From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 19:49:41 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA18526; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910242349.TAA18526@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #501 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 99 19:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 501 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Travel Report: Saint Martin/Sint Maarten and Hurricane Jose (Linc Madison) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Dennis Metcalfe Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Dr. Doright) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (laura@redconnect.net) Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? (Linc Madison) Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today (Orin Eman) Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today (Danny Burstein) Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service (Mickey & Renee Ferguson) Re: St. Louis City Central Offices (Ray Hearn) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:53:56 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Travel Report: Saint Martin/Sint Maarten and Hurricane Jose I just returned from a week's trip to the Caribbean island of Saint Martin/Sint Maarten. First of all, no, I will NEVER AGAIN go to the Caribbean during hurricane season. The first half of the week was beautiful, with sun and beach and just the occasional cloudburst in the afternoon. Then Hurricane Jose came along and just sort of sat there, raining on us. Saint Martin wasn't as hard hit as Saint Barthelemy (or St. Bart's for short), and our hotel suffered very little damage (one small roof section of one building and two plate-glass patio doors, but a grand total of only about three rooms affected, plus some flooding, as much as knee deep in a few rooms), so it was mostly just a nuisance as it turned out, but it was a BIG nuisance. We lost electricity for about 16 hours, but the water and telephone continued working. I was quite surprised that the telephones worked in the rooms, since they're on a PBX, but I guess it was a high enough priority to have some sort of backup power of its own. The island of St. Martin is a bit of an oddity politically. It's only about 47 square miles -- slightly smaller than the city of San Francisco -- but it has been divided for centuries between the French and the Dutch; hence the two spellings. The French side is a part of the Departement d'Outre Mer (DOM) of Guadeloupe, meaning that it is every bit as much a part of France as Paris or Bordeaux. It isn't a territory with some lesser status. The Dutch side is part of the Netherlands Antilles, which are semi-autonomous in a compact with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The French side uses the French Franc, and soon the Euro, but the Dutch side uses the Netherlands Antilles Florin, which is tied at an exact NAF 1.78 : US $1.00 exchange, making it approximately the same as a Dutch Guilder. Both sides accept the US dollar for almost all transactions (and indeed most often quote prices in dollars), which is a good thing, since neither side accepts the other side's money. Go figure. The only international airport is on the Dutch side, although more than half of the island (by land area) is French. The hotel where I stayed is on the French side, so that's the only place I really got to see how the phones work. Payphones are identical to the ones used elsewhere in France, using the same "smart chip" phone cards. (Indeed, the card I bought in Paris worked in St. Martin.) The tariffs are a bit strange, though. Calling from French St. Martin or St. Barthelemy, calls within those 1-1/2 islands cost 23 centimes/minute at normal rate, 11 centimes at reduced rate. Calls to the rest of Guadeloupe are 0.91 (0.47), calls to the Dutch side of Sint Maarten are 1.44 (1.23), calls to the mainland of France are 2.39 (1.63), the US (lower 48 only) and Canada are 3.11 (2.47). Rate periods (for all calls) are peak rate 0800 to 1900 Monday through Friday and 0800 to 1200 on Saturdays; reduced rate all other times. Calls to other Caribbean islands fall into two charge groups: Saba (Neth. Antilles), Sint Eustatius (N.A.), Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, and the British Virgin Islands, are charged at FF3.48 (FF2.76 reduced rate). Aruba (N.A.), Bonaire (N.A.), Curacao (N.A.), Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos, and U.S. Virgin Islands, are charged at 6.35 (5.02). It costs more to call the local airport than to call Guadeloupe, several islands away. It also costs far more to call Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands than to call Nunavut. Calls to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Marianas Islands, are a whopping 10.25 francs peak, 8.10 francs off-peak, the same charge band as Angola, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Bhutan, Cambodia, North Korea, Eritrea, Iraq, Mongolia, Nauru, Niue, Uzbekistan, Tuvalu, or Vietnam, among others. Among countries that are CHEAPER to call than those parts of the U.S.: Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia, Chile, South Korea, Kazakhstan, Libya, and the Ukraine. The only countries listed that are more expensive to call are Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Micronesia, Western Sahara, and Tokelau, with rates of 22.13 FF/minute (except Western Sahara at 17.71) with no reduction for off-peak. Rates for services like INMARSAT aren't listed. (Current exchange rate is about 6 FF to US $1.) There used to be local dialing rules for calls between Saint Martin and Sint Maarten, but they have been abolished, at least from the French side. You now must dial 00 + 599 + 5 + NXXXX to call Sint Maarten. I still saw instructions to dial 06 + NXX.XXX for calls from the Dutch side to the French side, but then again, I still saw instructions to dial 3 + NXXXX or 19 + (tone) + 599 + 5 + NXXXX for the reverse call, and both of those methods are no longer allowed. The information regarding dialing codes in the directory is woefully outdated, or just plain inaccurate. Most of the new area codes for the NANP Caribbean are not reflected; only St. Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago show their new codes. In the U.S., AL AZ AR CT MD MS NV SC and UT are all shown as single codes. Further, we have things like Oakland CA 213 (Los Angeles not listed!), Miami FL 407, Orlando FL 305, Evanston IL 312, Elizabeth NJ 201, Flint MI 313, Columbus GA 404, Allentown PA 215 (along with Bethlehem, Chester, Easton, Haverford, and Reading), and San Antonio TX 512. In Canada, NWT and Yukon are still shown as 403, and the 250, 780, and 450 area codes are not mentioned. Best of all, the entire state of Mississippi is in area code 406. MS, MT, what's the difference?? Anyway, that's your telecom report from the heart of Hurricane Jose. Linc Madison * * San Francisco, California [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for checking in with us, and we are glad *you* got back in one piece at least. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:26:18 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:07:07 GMT, tinikins@my-deja.com wrote: > First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the > payroll at the site in Maryland. You are not the only cardholder who > has had their account double-debited. Call back and DEMAND that you are > able to take a cash advance on your credit card for the money, it is > possible and they WILL waive all the fees. Also try and do a balance > transfer to another company because FUSA is going under. There is an > article in the Kiplinger Financial Magazine this month. > The FUSA company is going under so PLEASE take my advice and get out > before it is too late. To date there are five class action lawsuits > against FUSA. The president of the company Dick Vague has disappeared > from site, and retired ... > Good luck, I hope it all works out for you. You can also file a > complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, they have a site on the > net and a complaint form on line. Aha! More than a week ago I got a notice from First USA that one of my user names had been denied a credit card because of an insufficient credit file. Since I had NEVER applied for credit from these guys and since that user name happens to belong to my deceased dog, I sent an e-mail demanding to know who had attempted to secure a credit card in that name (had to have come off some web site) ... they have not responded to my inquiry. I was going to press this but having read the comments above, I can see I would be wasting my time. I am still annoyed that some d*mned web site attempted something like this ... if I knew which one pulled that stunt, I would file a complaint with the appropriate regulatory body or enforcement agency. Gee, and people wonder why I am a bit cagey about filling out on-line forms ... heh Dennis Metcalfe [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hopefully in the next day or so I will be able to announce some MAJOR enhancements to the anonymous postoffice feature here, including anonymous Usenet postings and anonymous remail as well as the existing secret-surfer function. Hopefully when I have it all finished, the web sites and spammers who like to collect names, fill in credit applications and whatever will have even less to go with than they do now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dr. Doright Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:05:06 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , tinikins@my-deja. com wrote: > First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the > payroll at the site in Maryland. You are not the only cardholder who > has had their account double-debited. Call back and DEMAND that you are > able to take a cash advance on your credit card for the money, it is > possible and they WILL waive all the fees. Also try and do a balance > transfer to another company because FUSA is going under. There is an > article in the Kiplinger Financial Magazine this month. > The FUSA company is going under so PLEASE take my advice and get out > before it is too late. To date there are five class action lawsuits > against FUSA. The president of the company Dick Vague has disappeared > from site, and retired ... > Good luck, I hope it all works out for you. You can also file a > complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, they have a site on the > net and a complaint form on line. That's certainly an alarming statement. First USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank One (NYSE symbol ONE). There have been problems and a management restructuring. You can go to Yahoo - Financial and enter the symbol, ONE, to read the news. Bank One is profitable and I have serious doubt that they would let First USA "go under". I have a First USA card and pay online and have had no difficulty. However I do pay the full balance. It might be extra hard for them to explain a charge to my account when I owe nothing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Bank One is not very stable either. And if you saw the dreadful condition of their web site and the total lack of security where their 'online banking' is concerned, you would be alarmed at that also. You knew I assume that to get into any of their deep pages with customer account records or to do transactions, you merely have to cut-and-paste on the URL line of your browser. The 'security' on their front page where one might usually enter the site consists of some real cheezy script that any experienced hacker could get through. I think in their merger with First Chicago several months ago, some things got badly messed up. The customers of First Chicago got locked out entirely for a couple weeks in the beginning, then when that was supposedly cleared up people began noticing all these flaky little things in the web site. We've known First Chicago was in bad shape for a few years now, sadd- led with a lot of bad debt, etc. The hint came when First Chicago started adding an extra day's clearing time (meaning an extra day of float in their favor) on wire transfers and their own cashier's checks. The merger with Bank One was supposed to prop them up a little, but I think it only made matters worse at Bank One, which has not been extremely heathly for a few years now itself. I would be very reluctant to get involved with either of them or their subsidiaries right now. You might take a bad hit yourself if they decide to start service-charging every dollar that they can get. It sounds like FUSA is already fighting to stay alive. You don't really know, but its possible Bank One got hit severely with fraud via their online banking, which is also where credit card applications are filled out and submitted. PAT] ------------------------------ From: laura@redconnect.net Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 22:47:17 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com NEVER let a company take payment automatically from your checking account, especially for a one time payment. Your consent will make it an ongoing thing. It's very hard to get them to stop and the bank is almost no help. I had to close my checking account (at Fleet) to stop it. First USA sucks, I had a card with them for 9.9% and they raised it to 21% because they claim I was late with one payment. The check was cashed two days before due date and it was posted to my account two days afterward. I called them and even faxed them a copy of the check to no avail. I spoke to a supervisor and told them I'm not paying 21% for anything and if they don't lower my APR back to 9.9% I will transfer it to another card (I get low APR transfer offers at least once a week) and close the account. He said "Well, we reveiw accounts every six months and ..." I told them to close the account. That was two months ago and I still get mail from them for 2.9% balance transfers. >> When I called FirstUSA today, all the woman would tell me, reading >> from a script, is "First USA is aware of the problem and is making >> corrections". She refused to answer if FirstUSA would handle the $50 >> bounced check fee from my bank. And conveniently her supervisor is >> out at lunch. >> Anyone else have any problems with online payments with First USA? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So it sounds like Bank One and FUSA have already started stalling for time on daily transactions while they try to build up some reserves. Push through charges to customer accounts as quickly as possible, including service charges, but take as long as possible to apply credits or payments to the same accounts. Deny the customer as much of the float as you can while increasing your own float by a day or two day's worth. It is an old gimmick banks have used for years when they started to get in a little trouble. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:14:49 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US? In article , L. Winson wrote: > Not that long ago, a small town in the U.S. might only require sub- > scribers to dial only five digits on local calls instead of the normal > seven. (People did have a seven digit number for outsiders to reach > them.) > I wonder how many places, if any, still have this? The town of Goliad, Texas, (361) 645-nxxx where n=2/3/8, had 5D local dialing for many, many years, but they had to give it up just a few years ago when the local calling area was dramatically expanded to include not only the whole of Goliad County, but also the nearby city of Victoria and other nearby towns. > Another short cut feature was that people in live near an area > code border (even a state border) needed to dial only seven digits > to call the adjacent exchange in a different area code. That feature still exists in many places, but fewer and fewer with each passing year. The last major city with such an arrangement was Kansas City, which is currently phasing out 7D FNPA local calling due to the shortage of prefixes. ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today Date: 24 Oct 1999 21:27:16 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting point. I wonder what *they* > intend to do with all the email addresses they collect as a result? > One thing of course, to make their plan work, is they will have to > supply the database to spammers in order that spammers can comply > with the law about not sending email where it is not wanted. Do you The could do it the way the WA state database works. You ask the database whether an address is present in it. That's all you can do. There is no way of getting the entire database. Of course, it's a bit of a pain to do a rather slow web page based lookup for each email address they have, so the spammers don't usually bother. There is more information at http://www.wa.gov/ago/junkemail/ Orin. Yes, my address is registered. ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today Date: 23 Oct 1999 22:03:25 -0400 >> The Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 1999, written and cosponsored >> by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico), would have the Federal >> Communications Commission create and maintain the list and would [snip] > So why is it that when Congress finally gets around to doing something, > they main thing it seems to do is collect even more information about > law-abiding citizens? [snip] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting point. I wonder what *they* > intend to do with all the email addresses they collect as a result? > One thing of course, to make their plan work, is they will have to > supply the database to spammers in order that spammers can comply > with the law about not sending email where it is not wanted. Actually, there's a very simple and elegant answer to this which will satisfy all the privacy concerns. All an ISP needs to do is market itself as a, for want of a better term, spam-free service. Then, if the FCC agrees, it simply tells the Federales that the _entire_ domain is on the spam-free list. Of course, if the FCC doesn't agree to this, the alternative is for the ISP to write a very short program which sends a list to the FCC of _all_ its current _AND POTENTIAL_ customers, i.e. one starting with "aaaaaaaa", "aaaaaaab" .... and ending with "zzzzzzz". Hmm, that would be 26*26*26... a pretty large number. But wait, there's MORE! Some systems allow longer names, some differentiate between upper and lower case, and most let you use numbers and other characters. So ... let's say a 15 character field, with 26 Upper and 26 lower case letters, ten numbers, and ten misc characters. So ... that would be 72 to the 15th power, or, hmm ... a number even bigger than Donald Trump's ego. Which would certainly be a bit annoying to anyone needing to check against it. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 19:00:14 -0700 From: Mickey & Renee Ferguson Subject: Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service I am in the market to buy a cellular phone, and I hope I can tap into the wisdom of the good netizens at comp.dcom.telecom. I purchased a phone to be hooked up to Pacific Bell's PCS service, since they had the best coverage and plans for my needs. (Background: I live in Temecula, CA, about an hour north of San Diego and an hour east and south of Los Angeles. Our local phone service is provided by GTE.) When I tried to activate the phone, they (Pac Bell) told me that they could provide a phone number that was listed as "Anaheim/Temecula" at (909) 265-xxxx. Well, Anaheim is about 50 miles from Temecula, and certainly not a local phone call. I find out that GTE apparently has not given Pac Bell any phone numbers that provide local phone call access (meaning a local call from home, for example, to the cell phone's number). I find it very hard to believe that the FCC (or whoever allocates blocks of numbers) would allow GTE to prevent Pac Bell from having any numbers that have local dialing access. Pac Bell is supposed to be able to provide service to all of Southern California. But the Temecula-Murrieta area has a population of nearly 100,000. Not exactly a small area. Is GTE playing fair with Pac Bell? Or am I getting wrong information? Any help anyone can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Mickey & Renee Ferguson Renee.Ferguson@iname.com and MickeyF@iname.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: Ray Hearn From: Ray Hearn Subject: Re: St. Louis City Central Offices Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 05:36:44 -0500 I live in the Flanders CO area of South St Louis City.( 832, Vernon, 481, Hudson, 351,352,353 Flanders) The CO is located at Eichelberger and January. I have been requesting the timeframe that DSL will be available in my area from every company who puts up a DSL billboard and the answer is always the same, second quarter of 2000. I'm sure that all of the City areas will be served long behind the County locations that are considered more affluent. Ray Michael A. Chance wrote in message news:telecom19.499.20@telecom-digest.org: > SBC has been rolling out DSL service in the St. Louis metro area, but > currently the only central office in the City of St. Louis proper to > get the upgrades is the Chestnut office, located in the old Southwest- > ern Bell headquarter building at 1010 Pine St., and serving the > downtown area. No time frame has been given for when the rest of the > city might get DSL capability. (A good portion of the suburban area > already has DSL access.) > There's a lot of folks that would be interested in DSL if it were > available, but they're mostly located in a few areas of the City. So, > knowing which central offices area serving those areas would help in > focusing the lobbying efforts to get DSL access. > I know that the Prospect office is on S. Grand near Tower Grove Park, > and serves the near southside area (I live about five blocks from it). > There's the Flanders central office somewhere in in the South City > area, but I don't know the location of that one. I'm guessing that > there's two to four more central offices located in the City proper, > but I have no idea which ones or where they're located. > Any Southwestern Bell central office or outside plant folks out there > that could fill in the missing locations? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #501 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Oct 24 21:19:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA21928; Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:19:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910250119.VAA21928@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #502 TELECOM Digest Sun, 24 Oct 99 21:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 502 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toronto's New Area Code (Linc Madison) Re: NPA-NXX Listings (Linc Madison) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Ed Ellers) Re: Watergate and Telecom (Ed Ellers) Qualcomm Q-Phone (T.R. Cox) TTI City Tax Outside of City Limits (Jay Hennigan) Brasilian Caller ID Delivery (Luiz de Barros) Definition For Telecom? (Mika Kristian Muller) Re: Local Cable Competition (Coredump) Re: Local Cable Competition (John Shaver) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Ryan Tucker) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) (Jonathan Seder) Re: Cellphones & Gas Stations (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (L. Winson) Visual Voice 5.0 Questions (Bender of Minds) Schematics Need For Old French Phone (Paul Marchese) Public Service Announcement: Awareness is Important (Cindy Freeman) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:29:38 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code In article , wrote: > As you maybe aware Toronto's new area code will be 647. Bell Canada > has said that this area code will be an overlay however many people > here do not like this plan and want an area code split. Several > proposals have been made to split the city of Toronto's area code they > include: > 1. The districts of East York, York, and Toronto retaining the 416 > area code, and the districts of Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough > moving to the new area code. Bad plan. Divides the city very unevenly. The EY/Y/T side has far more numbers than the E/NY/S side. Also, where do you put the wireless numbers? > 2. A split straight down Yonge Street. The West end of the city > getting one code, and the east end another. Messy plan. Yonge Street cuts right through the heart of the city. Also, again, where do you put the wireless numbers? > 3. A wireless overlay, that is cells, pcs, pagers moving to the new > area code. This will free up many numbers for land phone usage. And golly gosh, you don't have to ask the FCC for permission! However, be careful you don't overestimate the number of wireless numbers. You could annoy a lot of people if you tout this as a cure-all and then wind up having to introduce another landline area code a year and a half later. > Bell has said that the new area code will be in effect in 2001. I have > noticed that I can dial numbers within 416 as 10-digit numbers, as I do > to reach 905 numbers. Yup. They introduced permissive 10D at the time of the 416/905 split, but didn't tout it much. > Another thing I have noticed is that as soon as I enter 647 (three > digits only!!!) I get a fast busy signal. Is this usual?? (b.t.w. > I use Sprint for local, not Bell.) Pretty common. The switch knows that there are no possible valid numbers that begin with 647, so you must be misdialing. It's the same principle as my local phone switch stopping me as soon as I dial, for instance, 011-699 (a nonexistent country code) or 994 (a prefix that doesn't exist in my area code). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:36:25 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: NPA-NXX Listings In article , Jeremy Greene wrote: > Bill Adams wrote in message news:telecom19.490.7@ > telecom-digest.org: >> Anyone know where I can get a list of NPA-NNX which list the city? >> Any help would be greatly appreciated. > Telcordia (formerly Bellcore) offers a free product on their website > that is quite detailed. It is a summary, month-by-month, of all NXX > changes. It appears that you need a PC to unzip the files. The file is "zipped," but can be read by products, including freeware, on non-Microsoft platforms. The unix "unzip" utility works just fine, as does StuffIt Expander on the Macintosh. However, the NNAG (NPA-NXX Activity Guide) only lists added, deleted, and modified prefixes. In order to get the entire listing, you have to buy the NNACL (NPA-NXX Active Code List), for a one-time cost of $150. The NNAG can be used to keep the NNACL updated, but you have to write your own script(s) to do so. > http://www.trainfo.com/tra/nnagonly.htm A better option is to get "NPA for Windows" (if you have MS-Windows or a Windows emulator on your machine). It's $35 shareware. Linc Madison * * San Francisco, California ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:42:03 -0400 L. Winson wrote: > One thing I noticed is that AT&T's later basic Touch Tone (the one > with an electronic ringer) had keys with just a tiny amount of travel > as compared to the older sets. That disastrously bad keypad was also used on the last few years' worth of 2500 sets with conventional bell ringers. Paul Wills wrote: > In the days before All Number Calling there was still an interest in > maintaining the letters on a telephone dial. A calculator layout > would have messed up the order they were presented in." I've seen a Bell Labs photo of a prototype pushbutton set that actually had the buttons, *with letters,* in the calculator layout resulting in the mixed-up letter sequence you describe. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Watergate and Telecom Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:48:22 -0400 L. Winson wrote: > I thought about going back another 25 years and what we'd find in > telecom: > 1) TV: Very rare, and no remote capability like today without > considerable pre-arrangement. No video tape capability. Extremely > bright lights required. Fine, but scratch the "extremely bright lights" -- by 1949 the industry had gone to image orthicon cameras that had very good sensitivity. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:45:38 PDT From: T.R. Cox Subject: Qualcomm Q-Phone Information Needed Hi Pat, I'm searching for some information on my new cellphone and I'd appreciate it if you could put this on the list. Thanks. I recently purchased a Qualcomm Q-Phone and related line of service from Airtouch here in Portland. I'm curious to know about any programming or test mode procedures I can use to configure the phone and/or manipulate options that Airtouch thinks I'm too stupid to fool around with. I have searched the net but I haven't found anything, does anyone out there have any information about this phone? Thanks in advance. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////\ |Thaddeus Cox = tadc@europa.com <==- Finger for standard legal disclaimer| \//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: TTI City Tax Outside of City Limits Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:08:22 GMT I recently moved and in the process PICed TTI National as my LD carrier. Good rates, apparently a subsidiary of MCI. Although my mailing address is "Santa Barbara", my service address is outside of the city limits. Santa Barbara imposes a 6% utility tax on its residents, and TTI insists on charging me this tax unless I go through several hoops to prove to them that my service address is outside of the city limits. All of my other utilities got it right and are not charging me the tax. I suspect that I'm not alone in this, and they are similarly bilking many others nationwide who are near but not in taxable areas. I've argued repeatedly with their customer service people who have told me that I need to get a letter from the Chamber of Commerce(!) to prove that I don't live in the city. A map won't do it for them. To whom do I complain? FCC? California PUC? Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For starters, begin by withholding the amount charged as municipal tax when you make your payment each month. Telcos are *not* permitted to disconnect your service or take into account any part of your bill which is tax that you refuse to'pay for whatever reason. All they are allowed to do report to the taxing authority that 'customer X refused to pay this tax'. The taxing auth- ority can then do as it pleases about it; in your case, probably nothing since you are not within their jurisdiction. But take care to read the pertinent law and make sure it refers to 'customers who are within the city limits of Santa Barbara' and *NOT* 'all customers of telcos which do business in the city of Santa Barbara', or perhaps 'tax on telcos in Santa Barbara which they are allowed to recover from all their customers', etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Luiz de Barros Subject: Brasilian Caller ID Delivery Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:33:07 +0000 Organization: Nlink Internet Provider - BRAZIL Dear All, Does anyone know where I can found information about caller ID delivery in Brasil, from Siemens Central Switches to POTS lines? The carrier told me the protocols available are MF, DTMF and MFC. Luiz ------------------------------ From: Mika Kristian Muller Subject: Definition For Telecom? Date: 24 Oct 1999 21:29:04 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, CS lab I'd need to know a definition for 'telecom', that should describe it briefly overall and state the key points how it'd different from datacom (some background for doing security analysis for datacom vs. telecom). Couldn't find one easily on web, so any link would be appreciated. Mika ------------------------------ From: coredump@NOxSPAM.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:41:47 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company On 23 Oct 1999 22:31:35 GMT, larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) wrote: >> Can anyone tell me which cities currently >> have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have >> more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience >> with that type of competition has been? > There are many such towns/suburbs in the Chicago area like that. I > live in Elgin and have Americast. Jones Cable is also in the area. I > had Jones before and switched to Americast. Jones is now ATT. (TCI bought them out in this area just before ATT bought TCI). Core coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump Footloose and Fancy Free on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:24:25 -0600 From: John Shaver Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Maybe with the purchase of the cable companies by AT&T they will not be sold as often and the rates increased each time to pay for the new company's cost in buying the cable company. ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 02:37:40 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , David Esan spewed: > There is an article in Thursday's Rochester, NY newspaper about the split > of NPA 716. You can find it at: > www.rochesternews.com/1021areacode.html Argh. If it comes down to a split, Rochester is *not* going to get to keep 716. Buffalo is simply bigger. What is it with people being so resistant to overlays? -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Seder Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 13:06:52 -0700 Organization: SyntelSoft Inc > I think the one think I get out of this whole fiasco is that more > testing needs to be done ... More than 12,000 studies have been done (from a recent Wall St Journal article), and no significant link has been found. This is simply junk science. There are problems with handheld wireless phones -- distracted motor vehicle operators and pedestrians, rude restaurant patrons -- but radiation is not a problem. ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Cellphones & Gas Stations Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:35:31 -0500 David Esan wrote: > NPR had a delightful bit on trying to track down the reason for the > cell phone ban at gas stations. The reporter tracked and tracked and > eventually found that (as reported in this newsgroup) the ban is based > on a story, later found to be untrue, about a car bursting into flame > in Indonesia. There was no scientific data, no tests to back up the > claim that this could happen. You can download the piece at > http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=10/20/1999&PrgID=2 Sounds like an entry for the TELECOM Digest Myths list. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Date: 24 Oct 1999 02:14:31 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS One thing I hate in modern telephone sets is the electronic ringers. I find their tone very irritating. They only have two volume settings (low or high), while the older sets have much more control. (Ironically a major feature of the 500 set introduced in 1950 was variable ringer volume.) I find the ringers on the older Trimline and Princess phones particu- larly pleasant. But it seems to me most phones sold today have electronic ringers. Does the general public have no preference? Do traditional ringers cost more to make than electronic ones? ------------------------------ From: mindbender6@yahoo.com (Bender of Minds) Subject: Visual Voice 5.0 Questions Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:49:15 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: mindbender6@yahoo.com Is anyone using visual voice 5.0. I have questions regarding it's use. Please contact me. Thanks, Chris ------------------------------ From: Paul Marchese Subject: Schematics Needed For Old French Phone Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:50:02 -0400 Sir, I purchased an old French rotary phone at a flea market, and I am looking for schematics for it. I was wondering if you could tell me where I may find some. Thank you for your time. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:40:43 GMT From: Cindy Freeman Reply-To: cmf@broadcast.airwaves.com Subject: Awareness is Important [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do we have time to squeeze in a public service announcement to close this issue? I think we might. PAT] --------------- Please read this. It is not a joke, but rather about a serious subject that affects men and women. Cindy A handsome, middle aged man walked quietly into the cafe and sat down. Before he ordered, he couldn't help but notice a group of younger men at the table next to him. It was obvious they were making fun of something about him, and it wasn't until he remembered he was wearing a small pink ribbon on the lapel of his suit that he became aware of what the joke was all about. The man brushed off the reaction as ignorance, but the smirks began to get to him. He looked one of the rude men square in the eye, placed his hand beneath the ribbon and asked, quizzically, "This?". With that the men all began to laugh out loud. The man he addressed said, as he fought back laughter, "Hey, sorry man, but we were just commenting on how pretty your little ribbon looks against your blue jacket!" The middle aged man calmly motioned for the joker to come over to his table, and invited him to sit down. As uncomfortable as he was, the guy obliged, not really sure why. In a soft voice, the middle aged man said, "I wear this ribbon to bring awareness about breast cancer. I wear it in my mother's honor." "Oh, sorry dude. She died of breast cancer?" "No, she didn't. She's alive and well. But her breasts nourished me as an infant, and were a soft resting place for my head when I was scared or lonely as a little boy. I'm very grateful for my mother's breasts, and her health." "Umm", the stranger replied, "yeah". "And I wear this ribbon to honor my wife", the middle aged man went on. "And she's okay, too?", the other guy asked. "Oh, yes. She's fine. Her breasts have been a great source of loving pleasure for both of us, and with them she nurtured and nourished our beautiful daughter 23 years ago. I am grateful for my wife's breasts, and for her health." "Uh huh. And I guess you wear it to honor your daughter, also?" "No. It's too late to honor my daughter by wearing it now. My daughter died of breast cancer one month ago. She thought she was too young to have breast cancer, so when she accidentally noticed a small lump, she ignored it. She thought that since it wasn't painful, it must not be anything to worry about." Shaken and ashamed, the now sober stranger said, "Oh, man, I'm so sorry mister". "So, in my daughter's memory, too, I proudly wear this little ribbon, which allows me the opportunity to enlighten others. Now, go home and talk to your wife and your daughters, your mother and your friends. And here ..." The middle aged man reached in his pocket and handed the other man a little pink ribbon. The guy looked at it, slowly raised his head and asked, "Can ya help me put it on?" -------------------------- This is breast cancer awareness month. Do regular breast self-exams and have annual mammograms if you are a woman over the age of 45. And encourage those women you love to do the same. Please send this on to anyone you would like to remind of the importance of breast cancer awareness. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ms. Freeman is responsible for http://www.airwaves.com and the rec.radio.broadcasting newsgroup on Usenet. You are invited and encouraged to pass along this item to other places where it will be seen. And thank you very much, Cindy, for sending it here. