separated families, people who meet in chat rooms, etc. We are also showcasing an indepen- dent film on HDTV. We need a telecomm engineer to head up our digital division. GregLadner@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:23:20 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November: We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99). Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go smoothly. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth day of the ninth month of year 99? I had heard it was to be the latter, a few days after Labor Day there would be trouble. Well I guess no one knows for sure, and all we can do is hope for the best, that there will be massive outages and computer failures; that the government will be in shambles; that people everywhere will riot and loot all the stores looking for food and beverages to drink and that the telephone system will shut down. It will be a good opportunity for the government to act out its innate hostility toward the people it is supposed to be serving by simply shooting dead those who try to survive however they can. I just hope there is no trouble at the Gas Works however. January is a mighty cold month in the USA to have to go with no operating furnace for warmth. Lucky are the people in Australia who will be able to riot in the warmth of summer sunshine. New Zealand, which gets the first chance at Century 21 will keep the rest of us advised on progress throughout the afternoon and evening of December 31 here in the USA I guess. Seriously, it would not hurt all of us to go back to the Dark Ages for a little while, or even just a century ago when most of what we take for granted today was unheard of. Are those big, tough Marines still having their practice drills over in Virginia so they can keep the rest of us on our best behavior starting sometime in late December? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #159 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 22 00:26:58 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA17319; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906220426.AAA17319@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #160 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jun 99 00:26:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Jin Hwang) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Ed Ellers) Trouble for DoubleClick (Monty Solomon) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Greg Abbott) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Allan M. Olbur) Re: 10-10-220 (Leonid A. Broukhis) House Passes Net Filtering Bill (Monty Solomon) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (James Wyatt) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Bill Levant) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Stanley Cline) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (John R. Levine) AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Unmasking Xircom's Xorro (Alan Boritz) Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular (Alan Boritz) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Jin Hwang Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:09:16 -0700 If your name is on that phone bill then you are the only one who can authorize it. Otherwise I say that you were slammed. James wrote in message news:telecom19.158.9@telecom- digest.org: > A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and > talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was > switched to the new company. > My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch. > The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized > list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to > my local telephone company a year back. > My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch, > is it legal? ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:52:03 -0400 John R. Covert (no.spam.covert.maps.on@covert.org) wrote: > Again we are those stupid Americans who won't use a worldwide > standard. How embarrassing." What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the rest of the world gets around to endorsing them? Considering how long it took for many advanced countries to adopt tone dialing -- a U.S.-only standard that *was* adopted later by the CCITT, by the way -- I suspect we'd still have mostly pulse dialing if AT&T had waited for the CCITT to get off its rear. I contend that we as a nation are better off choosing our own standards, evaluating what other nations' industries are doing on their own merits, but going it alone when that is in our best interest. If that means Americans can't take their wireless phones overseas, and foreign visitors can't use their wireless phones here, I just don't see that as more than a minor inconvenience. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:20:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Trouble for DoubleClick Trouble for DoubleClick By Jacob Ward Barely 24 hours after DoubleClick said that it would acquire marketing research company Abacus Direct for $1 billion in stock, privacy coalitions announced that they would file complaints with the FTC, contending that the merged entity would pose a threat to consumer privacy. The merger, which would help DoubleClick build the ultimate online database of consumers, brings the company closer than any other to achieving every online marketer's dream. But along the way, DoubleClick may have stumbled into a consumer-backlash nightmare. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5017,00.html DoubleClick not worried about privacy charges By Courtney Macavinta Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 15, 1999, 5:55 p.m. PT DoubleClick is not sweating over the plans of privacy watchdogs to upset the $1 billion merger of the Internet advertiser and market researcher Abacus Direct, a top DoubleClick executive said today. Under the deal, DoubleClick's advertising network would correlate the names and addresses of Net shoppers with the Abacus Alliance database of consumer buying habits, made up of more than 2 billion consumer catalog transactions, to allow marketers in both media to target potential customers more efficiently. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37882,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:23:39 -0500 From: Greg Abbott Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs wdg@hal-pc.org wrote: > To satisfy my legal beagles, I "bridge" rather than intercept 911 > calls. The call proceeds on to the PSAP normally, but does so over a > separate, small dedicated analog loop-start trunk group (911 traffic > only). There are audio bridges on these trunks which feed plain-Jane > Orator monitor speakers located in three areas; building security, the > nurse's station and building maintenance. The PBX gives me the calling > extension in real time (at the initial onset of the call) which is > splashed against a database of internal numbers. > This gives me the originating extension, location and the assigned > user name, date and timestamp, again all in real time, within ten > seconds of onset of the call. This information is sent to small > serial "instrument" printers (via short haul modems) in the three > aforementioned areas. There is a multi-line analog key system bridged > onto these trunks so that bldg. security can "join" the call should > the need arise. Their Orator speaker is wired through the off-normal > contacts of the switchook of their emergency phone to mute it and > preclude feedback. [SNIP}] I didn't see if you mentioned what state you are in, but I'm pretty sure in Illinois that you may be opening yourself up to trouble by violating the overhear laws. Basically you are eavesdropping on the 9-1-1 calls from your building. You *might* be able to get around that by posting it for the employees to see and understand, but what about visitors? Do the coin phones in your building function the same way? As a 9-1-1 system administrator, I would rather see the calls route directly and exclusively to the 9-1-1 center. I understand the costing argument and database update and so forth, I'm just talking about the call audio itself. I just have a little uneasiness (is that a word?) with the scenario as presented. On the other hand, at least the call will be completed to 9-1-1, unlike a lot of PBX systems. One other comment ... you mentioned that any "extra" digits will cause the call to route internally, rather than to 9-1-1. What if a person is having a heart attack and presses extra ones or any other digits as they are falling to the floor? What if the caller is blind or is blinded by a chemical spill or explosion? Sounds like a liability to me. People dial 9-1-1 expecting to get 9-1-1. 9-1-1 saves seconds ... seconds save lives! Greg Abbott 9-1-1 Coordinator Champaign County, Illinois [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are speaking from the point of view of a person involved with emergency response activities and that is a perfectly honest, acceptable point of view. I've often thought that 911 call-takers had to be exceptional people in terms of patience and understanding. Your call-takers there have a very light load compared to Chicago or New York for example, yet a very heavy load compared to a small town or sparsely populated county in central or western Kansas. In Junction City, Kansas the combined Junction City/Geary County 911 person receives so few calls via 911 that they have the luxury of broadcasting each one over police radio as it comes in. Listen to your scanner there, and you will hear the radio dispatcher say something like, 'all units hold for an emergency, 911 has a call coming in', and then they literally put it over the radio with the dispatcher 'talking it through' with the caller, repeating what the caller says while the officers on the street are listening and already beginning to respond. (Dispatcher repeating over the air what caller is saying: 'you say he has a late model car, and he is driving west on Sixth Street now? And you say he has a scar over his left eye?'). Meanwhile of course, guys on the street have already headed in that direction. As soon as the dispatcher told them to stand by for a 911 call, they were in their cars ready to move out on one second's notice, just say where. Other jurisdictions in the area are listening to the call also, and if there is any hint the fleeing suspect is heading in their direction, they'll be on the case. Three or four jurisdictions all share the same radio frequency, but even so, there is not five minutes worth of emergency traffic in a day's time. Its an area of the country where the daily 'police blotter' column in the newspaper -- and *all* incidents are printed -- may consist of three or four items: Junction City Police arrested two people in a brawl outside a tavern, and in another incident stopped someone who was speeding and upon searching his car found a marijuana cigarette. The Fort Riley Military Police investigated a domestic dispute; and the Geary Sheriff reported no incidents at all that day. By contrast in Chicago, dispatchers *never* cease talking on the radio, and 911 call takers never have a minute when there are not at least a few calls waiting to be answered. Some- times at three in the morning in Chicago the scanner will go quiet for a minute or so at a time, and 911 calls will be answered without even a single ring, that is just a click and the operator is on the line. So I can see and deeply appreciate the work going on by professional and well-trained emergency response agencies in larger cities, and that the vast, overwhelming majority of your 'users' or callers are not going to be in a position to evaluate their circumstances and deal with them in a professional -- and most important, lawful! -- way. Do you remember how when 911 first started in Chicago many years ago, the Fire Department resisted being part of it? Having the police screen our calls first and pass them along will lead to unacceptable delays in our response was the way they said it. It took awhile to convince them otherwise. And consider those communities who share a telephone exchange with a neighboring community and as a result of defeciencies in the way the telephone switch operates, they are 'stuck with' using a single 911 center for both communities. What happens? As often as not they do not have 911 at all, so concerned are they that not being in charge of their own calls, their community will suffer as a result. There are politics involved in 911 of course; if something goes right, then you get the credit (we do not like that idea) and if something goes wrong, then we are the ones to catch hell or get sued, and we like that idea even less than having you get all the glory and the label of hero, etc. I guess finally all the communities in the Chicago suburban area are now using 911, both as a result of phone exchange improvements and because they managed to settle their differences with neighboring communities. But they certainly spent years squabbling over who was going to actually answer the calls. So Greg, I do understand your position very well, but I also empha- thize with persons whose responsibilities include managing large institutional properties, etc and who must, absolutely without question for legal reasons be 'on top of' or aware and responsive to every single incident which occurs on their premises. That is why I said his passing of calls explicitly to 911 unhindered while still monitoring them so that his own security representatives and other trained personnel listened and began responding was probably the best things could get. And after all, when your people get a call reporting a fire and patch it through, *they* stay on the line and listen don't they? After all, police may very well be needed to assist firemen in an evacuation or crowd-control, etc. So what is the difference? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dtm37@aol.com (Allan M. Olbur) Date: 22 Jun 1999 00:23:51 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs Pat: Thanks for the note. We have recommended that a consortium of interested parties who are willing to share ideas and input re E-911 be convened. If you are intested in joining this forum, pls contact me via email at aolbur@ccscnet.com. Regards, Allan M. Olbur InfraTech Inc. 847-934-0580 http://209.172.186.90 ------------------------------ From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: 21 Jun 1999 16:36:05 GMT In article , Joel B Levin wrote: > That's just a restatement of the pricing as advertised: "Any call up > to 20 minutes for 99 cents, then ten cents a minute." The catch is > that it's a great rate when the call is over 12 minutes, but very > expensive to make a couple of one minute calls with. If you plan to > talk for 20 minutes, and get the answering machine instead, you're > screwed for the whole 99 cents anyhow. Convenience aside, it seems that the idea or possibility of using one carrier to make sure the other party is at home, then using another carrier for a long call, escapes some people completely. Leo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Leo, there is a limit to what effort most people will go to to save a few cents, and a few cents is what it comes down to these days with most carriers. At the end of the month your long distance bill was two dollars less because you incovenienced your called party by dialing once then telling him to hang up and wait for your next call a few seconds later, etc. Another player out there willing to get your business was brought to my attention to today. A company called 'Clear Choice' in Dallas, TX offers this choice of three options: 1) Five cents per minute interstate at all hours, and varying rates ranging from ten to fifteen cents per minute in intRAstate calls depending on which state you live in ... OR .... 2) Nine cents per minute anywhere at all times, with a $3.95 per month service charge ... OR ... 3) Ten cents per minute anywhere at all times, no service charge. To amortize that $3.95 per month on the difference of just one cent per minute would require 3.5 additional hours of talking per month *just to break even* and quite a bit more talking to get to the point it made any real savings, so choice three at ten cents per minute is probably best if you make very many intRAstate calls; otherwise go with choice one. I did not check out the rates in every state for intRA service, but most of them appeared to be in the 15 cent per minute range, a few lower, some higher. Look at http://www.clearchoice.net if you are interested. I have no idea who they are reselling. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:30:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: House Passes Net Filtering Bill By Courtney Macavinta Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 18, 1999, 1:10 p.m. PT Update: Mandatory Net filtering in schools and libraries finally may become a reality after a string of failed attempts by Congress to implement content regulations at public institutions. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38018,00.html ------------------------------ From: James Wyatt Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:40:27 -0500 Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!) On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, David Esan wrote: > After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had > taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." > Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia. > A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), > suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all > cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to > Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company. Did you *try* it? Both of them indicate AT&T on the line I tested. I do not know what the difference is unless it 'hints' to the switches that a toll-bypass should be considered. (see below) > The other thing to remember is that many 'carriers' these days are not > really carriers, they are 'switchless resellers' meaning all they are > doing is brokering long distance service on the switch of some other > company. The ones which do a better job of hiding their true identity > (as an independent company on its own merits) can usually fix things There are also lots of folks that resell other carriers service for most areas and concentrate 'special' capacity where they have an advantage. Does this company have lots of capacity to Israel and resell others for the rest of the planet? If so, the second number could be directing the response to match traffic they would handle on their own capacity. - Jy@ ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:33:06 EDT Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID > A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), > suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". > Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA? > Is there a difference between the numbers? FWIW, I tried 1-700-555-9499 from both of my home phones, here in suburban Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic-land). On line #1, subscribed to Worldcom (from the pre-MCI days) yields "Thank you for using MCI ..." On line #2, subscribed to Sprint, "[SIT TONES] We're sorry, you have reached a number that has been disconnected, or is no longer in service ..." Evidently, the call is handed off to the PIC'ed carrier, since the two lines produced different results. What happens then is anyone's guess. By the way, intra-LATA carrier checking is accomplished here by dialing 700-4141 (or now, I suppose, with mandatory 10-digits, 610-700-4141). Bill ------------------------------ From: sc1@roamer1.org (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:36:36 GMT Organization: how, with all the spam? Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:16:17 GMT, davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) wrote: > After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had > taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." > Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia. > A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), > suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". It looks like they resell Frontier (Global Crossing? soon to be Qwest? ...) This sort of thing isn't unusual at all among smaller resellers. Many, most notably Excel, have customers dial a "different" 700-555 number (Excel, who has resold AT&T, Frontier, and IXC and now has their "own" network, uses 700-555-0752) to verify that they've been switched or are on the correct carrier. Others tell customers to dial the usual 700-555-4141 and that they may hear the name of a different carrier (often the WorldCom side of MCI WorldCom, IXC, or Frontier) when they dial it. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 1999 21:40:02 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had > taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." ... > A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), > suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". TELECOM Digest Editor then noted: > So you might want to see if Destia in fact resells Frontier, who > the last I heard was reselling Sprint. Frontier is now a real facilities based IXC, one of the major reasons that Global Crossing is buying them. I suspect Pat's right, Destia is reselling Frontier, -4141 gives the real carrier and -9499 gives you their reseller. For what it's worth, when I try either, I get "welcome to IXC Communications" who is indeed my LD carrier. If you're wondering about intra-LATA toll, that's 700-4141. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:02:55 GMT > Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract > with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital > One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance. But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in Orange County, NY, and sometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a credit card. Other times (without moving the phone!) I get no bars of "roam" signal, which I guess is AT&T, but I can't tell for sure, because there's not enough signal to make or receive calls. So sometimes there's no service, and sometimes I have to use a credit card. AT&T's one rate is good for some things, but even at $90/month, it's a budget plan and you get what you pay for. If you really want to make and receive calls wherever you are, stick with an analog phone :-( -Joel ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Unmasking Xircom's Xorro Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:16:03 -0400 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4991,00.html > Xircom won a round Monday in its legal battle to unmask (and silence) > a critic who posted two messages critical of the company on Yahoo's > message boards. It's not the first time a company has subpoenaed Yahoo > to turn over the name of someone bashing the company on its boards, > but it is the first time the anonymous basher has fought back in > court. Xircom makes network and modem cards for PCs. > Judge John J. Hunter of Ventura Superior Court in Southern California > tossed out Xircom's original subpoena on a technicality, but left the > door open for it to file another to Yahoo to reveal the name. An > attorney for the basher, whom the court calls John Doe, said it was > free speech. But Hunter said, "There is no right to free speech to > defame." Did John Doe defame Xircom? Xircom says it will prove so in > court, while Doe's attorney, Megan Gray, says Xircom's legal actions > are all a show to get her client to shut up. > But few quotes showed up in the press to let us judge for ourselves > the defamatory material. The New York Times' Rebecca Fairley Raney > quoted John Doe saying Xircom was no longer the fun place to work it > once was. Pretty tough stuff. I think I would think twice about specifying a product manufactured by a company that would prosecute an individual who publicly criticizes them, especially when it appears to be a personal vendetta. That technique has been known to backfire, even when there's a legitimate cause for the legal action. I just hope that if it does, and Xircom's sales does plummet, that the person responsible for pursuing the legal action can understand the foolish mistake he made. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: National Factors vs. Calling Party Pays Cellular Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:33:42 -0400 In article , sjsobol@NorthShore Technologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote: > On 16 Jun 1999 03:44:25 GMT, hillary@hillary.net allegedly said: >> aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >>> Absolute total nonsense. Flat-rate billing plans for landline phones >>> in the largest market in the US were a thing of the past almost 30 >>> years ago, and do not exist now. Even when New York Telephone offered >> Well, someone better tell Bell Atlantic. They're apparently unaware of >> this fact, and are offering flat-rate local or metropolitan-area >> calling plans here in tropical Philadelphia, PA (as well as in some of >> our more temperate suburbs). > Alan has also ignored every last one of the posts made by myself and > Joseph Adams about flat-rate calling in northern Ohio. Quite correct. Last time I looked, "northern Ohio," and Philadelphia, weren't the largest market in the US. Now, if I said, "top 500 markets," perhaps you'd have a point. In article , craig@glasswings. com.au (Craig Macbride) wrote: > aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) writes: >>> cell-phone numbers are mixed in with local landline numbers. There is >>> no way to look at a phone number in this country and tell if it's a >>> cellphone. And that's exactly the way the cell phone companies here >>> like it ... >> And that's the way consumers like it. > They do? Which ones? The ones who buy and use cellular or mobile service for their main business activities? >> Some people operate their daily business entirely on cellphones with >> no desire to call attention to it. > Why? Because they are shonky operators who are already in the airport > about to skip town while taking your order? Because they might be site acquisition or construction managers who spend almost all of their time in the field. I worked with some individuals in that situation, some with the largest cellular system operators in the US, some independent. There's absolutely nothing "shonky" about them, and they do a lot of the system construction for systems we routinely use and criticize. > I can't imagine that any reputable business has the slightest > advantage in hiding the fact that the number you are calling is a > mobile number. A business whose key people are mostly in the field may not want to call attention to the fact that that your first contact may not be a main business phone. After all, first impressions are the most lasting. And, some mobile service plans in the US are so competitive that some people are using it as their only phone, which is exactly the target of AT&T's latest marketing effort. Perhaps you should spend some time in the US before being so certain how businesses operate, or how individuals use their cellular phones. >> Other people like it because it's none of your damn business >> whether it's mobile or not. > I've never heard of that one either. I've never heard of the term "shonky" before. We're even. >> The single best argument for CPP, however, might be in support of >> telemarketers. If a teleslime operator chose to blanket mobile phone >> customers, his expenses might double or triple if his rotaries ran >> over blocks of mobile numbers. That, by itself, is a powerful >> incentive for CPP, IMHO. > Of course. Telemarketers are much rarer here and I have at least a > tiny bit of respect for a company which is prepared to spend money to > contact me than if they can do it for free. You must have a LOT of time on your hands. Telemarketers are a major nuisance in the US. They rob us of our available time, and often cause us to spend OUR money to to avoid them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #160 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 22 01:00:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA18515; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:00:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906220500.BAA18515@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #161 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Jun 99 01:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Updated GSM-List Jun 20, 1999 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso (John S. Maddaus) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Mike Pollock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:00:11 +0200 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM List - Jun 20, 1999 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. This is the last time I will send out this list via email. Over the last five years the number of subscribers grew and grew. My Email program is not able to handle this large amount of recipients anymore, therefor I will let the mailing be handled by a professional mailing list service. You will receive a mail from EGROUPS in the next days containing an invitation to re-subscribe to this list following a link within the message. This will save me a lot of work and it will be possible to send out new info faster. Since the introduction of Dual-Band GSM phones it makes sense for the first time to add GSM 1800/1900 operators too as the original purpose of this list was meant to be a roaming guide. To answer many requests regarding which operator is using which frequency, 1900 Mhz is used in the US, Canada and Japan, the rest of the world uses 900 Mhz (usually first two operators) and 1800 Mhz (usually third and fourth operator). Anyway, when I have some time, I will add another column with the freqs used. (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date Jun 20, 1998 Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Albania AMC 276 01 Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Armenia Armentel 283 01 Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 9342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 9415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 664 1661 max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000 Connect Austria 232 05 Int + 43 1 58187300 Azerbaidjan Azercell 400 01 Int + 994 12 98 28 23 * JV Bakcell 400 02 Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Bangladesh Grameen Phone Ltd 470 01 * TM International 470 19 Sheba Telecom Belgium Proximus 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912 Mobistar 206 10 Int + 32 95 95 95 00 * KPN Orange 206 20 Bosnia Cronet 218 01 PTT Bosnia 218 19 Botswana * Mascom Wireless 652 01 Brunei DSTCom 528 11 Jabatan Telekom 528 01 Bulgaria * MobilTel AD 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031 Burkina Faso OnaTel Cambodia CamGSM 456 01 * Cambodia Samart 456 02 Cambodia Shinawatra Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01 Cape Verde * Cabo Verde Telecom 625 01 Canada Microcell 302 37 Chile Entel Telefonia China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Beijing Wireless China Unicom 460 01 Zhuhai Comms DGT MPT Jianxi PTT Tjianjin Toll Liaoning PPTA 460 02 Congo African Telecoms Congolaise Wireless Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772 * Vipnet 219 10 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 420 2 6701 6701 Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 420 603 603 603 Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 7024 2408 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 Mobilix 238 30 Int + 45 8040 4080 Telia 238 20 Int + 45 8010 1010 Egypt * MobiNil 602 01 * Click GSM 602 02 Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 Q GSM 248 03 Ethiopia ETA 636 01 Faroe Isl. Faroese Telecom Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Sonera 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000 Alands Mobiltelefon 244 05 Telia 244 03 Int + 358 800 41 1041 Finnet 244 09 Int + 358 800 94000 * Lnnen Puhelin 244 09 * Helsingin Puhelin 244 09 Int + 358 9 500 100 France Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Bouygues Telekom 208 20 Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20 Fr.W.Indies Ameris 340 01 Int + 590 93 27 47 Georgia Superphone Geocell 282 01 Magticom 282 02 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 961 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 E-Plus Mobilfunk 262 03 Viag Interkom 262 07 Int + 49 179 55 222 Ghana Franci Walker Ltd ScanCom 620 01 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 One2One 234 30 Int + 44 7958 121121 * Orange 234 33 Int + 44 973 100150 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 * Cosmote 202 01 Int + 30 1 680 8950 Greenland Tele Greenland Guinea Int'l Wireless 611 Spacetel 611 Sotelgui 611 02 Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2888 1010 New World PCS 454 10 Sunday 454 16 Pacific Link 454 18 Peoples Telephone 454 12 * SMC PCS 454 22 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 20 9 654 062 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 9 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 Icelandic Mobile Phone 274 02 India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 Int + 91 44 8222939 RPG MAA 404 41 Modi Telstra 404 14 Sterling Cellular 404 11 Mobile Telecom Airtouch BPL USWest 404 27 Koshika Bharti Telenet Birla Comm Cellular Comms * TATA 404 07 Int + 91-040-21199 Escotel 404 12 JT Mobiles Evergrowth Telecom Aircel Digilink 404 15 Hexacom India Reliance Telecom Fascel Limited Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int + 62 21 8282811 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 Excelcom 510 11 Int + 62 21 5759818 PT Indosat Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341 Celcom Kish Free Zone Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone 272 02 Int + 353 61 203 501 Meteor 272 03 Israel * Partner Communications 425 01 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Wind 222 88 Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 Telecel 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 Japan Jordan JMTS 416 01 Kenya Kenya Telecom Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 Kyrgyz Rep Bitel Ltd 437 01 La Reunion SRR 647 10 Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01 Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 BALTCOM GSM 247 02 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Cellis 415 01 Int + 961 3 391 111 Lesotho Vodacom 651 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Millicom Lux' S.A 270 77 Lybia Orbit El Madar Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01 Madagascar Sacel 646 03 Madacom 646 01 Int + 261 2022 66055 * SMM 646 02 Malawi TNL 650 01 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Maxis 502 12 My BSB 502 02 * TM Touch 502 13 Adam 502 17 * Digi Telecom 502 16 Malta Telecell 278 01 Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100 Moldova * Voxtel Monaco Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Office des Telephones Mongolia MobiCom Montenegro Pro Monte 220 02 Mozambique Telecom de Mocambique 634 01 T.D.M GSM1800 Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 Telfort Holding NV 204 12 * Ben 204 16 * Dutchtone 204 20 New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria EMIS Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman General Telecoms 422 02 Palestinia Palestine Telecoms Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7 Papua Pacific 310 01 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 632 1457000 * Smart 515 03 Poland Plus GSM 260 01 Int + 48 22 607 16 01 ERA GSM 260 02 IDEA Centertel 260 03 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 Optimus 268 03 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620 Romania MobiFon 226 01 Int + 40113022222 MobilRom 226 10 Int + 40112033333 Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 * Dontelekom 250 10 KB Impuls 250 99 JSC Siberian Cellular 250 ?? BM Telecom 250 07 * Beeline 250 Int + 7 095 258 8888 * Extel 250 28 Int + 7 0112 5530 60 * Far Eastern Cell 250 12 San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Wind 222 88 SaudiArabia Al Jawal 420 01 EAE 420 07 Senegal Sonatel 608 01 Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 * Airtel 633 10 Serbia * Serbian PTT 220 03 Int + 381 11 9820 Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 MobileOne 525 03 * Binariang Slovak Rep Eurotel 231 02 Int + 421 903 903 903 Globtel 231 01 Int + 421 905 905 905 Slovenia Mobitel 293 41 Int + 386 61 131 30 33 * SI.Mobil South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 301 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 907 123000 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 909 100909 * Amena 214 03 Sudan Mobitel 634 01 Swaziland Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland Swisscom 900 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Swisscom 1800 228 01 * diAx mobile 228 02 * Orange Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 932 400821 Mobitai 466 93 Int + 886 931 413131 TransAsia 466 99 TWN 466 97 Tuntex 466 06 Int + 886 938 749104 KG Telecom 466 88 Int + 886 938 348404 FarEasTone 466 01 Int + 886 931 000099 * Chunghwa 466 11 Tanzania Tritel 640 01 Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Total Access Comms 520 18 * WCS 520 10 * Hello 520 23 Tunisia Tunisian PTT 605 02 Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 * Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 212 313 0000 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 * MTN 641 10 Ukraine Mobile comms 255 01 Golden Telecom 255 05 * Radio Systems 255 02 * Kyivstar JSC 255 03 USA Bell South 310 15 Sprint Spectrum 310 02 Voice Stream 310 26 Aerial Comms. 310 31 Omnipoint 310 16 Powertel 310 27 Wireless 2000 310 11 Uzbekistan Daewoo GSM 434 04 Coscom 434 05 Buztel 434 01 Int + 7 3712 320 648 Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Wind 222 88 Venezuela * Infonet 734 01 * Digitel Vietnam MTSC 452 01 DGPT 452 02 Yugoslavia * Mobile Telekom 220 01 Int + 381 11 138608 * Promonte 220 02 Int + 381 81 9898 * Telekom Serbia 220 03 Int + 381 11 9820 Zaire African Telecom Net Zimbabwe NET*ONE 648 01 * Telecel Zimbabwe 648 04 ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: Book Review: "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:41:06 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net Rob Slade wrote: > BKINTDET.RVW 990423 > "Intrusion Detection", Edward G. Amoroso, 1999, 0-9666700-7-8, U$49.95 > %A Edward G. Amoroso eamoroso@mail.att.net > The content is readable and, although it seems odd to use the word in > relation to a security work, even fun. I suppose, though, that I must > point out that your humble "worst copy editor in the entire world" > reviewer found a significant number of typographic errors. (And some > that can't be put down to typos: I think you'll find that it's > "berferd" rather than "berford.") Just my two cents worth. Actually, the 8 point (or is it 6 point, I can't see it clearly enough to tell) type was a challenge for my reading glasses. Though I have not finished the book as yet, my initial reaction is: another example of what I deem a narrow definition of intrusion detection, i.e. limited in scope to "IP". It is hard for many to understand that the majority of today's data networking at some point crosses the boundary into the PSTN, a land where no single person can even contemplate what may or may not be connected. Consider that the typical large customer with a PBX muxes voice and data out to the CO through a "single" Fat-Pipe. The user at the desktop sees voice as a phone and data as a computer. But the infrastructure does not necessarily differentiate. What I had hoped for given Amoroso's employer (AT&T) was that I would finally see some movement to recognize that intrusion detection tools implemented on the local LAN are self limiting depending upon where they are placed, are partially defeated by IPSEC policies that include encryp- tion and that the need for what some would term telecommunications intrusion detection systems is critical. Just wanted to hear that there is more to Intrusion Detection than IP. As an example, if I dial into a modem and establish an illicit connection to a network node, what is the difference if one intrusion detection tool sees me type in "su root" while sniffing the LAN while another tool sniffing the Q.931 stream sees the same string? A great deal. The LAN sniffer may decide I am OK since I originated from a "trusted" source. Different story for the back-door scenario and I might choose to react differently. All too often the back door is the easiest and preferred method for gaining access, at least for the traditional hacker. Further, telecommunications nodes must now be considered network nodes. LECs can site ample evidence of just how true this statement is. Hackers in LMOS, TIRKS, COSMOS - you bet. The number of databases accessible to the typical switch (i.e. read computers) has grown enormously. As the director of security for a major telco once confided, every Central Office in the U.S. either currently has or has in the past been subjected to a hacker break in. Rather sobering words. Hopping between CO's, PBX's and peripheral OSS is commonplace and something you will rarely read about. You will never see details of what I just said, in part because it can not be proven beyond reproach and in part because few will admit the extent of the problem. Further, interconnection via X.25, SS-7, ATM (not to mention all the supporting OSS) all come with their own specific vulnerabilities, portions of which are known to perhaps less than 200 people in the U.S. that are legitimately involved in identifying same. Sadly, the few people who are aware of these vulnerabilites are sequestered away and sworn to secrecy in either a lucky few telco's, infrastructure manufacturers or primarily the intel organizations because we have now entered the realm of information warfare, where the offense NEVER talks with the defense. Correlation and identification of events is intimately secret in all and very little if any sharing takes place (save some few examples where national security was truly involved). Makes an utter sham of the PCCIP. And, in most cases it is truly difficult to find the hole until you've caught someone exploiting it. Sadly, the equipment to monitor the high bandwidth capacity of the above does exist and can be cost effective. But, it does not contribute to the financial bottom line of any telco and is therefore largely ignored. "Security" has always been a tough sell internally, despite some significant proven threats. I know of NOCs that have gone through the trouble to assess the "financial damage to the company if the entire telco infrastructure were deliberately taken down" yet will not spend a dime on investing in any automated incident detection capability, monitoring equipment or support staff. The placement of the NOCs themselves (at major airports for example) is questionable. Many NOCs now have multiple mirror sites, i.e. redundant NOCs capable of being on line by the time employees can get there. The physical threat gets dollars, the invisible intruder threat does not. So the next time you are slammed (despite no pic) start thinking about how this might happen, I mean really think. Or, the entire exchange gets dial tone but can't dial 911, 0 or anything else while the other exchanges on the same CO are OK and it takes four days to fix? And can you really be sure that the LNP data base dip bill your telco just received from a competitor is accurate? Or what do you mean we didn't have a single billable inter-lata call between X and Y for the entire month of June? Or your Nortel DMS-100 is down, the ETAS modems are physically disconnected, you can't call out so you leave the switch room, call Nortel support go back, the switch is up. You call Nortel support and they tell you problem has been corrected????? As an aside, couldn't help but muse at a previous contributor's question on who in Bell Atlantic maintains their Centrex equipment by asking simply who do they let into their CO's? Having recently participated in a telecom vulnerability assessment of a customer served by Centrex elsewhere, we requested a CO site visit. LEC Security politely turned us down, saying that what goes on in the CO is proprietary. Oh well, physical security of the CO was not one of our objectives. The techs we interviewed, however, were very helpful and offered us the site visit we were looking for (Policy, what policy?). I was a bit late getting there. I asked an installer just coming out of the CO if there was a meeting going on inside (never identifying myself). He politely said yes and opened the door for me. I was a bit surprised that he didn't follow me in. Oh well, no one on this floor, I'll try the basement. Hmmm, the master console for the 5E in front of me, no one around, Hmmm, serves a lot of customers, some federal. Alas, thats not why I am here either. Oh well, I'll try the second floor again. There they are. Started a conversation up with one of the resident frame room personnel and noticed an endless stream of people going into and out of the building. Asked if there was always this much traffic. 'Yup, most of it from CLECs. They're supposed to identify themselves, but they usually don't. Most are ex-LEC employees anyway. Not sure what they are doing.' Key in on that last phrase and you get the idea of just where security is at and why any and every type of defensive intrusion detection capability should be widely deployed. Lots of issues here but the essential truth is that you can't stop em, err take action, if you can't detect em. John S. Maddaus Merlin Communication Systems, Inc. Telecom fraud and security conulting jmaddaus@usa.net ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:52:06 -0400 Organization: It's A Mike! Bell Atlantic once told me that dialing 700-4141 in the NY Metro area, i.e., removing the 555 to make it a 7 digit local number, will tell you who your regional toll (not LD) carrier is. There's also another 700 555-XXXX number that will give you the name of the reseller where 700 555-4141 gives you the, er, resellee, but I don't remember that one off-hand. Destia (to whom I just switched) should know the code. Mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #161 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 03:00:58 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA03167; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:00:58 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906230700.DAA03167@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #162 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 03:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Carolinas, South Found to Embrace Caller ID (Stan Schwartz) Book Review: "Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten (Rob Slade) "Name That Domain" Contest (Fred R. Goldstein) Another Sprint Horror Story (Andrew Green) Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (J.F. Mezei) Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs (wdg@hal-pc.org) Re: 150K by 2034: A Typical Too-Conservative Opinion (K DeMartino) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 22 Jun 1999 20:23:35 PDT From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc@yahoo.com Subject: Carolinas, South Found to Embrace Caller ID Published Tuesday, June 22, 1999 The Charlotte Observer By FOON RHEE Staff Writer The South might summon up an image of friendly front porches and "welcome y'all" openness. But Southerners don't take kindly to phone calls disturbing them at home. More so than other Americans, Carolinians and other Southerners have Caller ID so they know who's calling before picking up, a new study says. And now BellSouth is offering a way to check calls without moving a muscle -- the caller's number pops right up on the TV screen. "The ultimate couch potato's telephone gift," spokeswoman Hope Lanier said Monday. More than 800,000 Carolinas households have Caller ID, the phone firm's most popular optional feature. While 15 percent of American homes and businesses pay for Caller ID, nearly 18 percent do in Charleston. The call-screening feature is slightly more popular than average in Charlotte, Columbia, Greensboro and Raleigh, the study's author said Monday. The main reason people get Caller ID is what you'd expect -- to sidestep telemarketers intruding on dinner to hawk another credit card or some other unwanted product, or to ask for money. John Shelton Reed, a sociologist and Southern expert at UNC Chapel Hill, suspects Caller ID is a polite way to avoid unwelcome conversations. "We may feel we need to talk to any darn fool who calls up," he said Monday. "This may be a way to avoid hanging up on them." "I've occasionally wished I had Caller ID," added Reed, who's surprised by the study. "Even telemarketers, I hate to hang up on them. I try to explain I'm not interested, but they have all these canned responses so I end up having to hang up on them anyway." The service is more popular among less well-off people with less schooling, the study says. "There's a lot going on behind these consumer patterns," said marketing analyst Michael Weiss, a contributing editor to American Demographics magazine whose study is in July's {Atlantic Monthly}. One factor: while richer folks with more education increasingly use e-mail on their home computers to communicate, poorer people stick to the lower-tech telephone and add relatively inexpensive services such as Caller ID and Call Waiting, Weiss said. The technology is getting even more convenient -- for a price. By buying a $99.96 unit and plugging it into their TV like a cable box, BellSouth customers with both Caller ID and Call Waiting Deluxe can see caller information on the screen. There's no extra charge other than regular Caller ID service that runs $6 a month. Deluxe service, which lists the caller's name as well as number, costs $7 a month. "Now you can enjoy uninterrupted TV viewing AND screen your calls at the same time!" BellSouth tempts customers in this month's bills. Homes use Caller ID more often than businesses; the service is most popular among black and Hispanic families. In the nine Southern states served by BellSouth, nearly half of black households and 54 percent of Hispanic ones subscribe, the study says. Overall in those nine states, 39 percent of its residential customers get Caller ID, BellSouth says. That figure is 26 percent in North Carolina and 36 percent in South Carolina. Weiss surmises some Hispanic families screen calls because they want to know if it's a friend or relative so they can speak Spanish -- or whether it's a business or government agency they can call back when someone more fluent in English is home. That helps explain why Caller ID is so common along the Mexican border. For example, Laredo, Tex., where nearly 20 percent of business and residential customers subscribe, has the highest use of all 212 U.S. media markets. Another factor: People tend to add phone features when they move, and most are relocating to the Southeast and Southwest. Caller ID use is lower in the Northeast and the Great Plains. The lowest: Glendive, Mont., where 10.8 percent of homes and businesses have the service. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:37:10 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKSECJAV.RVW 990501 "Securing Java", Gary McGraw/Edward W. Felten, 1999, 0-471-31952-X, U$34.99/C$54.50 %A Gary McGraw gem@rstcorp.com %A Edward W. Felten felten@cs.princeton.edu %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1999 %G 0-471-31952-X %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$34.99/C$54.50 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 324 p. %T "Securing Java: Getting Down to Business with Mobile Code" Unlike Oaks "Java Security" (cf. BKJAVASC.RVW), this book concentrates on Java in the popular perception: as a means of providing active code on the Web. As such it is intended not simply for techies, but also for dedicated users. Chapter one provides a readily accessible backgrounder, covering portability, the Internet, the Web, active content, security risks, other active content systems, and a rough outline of the Java security model with particular regard to applets. The original Java applet security model, or "sandbox," is covered in chapter two. The security model is now complicated by signed code, and chapter three points out the changes made. Chapter four outlines a number of malicious applets, but also gives clear directions for disabling Java on both the Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers. The authors outline a second class of hostile applets, in chapter five, that are intended to breach system security and allow an attack to bypass normal security mechanisms. There are suggestions for improving the security model, as well as a review of third party attempts to enhance it, in chapter six. (I was amused to see the slight lifting of the skirts of ICSA [International Computer Security Association]: the history of the outfit is a lot more interesting and convoluted even than is portrayed here.) Chapter seven is directed at programmers, but the advice provided looks at practices and policies rather than APIs (Applications Programming Interfaces) and chunks of sample code. A version of Java specifically designed for Smart Cards is available, and chapter eight looks at its promises and problems. A recap and restatement of the major security issues in mobile code is given in chapter nine. Appendices provide a Java security FAQ, security resource pointers, and directions on Java code signing. The text is quite readable. The authors have made a very serious attempt to ensure that the book does not depend upon previous technical background. For the most part, they have succeeded. The diligent reader would be able to understand most of the concepts as presented, even without having worked with computers or computer security. However, the key word is "diligent:" it *feels* like a technical book, and newcomers to the topic may be put off by the style. In addition, McGraw and Felten are careful to avoid any bias. They obviously feel that Java has some worthwhile security measures, but admit to its faults and point out its shortcomings. This makes the book extremely useful: much more so than an uncritical paean of praise. An effective book on an important subject with a wide audience. But you don't have to take my word for it. You can try before you buy. The www.securingjava.com site does not simply contain a few press releases and the errata, but has the whole text of the book online. A bold step. (You can help justify it by then buying the book.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKSECJAV.RVW 990501 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com The client interface is the boundary of trustworthiness. - Tony Buckland, UBC http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:43 EST From: FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: "Name That Domain" Contest It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening, and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they merge with GTE. They have said that they'll be taking a new name -- "Bell Atlantic" doesn't sound right for their Hawaiian Telephone Company or their biggest GTE state, California. But what will the new name be? Obviously they'll want its .com and .net domains. And if somebody tried to register those domains knowing that they were Bell's new trademark, why, it would be Cybersquatting and poor old Senator Abraham would have a conniption. ICANN and WIPO would have a cow too, and you'd lose the domain registration faster than you could say, "mcdonalds.com". But Bell hasn't even chosen its new name yet, at least as afar as anyone knows, so if the new name happens to infringe on a pre-existing domain name, why, that domain holder would presumably have the right to sell it to them. So the contest is simple. Send $70 (the basic domain registration fee), plus whatever else the registry of your choice wants, to the DNS registry of your choice. Today that's Network Solutions or Register.com, though others will be up soon. Then sit back and wait. If the domain name you register is the name that Bell chooses to replace their existing name, post merger, then you get to negotiate your own prize with them. Remember, you can enter as often as you want. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Another Sprint Horror Story Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:40:53 -0500 Those of you who follow the adventures of Sprint in the marketplace will definitely enjoy this tale from the "Shopping Avenger" in a recent issue of the online magazine {Slate}: http://www.slate.com/ShoppingAvenger/99-06-21/ShoppingAvenger.asp Note that the column starts with a lengthy piece on Northwest Airlines; scroll downwards to find the Sprint PCS section. A short excerpt of the article: > We will return to the issue of airlines in a future episode, > but the Shopping Avenger would like to relate another tale that > caught his attention this past month. The company in question is > Sprint PCS, and the story most definitively does not end with an > apology. > In short strokes, the story goes like this: A customer, William > Summerhill, an associate professor of history at UCLA, ordered > two phones from Sprint PCS. He was billed for six -- weirdly, at > three different prices (still another charge, for one cent, was also > billed to his credit card by Sprint PCS). He fought the bill; Sprint > PCS fought back, by phone and fax, wasting a good amount of time. The entire episode is entertaining, slightly depressing, and classic Sprint. :-) Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:38:28 -0400 In a recent trip trhough Outback Australia, I found out that some microwave links are deemed unreliable and folks in remote communities served by a long strong of MW towers often lose service during preiods of high sun activity. Also, Telstra is spending lots of money to string 5km of fiber from a nearby solar repeater to a road house on the Stuart Highway to provide a reliable connection (which would allow installation of newer payphones etc). This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were susceptible to sunspots etc. Is that really the case ? Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ? Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference? ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:31:52 GMT Organization: You only wish you were this organized On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:23:39 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom Greg Abbott wrote: > I didn't see if you mentioned what state you are in, Texas > but I'm pretty > sure in Illinois that you may be opening yourself up to trouble by > violating the overhear laws. Basically you are eavesdropping on the > 9-1-1 calls from your building. You *might* be able to get around > that by posting it for the employees to see and understand, but what > about visitors? Do the coin phones in your building function the same > way? The employees know how the 911 system in the building works. And goodness knows there's been enough 911 "tapes" of other incidents played over the news media that I would surely by now think that everyone knows that a conversation with the PSAP is hardly confidential. As to the coin phone (singular) no, it is not behind the PBX and hence does not function in the aforementioned manner. The lone paystation in the building also doesn't have a very good record of "up time". It has frequently been out of service for one reason or another (usually the coin box is full). To date no one has ever placed a 911 call from that phone (that I know of). However, my lobby barely qualifies as a public place and one cannot get beyond the lobby without a magnetic-stripe badge. Even escorted guests are issued their own magnetic badge and must use them to pass through a guarded turnstile just to reach the elevators. The entire building is controlled-access, save for the lobby. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread and something that I made sure *did* work was dialing 9-1-1 from a "house" phone. ie, one which is otherwise restricted to placing only internal calls and clearly marked as a "house" phone. My "house" phones can dial 9-1-1 as well as 9-9-1-1, again with exact location info in real time. Can yours? As for the scenario described about the hypothetical heart patient or sight-impaired person stuttering on the digits and misdialing, yes that is certainly a possibility. However, I do not think it any greater a possibility than the same person 'stuttering' on any of the other digits. No 911 system operating behind a PBX is going to be everything to everyone. I personally think my system is at least as good as anything anyone else has to offer and far superior to what most PBX operators are using (which is nothing at all). > As a 9-1-1 system administrator, I would rather see the calls route > directly and exclusively to the 9-1-1 center. I understand the > costing argument and database update and so forth, I'm just talking > about the call audio itself. I just have a little uneasiness (is that > a word?) with the scenario as presented. On the other hand, at least > the call will be completed to 9-1-1, unlike a lot of PBX systems. Unlike most, you mean. I really believe the 911 vs. PBX issue is going to become a focal point of attention before long. My PBX at least makes a best effort in that the call is handed to the PSAP and not intercepted. All we're doing with 911 call monitoring and trace is to immediately identify the location and assist. The persons we dispatch *are* qualified to deal with whatever the emergency is until the paramedics/police/fire department arrive. If you ask me, the industry is really behind the eight-ball and asleep at the switch. The PBX 911 system I described to Pat in my original posting is a 13 year-old Mitel SX2000-SG and I've had 911 working through it as detailed for the past five years. In an office complex the size of mine it is imperative that building security and building management keep their fingers on the pulse of what takes place minute by minute. If anything occurs in the building that warrants a 911 call, it is just as vital for us to be apprised of "who, what and where" and respond as it is that the call also proceed to the PSAP unencumbered. If I go down in flames, I'll do so with a clear conscience. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Believe me, I have seen places which were much smaller, much less security-driven, and with employees not nearly as well trained as I suspect yours are who wanted to sidetrack all the 911 calls because they were afraid that something on their premises was happening behind their back that they would otherwise miss out on. As I mentioned to Greg in the last episode of this, every emergency responder is concerned that someone else in the way is going to cause a problem. There were debates that went on in Chicago for several months prior to the start of 911 about whether or not the fire department could trust the police department to handle fire calls as effeciently as their own; or if there was a crunch on system resources, would the police favor their own calls first to the detriment of the fire department, etc. There were debates that went on for *years* over which tiny suburb out of three sharing the same telephone exchange would be responsible for the 911 calls of the other two. In the case of the Chicago Fire Department at least, they were not just crying sour grapes over some other agency cutting in on them; they had serious reservations about it. Their attitude was that they had an important commitment to the community; would they be able to meet it or not under the proposed 911 plan. Some of the intial plans were re-written at the request of the fire department; some procedural changes were made which satisfied them. I think -- not certain -- that University of Chicago diverts 911 on its PBXs ... they have an extremely huge phone system, it takes up most of an Ameritech central office building which is located a block south of the main part of the campus. I think also that their police officers are sworn; that is, they have equal authority to Chicago Police on their own property. That neighborhood in Chicago has a very high rate of crime, violent and otherwise. If your building security people were sworn officers of the law, then of course it is all a moot point. You cannot get sued when your officers respond in good faith. I have to say I can see Greg Abbott's point of view though. 911 is difficult enough without having good citizens trying to play doctor or trying to play house detective without the proper training or experience to do so. Diverting 911 should only be done in exceptional cases, with well trained staff involved such as your own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: 150K by 2034: That Was a Typical Too-Conservative Opinion Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:43:43 -0400 I fell far behind in reading TELECOM Digest so that I am late in responding to a thread that caught my attention. Paul Robinson wrote in V19 #74: > Recently, Moderator Pat opined that by 2034 we could expect standard > communication speeds of 150K for communications. . . > So basically his opinion is that in 34 years we could see 150K > communications speeds on lines that cost the current equivalent of $20 > using modems that probably cost about $100. > Oh please. In maybe 15 years I've owned my own computer -- 1984 to > 1999 -- I've seen the minimum speed go from 1200 baud to 56000, a > factor of more than 40 times. Just using this figure as an estimate, > figuring the original base figure of 1200 baud and doubling > every three > years, on average should give us a much higher rate than that. Taking > the figure of 1200 baud and giving ten generations of > doubling gives us > "only" 1228800 bits/second, or about the equivalent of a T1 line. . . > I'm going to go out on a limb and predict much higher > numbers. I'll go OC3. > I'll spell that out in simple terms. The average two-way > communications > line for in-home use will be the equivalent of > 44megabits/second by 2034. I pretty much agree. In fact, I would raise the estimate to 155 Mb/s and predict that it will happen long before 2034. Downstream data rates in the T1 range (1.5 Mb/s) can be achieved over most twisted pair access lines in the U.S. using asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) techniques. (See Maxwell, IEEE Communications Magazine, October 1996.) To reduce crosstalk, ADSL data rates in the upstream direction are limited to typically about 10% of the downstream data rate. This is ok for most clients, but not so good for servers. Note that a data rate of 1.5 Mb/s is adequate for transmitting VCR quality video compressed by MPEG-1 encoding. It would be possible to transmit higher quality MPEG-2 video at data rates up to 6 Mb/s in the downsteam direction on a significant percentage of the twisted pair lines in the U.S. The data rates can be further increased if ADSL is used in conjunction with digital loop carrier (DLC) lines. With DLC, many subscriber signals are multiplexed on a single line. For example, a cable carrying hundreds of twisted pairs from the telephone central office to a subscriber neighborhood can be replaced by a single fiber, which reduces the average length of twisted pair access lines to less than half a mile. This makes it possible to achieve downstream data rates in excess of 20 Mb/s with ADSL. Broadband integrated services digital networks (B-ISDN) are supposed to provide data rates sufficient to support voice, data communications, and video on a common network. The goal of B-ISDN is to provide individual subscribers with a full duplex data rate of 155 Mb/s, the fundamental data rate of the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH). This is 3 times the fundamental synchronous optical network (SONET) data rate (OC-1) and is sufficient to carry many video channels. Data rates of 155 Mb/s and higher can be achieved if fiber is run all the way from the central office to the subscribers' premises. In the near term (the next few years), downstream data rates of a few Mb/s over telephone lines should become more readily available with the deployment of ADSL and other DSL techniques. In the mid-term (10 years?), data rates of tens of Mb/s should be available with the partial deployment of fiber into the subscriber loop. Eventually, twisted pair access lines will go the way of vacuum tubes and be replaced by a superior technology. This will take a long time and a lot of money. My guess is 20 years for widespread deployment of fiber all the way to the subscribers' premises in the U.S. At this point, the equivalent of today's standard phone line will provide the subscriber with a data rate of 155 Mb/s (OC-3) or higher. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation kdemartino@drc.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #162 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 15:10:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA26287; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:10:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:10:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906231910.PAA26287@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #163 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 15:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number (Steven) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in (Bob Keller) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Bob Keller) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (JF Mezei) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Jack Decker) Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (jbyrn) Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (Terry Kennedy) Re: 1+ Toll Notifier (Dave Close) Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Andrew) Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Carl Moore) Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Ron Walter) Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? (Robert A. Rosenberg) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: steven@primacomputer.com (Steven) Subject: Re: Hiding an Originating Phone Number Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:26:09 +0800 Organization: Prima Computer All the switches I have seen record the pin on the inbound connection and the outbound connection. With those two CDRs it is trivial to match them up. Not all switches match the inbound port with the outbound port though. The result is that if there are two people using the same pin then you don't know which one called which number. The moral of this story is that is you are going to blow something up buy codes from a guy on the street corner, not prepaid from 7/Eleven. Steven [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I have never seen a 7/Eleven store or any other convenience store type place which bothered to ask for names, let alone request identification when selling those cards. I do not think any of them bother to match the PIN on the card they sell with any name in any event. So if I happen to drive down the highway and pull into some combination service station/roadhouse/convenience store kind of place, buy a card then drive off and use it elsewhere, what possible assistance could be given to someone who was looking to find out who made a phone call? It might be as realistic trying to lift fingerprints off of coins dropped in the coinbox or lift fingerprints from the telephone receiver. Now, if someone is already in custody and you wish to 'prove' that the person made a certain phone call, I suppose you could find the PIN used with that phone call, detirmine which store sold the card with that PIN then go to the convenience store along the highway and show a picture of the person in custody to all the clerks and eventually find some clerk who would agree that the person in the picture looked like the person who purchased the card. But I still think that is quite a stretch; how many people that you had a casual, one-time thirty second relationship with a couple months ago can you describe at all, let alone in any detail? Naturally, I suppose that if police were detirmined to convict some one person or another, they would do their best to 'help' the store clerk 'remember' what the person looked like, etc. I would think possession of the card by the person arrested would be far more damning evidence than anything gained by trying to backtrack on the sale from the PIN two or three months later would be. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:47:37 -0700 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) In TELECOM Digest V19 #160, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: > But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in > Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I > try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a > credit card. Ah2a! There's another loophole they can use. Even as currently described on the AT&T Wireless web site: "The AT&T Digital One Rate Calling Plan rates are not available for calls which require a credit card or operator assistance to complete." I'll bet dollars to donuts that what happens is, if they don't have a roaming agreement with the carrier whose signal has got you, you get diverted to the credit card taker, and then you are going to be paying roaming charges and long distance charges. Bob Keller (www.his.com/~rjk) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:39:10 -0700 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US In TELECOM Digest V19 #159, Bill "Wrong Number" wrote: > Bob ... although I don't have a copy of the AT&T Wireless contract > with me AND I have NO love loss for them on the AT&T Wireless Digital > One Rate Plan(s) you don't pay ANY roaming or long distance. May well be true now. I don't have a copy of a contract either, and I just visited the web site (www.attws.com), and if you look at things there (including the coverage maps) it certainly appears to be what they claim. But when I first started looking into these various "one rate" plans (no roaming, no long distance), a client of mine who was one of the early subscribers to the AT&T Wireless Digital One Rate plan warned me that he did in fact get nailed for roaming charges when he wandered into analog cellular coverage areas not affiliated with AT&T Wireless. The service contract I examined back then did have some carefully chosen words ... something to the effect of no roaming, long distance "while on the AT&T Wireless digital network". I took that to be the caveat that allowed them to get away with it, so I opted for the Bell Atlantic Mobile plan because (a) the price was slightly better, and (b) the contractual language regarding no roaming, no long distance appeared to be unequivocal. So far that has proven to be the case. Bob Keller (www.his.com/~rjk) ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 21:19:56 -0400 Ed Ellers wrote: > What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the > world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the > rest of the world gets around to endorsing them? The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom????? > I contend that we as a nation are better off choosing our own > standards, evaluating what other nations' industries are doing on > their own merits, but going it alone when that is in our best > interest. The only folks who have benefitted from the US' not-invented-here syndrome are Quallcomm. Motorola has been building GSM phones overseas for very long. So they have to constantly duplicate phone designs instead just distributing the same phone design worldwide (with just frequency changes). As a result, US companies don't actually export much since they've built their GSM facilities abroad so the US loses export potential. The upside of this are foreign companies such as Nokia and Ericcsson building phones in the USA for the USA market only. > If that means Americans can't take their wireless phones > overseas, and foreign visitors can't use their wireless phones here, I > just don't see that as more than a minor inconvenience. Tell that to companies that need to duplicate software and services because there isn't a single way to send data to phones in the USA due to there being various incompatible protocols (some of which don't even support phones sending SMS messages). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:20:45 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID davidesan@my-deja.com (David Esan) wrote: > After I switched I dialed 1-700-555-4141 to verify that the switch had > taken place. I got the message: "Welcome to the Frontier Network." > Frontier is my local telephone company, but certainly is not Destia. > A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), > suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". [...snip...] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all > cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to > Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company. [subsequent messages contained numerous examples to show this is not the case.] My take on this: From any given line, all calls to any 1-700 number are sent directly to the customer's presubscribed interLATA carrier - that is to say, the REAL carrier, not the reseller. The carrier then decides what to do with a call to any particular 1-700 number. So in this case, I would guess that the REAL carrier is Frontier Network. But Frontier has Destia as a reseller, and they have told Destia to give their customers the 9499 number to verify that the service has been switched. If you were previously an AT&T or MCI customer (for example) and your local phone company has not yet changed your PIC, and you dial the 9499 number, you'll get a recording from your previous carrier (depending on how THEY route calls to 9499). My guess would also be that any genuine Frontier Network customer would get the Destia recording if dialing 9499. And if Frontier has other resellers, you might get their recordings by trying different suffixes (my logical mind would start trying other combinations of 9x99, where x is something other than "4"). Of course, if Frontier wanted to do it in a more sophisticated way, they could examine the ANI on any call to the standard 1-700-555-4141 number, and do a database dip to see which of their resellers (if any) have that line, and then deliver an appropriate recording. I suspect that this would be what larger carriers (such as any of the "Big 3") do for their resellers. You dial 1-700-555-4141, and the first thing they do is check your number to see which reseller's recording you should receive. But for whatever reason, Frontier apparently doesn't do it that way, they simply give each of their resellers a different 700 number to use with their customers. Of course there is a risk here, in that if you move from one Frontier reseller (or Frontier itself) to a different one, the recording will give you no clue as to who Frontier currently thinks should be your reseller -- it will just happily deliver the recording of the reseller associated with whatever 1-700-555 number you dialed. Disclaimer: This is all just speculation on my part -- I am just "guessing out loud" as it were. If I figured it out, great. But be aware that what I have said above may not bear any resemblance at all to the actual reality of the situation! :-) Jack (Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately.) ------------------------------ From: jbyrn Subject: Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:58:48 -0500 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com someone@teleport.com wrote in message ... > Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database > (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who > else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland > Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)? MCI Worldcom offers local dial tone for businesses in Portland, but I don't know about residential. You should contact their local sales office to see if it is available -- if so, I'm sure it will be significantly cheaper (and no LNP charges on your bill). ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:45:46 GMT J.F. Mezei writes: > This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were > susceptible to sunspots etc. Is that really the case? One Northeast Internet provider used to operate a microwave backbone (as far as I know, it's been retired for some time). DECUS used to be connected to that provider, and whenever there was snow/rain/fog, connectivity would slow to a crawl. I used to have a feed to a satellite uplink that used microwave from SPC to some point west of Newark Airport, and whenever a plane flew through the path, we'd get snow in the signal. > Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared > to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ? Signal strength plays a part in it, as does the amount of bandwidth you are willing to sacrifice for error correction. Also, temporary installations (like TV news trucks) combine low power with less-stable antennas, which is why you see odd effects on the news. Were the rural stations you saw self-powered (for example, solar) or was there a utility grid in place? If they're self-powered, that would explain the low-power operation. > Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of > wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference? Not much. It depends on the frequency used and the wire spacing of the mesh, but they're pretty similar in performance to the solid ones if chosen properly. The mesh is used for wind/snow/etc. resistance. Digging up the ground for fiber is a one-time expense (modulo repairs from errant backhoes), but you can put *vastly* more data over fiber. The largest fiber I've seen going in around here is 432-strand. Given that you build redundant diverse paths, that's 864 strands between two points. Assuming OC-48 data rates and redundant fiber pairs, you get 216 OC-48's, which is about seven million simultaneous voice calls (traditional, without compression). Newer equipment is either OC-192 (giving 28 million simultaneous calls) or DWDM. A 16-wavelength DWDM system w/ each wavelength running at OC-48 speeds would give 112 million simultaneous phone calls. I think that somewhere along here we exceeded the total population of Australia ... And this is just two cables that are less than 2" in diameter. Of course, nobody would use these for 112 million phone calls - they use them for data. But cables of this size are being installed regularly in places like New York City. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: 1+ Toll Notifier Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:46:48 GMT Stan Schwartz writes: > Once the NANP standardizes on NPA+7D dialing for local calls, 1+NPA+7D > should be used for "a toll may apply". However, that only seems > logical (to me) so it could never work. I'm starting to see advertisements for flat-rate long-distance service, something I have been predicting for several years. The general plan offered today is some amount of money for some number of minutes of LD to anywhere in the US, per month. I continue to predict that there will be additional varieties of calling plans offered, eventually leading to one all-inclusive monthly fee for calling anywhere for any length of time. Sprint PCS's Toll-Free USA and AT&T's One Rate plans are leading the way. There will also be less distinction in the future between landline and cellular phones. Already, some customers are using a cellphone as their only phone. As some local service is offered through stationery wireless devices, the distinction will erode further. Pricing plans will also come into competition with each other. Right now, we accept as natural that local calling areas for cell phones are generally larger than for landline phones in the same area. Soon, that will seem very strange. The only thing slowing this trend is the unholy alliance between the landline carriers and the regulators. Rate center boundaries are set by regulation and new landline carriers are forced to conform. The pressure to change will become too strong to resist as wireless and landline carriers come into direct competition. Ultimately, each carrier will determine it's own rate structures, and will change them in response to competitive pressures. When every phone potentially has a different calling plan and a different rate structure, toll alerting becomes a much more complicated issue. Fortunately, it also becomes a much less significant issue as the cost of toll calls drops, possibly to zero. I believe that those folks who are promoting 1+ toll alerting are living in the past and fighting the last war. The issue today, IMHO, is my present inability to dial any number from anywhere using the same string of digits. -- Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ From: andrew@3.1415926.org (Andrew) Subject: Re: "Name That Domain" Contest Date: 23 Jun 1999 15:37:12 GMT Organization: gte-ba.com Industries Fred R. Goldstein (FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net) wrote: > It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening, > and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the > new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they > merge with GTE. Thank you for the heads up! I have just entered gte-ba.com and gte-ba.net in the contest. Wish me luck! Andrew [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, okay, good luck ... but are you are they will not try to claim some ownership of the letters 'GTE' when arranged in that order? If so, they could sic their lawyers on you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:34:44 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the > 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth > day of the ninth month of year 99? I did see reference to 9 April 1999 (99th day of '99) somewhere! However, it was not in an article dated 13 Sept 1998 (forwarded in a message dated two days later) in a TELECOM Digest. THAT article has the following items between now and 1 Jan 2000 (and notice Sept 9, 1999, a/k/a "9-9-99"): Aug. 21, 1999: The GPS rollover problem; Sept. 9, 1999: The 9999 end-of-file problem; Oct. 1, 1999: The federal fiscal year 2000 problem. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the 'federal fiscal year 2000 problem' is a problem in more ways than one: In addition to not knowing for sure if their computers are going to start when they come to work that day, the whole operation is bankrupt (in more ways than one!) as well. I suppose if they can get their computers cranked up and started, they will just ignore the other problems as they always have. Can you imagine any private business or individual having debt as out of proportion to their income as does the federal government NOT being forced by its creditors into bankruptcy? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:01:48 -0500 From: Ron Walter Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc. Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? > Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November: > We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99). > Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go > smoothly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the > 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth > day of the ninth month of year 99? From what little programming I've done, I'm not too concerned about either. The 99th day of 1999 would usually show as 09999. September 9 would usually be 090999. While some might have written some more complex code to allow them to eliminate the zeroes in the date fields, and in those cases it does show all nines, that probably won't make much difference because the next question would be whether the date field would be the field that the program is looking for the nines in. I heard some great predictions about Y2K. 40,000 businesses will fail due to Y2K. That's about how many businesses fail each year, but Y2K becomes a convenient excuse. Stores will run out of food. Shoot, as scared as everyone's getting, they'll be running on the stores in December running them out of food. There will be rioting. Well, about the first of the year some college team wins a National Championship and there's usually rioting to follow (except after Nebraska's wins). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There will not be any rioting because the government will not permit any rioting. As I write this, some Big Tough Marines are in daily combat and riot control training in Virginia whose mission starting at the end of this year will be to see to it that you behave yourself, take what is given to you and be grateful. And if you cannot behave yourself, then they will be authorized to shoot you dead and give your little box of supplies including food, drinking water and a roll of toilet paper to some other citizen who needs it as much as yourself who *did* behave. I suspect most of the disturbances in the USA will occur during the day and evening of December 31 as reports filter back from places like Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. If reports come back that they are having service interuptions, computer failures and the like -- and of course you know that radio, television and this Digest will be bringing you live coverage all day from those places to help you stay informed -- then that will get the Americans all the more frantic and hysterical. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:05:42 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: Y2K: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out? Carl Moore wrote: > Responding to an article forwarded to the Digest early last November: > We've already passed April 9, 1999 (noted as the 99th day of '99). > Anything happen then? Don't get complacent even if it did go > smoothly. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was it supposed to be 9999 as in the > 99th day of year 99 or was it supposed to be 9-9-99 as in the ninth > day of the ninth month of year 99? I had heard it was to be the > latter, a few days after Labor Day there would be trouble. Well I > guess no one knows for sure, and all we can do is hope for the best, > that there will be massive outages and computer failures; that the > government will be in shambles; that people everywhere will riot and > loot all the stores looking for food and beverages to drink and that > the telephone system will shut down. It is supposed to be both. One is for YYDDD (DDD'th day of "year" 99) and the other is MMDDYY/YYMMDD (9th Month and 9th day of "year" 99). Both are erroneous as the patterns show. DDD is _3_ not _2_ digits (or we'd have a 99 day year) so the CORRECT date is 99_0_99. The same goes for MMDD since there are 12 (not 9) months and 28-31 days in a month (not just 9). These dates being considered "dangerous" is due to computer-illiterates confusing fixed length/format dates (which the computer uses) with free length/form dates (which humans use). With human readable the date ends with the blank and a date is from 4 to 6 digits long (plus 2 separators ["-", ".", or "/"). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #163 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 17:51:09 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA03283; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:51:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906232151.RAA03283@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #164 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 17:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs (Charles B. Wilber) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Tom Betz) Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID (Eric Morson) Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Andrew Emmerson) Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Martin Tibbitts) Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Anthony Argyriou) Calling in Seattle (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (Eric Morson) Re: 10-10-220 (Dave Stott) Re: Another Sprint Horror Story (James Gifford) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 (Daniel McDonald) Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? (Afshin David Youssefyeh) Cell Phone Call Tracing Question (Dan S. Wirsky) IXC Notification of NPA Changes (Phil Smiley) Difference Between NAC and NIC (Alonzo Alcazar) Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested (David Perrussel) Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Carl Moore) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: 22 Jun 1999 09:59:33 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > So Greg, I do understand your position very well, but I also empha- > thize with persons whose responsibilities include managing large > institutional properties, etc and who must, absolutely without > question for legal reasons be 'on top of' or aware and responsive > to every single incident which occurs on their premises. That is > why I said his passing of calls explicitly to 911 unhindered while > still monitoring them so that his own security representatives and > other trained personnel listened and began responding was probably > the best things could get. And after all, when your people get a > call reporting a fire and patch it through, *they* stay on the line > and listen don't they? After all, police may very well be needed to > assist firemen in an evacuation or crowd-control, etc. So what > is the difference? PAT] As PBX manager and E-911 administrator for a large college, I can pass on to your readers that a significant number of people, both potential E-911 users and those charged with examining legal issues for our institution, have expressed serious concerns about privacy regarding 911 calls. There is strong feeling among some that the 911 dispatch center (PSAP) and *only* the dispatch center should be privy to the details of a live 911 call. Emergency personnel can still be immediately dispatched to the scene of an emergency without hearing the actual voice content of the call. The nature of the emergency can even be mentioned without the actual voice of the reporting party being heard by anyone other than PSAP personnel. There are those who feel that such live monitoring of emergency calls by "extraneous" persons constitutes a serious breach of privacy and an unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion. As always in cases like this, the "proof" is in the jury verdict, though. Charlie Wilber Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you do not hear the voice of the reporting party, exactly *who* then tells you the nature of the emergency, and whether you want the firemen, the nurse, or your security representatives to respond? Or do they all respond? If a person is on your property and that person has sufficient legal standing to sue you afterward (yes, I realize anyone can sue anyone else for any reason; the court will rule on its legitimacy) then I would hardly consider you to be an 'extraneous' person in the event. And if there must be a breach of privacy or an unwarranted intrusion is it better that the entire institution be disrupted in its activities with students/employees/others wandering about, gaping and looking and getting in the way of emergency responders because management was blissfully unaware of the matter until the firemen pulled in the driveway with sirens blaring only to discover that the 'emergency' consists of a malicious pull on an alarm box? Emergencies are of legitimate concern to any community, and a person who declares that an emergency exists -- which is the ONLY reason 911 should EVER be called; when a situation exists in which immediate intervention is required -- is hardly in a position to say that their particular emergency is their own private business and that their privacy was invaded by community knowledge of the event. If that is the case, they had no business dialing 911. I am sure Greg Abbott, if he wishes to write again, can relate all sorts of horror stories about people abusing 911, calling for the damnedest things that had nothing to do with whether or not a police officer or firefighter was expected to rush off to the scene with no assurance he would come out of it alive and go home to his own family that night. Every 911 agency deals with that all the time. Police maintain administrative seven digit numbers (or as noted a couple days ago, just dial PIG and the four digit extension of the one you want to speak with) to discuss things that happened yesterday, things that might happen tomorrow or general, non-specific complaints about your neighbors, or people of other religions, lifestyles, etc that you happen to dislike. 911 is only to be used for things happening right now which require intervention right now. You should never monitor police admin calls for any reason; that *is* an invasion of the caller's privacy, but why is a call to 911 where the person screams FIRE! any different than a person who runs through the hallway of your premises shouting FIRE! The community has the right to knowledge and involvement in either case. And I ask again: without hearing the voice on the phone as it describes its emergency, intervention needed now, situation, how do you know who among your staff is best suited to respond? I am sure 911 does not call you back to say the caller reported smelling smoke somewhere, or that a suspicious man was loitering somewhere. It is always so much fun to listen to the police scanner, even though police usually do not appreciate citizens listening to them, because of the perfectly marvelous 'emergencies' you hear about that would never be known otherwise. Even the dispatchers and responding officers treat some of them very casually and joke about them which I guess you have to do to keep your own sanity. If you stopped for a minute to cry or pray or anything else you would never be of any value in that line of work, especially in a larger city where calls to 911 and radio dispatches are like an assembly line, one after another seconds apart around the clock. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID Date: 23 Jun 1999 17:49:58 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) in : >> A call to Destia customer service (with only a three minute wait), >> suggested that I try 1-700-555-9499. I did and got "Welcome to Destia". >> Is one number for intra-LATA calling and the other for out of LATA? >> Is there a difference between the numbers? > FWIW, I tried 1-700-555-9499 from both of my home phones, here in > suburban Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic-land). > On line #1, subscribed to Worldcom (from the pre-MCI days) yields "Thank you for using MCI ..." > On line #2, subscribed to Sprint, "[SIT TONES] We're sorry, you have > reached a number that has been disconnected, or is no longer in > service ..." > Evidently, the call is handed off to the PIC'ed carrier, since the two > lines produced different results. What happens then is anyone's > guess. Here, we just switched over to Frontier via CTC. On half our lines, both those numbers correctly identify our LD carrier as Frontier. On the other half, as soon as I have dialed 1-700-555 I get [SIT TONES] "We're sorry, your call can not be completed as dialed ..." CTC hasn't come up with an explanation yet; can anyone else here give me a clue? We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: it's time we tried education.| | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:02:30 -0400 Subject: Re: 1-700-555 For Carrier ID I have SNET local service in CT and MCI Long Distance for Intra- and Interstate calls on all four of my lines. When I dial (700) 555-4141, two of my lines say "Thank you for selecting MCI-Worldcom", and the other two1 say "Your long distance service is now connected". All accounts were set up directly via MCI, not any reseller. Why would there be any difference at all, and what does the generic message mean? All accounts are confirmed active with MCI and billing is error free, despite the generic message on 2 of 4 lines. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I believe that 4141 should work in all > cases. I've a hunch that anyone dialing 9499 will hear the 'welcome to > Destia' message regardless of being a customer or not of the company. I did try dialing (700) 555-9499 and got a trunk busy signal. Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please note however that with 4141 you can force it to say whatever you want by dialing the appropriate carrier access code first instead of the 1+ default. PAT] ------------------------------ From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Date: 22 Jun 1999 11:48:21 GMT Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk > If your name is on that phone bill then you are the only one who can > authorize it. Otherwise I say that you were slammed. Precisely. Once a contract is made, it can only be varied by the two parties who originally made it. Nobody else can alter the terms of that contract. This is a fundamental point of law (Well, it is here in Britain!). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:26:02 -0400 From: Martin Tibbitts Organization: LCR Telecommunications, LLC Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Call the carrier and ask to listen to the verification tape. If the verification system asked whether (your wife) is authorized to make changes to the line, and she says "yes", then you don't have a lot of ground to stand on, as the carrier wouldn't know that she is not, and the name of the authorizer is *not* sent ot the LECs as part of the PIC request. My company is an LD reseller, and I handle provisioning, so this is pretty first hand. So, assuming that she did authorize it, it would be a legal switch. My suggestion is ask the LEC to put a PIC freeze on your account. Then only you can switch carriers. But you have to do it by calling the LEC yourself ... you can't authorize someone else to do it in your name. Martin Tibbitts LCR Telecommunications, LLC ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:57:51 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com srini_v@my-deja.com wrote: > A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and > talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was > switched to the new company. > My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch. > The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized > list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to > my local telephone company a year back. > My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch, > is it legal? If you were in California, and I was the slammer's lawyer, I'd argue it was legal (as long as I could make the case that your wife did authorize the change). California is a community property state, and I believe that the wife's authorization would hold up. However, IANAL. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:50:05 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Calling in Seattle Actually, if it is a local call in the Seattle area and you dial 1+, the call will not be billed as a long distance call. It simply will not go through. Seven or ten digits is permissive for local calls originating and terminating in 206, 425 or 253. You must dial ten digits from one NPA to the other (e.g. 425-885-8080 to call Microsoft from Seattle). The one caveat is that if you dial a carrier access code plus 1-206 (or 425 or 253) the long distance carrier *will* bill you at their intraLATA rate. There is no "free" calling if you route something through a carrier access code, so be sure that it's actually long distance before you get that "great" 10-10-whatever rate! ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric Morson) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:05:31 -0400 Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan Joel, Some phones offer a way to see the SID you are connected to at the given moment. Look in your manual to see if there's a way to SCAN SID. This should help you determine what signal you are using. Also set your phone to SCAN A. On the AT&T Wireless plans, the A Band is preferred. If you are NOT Scanning A only, you may move to B, in which case you'll have NO digital signal at all, just analog, since BAM offers CDMA. AT&T as you know is TDMA, making your phone unable to use digital when it acquires a B Band signal. On the Motorola StarTac, the shortcut is FCN 1-2-7 STO For some Audiovox phones (850-855 series) FNC 81 In Orange County NY, BAM is SID 486, AT&T is SID 1513. Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:14:56 -0700 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: 10-10-220 In TELECOM Digest # 160, leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis)wrote: > In article , Joel B Levin wrote: >> That's just a restatement of the pricing as advertised: "Any call up >> to 20 minutes for 99 cents, then ten cents a minute." The catch is >> that it's a great rate when the call is over 12 minutes, but very >> expensive to make a couple of one minute calls with. If you plan to >> talk for 20 minutes, and get the answering machine instead, you're >> screwed for the whole 99 cents anyhow. > Convenience aside, it seems that the idea or possibility of using one > carrier to make sure the other party is at home, then using another > carrier for a long call, escapes some people completely. and Pat replied: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Leo, there is a limit to what > effort most people will go to to save a few cents, and a few cents > is what it comes down to these days with most carriers. At the > end of the month your long distance bill was two dollars less because > you incovenienced your called party by dialing once then telling him > to hang up and wait for your next call a few seconds later, etc. My son, who is 16, has a girlfriend in California. When it's her night to call, we can expect the phone to ring at about 11pm; if he answers, we can expect another call in about 60 seconds. They take turns calling and since they are (each) spending somewhere between $75 and $100 per month on this long-distance relationship, they find it quite useful to do the 10-cent "are you home" first-minute call, then call back on the 20-minute-for-99-cent carrier. The phone rings about half a ring every 20 minutes after that for about the next hour or two. I admire their resourcefulness. Dave Stott [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have a specific situation in mind such as you describe, where there will be a large amount of calling on a schedule and it is known in advance, then what they are doing is good. I was referring more however to the casual long distance call to a friend that you happen to think about and happen to call once or twice a month for thirty minutes or so at a time. The application is all important, as always. PAT] ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: Another Sprint Horror Story Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:39:03 GMT Andrew Green wrote: >> In short strokes, the story goes like this: A customer, William >> Summerhill, an associate professor of history at UCLA, ordered >> two phones from Sprint PCS. He was billed for six -- weirdly, at >> three different prices (still another charge, for one cent, was also >> billed to his credit card by Sprint PCS). He fought the bill; Sprint >> PCS fought back, by phone and fax, wasting a good amount of time. I'd like to thank the members of this group for keeping me from making a horrible mistake. I just changed two accounts from analog to PCS, and I had been considering Sprint for one of them. Silly me. :) | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: 23 Jun 1999 15:17:14 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Ed Ellers wrote: >> What's the alternative? Should we always do what the rest of the >> world tells us to do, and hold off on all technical advances until the >> rest of the world gets around to endorsing them? > The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America > was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom????? Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in the *1970s*. I'd be interested to know the date when the total geographic area covered by GSM equalled that covered by AMPS. I'd have to guess early 90's, though I'd be interested to know otherwise ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: djmcdona@fnord.io.com (Daniel J McDonald) Subject: Re: Alternative Carriers to US West For Dial Tone in 503 Date: 23 Jun 1999 19:43:38 GMT Organization: Illuminati Online In article , jbyrn wrote: > someone@teleport.com wrote: >> Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database >> (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who >> else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland >> Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)? > MCI Worldcom offers local dial tone for businesses in Portland, but I > don't know about residential. You should contact their local sales > office to see if it is available -- if so, I'm sure it will be > significantly cheaper (and no LNP charges on your bill). Electric Lightwave also offers service in Portland. Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX Digicon Technologies, Inc dmcdonald@digicontech.com ------------------------------ From: Afshin David Youssefyeh Subject: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:28:02 -0700 Having read one more story about cellular phones causing brain tumors: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20321.html I have gone over the edge and decided to do something about it. For me, this was the last straw! This week I am going to get a handsfree kit and an ear piece for when I carry it around. Am I being overly cautious? Also, one of my good friends told me today that because it uses CDMA spread spectrum, Sprint PCS is the lesser of the cellular evils. Is this true? -Afshin Youssefyeh ------------------------------ From: dswirsky@netscape.net (Dan S. Wirsky) Subject: Cell Phone Call Tracing Question Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:54:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. A relative of mine was robbed in her apartment. The attacker knocked on the door and asked for the telephone number of the previous tenant. The victim gave him the number and then he dialed something with his cell phone and said that there was no answer. He then beat and robbed her. The police got a warrant to check all incoming calls to the previous tenant's number at the time of the attack in order to trace back to the attacker's cellular phone. However, he was apparently not foolish enough to actually dial the previous tenant's number. I want to try a different tack. I want to know if the cellular telephone company's database stores the identity of the cell from which a phone call is made as part of the record of the phone call. If this is the case, the police might try to get a warrant for all phone numbers that made an outgoing call from the cell that covered her apartment at the time of the robbery. Until they catch the guy she feels very unsafe in and around her apartment. I'd really appreciate any help I can get. Thanks, Dan ------------------------------ From: Phil Smiley Subject: IXC Notification of NPA Changes Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:08:46 GMT Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility in telling the IXCs? ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar) Subject: Difference Between NAC and NIC Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:05:44 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. What is the difference between NAC (network application card) and a NIC(network interface card)? Thanks a lot for any help. alonzo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:01:38 EDT From: David Perrussel Subject: Search Engine For "thedirectory" Prefix List Requested As some of you who are regulars to the TELCOM DIGEST or the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup may already know, "thedirectory" (www.thedirectory.org), the largest listing of Internet Providers and web hosting companies, also runs a section on their website where people can find ratecenter names for a particular area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) combination. For the the last three years, users have been able to look up a ratecenter name from lists of prefixes (one web page for each area code) for the United States and Canada. This has been a public service of "thedirectory" and we plan to continue this service free of charge, especially since AT&T started charging 99 cents per request for NPA-NXX information via their new "Double-O" directory service. We would like to start using a search engine so users can find the ratecenter names easier. The search engine would accept an NPA and NXX combo and return the ratecenter name and type of service (i.e. CLEC, cellular, PCS, etc) from our database. We would like to use a delimited ASCII list - but can also use, dBase/Foxpro .DBF files or Excel .XLS files if need be. Our problem is - we are database researchers and maintainers but know nothing about web page CGI scripts. If anyone out there knows of a program or script that can run a Windows NT based webserver that can be easily modified to perform such a task, we would like to know about it. Or, if anyone can modify one and send it to us it would be most appreciated. The sooner we get the search engine on line, the sooner we can put the updates on the web. (We have TONS of updates and additions!) Please E-mail me at either address below. Thanks in advance. Dave Perrussel Assistant Webmaster - "thedirectory" of Internet Providers and Web Hosting companies Web: http//www.thedirectory.org E-Mail: prefix@softhome.net or bbscorner@thedirectory.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:04:38 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament I have been hearing the word "beeper" regarding what Phil Mikkelsen (sp) was carrying when he played the just-concluded U.S. Open (golf) in North Carolina. (He lost, and made it back to Arizona on time for his wife giving birth to a daughter yesterday, Monday 21 June.) I take it he used vibrator mode only! I have seen cell-phone prohibitions posted for the LPGA McDonald's tournament in Wilmingon, Delaware, and also for the arts center there on South Madison Street (I was in the latter on Sunday looking at the Meiji Japanese exhibit) -- but neither had a note posted about pagers! I was referred back to the cloakroom check at the arts center when I mentioned that I had a pager, but heard (as I had suggested in THIS forum earlier) that it was OK in vibrator mode only. I have had libraries, church services, theater events, etc. to consider as well, so I have commonly used vibrator mode anyway. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #164 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 23 21:08:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA11417; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:08:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906240108.VAA11417@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #165 TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jun 99 21:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A VISA Card From Merrick Bank With a Catch to It (TELECOM Digest Editor) GSM Interception (Babu Mengelepouti) Questions on How Billing and Rating Are Actually Done (Carl E. Huth) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (John Levine) Microwave Oven Interference (jcheah@my-deja.com) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Steve Howell) LD Carriers Question (Howard Kaikow) Bellheads vrs. Netheads (Richard Shockey) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 23 Jun 1999 20:22:12 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: A VISA Card From Merrick Bank With a Catch to It Until about ten years ago, having a VISA or Mastercard meant that you had reasonably a reasonably good credit standing, at least at the time you applied for the card. VISA/MC never did have quite the stringent credit requirements which applied to Amex or Diners Club, but they were always ahead of the cards issued by oil companies to motorists where just about anyone who had a car was able to get a credit card from the oil companies of his choice unless his credit was really, really bad. VISA/MC was about equal with Discover, the card which had its origins in the Sears, Roebuck Company as their store credit card under the Sears name until it expanded and began appearing in the same places as the other big credit issuers cards. VISA/MC were considered such symbols of good credit standing that quite a few department stores in the 1980's and early 1990's used them as a way to convert credit card users without the hassle and expense involved in validating credit-worthy customers. Many chains had 'instant credit' promotions where if a customer presented a VISA/MC (or Amex or Diners card) as payment, the store clerk was instructed to ask the customer, 'would you like a credit card from our store?' and if the answer was yes, the customer's signature on a small form was all it took; credit was issued on the spot for the merchandise and anywhere from two to three weeks later, the customer would receive plastic in the mail from that chain store, with his original purchase of course already on the bill. No further credit investigation was done; no further credit application was required. The store *did* have to have the customer's signature on file since federal law forbids the unsolicited issuance of credit cards without the consumer's okay. Ah, the stories that could be told from the middle 1960's when VISA first got started as 'Bank Americard' and the millions of dollars in writeoffs they had to eat as a result of their unsophis- ticated practices in those days is good for another day ... but by the 1980's they had gotten sophisticated enough that merchants who wanted to issue their own cards without the expense of setting them up and also to avoid the two or three percent discount that VISA/MC applied to purchases were able to begin using those two major cards as guidelines. If you had a VISA/MC, therefore your credit has already been checked and you are a good bet for one of the store cards, right? The store let VISA/MC do all the work and then sort of rode on their coattails with their own credit programs. No need to waste money checking out the customer, VISA/MC already did all that, otherwise why would the person have one of their cards? Then one day, someone let the cat out of the bag you might say, and revealed that VISA/MC had begun accepting franchisee banks who had 'secured credit card' programs and that there was no way to tell the difference between a secured and an unsecured VISA/MC unless you just happened to know the name of a bank which was doing the former. Unsecured credit simply means there is nothing of value to back it up. The creditor has nothing to go on except your promise that you will pay him what is due. Your credit bureau report tells the merchant if you are good at keeping your promises or not. Some people would say that their word -- their willingness to look you in the face, shake your hand and state their intentions -- is quite valuable, and I guess it is; but unsecured means there is no property or other tangible, easily convertible thing to assure the creditor that he will be paid. Secured credit on the other hand is credit which is backed up by something of value. It could be a sum of money deposited as a 'performance bond' or a savings account given to the bank as collateral, a mortgage on your home or any 'real' property you own. Then the creditor does not care if you keep your word or not; his interests are protected. Well, as social mores in this country began to change during the 1970's and 1980's and as America's wealth began shifting around in new directions effectively eliminating what used to be called a 'middle class' it became more and more difficult for the conventional credit card issuers to do business. More and more applicants were coming to them with perfectly rotten credit reports, the cost of setting up accounts was increasing, and the large number of Americans on the move each year made for a land-office business for skip tracers and collection agencies, but did not enhance the bottom line at the banks with VISA/MC franchises. By about two years after the chain stores started their 'instant credit' programs, they were getting burned badly, and about the same time VISA/MC banks were trying to do a balancing act between reducing their standards somewhat while still maintaining a low ratio of bad debt. Then someone came up with the 'secured VISA/MC' scheme. Let's let the customer pay for our procedures by giving him a card with little or no available credit until *he* demonstrates his intentions. Some of the early players were like Bank of Hoven, in Hoven, SD. A tiny little place going nowhere anyway, they found they could get people to send them $300 to be held in escrow in exchange for a 'credit card' with the same amount of 'credit' available. The little blue plastic 'Bank of Hoven VISA Card' became quite common. Chain stores unwittingly would accept it as 'a good credit reference since it is a VISA card' and they wound up getting stung badly anywhere from one to six months or a year later when their new customer's account aged out and went to collection or write-off. ANYONE can get a secured VISA/MC card; I can name a half-dozen banks who deal in them exclusively. Hoven is still doing it, as is 'Cross Country Bank' which is based out somewhere, they are chartered in Delaware naturally where regulations are few to non-existent, but they work out of a credit card processing center in Clearwater, FL with a few other of the 'secured credit card' operations. So as life in these United States changed over the years, it became harder and harder for many people to get credit using the conventional requirements of years ago (even Amex has reduced its standards a lot), yet doing almost anything *without* a credit card became difficult or almost impossible. VISA/MC became more a type of 'plastic cash' serving a clearinghouse sort of function between consumers and their banks rather than any actual indication that the holder of the card had anything of value in life. So the secured credit card programs began to flourish; after all, it costs the VISA franchisee little or nothing and he makes money serving that 'clearinghouse' function for the increasing number of netters who want to purchase something on the Internet or who need a card in order to cash a check, etc. Today there are dozens of these programs operating, and to look at a VISA card you cannot tell if it is secured or unsecured -- if your business calls for knowing your customer is credit worthy -- unless you just happen to know the names of the various banks offering those programs. As to be expected, the secured credit-card people have found their way onto the internet, and prosper through advertising banners on sites where advertising is permitted. Now days, the secured side of the business is where the money is at, as VISA/MC rapidly change from instruments of credit into instruments for merely transacting business in a convenient way. One that I want to alert you about today is called Merrick Bank, of Salt Lake City, Utah. They are not alone, but they are prominent in the banner ads on the net these days. Their banner proclaims that they guarentee one hundred percent approval rates **on line** of anyone who applies. If you go to their web site, you do get this little form with merely THREE questions, i.e. are you over 18 years of age; do you have a job anywhere; do you have a checking account anywhere; but experiments have shown that you can answer all three of their 'qualifying questions' with the wrong answer and still be told 'congratuations, you have been approved' ... So let's get down to business and get that credit card issued. They want your name and SSN of course, which would be a reasonable request at first glance. Naturally your address, place of employment and other data is required in the online application which is taken after you have already been 'pre-qualified' with the bogus questions in front. Now with all this information already collected from you the applicant they give you the surprise message. It really should not be a surprise I guess, but this is how their program works: You will get your card alright, in a couple weeks, with a five hundred dollar credit limit but *the available credit already used up* in the form of a 'reservation fee' charged to your new VISA card by the company which is sponsoring this program. You cannot use the card at all until you have paid off (or substantially paid down) the existing 'balance' charged. If you do so, then you may use the card up to its available five hundred dollar limit. (What's the matter guys? Did you find out that most people who apply for 'instant approval' on secured VISA cards are unable to scrape together the five hundred dollars needed to open a non-interest bearing 'savings account' held in trust by yourselves, and now you have to loan them that money also in order to 'qualify' them?) Then of course the fine print goes on to say there are the usual high interest rates and special fees for being overlimit or not being on time with your payment, etc ... meaning for most poor people who obtain one of these VISA cards it will be a long time, if ever, before they get any real purchasing power with it. Cross Country Bank at least, gives *anyone who asks* a VISA card with a limit of two hundred dollars, a hundred of which has already been used for the 'enrollment fee' ... I guess they figure losing a hundred dollars on some people is still cheaper than getting bureau reports and more extensive processing done prior to issue on everyone. (Does anyone remember how years ago, VISA/MC card issuers used to actually send out confirming letters to the people named on your application, i.e. your employer, your closest relative not living with you, etc to verify what you said in your application? Dear employer, John Doe has applied for credit. How long has he worked there and what do you pay him? ... remember those days? ... no 'point scoring' or statistical analysis would do; they wanted answers to EVERYTHING in writing before you could get a credit card.) So you look over the fine print from Merrick Bank and you say to yourself that seems like sort of a crummy deal, but too late! They already have your checking account number and the bank name because you gave it to them earlier so guess what ... they put through an $89 'processing fee' as an automatic debit to your checking account, usually within a day or two. And if you do catch on at the last minute and hurry to tell your bank to stop payment -- itself at a cost of $25 or so -- then what does Merrick Bank do but wait a few days and submit the automatic debit a second time or third time as needed until it finally slips through and gets paid. I asked someone at the Clearwater, Florida processing center why they did not simply charge the $89 fee to the new VISA card account they were issuing ... her response was, 'Do you think we are a bunch of fools? We want to get some actual cash money out of this program ...' I was informed that anyone on the internet who feels they have been cheated or decieved in some way by this new 'VISA card for everyone, automatic approval guarenteed over the net' program could submit their complaint in writing to 'The Presidents Council' at a PO Box in Clearwater, no phone number available ... I told them maybe I could make a better suggestion: How about calling the attorney for Merrick Bank in Salt Lake City and following up with a fax telling the bank to keep their hands out of other people's money without permission. What is the bank's phone number, anyway? She gave me the number 800-260-8825 but I told her I would rather just have the regular number. Thinking a minute, she came up with 516-576-8796, but I told her that sure does not sound like a phone number in Salt Lake City to me ... she could offer nothing more except to say that 'The Presidents Council' had a fax number of 727-524-9180. In Salt Lake City, Merrick Bank was located on 801-685-7700. Attorney Howard Gee was not in his office when I called, but his secretary said that he definitly would be interested in hearing of complaints about the contractor who was operating the VISA program they started. A fax went out to Mr. Gee on 800-685-8800 a few minutes later, with a copy to 'The Presidents Council'. The lady I spoke with at the bank even went so far as to say I did not need to fax the 'people in Florida', '.. you will get a much faster response right from here ..' But I faxed them both with my concerns, and guess what! The next morning there was a credit of $89 placed in my account at First Chicago Bank. I told the lady in Florida (not the actual Merrick Bank people) that something should be written on the internet about their operation, and in a sort of snotty tone of voice she told me to go right ahead and do so ... so I told her I would. I wanted to keep my promise. Be alert to those 'guarenteed immediate approval for a VISA card over the net' banner ads you see at web sites especially if they are in behalf of Merrick Bank ... you will have a five hundred dollar charge on your new VISA account the first thing, and your checking account will be $89 lighter the next day. And of course, if someone else has your checking account number, they can apply for a card 'in your name' and then watch the mailbox and hijack it when it arrives a couple weeks later. You will still be the person out the $89 when the Merrick Bank automatic debit goes through. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:32:49 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: GSM Interception Well, it is only a matter of time before any system gets cracked. And the first one to sell a device gets the biggest markup! Subject: GSM Cellular Phones Increasingly Unreliable From Intelligence Newsletter, 06/10/99 Over the past six months a roaring trade has sprung up on back-street markets for equipment to intercept cellular telephone calls that had once been reserved for government intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The risk that GSM networks are being broken into for espionage purposes with widely-available equipment and modest skills is now very real. Intelligence Newsletter has been able to identify web sites that sell interception equipment by mail-order. Elsewhere, components required to manufacture such devices are to be found in many electronics stores in Europe and the United States. The industry itself has pointed the way. We have obtained a leaflet from the British company G-Com Tech which provides a detailed rundown of the GSTA-1400 system. The firm describes the system, reserved for governments, as one of the best "official" devices to record GSM communications at a cost of between $245,000 and $327,000 depending on the model. Systems sold on the black market run along the same lines as such products, and sometimes simply copy them. The system consists invariably of a portable computer equipped with deciphering software connected to a GSM or fixed 2Mbits/second telephone. Tracking the target line with a clone of its SIM (Subscriber Identification Module), the system can usually decipher the signal in just 2.5 minutes. The breakthrough came in April, 1998 when two researchers from the University of Berkley in California demonstrated it was possible to clone a SIM card. David Wagner and Ian Goldberg, who both belong to the Internet Security Applications Authentification and Cryptography Group (ISAAC), carried out a successful series of attacks against the Comp128 algorithm. The latter forms the basis of algorithms created by the manufacturers of GSM, the A3 and A8, which encrypt information contained inside a SIM card. According to the American Smartcard Developers Association (SDA) the system developed by Wagner and Goldberg can turn out cloned cards that GSM operators can't distinguish from real ones. At the same time, the SDA identified a partial flaw in the symmetric-type A5 algorithm which protects data transmission between the operator and user. According to SDA director Marc Briceno, although A5 has a 64 bit key only 54 are actually used, probably to facilitate eavesdropping by an intelligence agency. Late last December in Berlin an experimental system devised by "private researchers" was presented to a conference of hackers belonging to the Chaos Computer Club (CCC). It took advantage of flaws in the A3,A5 and A8 algorithms to conduct interceptions. Since then a number of make-shift versions have made their way to the public, mainly through the Internet. According to a military intelligence specialist, the system aims initially to intercept a call by electromagnetic wave to record the authentification information each cellular phone sends to its operator when switched on. Next, the deciphering software allows the user to read the targeted line's SIM card. Subsequently a clone is made with a Smartcard Reader Writer, a smart-card manufacturing machine sold on the open market. Some illicit cloning systems even use special Smartcartd Reader Writers that can reproduce the 30 smart card standards that exist in the world and are used, for instance, to make bank cards. Once the SIM card has been cloned the system detects and monitors communications in real time without -- theoretically -- the operator or user knowing about it. The fact that encryption used in GSM is relatively easy to crack has obviously contributed to the upsurge in cloning. But electronics stores that sell devices that read and reproduce cards have also played a part in the rise of such systems. Some companies have sized up the danger that cloning represents to the market and are preparing new products. For one, the Schlumberger group's R&D division is currently working on making a more tamper-proof SIM card. ------------------------------ From: Carl E. Huth Subject: Questions on How Billing and Rating are Actually Done Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:10:59 -0400 I work for a group that works with rating and billing in the telco industry, and I am a bit lost in how everything works. Can anyone tell me exactly how rating is done? What are the rating tables used for? Most of all, how does this translate into a monthly bill? I am really confused by the 10 10 xxx features and how they are billed as well as 1-900 things. I am further confused by the local long distance charges and for lack of a better term long long distance charges. Is there a place that can unravel this mystery, or is there someone out there who knows it all? Thanks for your interest. Carl E. Huth TESC Camphill PA (717) 975-6137 carl.huth@eds.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1999 16:47:17 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in >> Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I >> try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a >> credit card. > ... I'll bet dollars to donuts that what happens is, if they don't > have a roaming agreement with the carrier whose signal has got you, More likely somebody's just being spiteful. In Orange County, the A carrier is American Cellular (dba Cell One, of course), the B carrier is BAMS. In metro New York, the A carrier is AT&T, B is BAMS; they're intense arch-rivals. According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T. Theory 1: BAMS is being annoying and trying to get you to switch. Theory 2: BAMS and/or American Cellular switch is programmed wrong. Try dialing *611 and see if they think that AT&T customers should be able to roam there. 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 ------------------------------ From: jcheah@my-deja.com Subject: Microwave Oven Interference Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:54:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Please visit www.jcheahtechtalk.com for the July issue covering microwave oven interference and pi/4 QPSK modulation. ------------------------------ From: Steve Howell Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:42:08 -0400 Organization: FILTERS, INC. Reply-To: showell@filtersinc.com I was told by my account rep. that it is being charged to allow you to take your telephone number with you to another provider if one is available. Yeah, just another tax. Kind of like the tax collected from us to subsidize rural access / school internet access. Something like tens of millions of dollars collected and very few thousand actually dispersed. ------------------------------ From: Howard Kaikow Subject: LD Carriers Question Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:03:48 -0400 Organization: MV Communications, Inc. Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to have a designated primary long distance carrier? Recently, I've been using a 10 10 number for all LD calls. However, AT&T still bills me $1.93 per month on my account (which includes two phones). I get a separate bill from AT&T, not included in BA bills. Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD carrier? Any recommendations? Pointers to info at the FCC, AT&T or BA web sites? Please reply only to newsgroup. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Bellheads vs Netheads Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:52:40 GMT Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC The following report out of Canada may be of interest to readers of this distinguished group. http://www.canniff.com/tdenton/netheads3.htm Its a very well thought out analysis of the fundamental differences in viewpoints and chalenges of Internet Telephony. Its worth your time to read. Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet E-Mail/IFAX rshockey@ix.netcom.com eFAX 815.333.1237 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #165 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 24 12:23:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA08148; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906241623.MAA08148@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #166 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jun 99 12:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes (David N Hunt) Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes (Michael G. Koerner) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) (D Hunt) Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) (R Hayes) Re: LD Carriers Question (John R. Levine) Re: LD Carriers Question (Richard Freeman) Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (D.E. 