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #502 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 25 02:13:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA01832; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:13:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910250613.CAA01832@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #503 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Oct 99 02:13:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 503 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Rule Will Protect Privacy of Children Online (Monty Solomon) Too Many Passwords (nospam) Use or Spy Any Internet/LAN PC! (Crowsort) New York Times Web Policy (Ed Ellers) Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (Mark J Cuccia) Re: Local Cable Competition (Garrett Wollman) U.S. Encryption Export Rules May be Revised (Monty Solomon) Cookies Are a Real Hassle (Gene Barnes) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:34:19 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Rule Will Protect Privacy of Children Online http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9910/childfinal.htm Effective April 2000 Certain Web Sites Must Obtain Parental Consent before Collecting Personal Information from Children The Federal Trade Commission today issued the final rule to implement the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). The main goal of the COPPA and the rule is to protect the privacy of children using the Internet. Publication of the rule means that, as of April 21, 2000, certain commercial Web sites must obtain parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. "This final step achieves one of the Commission's top goals - protecting children's privacy online," said FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky. "The rule meets the mandates of the statute. It puts parents in control over the information collected from their children online, and is flexible enough to accommodate the many business practices and technological changes occurring on the Internet." The COPPA was enacted following a three-year effort by the Commission to identify and educate industry and the public about the issues raised by the online collection of personal information from children and adult consumers. The Commission recommended that Congress enact legislation concerning children following a March 1998 survey of 212 commercial children's Web sites. The survey found that while 89 percent of the sites collected personal information from children, only 24 percent posted privacy policies and only one percent required parental consent to the collection or disclosure of children's information. The COPPA received widespread support from industry and consumer groups. On October 21, 1998, the COPPA was signed into law. The statute gave the Commission one year to issue rules to implement its privacy protections. On April 27, 1999, the Commission published a proposed rule in the Federal Register and requested public comment on a number of its key provisions. The Commission received 145 comments from a variety of sources including Internet businesses, privacy and children's advocacy groups, technology companies, and individuals. The statute and rule apply to commercial Web sites and online services directed to, or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13. To inform parents of their information practices, these sites will be required to provide notice on the site and to parents about their policies with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of children's personal information. With certain statutory exceptions, sites will also have to obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from children. The rule will become effective on April 21, 2000, giving Web sites six months to come into compliance with the rule's requirements. The issue of how Web sites can obtain "verifiable parental consent" generated the most interest among the commenters and prompted the Commission to hold a workshop devoted to the issue. The statute defines "verifiable parental consent" as "any reasonable effort (taking into consideration available technology) ... to ensure that a parent of a child ... authorizes the collection, use, and disclosure" of a child's personal information. The comments and the workshop testimony (available on the Commission's Web site) showed that certain methods of consent provide greater assurances that the person providing consent is the child's parent, but that some of these methods need additional time to develop and become available for widespread use. As noted below, the final rule temporarily adopts a "sliding scale" approach that will allow Web sites to vary their consent methods based on the intended use of the child's information. Key Provisions of the Final Rule * Privacy Notice on the Web Site A Web site operator must post a clear and prominent link to a notice of its information practices on its home page and at each area where personal information is collected from children. The notice must state the name and contact information of all operators, the types of personal information collected from children, how such personal information is used, and whether personal information is disclosed to third parties. The notice also must state that the operator is prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in an activity on the child's disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary. In addition, the notice must state that the parent can review and have deleted the child's personal information, and refuse to permit further collection or use of the child's information. * Verifiable Parental Consent The final rule temporarily adopts a "sliding scale" approach that allows Web sites to vary their consent methods based on the intended uses of the child's information. For a two-year period, use of the more reliable methods of consent (print-and-send via postal mail or facsimile, use of a credit card or toll-free telephone number, digital signature, or e-mail accompanied by a PIN or password) will be required only for those activities that pose the greatest risks to the safety and privacy of children -- i.e., disclosing personal information to third parties or making it publicly available through chatrooms or other interactive activities. For internal uses of information, such as an operator's marketing back to a child based on the child's personal information, operators will be permitted to use e-mail, as long as additional steps are taken to ensure that the parent is providing consent. Such steps could include sending a confirmatory e-mail to the parent following receipt of consent, or obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent's consent by letter or telephone call. The "sliding scale" will sunset two years after the effective date of the rule, at which time the more reliable methods would be required for all uses of information, unless the Commission determines more secure electronic methods of consent are not widely available. * Choice Regarding Disclosures to Third Parties The rule requires operators to "give the parent the option to consent to the collection and use of the child's personal information without consenting to disclosure of his or her personal information to third parties." * Online Activities for which Parental Consent is Not Required The rule sets forth several exceptions to the requirement of prior parental consent that permit operators to collect a child's e-mail address for certain purposes. For example, no consent is required to respond to a one-time request by a child for "homework help" or other information. In addition, an operator can enter a child into a contest or send a child an online newsletter as long as the parent is given notice of these practices and an opportunity to prevent further use of the child's information. * Coverage of Information Submitted Online The Federal Register notice accompanying the rule makes clear that the rule covers only information submitted online, and not information requested online but submitted offline. * Role of Schools in Obtaining Consent for Students The Federal Register notice accompanying the rule makes clear that schools can act as parents' agents or as intermediaries between Web sites and parents in the notice and consent process. * Safe Harbor Program The statute includes a "safe harbor" program for industry groups or others who wish to create self-regulatory programs to govern participants' compliance. Commission-approved safe harbors will provide Web site operators with the opportunity to tailor compliance obligations to their business models with the assurance that if they follow the safe harbor they will be in compliance with the rule. Sites participating in such Commission-approved programs will be subject to the review and disciplinary procedures provided in those guidelines in lieu of formal Commission action. * Enforcement The statute authorizes the Commission to bring enforcement actions and impose civil penalties for violations of the rule in the same manner as for other rules under the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission vote to publish the final rule in the Federal Register was 4-0. It will be published in the Federal Register shortly. Copies of the full text of the rule as well as information about the FTC's privacy initiative are available from the FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 877-FTC-HELP (877-382-4357); TDD for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. MEDIA CONTACT: Victoria Streitfeld Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2718 STAFF CONTACT: Jessica L. Rich Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-2148 Toby Milgrom Levin Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-3156 (FTC File No. 994504) (childfinal) ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) Subject: Too Many Passwords Date: 24 Oct 1999 22:28:38 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. In article , Derek Balling wrote: > Did you enter your password online so that you could login to your mail? > They saw that. Is that password the same as the password to your account > at work, as it is for 90% of all computer users? Yeah? > You just compromised your work account. As a side note, if you have too many passwords for too many distinct systems to keep track of, you might want to try Bruce Schneier's "Password Safe", it's free software that stores any number of passwords with strong encryption, protected by a single passphrase. It will also generate a new random password using a reliable random-string generation to avoid guessable passwords. http://www.counterpane.com/passsafe.html I'm just a satisfied user, I trust it because I know firsthand that some of the most paranoid network security staff in Fortune 500 companies use Password Safe to store their root passwords ... > An objective question to anyone who would use any anonymiser: Do you > know personally the person who runs it? Not only that, do you know the hosting provider, their upstream ISP, and everybody who has root or equivalent access on every system and router that is in a position to sniff traffic to and from that 'anonymizing proxy' ? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The very same argument could be and > has been made regarding anonymous remailers. 'Do you want them to > know everything you write about, who you write to, etc' and the > same thing could be said about any ISP could it not. If you knew what I know about ISPs (especially several Chicago-based ISPs) then you would not trust them. I do not trust any ISP. > They are after all, your starting point; they see your password, they see > the places you surf to, etc. Do you personally know the person(s) > who operates the ISP you use? If the answer to that is 'no', then > maybe the internet is not for you either; after all, the ISPs could > misuse the information they obtain, if they in fact bother to > correlate it and put it together in usable form. At some point or > another, each user has to decide for him/herself that 'I choose to > trust this arrangement' or 'I do not trust this arrangement'. There is one arrangment where Nobody has the ability to correlate knowledge of your online behavior -- not the ISP, not the proxy server operator, not the destination host. That is the 'Zero Knowledge' true anonymous system. It isn't free, but it is truly anonymous. > IMO, persons who operate any form of anonymous pass-thru service on > the net, either email, or web-surfing or whatever should be consid- > ered in the best possible light, that they are trying to help preserve > or restore the standards of privacy on which the net was operated for > the first ten or fifteen years. There are similar arrangments to 'Zero Knowledge' already in place for anonymous email services. > 'you cannot trust the anonymizers with your secrets' are the people who > usually have the most to gain by accurate demographics from the net, > or the most to lose with totally fictional demographics created by users > trying to hide from them. That is not entirely true. I say "You may not be able to trust anybody with your secrets", but I also say "You should not have to trust anybody with your secrets". This includes not trusting any ISP, any one proxy server, etc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd like to hear about some of your ISP stories, especially if you have clearcut evidence that the ISP has abused the net or some of his customers. Send it in confidence for review and publication here. Also, in the next day or so I plan to introduce two major privacy enhancements here at telecom-digest.org for users of the site. In addition to http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html I will be introducing two additional functions to the postoffice: Anonymous one-time email. You'll be able to send email wherever you please (one piece at a time) and it will be sent from user 'nobody'. Anonymous Usenet postings. You'll be able to send messages to any newsgroup you please, from user 'nobody' When my work is complete, hopefully a day or two from now, you'll go to http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice not only for your own anonymous email box, but also to compose your anonymous outgoing email and newsgroup messages. Then you will hand them over to Postmaster Pat for prompt delivery. I hope you will all find this new feature to be useful. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Crowsort Subject: Use or Spy any Internet/LAN PC! Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:50:54 +0200 How YOU can Hack Windows 95-98-NT... in seconds! And use or spy any PC via a LAN or the Internet... as if you were there! Platforms concerned: => Windows 95/98 => Windows NT Workstation/Server 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 => Windows 2000 Whether you are a rookie or a seasoned hacker, there are times where you want to do something RAPIDLY. Some of us worked a lot to enhance password cracking but we have to recognize that if passwords have been carefully chosen, it still takes a lot of TIME. Others are using well-known security holes in NT but we also have to recognize that the ways to use those security breaches are not easy and it also takes TIME to understand and to implement them. There is a way to get all the passwords of *any* version of Windows INSTANTLY. There is a way to control a distant machine 'as if you were there'. Netbus and BO2K were good attempts, I used them for months, but despite of what their authors said, using it every day is difficult and frustrating enough to disgust lazy guys like me ... the fact that I cannot see the distant screen in real-time is really frustrating! A friend demonstrated me RA. RA (Remote-Anything) is THE solution you were looking for: it shows in real-time the distant desktop (like PC-Anywhere and other MB-based commercial products) BUT the server (the program you install on the PC you want to control) is **80 KB** long ... You can install it remotely by using the buffer overflows of Outlook Express or IE4 or simply by sending it as an Email attachment! Better than that: once installed, it does not show in the Task-List, can't be discovered or killed with CTRL-ALT-DEL! Once you poisoned PCs on a LAN, no need to remember which ones: RA is able to find automatically available PCs and displays IP addresses and DNS Names! Just click on one of them to be connected! And it is so fast that you can see any animation playing on the distant PC in real-time! All this from one unique tool! ____________________________________________________ Here are some of the functions I picked-up from RA's Doc: o Connect to a new desktop: opens the Connection Dialog Box which allows you to open a new window on a new Desktop (you can watch multiple Desktops at a time). o Monitor only: will toggle the passive-monitoring and active-control modes (active monitoring allows you to type keys and move the mouse on the distant PC while passive monitoring will only allow you to watch only). o Full screen: will enter the full-screen mode. You can exit it by typing CTRL+ESC and then right-clicking the Master's task bar icon to come back to the windowed mode. o Remove wallpaper on distant desktop: is useful to minimize the amount of data sent over the network. It always speeds up a connection. o Start Screen Saver: is useful when you want to leave the desktop with a screensaver running: when Remote-Anything moves the mouse cursor on a Slave desktop, it stops the screensaver if it was running. With this option, you can immediately run the screensaver (use this option with the keyboard shortcut to avoid moving the mouse in active mode or switch to passive monitoring to activate this menu option with the mouse). If the screensaver is password protected, this is a way to lock the distant PC. o Play a Sound: will make a sound being played on the distant PC. Usually it is 'ding.wav' but it can be any sound the distant PC registered as the default sound. o Send commands: will display a Dialog Box equivalent to the Start/Run command of Windows 95. o Get Passwords of distant PC: get all the network passwords, the screensaver password, and the Applications passwords Windows has been asked to remember. o Lockup distant PC: Hangs the distant PC which will need to be restarted manually. o Reboot distant PC: will immediately send the order to reboot to the distant PC, this will disconnect you from this Desktop but you can reconnect once the distant Windows session is active again. o Shut Down distant PC: will shut down the distant PC if it supports shut down. You will be disconnected. _____________________________________________________ o How does it work? It is as simple as using Windows 98 itself: move the mouse, type keys, the distant PC will do everything you want! It works over LANs and the Internet! o Where can I get it? At the moment, you can get it from: http://www.twd-industries.com You'll have to pay a small fee to the authors to get RA. I can tell you that it's worth the price: I simply did things I would never have been able to do without it. If you have access to a local network, RA will allow you to do whatever you want! This tool is so easy to use that every hacker will want it. The more you wait, the less what you can do with it will remain a secret! But as time goes, I guess it will be available from a lot of other places. Have fun! The Crowsort is back. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All very interesting, isn't it. After testing it out, please send reviews for publication here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: New York Times Web policy Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 13:53:19 -0400 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted in reply: > Generally, references to NYT items are discouraged here, because of > their policy of collecting privacy-invading data from users of their > site, and their unwillingness to share freely with the net. I would argue that what the New York Times is doing is a net *benefit* to Web users, compared to not having the material up at all. Incidentally, part of their reason for requiring registration is to limit free-of-charge access to U.S. residents. My suspicion is that they're doing this to avoid "unfairly" competing with the International Herald-Tribune, the almost legendary newspaper for Americans abroad that is now a joint venture between the Times and the Washington Post. The Post, for its part, doesn't see such a problem as their site is wide open. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Then what they should do is refuse connections to sites they do not want to service, using document- referrer, or similar techniques. Not only does the Post not see any problem, but neither do most other papers. This leads one to think NYT is more interested in collecting demographics and other- wise snooping on netizens than anything else. As to whether or not there is some benefit by having it there following registration versus not having it at all, that is a matter of opinion. There are only several hundred newspapers, a couple of wire services and a few dozen sites on the net which provide all the news you could ever want to know and more. We would not suffer a sudden dearth of news if NYT closed down their web site tomorrow, which I keep hoping they will but they probably won't. I've had some users of http://telecom-digest.org/news tell me they routinely spend at least an hour at this site each day just reading the several hundred items I have available; and guess what, not a single one of them came from NYT. If you are not getting a complete, comprehensive news report each day, with lots of stories and several audio streams to pick from, then please try the one here. Don't forget that if you go to the bottom of the front page where the several different magazines and the audio streams are listed and click on the big 'Telecom Digest' logo, you will go to a whole new page with dozens more indepth stories, photos, etc. I sort of like it, if I do say so having created it all myself. http://telecom-digest.org/news PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 19:48:36 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Reply-To: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-digit Dialing Lee Winson wrote in "Any Five Digit Dialing Left in US?": > Another short cut feature was that people in live near an area code > border (even a state border) needed to dial only seven digits to call > the adjacent exchange in a different area code. Linc Madison replied: > That feature still exists in many places, but fewer and fewer with each > passing year. The last major city with such an arrangement was Kansas > City, which is currently phasing out 7D FNPA local calling due to the > shortage of prefixes. Yes, Kansas City metro begins mandatory ten-digit for any inter-state/ NPA local calling between the Missouri side (NPA 816) and the Kansas side (NPA 913) in December this year (1999). It has been "permissive" since June (I think), but I wonder if ten-digit inter-state/NPA local dialing has been "permissive" for some time even prior to June 1999, but wasn't yet announced to the public that it could be done. I think that WITHIN the same state/NPA (i.e., local within the Kansas/913 side; local within the Missouri/816 side), it will continue to be "permissive" to dial ten-digits local in December -- and that it has already been "permissive" since June (if not earlier). Of course, if either/both the Kansas/913 side or/and the Missouri/816 side ever decide to go "overlay", then you will have MANDATORY ten-digit local dialing within the same state/NPA for any local calls within that NPA. As for other metro areas straddling a state/NPA line which still maintains seven-digit permissive dialing, I think there are several situations between Missouri and Illinois, and Iowa and Illinois - crossing the Mississippi River. But any existing local seven-digit inter-NPA/state dialing between these adjacent-state situations is to be phased out in favor of ten-digit local dialing - particularly in eastern IA / northwestern IL. The eastern Iowa 319 NPA as well as the central Iowa 515 NPA are PROBABLY going to be overlaid (along with the mandatory ten-digit local dialing) within the next few years. At this time, I _THINK_ that local calls between Cincinnati OH and Covington KY metro area are still dialable as just seven-digits. (That's all in Cincinnati Bell's territory - Cincinnati Bell for the Metro area in sw OH / northern KY / se IN, as well as Southern New England Telephone in most all of CT, are the two BOCs that AT&T never owned a majority of by 1984, the time of divestiture; these two "semi-BOCs" were treated 'specially' at the time of divestiture, and are now frequently classified as 'independent' LECs; Cincinnati Bell was _NOT_ made part of Ameritech; S.N.E.T. was _NOT_ made part of NYNEX.) The KY side (Covington KY and suburbs) will change from NPA 606 to the new NPA 859, permissive 1-Apr-2000, mandatory 1-Oct-2000. NPA 513 in (now) extreme southwestern OH (including the OH side of Cincinnati metro) split off new NPA 937 (which includes Dayton OH) back in 1996/97. But knowing how NPAs are splitting and overlaying almost every month (several per month for some months), 513 will need further relief soon. If Cincinnati Bell, BellSouth, Ameritech, and NANPA, as well as KY regulatory and OH regulatory haven't done so yet, they soon WILL have to be looking into making the local dialing between the OH and KY sides of Cincinnati Metro become 10-digits, first on a permissive basis (if it isn't already permissive - publically announced or not), and then making it mandatory, a-la- Kansas City KS/MO Metro. (Is California EVER going to get serious and logical regarding their telephone code/numbering/dialing procedures?) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: 25 Oct 1999 00:56:28 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Michael A. Chance wrote: > Can anyone tell me which cities currently have multiple cable TV > franchises (meaning that most households have more than one cable TV > company to choose from) and what the experience with that type of > competition has been? Boston and Somerville both have competition. In Boston, the competitors are Cablevision (incumbent) and RCN; in Somerville, it's MediaOne (incumbent; ex-Time Warner) and RCN. In both communities, RCN also offers facilities-based telephone service. (However, the part of Boston I live in is part of the Brookline rate center, so RCN is reselling Hell Titanic dial tone instead.) RCN's business plan involves wiring only communities where multiple dwelling units make up a majority of the housing stock. Hence, Somerville was their first system in the area -- Somerville is about 85% multi-family homes (``triple-deckers'' in local parlance). They also (according to their Web page) have systems in Arlington, Newton, and Waltham. (The ringer in that list is Newton, which is mostly detached single-family homes; I'm not sure why they would have built there. I would have expected Medford and Malden to get built first.) As for how well-received it's been, I'm not sure. I don't know what RCN's take-up rate is, but here in Boston and in Somerville they're competing against incumbent carriers who have yet to offer cable modem service in those communities. On the other hand, Cablevision of Boston is a two-cable system with about twenty more channels than RCN-Boston offers -- including Durham, New Hampshire-based PBS outlet WENH-TV and several Spanish-language services. Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:29:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Encryption Export Rules May be Revised By Reuters Special to CNET News.com October 19, 1999, 4:25 p.m. PT WASHINGTON--The Clinton administration is considering relaxing export limits on computer source code for data scrambling programs, in a possible move acknowledging the growing importance of Linux, a top export official said today. http://news.cnet.com/category/0-1003-200-919920.html ------------------------------ From: Gene Barnes Subject: Cookies Are a Big Hassle Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:50:23 -0700 Pat, I was interested in anonymizer. I had been getting some PGP info from Fred and asked him about it. He said that you might be able enlighten me. I went to your web site to get informed. Is there any cost and if so, how much. Also do you know of any program that will take care of Cookies. Thanks, Gene Barnes [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have a small program I wrote to take care of the cookies that collect on my Windows 95 machine. You are welcome to adapt this for your own use. It is a batch file that runs in DOS that you call from time to time as needed. ---------cut here----------- CLS echo off echo *** IE3 *** rem ** Delete Internet Explorer 3 cookies cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\windows\cookies\*.txt deltree /y C:\windows\cookies\index.dat rem ** Delete Internet Explorer 3 Cache cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y c:\windows\Tempor~1\*.* rem ** Delete Internet Explorer 3 History cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y c:\windows\history\*.* echo *** IE4 *** rem ** Delete Internet Explorer 4 cookies and cache cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\windows\profiles\ptownson\cookies\*.* deltree /y C:\windows\profiles\ptownson\Tempor~1\*.* deltree /y C:\windows\profiles\ptownson\history\mshist*.* echo *** Netscape 3 *** rem ** Delete Netscape 3 Cookies cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\naviga~1\cookies.txt rem ** Delete Netscape 3 Cache cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\naviga~1\cache\*.* rem ** Delete Netscape 3 History cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\naviga~1\netscape.hst echo *** Netscape Communicator *** rem ** Delete Netscape 4 Cookies cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\users\patrick_townson\cookies.txt rem ** Delete Netscape 4 Cache cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\users\patrick_townson\Cache\*.* rem ** Delete Netscape 4 History cd\ PROMPT $p$g PATH C:\windows\command;C:\windows;C:\windows\co deltree /y C:\progra~1\netscape\users\patrick_townson\netscape.hst ------------------------------ Put your name where you see mine, of course, and use whichever of the routines above apply in your case, or just run them all, they go quickly. Don't forget to degfrag your disk drive now and then also. I try to do it at least once weekly. And watch for some privacy enhancements you can use on the net when I get them added to the telecom-digest.org website in the next day or so. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #503 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 25 13:00:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA21499; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 13:00:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910251700.NAA21499@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #504 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Oct 99 13:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 504 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) (Kenneth A. Becker) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Ed Ellers) Re: Local Cable Competition (Fred Goodwin) Re: Local Cable Competition (JonesMB) Re: Local Cable Competition (Robert Wiegand) Re: Local Cable Competition (Barry Margolin) Re: Local Cable Competition (Paul R. Joslin) Re: A New World Order (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Schematics Needed For Old French Phone (Jay Hennigan) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Satch) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Jay Hennigan) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Ray Normandeau) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (Ed Ellers) Re: New Rule Will Protect Privacy of Children Online (Bruce Wilson) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Tony Pelliccio) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Kenneth A. Becker Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:11:06 -0400 Organization: Wavestar Joseph Wineburgh wrote: > Snipped for brevity, please excuse me. > One further point - People have been using walike-talkies and ham > radios for years with much much higher power levels, so this is not a > new discussion... > I think the one think I get out of this whole fiasco is that more > testing needs to be done ... Joe had a very good post, but I think I do have a problem with one point (out of the many he made, with which I mostly agree): This business of walkie talkies by hams and others. The Ham Radio bands where walkie-talkes are used are mainly in the 144 MHz to 440 MHz range. The trick here has to do with wavelength. Suppose that one is running a 10 W transmitter at 144 MHz, which has a 2 meter wavelength. The distance between max E field to min E field is 1/2 wavelength, or 1 meter. The currents that flow in the human body are therefore described (roughly) by the equation I(body) = K*(Emax - Emin)/(Resistance of 1 meter of human) where K is some constant, durned if I know what it is. Now, suppose you're doing this at 900 MHz. The wavelength here is 1/3 of a meter; E min to Emax is 1/6 of a meter, and I(body) should be roughly 6 times worse for the same power level. Another way to look at this is to say that the Efield/(delta X) is six times greater for the same power level at 900 MHz vs. 144 MHz. This, by the way, is a major reason why it's reasonably safe to wander around under an 80 Meter (3.5 MHz) dipole antenna with 1000 W on it. It is also the reason why one does not approach 100 W RADARs running in the microwave region. It's not just that the microwave frequencies on that RADAR might be running at the same frequency at the H2O absorbtion frequency (a la microwave cooking): it's that enormous E field that starts enough current flowing in YOU that's the danger. Now, 900 MHz is not quite into the microwave region: However, the history of radiation limits around microwave equipment is not especially reassuring. The original limits were set based on guestimmates of the "K" value given above. By the time the "final" values were set in the middle 60's, the power levels that were "legitimate" dropped by several orders of magnitude, based upon >>injuries suffered by the microwave workers<<. Blindness, sterilization, etc.. Point: K is not a true constant, it's a strong function of frequency and other parameters. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly willing to believe that what we have here is sensationalism at work. The people over at the FCC/FDC have to be completely aware of those sterilized microwave workers, and I find it hard to believe that they'd let something this obvious slip past them. However, please don't go around bringing up handhelds and such that run at other frequencies - the >>rules change<< as the frequency changes. Ken Becker ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Health and Machines) Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:12:56 GMT In article , JSeder- nospam@syntel.com says: >> I think the one think I get out of this whole fiasco is that more >> testing needs to be done ... > More than 12,000 studies have been done (from a recent Wall St Journal > article), and no significant link has been found. > This is simply junk science. There are problems with handheld wireless > phones -- distracted motor vehicle operators and pedestrians, rude > restaurant patrons -- but radiation is not a problem. With they way the courts work it's only covering one's ass. Right now I'm taking a course called "The Legal Environment of Business". Here's what I get out of the course: a) If you really don't know - call someone who does. b) All the lawyers, judges and other legal scholars should be lined up and shot. The advent of remedies in equity has put us into a hell of a jam. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:38:13 -0400 Eric Florack wrote: > I particularly find the comment about it being the first time powerful > radio waves are emitted from a source so close to the body ... being a > veteran radio person, I have perhaps been exposed to more RF energy than > most, but I would hardly consider my experiences /rare/. (I've worked at > stations of 1,000 5,000 10,000 and 50,000 watts, over the years.) > Now, if there's such a thing as a 50,000 watt cell phone, I might be > interested. Different wavelengths have different effects. Getting close to a 600-watt source at 650 kHz may not be noticeable. Getting equally close to a 600-watt source at 2450 MHz will *cook* you. But the real question is whether a 600-*milliwatt* source at 800 or 1900 MHz is a problem. A good analogy might be to minor increases in the background gamma radiation count, caused by above-ground nuclear detonations decades ago, versus exposure to X-rays from a mammogram or a CT scan. Some people say that any unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation is to be avoided at all costs, while others believe that a very little bit won't hurt; the same argument is now taking place over the *non-* ionizing radiation involved here. > It's called lawsuit time. Just like the little slip of paper in your > toaster oven warning you not to use your shiney new toaster oven as > headgear was driven by lawsuit time. Yep, or regulation time. Ever notice that those 49 MHz "walkie-talkie" headsets have the headset wired directly to the main unit? The FCC won't allow them to use a plug and jack for the microphone, because some kid might hook up his CD player (or PC sound card) instead and play DJ. And did you know that, if anyone still made B&W TVs larger than 12 inches diagonal, they'd have to have a disclaimer that they can't display closed captions in color? ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:48:33 -0500 Michael A. Chance wrote: > Personally, I'm a little tired of TCI/AT&T being the only game in town > for cable TV, and would love to see a little free-market competition > for my business. I know that nearly all of the current cable TV > franchises are exclusive to one provider ... Actually, Federal law prohibits exclusive cable franchises. Fred Goodwin, CMA Associate Director -- Technology Program Management SBC Technology Resources, Inc. 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor, Austin, TX 78759 fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com (512) 372-5921 (512) 372-5991 fax ------------------------------ From: JonesMB Reply-To: JonesMB Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:45:05 -0500 >> Can anyone tell me which cities currently have multiple >> cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have >> more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the >> experience with that type of competition has been? > There are many such towns/suburbs in the Chicago area like that. I > live in Elgin and have Americast. Jones Cable is also in the area. I > had Jones before & switched to Americast. > Competition benefitted a little bit. Not so much in rates, but with > channel selection. Just before Americast came in, Jones added some > additional channels -- obviously only because of competition. I said > sorry, too little too late, and switched. I live in Streamwood (NW suburb of Chicago). After I moved here, I was bombarded with mailings from Americast/Ameritech and TCI/AT&T cable. Both had comparable rates but TCI had a much wider channel selection. TCI offered SpeedVision and DMX and Americast didn't so I picked TCI. Those in the area who had TCI before Americast moved in say that their rates didn't go down but the number of available channels increased. Channels that you could only get with a dish are now available via cable. Seeing as I watch less than 10% of the available channels it would be nice if we could pick only what we watch and pay less. jmb ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:12:19 -0500 Organization: Motorola CIG Michael A. Chance wrote: > Can anyone tell me which cities currently have multiple cable TV > franchises (meaning that most households have more than one cable TV > company to choose from) and what the experience with that type of > competition has been? We have two providers here in Arlington Heights, IL (suburb of Chicago). The original provider was TCI. Later Americast was added. Shortly before Americast went active TCI added a number of channels. Guess what -- most of these new channels just happened to be in the Americast lineup. The prices didn't go down, but you get more for the money. Regards, Bob Wiegand bwiegand@sesd.cig.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 05:33:10 GMT In article , Michael A. Chance wrote: > multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? RCN has been available as an alternative to MediaOne in Arlington, MA, and a few other towns in the area, for about a year. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: paul.joslin@weirdness.com (Paul R. Joslin) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: 25 Oct 1999 11:47:21 -0400 Organization: Structural Dynamics Research Corp. Michael A. Chance writes: > multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? The city of Lebanon, OH, went one step beyond. They built a competing fiber optic cable system - and saw rates fall 30%. Other municipalities in the area are considering joining in. There is also interest in developing advanced services such as telecom and datacom for local government use. A similar result occured in Wadsworth, OH. http://enquirer.com/editions/1999/10/17/loc_warren_co_cable_net.html Paul R. Joslin The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns paul.joslin@sdrc.com something that will always be useful and which never +1 513 576 2012 will grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:01:22 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: A New World Order J.A. McLennan wrote: (problems reaching the links quoted in original article). Judith Oppenheimer wrote: ... deleted.... It's not unusual for ICANN, charged with keeping the internet up, to have problems keeping its own server up. It seems to be working this morning. Judith > The Full Story: http://icbtollfree.com/headsup.html > This site contains a number of links to > http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/..something or other... > I tried several of these links and they were all dead. Does somebody > not want us to read those comments? Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Schematics Needed For Old French Phone Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:03:28 GMT On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:50:02 -0400, Paul Marchese wrote: > I purchased an old French rotary phone at a flea market, and I am > looking for schematics for it. I was wondering if you could tell me > where I may find some. Can you be more specific? French as in made in France, or "French phone" as in an ornate handset with a curved mouthpiece horn? Any markings or model numbers on it? There were a number of novelty phone housings made in the 1970s along this line, the innards were typically standard telco issue. Rat Shack sold some imports, but IIRC theirs are a fake rotary dial which is actually DTMF buttons in a circle. If all you're trying to do is get it hooked up, you can probably just try various combinations of the line cord wires until you get dial tone. If it has one red and one green wire, that's a pretty good indication that it's standard telco guts in a fancy housing. Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 03:18:32 GMT From: satch@concentric.hormel42.net (Satch) Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Organization: SBC Internet Services Allegedly lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) said on 23 Oct 1999 in the following: > But it seems to me most phones sold today have electronic ringers. > Does the general public have no preference? > Do traditional ringers cost more to make than electronic ones? The public has a preference: they would rather spend a few dollars less than to have a ringer of the same quality as the ones used on airplane PA systems. The old mechanical ringers, expensive? You ever LOOK at one? Compare that to the cheap pieces of plastic they put in phones, silicon and all. Just the coils cost more than the build cost of "modern" telephones ... _____ __/satch\____________________________________________________________ Satchell Evaluations, testing modems since 1984, 'Netting since 1971 "The only good mouse-trap is a hungry cat" www.fluent-access.com ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:06:56 GMT On 24 Oct 1999 02:14:31 GMT, L. Winson wrote: > One thing I hate in modern telephone sets is the electronic ringers. > I find their tone very irritating. They only have two volume settings > (low or high), while the older sets have much more control. (Ironically > a major feature of the 500 set introduced in 1950 was variable ringer > volume.) Actually, I find the sound of the 500 set ringer rather annoying, and I think it's deliberate. On the called party's end, the ringer is intended to be noisy and annoying. An unanswered call generates no toll revenue. But the ringback tone that the caller hears (440 + 480 Hertz) is mellow and pleasant. Don't annoy the callers, make sure they hang on until the callee picks up the phone to silence the awful clatter. > I find the ringers on the older Trimline and Princess phones particu- > larly pleasant. Agreed. Remove or stuff with paper one of the gongs on your 500 set, you'll like it. > But it seems to me most phones sold today have electronic ringers. > Does the general public have no preference? Some electronic ringers have variable pitch and volume. On my system, I use clean 440 + 480 sinewaves, same as you hear in your ear when making a call. An old wein-bridge oscillator hack complete with light bulbs from many years ago. > Do traditional ringers cost more to make than electronic ones? They probably do now. Jay Hennigan - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. NASDAQ: NETX - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 ------------------------------ From: Ray Normandeau Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 12:56:37 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > One thing I hate in modern telephone sets is the electronic ringers. > I find their tone very irritating. They only have two volume settings > (low or high), while the older sets have much more control. (Ironically > a major feature of the 500 set introduced in 1950 was variable ringer > volume.) > I find the ringers on the older Trimline and Princess phones particu- > larly pleasant. On my SPCS phone I usually only use VIBRATE mode as I am sometimes on camera as an actor. http://www.buzznyc.com/actors/res.normandeau.raymond.html http://www.buzznyc.com/actors/res.frazier.rita.html ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:22:29 GMT In article , lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com says: > One thing I hate in modern telephone sets is the electronic ringers. > I find their tone very irritating. They only have two volume settings > (low or high), while the older sets have much more control. (Ironically > a major feature of the 500 set introduced in 1950 was variable ringer > volume.) During Bell's trial of electronic switching they had to convert all the phones to electronic ringers because they couldn't push the 90VAC through the switching matrix. Of course they realized the cost of modifying every instrument and decided to find a way for the matrix to handle the voltage necessary. > I find the ringers on the older Trimline and Princess phones particu- > larly pleasant. Yes, that was one of their better designs. > But it seems to me most phones sold today have electronic ringers. > Does the general public have no preference? > Do traditional ringers cost more to make than electronic ones? Undoubtedly the mechanical variants would cost more than the singe chip electronic phones. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:19:03 -0400 Linc Madison wrote: > That feature still exists in many places, but fewer and fewer with > each passing year. The last major city with such an arrangement was > Kansas City, which is currently phasing out 7D FNPA local calling due > to the shortage of prefixes." Louisville, Kentucky still has seven-digit dialing into Indiana COs in the local calling area; after the massive fiasco we had over the attempt to ram mandatory 10D down our throats with the proposed 270 overlay, there has been no talk of mandating 10D, much less 1+10D, for calls across the river. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 25 Oct 1999 13:30:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: New Rule Will Protect Privacy of Children Online I found this in comp.sys.att. It appears someone's trying to use the act to run a scam and collect credit card numbers. ------------ Termination of Access. In the beginning of the year 2000, your access to the Internet will be terminated. In order to prevent this, you must certify your age in accordance with the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The final ruling on COPPA was issued on October 20, 1999 Certification of age may be done through www.gifr.net where you will obtain an Internet license with proper age verification. You may review this bill by going to www.ftc.gov to search the online compendium of rulings. The Global Internet Federal Registry (GIFR) is a worldwide service to prevent undesirable behavior through "Secure Ramping", the upcoming technology of the new millenium. The GIFR website is now available in 47 languages in countries throughout the world. The application for your license has been provided free of charge. Although, you may choose to use a credit card number as age verification. Global Internet Federal Registry www.gifr.net ------- Appropriate Headers From This Message ------- Subject: Newsgroup Access Termination 4992 Path: lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!ne ws.idt.net!nntp. farm.idt.net!news From: admin@gifr.net Newsgroups: comp.sys.att Date: 24 Oct 1999 22:46:14 GMT Organization: IDT (Best News In The World) Lines: 15 Message-ID: <7v027m$k1u@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-10.ts-1-bay.mvl.idt.net -------- End of Headers For the Message ---------- Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing this along, and yes, it is a total scam. Adults do not need to prove anything, nor is some sort of 'license' required on the net. This is just another version of the old scam continually practiced over and over on AOL about 'we need to get your password and user name in order to update our billing records'. Yet many news guys will probably fall for it unless you help spread the word. Now as the new law noted, children will be required to obtain parental permission before giving out any information about themselves or their families at sites for example which require registration or otherwise collect demographics or personal information. But don't be tricked into going off to some site to give out your name, address and credit card numbers in order to obtain some bogus license you do not need in order to use the internet. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:16:58 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to laura@redconnect.net: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So it sounds like Bank One and FUSA > have already started stalling for time on daily transactions while > they try to build up some reserves. Push through charges to customer > accounts as quickly as possible, including service charges, but take > as long as possible to apply credits or payments to the same > accounts. Deny the customer as much of the float as you can while > increasing your own float by a day or two day's worth. It is an old > gimmick banks have used for years when they started to get in a > little trouble. PAT] No bank will tell you this, but credits are always applied AFTER any debits from your account. There could be a payroll transfer of several thousand dollars sitting in your account but they'll process a debit that exceeds your balance, pay it and then charge you the difference plus a service fee in the range of $15 to $25 dollars. The cute part about it is that they don't publish this information. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #504 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 25 14:04:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA24305; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:04:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910251804.OAA24305@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #505 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Oct 99 14:04:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 505 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #205, October 25, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Sprint PCS and Phone Reception (Michael David Jones) Ameritech ISDN Service (treb@netnet.net) First USA and Wingspan (Paul Hrisko) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Isaac Wingfield) Re: 'No PIC Fee' Doubled Last Month? (Dave Alden) Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (M. Koerner) Re: TTI City Tax Outside of City Limits (Alan Boritz) Re: Toronto's New Area Code (Jim Jordan) Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked") (Ed Ellers) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 25 Oct 1999 11:00:23 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #205, October 25, 1999 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin http://www.angustel.ca Number 205: October 25, 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/ Sprint Canada .................. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ Teleglobe Business Services........ http://www.teleglobe.ca/ Telus Communications.................. http://www.telus.com/ TigerTel Services ................. http://www.tigertel.com/ ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Sets New Universal Service Targets ** Wireless Auction, Week Two ** Nortel Buys E-Commerce Firm ** Telus Reapplies for Expanded Vancouver Calling ** Call-Net Postpones Meeting, Results ** Ericsson Expands Montreal 3G Wireless Lab ** New Rules for Telco Reseller Affiliates ** Telefficiency to Offer Local Service ** High-Speed Data Planned for Rural Ontario ** Minacs Expands Halifax Call Center ** Gigabit Internet Planned for Alberta ** Bell Single-Line Inside Wire Services Deregulated ** Bell to Charge IXCs for Toll-Free Payphone Calls ** Fido Caps Free Call Forward ** MTS Opens Winnipeg Portal ** Mixed Results at BCI, Emergis ** Cantel Edges Into the Black ** Serendipity Buys Videoconferencers ** AirTouch Tests Primal's Calling Party Pays ** Latham Takes Helm at Optel ** New VP at Cable Association ** How to Manage Customer E-Mail ============================================================ CRTC SETS NEW UNIVERSAL SERVICE TARGETS: The CRTC's long-awaited High Cost Serving Area Decision (99-16) says that all Canadians should have access to single-line touchtone phone service with the ability to connect toll-free to the Internet, but that no new subsidies need be created to accomplish this. All incumbent telcos are to submit plans to meet the full objective. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-16en.htm ** The possibility that Northwestel needs supplementary funding to achieve this standard in its territory will be addressed separately in Public Notice 99-21 (see Telecom Update #202). ** Commissioner Andrew Cardozo dissented, saying supplementary funding for service upgrades in high-cost areas should also be available to other telcos. QuebecTel and two Manitoba cabinet ministers have since objected to the decision on similar grounds. WIRELESS AUCTION, WEEK TWO: At the end of the first week of Canada's broadband wireless auction, bids totaled $18.5 Million. The most contested licenses cover Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver, with interest also in Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and several smaller cities. This week, the bidding pace picks up, with four auction rounds scheduled each day. http://spectrum.ic.gc.ca/2438/navpage_1.html NORTEL BUYS E-COMMERCE FIRM: Nortel Networks is paying US$2.1 Billion to acquire San Jose-based Clarify Inc, "the world's second-largest provider of front-office solutions for e-business." TELUS REAPPLIES FOR EXPANDED VANCOUVER CALLING: Telus Communications has applied again for an expanded Greater Vancouver free calling area, proposing monthly rate increases of 25 cents-70 cents (residence) and 50 cents-$1.50 (business lines, including Megalink, Microlink, and Centrex) to take effect May 1. The CRTC turned down a similar proposal in September but invited a reapplication with lower rates (see Telecom Update #201). CALL-NET POSTPONES MEETING, RESULTS: On October 19, Call-Net Enterprises postponed its shareholders meeting until October 26 and delayed publication of its quarterly results to November 2. Unless former CEO Juri Koor resigns from the board before then, the October 26 meeting will vote on replacing him with Eric Rosenfeld of Crescendo Partners. ** Telesystem and Videotron have both stated their intention to purchase part of Call-Net's shares in Microcell. ERICSSON EXPANDS MONTREAL 3G WIRELESS LAB: Ericsson will invest $196 Million in the expansion of its Montreal research center for the development of Third Generation wireless products. NEW RULES FOR TELCO RESELLER AFFILIATES: CRTC Order 99-972 prohibits the incumbent telcos from providing local loops or local services to affiliated resellers for resale within the incumbent's serving territory. The order ends the previous prohibition on telco affiliates reselling their long distance services, and places no limits on Teleglobe affiliates. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0972.htm TELEFFICIENCY TO OFFER LOCAL SERVICE: Business telephone system vendor Telefficiency says it will offer local telephone service to its 10,000 southern Ontario customers, beginning in January. The company has hired Jean-Marie Baudot, formerly with Optel, to head its Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) business. HIGH-SPEED DATA PLANNED FOR RURAL ONTARIO: Under the new Data Services Improvement Program (DSIP) the Ontario government and Bell Canada will spend up to $11.5 Million to bring high- speed Internet access to 270 communities in Area Codes 519, 905, 613 and part of 705, by March 31, 2000. MINACS EXPANDS HALIFAX CALL CENTER: Minacs Worldwide, a call center service bureau, will add 250 representatives to its Halifax facility by year-end. GIGABIT INTERNET PLANNED FOR ALBERTA: Alberta's university and research network, Wnet 2, is being upgraded to gigabit speeds, using wide-area Ethernet networking. Netera Alliance (formerly WurcNet) aims to complete Wnet 3 and connect it to CA*net3 early in 2000, with help from Shaw and Telus. BELL SINGLE-LINE INSIDE WIRE SERVICES DEREGULATED: CRTC Order 99-1016 says that enough competitors are providing installation and maintenance of inside wire in Bell Canada territory that Bell's inside wire service to single-line customers can be deregulated. The CRTC retains the right to assure competitors access to inside wire and to protect customer confidentiality. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-1016.htm BELL TO CHARGE IXCs FOR TOLL-FREE PAYPHONE CALLS: CRTC Order 99-1017 allows Bell Canada to charge alternative long distance providers a 25 cent access charge for each toll-free call to competitors' networks made from a Bell payphone. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-1017.htm FIDO CAPS FREE CALL FORWARD: Microcell's Fido now limits free call forward to 1,000 minutes/month; beyond that, Fido charges ten cents/minute. MTS OPENS WINNIPEG PORTAL: MTS Advanced has opened an Internet portal, www.mywinnipeg.com, which provides cultural and recreational information on Manitoba. MIXED RESULTS AT BCI, EMERGIS: During the third quarter: ** BCI International revenue edged up 2% to $209 Million; losses doubled to $140 Million. BCI's overseas wireless companies now have five million subscribers. ** BCE Emergis lost $5.5 Million in the third quarter, compared to a $17.9 Million loss the previous quarter. Sales rose 21%. CANTEL EDGES INTO THE BLACK: Rogers Cantel reported net income (excluding one-time items) of $4.7 Million in the third quarter, a break from many years of operating losses. Revenue rose 10.7% to $349 Million. Early debt repayment led to a one-time charge of $69.3 Million. ** Rogers Communications scored a $1.04-Billion gain on sale of shares to AT&T and BT, resulting in a third-quarter profit of $782 Million. Excluding one-time factors, Rogers lost about $30 Million. SERENDIPITY BUYS VIDEOCONFERENCERS: Serendipity Telepresence (Mississauga) has acquired two other videoconferencing organizations, Corel Video and International Video Conferencing Inc. AIRTOUCH TESTS PRIMAL'S CALLING PARTY PAYS: Calling-party-pays software from Mississauga-based Primal Technologies is being tested by 2,000 U.S. wireless customers of AirTouch. LATHAM TAKES HELM AT OPTEL: OCI Communications, parent of Optel, has named Robert Latham, a long-time Bell Canada executive and recently President of Orbcomm, as President and CEO. He replaces Bill Young, who continues as OCI's Chairman. NEW VP AT CABLE ASSOCIATION: The Canadian Cable Television Association has appointed Elizabeth Roscoe as Senior Vice- President, External Affairs. HOW TO MANAGE CUSTOMER E-MAIL: The October issue of Telemanagement reveals the secrets of successful call centers in taming the avalanche of customer e-mail. ** Until November 30, new subscribers to Telemanagement will receive a bonus: Tips, Tricks & Traps, a collection of a collection of 22 practical reports and resources by Ian Angus, Lis Angus, and Henry Dortmans. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement (and receive Tips, Tricks and Traps) call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225 or visit the Telemanagement Home Page at http://www.angustel.ca. ============================================================ 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 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: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception Date: 25 Oct 1999 10:32:53 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA I've been a happy Sprint customer for quite a while now. I have one of the original Sony "pop-up earpiece" phones, and I've been thinking of upgrading. The biggest thing I'd like in a new phone is better reception, as I'm right on the edge of a cell at my house. I've talked to several people (both local and corporate) at Sprint and gotten all sorts of answers about which phone they support has the best reception. One guy told me that my Sony has better reception than any of the new phones because it was the first one developed and was over-engineered. Another guy told me yesterday that the brand new Qualcomm ultra-thin phone is the first phone to have better reception than the Sony because it has a "second-generation chipset". He also told me that the Nokias were the worst phones they sell in terms of reception. Anybody have some real information? I'm mostly interested in digital-only, not dual band. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:18:33 -0500 Organization: DCT Technologies I was wondering if anyone has Ameritech ISDN service in Wisconsin, perhaps even NE area, how they feel they were treated, and does it live up to all the hype. I currently use a 33.6 analog connection, but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even avaible, and the CO is too far for DSL. Thanks for any comments. Todd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:16:39 -0400 From: Paul Hrisko Subject: First USA and Wingspan On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:07:07 GMT, tinikins@my-deja.com wrote: > First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the > payroll at the site in Maryland. You are not the only cardholder who > has had their account double-debited. Call back and DEMAND that you are > able to take a cash advance on your credit card for the money, it is > possible and they WILL waive all the fees. Also try and do a balance > transfer to another company because FUSA is going under. There is an > article in the Kiplinger Financial Magazine this month. > The FUSA company is going under so PLEASE take my advice and get out > before it is too late. To date there are five class action lawsuits > against FUSA. The president of the company Dick Vague has disappeared > from site, and retired ... Hopefully everyone here knows that Wingspan.com is part of the FirstUSA company. I was planning on moving some assets to one of the online banks after getting fed up with surcharges on an account I had with a local bank (and I wanted to see what the experience was like). After going through the site information I bailed out quickly. I have a FUSA CC and have had payments applied late -- some almost two weeks after I sent the check. Once I can blame on the USPS, three times -- no. I'm wondering if they're just doing it to collect the late payment charge since they usually credit it quickly enough when I call (though it does take a couple of calls). I just wonder about on-line banking's future if less web-centric customers experience the same lack of service with Wingspan. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 08:41:18 -0700 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad In TELECOM Digest Issue 498 julian@tele.com wrote: >> Back in the early days when Bell Labs was working on Touch >> Tone, this would have been the late fifties, there were no calculators >> as they are now known. And a.ross@ieee.org replied: > Gee ... I think you're maybe a decade or two off here ... or maybe it > depends on what part of the country you were in. I was a summer > student at Bell Labs about the time that the DTMF keypad was being > selected (early 60's) and I recall some banter with one of my > office-mates about it. The early '60s sounds about right. I was in college at the time, and working for a strange little company that built oddball gear for Ma Bell under contract. Somewhere around that time, we got a more-or-less 10-inch cube or relays and stuff from Bell, which I stuck in a box along with a power supply and other items. I was told the box was a piece of test gear for the touch-tone trials then going on at Illinois Bell (?), and it was to be used to verify that consumers' telephones (or the consumers themselves) were working properly. Among other things we added was a single "Nixie" tube (remember those?) on the front, and a couple of test leads with clips, which came out from somewhere. If you clipped the leads across a telco pair and then pressed a button on a t-t keypad, the Nixie would light up with the proper number. There was no provision to decode or display other than digits 0-9. We didn't have a t-t pad, so to test it I used a pair of HP 200 audio oscillators and a frequency counter to get the frequencies right. I remember that the unit we got from Bell was mostly passive, including the resonant circuits to discriminate between the various tone pairs (may have been tuned relays). It was much slower to respond to tones than contemporary designs, but *very* picky about the accuracy of the frequencies. I believe that the output of the Bell unit was in their "1-2-2'-5" code, via those lovely wire-spring relays they used at the time. We had to decode the 1-2-2'-5 to 1-of-10 to drive the Nixie. I suspect that the unit we got from Bell was the standard t-t detector they had designed for use in the CO; we just adapted it for "portable" use and gave it a readout. Isaac Wingfield Project Director isw@ictv.com ICTV Vox: 408-364-9201 14600 Winchester Blvd. Fax: 408-364-9300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 ------------------------------ From: alden@math.ohio-state.edu (Dave Alden) Subject: Re: 'No PIC Fee' Doubled Last Month? Date: 25 Oct 1999 16:00:45 GMT Organization: Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University Hi, After writing article : > Nine months ago I got tired of all the fees my LD company was > charging, so I had my local phone company (Ameritech) switch my line > to no LD company. I've been paying my $0.54/month for the privilege > of being able to send and receive LD calls through other means. Last > month this fee was increased to $1.04/month without any warning. I > was wondering if this was across the board to everyone, and if so, > why? I went the the fcc homepage and found: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/picc.html Which states as of July 1, 1999 the MAXIMUM allowable PIC charge went up to $1.04 for the first line and $2.53 per additional (for residential lines and single-line business lines). I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Ameritech was one of the first to charge the maximum allowed. :-( ... dave alden ------------------------------ From: Michael G. Koerner Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-digit Dialing Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:09:56 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Mark J Cuccia wrote: > As for other metro areas straddling a state/NPA line which still > maintains seven-digit permissive dialing, I think there are several > situations between Missouri and Illinois, and Iowa and Illinois - > crossing the Mississippi River. But any existing local seven-digit > inter-NPA/state dialing between these adjacent-state situations is to > be phased out in favor of ten-digit local dialing - particularly in > eastern IA / northwestern IL. The eastern Iowa 319 NPA as well as the > central Iowa 515 NPA are PROBABLY going to be overlaid (along with the > mandatory ten-digit local dialing) within the next few years. I'll have to check and see if '7D' is still possible between such places as Superior, WI and Duluth, MN and between Marinette, WI and Menominee, MI (also between Hurley, WI and Ironwood, MI and between Beloit, WI and South Beloit, IL). '7D' might also still be possible between LaCrosse, WI and La Crescent, MN. However, ALL 'FNPA local' calling INSIDE of Wisconsin (ie. Weywauwega, WI (920-867) to/from Waupaca, WI (715-256/258)) is now mandatory '1+10D'. Regards, Michael G. Koerner Appleton, WI ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: TTI City Tax Outside of City Limits Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:58:41 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) wrote: > I recently moved and in the process PICed TTI National as my LD carrier. > Good rates, apparently a subsidiary of MCI. Although my mailing address > is "Santa Barbara", my service address is outside of the city limits. > Santa Barbara imposes a 6% utility tax on its residents, and TTI > insists on charging me this tax unless I go through several hoops to > prove to them that my service address is outside of the city limits. > All of my other utilities got it right and are not charging me the > tax. > I suspect that I'm not alone in this, and they are similarly bilking > many others nationwide who are near but not in taxable areas. I've > argued repeatedly with their customer service people who have told me > that I need to get a letter from the Chamber of Commerce(!) to prove > that I don't live in the city. A map won't do it for them. > To whom do I complain? FCC? California PUC? None. Just choose another carrier and fire them. You're spending way too much time and effort on something that should be straightforward. BTW, phantom "taxes" were a common source of billing fraud with Sprint about 15 years ago. In Sprint's case, not only wouldn't they know for which jurisdiction they were "collecting," but also the percentage and on what part of the service bill it was based. Challenging the amounts did no good, since Sprint would suspend service if it wasn't paid. ------------------------------ From: Jim Jordan Subject: Re: Toronto's New Area Code Date: 25 Oct 1999 16:26:03 GMT Organization: Nortel Networks, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Reply-To: Jim Jordan In article , wrote: > As you maybe aware Toronto's new area code will be 647. Does that mean that every new Toronto number will be MIS-dialed? (Sorry ...) W. Jim Jordan, Nortel Networks, Stop 29CA3A08 | +1 613 763 1568 PO Box 3511 Stn C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Canada | wjjordan@nortelnetworks.com Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Nortel Networks. Inbound spam filtering is in place. Don't send what I won't see. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Handset Prices (was Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked") Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:42:09 -0400 Tony Pelliccio wrote: > They seem to be brand new. If they're refurb'd I'd expect they'd > take the damned SIMLOCK off since they've already recovered their > subsidization. With Omnipoint you pay $49 whether you are on a prepay > or normal account. Powertel also charges $49 for a new phone (the Mitsubishi G75 in my case), though that may be a temporary sale price. Sprint PCS' cheapie phones are refurbished, however. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #505 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 25 17:31:44 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA02565; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:31:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910252131.RAA02565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #506 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Oct 99 17:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 506 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Mark J. Cuccia) Any 416/905 Free Extenders Out There? (gt_snoracer@my-deja.com) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Joe) Re: Area Code 716 Split (David Esan) Re: St. Louis City Central Offices (Herb Stein) Re: St. Louis City Central Offices (Lost in Cyberspace) Re: First USA Debiting (Andrew Finkenstadt) Re: New York Times Web Policy (Ed Ellers) Re: New York Times Web Policy (John De Hoog) Recording Device Found on Line (Thomas W. McDonald) Another Chat Room Incident Frightens Students (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 25 Oct 1999 13:56:24 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Replying to TWO threads here - the telephone vs. calculator keypad arrangement, and the electronic ringer vs. real bell gongs ... Regarding the 'standard' DTMF keypad arrangement: -1-2-3-(A) -4-5-6-(B) -7-8-9-(C) (*)0(#)(D) as opposed to the adding machine / calculator / comptometer keypad: -7-8-9- -4-5-6- -1-2-3- ---0--- It was mentioned by others in earlier posts that Bell Labs did several user-trial experiments of numerous keypad arrangments. It was also mentioned by someone that there were some experimental "calculator" keypad arrangments of DTMF phones in the late 1950's or early 1960's. Bell System Tech Journal (or maybe Bell Labs Record magazine- or BOTH) had an article in the late 1950's showing an experimental DTMF phone, a Black (well at least it appeared to be black - the photo was B&W) 500 WECO desk set telephone, which had the calculator-keypad style, with the '0' where it is right now - by itself on the bottom row in the middle. The ten-touchtone buttons arranged in the rectangle were placed in a CIRCULAR background that would fit into a standard 500 deskset BUT SO THAT A ROTARY DIAL 500's HOUSING would fit over to cover the internals of the phone, UNLIKE the "2500" DTMF keypad which needed its OWN "squared" housing. And since Bell Labs had invented the transistor only ten years prior, I don't think that vacuum tubes produced the tones, but rather tones were generated by transistors. However, in the pictures, you see TWO cords protruding from the back of the phone - one obviously is the telephone line-cord, but the other cord might have been an external electric-power cord! It would seem that telephone-line-power wasn't enough to power the DTMF generator in this phone. A reprint of the picture used in the BSTJ or BLR article is reproduced in "History of Engineering & Science in the Bell System : Switching Technology (volume) 1925-75" authored by Amos E. Joel (with Bell Labs from 1941 to 1984 when he retired). In the very early 1960's, the "standard" telephone DTMF keypad arrangement was adopted, but the ten buttons are still placed in this CIRCULAR 'backboard' (yet the buttons are arranged in the rectangle), where a ROTARY 500's housing could be used. Bell Labs Record and/or Bell System Tech Journal has aritcles/pictures of this from that time. A picture of an early 1960's touchtone phone can be seen on the web, at Lucent/Bell-Labs' website: http://www.lucent.com/hall/1964.html It mentions 1964, but I think that "public" touchtone was trialed in 1963 or even 1962. Note in the Lucent picture that the number-card states: MAin 0-2368 The MAin-0 "exchange" was frequently used as a 'generic' exchange in the 1950's, since there were VERY few places that had c.o.codes of the 'NN0' format; in the early 1960's, KL5 (KLondike-5) was a frequent "generic" exchange, since it translated to '555'. Even though Bell was trying to eliminate the public use of EXchange names beginning in the late 1950's, it took quite some time for ANC (All Number Calling) to completely take effect, at least as far as telco was concerned. Many TV programs and movies from the mid-1960s still quoted EXchange names, so it isn't all that surprising that even a Bell Labs publicity photo from circa 1964 would have a phone with "MAin-0-2368" in it! Anyhow, some of the articles from BSTJ/BLR issues in the early 1960s regarding "pushbutton" (DTMF) dialing have technical charts that _DO_ indicate the TWO sets of FOUR frequencies EACH. The 'place' for the '*' and the '#' are shown with the 'cross' of each buttons' low+high frequency pair, but with a note of "reserved for future use", but not showing the symbols '*' and '#'. Likewise, the 'fourth' column of 1633 Hz to make a set of 16 pairs of frequencies for the (Autovon) A/B/C/D column (although Autovon labelled these buttons as FO for Flash Over-ride, O for Over-ride, I for Immediete, P for Priority - but I don't remember if this is the right order from top-down) is shown in the tech charts of the frequencies, but also as "reserved for future use". In the late 1940's (1948?) there was an experimental pushbutton-dial tone-generating phone, probably used in Media PA (the first public #5XB office). Again, there are photos of this in BSTJ/BLR from that time, and the "Switching Technolgy" Bell Labs book authored by Amos Joel has a photo of the phone. It was a modified WECO 302 desk telephone with ten pushbuttons, arranged in two horizontal rows, the buttons numbered from left to right in increasing order: 1-2-3-4-5 6-7-8-9-0 The tones were not produced by transistors, not even by vacuum-tubes, but rather by mechanicals inside of the phone that actually plucked metal reeds. The tones were NOT the (customer loop) DTMF touchtones of today, but rather the ( blue :) MF _TOLL_ tones. Imagine that... telco actually made some _CPE_ (CUSTOMER premesis equipment) that could have been used to phr..k the network! Well, I'll stop there! :-})>>> On another related topic/thread... some pictures of the experimental electronic-tone-generated 'ringer' telephone used in the Morris ECO trials (Electronic Central Office) in the early 1960's - those pictures can be seen in BSTJ/BLR articles from that time as well as in Amos Joel's book. The phones used for that trial were _NOT_ any of the experimental pushbutton (touchtone) dialing phones, but rather rotary 500 sets that had faster 20pps spinning dials rather than the 'standard' 10pps. More photos can be found from the resoures I've already mentioned. And I prefer the real sound of a real bell/gong for ringing although I will admit that SOME electronic ringers can be tuned for a more pleasant sound. With today's electronics, why doesn't someone make an electronic ringer that can be set to actually sound like the bells of a 1920's era steel ringer box' gongs, or a 1930's era bakelite ringer box gongs, or a 302's bells, or a 500's bells, a Princess phone's gong (yes, WECO/Labs developed a built-in ringer for a Princess in 1962 - the original 1959 Princess had NO built-in ringer, and was OH-SOoooo lightweight that it would tip-over or slide-all-over while trying to dial a call), or a Trimline's ringer, or the 1960's-era BellChime ringer/chimer. My computer can either store .ra, .wav, etc. files or else RE-produce sounds/tones/etc., such as various telephone GONG ringers, the NBC Chimes, the CBS 'bong-at-the-top-of-the-hour', etc. So why doesn't someone come up with an electronic tone ringer that can reproduce the sounds of the earlier electromechanical gong ringers?! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: gt_snoracer@my-deja.com Subject: Any 416/905 Free Extenders Out There? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 04:24:59 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Does anyone know if there are any 416 or 905 free LATA extenders still in operation? I recall a useful service from a real estate agent in York Region whereby callers from Newmarket could connect at an Aurora number (which is local to Toronto), listen to a short ad, and have their (normally) toll calls to 416 connected toll free. This turned into a pay service approximately four years ago ... I am unsure of the current status. I would think that cut-rate long distance and regulation had forced these services out of existence. However, a few months back I heard an ad on a radio station promoting a similar service between Burlington and Toronto, using an Oakville number. This turned into a pay service after a month, though. Any free ones out there? ------------------------------ From: haggerty@coralberry.net (Joe) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:35:59 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: haggerty@pobox.com According to my information, from the security department of my local telco in NC, there is no such law in North Carolina. I have never heard of a federal statute, so I presume it varies from state-to- state. I previously lived in Virginia, where there apparently WAS such a statute. They were defined as "Annoying, Threatening, Harassing, or Obscene Phone Calls". Calling with no intent to communicate (e.g., letting it ring once, or just hanging up when answered) was a violation. So was I call you and say "Is your refrigerator running?". Not obscene or threatening, but certainly harassing and annoying. Since in NC I have been bothered by a "disgruntled" telemarketer that I requested never again call my number, only to have them call every few minutes for hours and just hang up. It was at a time I was expecting an important call and just had to answer. The phone company security department MANAGER said that if they were not obscene and made no threat, it violated no NC law, and they would do nothing. They actually offered to write a letter to the customer saying only that a complaint had been filed about it (as it was a telemarketer, we assumed that the owner would be interested in their employee's behavior, if nothing else, it wasted paid time), but in the end, they refused to do even that. Consumers still lose out in other situations. Here is a common one for us: A telemarketer with defective equipment calls. The out-of-area number blocked is a fairly good chance it's a telemarketer. I answer. Nothing but clicks and eventually re-order. The process repeats at regular intervals - I assume the equipment just re-queues my phone number. Eventually, their system works and I get a person. I tell them three things: (1) their equipment is broken and is harassing "potential" customers, (2) put me on the do-not-call list, and (3) because they insist on harassment phone calls, I will never under any circumstances purchase their product/service. I consider their actions as harassing phone calls, UNFORTUNATLY, this is probably a case where they ARE attempting to communicate. The second isn't as common, but when it did happen it was a pain. My spouse got a business line with answering machine in our house for her business. Shortly thereafter we started getting calls at 2-3 am from a FAX. It would repeat every five minutes for about 1/2 hour, then stop. Until the next night. The phone was in a remote part of the house, but it still successfully woke us. This was a FAX, and was an attempt to communicate, so it wasn't considered harassment. I recommended her next office purchase be a FAX, just to find out who was calling. We did, and it was coming from England. The INTENDED destination was a lawyer's office in my town. A very large law firm. We contacted the law firm and they weren't very friendly (surprise!). They talked about how we were intercepting their communications, and the cover letter said we had to destroy it, we were breaking the law by reading it, etc, etc, etc. Also, they had removed that FAX number two years ago. I think that they were using old stationary with the number, and also, other very large law firms just had it in their speed-dial. To make a long story longer ... we spoke with the office manager (not a lawyer) and made a deal. We would mail them the hard copy (in those days it was a hardcopy fax) of faxes, and charge them a "service fee" for the use of our phone and fax equipment. I tried $50/page, but I think we ended up at about $25/fax. We just sent the fax and enclosed a bill. We made several hundred dollars from them. Then the number of faxes slacked off, and they stopped paying the bills. I offered to send them instead to the "rumors and scandals editor" of a local newspaper and they started talking lawyer stuff again. I couldn't/can't afford a lawsuit from a law firm, so I dropped it. BUT, I've always wondered the legal standing of misdirected FAXes vs. misdirected U.S. Mail items. I mean, you can't NOT read a fax, like you can NOT open a sealed piece of mail addressed to my neighbor but placed in my mailbox. Joe ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:34:13 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , rtucker+replyto+ 199910@katan.ttgcitn.com wrote: > In , David Esan my-deja.com> spewed: >> There is an article in Thursday's Rochester, NY newspaper about the >> split of NPA 716. You can find it at: >> www.rochesternews.com/1021areacode.html > Argh. If it comes down to a split, Rochester is *not* going to get to > keep 716. Buffalo is simply bigger. > What is it with people being so resistant to overlays? -rt I'm resistant in this case, because 99% of all my calls require only seven digits. I can't see why I have to dial ten digits, just so Eastman Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch&Lomb don't have to change their paperwork. We are already suffering from the stupidity of the telephone companies who assign full exchanges to any company wasting thousands of available telephone numbers, who create strange rate centers so that more exchanges have to be assigned, who resist any change at all in any of these policies because it would cost them money even though they are making money hand over fist. I can understand overlays in large cities where ten digit dialing is part of a normal way of life. But in Rochester or Buffalo? C'mon, lets get Global Communications and Bell Titanic to fix the problem. If they can't, lets split the area code, and leave the average consumer alone. Although I am amused at the three-way split that would put the southern tier of 716 in its own area code. When will that run out of exchanges? 