'Omar' Jennings) Re: 10-10-220 (Eli Mantel) Re: 911 Locator Regulations For PBXs (Charles B. Wilber) Re: How is Roaming in Montana? (Tony Toews) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Leonard Erickson) Re: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? (J.F. Mezei) Microsoft to Require Web Site Privacy (Monty Solomon) Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:35:35 -0400 From: David N Hunt Subject: Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes Organization: Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phil Smiley wrote: > Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is > splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility > in telling the IXCs? Any carrier, local telco (ILEC or CLEC) or wireless carrier, has to make changes to the national databases indicating what NPA /NXX codes are new or changing. The changes are then available to the inter- exchange carriers and other telcos via a report called the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) which comes from TRA (Traffic Routing Administration). There are volumes explaining the procedures that every telco, wireless carrier should follow. Sometimes a code is missed by the Interexchange carrier, especially when the interval for a change is shorter than normal. I once received a call from a wireless carrier that our telco client had not input the new NXX code properly in their switch because the wireless carrier person was unable to complete test calls to the new code. After verifying that everything had been done properly in the telco switch, I made test calls over many long distance carriers. All but one of the test calls completed properly. I called the wireless carrier and suggested that they might want to have the long distance company they were owned by check their long distance switches. David N. Hunt, Executive Vice President - Business Development Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3901 Rose Lake Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217 dnhunt@msceng.com, tel: 704/357-0004, fax: 704/357-0025 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had an almost identical case several years ago. A new exchange was opened in Wisconsin in the 414 area code. One plus dialing it always failed. Ameritech would never put the call through. Even dialing it with a carrier access code first failed. If the call was placed on a 'direct line' of an IXC, such as dialing to AT&T's 800 number, *then* entering a pin and the desired number, the call would go through okay, ditto MCI or Sprint. But anytime that Ameritech examined the digits dialed first, the call would always be bounced. It took a couple months to get it corrected, and then it only got fixed because I was speaking with a lady at AT&T who is one of the rare breed which actually listens to customers, tries to under- stand the problem, and gets help as needed from others. After talking to her she promised I would get a call back from someone a few minutes later. I did get a call from a guy who described himself as 'someone at AT&T in the technical side of things'. I told him the situation, he put me on hold a couple minutes and came back to say that he had tried it himself and I was correct. I asked him where he was located and he said 'down in the St. Louis area ...' I asked him how he was able to test Ameritech switches from there and he said he 'had methods' of checking what he wanted, and that in fact Ameritech had an error in their tables and he would see to it that it was corrected. I told him good luck, that I had told Ameritech about it a few times and gotten nowhere. His response was very simply, 'they will do as I say ...' and indeed, later that day or the next morning, the call went through normally. He called me back later that day and asked if my call had gone through normally using one plus. I told him it had, and his response was 'thank you for your persistence. If you encounter this again from any local phone company just let me know ...' and he gave me a 618 number which would imply an Illinois suburb of St. Louis, MO, however the number was listed to 'Southwestern Bell Telephone Co' in St. Louis. His answer to that was that he 'worked for AT&T but his office was in a SWBT exchange building in one of the suburbs.' He got the job done, so I figured who cares where he works out of. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael G. Koerner Subject: Re: IXC Notification of NPA Changes Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:38:11 -0500 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com Phil Smiley wrote: > Whose responsibility is it to tell an LD Carrier that an area code is > splitting, overlaying etc. Does the local telco have any responsibility > in telling the IXCs? I believe that it is the carrier's own responsibility to learn that info. Most (if not all) subscribe to periodical 'TelCordia' documents that convey info on those, along with a boatload of other changes. These documents include the 'Local Exchange Routing Guide' (LERG), 'NPA/NXX Activity Guide' (NNAG), etc. Many of these come out monthly, with more frequent occasional updates as needed. Regards, Michael G. Koerner Appleton, WI ***NOTICE*** SPAMfilter in use, please remove ALL 'i's from the return address to reply. ***NOTICE*** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:56:00 -0400 From: David N Hunt Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) Organization: Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc. Steve Howell wrote: > I was told by my account rep. that it is being charged to allow you > to take your telephone number with you to another provider if one is > available. > Yeah, just another tax. Kind of like the tax collected from us to > subsidize rural access / school internet access. Something like tens > of millions of dollars collected and very few thousand actually > dispersed. This is not a tax! When the FCC mandated Local Number Portability (LNP) to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, many changes had to be made in the telephone network. New organizations (private companies) developed software to handle the database "look-up" of telephone numbers to determine which telco (ILEC OR CLEC) now served the person with that number. Changes in the switches were required to do the "look-ups". Rather than charge the new companies for the work required in the existing telephone network, the FCC issued an Order allowing all telephone companies to recover the costs associated with LNP from their subscribers over a period of five years (I believe). The money goes to the telephone company to pay for these new costs associated with LNP. One of the disadvantages of competition in the telephone network is that it costs more to do LNP than the way we used to route calls when we knew where the number was. LNP capability had to be placed in the switches in the largest metropolitan areas first, even if there is no competition yet. However, if you live in one of the large metro areas, you are probably calling numbers that have been "ported" to a new competitive local telco even if you don't have a new carrier that will serve you at your small business or residence. All telcos will eventually (very soon) have to have LNP capability in their switches. Without it, you will not be able to call friends and businesses that have changed telephone companies. This is the short version. I can do several hours on LNP. There are many thing on your bill that are "taxes" but this is not. It is the cost of having competitive local telephone service. If you think this is expensive, just wait until you want to be able to take your number with you when you move across the country. David N. Hunt, Executive Vice President - Business Development Mid-South Consulting Engineers, Inc. 3901 Rose Lake Drive, Charlotte, NC 28217 dnhunt@msceng.com, tel: 704/357-0004, fax: 704/357-0025 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How, by the way, is this -- moving across the country -- going to work, David? Does anyone yet have any clue about how charging for the call will be done? Will the caller pay the long distance charges or the called party? How will anyone know what they are paying for? You mentioned you could do 'several hours on LNP' and I think most everyone here would be interested in your discussions if you would care to submit them to the group. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:24:26 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Re: Now That I'm Paying For it, Where is it? (Number Portability) someone@teleport.com wrote in message ... > Now that US Worst is charging us for the number portability database > (which Ross Perot's EDS is behind schedule on delivering, BTW), who > else can I contract with for local dial tone in the (503) Portland > Metro area (specifically, the area of the ATlantic exchange)? To the best of my knowledge, Ross Perot's "Perot Systems" was booted off the LNP project due to delays, etc. If the LNP database is still not ready across the country, it's Lockheed Martin (who had the other portion of LNP database responsibility) who now has the whole ball of wax ... In other cases, there have been hold-ups due to FCC inquiries into the LNP rates various LECs are trying to charge to recover their "costs" of implementing LNP (the FCC potentially requiring lower rates would not necessarily be a bad thing, now would it?). The rates vary widely around the country, as well as how the LECs intend to apply those rates ... Randy Hayes ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1999 21:23:02 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to > have a designated primary long distance carrier? > Recently, I've been using a 10 10 number for all LD calls. However, > AT&T still bills me $1.93 per month on my account (which includes two > phones). I get a separate bill from AT&T, not included in BA bills. > Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD > carrier? Less, probably, the line fee for a resi line is under a dollar around here. But my recommendation is to find a long distance carrier with decent rates and service and make them your dial-1 carrier. I don't know of any 101XXXX dialaround that's better for normal domestic calls than a reasonable dial-1. 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 ------------------------------ From: rfreeman@netaxs.com (Richard Freeman) Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question Date: 24 Jun 1999 13:41:51 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:03:48 -0400, Howard Kaikow wrote: > Am I better off informing my local carrier (BA) that I do not want to > have a designated primary long distance carrier? > Dunno what BA would add to my bill if I did not have a designated LD > carrier? I made the same decision myself (live in Philly). Once ATT started adding the monthly fee (for the Federal wire-up-the-schools (or at least pay their phone bills) program). I make an average of about 5 cents a month of long distance calls. Once I dropped them, I started getting a 50-some cent charge from BA for not having a presubscribed line. They just announced that this is going to increase to just over a dollar, but it is still cheaper than having the line PIC'd ... I've heard of at least a few other people who dropped their long distance carriers after the monthly fees started kicking in -- it makes no sense to have one when your total monthly bill is usually on the order of $13 (when is anybody home to make calls these days anyway?) :) Hope this helps -- granted, the savings aren't as big in light of the 50 cent rate hike, but once ATT starts going to a larger minimum call fee it will definately be worth it for low-volume callers. And, it will at least save about 80 cents for high-volume callers (in exchange for having to dial 1010 codes all the time). Richard T. Freeman - finger for pgp key 3D CB AF BD FF E8 0B 10 4E 09 27 00 8D 27 E1 93 http://www.netaxs.com/~rfreeman - ftp.netaxs.com/people/rfreeman ------------------------------ Reply-To: D.E. 'Omar' Jennings From: D.E. 'Omar' Jennings Subject: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:07:42 -0400 J.F. Mezei writes: > This is what I was told. I had never heard that microwave links were > susceptible to sunspots etc. Is that really the case? Microwave fading occurs due to a variety of atmospheric conditions (not sun spots). > Or are these links "weak" to begin with and thus susceptible, compared > to "backbone" links using stronger towers etc ? Yes these links must be weak ... Microwave links can be made more reliable once the specific fading mechanism is known. Power, Dish size, Space diversity, Frequency diversity are among the means of makeing a path more reliable. A chart recording of signal levels can be made to determine the fading machanism and corrective actions taken. > Also, I noticed that many of the remote towers used dishes made of > wire/mesh as opposed to a full metal dish. Does this make a difference? The mesh dishes capture the wave properly, the size of the mesh is based on the frequency (Wavelength). Mesh dishes have a lower wind loading coefficient. I would be glad to help you solve these problems; any specific questions let me know. D.E. 'Omar' Jennings WFI Project Manager - National Desk: 703.375.7724, - Pager: 888.472.6955 ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: 10-10-220 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 04:37:03 GMT Dave Stott (dstott@2help.com) wrote: > They take turns calling and since they are (each) spending somewhere > between $75 and $100 per month on this long-distance relationship, > they find it quite useful to do the 10-cent "are you home" > first-minute call, then call back on the 20-minute-for-99-cent > carrier. The phone rings about half a ring every 20 minutes after that > for about the next hour or two. > I admire their resourcefulness. They might do well with Qwest's nickel a minute a minute program with a $14.95 monthly fee. All their state-to-state calls would be 5 cents a minute regardless of length, and they would save themselves the hassle of interrupting their conversation every 20 minutes. Another possibility would be Sprint's "Unlimited Weekends" program, which for $25 a month, provides you NOT unlimited calling, but 1000 minutes of weekend calling, which works out to 2.5 cents a minute for the first 1000 weekend minutes, and 5 cents a minute for additional weekend minutes. There are also some prepaid calling cards that purportedly charge 3.9 cents a minute, with a per-call surcharge of 39 cents. This beats the 101-0220 "deal", even if you break it up into calls that are exactly 20 minutes long, once your calls are at least 37 minutes long. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1999 23:14:57 EDT From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs > And I ask again: without hearing the voice on the phone as it > describes its emergency, intervention needed now, situation, how do > you know who among your staff is best suited to respond? I am sure > 911 does not call you back to say the caller reported smelling smoke > somewhere, or that a suspicious man was loitering somewhere. In New Hampshire, E-911 calls are routed directly to the PSAP where E-911 dispatchers answer the calls and simultaneously activate a ringdown line to the appropriate local emergency dispatch center. In Dartmouth College's case, that is the local municipal police/fire dispatch center. In some parts of the state, the actual call is patched through to the local dispatch center as well. In our area, that capability is not yet in place. The E-911 dispatcher conveys the location and nature of the emergency to the local dispatcher who then dispatches the appropriate responders (fire, police, EMS or all of these). This local dispatcher simultaneously activates another ringdown to the College's Safety & Security dispatch office, advising the S&S dispatcher of the location and nature of the emergency along with information about what emergency personnel have been dispatched. A separate, dedicated computer monitors our PBX's SMDR stream and displays the originating number, street address, building location and room number for any call placed to 911. This alerts S&S personnel to the presence of a 911 call and serves as a cross-check for the information given to them verbally by the local emergency dispatch center. The only entity who actually hears the emergency call is the E-911 dispatcher. Local dispatch and College security personnel receive all pertinent details of the call, giving them all the information they need in order to dispatch the appropriate resources to the scene. The concern over privacy issues is the result of expressed opinions, both individual and legal, not merely of conjecture. It is a serious matter not easily resolved by simply saying "If you have to call 911, it is automatically everyone's business." Many medical conditions, sexual assualts and other legitimate emergency situations are certainly not the public's business. These people are legitimately requesting immediate assistance. They are not yelling "Fire!" Charlie Wilber Dartmouth College ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: How is Roaming in Montana? Organization: Me, organized? Not a chance. Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:18:47 GMT jerome@supernet.ab.ca (Jerome Yuzyk) wrote: > With all the discussion of the (lack of) quality cell coverage in the > US, I am wondering about a future trip from Alberta to Montana, > driving south to Big Sky, near Yellowstone via Great Falls, Helena and > Butte. I have an analog Motorola 650e*. This is the first time I've > had a cell in the US. What should I expect for coverage and > reception? One thing I've heard of from a trucker is to turn on your cell phone only if required and to use payphones if at all reasonable. If, OTOH, you're staying in one cell phone providers network then you might be fine. Apparently what happens is that roamers can get dinged a $3 or $5 roaming charge each time they hit a new area. So one three or four day trip from Alberta to Texas, where he left the phone on, he got hit with $100 worth of roaming charges. Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm VolStar http://www.volstar.com Manage hundreds or thousands of volunteers for special events. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:57:27 PST Organization: Shadownet Jim Van Nuland writes: > My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and > we'll all be dialing many digits. > I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when > calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area > code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to > calling (say) to another state? > Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between > my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory? Well, for one thing, you can dial an overlay number *without* a leading 1-. The big thing is this: How are you going to know which of the two area codes the phone you are *using* is in? If it's your own personal phone, maybe. But for any other phone you'd have to *look*. And a given switch may be handling exchanges in *both* area codes. Which makes the programming a real problem, because it'd have to use different dial decoding rules based *solely* on the line ID, which is based on the wire pair, *not* the assigned telephone number. For that matter, If I get a distinctive ring number added to my existing number, they could be in *different* area codes. So which one is "the" area code for the number? There are also other issues involving reserved exchanges and adjacent area codes, but that gets a bit technical. Suffice it to say that once an overlay goes in, you are stuck with 10-digit dialing for local calls. Also, in not that many years, even *non*-overlay areas may have to switch to 10-digit local dialing. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Do Cellular Phones Cause Cancer? Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:29:32 -0400 Afshin David Youssefyeh wrote: > Having read one more story about cellular phones causing brain tumors: > http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20321.html In my opinion, any article which does not show differences between the old analog and newer digital telephones (and perhaps even differences between GSM and the US digital protocols) should not be taken too seriously. Digital telephones consume heaps less power and are smart enough not to transmit anything during moments of silence, as well, their "hello I am here" messages are transitted quite differently. GSM phones are also smart enough to lower the power of the phone when it is near an antenna. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:50:02 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Microsoft to Require Web Site Privacy WASHINGTON (AP) - The world's biggest advertiser on the Internet, Microsoft, will require the hundreds of Web sites where it buys ads to publish adequate assurances to protect the privacy of consumers. Microsoft, which spent more than $34 million last year on Internet advertising, said it will review privacy statements at those sites to ensure they meet guidelines developed by federal regulators. Analysts estimate companies together spent about $2 billion last year on Web ads. http://www.usatoday.com/money/mds026.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:12:42 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn Suppose you're a shapely fitness model/law student whose campaign for elected office is jeopardized when thousands of bogus pictures of you start popping up on the Internet? Who you gonna call? Themis Klarides called Alyssa Milano's mother, Lin. http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/dish/990617a.asp ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #166 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 24 20:51:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA28236; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:51:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906250051.UAA28236@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #167 TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jun 99 20:51:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Three Held in Phone Fraud (Tad Cook) Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? (Monty Solomon) News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Carl Moore) Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back (Onenetnut) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Bob Keller) Re: Pager at U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Randy Hayes) Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament (Tony Pelliccio) Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Ron Walter) Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre (J.F. Mezei) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Ed Ellers) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (J.F. Mezei) Seeking Database For Area Codes in More Than One Time Zone (FACSman) Re: LD Carriers Question (Howard Kaikow) 9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs) (Jennifer Case) Chicago Address Question (Carl Moore) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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: Three Held in Phone Fraud Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:18:42 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Three held in phone fraud - S.J. man puts cops on trail By Bill Romano Mercury News Staff Writer When a deal sounds too good to be true, it usually is. That's what James Fitzgerald of San Jose figured when he picked up the phone earlier this month to learn he was the "lucky winner" of a $450,000 sweepstakes. The 61-year-old retired military police officer promptly informed San Jose police of his suspicions, and the result was the arrest June 12 of three members of a telemarketing-fraud scheme called the Winner's Circle -- an alleged criminal organization authorities say has fleeced millions of dollars from the elderly around the country in recent years. Fitzgerald said Wednesday he recognized immediately that the phone pitch was a fraud. Solicitors actually called him twice, and police credited his alertness in stringing the callers along with helping them crack the case. "This bunch must be the world's dumbest criminals," Fitzgerald said. Armed with warrants, investigators uncovered one of the group's telephone boiler-room operations in a Fresno motel, where they arrested 31-year-old Reginald Lowe. Two suspected confederates, Cloyd Marshall, 28, and Teresa Marshall, 37, were nabbed earlier. The three are charged with grand theft, financial elder abuse and fraud. In Lowe's room, police recovered numerous letters that victims had enclosed with money, in addition to wire receipts and phone records that linked other victims directly to the suspects, said San Jose fraud investigator Mark Hawke. A fourth person has been identified as a suspect but remains at large. Police did not disclose the arrests until Wednesday because they still were trying to find possible victims and suspects and didn't want to jeopardize the investigation. Lowe is under federal indictment for similar alleged scams in Nevada, Arkansas, Washington and California. The ring, consisting of various "cells" of six or seven persons each, has been operating out of Las Vegas for about seven years, police believe. $1.3 million collected The scheme has netted the ring at least $1.3 million. Several million more dollars from victims are unaccounted for, Hawke said. It was unclear Wednesday how many potential victims were from California or the Bay Area. With Fitzgerald's cooperation, San Jose police began moving on the group in recent weeks after he reported the call to police. Like other recipients, the caller told Fitzgerald that he would first have to send the company money as a "refundable tax deposit" against his winnings. The caller explained that Winner's Circle had Internal Revenue Service agents working directly with the firm for that purpose. Hawke said that a Winner's Circle representative instructed Fitzgerald to send a $3,500 money order to a Western Union office in Clovis, near Fresno. Under the guise of Fitzgerald, police sent the money order. After a man showed up to collect it, a subsequent investigation led police to Lowe and the other suspects. Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office and fraud investigators said such scams are not uncommon. "There are literally hundreds of victims of this kind every day. We could not possibly follow up on every single lead," Hawke said. "And, leads often go nowhere because suspects refuse to provide call-back numbers or other information that can be used to identify them." The isolated elderly are particularly vulnerable because they usually lack family or friends on whom they can rely for advice. Didn't fall for scam "We were lucky in this case to have Mr. Fitzgerald, who did not fall for the scam and had the wherewithal to contact the police department," Hawke said. Assistant District Attorney Al Weger, head of the Santa Clara County's consumer-protection unit, offered this advice: "Don't ever, ever, ever send money to someone who says you've won a prize. If you've legitimately won a prize, they'll send it to you. It smacks immediately of fraud when you're told you have to send them something to collect it." Anyone who has been victimized by the Winner's Circle is asked to call Hawke at the San Jose Police Fraud Unit, (408) 277-4521. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? http://thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,5256,00.html Iridium, the Motorola-led consortium that promises wireless phone service anywhere on the globe, thought jet-setting execs would jump at the chance to ensure connectivity for their treks upriver or along the Silk Route. But it turned out the suits weren't willing to shell out $3,000 to stay in touch on the road less travelled. Their worn path includes Kuala Lumpur and London's M5 ring road, as well as the drive from Newark Airport to midtown Manhattan, but so far their cell phones are doing the job. So what's Iridium's Plan B? Wired's Joanna Glasner says it will target tough guys. Think Will Steger or the guy Bruce Willis played in "Armageddon": roughnecks on oil derricks or the disaster-relief crowd. Maybe the next Jane Goodall. Iridium's CFO quit in March and its CEO quit in April after the failure of Plan A became apparent. A Reuters story in Tuesday's New York Times explained that although Iridium would take an even bigger hit to offer affordable rates to its blue-collar globetrotters ($2.99 per minute, anywhere on the planet), doing so would help "load the customers and see the usage we need to make this business a financial success." Iridium Goes Industrial http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/20331.html Telecommunications Price Cuts by Iridium (Reuters) http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/22iridium.