2100? David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's basically what happened in Chicago with the 312/773 split a few years ago. Ameritech was going to do it essentially in reverse: A much smaller geographical part of the downtown area was going to be moved off of 312 and into 773 which would have allowed the downtown area an almost infinite amount of expansion room while permitting everyone else in Chicago to keep 312 and the status-quo for several years. The Jackson/Adams/Clark/ LaSalle area downtown just literally eats up tens of thousands of phone lines in that little area alone between the banks, the stock exchanges, and the several very large companies. It was going to go west pulling in the medical center and the University of Illinois. They were all going to get 773 as their domain, and everyone else could keep 312 with enough spare room to last for a few years. But no, no! Better that two million Chicagoans should all have to change their area code than that a firm of five hundred lawyers downtown or a couple of banks and the federal center at Jackson and Dearborn Street should have to change their letterheads and hire someone competent to reprogram their phone systems, etc. So they kept 312 which will soon need to be split again while all the people around town had to learn to live with 773. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: St. Louis City Central Offices Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:59:38 GMT I live in the area served by the Manchester central office and have ISDN. It is served out of Ladue. A friend has a business in Manchester and just got ADSL. I'll have to ask him where it's served from. To my knowledge, only Chestnut and Ladue serve ISDN. Hauling ADSL back to an office equipped to provide ADSL service is no problem for them. I've had a chance to play with his ADSL service and I'm underwhelmed. Telneting into his server to help with DNS, Apache etc. is barely better than V.90. He's told that there is a service guarantee of 1.5mb down and 128kb up from his machine but I haven't see it. He says that large downloads are FAST once they get rolling. I suspect that SWBT's implementation is not ready for prime time but they are trying to run with or ahead of the Charter Pipline cable services so as not to lose market share. We'll see. In article , Michael A. Chance wrote: > SBC has been rolling out DSL service in the St. Louis metro area, but > currently the only central office in the City of St. Louis proper to > get the upgrades is the Chestnut office, located in the old Southwest- > ern Bell headquarter building at 1010 Pine St., and serving the > downtown area. No time frame has been given for when the rest of the > city might get DSL capability. (A good portion of the suburban area > already has DSL access.) Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: LostInCyberspace79@at&t.com Subject: Re: St. Louis City Central Offices Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:27:51 -0600 On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 07:34:40 -0500, Michael A. Chance wrote: > I know that the Prospect office is on S. Grand near Tower Grove Park, > and serves the near southside area (I live about five blocks from it). > There's the Flanders central office somewhere in in the South City > area, but I don't know the location of that one. I'm guessing that > there's two to four more central offices located in the City proper, > but I have no idea which ones or where they're located. > Any Southwestern Bell central office or outside plant folks out there > that could fill in the missing locations? There are at least six central offices within the city of St Louis: Chestnut - (10th and Pine) Prospect - (Grand and Shenandoah) Flanders - (January and Eichelberger) Jefferson - (Washington, west of Spring) Forest - (Delmar, east of Lake) Evergreen - (Natural Bridge, east of Goodfellow) These three COs are located outside of the city, but serve the city: Melrose - (Bayless Avenue, west of Morganford) Parkside - (Delmar, east of Skinker) Mission - (near Bellevue and Southwest) The Riverview CO (near Chambers and Duke Drive) may serve a small portion of the city. Lost In Cyberspace address munged use LostInCyberspace (at) att.net ------------------------------ From: kahuna@panix.com (Andy Finkenstadt) Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: 25 Oct 1999 16:54:04 -0400 Organization: Me Myself and I Reply-To: kahuna@panix.com In tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) writes: > No bank will tell you this, but credits are always applied AFTER any > debits from your account ... > The cute part about it is that they don't publish this information. I have three banks. Each of them has a published statement of the order in which credits and payments are applied to my accounts. The orders are: * Local regional bank: Deposits first, followed by debits. If funds are uncollected, then they are unavailable for debitting. * Remote credit union: In chronological order, as they were submitted and applied. * Remote local bank: Deposits first, followed by debits. The funds are immediately made available upon deposit - but it helps that I have a very large Certificate of Deposit with them as well. Their "right of set-off" is their insurance about the collectibility of any overdraft from me. Maybe I am just lucky to have, out of the several thousand in the United States, three banks that each disclose, in writing, their account reconciliation policy. Andy Finkenstadt Andrew Finkenstadt (http://www.finkenstadt.com/andy/) "I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: New York Times Web Policy Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:24:37 -0400 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, noted: > As to whether or not there is some benefit by having it there > following registration versus not having it at all, that is a matter > of opinion. There are only several hundred newspapers, a couple of > wire services and a few dozen sites on the net which provide all the > news you could ever want to know and more. We would not suffer a > sudden dearth of news if NYT closed down their web site tomorrow, > which I keep hoping they will but they probably won't. What we *would* lose is access to the Times' columns and other material written exclusively for that paper, which are the only things I read on the Times' site. (Actually, I get most of my general news from Fox News and BBC News.) But why do you think that it's worse to have a site like this on the Web, which provides information to the people it chooses to deal with, than to not have it at all? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I do not know if it is 'worse' or not, let's call it an even trade maybe. Purely opinion of course, but I see nothing terribly beneficial about the site; their columnists have been carefully trained to write what the owners of the paper want to see. Most people are not going to bother registering and giving up personal data about themselves just to read what some parrot's owners have trained it to say. Someone told me they have a cgi-bin script to deal with NYT, on the few occassions the paper has something different to say than what it usually talks about. I am looking into that cgi-bin script now, to see if it might be a useful thing to have available at http://telecom-digest.org/news for users who want to now and then see something the paper has. Its a lot like my feelings about advertising on the net. I do not personally like it, and won't have it on the telecom web site with the exception that some of the syndicated features I use do have ads and I let them stay here because the material they present is otherwise quite worthwhile. I have that same sort of ambivilent love/hate feeling about web sites that snoop on users. If the material is otherwise exceptionally good, I'll try to work around the problems I see. But NYT does not fit in that category. For them, it usually isn't worth the bother. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John De Hoog Subject: Re: New York Times Web policy Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:37:21 +0900 Organization: Wonmug's World Ed Ellers wrote: > Incidentally, part of their reason for requiring registration is to > limit free-of-charge access to U.S. residents. This is no longer true; the Times is now accessible for free from anywhere in the world, although registration is still required. John De Hoog, free registered NY Times user in Tokyo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Demographics and statistics gathered in Europe or Asia are just as useful to some companies as the same thing when gathered from USA users. Overall, I do not like seeing that kind of imposition made on netizens, especially newer ones who have not yet seen how fast they can wind up on a spam mailing list after turning over their name and email address at a web site they visit. I am sure NYT sells all that data to commercial interests on the web for spam purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Thomas W. McDonald Subject: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:16:38 -0400 An installation technician goes on a service call. Caretaker let's them in the house. The line is reported as having no dialtone with a s/c on line. Technician finds a recording device in the crawl space causing the s/c; he disconnects it and leaves it at it's location. The subscriber comes home while the line is being repaired. Technician tells them the line is fixed (not mentioning the device). Now my questions. Does the tech have the obligation to mention the device to the police, or to the subscriber? The device was past the demarc and on the subscriber premises. Tom McDonald Splicing Supr. SNET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:15:46 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Another Chat Room Incident Frightens Students According to law enforcement officials in Townsend, Massachusetts, a teen-age computer user in Missouri used an America Online chat room to make 'Columbine-like' threats to hurt students and teachers at one of their schools. Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly announced over the weekend that the teen-ager, whose name and hometown in Missouri were not released made the threats using a chat room on AOL which had been established for use by the eighth-grade class at Hawthorne Brook Middle School in Townsend, a community of about two thousand residents in northern Massachusetts. He said the Missouri youth had been chatting online with the students in Townsend since September, but this past week the cyber-relationship turned (in his words) terrifying. Reilly said the guy in Missouri told several students he was actually in their community and he threatened to hurt them, their teachers, and destroy their school. The threats -- which included a list giving the specific names of teachers and students who were targeted in the attack -- was, in Reilly's words, an act of 'cyberterrorism' that left the school body shaken and frightened. It may have been just a hoax, a joke as was claimed by the Missouri user, but "the fear that was expressed by students, parents, teachers and others in this community was very real," Reilly said. The students originally thought that the user from Missouri was a peer, about their own age, and included him in their conversations, revealing information about their town, their school and themselves. When the user allegedly directed some of the students to a site on the net which allegedly contains child pornography on Wednesday of last week, some of the children told their parents or teachers, who then called police. The Missouri user made his explicit threats about the students, their teachers and their school at this same time. Townsend Superintendent of Schools James McCormick said that on the same day, the school received a suspicious and anonymous phone call which made reference to the April 20 incident at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. While all this was going on Wednesday, police requested assistance from America Online, and an AOL emergency response team immediatly located the chat room and the offending user. (I guess you would call it a violation of their Terms of Service, eh?) ... They logged it all from that point onward, and pulled the records giving the user's true name and address. AOL rightfully said they would make their own response to the offending user, but they would not reveal any identification about the user without an order to do so. On Thursday, the school was closed as bomb-sniffing dogs were led through the building and student lockers, bags and backpacks were checked. Nothing suspicious was found and the school was declared safe for re-entry and resumption of classes. At the same time, at the request of Townsend police, a federal search warrant was served upon AOL, and the results of the emergency response team's work from the day before was released. On Friday, authorities converged on the the suspect's home, not knowing for sure what they would find, or the extent of any difficulty they would encounter taking him into custody. What they found was, a nineteen year man who lived with his parents. Totally paralyzed from the neck down as the result of a car crash, unable to care for himself in any way, he was able to communicate via his computer using a speech-to-text program while he was confined in his wheel chair or bed. Police claim that the man made a full confession to them; that he admitted communicating with the students on various occassions, and that he was in possession of, and had displayed child pornography. Because of the unusual circumstances, police asked for guidance in handling the matter and were instructed by a judge to place the man under arrest, serve a search warrant on the parents (who actually owned the computer), confiscate the computer, and release the man to his parents pending trial. The police stated that parents had no involvement in, nor knowledge of what had been going on. No date for trial has been set. The residents of Townsend received news over the weekend that the 'cyberterrorist' who had frightened their little community had been 'captured, and placed under arrest'. Indeed, truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #506 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 26 01:41:48 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA22704; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:41:48 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910260541.BAA22704@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #507 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Oct 99 01:41:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 507 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Recording Device Found on Line (wdg) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Jim Youll) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Monte Chartier) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Justa Lurker) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Matt Ackeret) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Paul Wills) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (Robert Casey) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (charles@gte.net) Re: Cell Phone Health Hazards? (Stanley Cline) Re: Cell Phone Health Hazards? (Richard D.G. Cox) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Jim Youll) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Bruce Larrabee) Re: Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service (Fred Goldstein) Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (Stan Cline) Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (Blake Droke) Microtronix Test Set Available to Rent or Borrow? (Alan Clark) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: wdg@[204.52.135.1] Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:09:22 -0500 Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users, Inc. In article Thomas W. McDonald writes: > An installation technician goes on a service call. Caretaker lets > them in the house. The line is reported as having no dialtone with a > s/c on line. Technician finds a recording device in the crawl space > causing the s/c; he disconnects it and leaves it at it's location. The > subscriber comes home while the line is being repaired. Technician > tells them the line is fixed (not mentioning the device). Technician did good. > Now my questions. Does the tech have the obligation to mention the > device to the police, or to the subscriber? The device was past the > demarc and on the subscriber premises. Tech is a phone tech, not a cop. Tech's only obligation was to fix the line. Anything beyond that is outside the scope of his job description. Tech does not work for the sub, tech works for the telco and should only report his findings back to his supervisor and let the supervisor make the decision where to take it from there. Upon making the report to his supervisor, the tech then forgets about it and goes on with his work. That the "device" was so improperly attached as to cause a line problem suggests to me that it was very likely amateur equipment straight from the local Rat Shack and placed by an amateur snoop. Pro quality 'bugs' are virtually undetectable and are never placed on the CPE side of the demarc, except in the movies. ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:36:07 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Thomas W. McDonald wrote: > An installation technician goes on a service call. Caretaker let's > them in the house. The line is reported as having no dialtone with a > s/c on line. Technician finds a recording device in the crawl space > causing the s/c; he disconnects it and leaves it at it's location. The > subscriber comes home while the line is being repaired. Technician > tells them the line is fixed (not mentioning the device). > Now my questions. Does the tech have the obligation to mention the > device to the police, or to the subscriber? The device was past the > demarc and on the subscriber premises. In the ordinary course of my work, when I fix a problem, I tell the owner what was wrong and how I fixed it, making no presumptions about what I've discovered, no matter what it is. What they do with the information is up to them. ------------------------------ From: Monte Chartier Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:23:41 -0500 Organization: Front Range Internet, Inc. (800.935.6527) Wire tapping is against the law requardless of which side of the demarc. The information should be given to the subscriber and the local police. Monte Chartier Special Investigator Omega Investigations montec@frii.com ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:21:55 GMT It was Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:16:38 -0400, and Thomas W. McDonald wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > An installation technician goes on a service call. Caretaker let's > them in the house. The line is reported as having no dialtone with a > s/c on line. Technician finds a recording device in the crawl space > causing the s/c; he disconnects it and leaves it at it's location. The > subscriber comes home while the line is being repaired. Technician > tells them the line is fixed (not mentioning the device). > Now my questions. Does the tech have the obligation to mention the > device to the police, or to the subscriber? The device was past the > demarc and on the subscriber premises. The tech must have been working on the inside wires to find the device. As the subscriber is paying for the service call (via an inside wire maintainance plan or a per call charge) I would say that it is the subscriber's right to know about the device. The tech is the subscriber's agent in repairing the line. I see no reason not to tell the customer what the problem was. I assume that the caretaker and subscriber could not be separated after the device was found, so that the subscriber would know what was wrong with the line without the caretaker's knowledge. That would be the only scenario where I could see delaying the notification. But the subscriber should know. And should have been told at the earliest convienient time. JL ------------------------------ From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: 25 Oct 1999 16:58:57 -0700 Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article , Louis Raphael wrote: > Bonzjivar@aol.com wrote: >> The DTMF key pad configuration is upside down when compared to a >> calculator key pad. I was wondering if you might know the reason for >> this? > Originally, I think that it had something to do with slowing people > down. It's much slower to punch numbers on a phone than on a > calculator, in case you've ever noticed. What I heard is that at the > beginning, people were punching them too fast, hence the unusual > configuration. Like QWERTY, I guess. The QWERTY story is a myth. http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/myths.html (I believe there is also more data on http://www.urbanlegends.com and/or http://www.snopes.com but couldn't find it in a quick search.) mattack@area.com ------------------------------ From: Paul Wills Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:37:22 -0400 Pat, With the Key Pad discussion going on, I finally got around to scanning in a relevant article from the June, 1966 issue of Long Lines, magazine. This is the "official" AT&T version of the story: [The original article included two photographs of a ten button Touch Tone dial, one in Calculator order and one in "normal" order.] Why aren't Touch-Tone telephone buttons arranged the same way as those on most adding machines? "It's a natural question, and one that customers are asking. They feel that office workers would be able to dial faster and make fewer errors with the Touch-Tone phone if its pushbutton layout were identical with that of an adding machine. "But it doesn't add up. "For one thing, the adding machine only has numbers, while the telephone has numbers and letters. If we followed the adding machine pattern (photo above), the telephone alphabet would begin with "PRS" and end with "DEF"-not a popular arrangement. "Telephone users' preference for the now standardized Touch-Tone pushbutton design was borne out in tests conducted by "human factors" specialists at Bell Telephone Laboratories, who considered 16 different button arrangements before putting the set to a field trial in 1959. "Psychological tests demonstrated that people expect to see numbers arranged in a left to right order, and to read letters in alphabetical sequence from left to right, starting from the top down. The Touch-Tone telephone scores on both counts. "And the great reception of Touch-Tone by customers -- most of whom do not work with adding machines -- is a significant endorsement of the ease and speed of Touch-Tone calling." ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: 26 Oct 1999 03:08:49 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. As a joke, I took a Ma Bell 2500(?) touch tone phone and disassembled the keypad to rearrange the keys in calculator pattern. Also rewired some of the contacts to match. Planted modified phone in the office. Friend comes in to work, uses phone, gets a little confused. "Am I losing my mind?". I would recommend against such pranks; it could cost time dialing 911 if an emergency happens. ------------------------------ From: charles Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:34:10 GMT That's a good question, If the recorder would have been on the network side, he should tell his telco security dept, it might have been the DEA, FBI, etc wire tap. I would not have told the customer or the police. Being on the customer side, well, who knows? Maybe the recorder put beeps on the line every 15 sec. and was a legal recorder? It was broken. Probably should at least inform his supervisor of the situation. You see alot of crazy stuff installing/repairing phones. charles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:18:43 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Joseph Wineburgh wrote: > One thing I'd like some clarification on is the following, posted by > Stanley Cline in alt.cellular: >> [Analog handhelds: 0.6 watts, xmitting continuously >> IS-136: 0.6 watts, transmitting 1/3 of the time, so effectively 0.2 >> watts >> CDMA: 0.2 watts, xmitting more or less continuously >> GSM: 1.0 watts, transmitting 1/5 of the time, so effectively 0.2 >> watts > Only "bag" and "car" analog phones xmit 3 watts, and those use > external antennas that are nowhere the user's head. > And remember: These are MAXIMUM xmit limits. In most situations the > phones actually xmit even less than these values.] > Even though ABC did not measure digital phones (Nok 6190, Mot 6670 & > 6690), according to Stanley's figures, your exposure is much lower > power wise. A couple of corrections (thanks to Steve Punter and Steven C. den Beste in alt.cellular for the corrections): 1) GSM is actually 1.0W xmitting 1/8 of the time = effectively .125W 2) For CDMA, the above figure assumes that only full-rate packets are transmitted; CDMA phones use smaller packets much of the time so that the effective xmit power is actually less. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:34 BST From: Richard@office.mandarin.com (Richard D G Cox) Organization: Mandarin Technology Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote: > ignore the people running the ABC television transmitters, sitting > in a concrete building under a 50,000 watt transmitter for four decades. At well below microwave frequencies! Before I came into telecomms, I used to work in the (UK) broadcast television industry and for some of the time my job included operating a microwave link to connect outside broadcasts. Before we started to work on "links" we were very clearly instructed about the hazards of /microwave/ radiation, and so we treated it with respect. In general the hazard is due to the combination of frequency and proximity. In the particular case of GSM transmissions, the LF interruptions of the carrier create a "dirty" signal that seems to be able to interfere with just about any electronic equipment nearby - presumably as a result of the harmonics caused by the TDM modulation. I dread to think what microwave frequencies those harmonics might include, particularly since they are transmitted from an antenna less than one inch from my skin. So I avoid using my (1800MHz) mobile when a wireline phone is available. Somewhere in between hysteria and indifference, there is the common sense approach which says that, even if someone doesn't understand how something might be happening, it may be prudent for them to at least allow for the possibility of it happening, and to organise their life to minimise risks. How long did it take scientists to decide whether AIDS could even exist? Richard D G Cox PO Box 111, PENARTH, UK; Telephone +44 29 2031 1131; Fax +44 29 2031 1131 To reply by private email, simply take "office" out of the e-mail address ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:45:35 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com treb@netnet.net wrote: > I was wondering if anyone has Ameritech ISDN service in Wisconsin, > perhaps even NE area, how they feel they were treated, and does it > live up to all the hype. I currently use a 33.6 analog connection, > but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any > time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even > avaible, and the CO is too far for DSL. I had it in Ohio, and my comment is that it works a bit too well ... which betrays a lack of competence on the part of Ameritech and the people "in charge", so to speak, of that company's ISDN offering. I have been trying to get my ISDN line disconnected (due to a move) for six weeks now. They have placed four orders, I have spent an aggregate total of over three hours in phone calls discussing the problem, and as of tonight the line is still active. Even a call to the state's public utilities commission has failed to solve the problem. "Why is he concerned," you say? Because the line is supposed to have an intercept on it that says "the new number is ..." so that people can find me, which they presently cannot, because it's still "active" even though I am not there to take the calls. So, Ameritech ISDN, once they get it working, seems to be okay. But that's really more of a tribute to the people who designed the protocols and built the switches. Ameritech people haven't the least idea how to provision, maintain or debug ISDN circuits. they can't even find the off switch. No, I'm not going to pay them for any of this! ------------------------------ From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Date: 26 Oct 1999 02:45:14 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service > but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any > time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even > available, and the CO is too far for DSL. Maybe an expert can correct me, but aren't loop limits for ISDN about the same as for DSL?? 18 kilofeet? I know that the flavor of DSL affects the loop length and that you can use ISDN loop extenders - but, in general, if you can have ISDN the loop also fits for DSL? BIL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:54:13 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service At 07:49 PM 10/24/1999 -0400, Mickey & Renee Ferguson ask, > I find out that GTE apparently has not given Pac Bell any phone > numbers that provide local phone call access (meaning a local call > from home, for example, to the cell phone's number). I find it very > hard to believe that the FCC (or whoever allocates blocks of numbers) > would allow GTE to prevent Pac Bell from having any numbers that have > local dialing access. Pac Bell is supposed to be able to provide > service to all of Southern California. But the Temecula-Murrieta area > has a population of nearly 100,000. Not exactly a small area. > Is GTE playing fair with Pac Bell? Or am I getting wrong information? > Any help anyone can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Somebody's snowing you, and I don't think it rhymes with "Oh, Gee!" PacBell's PCS service is "Commercial Mobile Radio Service" in the FCC's terms. So's cellular; they're subject to the same landline- interconnection rules. In general, calls to/from CMRS are local to the entire metropolitan region. (I'm not sure offhand if it's BTA or MTA or what, but it's much bigger than a typical landline local calling area.) So a PacBell PCS phone can call Temecula, regardless of its local number. I'm led to believe that the California Public Utilities Commission doesn't like that rule. They adore intra-LATA tolls, a non-cost-based extortion rate that they use to subsidize PacBell's predatorily-priced local wireline service. So as an exception to the norm, they have ordered state telcos to charge tolls to CMRS numbers that are not "local". Contrast that to here in Massachusetts, where I can make a local call to *or from* my cell phone from Cape Cod, Boston, or anyplace else in the area including Rhode Island and most of the Mass. In fact, my cell number is *not* in a rate center local to my home, under most rate plans, but I didn't even know that until I had it for a long time, since rate centers *do not count* for cellular. They're sometimes called "oddball" numbers, local to a large area. So PacBell Cellular needs a Temecula-local number to be local to you. GTE doesn't control those numbers. All phone numbers are assigned by Lockheed-Martin (the NANPA administrator), subject to state rules. Since most S-CA area codes are always "in jeopardy" of running out of prefix codes, they're rationed. PacBell PCS might want a Temecula prefix, and could have one, but they probably have a limited ration of 909 prefix codes. Or maybe they just don't want to bother, because they don't have enough business out there. The fact that GTE is the ILEC means nothing, except that they'd need to interconnect to GTE's switches (not a big deal). Note that CMRS in this case is like a CLEC, who has the right to declare a prefix to be in any rate center it has tandem-office connections to. Mainly it's the CPUC's fault for insisting on tolls to PCS. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:14:09 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing Ed Ellers wrote: > Louisville, Kentucky still has seven-digit dialing into Indiana COs in > the local calling area; after the massive fiasco we had over the Chattanooga, TN still has 7d local dialing into northwestern Georgia, and Memphis has 7d local dialing to West Memphis, AR and the Southaven, MS area. (I know that 10d dialing works but isn't required to call Memphis from West Memphis; I don't know about the other way around, or about Mississippi.) Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:27:36 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com Ed Ellers wrote: > Louisville, Kentucky still has seven-digit dialing into Indiana COs in > the local calling area; after the massive fiasco we had over the > attempt to ram mandatory 10D down our throats with the proposed 270 > overlay, there has been no talk of mandating 10D, much less 1+10D, for > calls across the river. Memphis, Tennessee has local seven digit dialling to parts of three area codes, 901 in Tennessee, 870 in Arkansas, and 662 in Mississippi. But, the number of prefixes outside 901 are few. Just five in 870, and six or seven in 662. There are another six prefixes in 662 that can be dialled with seven digits if you have EAS service from Bellsouth, which adds Olive Branch, MS and Hernando, MS. The Mississippi suburbs (662) are currently having a population boom, so this may end pretty soon. All of this from landline phones. Wireless phones get a little weird. Some carriers allow seven digits to 870 & 662 numbers that are allowed on landline service. Some carriers require ten digits to call these numbers (but without a long distance charge). And of course, Powertel requires ten digits for ALL calls, including those within 901. Another odd thing about wireless in the Memphis area, there few if any wireless numbers in the Memphis Metro area which are assigned a 662 number. Even if the customer lives, works or both in Mississippi, he or she is routinely assigned a 901 number. There are a handful of wireless numbers assigned in the 870 (Arkansas) code. But there are no wireless only NXXs assigned to the Arkansas section of the Metro area. Most Arkansans get 901 numbers for wireless. ------------------------------ From: Alan Clark Subject: Microtronix Test Set Available to Rent or Borrow? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:27:54 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I need access to a Microtronix test set to rent or borrow for a very short period of time -- does anyone in the Atlanta area have one available? Thanks, Alan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #507 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 26 02:49:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA24594; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:49:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:49:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910260649.CAA24594@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #508 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Oct 99 02:49:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Clearnet, Fido, Telus Mobility in Calgary (Joey Lindstrom) Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? (Alan Boritz) Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception (Matt Bartlett) Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception (Rob McMillin) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Louis Raphael) Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: First USA and Wingspan (Barry Lustig) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Local Cable Competition (Stanley Cline) Re: Local Cable Competition (William Wheeler) Re: Local Cross-NPA-Boundary Seven-Digit Dialing (Neal McLain) Mexico Telecom Termination Agreements (Leo McCulloch) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Ryan Tucker) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Eric Florack) Re: Pay Phone Paying (Stanley Cline) A New 'Follow Me' 800 Service is Available (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Joey Lindstrom Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:56:46 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Clearnet, Fido, Telus Mobility in Calgary I'm looking for anyone in the Calgary area who has any experience with these three carriers to give me their impressions of the service received. My contract with Cantel/AT&T has expired and I wanna jettison this crappy service as soon as possible, but I don't wanna invest in a new phone or a new long-term contract until I've got a better idea of what I'm getting into. :-) Right now, after researching the rate plans and the technology, I'm leaning towards Clearnet's CDMA service, but I'd also like to hear from users of Fido and/or Telus Mobility's digital CDMA service. Since any information you have to offer would be of very limited interest to others, please reply directly to my mailbox at joey@garynumanfan.nu - thanks! (If anyone else is interested in this, lemme know and once I've gathered up the information, I'll write a summary and email you a copy, or post it here if there's sufficient interest). From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU OS/2: Windows done RIGHT! ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Is it Legal When They Say This? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:23:35 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , haggerty@coralberry. net (Joe) wrote: > According to my information, from the security department of my local > telco in NC, there is no such law in North Carolina. I have never > heard of a federal statute, so I presume it varies from state-to- > state. > I previously lived in Virginia, where there apparently WAS such a > statute. They were defined as "Annoying, Threatening, Harassing, or > Obscene Phone Calls". Calling with no intent to communicate (e.g., > letting it ring once, or just hanging up when answered) was a > violation. So was I call you and say "Is your refrigerator running?". > Not obscene or threatening, but certainly harassing and annoying. > Since in NC I have been bothered by a "disgruntled" telemarketer that > I requested never again call my number, only to have them call every > few minutes for hours and just hang up. It was at a time I was > expecting an important call and just had to answer. The phone company > security department MANAGER said that if they were not obscene and > made no threat, it violated no NC law, and they would do nothing. You asked the wrong person. Bell Atlantic does exactly the same thing in New York and New Jersey. You need to call them at least once, so get a "name" and keep notes on what gems of stupidity the csrep has to say. Then immediately file a complaint with your state's telecommuni- cations utility regulatory agency (not a "presidential" complaint with the phone company), and request that the phone company be ordered to immediately investigate the source of the harassing phone calls and have them stopped. Don't worry about whether or not the calls are outside your LATA, that's for the phone company to figure out. Once you get a response from your state telecommunications regulatory agency, be prepared to file followup complaints if your phone company doesn't respond within 24 hours, and any time they refuse to do ANYTHING. Unlike direct phone calls to the phone company that are generally ignored, those kind of complaints are tracked by the state agency and can never be ignored. > Here is a common one for us: A telemarketer with defective equipment > calls. The out-of-area number blocked is a fairly good chance it's a > telemarketer. I answer. Nothing but clicks and eventually re-order. > The process repeats at regular intervals - I assume the equipment just > re-queues my phone number. Eventually, their system works and I get a > person. I tell them three things: (1) their equipment is broken and is > harassing "potential" customers, (2) put me on the do-not-call list, > and (3) because they insist on harassment phone calls, I will never > under any circumstances purchase their product/service. I consider > their actions as harassing phone calls, UNFORTUNATLY, this is probably > a case where they ARE attempting to communicate. Nonsense. If there's no fax on your phone lines, there's no attempt to communicate. Once the sender knows that fact, and continues to call looking for a fax, it's an act meant solely to harass. The same technique works for this form of harassment. > The second isn't as common, but when it did happen it was a pain. My > spouse got a business line with answering machine in our house for her > business. Shortly thereafter we started getting calls at 2-3 am from a > FAX. It would repeat every five minutes for about 1/2 hour, then stop. > Until the next night. The phone was in a remote part of the house, but > it still successfully woke us. This was a FAX, and was an attempt to > communicate, so it wasn't considered harassment. I recommended her > next office purchase be a FAX, just to find out who was calling. We > did, and it was coming from England. > The INTENDED destination was a lawyer's office in my town. A very > large law firm. We contacted the law firm and they weren't very > friendly (surprise!). They talked about how we were intercepting their > communications, and the cover letter said we had to destroy it, we > were breaking the law by reading it, etc, etc, etc. Unfortunately, they were correct, to a point. The Communications Act of 1934 is very specific on how record communications are to be handled when you are NOT the intended recipient. However, it doesn't apply in the way they told you. > To make a long story longer ... we spoke with the office manager (not > a lawyer) and made a deal. We would mail them the hard copy (in those > days it was a hardcopy fax) of faxes, and charge them a "service fee" > for the use of our phone and fax equipment. I tried $50/page, but I > think we ended up at about $25/fax. You're a sucker, Joe. It would probably make you sick if you knew what the lawyer was charging his client for the time billed to handle that fax. You probably should have started out with $1,200 per fax, PLUS copy charges (per page), PLUS postage. Alternately, you could have offered $1,250 or $1,300/hour in 1/4 hour increments, plus copy and postage (always keep a copy to prove re-transmission and to use for collection). By settling for a such a token amount, you probably saved two incompetents from being fired (one each at the client and lawyer's office). > We just sent the fax and enclosed > a bill. We made several hundred dollars from them. Then the number of > faxes slacked off, and they stopped paying the bills. I offered to > send them instead to the "rumors and scandals editor" of a local > newspaper and they started talking lawyer stuff again. As you can see, they see you as a sucker and an irritant. And you can't just forward a third-party fax where you want. Send a followup letter (certified) to the lawyer's office, with a copy to the client, and list the faxes for which they've paid and the ones they still owe (the client in the UK probably had no idea they were sending confiden- tial documents to your house unless if you cc'd them previously). Threaten to put their "account" with a collection agency if they don't pay up, along with your assumption that they will agree to allow you to publish the contents of all unpaid transactions. Don't expect them to pay up, but it should end the problem, along with maybe costing the lawyer a client (or someone their job at either place). > I couldn't/can't afford a lawsuit from a law firm, so I dropped it. One alternative is to file a small claims court suit. It should be a slam-dunk, since their initial agreement to pay could be used to prove a unilateral contract (First year business law). More likely than not, the office manager used petty cash to keep you off her back, then the payments stopped when she was fired or moved on (to unemployment, hopefully). The hardest part of that scenario is ignoring the empty threats the lawyer's office might heap on you. > BUT, I've always wondered the legal standing of misdirected FAXes > vs. misdirected U.S. Mail items. I mean, you can't NOT read a fax, > like you can NOT open a sealed piece of mail addressed to my neighbor > but placed in my mailbox. Paper mail is covered by an entirely different body of law than electronic mail; unfortunately I don't have a reference handy on where to look for it. The secrecy of electronic communications is covered by the Communications Act of 1934 (now codified into 47USC), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (codified under 18USC and adminstered by the USDOJ). Note that service providers (like yourself in the role as "fax forwarder") are specifically exempted, and permitted to record message transmission statistics and other event-related information, provided that you do not disclose the *contents* of the third-party communications to someone else. Note that all of the law regarding secrecy of electronic communi- cations deals explicitly with disclosure in the course of interception, not the mere receipt of an electronic communication. If you are the intended recipient, none of these laws apply and you can disclose or publish to your heart's content with no fear of federal prosecution. State law, however, is a different matter, and some states have more restrictive laws on some forms of electronic communication that originate and terminate within their jurisdictions (which would not apply to international faxes). ------------------------------ From: Matt Bartlett Subject: Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:40:11 -0400 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Mike, In most peoples opinions the Sony "pop-up" phone (CMD-600) is probably the best phone that Sprint ever had. The newer Sony phones, CMS-1101 Singleband/CMS-1201 dualband are pretty good, having been made by Qualcomm. The Z-Phone (CMZ-100) is a piece of garbage. The worst signal around. You won't be finding any new Sony cellular/PCS phones as they are out of that business. If you are looking for a good phone, go with the TouchPoint or Dual Band Touchpoint, made by Denso Wireless. I've used them both (and every other Sprint PCS phone) and have had the best reception with them than I had with every other phone. And as far as the Nokia's for Sprint (2170 singleband/6185 TriBand/ 5170 Singleband), Yes, they are horrible. Out of all of them, the 5170 is the best and thats not saying much. The 2170 is just plain door-stop material. As a matter of fact, the 2180 they produce for CDMA-800 networks is pretty well trash material as well. Hope this gives you some insight ... Go with the TouchPoint or dbTP. Matt Bartlett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:38:54 -0700 From: Rob McMillin Subject: Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception Organization: SBC Internet Services Michael David Jones wrote: > I've been a happy Sprint customer for quite a while now. I have one of > the original Sony "pop-up earpiece" phones, and I've been thinking of > upgrading. The biggest thing I'd like in a new phone is better > reception, as I'm right on the edge of a cell at my house. I've talked > to several people (both local and corporate) at Sprint and gotten all > sorts of answers about which phone they support has the best > reception. One guy told me that my Sony has better reception than any > of the new phones because it was the first one developed and was > over-engineered. Another guy told me yesterday that the brand new > Qualcomm ultra-thin phone is the first phone to have better reception > than the Sony because it has a "second-generation chipset". He also > told me that the Nokias were the worst phones they sell in terms of > reception. Anybody have some real information? I'm mostly interested > in digital-only, not dual band. I have the Qualcomm QCP-1960, which I believe is the "ultra-thin" phone you're referring to. I've used it for about a month now. It's good, though the sound quality isn't as good as the Nokia 2160 TDMA/AMPS phone I've got, or my wife's 5160. However, I understand that's a common problem with CDMA. It works pretty well wherever there's coverage (which is about 90% of AT&T Wireless's coverage in Southern California). Inside buildings, in the car driving, I seem to lose calls at about the same rate as with AT&T (AT&T dies on the 405 in Long Beach near the city gasworks, while Sprint goes away at the 405/110 junction). One other thing about the QCP-1960: I strongly recommend getting the external battery, as I've had problems with the internal battery discharging faster than you might expect. http://www.pricegrabber.com | The best deals, all the time. ------------------------------ From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 05:02:33 GMT L. Winson wrote: > But it seems to me most phones sold today have electronic ringers. > Does the general public have no preference? I hate electronic ringers. Indeed, I've gone as far as to rip out the buzzer on electronic phones that don't have a fully quiet setting, letting the old mechanical phones do the ringing (they can be heard all over the house anyways). I'm sure we're not alone. I remember people complaining about them quite a lot when they first came out - I think that most people just got used to them, the same way that we get used to everything else. > Do traditional ringers cost more to make than electronic ones? Surely, judging by how they're made. Louis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are US PCS Cellphones "Locked" Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:21:19 GMT > Actually, the 'Digital Cell phone $99 no contract' offers from > PrimeCo, Sprint, etc are for locked phones- the price of the phone is > subsidized by the carrier, and they charge a hefty fee to 'unlock' the > phone if you wish to switch the phone to another carrier. Is the unlocking something that can only be done by the carrier? Why can't the user unlock the phone? How exactly is the phone locked? -Joel ------------------------------ From: Barry Lustig Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:38:48 -0400 Subject: Re: First USA and Wingspan Reply-To: barry@lustig.com I had one once as well and has the same problems as you. I decided to do some testing. Whenever I would send a payment to them with a return-receipt, the check would be credited against my account in two to three days. If I didn't use a return-receipt, the check could languish as much as ten or twelve days before being credited. When I called them to complain I got a customer service rep who told me that they "didn't have supervisors, so no I couldn't talk with one." I spend 45 minutes arguing with him about the problems with their payment handling systems. He refused to budge. After this, I closed my account with them and vowed never to have anything to do with them or any company associated with them. barry > I have a FUSA CC and have had payments applied late -- some almost two > weeks after I sent the check. Once I can blame on the USPS, three > times -- no. I'm wondering if they're just doing it to collect the > late payment charge since they usually credit it quickly enough when I > call (though it does take a couple of calls). I just wonder about > on-line banking's future if less web-centric customers experience the > same lack of service with Wingspan. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting Date: 26 Oct 1999 02:44:41 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 25 Oct 1999 16:54:04 -0400, kahuna@panix.com allegedly said: > Maybe I am just lucky to have, out of the several thousand in the > United States, three banks that each disclose, in writing, their > account reconciliation policy. My medium-sized full-service bank applies credits first. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:18:12 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Michael A. Chance wrote: > multiple franchise holders. Can anyone tell me which cities currently > have multiple cable TV franchises (meaning that most households have > more than one cable TV company to choose from) and what the experience > with that type of competition has been? * Many cities in the Northeast (RCN vs. various companies); * Many cities in Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio (Ameritech vs. various companies); * Newnan, GA (city government vs. Charter Communications); * Montgomery, AL and Columbus, GA (Knology vs. TCI/AT&T); * Chamblee, GA (BellSouth vs. Comcast). In virtually all of these cases, channel capacity has increased, new services such as cable modems are made available, customer service has improved, and rates have gone down. There's also the so-called "competition" that goes on at apartment buildings (where apartment owners contract with companies to build "in-house" "cable" systems); in that case, *for the most part* (there are companies such as Optel, Lyncstar, and of course RCN that are nowadays more like regular cable companies) prices go down a bit, but service and channel selection suffer as well. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: William Wheeler Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:09:05 -0700 Organization: Acta Sanctorum Corpus Ordo Vox Hermeius et Templum Reply-To: wuffa@novaroma.org Here in Portland, Oregon it is ATT all the way they got both companies here. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:38:19 -0400 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Local Cross-NPA-Boundary Seven-Digit Dialing In TD 19:503, Mark J Cuccia wrote: > As for other metro areas straddling a state/NPA line which > still maintains seven-digit permissive dialing, I think > there are several situations between Missouri and > Illinois, and Iowa and Illinois - crossing the Mississippi > River. But any existing local seven-digit inter-NPA/state > dialing between these adjacent-state situations is to > be phased out in favor of ten-digit local dialing - > particularly in eastern IA / northwestern IL. According to the 1999-2000 U S West directory for Council Bluffs, Iowa, it's still possible to call between Omaha and Council Bluffs by dialing seven digits. What's really strange about the Omaha/Council Bluffs area is City of Carter Lake, IA. It's located on the *west* side of the Mississippi River. Historically, it was located on the east side of the river, in a "meander" -- a big loop where the river meandered north, west, and south. Eventually, the river cut a more direct route, leaving Carter Lake (the city) stranded on the west side. The old river bed is now a lake, also called Carter Lake (see map at http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&addr=&csz=carter+lake+ia&Get%A0Ma p=Get+Map). Legally, the City of Carter Lake is still in Iowa. It has an Iowa zip code (51510) and an Iowa NPA-NXX (712-347). But there's no way you can drive to it without driving through Nebraska. Neal McLain nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Leo McCulloch Subject: Mexico Telecom Termination Agreements Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:16:54 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Telemex now has technology enabling it to intercept all illegal (grey) traffic to Mexico. Our client can provide approved contracts for Mexico City (including Puebla) as well as all bands in Mexico at competitive rates, which eliminates threat of interruption of services. Termination to Mexico City (including Puebla) is about $.05 per minute, FOB Mexico City. There is transport available from Houston, at $.015 per minute. The balance of the country is available from USA points in the neighborhood of $.10 - $.12 on-net, $.18 or higher off-net. Better rates may be negotiated for high volume. Some minimums apply but all programs are suitable for voice/data networks and telcom debt card programs. Lic. Leo Arthur McCulloch Jr., McCulloch & Associates, Attorneys at Law, Dallas, Texas, is an international law firm specializing in the creation of strategic joint ventures, investments, financing and commercial transactions, and legislative and regulatory representation in Mexico, exclusively. We have offices in Mexico, D.F.; Acapulco; Reynosa; and Morelia. We may be reached at e-mail: lamcculloch@worldnet.att.net, tel 817-329- 7445, fax 817-421-5439. ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:38:05 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , davidesan@my-deja.com spewed: > I'm resistant in this case, because 99% of all my calls require only > seven digits. I can't see why I have to dial ten digits, just so > Eastman Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch&Lomb don't have to change their > paperwork. We are already suffering from the stupidity of the > telephone companies who assign full exchanges to any company wasting > thousands of available telephone numbers, who create strange rate > centers so that more exchanges have to be assigned, who resist any > change at all in any of these policies because it would cost them > money even though they are making money hand over fist. I don't want to have to change my paperwork either ;-) I already list my area code on everything, and would rather not have to deal with the trouble of changing that. Leave existing exchanges alone; just give new lines the new area code. Then again, dialing ten digits isn't a problem for me -- my only telephone is a cellphone, and all of the speed dials are programmed with area code. So perhaps I'm not average ;-) Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Reply-To: Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 19:41:41 -0400 Organization: Free File Farm BBS rtucker+from+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker), a fellow 716'er, intoned, regarding the area code 716 split: > What is it with people being so resistant to overlays? -rt Likely, Ryan, it has to do with stationary, business cards, automated dialers, the need to re-program any on-site phone systems, lost business for mis-routed calls etc, etc etc, all of which have been well-documented here in this group. I note you live in Hilton, (a burb about 25 miles NW out of Midtown).O ut your way, your split will likely cause some problems with dial-up to the eastern burbs, such as Webster, and Perinton, and even to the western burbs such as Scottsville. I agree, that for many, such as yourself, who apparently are not bound to dialup lines, (being tied to Cable TV instead) it's a small matter. To others who make their living on the phone, it tends to be a much larger matter. With my regards. /E Eric Florack eflorack@servtech.com bignasty@billsfan.com http://www.servtech.com/~eflorack/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:19:09 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Pay Phone Paying John R. Levine wrote: > How many other places still have postpay? It's nice. I know of two off the top of my head: a) Waverly Hall, GA (Waverly Hall Telephone Co.) b) Radcliff, KY (including Fort Knox) (Brandenburg Telephone Co.) Both areas have modern digital switches, SS7, equal access, etc. I know of some other independents, including Ringgold [GA] Telephone Co. near Chattanooga, that were postpay until a year or two ago. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: A New 'Follow Me' 800 Service is Available Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:18:00 EDT For a number of years, I've talked off and on about MyLine and how useful it has been for me. I still continue to use the service even though it recently experienced a change in management. It still is as reliable as it always was. But I want to mention today a similar service offered by MCI-Worldcom which some of you may find more attractive. http://www.findmefollowme.com This is intended as a direct replacement for AT&T's old 'Follow Me' which was discontinued, but with a few more bells and whistles than AT&T was offering. If any of you are seeking to replace your AT&T service, you may want to vist this site. One user reports having used it now for several months, and finds that having voice mail and fax mail follow him to his e-mail has been an invaluable aid in making his life easier. One issue for many of you, as I recall, was that AT&T did not let people keep their toll free numbers when the service was killed. The MCI Worldcom product manager for Contact says that Contact customers *can* keep their toll free 800/888/877 number if they leave the service. For any larger corporate customers who are interested in trialing the service, demo accounts are available. After you have examined http://www.findmefollowme.com, perhaps you would share your thoughts here on the strengths and limitations of the AT&T service vrs. this offering from MCI-Worldcom. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #508 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 26 14:06:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA14557; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:06:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910261806.OAA14557@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #509 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Oct 99 14:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 509 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New DNS Entry (Alan Pugh) Book Review: "Dictionary of Networking", Peter Dyson (Rob Slade) Yet *MORE* Shenanigans From "PNG Telecommunications" (Linc Madison) A New World Order - 9th Circuit Rulings (Brian Webb) Latency Standards? (Alex Vrenios) Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan (Mike Fox) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (PhoneDude) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 26 Oct 1999 11:58:05 -0500 From: Alan Pugh Subject: New DNS Entry A press release concerning a new entry into the DNS field. TUCOWS Launches Open Shared Registry System for Domain Name Registration TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 26, 1999-- Move Offers ISP's Wholesale Registrations For $13 Per Year TUCOWS (www.tucows.com) has revolutionized the wholesale domain name registration market with today's launch of OpenSRS (Open Shared Registration System at www.opensrs.com). Internet Service Providers, web hosting firms and value added resellers can use OpenSRS to register domain names for their customers for just $13 per registration a year with a further discount for TUCOWS affiliates. OpenSRS is a combined software and service offering that enables .com, .net and .org domain name registrations at a fraction of the cost currently charged by the incumbent, Network Solutions Inc. and all new competitors. TUCOWS is once again pleased to play a significant part in the evolving world of Internet Commerce and software services development," said Ross W. Rader, Director of eCommerce for TUCOWS.com. "Offering ISPs a means to provide an inexpensive domain name registration service to their end users is something that no other registrar has been willing to do. Not only have we addressed this need, but we have given OpenSRS participants the opportunity to leverage standards-based, open source tools to gain access to pricing previously reserved for a select few, high-volume registration firms." The OpenSRS client software has been released under the GNU Public License which is the most popular open source license in use today. This liberal licensing arrangement allows companies to customize and modify the client software to ensure that it works within their environment, an opportunity not available with typical "closed-source" software. "OpenSRS.com allows us to offer a quality service at a much more competitive price," said Paul Engels, Vice President of Marketing, I.D. Internet Direct Ltd. "As Canada's largest independent ISP, we register thousands of domain names. Being able to save our customers more than 50 percent on their annual registration costs is a win-win solution for everyone." "Onvia is excited to be working with TUCOWS. Based upon our initial meetings, we are looking forward to building a great partnership. Domain registration is a very important service offering to our small biz members," says Jeff Chemeres, Director of Business Development, Services at Onvia.com. OpenSRS is broken down into two major components operated by TUCOWS: an open-source client front end and a server back-end. The net result of the process of transactions between OpenSRS and NSI is that a customer can now register a domain name with their local Internet Service Provider or web-hosting company in real-time, with prices that are finally competitive. In order to provide quality customer support service, TUCOWS has established a 24 hour customer service center for OpenSRS.com, enhanced with email, pager and a emergency toll-free number. About TUCOWS.com Inc. With offices in New York City; Flint, Michigan; and Toronto, Canada, TUCOWS.com (The Ultimate Collection of Winsock Software) is one of the largest Internet distribution sites featuring Windows(R), Macintosh(R), Linux(R) and PDA software. TUCOWS.com was founded in 1994 as a public service to new Internet users. Today the privately owned and operated company offers an array of electronic downloaded software programs that can be accessed at over 600 affiliates in over 75 countries world-wide. The site serves more than 80 million pages per month making TUCOWS.com one of the busiest sites on the Internet. CONTACT: TUCOWS.com Charmaine D'Silva, cell: 416/824-8374 charm@tucows.com Alan Pugh Vnet 772-3077 Haiku error message: Login incorrect. Only perfect spellers may enter this system. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:06:02 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Dictionary of Networking", Peter Dyson Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKNPDCNT.RVW 990911 "Dictionary of Networking", Peter Dyson, 1999, 0-7821-2461-5, U$29.99/C$45.00/UK#19.99 %A Peter Dyson %C 1151 Marina Village Parkway, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1999 %G 0-7821-2461-5 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$29.99/C$45.00/UK#19.99 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 %P 448 p. + CD-ROM %T "Dictionary of Networking, Third Edition" The title of the first edition was "Novell's Dictionary of Networking," and it still shows in the significant number of entries that are specific commands for Novell Netware. A large number of entries still relate to personal computers, as opposed to networking or communications. The Internet now gets a few more terms included, but those are not always reliable. The dropping of any modifiers and the claim to the complete field of networking is not supported by the material included in this book. While the entries are generally more extensive, the number of listings is not much greater than for the old glossaries that got used as promotional giveaways by various networking companies. In most cases, the explanations and definitions are quite sound, although the professional will note many omissions or not-quite-right errors. ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) has been corrected since the second edition, but a number of errors still remain. It is true that, if you are using four bit packets, Hamming code must attach three redundant bits to each. However, it is much more effective in a larger scale, requiring, for example, only eight redundant bits for a 56 bit data packet. Cable testers use the nominal velocity of propagation to test the length of an intact cable segment, but, more importantly, a reading less than the cable length indicates an internal break in the cable being tested. Most people will only have seen a bang path in an older email address, but it is a machine, rather than email, address and also carries routing information. In terms of organization, symbols are spelled out. Numbers are written in digits, but listed in order as if they were spelled out. Yes, it has an entry for virus. No, it's not any good. Microsoft terminology joins Novell jargon in this latest edition. In fact, a very significant proportion of the material in the glossary relates to companies, organizations, or proprietary programs. While this might seem, at first thought, reasonably useful, it turns out to be rather annoying in practice. The number of proprietary terms possible are enormous, and, unless you are actually using that technology, irrelevant to anything else. The end result tends to feel like a bunch of unboxed ads slipped in between the material you are looking for. Unfortunately, this work simply does not have any distinctive that would recommend it above what is already available. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKNPDCNT.RVW 990911 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century. - Dan Quayle, 9/15/88 http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:59:02 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Yet *MORE* Shenanigans From "PNG Telecommunications" Those of you who have been here a while may remember the **NIGHTMARES** I had dealing with my 800 service through a company called PNG Telecommunications (now doing business as Power Net Global, but I prefer the expansion of PNG = Persona Non Grata). I signed up for an 800 number through them. They assigned it to me, but even after I started getting billed for it, they never told me what my 800 number was, which made it a little difficult for me to use it or give it out. Several calls to their voicemail-deathtrap system (when it would even accept a message) were completely ignored. I finally managed to get through to a live being (although I'm not sure whether "human" applies), and found out my number. Everything was fine for a while until one day I called my own 800 number and spoke to a housewife in North Dakota. I called customer service, and they fixed it, but then a couple of weeks later I called my own 800 number and spoke to a housewife somewhere in Pennsylvania. I gave them my daytime number to contact me, only to find that they re-routed my 800 number to ring on my office phone. I wasn't pleased about giving my employer (a very large company) a free line to my desk. They also repeatedly screwed up the billing. When I complained in this newsgroup about the pathetic excuse for a business I was dealing with, someone purporting to be the president of the company replied by e-mail. Rather than offering help in getting the matter straightened out, he offered the opinion that I was lying about all of this for some nefarious purpose. Shortly after that, I RespOrg'ed the number to a new carrier, which has had very few problems, other than a delay in activating service from Canada. I've been happy with the new carrier for about 2.5 years now. Lo and behold, what do I find in Monday's mail, but a bill from PNG for the $3.00 monthly minimum on my account! Yes, an account I closed in the spring of 1997. I was actually able to ring through to a customer service clerk, who said I should disregard the bill and that it would not come back to bite my 800 number, but I'll be watching over the next couple of months. I could switch to a completely new number that has never been polluted by PNG (I rather like 1-877-546-2623, but please don't call it, since it may or may not already be assigned), but I like having an 800 number that can actually be dialed from payphones and motels, even if the rest of the number has no mnemonic value. Whatever you do, if you see a company called PNG (or PowerNet Global) of West Chester, Ohio, RUN THE OTHER WAY!! Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom(at)LincMad(dot)com * North American Telephone Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: e-mail replies to the address in this sig will be read first! << ------------------------------ From: webbb@excite.com (Brian Webb) Subject: A New World Order - 9th Circuit Rulings Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 02:10:06 PDT The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just handed down a ruling in the case *LOCKHEED v. NETWORK*, or more completely *Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.". The 9th Circuit upheld the District Court's judgment. For those insufficiently acquainted with our federal republic, the 9th Circuit covers California, Oregon, Washington, and several other western states. The background of the case goes like this ... Lockheed owns and has operated "The Skunk Works," an aircraft design and construction laboratory. "Skunk Works" is a registered and incontestable service mark. Third parties, not involved in this litigation, had registered domain-name combinations with NSI which are variations on the phrase "skunk works." Lockheed sent two letters bringing the and registrations to NSI's attention. Lockheed's letters informed NSI of its belief that the third-party registrants were infringing or diluting Lockheed's service mark. Lockheed requested that NSI cancel the allegedly offending registrations. Lockheed also requested that NSI cease registering domain-name combinations that included "Skunk Works" or variations on the phrase and report to Lockheed all such domain-name combinations contained in its registry. NSI took no action on Lockheed's requests, informing Lockheed by letter that Lockheed had failed to comply with the terms of NSI's dispute resolution policy. Due to Lockheed's dealings with the third-party registrants, and ceased being used, but NSI did not immediately cancel the registrations and later permitted a new registrant to register . After procedural motions were made, the court issued its summary judgment. The court said that contributory infringement occurs when the defendant either intentionally induces a third party to infringe the plaintiff's mark or supplies a product to a third party with actual or constructive knowledge that the product is being used to infringe the service mark. The court analogized that NSI's role differs little from that of the United States Postal Service: when an Internet user enters a domain name combination, NSI translates the domain-name combination to the registrant's IP Address and routes the information or command to the corresponding computer. Although NSI's routing service is only available to a registrant who has paid NSI's fee, NSI does not supply the domain-name combination any more than the Postal Service supplies a street address by performing the routine service of routing mail. Where domain names are used to infringe, the infringement does not result from NSI's publication of the domain name list, but from the registrant's use of the name on a web site or other Internet form of communication in connection with goods or services ... NSI's involvement with the use of domain names does not extend beyond registration. http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065 8118/4635319b8bdf28ae882568150068b21d?OpenDocument Related cases are *AVERY DENISON v. SUMPTON*, 08/23/1999, 98-55810: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065 8118/04a35134bff267ca882567d60065ee63?OpenDocument and *BROOKFIELD v. WEST COAST*, 04/22/1999, 98-56918: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065 8118/93e74a376e0018c38825675c00110e49?OpenDocument and *PANAVISION INTL v. TOEPPEN*, 04/17/98, 97-55467: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065 8118/6a05133ffcbb2761882566fc00818b3c?OpenDocument and *CYBERSELL INC v. CYBERSELL INC", 12/02/1997, 96-17087: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065 8118/885aaf26807dc4e4882566fb000215a1?OpenDocument Bryan "I don't even pretend to be a paralegal" Webb ------------------------------ From: vrenios@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu (Alex Vrenios) Subject: Latency Standards? Date: 26 Oct 1999 15:38:12 GMT Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ I am looking for a document that describes latency standards. How much delay in audio is acceptable? At what point do users complain that they cannot communicate with another party? Etc. I am interested in both the cellular and landline cases and I am most interested in a standard that was found through some kind of experimentation. Also, did the cellular industry ever claim that they would "only approach" the latency standards of the landline counterparts? Did they say why and quote reasons? I am designing a multihop wireless ad hoc network scheme and would like to base my latency standards on some solid foundation from earlier works. References appreciated -- thanks. Alex Vrenios Ph.D. Student Computer Science Dept. Vrenios@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:36:48 -0400 From: Mike Fox Subject: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan AT&T's One-Rate Online plan promises ten cents a minute with no monthly fee (except for the Gore taxes of course), and it specifically includes in-state North Carolina Long Distance at 10 cents a minute. At least on the day of this writing, you can see that at http://www.catalog.att.com/cmd/prodfaqs/index.html#eoffer4: > AT&T One Rate Online offers AT&T Long Distance Service for ten cents a > minute on direct-dialed state-to-state long distance calls made from > home. This rate applies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no > monthly fee. > AT&T One Rate Online offers competitive in-state rates ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > for long distance calls from home within state at just 10¢ in all states ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > except: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Wyoming (pending tariff effectiveness). AT&T One Rate Online also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > offers rates for local toll calls from home. For all other types of calls, > standard rates and charges apply. These rates vary by type of call > and by state. However, I just got my first bill and guess what, I was charged 12 cents a minute for in-state NC long distance. When I called to complain, I was politely told that the rate for NC had gone up to 12 cents in mid-September. But the web-page excerpt I have included above is from October 26! And yes, I did sign up for the plan in late September, which means that at the time I signed up, AT&T's own web page was promising a rate they don't deliver! I would never have bothered to sign up for AT&T if their rates had been honestly posted, after all I can get 10 cents a minute in-state with 10-10-432 and no monthly fees. I only signed up with them for the convenience of getting the same rate and not dialing extra numbers. They did credit me the difference for calls already made, but informed me that henceforth, I would be paying 12 cents a minute for in-state long distance, and they would "try" to get the web page updated soon. So, if you're in NC (or any other state where AT&T may be pulling this stunt) and on the one-rate online plan, check your bill carefully and demand your credit for any mis-billed in-state calls. They will continue to give this credit (but only to those who ask for it) up until the web page is updated. Then you're stuck with a plan worse than the one you signed up for. Also, I am now looking for a new LD carrier. I require: 1. No minimum usage requirement; 2. No monthly fees, except for Gore taxes which must be reasonable (i.e., in-line with the industry standard charges); 3. ten cents a minute or less in-state NC long distance. Since over 90% of my LD calling is in-state NC, state-to-state rates are a secondary consideration. Later, Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 04:41:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service I've used Ameritech ISDN in suburban Chicago for four or five years. It is reliable and works well. I first had business service, billed directly to my company, then converted to residential service. The residential service provides untimed calls within the 8 mile Band A local area. The recent installation of a residential ISDN line was trouble-free. The provisioning was almost perfect from day one. An adjustment was needed to permit call forwarding via 72# dialing. By default, their NI-1 configuration forwards calls only through a D channel command which is not generated by my 3Com ImpactIQ terminal adaptor. The original business ISDN installation, years ago, was a nightmare. It took two months to install, then failed six months later when an installer gave my switch port to another customer. My installer had failed to close the installation ticket! The Ameritech Chicago area installers have since learned to handle ISDN well. Mark ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: 26 Oct 1999 15:16:06 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 26 Oct 1999 02:45:14 GMT, larb0@aol.com allegedly said: >> but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any >> time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even >> available, and the CO is too far for DSL. > Maybe an expert can correct me, but aren't loop limits for ISDN about > the same as for DSL?? 18 kilofeet? I know that the flavor of DSL > affects the loop length and that you can use ISDN loop extenders - > but, in general, if you can have ISDN the loop also fits for DSL? From what I understand, DSL is less, and it can't use repeaters. (DSL is about two miles, ISDN is 18000 feet, and ISDN can use repeaters.) North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ From: PhoneDude Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:13:23 -0400 Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated Bruce Larrabee wrote in message news:telecom19.507. 