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:36 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources says some foreign countries have such a prohibition. ------------------------------ From: onenetnut@nospam.hotmail.com (Onenetnut) Subject: Re: To our MCI Mail Readers, Welcome Back Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:01:35 GMT On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:23 EDT, Hugh Pritchard wrote: >> Some time ago, MCI Mail decided to block TELECOM Digest from delivery >> to mcimail.com sites thinking that it was 'spam'. It was explained to >> me by someone at wcom.com at 'one of our operators thought it was spam >> and put a block on the Digest which has now been removed.' > Even before WorldCom bought MCI, internal users of MCI Mail (domain name > MCIMail.com) were being urged to use the newer, POP3-based service > called Innermail, which had a domain name of MCI.com. A few months > ago, someone decided that "MCI.com" just didn't reflect the true nature > of MCI WorldCom, so the Innermail domain name was changed to WCom.com. Yes, but NON-MCI employee's, or regular uses of MCI Mail (there are still a few of them out there), are still using the service. Friends and Family mail is still out there under the @mcimail.com domain name. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:27:11 -0400 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) In TELECOM Digest V19 #165, John R. Levine wrote: > According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming > agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major > system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T. But that would cover an American Cellular customer when it traveled into an AT&T Block A *cellular* area, and (since presumably the roaming agreements are reciprocal) vice versa. But the AT&T Digital One Rate plan is not provided by a *cellular* carrier (Block A or otherwise) -- it is a PCS service. I know from experience that, with respect to its cellular service, BAMS apparently has a roaming agreements with almost all other cellular carriers. On the BAMS one-rate plan, I have not yet been hit with any roaming charges regardless of where I've gone and regardless of whether I've connected via a Block A or a Block B system. I've also never been diverted to an operator -- the roaming has always been automatic. (I am occasionally diverted to a fraud verification system for my first call in a new area, but that's it.) But for the *PCS* services, e.g., AT&T's One-Rate plan, to work automatically when you are in an area where you drop back to cellular because a PCS signal is not available for one reason or another, would require roaming agreements between *cellular* and *PCS* carriers. I'm just not sure how ubiquitous such inter-service roaming agreements are at this time. Bob Keller (www.his.com/~rjk) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:36:37 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Pager at U.S. Open Golf Tournament Someone wrote: > ... but heard (as I had suggested in THIS forum earlier) that it was > OK in vibrator mode only. I have had libraries, church services, > theater events, etc. to consider as well, so I have commonly used > vibrator mode anyway. At my previous employer (large hospital), we installed a new paging system, which I believe currently serves 3,000 pagers. When one of our staff felt safe in carrying his pager (on vibrate) into a theatre to enjoy a play, imagine his surprise when the audible alert sounded in the middle of the play! We found the default programming of the system utilized audible alerts for "emergency" pages, no matter what the pager mode was set to! Obviously, we changed that programming immediately! Details, details, details ... Randy Hayes ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Pager at the U.S. Open Golf Tournament Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:27:59 GMT In article , cmoore@ARL.MIL says: > I have been hearing the word "beeper" regarding what Phil Mikkelsen > (sp) was carrying when he played the just-concluded U.S. Open (golf) > in North Carolina. (He lost, and made it back to Arizona on time for > his wife giving birth to a daughter yesterday, Monday 21 June.) I take > it he used vibrator mode only! > I have seen cell-phone prohibitions posted for the LPGA McDonald's > tournament in Wilmingon, Delaware, and also for the arts center there > on South Madison Street (I was in the latter on Sunday looking at the > Meiji Japanese exhibit) -- but neither had a note posted about pagers! > I was referred back to the cloakroom check at the arts center when I > mentioned that I had a pager, but heard (as I had suggested in THIS > forum earlier) that it was OK in vibrator mode only. I have had > libraries, church services, theater events, etc. to consider as well, > so I have commonly used vibrator mode anyway. This is what really frosts me about cellular phone manufacturers and carriers. Why is it that you have to pay oodles of money to get a cellphone that vibrates vs. the annoying ring most of them have? And why is it that the carrier and manufacturers can't incorporate a "one moment" key on them so that those who really need to have their cellphone with them can excuse themselves to a private area and the call will be held. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:59:46 -0500 From: Ron Walter Organization: Capitol City Telephone, Inc. Subject: Re: "Name That Domain" Contest >> It's not cybersquatting ... it's not illegal, immoral, or fattening, >> and it could be worth a big prize! All you have to do is guess the >> new corporate name that Bell Atlantic will be adopting if/when they >> merge with GTE. Now that you've brought up name changes and mergers, I'm almost hoping Qwest pulls off their attempted purchase of Frontier and US West. Since I live near US West territory, I don't want to go through a dramatic name change and would prefer it become something like US Qwest. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Reliability of Microwave vs Fibre Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:47:11 -0400 Terry Kennedy wrote: > Were the rural stations you saw self-powered (for example, solar) or > was there a utility grid in place? If they're self-powered, that would > explain the low-power operation. Some were utility (well, off the community's generator). Some were solar. The line I was thinking about is the one which starts at Alice Springs and goes west all the way to Warburton in Western Australia (about 800km). But the other case, was a mere 5km hop from a fiber repeater in the Stuart Highway to the Aileron roadhouse (about 130km north of Alice). That MW hop was deemed unreliable and is being replaced with fiber to the roadhouse (roadhouse is a restaurant/bar/petrol station/caravan park combo). I would have though that a 5km link would not be a problem. Telstra is supposedly spending a million bucks for that single customer. The fiber backbone in outback australia is mostly solar powered (except when the repeater is near a community). But these repeaters are more "developped" then the rural microwave links. (larger solar panels and larger banks of batteries from what i was told). > if chosen properly. The mesh is used for wind/snow/etc. resistance. Had not thought of that. Makes sense. (Although there is rarely any snow in the middle of Australia). > Digging up the ground for fiber is a one-time expense (modulo > repairs from errant backhoes), but you can put *vastly* more data over > fiber. I was told that in Australia's outback, they only put it 6 inches below ground except in crossing rivers where it is put a few feet below the ground level for those rare times when there is water in the river. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:50:35 -0400 J.F. Mezei (jfmezei@videotron.ca) wrote: > The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America was > still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom?????" Actually, you and Thor Simon are both partly right -- AMPS went into commercial service in Chicago and Washington in 1983 after a few years of tests in those cities, but the rollout did take over a decade to reach the present state, partly because the FCC didn't license cellular systems in rural service areas until several years after the licenses had been issued for the metro areas. IIRC, NTT in Japan had its own analog cellular system that entered commercial service in 1979. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:52:10 -0400 Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America >> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom????? > Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in > the *1970s*. AMPS is old news. Countries such as Australia are already reducing their AMPS network capacity because their GSM networks have replaced them in many areas. Remember that North America was very late in the game in adopting digital telephony. There were a few attempts with D-amps but they failed because the vocoders were too shabby. AMPS is simply not workable anymore because it has too small system capacity. GSM is to AMPS what EMAIL is to TELEX. ------------------------------ From: ryoung@airmail.net Subject: Seeking Database For Area Codes in More Than One Time Zone Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:28:02 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Any ideas where to look? Willing to purchase if its the right product\subscribe for automatic updates. Thanx - FACSman ------------------------------ From: Howard Kaikow Subject: Re: LD Carriers Question Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:24:17 -0400 Organization: MV Communications, Inc. I've been using Lucky Dog (which is owned by AT&T). Presently, I receive a separate bill from AT&T. I have two phones on one bill and am billed 1.93 each month, tho earlier this year, they did not bill me for a month or so, I know not why. Since I've only been using 1010 345 for the past several months, I see no reason to pay any carrier a minimum. Please reply only to newsgroup. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:28:39 -0400 From: Jennifer Case Reply-To: Subject: 9-1-1 Info (was Re: 911 Locator Regulations for PBXs) > We have recommended that a consortium of interested parties who are > willing to share ideas and input re E-911 be convened. If you are > intested in joining this forum, pls contact me via email at > aolbur@ccscnet.com. > Allan M. Olbur You might want to try: www.nena9-1-1.org The National Emergency Number Association addresses practically everything related to 9-1-1, including telecom issues like LNP, Wireless, Y2K, and so on. Jennifer Case GTE Spec-Systems Analyst E911 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:55:14 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Information Wanted on Chicago Address On (I believe) Court TV, there has just been a Crime Stories episode this week of the killing of the eight student nurses in July 1966 (that's the case where Corazon Amurao, from the Philippines, became star witness against Richard Speck). I picked up an address for the scene; it's 2319 E. 100th Street, and I find this to be in 60617 zipcode. Just now, I also have this reference to State Line Road, part of which is also in 60617: S. State Line Rd.; even only; Chicago 10600-11198 in 60617, and 13900-13998 in 60633 The reference to State Line Road suggests 60617 hits the Indiana border, and I also heard there was (at least in July 1966) a longshoremen hiring hall near the crime scene (see first paragraph), so 60617 is toward Lake Michigan? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 2319 East 100 Street is a group of townhouses which belong to the nearby hospital, and are used as staff residences. That is the location where the eight student nurses were murdered by Richard ("if they knew how much fun I was having here, they would never have put me in prison") Speck in 1966. It is just a few blocks west of Lake Michigan, which at that point has begun to curve in a southeastern direction toward Indiana. The state line between Indiana and Illinois (thus, between Whiting in Indiana and Chicago, in Illinois meets the shore of Lake Michigan at 106th Street, where three streets meet. Indianapolis Boulevard runs northwest/southeast along the lake shore. 106th Street runs straight east and west, it is about the 3200 block east (using Chicago numbers) at that point. State Line Avenue runs straight north and south from the intersection of the other two. In Chicago, 'even' street numbers are on the west and north sides of streets while 'odd' numbers are on the south and east sides. There is no east side of State Line Avenue for the purposes of your street guide, thus the reference to 'even only'. The west side of State Line Avenue would take numbers using the Whiting system, but it is a moot point, since the whole area is heavily industrial and are no individual properties on the east side of the street at that point. On the shore of Lake Michigan at the point that 106/Indianapolis/ State Line Avenue merge sits the Commonwealth Edison Company's 'State Line Generating Station', a huge, old-fashioned coal-burning, steam-generating place. The intense steam pressure causes turbines to spin which generate electricity for much of the south side of Chicago. Mountains of coal are piled up around one side of the building; the plant receives deliveries of coal daily from the mines in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to the extent of about 60-80 railroad coal cars daily. The plant runs the distance of about a city block; it is a huge, gothic-like structure, almost midievel in appearance, a very high, vaulted ceiling in the interior. About half of the building is in Illinois while the other half is in Indiana. The obligatory telecom note here is that when I was a child 11-12 years old, the facility had two telephone numbers: The Chicago number, which was dialable, was SOUth Chicago-8-7000; the Whiting number, which was still served manually by operators was 'Whiting 6' ... and after Whiting converted to dial service it became 219-659-0006 ... In those times, the middle 1950's, my friends and I would play behind State Line Generator; we always enjoyed watching the coal trains coming in every day. Between the back side of the generator plant and the actual shore of the lake are some dozen railroad tracks which serve three or four different railroads which serve not only that plant but also serve (in order, going east) the Amaizo Corn Products Factory, the Lever Brothers Factory, the Amoco Oil Refinery, and eventually the United States Steel 'Gary Works'. As I said, it is a heavily industrialized area. The Longshore Mans Union Hiring Hall that you mentioned is a few blocks west of there, on the Chicago side. At 110th Street/Calumet Avenue/Indianapolis Blvd. on the Indiana side the railroad crossing with 13 tracks belonging to the four railroads is sufficiently complex that the warning signals and gates across the road were manually operated by crossing guards who (we kids would notice) always sat in a 'little house on stilts up in the air above the crossing' where they could see in all directions. Now and again, one of them would reach over and flip a switch and then the red flashing lights at street level, the up and down arms would go down and block the street and the bells would start ringing. Another person would go out in the center of the intersection with a sign that he would hold up saying for traffic to go one direction or another. Probably forty or fifty trains each day crossed that intersection some of which were very slow moving 60-80 car coal trains for Edison pulled by a couple of diesel locomotives; they would take upwards of 15-20 minutes to clear the intersection while other trains would go barreling through at 60 miles an hour and the gates would only be down a few seconds. The New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroads were still operating their passenger service in those days, and a block or two east of that crossing was the Whiting railroad depot, where passengers would board the trains going to New York. As kids, we would sit and talk to the crossing guard in the little house and thought it was very funny to see how congested the traffic would get when the gates were down for twenty minutes only to come up for all of thirty seconds and then go down again for another train, or sometimes two trains at once going in opposite directions through that crossing. Sometimes not even thirty seconds would pass; he would flip the switch to raise the gates, and when the gates had gone up but the flashing lights and bells had not yet stopped, his radio would say another train was a short distance away and the gates would upon reaching the upright position immediatly start back down again. And the motorists would drag-race down Indianapolis Blvd. to try and beat the trains. Train coming from the east at 60 mph. and gates just now going down at 110th? Then let's drive 80 mph. and see if we can cross the tracks at 104th on the Illinois side before the gates start going down over there as well. Get to 104th and .... whoops! the gates were already down there because a train was coming from the other direction. And that, Carl, was/is 106th and State Line Avenue. This writer and his friends at age 11-12 thought it was great fun to watch the coal cars getting lifted by the automatic conveyor, literally lifted off the track, turned over on their side in the air and all the coal spilling out into the deep pits below which fed Edison's furnaces inside the big gothic cathedral-like building next to the railroad tracks and the huge piles of coal around it. Then the machine would sit the railroad car upright on the track again, push it out of the way and the next car full of coal would be moved into place for the process to begin again. Later, all the empty coal cars were taken back to West Virginia where they would be filled again with coal and brought back time and again for the same process to be repeated. The sky was always grey. Rarely did you see bright sunshine except after it had rained heavily. But it was fun to be there when it rained also. We had a little 'secret clubhouse' (actually just an old broken up shack that sat next to the railroad tracks) where we would stay out of the rain but be able to watch the lightning. The generating plant was quite well grounded as you might expect, and a large pole/rod on one side of the building seemed to attract lightning. So we would sit in our clubhouse looking at forbidden books and periodically bolts of lightning would strike that pole a hundred yards away and in the darkness the old gothic building looked sort of like an ancient castle when flashes of lightning would brighten up the area for a couple seconds. I remember where I was when I heard about Speck. In the Lawson YMCA having lunch, I sat down with a friend of mine and the first thing he said was 'did you see the paper yet today?' with a disgusted look on his face. And he told me that about 6:00 AM that morning, the one surviving nurse had escaped and brought police to the house on East 100th Street where the bodies were all found. It was in the {Chicago Tribune} headlines for several days. It was all very gruesome. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #167 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 25 20:48:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA00255; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:48:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:48:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906260048.UAA00255@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #168 TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jun 99 20:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit (TELECOM Digest Editor) The Dark sSde of Online Shopping (Monty Solomon) Rio Sings Toll-Free Calling Tune (Monty Solomon) CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? (Michael David Jones) Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? (Ian Angus) Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? (Linc Madison) Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (David Clayton) Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Arthur Ross) Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas (Withheld Adrian) Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? (Alan Boritz) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (Alan Boritz) Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) (Arthur Ross) Who Invented the Telephone? With Microsoft Encarta, it Depends (J. 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:33 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Tribute to the Telephone - New Archives Exhibit I am very pleased and proud to announce a new, very major addition to telecom-digest.org to you today. ** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** is a new, permanent exhibit at this site, which was created, and is maintained by David Massey, who can be reached via email at dmassey@telecom-digest.org if you wish to write him. ** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** consists of more than one hundred pages of telephone-related history, ranging from the earliest days in the 1870's through the demise of the 'Bell System' in 1983. In addition to the hundred-plus pages of material to read -- many of which are very lengthy files -- there are more than four hundred pictures which accomp- any the text. The exhibit includes many 'Bell System' documents from the past which have been scanned in for display on your screen. Pictures include inside looks at telephone central offices of the past; they include a few dozen different telephone instruments in common use over the past century; they include pictures of Alex Bell, Tom Watson and others. A large section is devoted to pay phones; Princess phones and other things. ** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** includes schematics that have been scanned in for your viewing. It includes a very detailed history of AT&T written by its former chairman at the time of divestiture, Charles Brown. It includes a very detailed history of Western Electric, Bell of Canada and other telephone companies. It includes numerous links to other telephone-related sites including its 'sister site' also run by David Massey known as 'Tribute to the Bell System'. ** TRIBUTE TO THE TELEPHONE ** includes human interest stories, and it includes numerous sound files (.wav files) of various sorts including ringing tones, dial tones, busy signals, intercept messages, and more. This exhibit consists of several years of work by David Massey in the process of collecting the things on display, and the cooperation of several people who loaned texts and images to him for the exhibit. David Massey, a resident of the Atlanta, GA area has spent years in putting all this together. I have spent a great deal of time over the past two weeks doing some work editing and arranging it for use here. When David expressed to me his inability to continue giving 'Tribute' the amount of time and attention it needs on a regular basis, and his wish to place it on a non-commercial site rather than one of the various commercial web-sites available, I immediatly offered to make time in my own schedule to care for it. Allow yourself *plenty of time* to review http://telecom-digest.org/tribute since it is NOT a small exhibit. Like so many museums, which is really the best way to describe this major addition to the site, you can easily spend most a day going through it, looking at the pictures and reading the text if you have any interest at all in telephony as it evolved over the century that the Bell System was our nation's phone service provider. Perhaps you will want to review some of the exhibit each day for several days; and for your reading convenience, the larger text files are also available in .doc or .zip formats for downloading, to keep in your own collection for later use. I seriously think of this as a very major addition and improvement at telecom-digest.org and hope you will feel the same way when you see it. Of course, it is fully searchable; the search engine which indexes the Archives has been including the 'Tribute' files for the past couple days getting them included as well, but because of the size of the exhibit, you will get best results by using the template located in the exhibit rather than the one included on the Archives search page. From David Massey (dmassey@telecom-digest.org) then and myself, we hope you enjoy this new permanent exhibit, given at no charge to the net community. Just address your browser to: http://telecom-digest.org/tribute and enjoy it. Watch for frequent additions and changes as new materials become available to be included in the display! Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest & Archives Webmaster Editor, Publisher, call me whatever you like! ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Dark Side of Online Shopping Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:24:46 -0400 Trail of fraud leads from Amazon.com to Thailand By Molly Masland MSNBC June 24 When Internet investigator Don Garlock's bank account was mysteriously cleaned out in early June, the last thing he expected was that the search for the culprit would take him on a shadowy trail through cyberspace. The clues began at online retail giant Amazon.com and led to a ring of alleged hackers in Bangkok, Thailand. Along the way, Garlock picked up crucial lessons about the perils of online shopping, even at sites that claim to be '100 percent safe.' http://www.msnbc.com/news/283239.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:31:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rio Sings Toll-Free Calling Tune Wired News Report 12:00 p.m. 24.Jun.99.PDT Add free phone calls to the Rio Internet music player's list of undocumented features. Availability may vary. Hackers are circulating instructions on turning the Diamond Multimedia MP3 player into a device for making free phone calls. http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/20409.html ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: CDMA vs. TDMA vs. "Digital Cell"? Date: 25 Jun 1999 09:35:40 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Is there a web site somewhere which has a good description of some of the underlying technologies and who uses what? For even a reasonably educated consumer, the number of providers and acronyms (not to mention made up names for various offerings) is terribly confusing. For example, I've been a pretty happy customer of Sprint PCS (over CDMA, right?) for a couple of years now. I'm getting a little disappointed because they're not building up their digital network as fast as I'd hoped in the areas I travel through (I'm really happy with the coverage in Albany and NYC, though). Some friends are telling me I should switch to Bell Atlantic Mobile because they have better digital coverage because they use "digital cell" technology. I thought they were another CDMA-based system. Is there a good place to go to get answers to questions like this? Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent. - George Orwell ------------------------------ From: ianangus@angustel.ca (Ian Angus) Subject: Does Data Traffic Exceed Voice? Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:12:08 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. The statement that data traffic now exceeds voice in North America is repeated in just about every telecom presentation I hear these days. But no one cites a source for the claim. It seems to be accepted without question. In the current "Communications of the ACM," Michael Noll argues that the statement is false, and offers some back-of-the-envelope calculations to support his view. I find Noll's analysis simplistic -- but I agree with him that the "data exceeds voice" claim appears to be unproven. Can anyone point me to any actual studies, statistics, etc., on this issue? Is the claim legitimate, or a telecom urban legend? Ian Angus Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:16:46 -0700 From: Telecom@LincMad.nospam (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 11-Digit Dialing - Why Mandatory? Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote: > Jim Van Nuland writes: >> My area code 408 (San Jose, Calif) is getting an overlay soon, and >> we'll all be dialing many digits. >> I understand why I'll need to dial the new (overlay) code when >> calling a number in that area, but why the need to dial my own area >> code when *not* calling out of it? Is this not exactly analogous to >> calling (say) to another state? >> Seems to me that the same trigger (the 1-) would distinguish between >> my own (no 1-) and the other (1-xxx) area. So why is it mandatory? > Well, for one thing, you can dial an overlay number *without* a leading > 1-. Incorrect. You CANNOT dial an overlay number IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, without the leading 1 (effective October 1999). In California, 10-digit dialing without the leading 1 is always and absolutely forbidden. If you dial 1, you must dial an area code, and conversely if you dial the area code, you must always dial 1 or 0 first. California does not use the "1+ means toll" rule at all. > The big thing is this: How are you going to know which of the two area > codes the phone you are *using* is in? If it's your own personal phone, > maybe. But for any other phone you'd have to *look*. > And a given switch may be handling exchanges in *both* area codes. > Which makes the programming a real problem, because it'd have to use > different dial decoding rules based *solely* on the line ID, which is > based on the wire pair, *not* the assigned telephone number. > For that matter, If I get a distinctive ring number added to my > existing number, they could be in *different* area codes. So which one > is "the" area code for the number? All true. > There are also other issues involving reserved exchanges and adjacent > area codes, but that gets a bit technical. Suffice it to say that once > an overlay goes in, you are stuck with 10-digit dialing for local > calls. This is why California does not permit 10D dialing of any calls. For example, the 408-925 prefix is local to some exchanges in the 925 area code. Before the introduction of mandatory 1+10D in 408, you would have a conflict between 925-xxxx and 925-nxx-xxxx. > Also, in not that many years, even *non*-overlay areas may have to > switch to 10-digit local dialing. True, although right now the CPUC is reconsidering its overlays because of consumer resistance to mandatory 1+10D. ** 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: as an anti-spam measure, replies are set to "postmaster"; >> however, replies sent to "Telecom" will be read sooner. ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:58:41 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Carl Moore contributed the following: > I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition > against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at > least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources > says some foreign countries have such a prohibition. You have to turn them off at petrol stations in Australia. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:49 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas > I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition > against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at > least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources > says some foreign countries have such a prohibition. Someone called me several weeks ago about this story. It apparently was flying around the internet somewhere. I'll tell you the same thing I told them: That I think it borders on an urban myth. While it is probably possible, under VERY contrived circumstances, to make a tiny spark from the fraction of a watt that comes out of a cellular handset, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If there is an explosive gas-air mixture at any of these gas stations that could be ignited by such a thing, THAT is the problem, not an unlikely source of a tiny spark. If they are worried about sparks they should also be forbidding cars with nylon carpets, women wearing nylon stocking, people with cats in the car, etc, etc, which are all potential sources of static sparks in dry weather. And they shouldn't be PUMPING their gas, as the very motion of the fluid itself can create static charges. You sometimes see roadside signs near construction projects asking that motorists refrain from using radio transmitters because of nearby blasting. The concern here is that the radiated RF can induce current in the wiring to the electrically-triggered blasting caps & set off the explosives prematurely. This IS a valid concern, as they are worried about higher-powered transmitters (e.g. amateur, police dispatch, etc., that radiate many WATTS). Again, the issue is one of proximity of something that will go boom to a potential source of accidental ignition. In this case, the hazard is real, so caution should prevail. But if those gas stations are going to tell me that they have explosive mixtures in their tanks, the authorities should be closing them down as hazards to public safety until they get their act together. It's the presence of the explosive mixture that is worrisome, not so much the source of ignition. Same issue as that 747 that blew up over Long Island. What was an explosive mixture doing in that tank? You can draw sparks from all sorts of moving mists, sawdust, fluids of various kinds (e.g. thunderstorms), rubbing fabrics, etc. This is how grain elevator explosions happen. The dust forms both the explosive mixture, AND, sometimes, the ignition source due to its motion (it is called triboelectricity - the production of a static charge by rubbing stuff). In every case, the key to safety is to make sure the the explosive mixture is not allowed to accumulate. While it doesn't hurt to eliminate ignition sources, it is difficult to do with high certainty. Something else comes to mind. I seem to recall that one of the merits of gasoline is the rather narrow range of fuel-air mixtures over which it is explosive. This also is probably a major contributor to the empirically low rate of exploding automobiles/gas stations. -- Best -- Arthur -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ From: 141@wilkinsonsmith.com (Withheld Adrian) Subject: Re: News Item: No Cell Phones While Pumping Gas Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:20:45 GMT Organization: www.wilkinsonsmith.com Limited Reply-To: acs@wilkinsonsmith.com > I am hearing through Philadelphia news media that new prohibition > against use of cell phones at gas-station pumps is being posted, at > least at Exxon company-owned stations. At least one of those sources > says some foreign countries have such a prohibition. The UK being one where you are not allowed to use radio transmitting equipment, such as mobile phones, on gas station forecourts. Also in London at the ticket office of the new high speed link to the airport they have prohibited use of mobiles as they "upset" the ticket booking systems! ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Phone Slamming - Who Can Authorize? Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:31:04 -0400 In article , srini_v@my-deja.com wrote: > A few days back a telemarketer from a long distance company called and > talked to my wife. A few days later, the long distance service was > switched to the new company. > My wife does not specifically remember if she authorized the switch. > The phone is in my name, and my wife is not yet in the authorized > list of persons that can update my account. I had given this list to > my local telephone company a year back. > My question is, even if assuming that my wife authorized the switch, > is it legal? Some phone companies will switch your PIXC whether they have your permission or not, whether you have a PIXC freeze or not. As has been documented in this forum more than once, if your number is in a batch being processed electronically, the telco may not bother to check, and won't be too concerned when you call to complain. It's probably not legal, but your telco will probably charge you to make the switch it back. If they won't put things back the way they were before, file a complaint with your state's utility regulatory agency and ask them to order the telco to change the PIXC back and charge all associated costs to the party who submitted the fraudulent order. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:22:58 -0400 In article , johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >>> But you also don't always get service. I'm spending the summer in >>> Orange County, NY, and ometimes I get five bar of signal, but when I >>> try to place a call I get a Bell-Atlantic intercept that I need a >>> credit card. >> ... I'll bet dollars to donuts that what happens is, if they don't >> have a roaming agreement with the carrier whose signal has got you, > More likely somebody's just being spiteful. In Orange County, the A > carrier is American Cellular (dba Cell One, of course), the B carrier > is BAMS. In metro New York, the A carrier is AT&T, B is BAMS; they're > intense arch-rivals. > According to the Cellular Travel Guide, AT&T and BAMS have roaming > agreements, and American Cellular has agreements with "all major > system A companies" which would presumably include AT&T. Both companies have to have roaming agreements, since AT&T customers are on BAMS when they travel east into Connecticut and BAMS customers are on AT&T's system when they travel into New York. > Theory 1: BAMS is being annoying and trying to get you to switch. > Theory 2: BAMS and/or American Cellular switch is programmed wrong. > Try dialing *611 and see if they think that AT&T customers should be > able to roam there. Theory 3: BAMS doesn't want to deal with potential pirate activity and defaults to intercept in that area. AT&T will sometimes do that to their own customers in high-fraud areas, like in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:31:38 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: AT&T's One-Rate Plan (was Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage) Bob Keller said: > But for the *PCS* services, e.g., AT&T's One-Rate plan, to work > automatically when you are in an area where you drop back to cellular > because a PCS signal is not available for one reason or another, would > require roaming agreements between *cellular* and *PCS* carriers. I'm > just not sure how ubiquitous such inter-service roaming agreements are > at this time. Right. I think that most of the PCS carriers do this. In order to APPEAR to provide ubiquitious service, in spite of their limited coverage, they provide their customers with dual mode (CDMA/AMPS or TDMA/AMPS) dual band (1800/800 MHz) handsets, and strike roaming agreements with the cellular carriers. When the phone can't find its native digital service at 1800 MHz, it acts like an analog roamer at 800 MHz. And this can be true even if you are in your home area. If your PCS phone is like mine (Sprint/Sony). the way to avoid those high roaming charges is to not use it if the "Roam" indicator is on, and thet "Digital" indicator is off. BTW -- My CELLULAR (800 MHz) carrier (Airtouch) offers a pretty good flat rate premium plan in which all airtime in ANY digital (CDMA) service area counts against your basic plan home area airtime, NOT as roaming. Works very well for me as I am often travelling in east coast urban areas where this is the case. They also sometimes act as their own toll carrier. -- Best -- Dr. Arthur Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Phone: 602-371-9708 Fax : 602-336-7074 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:13 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Who Invented the Telephone? With Microsoft Encarta, it Depends Here's a snippet of a {Wall Street Journal} article that MSNBC carried this morning, at http://www.msnbc.com/news/283586.asp Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia has different facts for different folks: Kevin J. Delaney THE WALL STREET JOURNAL June 25 Who invented the telephone? Microsoft Corp. Encarta multimedia encyclopedia on CD-ROM has an answer to that simple question. Rather, two answers. CONSULT THE U.S., U.K., or German editions of Encarta and you find the expected one: Alexander Graham Bell. But look at the Italian version and the story is strikingly different. Credit goes to Antonio Meucci, an impoverished Italian-American candlemaker who, as the Italian- language Encarta tells it, beat Bell to the punch by five years. Who's right? It depends on where you live. [See the rest of the article at http://www.msnbc.com/news/283586.asp - it gives several other examples of how Microsoft Encarta interprets the "facts" differently in different parts of the world. One kind of gets the notion that any devotion to truth or accuracy flies right out the window when faced with a potential loss of sales.] Jack (Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who invented the phone, along with dozens of other essays, pictorials, sounds, and links dealing with telephones are now available in our new exhibit, 'Tribute to the Telephone' by David Massey. It officially opens this weekend, and I hope all Digest readers will visit: http://telecom-digest.org/tribute **Allow a lot of time, it is a large, 'museum size' presentation with hours of reading and viewing. Let me know how you like it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #168 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 25 22:35:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA04467; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:35:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:35:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199906260235.WAA04467@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #169 TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jun 99 22:35:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls (Mike Pollock) Re: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? (J.F. Mezei) Re: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US (Michael J. Kuras) Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Charmed Star's Mom Fights Internet Porn (Lisa Hancock) Re: DoubleClick Deal Irks Privacy Advocates - a Fix (Dave O'Shea) Re: "Name That Domain" Contest (Seymour Dupa) Re: Cell Phone Call Tracing Question (Seymour Dupa) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, 25 Jun 1999 14:15:30 PDT From: Mike Pollock Subject: More Mischief on the Net! Hackers Netcast Phone Calls W I R E D N E W S Private Lives Laid Bare on Net by James Glave Voices drift through the ether, over cell phones, from somewhere in Vancouver, British Columbia. In a heavy working-class Canadian accent, a man says good morning to his girlfriend, who is half asleep. She asks him if there's any coffee left. Neither is aware that a hacker known only as DwC is capturing their words with a Bearcat BC200XLT scanner, and netcasting their intimate chat live onto the Internet with Shoutcast, a streaming MP3 service. "I think it is an intrusion," said David Jones, director of Electronic Frontier Canada, a group that seeks to preserve free expression in the digital age. Because the man and his girlfriend are using older cellular phones that transmit over radio frequencies without encryption, the conversation can be easily intercepted. Normally such calls can only be heard by someone using a modified scanner, but DwC has taken their conversations to a wider audience all over the world. "[The callers] are using out-of-date technology [and the hacker is] broadcasting it like a radio program," said Jones. "But it is not a radio program. It is a private conversation." And that could land the anonymous netcaster in jail. Section 184 of The Criminal Code of Canada states that anyone found guilty of intercepting cellular phone calls "maliciously or for gain" can be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison. Jones said that while Section 183 says that calls made on analog cell phones, or via "radio-based telephone communication" are not considered a "private communication," DwC may still be violating the law under Section 184 by using the intercepted conversations maliciously. Neither the Vancouver Police Department nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could be reached for comment. British Columbia has an Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but that department only oversees the privacy of public bodies, and not individuals. The conversations are private, but mundane -- DwC's digital sieve catches the tedium of everyday life. One person gripes about why his insurance won't cover stolen scuba gear. A man on his way to work chats with his sleepy girlfriend. Then there's restaurant reservations, drug deals, someone complaining about her bowel obstruction. Some are intimate, others are disturbing. "He was having financial problems and he hung himself in his garage yesterday," said one voice. "How old was he?" "Fortyish." While the chatter runs in the background, a group of streaming MP3 enthusiasts listens in on an Internet Relay Chat channel. The cyber peanut gallery at times creates a bizarre interplay between reality and the group of technically sophisticated voyeurs. As a woman on a technical support cell call coaches a friend on how to plug in her keyboard, the voyeurs in the channel chime in with their own smart-aleck advice. Only they can hear it. One young audiophile said he couldn't resist the voyeuristic thrill. "I think he's trying to prove that we can't be ignorant to the people listening to the scanners," said the chatter, who described himself as an 18-year-old high school student from Toronto. "It's like it's in the air: You can't stop the waves from going through your body; why not listen to it?" For David Jones, the answer is to junk analog cell phones in favor of more secure digital PCS phones. "We should all have digital cell phones that have strong crypto. It wouldn't matter if we are broadcasting encrypted voice because it would be indecipherable. "Strong crypto keeps out the cops, it keeps out the reporters, and it keeps out this punk in Vancouver who is getting his jollies." ------- Related Story --------- Cell-Phone Calls Streamed on Net by Chris Oakes You can hear almost anything on the Internet these days -- maybe even your own phone conversations. America Online said Thursday morning that it was investigating Internet broadcasts of private cell-phone conversations captured with private scanner hardware and streamed out over the Net through its Shoutcast service. Shoutcast lets anyone with an Internet connection deliver any one of dozens of audio feeds of their choice. Basement netcasters the world over use MP3-encoded audio streams to channel home-brewed broadcasts to users of MP3 playback software in real time. "If you listen for a while, you'll hear credit card numbers, phone numbers, addresses, and all kinds of information I'm sure the people on the cell phones don't want the entire Internet to know," said Thomas Edwards, founder of webcasting company The Sync. "The legal implications are significant." Edwards said he's heard what sound like both wireless phone and cell-phone conversations. The cell-phone conversations are typically interrupted every two minutes as cellular providers change a call's radio frequency, he said. The conversations could be heard on the Shoutcast home page at Nullsoft, the company hosting the service, as recently as Wednesday night. But Thursday morning, no feeds with titles indicating a cell-phone conversation were listed. Nullsoft parent company America Online said the company was made aware of the issue only Thursday morning and began investigating. "We want to act responsibly and swiftly so when information comes to our attention that a user has posted information that could be unlawful, we're going to review it, and if necessary, remove it," said AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose. As of Thursday morning, the company had not yet removed any feeds from the Shoutcast site. A system monitor running on the Shoutcast site at the same time detected 2,357 people listening to 569 active servers. Telecommunications law generally removes Internet service providers from liability for information sent through a service's network. Legal cases have also established the provider as a conduit, or common carrier. End users, and not the network provider, are liable for illegal or libelous information. Edwards said he checks into Shoutcast every two weeks and had only just begun to notice the cell-phone conversations. He says it may be that most of the feeds show up late at night. In policy and disclaimer material on the Shoutcast site, Nullsoft takes a hands-off stance on content fed through its site. "Nullsoft, Inc. is not responsible for the content of what is broadcast below. Nullsoft, Inc. believes in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and will not review or censure any broadcast. Nullsoft, Inc. maintains no responsibility for the content of any broadcast." Nullsoft also publishes WinAmp, the popular MP3 player for listening to Shoutcast and MP3-based music files. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Who Really Needs a Cell Phone on the Amazon? Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:12:45 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: > So what's Iridium's Plan B? Wired's Joanna Glasner says it will target > tough guys. Think Will Steger or the guy Bruce Willis played in > "Armageddon": roughnecks on oil derricks or the disaster-relief crowd. > Maybe the next Jane Goodall. I am afraid that I agree. I think that Iridium wasted way too much time in making itself affordable. In countries such as Canada and Australia, Iridium has a very strong chance to increase its subscriber numbers in industrial applications. While cycling in Australia's Western Australia state, I found heaps of prospectors working for weeks in remote areas and they had bulky sat-phones (telstra) and all were aware of Iridium but said that nobody could afford an Iridium phone. Prospectors in Canada's north (especially near Yellowknife where there is now diamond mine) would also use such phones. Also, once you make Iridium affordable, you start to dig into the adventure-vacation market. I would have used an Iridium phone had it been affordable in my last cycling trip across australia so I could have downloaded data from ANYWHERE. (And also as a safety measure in case something happened to me). With the lower rates, Iridium becomes an alternative to the expensive HF radios used in australia's outback on 4wd vehicles (required to call the flying doctor or police in emergencies). I think that Iridium has no choice now but to lower its rates. It has only until June 30th to convince creditors not to force it into bankrupcy, and it obviously had not succeeded with its "plan A" so it had no choice but to start to show momentum and make a new plan that the bankers/creditors willknow to give it another chance. Another aspect: With its lower rates, perhaps Iridium can replace Inmarsat and thus start to get lost of "ship" subscribers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:53:05 EDT From: Michael J Kuras Subject: Poor Cell Phone Coverage in the US John Benedetto wrote: > Is it a digital phone? Many of the new digital sets can and are being > programmed with a combination of "favored" "friendly" or "negative" > SIDs. Some phones, after registering on a network with a negative SID > (even where there is plenty of signal), will show no signal once they > see the SID and have been programmed to ignore it. So the signal is > really there, but the phone is told to ignore this. Most analog > phones don't do this, they will simply find the strongest signal on > the A or B band (whatever the phone is defaulted to) This is apparantly a VERY important issue to the carriers. I just upgraded to a new dual-mode phone (Startac 7760- very nice, BTW) and the Bell Atlantic sales drone told me that they were just finishing a promotion where they offered customers with 1-2 year old dual modes a NEW digital phone for free. The new phones, he said, had a firmware update which would force them to use the cheapest carrier available. So it was worth it to Bell Atlantic to give away new phones simply to adjust its roaming parameters. Wow. Must be a BIG disparity between roaming agreements. (funny- you'd think something as simple as this would be flash upgradeable, either by bringing it in or even over the air ...) On a side note, he seemed very unhappy that I chose the 1600-minute- anywhere-in-the-US-for-$169 plan. He admitted that they lose money on that deal and are instructed to persuade the customer to choose a different plan. This was after I caught him in three lies in as many minutes as he tried to do so. Fortunately, I did my research beforehand and knew exactly what I needed. (Now if they'd only get CDMA data online...) michael j kuras finger for pgp key mkuras@ccs.neu.edu ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Death of GSM in Washington D.C. Date: 24 Jun 1999 21:08:08 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: >>> The rest of the world was already well into GSM while North America >>> was still rolling out AMPS analog services. Who was ahead of whom????? >> Bzzzt. Thank you for playing. AMPS was designed and first built in >> the *1970s*. > AMPS is old news. Countries such as Australia are already reducing Which is relevant to the above quoted exchange how? You've constructed a straw man argument, in which you can flog North American network operators for so long as _any_ AMPS equipment is installed _anywhere_. Of course, the fact that initial AMPS rollouts in major cities were in the early 1980s, and that the system was designed in the 1970s, is not appropriate clothing for your straw man, so you ignore it. The world was not "well into GSM" in 1983; GSM did not exist! But in your looking-glass world, being the first to deploy _any_ type of cellular system (along with NTT in Japan, as another poster pointed out) is somehow a sign of technical backwardness... > their AMPS network capacity because their GSM networks have replaced > them in many areas. This is, of course, also the case in the United States. One hears more than occasional complaints from AMPS users in some areas because legacy AMPS carriers have converted so much equipment and bandwidth over to PCS of one form or another. This is a worldwide trend. > Remember that North America was very late in the game in adopting > digital telephony. You must have some wacky definition of "digital" or "telephony" or "digital telephony". AFAIK (and in this forum, I'm quite sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong) the Bell System was the first carrier in the world to deploy digitized trunk circuits; a friend and coworker of mine holds the patent on the first electronic signaling termin