12@telecom-digest.org: >> but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any >> time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even >> available, and the CO is too far for DSL. > Maybe an expert can correct me, but aren't loop limits for ISDN about > the same as for DSL?? 18 kilofeet? I know that the flavor of DSL > affects the loop length and that you can use ISDN loop extenders - > but, in general, if you can have ISDN the loop also fits for DSL? Well, yes and no. Loop limitations in distance are about the same from 14 to 18 kfeet, but ISDN can be repeatered and DSL cannot. In addition, DSL has other limiting factors that do not affect ISDN such as having T1s in the same cable binder or other high frequency services in the same cable. Add to this the fact that many ISDN capable central offices have not yet been equipped with DSL and the difference becomes quite large. PD ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #509 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Oct 26 16:36:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA23362; Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 16:36:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910262036.QAA23362@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #510 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Oct 99 16:36:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Cable Competition (Syd Barrett) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Adam Frix) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Alan Boritz) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Bob Goudreau) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Dana Paxson) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Ryan Tucker) Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception (Ed Ellers) Re: First USA On-Line Debiting (Bruce Wilson) Re: First USA and Wingspan (Curious Angel) Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad (David Charles) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Ed Ellers) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Bill Ranck) Multi-Location Networked Voice Mail? (Mike Schumann) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Syd Barrett From: Syd Barrett Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:31:40 GMT Organization: @Home Network Adam Frix wrote in message news: telecom19.500.10@telecom-digest.org: > In article , Michael A. Chance > wrote: > Don't listen to AT&T/TCI. They're bluffing. They won't forgo their > $100 million upgrade; if anything, they'll accelerate the program in > the interests of remaining competitive should there be a competing > provider behind every house. Exactly: rather than having them forego their upgrade, competition would prod them to accelerate their schedule, if only to retain customers thinking of switching. By remaining the sole franchisee, they can take their sweet time performing infrastructure upgrades, as MediaOne has done in Henrico/Richmond, VA. M.O. promised broadband Internet and digital cable four years ago (back in '95) and are still saying, 'Sign up on our waiting-list and we'll let you know when it comes to your neighbourhood! It's coming soon!' Same party-line they've been spouting the entire four years. Luckily, I'm somewhat pleased with Comcast in Chesterfield (a suburb of Richmond), but I wonder how things will be when AT&T takes over the local Comcast franchise as part of their MediaOne buyout (they already have signed a memorandum of understanding with Comcast). I just hope they don't mess up a good thing. JonesMB wrote in message news:telecom19.504.5@ telecom-digest.org: > now available via cable. Seeing as I watch less than 10% of the > available channels it would be nice if we could pick only what we > watch and pay less. Maybe once VOD (video-on-demand) becomes widespread this statement will switch from being subjunctive to indicative. Out of the 181 digital cable channels I receive, I watch/listen to ('listen to' since 20 or so are audio-only music channels) maybe 5-6 of them with any regularity. That comes out to ~3%. There should be two types of fee: 1) a flat 'package' rate for those channels I view regularly, and 2) a pay-per-view rate for the ones I watch occasionally. Obviously, the channels I never watch such as Great Outdoors and Home Shopping Club shouldn't be included in my package. But once digital cable becomes more prevalent, such tailored packages will make a nice competitive strategy. All it takes is one innovative cable provider. Another gripe I have with cable currently is the lack of first-run movies. Movies tend to make it to video first (within three months of theatre showing), and *then* onto the various movie channels (HBO, Showtime, Skinemax) three months beyond *that*. Therefore, it's up to six months before I can view a movie on TV. I'm lazy. I'd rather have a recent movie available as pay-per-view rather than having to drive to Blockbuster. And since electrons and photons are cheaper to transport than atoms and molecules, these PPV movies should be *less* expensive than the equivalent check-out at a video-store. There's less overhead: no inventory, no FedEx fees, handling by a breathing minimum-wage employee, et cetera. So the media conglomerates should pass on the savings to the consumer. Right now, most PPV stuff consists of Bobbi Does Billy-type fare, at least in my market. I currently don't have any access to recent-release non-porn films. ------------------------------ From: adamf.nospam@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:04:25 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , Monte Chartier wrote: > Wire tapping is against the law requardless of which side of the demarc. Not here it's not. As long as one person in the conversation is aware of the recording, everything's OK. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:50:28 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Thomas W. McDonald wrote: > An installation technician goes on a service call. Caretaker let's > them in the house. The line is reported as having no dialtone with a > s/c on line. Technician finds a recording device in the crawl space > causing the s/c; he disconnects it and leaves it at it's location. The > subscriber comes home while the line is being repaired. Technician > tells them the line is fixed (not mentioning the device). > Now my questions. Does the tech have the obligation to mention the > device to the police, or to the subscriber? The device was past the > demarc and on the subscriber premises. The tech should have told the subscriber exactly where the problem was, and told him that he unplugged the recording device. Strictly speaking, the technician shouldn't have touched ANYTHING on the subscriber side of the demarc. Proper protocol should have been to verify it good at the demarc and tell the subscriber that his CPE recording device should be unplugged or fixed, leaving the equipment as he found it. Beyond that, it's none of anyone else's business what is plugged into the phone line unless if it's causing harm to technicians or the network. How the subscriber uses the recording device is also none of the technician's business. The technician should concentrate on doing his job (which he apparently didn't do very well in this case) and leave police work to cops. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:47:09 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Eric Florack wrote: >> What is it with people being so resistant to overlays? -rt > Likely, Ryan, it has to do with stationary [sic], business cards, > automated dialers, the need to re-program any on-site phone systems, > lost business for mis-routed calls etc, etc etc, all of which have > been well-documented here in this group. If you are arguing *against* an overlay, the items you have enumerated above don't seem to add overwhelming support to your argument. Let's consider them one at a time: 1) Stationery: no change required for an overlay; new stationery must be ordered if your area code changes due to a split. Advantage: Overlay. 2) Business cards: same as above. Advantage: Overlay. 3) Automated dialers: depends on how many of the speed-dial settings are currently for 7D numbers, but let's be generous and assume that most are (though in my actual case, only three of the combined 15 speed-dial buttons on my home and office phones are for 7D numbers). Advantage: Split. 4) PBX reprogramming: similar to the automated dialer issue. Advantage: Split. 5) Lost business due to misrouted calls: under an overlay, your business retains its current number. Local callers who mistakenly try dialing it with only 7 digits get the standard error message telling them to try again with the area code, and 99.99% of them successfully do so. (The remaining 0.01% are thus too obtuse to dial *any* local number under the new 10D regime, and will probably be dead of starvation within a few weeks.) Long distance callers are completely unaffected by the overlay. Under a split, however, your old number will become unassigned (and perhaps eventually reassigned to someone else), and some non-local callers who have your old brochures or stationery and who haven't heard about your new area code will not be able to reach you. Advantage: Overlay. So, on balance, it appears that you have provided more arguments *in favor* of an overlay than against one. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:38:37 -0400 From: Dana Paxson Reply-To: dwpaxson@acm.org Organization: Dana Paxson Studio Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split I'd like to weigh in on this one. I worked at Nortel here in Rochester for twenty years as a systems engineer, planning and supporting the Directory Assistance systems Nortel builds and installs. Area code splits are a headache no matter which way one goes. Somebody always gets stuck with the ten-digit curse. Ryan Tucker is lucky to have all the right things in place: ten-digit numbers already programmed. That makes things easy, but few others are in this position. Eric Florack's point about all the reprinting and redirecting necessary when numbers change is valid beyond question. So what to do? Geographic splits guarantee that one area of turf gets all the work in the split. Overlays manage to spread the pain equally, but probably cause more than the total pain caused by the geographic split, mostly due to the fixed labor overhead associated with reprinting and reprogramming subsets of numbers everywhere. But there may be a better way. Much of the pressure on the number space comes from identifiable sources: modem lines, fax lines, wireless, and second or third lines. There are also groups of numbers reserved but not fully used. Why not think of phone numbers in terms of their sources, especially in growing areas of expansion? I would prefer to see the new area code(s) go to those sources of new numbers that are rapidly growing, and leave the stable number base alone. Wireless is the first candidate. Second would be all those new numbers not to be published. Third would be all new corporate number exchanges, where the company is already undergoing a complete overhaul of all its numbers anyway. The point is that the new area codes should follow the 'churn' in the number base, not interfere with the stable numbers. Hell, new numbers haven't been printed or programmed on anything yet. Why shouldn't they make the best candidates for new area codes? Or is this too simple? I'm sure that some readers can find fault with this proposal. I haven't checked the statistics on it all, but years of work on DA databases have told me that the cost of leaving well enough alone (or bad enough alone, as the case may be) is a lot less than making it worse. Please, let's not overlay these area codes. Before anybody leaps ahead, applying some more brains would help minimize the impacts. Of course, when Internet telephony really hits, and cable telephony wakes up, the game will change completely, so most of this will be moot. Can you say 'dial by URL'? Thought so. Dana W. Paxson dwpaxson@acm.org 716 224-9356 Reality boggles everything. That's why we've got denial. ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:44:09 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , Eric Florack spewed: >> What is it with people being so resistant to overlays? -rt > Likely, Ryan, it has to do with stationary, business cards, automated > dialers, the need to re-program any on-site phone systems, lost > business for mis-routed calls etc, etc etc, all of which have been > well-documented here in this group. I note you live in Hilton, (a > burb about 25 miles NW out of Midtown).O ut your way, your split will > likely cause some problems with dial-up to the eastern burbs, such as > Webster, and Perinton, and even to the western burbs such as Scottsville. I'd think people would be more resistant to a split than an overlay if it was about stationary, busienss cards, etc. And actually, I live in the city ... my mailing address is a PO Box at the main post office and my main phone line is a cellphone, so you'd never know it *grin* > I agree, that for many, such as yourself, who apparently are not bound > to dialup lines, (being tied to Cable TV instead) it's a small > matter. To others who make their living on the phone, it tends to be a > much larger matter. My employer is one of the local ISP's, so yes, I really don't want anything to happen because the tech support people will get cranky *grin* ... however, if a split happens, face it: Rochester is getting a new area code. And that'll cause just as much trouble. -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Sprint PCS and Phone Reception Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:45:05 -0400 Matt Bartlett wrote: > In most peoples opinions the Sony "pop-up" phone (CMD-600) is > probably the best phone that Sprint ever had. The newer Sony phones, > CMS-1101 Singleband/CMS-1201 dualband are pretty good, having been > made by Qualcomm." Sprint PCS' Web site (http://www.sprintpcs.com/store/equipment.asp) shows both the CMD-600 and CMS-1101SPR as available (refurbished units only) for $39.99, as are the Nokia 2170, Samsung SCH-1000 and Samsung SCH-1900. (The CMD-600 had a Qualcomm logo under the pop-up earphone, and I've seen it sold under the Qualcomm name rather than Sony for other CDMA carriers, so it's possible that Qualcomm made that one too.) ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 26 Oct 1999 11:47:01 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: First USA On-Line Debiting > No bank will tell you this, but credits are always applied AFTER any > debits from your account. There could be a payroll transfer of several > thousand dollars sitting in your account but they'll process a debit that > exceeds your balance, pay it and then charge you the difference plus a > service fee in the range of $15 to $25 dollars. > The cute part about it is that they don't publish this information. All one has to do is look at a statement to see what got applied in what order on a day on which there were both credits and debits; and I've yet to encounter a bank that applies debits before credits. They've all applied credits first; and my bank will post a credit immediately, rather than wait until the end of the day's closing, on request. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: byte.this@usa.net (Curious Angel) Subject: Re: First USA and Wingspan Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:43:16 GMT Organization: Heaven Reply-To: Curious Angel On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:16:39 -0400, Paul Hrisko wrote: > On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 00:07:07 GMT, tinikins@my-deja.com wrote: >> First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the >> payroll at the site in Maryland. Also read http://cnnfn.com/1999/10/19/news/wires/bankone_wg/index.htm This is perhaps the most predatory, evil bank on the Planet Earth. But don't worry. Thanks to the Internet, they are destined to be eaten alive by thousands of small lawsuits and within five years SUED INTO OBLIVION. If you're in, GET OUT. Don't do it by phone, write it: Ship it CERTIFIED and copy the OCC on your notice of termination with them. That paper trail is the only thing between your assets and a pack of THIEVING, MALEVOLENT men who are about to become desperate. angel ------------------------------ From: d_c_h@my-deja.com (David Charles) Subject: Re: Dial Key Pad vrs. Calculator Key Pad Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:09:09 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , dov@oz.net wrote: > Actually, the DTMF keypads in Denmark originally had the setup: > 789 > 456 > 123 > 0*# > Many of the Danish public telephones that use coins have the keypads > set up this way. The newer card phones have the usual pattern of I have not seen any unusual keypad arangements in Denmark, but have in Norway. It is possible that the explanation is similar. In Scandanavia the mapping between the number of pulses and the digit in loop disconnect dialling varied from place to place. In Sweden 0 is one pulse, 1 is two pulses, 9 is ten pulses etc. In Norway there were at least two different systems used. I do not know what was used in Denmark. The telephones with unusual keypads I saw in Norway were using loop disconnect dialling. The mapping between the position of they key and the number of pulses produced was normal (i.e top left key gave one pulse) but the keys were labelled so that they operated according to the local convention. (Similarly the numbering on the dial on rotary phones differed from normal). Presumably it is cheaper to produce a phone with different labels on the keypad than with a special board layout to accomodate the local system. I think the layout was as below, but cannot be sure: 987 654 321 .0. I cannot think of any plausible loop disconnect dialling system that would fit the layout mentioned by Joseph Singer. It is however possible that this layout can be used with some switchable DTMF/LD chip to provide one or more local LD arrangement and (standard) DTMF more easily than the standard keypad arrangement. All new equipment in Denmark is required to be DTMF only, therefore these reasons for not using the standard arrangement would no longer apply. David Charles ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 03:32:48 -0400 Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > A picture of an early 1960's touchtone phone can be seen on the web, at > Lucent/Bell-Labs' website: http://www.lucent.com/hall/1964.html I think that was the 1959 prototype (which would explain the MAin 0-2368 reference), after the final key layout was determined but before the decision was made to use gray keys with white type. ------------------------------ From: Bill Ranck Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Date: 26 Oct 1999 14:01:46 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > A picture of an early 1960's touchtone phone can be seen on the web, > at Lucent/Bell-Labs' website: http://www.lucent.com/hall/1964.html > It mentions 1964, but I think that "public" touchtone was trialed > in 1963 or even 1962. Note in the Lucent picture that the number-card > states: > MAin 0-2368 > The MAin-0 "exchange" was frequently used as a 'generic' exchange in > the 1950's, since there were VERY few places that had c.o.codes of the > 'NN0' format; in the early 1960's, KL5 (KLondike-5) was a frequent > "generic" exchange, since it translated to '555'. Bell had a big exhibit at the 1964 World's Fair in New York. I was ten years old. My mother took me to the Fair. I remember the TouchTone telephone hands-on demonstration. I think they "officially" introduced TouchTone at the World's Fair and that is why the literature says 1964. They had a regular dial phone and a TouchTone set up next to each other with some sort of timing arrangement so you could try dialing by pushbutton and by dial to compare. They suggested dialing 555-5555 on both, but I used my home phone number because I could dial that pretty fast. Even with having to find the numbers on the new phone the TouchTone was faster by a lot. Of course, Bell also introduced video phones at the '64 World's Fair. I think they predicted it to be widespread by the 1970's. Another historically interesting introduction at the 1964 Fair was the Ford Mustang. For some reason, I don't remember that at all even though I learned to drive a few years later in a '67 mustang. I don't remember the Ford exhibit, but I remember the Bell Telephone one. Oh yeah, Disney's "It's a Small World" was introduced there too. I remember that one ... sheesh. ***************************************************************************** * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ***************************************************************************** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago had a large Bell System exhibit during the 1960-70's including such 'modern' innovations at the time as picture phones and speaker phones. One interesting thing was a speaker phone built as a pay phone. You sat down in a little booth, deposited your coins as requested and called wherever you wished. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Schumann Subject: Multi-Location Networked Voice Mail? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:48:02 -0500 We have two specialty retail stores currently using Lucent Partner phone systems. We would like to upgrade (or replace) these phone systems to support networked multi-location voice mail capabilities. Specifically, we want to be able to forward messages from one mailbox to another mailbox at the other location, or broadcast a single message to all of our employees. Also, we have a number of employees who move between stores. We want our customers to be able to leave messages for an employee at either location, but only have a single mailbox for the employee to check. While we are willing to spend $ on equipment to solve this problem, I am very reluctant to invest significant resources in additional tie lines, etc. that would incure a monthly recurring cost. We currently have a lightly used TCP/IP data network (using ISDN routers) connecting our locations that could be used by the voice mail systems to exchange messages without requiring any additional telecommunications infrastructure. We have a total of about twenty employees. Our main location has three voice CO lines and about twelve phones. Our satelite location has two voice CO lines and about six phones. Any suggestions on what voice mail and/or phone systems we should look at would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike Schumann schumann-nospam@bitstream-nospam.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Make sure you get features the employees *will actually use* and don't waste a lot of money on things they will ignore. I've seen cases of such overkill due to a salesman's zealous selling approach that really amazed me. One large department store in Chicago has a Rolm PBX that sits behind some centrex and DID lines for example. The Rolm duplicates a lot of what the centrex has to offer, plus literally a dozen more features regarding handling/transferring/manipulating of calls that no one there knows how to utilize. The instruction manual for users -- typically buried deep in the bottom drawer of a clerk's desk and never referred to -- is about a hundred pages long. Now you will not be having an installation nearly that size of course, but watch and see if the salespeople you talk to don't have you looking at some features, services, and phone instruments with so many buttons and gimmicks that the *average employee* never begins to figure out, let alone routinely use. Good or bad, if your employees won't use them, don't buy them. If you wish, after you have gotten a few proposals from various vendors, if you want to outline the offers here, I am sure the readers will be glad to critique them, pointing out the flaws, failures and good points of each. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #510 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 27 00:08:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA12177; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910270408.AAA12177@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #511 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Oct 99 00:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Stewart Fist) MMDS Wireless Internet Consortium Formed (The Old Bear) BT-AT&T Deal Riles Privacy Advocates (Monty Solomon) Re: A New 'Follow Me' 800 Service is Available (Ryan Tucker) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Dave Navarro) Re: Definition For Telecom? (Jan Ceuleers) Seeking Ranking of Top Ten Carriers by Traffic (Jorge de Vicente Benito) Need Voice Mail Software (Larry Rachman) Excite@Home Statement in Response to GTE (Monty Solomon) Request For ADSL Information (Jeff Manera) Fone Finder Link (Walt Brubaker) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 27 Oct 1999 07:34:38 +1000 From: Stewart Fist Reply-To: fist@ozemail.com.au Organization: Independent writer and columnist Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? It's interesting that correspondence on Cellphone Hazards from engineers are all calculating what _should_ happen according to their 50-year-old radio theory. They completely ignoring the biomedical evidence as to what _does_ happen. This is evidence of the old furphy that non-ionising radiation hasn't got the energy to break co-valent chemical bonds, and therefore can't effect human tissue. That was discredited about a half-century ago. People discovered that they could actually see (a profound chemical and electrical change) using a form of non-ionisiting radiation called light. There also seems to be a failure to comprehend the Inverse Square Law. A battery-powered antenna one inch from the side of your head can easily impact on the DNA in a single brain cell with much more power than a 50,000 Watt transmitter a hundred yards away, or a soldier's backpack. And brain tumours all start with the DNA of only one cell going into an uncontrolled reproduction phase. All other suspected causes of brain tumour are also random in effect, and minute in incidence. These may only occur in a small number of highly susceptible individuals -- so do we just abandon them to their fate? This is the first time in history that 100 million people have begun to use transmitters against the side of the head for long periods every day, for a life-time. Some people (telecom tradesmen) use them for five hours a day from the age of about 18 to 80. And when a 1-watt GSM (TDMA) transmits, its power is concentrated into one-eight of the time-frame. So the effect is like a stobe light -- very short in duration but intense power. The suggestion that you can just average the output, in the expectation that the only effect is tissue heating, is ridiculous. The question is; What effect does the pulsed power have when impacting on DNA during critical phases of cell division? (which is a highly electrical process). These averaging claims are like averaging the local pressure of a bullet over the ten minutes of confontation with a gun-man, and saying its only a few pounds per second -- and therefore not dangerous. Another correspondent quoted the Wall Street Journal saying: More than > 12,000 studies have been done (from a recent Wall Street Journal > article), and no significant link has been found. On this basis he claimed that the research of hundreds of top cellular and molecular biologists around the world were engaged in 'junk-science'. I've challenged the industry repeatedly to back up these claims, and provide me with a list of even 60 of the most important of these 12,000 studies. I've never managed to get any. However they did publish a list, in Australia, of half-a-dozen animal studies which they said proved cellphones were safe. At the top of the list they had a Brain Tumour study by Professor Ross Adey, which found a slight reduction in tumour incidence in exposed rats. I wrote to Adey asking why the industry was able to use just this one of his numerous (about 300) research reports to make claims of safety, and this is his reply, worded for publication: > It has come to my notice that the Australian cellphone industry has > singled out one of our studies to support their claim that cellphones > are safe. > Nothing could be farther from the truth. My research team has > published hundreds of papers on this subject over the past 35 years, > many with disturbing findings. From this pioneering research, it is > my considered view that there is unequivocal laboratory and > epidemiological evidence pointing to potentially adverse health > effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation. Nothing in our > research findings can be construed as supporting the view that use > of a cellphone is free from health risks. > To the contrary, our research in animal models exposed to digital > cellphone fields has revealed the occurrence of effects on > regulation of cell growth related to tumour formation. > Extreme caution is necessary before directly extrapolating these > findings to human health risks. Reduced tumour numbers in > exposed animals seen in one of our experiments, as opposed to an > increase, is of vastly less significance in a medical context than the > finding that there was a field effect on cell growth regulation. It > will be some months before these findings finally appear in an > international peer-reviewed journal. > But with a feckless irresponsibility so characteristic of their venal > vested interests, industry organizations have hastily concluded that > our findings support their endless chant, indeed their mantra, that > use of these phones carries no risk. And from the biomedical > research of which they have been virtually the sole sponsors > worldwide, they openly state that the only answer that they wish to > hear is one unequivocally supporting corporate positions and > policies, totally unfettered by health concerns. > W. Ross Adey, M.D. Professor of Biochemistry > University of California at Riverside . If this is the best report that the cellphone industry find out of the 12,000 claimed research finding that supposedly prove cellphones to be safe, I think even the village idiot could see that there is a major problem and that the 12,000 report claim is an outright lie. It is impossible to prove such things are safe; the best you can say is that you found no evidence. And the vast majority of the published papers in this area do find positive connections between exposure and tissue or functional changes (in animals and humans). What's more, most of TELECOM Digest readers don't appear to know that Dr. George Carlo, the CTIA's hired-gun trouble-shooter for the last six years -- the man who ran the Wireless Technology Research $27 million research-funding program -- has sent a letter to the 30 top cellphone carriers and manufacturers, putting them on notice that serious evidence did emerge during this period about cellphone links to brain tumours, and that they ignore this research at their peril. Carlo says that when these results first emerged, CTIA members verbally agreed to publicise the work, but then never took action. He also accused carriers of trying to mislead the FDA and he says that the industry risks a backlash of lawsuits similar to the tobacco industry if it continued to ignore the issues. Carlo admitted to a reporter at my newspaper (The Australian) that he: > already faced a suit for conspiring with the CTIA to conceal > information. ``As a public health person, I'm trying to follow > through my obligation to let the public know what we've found,'' he > said. "We've done some ground-breaking work. I want to make sure > the legacy of the WTR is not one of being a PR agent for the > industry." I'm certainly not a fan of Carlo, and I think he is just trying to cover his back, but that doesn't mean that his assessment is wrong. WTR scientists (including Carlo) went on strike for six months in 1997 until their research was covered by CTIA-funded indemnity insurance after Carlo and the WTR were charged with conspiracy to conceal evi- dence in a Chicago brain-cancer case. Even the scientists who wrote FCC safety standards 15 years ago also insisted on indemnification. No other research scientists has ever needed such cover, to my know- ledge. Then the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (an independent off-shoot of the Harvard School of Public Health) which had been paid to audit WTR activities and findings, turned against the CTIA's cover-up. They had received substantial back-door funding from the CTIA, laundered through Carlo's Health and Environmental Sciences Group, and were then paid openly to provide "arms-length auditing". The counter-claim that Carlo is trying to blackmail the CTIA into giving him more research funds doesn't stand up. He broke irrepair- ably with them over the indemnity insurance issue, and later over their refusal to support him in another court case. He may, however, be trying to rehabilitate his reputation, which is pretty much in tatters after acting as fireman for the CTIA over six years. The full document of his remarkable letter can be found at: http://www.electric-words.com/radiation/carlosletter.html In it he points to specific findings of studies linking cell phones to brain tumours. He conveyed these findings to the US cellular industry earlier this year at the annual convention of the CTIA. He says that WTR research has shown: * The rate of brain cancer deaths was higher among hand-held mobile users than those using non-handhelds. * The risk of rare tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled among cell phone users than non-users. * There was a correlation between the occurrence of brain tumours on the right side of the head and use of phones on the right side of the head. * The risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumour of the auditory nerve, was 50 per cent higher in people who reported using cell phones for six years or more. * The ability of phone antenna radiation to cause genetic damage was definitely positive and followed a dose-responsive relationship. In his letter, Dr. Carlo accused the wireless industry of ignoring its responsibility to follow up the findings and to protect consumers. He said some segments of the industry had "repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers, including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow-up by calling for and supporting more research", and consequently that the industry was risking a consumer backlash similar to that faced by the tobacco industry. I don't accept all of Carlo's claims above, but you'd have to be an ostrich with your head deep in the sand to ignore these warnings given the raft of supporting evidence from independent scientists. This doesn't mean that cellphones are potentially highly dangerous -- but it does mean that we don't know how potentially dangerous they are. DNA usually repairs itself -- but not always. Over a life-time the accumulation of DNA impacts could be epidemic, or it could be incidental. We don't know. Nor does it mean we should abandon cellphones. Few people are going to do that. But it does mean that we should look at re-engineering handsets to get the emissions away from the head, and observe the precautionary principle of reducing the exposures of the public, until we have better evidence. Stewart Fist - writer and columnist See http://technology.news.com.au/opinion/ http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives) http://www.electric-words.com (main archives) 70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:22:32 -0400 From: The Old Bear Subject: MMDS Wireless Internet Consortium Formed The following is a clipping from today's NY Times: Technology New Alliance Will Promote Wireless Access to Internet by David Barboza A group of leading technology companies said Monday that they would form an alliance to create products that would allow consumers to get high-speed Internet access through a wireless system within the next year. The consortium -- which is led by Cisco Systems Inc., the giant Internet networking company, and Motorola Inc., the maker of wireless telephone products -- is essentially backing an alternative to delivering broadband Internet access through underground cables and wires. The race to bring broadband Internet access to consumers has led to several alliances that promise to deliver that kind of service through satellites, cellular telephone networks and standard cable and telephone lines. Now, the group headed by Cisco and Motorola is trying to provide a cheaper and more effective solution to digging up the ground and laying cables: They want to deliver data, voice and video services over the airwaves and directly into buildings and homes that are affixed with antennas or the equivalent of a satellite dish. "This is the technology that is going to take the fixed broadband wireless market into the next millennium," said Steve Smith, director of marketing in the broadband wireless business unit at Cisco Systems, which is based in San Jose, Calif. "This gets consumers Internet access without tearing up the ground." Officials at Cisco Systems said Monday that a group of ten companies -- Motorola, Texas Instruments, Broadcom, Bechtel Telecommunications, Samsung, Toshiba, LCC International, EDS, KPMG Consulting and Pace Microtechnology -- had agreed to create and develop products that use a Cisco technology, one that is equipped to deliver Internet service over a radio frequency called MMDS. Aware that the AT&T Corp. was moving into cable television and developing a system capable of delivering high-speed Internet access through its cable services, MCI Worldcom and Sprint have spent about $1 billion in the last few years to buy many of the companies that owned the licenses to the MMDS radio spectrum. Three weeks ago, MCI Worldcom agreed to acquire Sprint in a $115 billion merger. If the technology is successful, it appears that Internet service providers will be able to choose among cable operators, wireless service providers and perhaps even satellite operators like Teledesic LLC, which is developing a kind of "Internet in the Sky" technology, a multibillion-dollar plan backed by the cellular telephone pioneer Craig McCaw and William H. Gates of Microsoft. Cisco Systems and Motorola are also backing something called LMDS, which is another radio frequency that offers broadband access, mostly to businesses. According to Cisco officials, however, the MMDS system is more effective in crowded urban areas and is more easily available to everyday consumers and the mass market. Robert Edwards, a spokesman at Motorola, which is based in Schaumburg, Ill., said Monday that the company was backing both the LMDS and MMDS technologies and working to develop a large portfolio of offerings so that big technology companies and consumers could have a wide range of alternatives to getting broadband access. The companies involved in the agreement Monday said that the ability to deliver high-speed broadband access through a wireless system would also rapidly accelerate the introduction of broadband services to rural areas and urban centers, and do so more easily and inexpensively. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: BT-AT&T Deal Riles Privacy Advocates Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 17:57:57 -0400 BT-AT&T Deal Riles Privacy Advocates By Polly Sprenger LONDON British Telecom and AT&T won approval of their $10 billion joint venture from the Federal Communications Commission last week, clearing the way for launch of the communications network, called Concert, by the end of the year. But European privacy advocates are raising eyebrows over the approval agreement's terms, which allow U.S. law enforcement agencies to monitor data exchanged on the new network. Critics say such monitoring will violate privacy laws in Europe. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,7215,00.html ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: A New 'Follow Me' 800 Service is Available Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+199910@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:39:02 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , TELECOM Digest Editor spewed: > But I want to mention today a similar service offered by MCI-Worldcom > which some of you may find more attractive. [...] After the post in the Digest a couple days ago, I decided to check out http://www.ureach.com/. I've had pretty good luck with these folks so far... everything pretty much works as advertised. Customer service has been good so far (their paging gateway has some ... issues ... with Cellular One's Rochester system. Which isn't surprising ;-). And, best yet, it's free, and when you run out of free time, it's cheap. This is not a paid advertisement; this is merely me finding something cool. :-) -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ President, TTGCITN Communications Box 92425, Rochester NY 14692-0425 Please keep public threads public -- e-mail responses will be ignored. ------------------------------ From: dave@ppowerbbasic.com (Dave Navarro) Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:14:40 -0400 Organization: PowerBASIC, Inc. (www.powerbasic.com) For anyone who hasn't taken the time to read the Unisys License very carefully ... If you use software, such as PhotoShop or PaintShop Pro, that has obtained a legal license to produce LZW compressed GIFs then you have nothing to worry about. This issue is for companies using software that is not licensed to produce LZW compressed data (typically those sites that generate images "on the fly"). --Dave ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: Definition For Telecom? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:02:45 +0200 Organization: the Experimenter Board Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org Telecommunications, to me, means communications over long distances. Data communications, on the other hand, refers to the communication of 'data' (whatever those may be), over any distance. Notice that the two overlap in the WAN: the communication of data across long distances is a form of telecommunications. I know that there are other connotations associated with these terms, particularly with regard to one being TDM-oriented and the other packet-oriented. This is however not based in fact, as a simple examination of these assertions against the definition will demonstrate. Mika Kristian Muller wrote: > I'd need to know a definition for 'telecom', that should describe it > briefly overall and state the key points how it'd different from > datacom (some background for doing security analysis for datacom > vs. telecom). > Couldn't find one easily on web, so any link would be appreciated. Jan Ceuleers, Antwerp, Belgium ------------------------------ From: Jorge de Vicente Benito Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:56:00 +0200 Subject: Seeking Ranking of Top Ten Carriers by Traffic, etc. To Whom It May Concern: I'm contacting you after doing a laborious but fruitless search through various reports from the Industry Analysis Division in the FCC website. I've also visited the websites of ITU and Telegeography but haven't found what I am looking for. I'm interested in getting: - a ranking of the top 10 U.S carriers by total volume of traffic measured in hours or minutes. (I already have the ITU listing of the Top 10 International Telecommunications Operators.) - a break-down of each carrier traffic (both 10 Top Lists mentioned above) by international and domestic traffic. - as regards each carrier int=B4l traffic, a break-down in percentages or whole numbers by country or continent of destination. Do you know or have any suggestions where I can get this info, whether in your website or in somebody else's? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 06:53:08 PDT From: Larry Rachman <_lr_@yahoo.com> Subject: Need Voice Mail Software Can anyone recommend a piece of PC software that will perform the usual voicemail and autoattendant functions on a PC equipped with a Dialogic D/41 card? I'm looking for something inexpensive for SOHO use (shareware or freeware preferred), not one of the multi-thousand-dollar big-time commercial offerings. I know that the D/41 comes with an out-of-the box answering machine demo, but I'm looking for more capabilities. This thing will need to work with a Panasonic PABX. Thanks in advance, Larry Rachman ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Excite@Home Statement in Response to GTE Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:28:29 -0400 REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Oct., 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being released today by Excite@Home: (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990528/SFF034 ) Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, GTE has spent millions on lawyers in an effort to prevent consumers from reaping the benefits of competition, as the law intended. They have lost every significant case. It would be absurd for the court to find that the antitrust laws should be used to protect an entrenched monopolist, such as GTE, with a greater than 95% market share from a new competitor, like Excite@Home, who has less than 2% market share. SOURCE Excite@Home Copyright PR Newswire. All rights reserved ------------------------------ From: Jeff Manera Subject: Request For ADSL Information Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:44:30 -0400 Hello, I am a financial analyst interested in the broadband industry and particularly in ADSL. I would greatly appreciate your input. Which companies are providing the core products or technologies, that will profit from the growth of ADSL as a broadband technology? I believe Pairgain Technologies is a leader in DSL technologies, but don't how who are the players in ADSL. Thanks very much. Jeff Manera Weiss Research ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:20:12 -0700 From: Walt Brubaker Subject: Fone Finder Link Hello Mr. Townson, I'm writing today to suggest a new link for your wonderful telecom website. By the way, I like all your Javascripting, so you have no need to be so modest about it. Anyway, Fone Finder has provided a unique, free service to Netizens since 1994. It's an NPA/NXX lookup (the only one I know of), which uses a database to show matching NPA/NXX's to a template. For example, a person can type in a city, and get all the NXX's, or type in a NPA, and get all the NXX's and their cities. Over 100K entries are in the database, which is updated monthly. In addition, Fone Finder has an international search, with 220 countries, and 30,000 city codes. The address is: http://primeris.com/fonefind/ By the way, we link to you from our homepage. Many thanks for your time. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your kind words about the telecom-digest.org site. I will add a link for you today. But I did want to share your message with readers, since your NPA/NXX database is just exactly what I get ask about many, many times. I hope readers will find your service useful. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #511 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 27 14:12:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA11409; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:12:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910271812.OAA11409@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #512 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Oct 99 14:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code 716 Split (Jack Decker) Forged LOA Results in $80K Fine per Customer (Eli Mantel) Information Wanted on an Old Kellogg Telephone (Keith Van Wyhe) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Bruce Wilson) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Darren K.) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Steve Uhrig) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan (Bill Ranck) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Danny Burstein) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (L. Winson) Re: Key Pad Arrangements (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 27 Oct 1999 01:19:04 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:38:37 -0400, Dana Paxson wrote: > Geographic splits guarantee that one area of turf gets all the work in > the split. Overlays manage to spread the pain equally, but probably > cause more than the total pain caused by the geographic split, mostly > due to the fixed labor overhead associated with reprinting and > reprogramming subsets of numbers everywhere. But there may be a > better way. > Much of the pressure on the number space comes from identifiable > sources: modem lines, fax lines, wireless, and second or third lines. > There are also groups of numbers reserved but not fully used. Why not > think of phone numbers in terms of their sources, especially in > growing areas of expansion? I would prefer to see the new area > code(s) go to those sources of new numbers that are rapidly growing, > and leave the stable number base alone. I have a preference too, but it's not exactly the same. My understanding is that much of the reason we are running out of area codes is because so many CLEC's have to get numbers in ever rate center due to small local calling areas. In this day and age, I cannot see ANY good reason why anything further than 10 or 12 miles away should be a toll call. What I would like to see is forced exchange consolidation. If we consider a typical city in certain parts of the country, the central city is considered to have one exchange (although Ameritech has been known to divide larger cities into separate zones within the city!). Then the surrounding suburbs are in several smaller exchanges that ring the city. My idea would be this: Pass a federal law (or state laws if for some reason the feds can't use the "commerce clause" to get around states' rights, as they usually do) that says that for any city of over 50,000 lines, the exchange for that city must be merged with any other exchanges within 25 miles of that city. The 25 miles would be calculated using the nearest exchange boundaries, not the rate centers -- if any point in exchange "A" is within any point in exchange "B", the two would be merged together. If two (or more) adjacent cities both have over 50,000 lines, they'd be combined into one exchange first, and then the 25 miles out would be calculated using that combined exchange as the basis for the calculation (that is, any community that is within 25 miles of the boundary for any of the former adjacent exchanges would be folded into the new exchange). So, whereas before you would have had a central city, or perhaps a metropolitan area ringed by a bunch of smaller exchanges, you'd now have one larger one. The new mega exchange would still have local calling to any exchange that was formerly local to _any_ of the merged exchanges, so no one would lose local calling to anywhere, but most everyone would have local calling to many more places than was formerly possible. Yes, this might even give some people a really huge local calling area (100 miles or more from one end to the other in some cases) but you know what? I really doubt that the phone companies would go broke, given the capacity of fiber-optic trunking these days. In more sparsely populated areas, where no city in a county currently has over 50,000 lines, all the exchanges currently in a county would be combined, and everyone in the county would be given local calling to the adjacent counties. If a particular exchange was just outside the 25 mile radius to be included in a metro calling area, but the majority of exchanges in the county were going into that area, you'd fold the smaller exchange in anyway, just to keep it from being isolated from the rest of the county. In the case where a smaller exchange might be within the 25 mile radius for two (or more) larger exchanges, it would be folded in with the nearest of the two IF both are in the same county. In the case where the nearest larger exchange is not in the same county but another is, it would work this way: If the smaller exchange now has local calling to only one of the larger exchanges, it would be folded in with that exchange. If it has local calling to two or more of the exchanges, or none of them, the customers in that exchange would be polled by postcard ballot for their preference. The big advantage is that CLEC's, ISP's etc, would only need to have one access point (and initially, only one exchange) for an entire "metro" area. In many cases you'd have as many as a dozen or more small exchanges folded into the new one, so the savings in exchange prefixes needed for CLEC's could be substantial. The one objection that I can hear to this (besides the screaming about loss of toll revenue, since the phone companies would no longer be able to gouge people for calls to points a few miles away), is "What if there is currently more than one phone company operating in what would be a combined exchange? How do you merge exchanges that are served by different ILEC's?" Well, I really don't see problem in that. In effect, those companies now become competitors. By default, they keep their existing customers, and they still own any outside plant that they owned before. But now, all those companies have the right to in effect expand their boundaries. If someone located on what was formerly an across exchange boundary wants to request service from "the company across the street", they can do so, and the company is perfectly free to run a line. If someone five miles down the road makes the same request, and the company wants to run a cable, they are free to do so (of course, they may have to pay pole rental if they use another utility's poles). In my opinion, this would be a great way to jump-start competition in many areas -- make several ILEC's co-equals with each other in larger exchanges. I will bet that if, for example, BA/GTE and SBC/Ameritech were suddenly sharing an exchange, they would not try the same tricks to inhibit competition that they do with wet-behind-the-ears CLEC's, because the other company would know all the tricks and would have them in court so fast that their lawyers couldn't keep up. And of course, in whatever way they chose to accommodate each other, they'd also have to accommodate the CLEC's, so as not to appear to be discriminatory. Maybe someone thinks that 50,000 lines is too small a number, make it 100,000 then. Or make it a sliding scale based on population. My point is that all exchanges should be combined in some way, no existing exchange should be allowed to stay its present size unless it is already really huge (for example, a case of an entire rural county being served by only one exchange). I do believe that given the advance of technology, no one should be stuck with a calling area only a few miles across. In fact, I'd like to see some progressive state declare the entire state one exchange, so that everyone in the state could call anyone else in the state without paying a toll charge. I'll bet that state would reap tremendous rewards, businesses and people would move there specifically because of the potential savings in phone charges. (If you think that is far-fetched, I recall talking to a real estate agent in the northern part of the Twin Cities metro area in Minnesota, just a couple miles or so before you hit the boundary of the metro calling area. For those who are not aware, the Twin Cities have a huge local calling area that encompasses most of seven counties, and it is a local call from ANY part of that area to ANY other part. Anyway, this real estate agent said that land and homes were considerably less expensive once you got out of the metro calling area -- apparently people knew where the Metro area ended, and were willing to pay a considerable premium for a home that was "out in the country" but still within the Twin Cities calling area. I had this conversation at least ten years ago, so I don't know if things have changed since then, but I would bet they have not). What about LATA boundaries? They can be considered irrelevant for local calls (there are already many places where local calling areas overlap LATA boundaries), and if they get in the way, just abolish the LATA concept. The phone companies will have to become competitive under this plan, but if the thinking is that they may not be competitive enough, then just use state boundaries as the dividing lines, and tell the telcos they cannot complete out-of-state calls until they meet the competition guidelines. In many cases, under this plan there wouldn't be much intra-LATA toll left anyway (since many formerly-toll calls would become local) so you could justify abandoning LATAs and using state boundaries instead -- that would give the local phone companies a way to recover some of the toll revenue they would lose under this plan. I guess the above is just one of those little fantasies I have when I dream at night. I am always hopeful that someday the phone companies will stop trying to "nickel and dime" people to death. It always saddens me when I see some poor person struggling to pay a huge phone bill because I know that the cost to the phone company to complete those calls wasn't anything near what they charged the customer (mind you, I don't doubt they can prove some of those costs on paper using "creative accounting", but frankly I think that much of what the phone company tries to snow the various utility commissions and the public with is lies, lies, and more contemptible lies, and also a lot of it is just plain waste because as a "regulated utility" there is not as much incentive to cut costs). It amazes me that some long distance companies in Canada -- Canada, mind you, where there is a huge area to cover that is mostly sparsely populated, especially once you get more than a hundred miles or so away from the southern border -- that in this place where you would expect costs to be much higher, some long distance companies are able to offer unlimited long distance calling within Canada for a flat monthly charge, a charge that is even fairly affordable for the average family. Why can't we have that here in the United States? Because our phone companies are gouging their customers and our government is getting part of the take, that is why. I wish someone who has good communication skills AND a knowledge of the telephone industry would write up a reasonably short document, something that could be read in five minutes or less (ten at the most) by the average person, explaining how telephone customers are being exploited. How, for example, it is silly to forward chain messages around the 'net warning of an impending "modem tax", because that tax is already here, in the form of an extra charge on additional lines beyond the first one in a residence (since most "additional lines" are in fact used by modems, either in computers or FAX machines). Something that would really explain all those extra charges on the typical phone bill, and how the government slid all these extra taxes in, in such a way that they *technically* can't be called a tax, but in reality there's not a lot of difference between whatever they are and a tax. Something that you could send to your friends in the upcoming election year, and especially to the people who insist on forwarding the latest "modem tax" scare or virus hoax to you every time one comes around. Give 'em the real skinny on this stuff, and maybe they'll stop voting for the people who are doing this to us (maybe another of my fantasies, but I'd like to think it could happen, if enough people were informed). Sorry for running on for so long, but it really does bother me the way we are all getting ripped off on phone charges, and now that the government's getting part of the take (I'm speaking of the schools and libraries here, but they ARE part of the government, and any money they get from phone customers is money that does not have to be taken out of other tax revenues) they are going to be less inclined to change things, unless people get really upset about it real soon now. Somehow our lawmakers have gotten the idea that if something isn't called a tax, people will be too stupid to realize when the government is picking their pockets -- and I'm afraid that is true for a certain percentage of the people. Jack (Make the obvious modification to my e-mail address to reply privately) ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Forged LOA Resuls in $80K Fine per Customer Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:10:22 PDT The October 1999 issue of Discount Long Distance Digest (http://www.thedigest.com/) has a report that the FCC imposed a fine against Qwest Communications in the amount of approximately two million dollars for slamming. The fine is based on $80,000 per customer for each of 22 instances involving forged letters of agency (LOA's) and $40,000 each for another eight instances. Qwest will have an opportunity to ask for the penalty to be reduced. It appears that the forged LOA's came from various independent agents such as American Communications Network. There's nothing that suggests that Qwest acted in any intentional way nor is there anything to indicate Qwest did anything unusual to encourage its independent agents to submit false LOA's. Without diminishing the seriousness of slamming, there certainly seem to be many worse frauds for which the penalties are far less. It seems like the amount of these fines is way out of proportion to the harm done to the customer or the unfair gain to Qwest. Also, I don't understand why it's more egregious to submit a forged LOA, for instance, rather than an LOA that was included as part of a contest entry form, as has happened with some unscruplous carriers in the past. To the contrary, Qwest was at worse negligent in failing to verify the authenticity of the LOA's it received, while those companies that used contest entry forms as LOA's had a clear intent to deceive customers. I'm about the last person in the world to suggest that businesses should be allowed to get away with fraudulent or deceptive practices, but it sure seems like the agents (or their sub-agents) are the real perpetrators of the crime, and I doubt that Qwest will be able to pass these costs onto them. Perhaps somebody else can explain what I'm missing. Eli Mantel ------------------------------ From: Keith Van Wyhe Subject: Information Wanted on an Old Kellogg Telephone Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:41:53 -0700 If you could help me find out any information on this old phone I have I would appreciate it. I owned an old Hotel, Saloon, and Grill which I recently sold. In the very the large vast basement I found many old items buried in a dirt corner. We found several of these phones in very good condition yet. They are made by Kellogg, candlestick phones, no dial, they were patented Nov. 26, 1901-March 19, 1907-April 14, 1908. (All three of those dates were on the phone.) I am just trying to place the time period when they were used and where they were made. ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 27 Oct 1999 12:26:26 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? > If you use software, such as PhotoShop or PaintShop Pro, that has > obtained a legal license to produce LZW compressed GIFs then you have > nothing to worry about. The problem, as I see it, is inability to prove you did so if challenged. AFAIK, none of these programs "brands" the binary file. You can't examine it with a sector editor and find the name of the program used to create it as you may, for example, a word processing document. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: darrenk@network.rahul.net Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: 27 Oct 1999 13:34:45 GMT Organization: a2i network In article , Dave Navarro wrote: > This issue is for companies using software that is not licensed to > produce LZW compressed data (typically those sites that generate images > "on the fly"). This includes any freeware programs out on the net to generate .gifs graphics on the fly. check out http://www.slashdot.org/articles/99/08/29/0722236.shtml for a blurb about it and links, and also http://burnallgifs.org for what one group is doing about it. Darren "The truth is out there, but so are lies" - X-Files "The truth sets you free" - Conspiracy Theory ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:20:00 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio The big difference is that ISDN can be provided over almost any DLC. DSL on the other hand can not. You could be 40 miles from the nearest CO and get ISDN as long as there is a DLC within range of your location. Bruce Larrabee wrote: >> but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any >> time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even >> available, and the CO is too far for DSL. > Maybe an expert can correct me, but aren't loop limits for ISDN about > the same as for DSL?? 18 kilofeet? I know that the flavor of DSL > affects the loop length and that you can use ISDN loop extenders - > but, in general, if you can have ISDN the loop also fits for DSL? ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: 26 Oct 1999 22:33:24 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 26 Oct 1999 15:16:06 GMT, sjsobol@JustThe.Net allegedly said: > On 26 Oct 1999 02:45:14 GMT, larb0@aol.com allegedly said: >>> but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any >>> time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even >>> available, and the CO is too far for DSL. >> Maybe an expert can correct me, but aren't loop limits for ISDN about >> the same as for DSL?? 18 kilofeet? I know that the flavor of DSL >> affects the loop length and that you can use ISDN loop extenders - >> but, in general, if you can have ISDN the loop also fits for DSL? > From what I understand, DSL is less, and it can't use repeaters. (DSL > is about two miles, ISDN is 18000 feet, and ISDN can use repeaters.) Wrong ... DSL is up to 22K feet -- sorry about that, guys. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ From: Bill Ranck Subject: Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan Date: 26 Oct 1999 20:35:21 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Mike Fox wrote: > AT&T's One-Rate Online plan promises ... > So, if you're in NC (or any other state where AT&T may be pulling this > stunt) and on the one-rate online plan, check your bill carefully and > demand your credit for any mis-billed in-state calls. They will AT&T has annoyed me lately with their new policy of not billing unless it's for more than $30. I just got billed for some July and Augest calls a few days ago. > Also, I am now looking for a new LD carrier. I require: > 1. No minimum usage requirement; > 2. No monthly fees, except for Gore taxes which must be reasonable > (i.e., in-line with the industry standard charges); > 3. ten cents a minute or less in-state NC long distance. > Since over 90% of my LD calling is in-state NC, state-to-state rates > are a secondary consideration. Well, I have just today signed up with a new company I found on the Internet. http://newetex.electrotex.com/telecom/longdistance.html Their automated web page sign-up did not work right when I tried it a couple weeks ago, but I called and talked to someone named Charley today and he assures me I am now signed up. Service is provided through Eclipse. I do not know anything about these folks other than what's on their web page above, and they say NC in-state rates are 8.9 cents/minute. I will report back in a month or so once I have my calling cards and 8xx number from these folks. If it is all as advertised it seems like a pretty good deal. I would suggest that you print out the web sign-up form and fax it to them if you decide to try them. I don't know what's wrong with their web submit, but Charley promised he would look into that. ***************************************************************************** * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Date: 26 Oct 1999 17:16:56 -0400 In Bill Ranck writes: > Bell had a big exhibit at the 1964 World's Fair in New York. I was > ten years old. My mother took me to the Fair. I remember the > TouchTone telephone hands-on demonstration. I think they "officially" > introduced TouchTone at the World's Fair and that is why the > literature says 1964. Indeed. They also had TouchTone pay telephones, which, in addition to using the new push buttons, were in flush mounted cabinets rather than sticking out from the walls. All very high tech, you know. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Date: 26 Oct 1999 22:50:59 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Museum of Science and Industry in > Chicago had a large Bell System exhibit during the 1960-70's including Does this museum still have a telephone exhibit? The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, a similar type of museum, also had a Bell System exhibit, but I understand it had been removed during a remodeling. Displays included (among others): 1) Switching timing differences: There was a row of jacks and lamps with a single cord underneath. The visitor plugged the cord into the right jack. Timers indicated how many electro-mechanical calls and ESS calls would be completed during the time the visitor took to show the speed improvements. 2) handicapped switchboard. It was for the blind to use, and had audible assists to indicate usage. (It was a modified 555.) 3) Overseas compression line clock: To get more conversations on overseas lines, the technology was to fill in dead spots on other conversations. The display had a clock which counted the actual time a visitor was talking relative to total wall clock time to show that there are actually many dead spots in a conversation that other conversations can be put in. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is a place I have not visited for about twenty years. From 1967 to 1974 I lived literally right across the street from the museum in the nice (at the time, not any more) apartment building I have mentioned before on 56th Street. There was an extensive redesign of the museum a number of years ago and I think large segments of the Bell System exhibit were removed. For those persons interested in a bit of Chicago history, the MSI building was originally constructed as part of the Columbian Exposi- tion in 1892-93 (The Hall of Science) in Chicago, and is the one remaining building from that Exposition of more than a century ago which delighted the world and brought hundreds of thousands of visitors to Chicago over the two year period in which the Exposition operated, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in America. After the Exposition closed in the fall of 1893, most of the buildings were torn down, but the Hall of Science remained, as an empty shell for a number of years. About 1920, a major gift from Sears, Roebuck Company provided the basis for the building to be completely refurbished, and (by 1920's standards) remodeled. Sears, along with John Rockefeller and other socially responsible business leaders in Chicago provided funds for the first exhibits, and for the perpetual care of the new museum. One of those early donors was AT&T, whose Bell System exhibit occupied the west wing of the first floor for about the next sixty years, until sometime around 1980-85. MSI is still an extremely popular place to visit, especially among tourists. A telephone exchange in the immed- iate neighborhood (773-684) was formerly called 'MUseum', and MSI's own telephone switchboard has had the number (773-684) MUseum-4-1414 for probably seventy years. Long-time Chicago residents will also recall that when Channel 11 television station WTTW first went on the air in 1954, the station itself was an exhibit at the museum for several years. Its programs were broadcast from the auditorium at MSI; anyone could walk in, sit down and watch the station's programs. If I ever go back to Chicago for any reason, perhaps I will go visit there again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:40:57 EDT Subject: Re: Key Pad Arrangements > I took a Ma Bell 2500(?) touch tone phone and disassembled > the keypad to rearrange the keys in calculator pattern. Also rewired > some of the contacts to match. You, sir, have FAR too much time on your hands. And an evil mind. Hee, hee. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #512 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Oct 27 23:25:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA04768; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:25:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910280325.XAA04768@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #513 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Oct 99 23:25:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 513 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Arthur Ross) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Juha Veijalainen) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (George Yanos) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Stewart Fist) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Tony Harminc) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Robert Yoder) Re: Local Cable Competition (Gail M. Hall) Re: Multi-Location Networked Voice Mail? (David Clayton) Need Info: T3 Multiplexer Which Support Two 56kbps With v.35 (Hyunsu Jung) NSI Does Not Supply the Domain-Name Combination (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today (Leonard Erickson) Synplicity FPGA (Child K.L. Sun) A Stink Over "Skunk Works" (Monty Solomon) Tone Frequencies (Srinivas Prasad) Japanese Telephony Questions (Mark Fine) Desperately Seeking Japanese Area Codes (David Henry) Re: First USA *** CORRECTED POST *** (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 27 Oct 1999 03:04:36 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Stanley Cline wrote in TELECOM Digest #507 > 2) For CDMA, the above figure assumes that only full-rate packets are > transmitted; CDMA phones use smaller packets much of the time so that > the effective xmit power is actually less. It's almost always *far* better than that. CDMA uses closed loop reverse link power control. It transmits full power only if a) it's doing full rate, as you say, but also b) it is at the very fringe of coverage. Power control has two aspects: Open loop and closed loop. The open loop part is based on the level of the received power, and it is further corrected by adjustment bits transmitted on the forward link and an 800 Hz rate. The open loop recipe says that the sum of the transmitted power and the received power, in dBm units, should be -73. The units of that -73 are a little unusual: square mW. And "received" power means the entire power coming in the receiver front end within the 1.23 MHz signal bandwidth: the entire forward link manifold of channels (yours plus everyone else's plus the pilot and paging channels) plus the thermal noise. The latter is about -112 dBm plus the noise figure in dB, This means, somewhat remarkably at first sight, that the transmitted power can actually be less than the received power. Suppose, for example, that the handset is receiving something like -30 dBm (quite possible if the handset is near a cell -- it's only a microwatt). That would make the Tx power -43 dBm, ... or about 20 times smaller. Viewed another way, in dBm units, TxPower+RxPower = -73, so TxPower-RxPower = (-73 - 2*RxPower). This number is negative, i.e. Tx is thus less than Rx if RxPower > - 73/2 = -36.5 dBm. This is the crossover point. Tx is less than Rx if Rx is above this level. This power control turnaround constant of -73 dB(mW^2) changes for the PCS service, as its rationale derives from basic antenna properties that scale with the wavelength. -- Best -- Arthur (from Bucharest, Romania) ------------------------------ From: Juha Veijalainen Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:42:19 GMT On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:34:38 +1000, Stewart Fist wrote: > It's interesting that correspondence on Cellphone Hazards from > engineers are all calculating what _should_ happen according to their > 50-year-old radio theory. They completely ignoring the biomedical > evidence as to what _does_ happen. Some sites that might suggest what _does_ happen -- according to current studies: Page of Radiation laboratory at University of Kuopio, Department of environmental sciences. This page has several links to publications and research programmes. http://www.uku.fi/laitokset/sate/eindex.htm Current research related to mobile phones and electromagnetic radiation. http://www.uku.fi/laitokset/sate/shortplan.htm Information on European COST 244 research project on electromagnetic radiation. http://www.radio.fer.hr/cost244/ So far no positive results, but as they say "The public concern alone is sufficient to warrant research in the issue" Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ ((Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect)) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:43:33 CST From: George Yanos Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? > The suggestion that you can just average the output, in the > expectation that the only effect is tissue heating, is ridiculous. > The question is; What effect does the pulsed power have when impacting > on DNA during critical phases of cell division? (which is a highly > electrical process). Just a couple of observations. First, headlines that say "CELLPHONES KILL" sell more papers than "CELLPHONES DON'T KILL". Second, people old enough to use cell phones don't have much cell division going on in the area near the antenna. It seems to me that the phone might be much more dangerous on your lap than next to your head. ***************************************************************** George Yanos 708-205-6788 GYanos@uic.edu ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:39:39 +1000 From: Stewart Fist Reply-To: fist@ozemail.com.au Organization: Independent writer and columnist Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? That reference to the letter in my long post, should have been , an additional s got caught up somehow. It is at Stewart Fist - writer and columnist See http://technology.news.com.au/opinion/ http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/ (some archives) http://www.electric-words.com (main archives) 70 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, 2070, N.S.W, Australia Phone +61 2 9416 7458 Fax +61 2 9416 4582 ------------------------------ From: tzha0@ibm.net (Tony Harminc) Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:26:49 GMT On 24 Oct 1999 02:14:31 GMT lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) wrote: > One thing I hate in modern telephone sets is the electronic ringers. > I find their tone very irritating. They only have two volume settings > (low or high), while the older sets have much more control. (Ironically > a major feature of the 500 set introduced in 1950 was variable ringer > volume.) The 300 set had variable volume, but you had to open the set and use a screwdriver to adjust one gong. The trick (I wonder if someone patented it) is that the hole in the gong is slightly off centre. > I find the ringers on the older Trimline and Princess phones particu- > larly pleasant. Interesting -- I find the Princess ringer unpleasant because it has only a single gong. It doesn't sound like a telephone at all to me. The gongs in 500 sets are quite variable in tone. If you have a bunch to choose from you can usually set up a much more pleasant and non clashing ring than what you get off the shelf. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: Robert Yoder Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:37:24 -0600 Organization: Dimensional Communications treb@netnet.net wrote: > I was wondering if anyone has Ameritech ISDN service in Wisconsin, > perhaps even NE area, how they feel they were treated, and does it > live up to all the hype. I currently use a 33.6 analog connection, > but I have ISDN availible. DSL and cable are not going to happen any > time soon because I live out in the country, and cable isn't even > avaible, and the CO is too far for DSL. I had ISDN when I lived in Schaumburg, IL a few years ago. Ameritch never showed up on the first scheduled installation day, to my extreme displeasure. They did show up the second time they scheduled. The installer couldn't finish the job that day because he found problems with the line between the CO and my home, for which he needed to call another group to fix. The problems were rectified the next day, and I had no problems with the line after that. I was VERY impressed the the intelligence and technical expertise of the installer. So my only complaint was the original no-show. ry ryoder@dimensional.com "Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem." ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:07:20 GMT Organization: APK Net On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 20:09:05 -0700, William Wheeler posted to comp.dcom.telecom: > Here in Portland, Oregon it is ATT all the way they got both companies > here. In our area of Northeast, Ohio, Cablevision is just about the biggest, but we read that it is up for sale. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ameritech buys it and eliminates the competition. But that's just *my* paranoia coming out. I had wondered why Cablevision didn't get on the bandwagon and offer more services, but when I read that the company wants to get rid of its "outlying" services and concentrate on its main markets, I figured, maybe now that they are getting some competition they are less interested in competing here. Just speculation, though. I don't really know what's in their minds. It's also hard to say what will happen with any of Ameritech's projects now that they have been swallowed up by SBC. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Multi-Location Networked Voice Mail? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:20:13 +1000 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Mike Schumann contributed the following: > We have two specialty retail stores currently using Lucent Partner > phone systems. We would like to upgrade (or replace) these phone > systems to support networked multi-location voice mail capabilities. > Specifically, we want to be able to forward messages from one mailbox > to another mailbox at the other location, or broadcast a single > message to all of our employees. ..... I know Vodavi's "Pathfinder" Voice Mail product will forward messages from one node to another (using IP) by a product feature called "Point to Point". I think you can get more info at www.vodavict.com (not 100% sure about the URL though). 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. ------------------------------ From: Hyunsu Jung Subject: Need Info: T3 Multiplexer Which Support Two 56kbps With v.35 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:05:40 +0900 Organization: Inet Internet Services Hi, I need your recommendation on the T3 Multiplexer from which I can extract two 56kbps using V.35 port and I can use the remaining of the T3 except two 56kbps through HSSI interface. I found T3 product from digital link,but that product supported only 300kbps increments irrespective of interface types. Any infomation would be appreciated. Best Regards, Hyunsu Jung hsjung@nuri.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:06:18 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: NSI Does Not Supply the Domain-Name Combination > "NSI does not supply the domain-name combination..." > The registrant agrees that NSI shall have the right in its sole > discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise > modify a domain name registration ... NSI does not giveth -- on what legal grounds does it taketh away? Judith webbb@excite.com (Brian Webb) wrote: > Although NSI's routing service is only available to a registrant who > has paid NSI's fee, NSI does not supply the domain-name combination > any more than the Postal Service supplies a street address by > performing the routine service of routing mail. Where domain names > are used to infringe, the infringement does not result from NSI's > publication of the domain name list, but from the registrant's use of > the name on a web site or other Internet form of communication in > connection with goods or services ... NSI's involvement with the > use of domain names does not extend beyond registration. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think they need to have legal grounds. You signed a contract with them agreeing that *YOU* would think of an appropriate domain name. Then if YOU agree to give them ownership of it, THEY agree to allow you to use it for yourself until whatever time they need it more than you do, in which case they take it back. Isn't that fair? After all, they do allow you to use the domain name you thought of unless some large company needs it. I am reminded of the 'Cash Recycling Company'. They have a wonderful program to help guys on the net Make Money Fast. It goes like this: To enroll in their program, you send them one hundred dollars to become an agent. Once you are an agent for the Cash Recycling Company you can spend as much as or little time each day as desired, walking around with your head down, looking at the sidewalk around you. Any cash you find laying on the sidewalk, you are entitled to keep forty percent of it as your agent's commission and remit the other sixty percent to the Cash Recycling Company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Congressional Spam Bill Due Today Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:29:45 PST Organization: Shadownet dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) writes: > Actually, there's a very simple and elegant answer to this which will > satisfy all the privacy concerns. > All an ISP needs to do is market itself as a, for want of a better term, > spam-free service. Then, if the FCC agrees, it simply tells the Federales > that the _entire_ domain is on the spam-free list. There are domains on the Internet that are actually merely *gateways* to other networks. And some of those networks have a "no commercial traffic" rule. So if the FCC *doesn't* allow opting out on a "per domain" basis, things will get really interesting. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: u8713501@cc.nctu.edu.tw (Child K.L. Sun) Subject: Synplicity FPGA Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:46:33 GMT Organization: NCTU Hi Guys, I read news about a synthesis tool -- Synplicity. Did anyone use this tool? How it performs compared with Xilinx synthesis tool? Child ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:08:47 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A Stink Over "Skunk Works" Am I my cybersquatter's keeper? Not according to a U.S. appeals court. The decision is one more battle in a long war as trademark rights clash in the global space of Net domain names. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,7218,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:03:25 IST From: Srinivas Prasad Subject: Tone Frequencies Dear Sir, I have a small query with respect to tone frequencies in the US. I would appreciate if you could help me out. I would like to know the tone frequencies in US for the following. (a) dial tone; (b) busy tone; (c) ring and ring back tone. Thanks in advance for your help. With regards, Srinivas ------------------------------ From: Mark Fine Subject: Japanese Telephony Questions Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:17:48 +0200 Organization: Internet Gold, ISRAEL Hello! My name is Mark Fine. I am Software Development Team Leader at NetGong Ltd. a software company from Israel that specialized in CTI (Computer-Telephony Integration) applications. We have created a number of CTI applications that successfully work in USA and Israel. Currently we are going to update our programs for Japanese telephony. We would like to ask you the following question about Caller ID and phone number format in Japan. Every answer, WWW address, etc. will be very appreciated. Our question: 1. What is the phone number length in Japan? Is it equal for all Japan regions and all telecommunications companies? 2. What is the phone number length in Japan for mobile phones? Is it equal for all Japan regions and all telecommunications companies? 3. Consider Per-Line blocking, is 186 code for unblocking equal in all Japan regions and all telecommunications companies? 4. What is the contents of CID string passed to the user in a case of local call (were called and caller person are within the same area code) and in a case of long distance call (called and caller person are in different areas)? 5. Let us assume that caller and called person are located within the same area code zone. Does CID string contain 0 and area code? PS: We have a lot of experience working with Caller ID in Israel and USA. If you are interested please don't hesitate to ask us about this. Thank you! Regards, Mark Fine Software Team Leader NetGong LTD Tel: 972-4-9894888 Fax: 972-4-9891717 E-Mail: m-fine@shf.co.il Kohav Yokneam Building P.O.B 67, Yokneam 20692, Israel Web: http://www.i-n-s-i.com (http://www.net-gong.com) ------------------------------ From: David Henry Subject: Desperately Seeking Japanese Area Codes Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:13:16 +0200 Organization: Internet Gold, ISRAEL Hi, I've surfed the Web in vain. I have a list of prefectures, I have a list of some area codes. What I need is the complete list of codes collated by prefecture. Can anyone please point me to the correct URL? Thanks, David [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you see if the files in our archives here would be of any help? Please refer to: http://telecom-digest.org/archives/country.codes PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:42:31 EDT Subject: Re : First USA *** CORRECTED POST *** >> First USA is in SERIOUS financial trouble they cannot even afford the >> payroll at the site in Maryland. Uh, can we stay a little reality-based here, gang? According to CNN/fn, Bank One's third quarter **PROFIT** declined to $925__million__dollars. Not __revenue__, PROFIT. In other words, they earned ONLY $925,000,000 in the last three months. Hardly "SERIOUS financial trouble." Hardly "can't make payroll". Granted, maybe they suck, but sheesh. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #513 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 00:44:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA07954; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:44:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:44:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910280444.AAA07954@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #514 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 99 00:44:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Domain Names: Divine Right, or First Come First Serve (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (L. Winson) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Art Kamlet) Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers (Justin) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Nathan) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Fred Goldstein) Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-Digit Dialing (M Sullivan) Re: Local Cable Competition (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: Forged LOA Resuls in $80K Fine per Customer (wdg@[204.52.135.1]) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? (Barry Margolin) Re: Area Code 716 Split (Ed Ellers) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Cortland Richmond) Sprint PCS/Wireless Web (Jon 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 27 Oct 1999 15:19:42 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Domain Names: Divine Right, or First Come First Serve? In savvy political fashion, the strategy here is one of semantics: trademark interests claim dire need for 'trademark protection,' when what they really want is 'trademark supremacy,' the divine right to any domain name, trademark-related or not. ------------------------------- New York, NY October 27, 1999 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In March, 1998, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that trademarks do not have supremacy in toll free vanity numbers, but rather are the jurisdiction of trademark protection and unfair competition laws. This was after five years of lobbying by trademark interests which included aggressive scapegoating of "brokers and hoarders" parallel to their scapegoating today of "cybersquatters." In September, 1999, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that domain names are not trademarks, angering trademark interests who all along have been considering domain names AS trademarks. And just a few days ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said, "NSI does not supply the domain-name combination." Potentially strengthening the legal basis for challenging domain name registrars' trademark-prompted demand that "The registrant agrees that [registrar] shall have the right in its sole discretion to revoke a domain name ..." Yet on October 26 the House of Representatives passed HR 3028, the so-called 'Cybersquatting Bill', by a voice vote. Civil liberties groups opposed the measure, saying the legislation would infringe on free speech rights and let large corporate trademark holders take away domain names from small businesses and individuals who have legitimate claims to those names. But the backers of the bill proved too powerful a lobby. The bill came to a vote with no discussion Tuesday, after being introduced only a few weeks ago. In savvy political fashion, the strategy here is one of semantics. Trademark interests claim dire need for 'trademark protection,' something readily available under the trademark protection and unfair competition laws. But it's not 'trademark protection' they really want. Trademark supremacy is the agenda, a divine right to any domain name, trademark-related or not. ICB is a toll free consultancy as well as news service. We have many trademark owners as clients, and are vested in protecting and promoting their interests, along with those of our other clients. But experience shows, reverse hijackers far outnumber squatters. Our clients include global corporations that buy 800 numbers when they can't obtain them by other means. But lost and stolen 800 number retrieval is a far more significant part of our business. We know from many years' experience that big companies have a 'divine right' mentality, and a modus operandi to match, to all 800 numbers and to all domain names. 'Trademark protection' simply offers the appearance of a legitimate platform. The overt hostility of trademark interests, their pejorative 'cybersquatter' rhetoric, and the dynamics of HR 3028, should raise a huge red flag: The bill came to a vote with no discussion Tuesday, after being introduced only a few weeks ago. We hear it is being rushed through without a joint Senate/House conference and will probably be law on Friday. The clause making the provision of false information a basis for prosecution is loose enough to cover people who forget to update information after they change a phone number, etc. (My area code was changed by my phone company last year -- did I notify every place where I used the phone number to register information?) Yet an individual could pay up to $100,000.00 under this bill. Another clause allows the court to remove a domain name from someone who could not be contacted and is not under the court's jurisdic- tion. This is so broad that it may be declared unconstitutional. We expect commercial interests to use whatever tools necessary to achieve their goals, and in this bill they've been handed a slam dunk, home run, hole-in-one, on a silver platter: a general instrument to fight any domain name registration they don't like. But we expect our statutory bodies to be more than the enforcement arm of Corporate America's commercial agendas. The U.S. Congress should not be endorsing the trademark lobby's 'divine right" to domain names. copyright 1999 ICB Inc. Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Date: 28 Oct 1999 03:32:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > Indeed. They also had TouchTone pay telephones, which, in addition to > using the new push buttons, were in flush mounted cabinets rather than > sticking out from the walls. All very high tech, you know. IIRC, there were actually two types of flush mounted three-slot pay phones. One was actually in essence a regular three-slot pay phone, only with chutes connected to the slots of the front of the panel to get the coins. Other models were developed specifically to be flush. I remember when a new shopping center was built in 1964 it had flush mounted pay phones that looked very modern. Later on, it also had a rare Touch-Tone three-slot coin phone. The strange thing was that this phone was sort of located in an out-of-the way place in the middle of one of the stores by itself. (Store pay phones are normally located in the entrance lobbies, near the restrooms, or near the offices.) I don't know why that one was Touch Tone (this was about 1970 when it was still relatively rare, especially for pay phones.) The Bell System also made a panel phone for home use. IIRC, the cord was in a retractor. Regarding Pat's comments about the MSI's phone number, the Phila Franklin Institute went to Centrex about 1970, getting 448-1000. They had a Call Director switchboard. They shared the 448 exchange with the Phila School District Adm Bldg which got 448-3000. To my surprise, the school district's switchboard was a two position CORD board -- (older style, no less) -- I had thought all Centrex switchboards would have a modern console, or at least a modern 608 beige cord board.* I wonder if the School Adm Bldg's centrex exchange was actually step-by-step since the ringing signals were the old style ones, they didn't have ANI (if you made a local distance call you were asked for your number). What was interesting was that the first digit was absorbed. That is: all extensions began with 3. If you wanted to call ext 3753 you could merely dial 753. (If you wanted to dial ext 3352 you did have to dial a leading three.) (I discovered this and my co-workers thought it was neat, except my boss who thought I had too much time on my hands.) AFAIK that system was replaced some years ago; they no longer even that have number. I remember visiting organizations that had a more modern Centrex. I noticed several differences: 1) in the older systems, ringing started instantly after the last dial pull, the newer ones had a pause. 2) in the older systems, you had special dial tone that I think was unique to dial PBX systems. When you dialed 9 for an outside line, you had a pause, then the modern dial tone. In newer systems, the dial tone and ringing signals were the same as regular phones, and there was NO pause after dialing 9 getting the outside dial tone. 3) to transfer a call in both systems, you flashed the hookswitch once. In the older systems, you would get the operator who would make the transfer for you. In newer systems, you'd get a stutter dial tone and would dial the transfer yourself. [In the School District Adm Bldg system, a transfer request on a direct-dialed call would come up on the switchboard on the attendant light jack, on an operator connected call the cord supv lamps would automatically flash.] The Phila City Hall centrex (MUnicpal 6-1776), years ago, did also use cord switchboards, a *24* position (two rows of 12) 608 cord board. All the operators did was plug you into a line and dial (TT pad) the desired extension for you. Transfering calls worked the same as the older systems described above. I don't think they use that any more, while City Hall is still MUnicipal 6 (now called 686), they've added 685 as well; and a I know a lot of city agencies have new phone numbers. The City also had a "private automatic exchange" which I think is long gone -- places had these old style AE 40 phones which had nickel accents. While we're on the subject of touch tone pads on switchboards, I might mention a former US army arsenal in Phila. They weren't Centrex but had a lot of extensions. The operators had a cord switchboard. Upon receipt of a request, say ext 7182, they would plug into the "7" jack strip, then dial (touch tone pad) 182. Some jack strips covered two numbers, for example there could be a strip "56", and to get ext 5692, they'd merely dial 92. I don't know why it was like that. This same switchboard had terminating trunks for the army's AUTOVON network, and they were handled exactly the same as calls from city Bell lines. (I thought Autovon lines had fancy special TT phones, but users at this facility used their plain old 500 sets -- I think they dialed 8 for autovon; and it was used as a long distance service mostly.) ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:11:01 EDT Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com Organization: Voyager.Net In article , L. Winson wrote: > 3) Overseas compression line clock: To get more conversations on > overseas lines, the technology was to fill in dead spots on other > conversations. The display had a clock which counted the actual time > a visitor was talking relative to total wall clock time to show that > there are actually many dead spots in a conversation that other > conversations can be put in. This was the first use of TASI, but it sure sounds like TCP, doesn't it? :^) Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: raptor@wwa.com (Justin) Subject: Re: Touchtone Keypads and Electronic Ringers Reply-To: raptor@wwa.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:44:47 GMT Organization: Verio Mark J. Cuccia went on and on about: > as opposed to the adding machine / calculator / comptometer keypad: > -7-8-9- > -4-5-6- > -1-2-3- > ---0--- Picking nits: As a lover of all things mechanical and electronic, I can't help myself. The Comptometer was a full-keyboard device, having multiple columns with keys 1-9. Interestingly, an experienced operator didn't go above 5; to enter, say, an 8, they'd press 5, then 3 in the same column. Try one at http://www.syssrc.com/museum/mechcalc/comptometer/java/index.html In replies delete X from address Justin === raptorX@wwa.com Chicago http://www.wwa.com/~laser26/ ------------------------------ From: Nathan Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:07:25 -0500 Steven J. Sobol wrote: >> From what I understand, DSL is less, and it can't use repeaters. (DSL >> is about two miles, ISDN is 18000 feet, and ISDN can use repeaters.) > Wrong ... DSL is up to 22K feet -- sorry about that, guys. It depends on the telco. Southwestern Bell says 17,500ft is the limit. On a side note about DSL, Southwestern Bell is about to roll it out in my area. Somehow, though, they plan to get it to everyone around here, despite only having one CO for the city. I'd have to assume they're going to put DSLAMs in their SLCs or DLCs or something. They have been pulling *LOTS* of fiber over the last few years. Most of the lines outside of the immediate area around the CO have large chunks of fiber in the loop, from what I understand. The only thing I find perplexing about that, though, is that everywhere I've seen, 56k modem speeds are quite good, usually around 46k if not a little higher. I had always had the impression that fiber was *BAD* for 56k connect speeds. Ah well, come January or February, I'll know for sure. That's when they're going to start deployment outside of lines served directly from the CO. -Nathan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:57:56 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Steven J. Sobol wrote >> From what I understand, DSL is less, and it can't use repeaters. (DSL >> is about two miles, ISDN is 18000 feet, and ISDN can use repeaters.) > Wrong ... DSL is up to 22K feet -- sorry about that, guys. Uh, "DSL" is half a word. ADSL, the consumer thang that ILECs mostly sell and which runs atop analog voice, works on most lines to 12 kf easily, and on *good* lines to 18kf, sometimes. No repeaters. SDSL, the business thang that CLECs mosty se ll and which needs a dedicated loop, works on good lines to 22 kf, albeit at speeds that decline with distance. Non-standard DSL from Paradyne, Lucent/AGCS and Elastic can go 22kf atop voice. GTE's trying the AGCS flavor (Superline) which is derived from Paradyne (MVL) technology. ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) Seven-digit Dialing Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:16:54 GMT Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Cincinnati Bell for the > Metro area in sw OH / northern KY / se IN, as well as Southern New > England Telephone in most all of CT, are the two BOCs that AT&T never > owned a majority of by 1984, the time of divestiture; these two > "semi-BOCs" were treated 'specially' at the time of divestiture, and > are now frequently classified as 'independent' LECs; Cincinnati Bell > was _NOT_ made part of Ameritech; S.N.E.T. was _NOT_ made part of > NYNEX.) SNET was recently acquired by SBC, so Connecticut is now in RBOC country, not independent, for the first time. Although SNET is owned by an RBOC, it is not a BOC, however. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:43:39 -0400 From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: Local Cable Competition Michael A. Chance wrote: > Personally, I'm a little tired of TCI/AT&T being the only game in town > for cable TV, and would love to see a little free-market competition > for my business. I know that nearly all of the current cable TV > franchises are exclusive to one provider, but I thought that there > were a few markets that have broken from that model and permitted > multiple franchise holders. Just to clarify, the current AT&T debate is not whether other companies can come in and build their own infrastructure to compete against AT&T, it is whether AT&T should be required to allow other companies to use AT&T's own infrastructure. Jeffrey J. Carpenter P.O. Box 471 Glenshaw, PA 15116-0471 Phone: +1 218 837-6000 Fax: +1 310 914-1716 Email: jjc@pobox.com Web: http://pobox.com/~jjc/ ------------------------------ From: wdg@[204.52.135.1] Subject: Re: Forged LOA Resuls in $80K Fine per Customer Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:59:56 -0500 Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users, Inc. In article Eli Mantel writes: > The October 1999 issue of Discount Long Distance Digest > (http://www.thedigest.com/) has a report that the FCC imposed a fine > against Qwest Communications in the amount of approximately two > million dollars for slamming. > The fine is based on $80,000 per customer for each of 22 instances > involving forged letters of agency (LOA's) and $40,000 each for > another eight instances. Qwest will have an opportunity to ask for > the penalty to be reduced. > It appears that the forged LOA's came from various independent agents > such as American Communications Network. There's nothing that > suggests that Qwest acted in any intentional way nor is there anything > to indicate Qwest did anything unusual to encourage its independent > agents to submit false LOA's. Qwest, by entering into contracts with its independent agents, is ultimately liable for the actions of its agents. Perhaps by imposing stiff fines the FCC hopes to send a wakeup call to Qwest and others that both they and endusers are damned sick and tired of slamming. Make the fines big enough to make the practice unprofitable and maybe the practice will cease. IMO the long distance industry as a whole needs to clean up its act. I find it difficult to believe that hizhonor would be very pleased by the current state of affairs. Yet one could argue that slamming, craming and telesleaze are all the hellspawn of Judge Green. LOA forgery or LOAs as part of a contest entry form or for that matter, as part of an endorsement of a check, IMO all fall into one general category called deceptive practices. A number of the AOS companies are also skating on this same pond. 80 grand a pop? Yeah, that should be enough to get their attention! ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:47:09 -0500 > The problem, as I see it, is inability to prove you did so if > challenged. AFAIK, none of these programs "brands" the binary > file. You can't examine it with a sector editor and find the name of > the program used to create it as you may, for example, a word > processing document. GIF allows comments. Get some GIF tools to display such info. Or in Netscape: View, Page Info, find Gif in upper pane, left-click. See if there is a "Comment" field. For example, on http://www.1clipart.com/ go look at Animals:Ducks and you'll find several with comments. ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Is the '.gif tax' Thing Starting All Over Again? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:41:12 GMT In article , Bruce Wilson wrote: >> If you use software, such as PhotoShop or PaintShop Pro, that has >> obtained a legal license to produce LZW compressed GIFs then you have >> nothing to worry about. > The problem, as I see it, is inability to prove you did so if > challenged. AFAIK, none of these programs "brands" the binary > file. You can't examine it with a sector editor and find the name of > the program used to create it as you may, for example, a word > processing document. IANAL, but I think the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff to show that you used unlicensed software. Also, I thought there were some posts in this thread that pointed out that many GIF files *do* have comments or other embedded data that indicates the software that created them. Of course, there's nothing preventing other software from embedding the same data in their files. But again, I think the presumption is that this data is correct, unless the plaintiff can show that it's been forged. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:45:15 -0400 Bob Goudreau wrote: > 1) Stationery: no change required for an overlay; new stationery > must be ordered if your area code changes due to a split. Advantage: > Overlay. > 2) Business cards: same as above. Advantage: Overlay." You forgot advertising -- in most areas that still have 7D dialing businesses often use only the 7D number in local ads, on signs, etc. With an overlay everybody in the NPA has to change their ads to show 10D numbers; with a split the only businesses that have to switch are those that expect to get business from both sides of the split, which in many cases are few and far between. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:10:54 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 Justa Lurker (/dev/null@.com) wrote: >> The tech must have been working on the inside >> wires to find the device. As the subscriber is paying >> for the service call (via an inside wire maintainance >> plan or a per call charge) I would say that it is the >> subscriber's right to know about the device. >> The tech is the subscriber's agent in repairing the >> line. I see no reason not to tell the customer what the >> problem was. >> I assume that the caretaker and subscriber could not >> be separated after the device was found, so that the >> subscriber would know what was wrong with the line >> without the caretaker's knowledge. That would be the only >> scenario where I could see delaying the notification. >> But the subscriber should know. And should have been >> told at the earliest convienient time. I understand it is unlawful for anyone to inform the target of a legally placed wiretap of its existence. However, perusal of Title 18, chapter 119, (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/) fails to show a specific provision in THAT section of the Federal law making it so. Perhaps this falls under interfering with law enforcement. Cortland [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interfering with law enforcement I would say. I am reminded of quite a few years ago when the Lawson YMCA in Chicago had a three or four position cord board serving its residence area (about 800 rooms). The phone room was up on the fifth floor. One day a couple of police officers walk in the room with a technician from Illinois Bell. They serve the Chief Operator with a search warrant and ask to see the toll tickets for the past couple of days. She finds the ticket they are looking for and the cops consult with the Illinois Bell guy for a couple minutes. Now those old switchboards were quite tall and wide; you could take the back off of them and almost walk inside one. The tech goes around to the back of the board, takes off the wooden cover, practically crawls inside and attaches some wires differently than what they had been, attached a small tape recorder, climbs out and puts the wooden cover back in place. A couple of the operators had been watching this in between taking calls and they were obviously curious. The cop sees their curiosity and he says, 'you two keep your mouths shut; you did not see anyone here doing anything; if I find out you even told the other operators who come in on the afternoon shift what you saw, then you two are going to go to jail also!' The next day they apparently had a tape of what they wanted, because the man came back, got back inside the innards of the switchboard, removed his tape recorder and wired it all back like it had been. About the most outrageous case of interference with law enforcement I have ever heard of was a case reported once by the {Chicago Tribune}. It seems a man had a police scanner, and nothing better to do all day but sit and listen to it. He also had a 'criss-cross' (reverse telephone listing) directory. When he heard the police on the scanner discussing a raid they were going to do on some address, this guy consulted his criss-cross, phoned the number and told the people, 'the police are on the way now, you better get the hell out of there'. The people would take their dope or whatever and split, leaving the police to come up empty-handed. He did this at least a few times. I do not remember how he finally got caught. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jstcc@netcom.com (JSol Technologies LLC) Subject: Sprint PCS/Wireless Web Date: 27 Oct 1999 20:12:05 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. I just purchased my Sprint PCS phone with Wireless Web. It took about a week or so to activate the service, but all and all it is quite impressive. You can go to a particular web site, or yahoo, or read the news including the stock market.... You can also receive e-mail using the address:xxxxxxxxxx@messaging.sprintpcs.com. It displays the name of the user who sent you e-mail (but not the e-mail address ...). I have an entry in my sendmail host here at MIT (jsol@trillian.mit.edu) which has a .forward file which looks like this : |/usr/local/bin/procmail. .procmailrc tests for a mailer- daemon message (which is only sent to trillian) and all other mail sent to both trillian and to the PCS phone. I had to do this because one of their gateways (I can't remember whose) was rejecting mail, sending back to the trillian mail file. I had "\jsol,xxxxxxxxxx@messaging.sprintpcs.com", which created several thousand returned mail messages, which I couldn't read because EMACS ran out of address space. Anyway, it is a far more functional and more fun PCS phone and service. Enjoy, --jsol ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #514 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 04:06:39 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA14589; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:06:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910280806.EAA14589@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #515 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 99 04:06:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 515 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service (Michael Sullivan) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (John Ledahl) US West DSL Woes (Craig Macbride) Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? (Michael Sullivan) Re: A Stink Over "Skunk Works" (Bruce Wilson) Re: Japanese Telephony Questions (John De Hoog) Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan (Bruce Wilson) Re: New York Times Web Policy (Michael Sullivan) Re: Caller ID Boxes w/Rejection (rustyx@redconnect.net) Telephones Needed (Samantha Krysztal) Re: Seeking Ranking (Bram Dov Abramson) Re: Another Chat Room Incident Frightens Students (Terry Knab) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Arthur Ross) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Michael Sullivan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Request Help Establishing Local Cellular Service Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 04:51:48 GMT Fred Goldstein made some good points in responding to the Fergusons' questions regarding PacBell's lack of local number inventory for PCS phones in Temecula, Southern CA. A few of those points need to be clarified, though. As Fred pointed out, virtually all of SoCal is in number jeopardy. As a result, NXX codes are being rationed. The California PUC has taken a curious approach to dealing with area code relief. In one of the LA area codes (I forget which), it originally approved use of an overlay area code, which would have given effective relief throughout the area code for at least a few years, but caved in to a state legislator's objection to ten-digit dialing and suspended the overlay. Over 100 NXX codes from the overlay had already been assigned to carriers, and there were only 51 left in the existing area code. Some companies were relying entirely on the overlay and only had codes from the new area code, so they were unable to serve customers. Under code rationing, if I recall correctly, only eight codes per month were being given out. These were assigned by a lottery; lose the draw and you get no code. Recently, the PUC confirmed that it was unalterably opposed to the overlay, but has no current area code relief plan. Comments on a proposed split will be filed in a few months. Meanwhile, to make the existing area code last longer, it has removed sixteen of the remaining available codes for a number-pooling trial that won't start for months and decided to release only two of the 35 remaining new codes a month. As a result, carriers whose customer bases are rapidly expanding, such as wireless carriers, cannot get numbers when and where their customers need them. It's likely PacBell can only get a fraction of the codes it requests. This means that if they have numbers available, they probably aren't located where you want. You either take what's available or wait and hope. The next point needing clarification is that California has lots of very small rate centers -- the CO-based areas on which toll rates are calculated. The CPUC has actually increased the number of rate centers instead of consolidating them. The CPUC also requires CLECs to use numbers in the rate center of its customers; they can't get numbers in one rate center and use them to serve customers in other rate centers. Accordingly, CLECs have to get numbers from lots and lots of rate centers, and have lots of empty numbers. Wireless carriers are not subject to this requirement, and typically take numbers from a very small number of rate centers, so they have high fill rates. This leads to the next point, which is wide-area toll-free calling to/from wireless numbers. This differs widely from area to area. Typically, calls from wireless phones are routed via an interconnection point that will miminize or eliminate any toll (i.e., the wireless carrier eats the toll, if any). Calls to wireless phones are not as simple as Fred suggests. These calls are indeed to a specific rate center, and there may well be a toll associated with the call, even if both the caller and the wireless number are in the wireless calling area. The reason why the caller does not have to pay a toll is that the wireless carriers have traditionally paid the telcos for a service known by a name such as "reverse billing" or "expanded local calling area." What this means is that all calls to the wireless numbers in a given NXX code will be treated similarly to "800" numbers, with the wireless carrier paying a negotiated toll charge, whether the call is local or toll, so that the wireless carrier can advertise a toll-free inbound calling area -- such as Fred's calls from the Cape to Boston wireless numbers, which would otherwise be toll calls. In recent years, telcos have become increasingly reluctant to offer this service, or have increase the rates for it. As a result, many cellular and PCS carriers no longer are willing or able to pay for it. Thus, calls to your cellular number may very well be rated as toll calls to the rate center where the numbers are drawn from. I hope this helps you understand this very complicated issue. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:13:35 -0700 From: John Ledahl Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? To Mr. Fist and others, I find your analysis of the cell phone hazards issue right on the mark. A few years ago when I was forecasting the cellular industry as a Director of Wireless for a global market research firm I asked the industry the following questions at a trade conference: 1) Why risk the huge future of wireless connectivity, one that will eventually reach into the homes and work lives of people around the world, by not securing solid information on the effects of cellular radiation on people? For example, the market sizes for cellular markets are hit hard every time there is a new complaint. 2) Why not begin today a longitudinal study (at least five years long and used as a benchmark study for future research) - co-chaired by a biomedical scientist and a radio scientist - that will meet the scrutiny of the most severe critics? Of course one answer was the ill-fated CTIA study, commissioned because the FCC did not want to intrude on market conditions. [Actually, I believe the FCC did not want to pay for the study.] I believe that there may be problems with cellular phones radiating through human cells. I don't know for sure any better than anyone else. However, I also believe that creative scientists can reduce or resolve these problems to acceptable risk levels once they know clearly what they are (e.g., CRT exposure a few years back). The analogy used of the tobacco industry's response to probable cancer risks has come to mind many times recently. I ask again: Why are we risking the great future of what radio can bring to the world by refusing to study the effects of its deployment around the world? Another way of asking industry leaders this question is: How would you feel if after a protracted amount of time it is irrefutably proven that certain amounts of cellphone exposure causes specific kinds of damage to the body (lets not leave out the possibility of radiowaves impacting normal brain functions like memory, etc.) and millions of people around the world are directly suffering from these effects -- INCLUDING TWO PEOPLE IN YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY? And it was avoidable? How would you feel? And, of course, as a result of this lack of foresight all wireless services became either extinct or suspect ... John Ledahl ------------------------------ Subject: US West DSL Woes From: craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) Organization: Nyx Net, the spirit of the Night (www.nyx.net) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:31:31 GMT A friend of mine got DSL from USWest in July. She has two phone lines to her home, let's call them line A, (425.603.XXXX) her main line and line B, (425.603.YYYY) her business line. She ordered DSL on line B, and received an email message confirming her order for it to be on line B. USWest set it up on line A, without even informing her of this, let alone asking whether it was agreeable with her to do so! This, of course, made setup very much more confusing, since nothing worked initially and it was then necessary to swap all manner of things over after finding out it was on the other line. (This was never intended as a permanent solution, just to see that DSL worked and to be able to use it.) After setting it up and confirming that DSL did in fact work, she asked them to swap it over to the line it was actually ordered on. They said they would do so in early September and would call to let her know so she could switch everything back. Instead, they attempted it without warning at 6:30 pm on a day in mid-September. Not only did DSL not work when switched to the other line, but, in doing the switch over, they totally cut line A off (not just the DSL!) for about 15 hours. After quite some days passed, USWest finally told her that DSL won't work on line B, despite having accepted her order (and payment, of course) to do exactly that. They originally said they might be able to swap the phone numbers over, or to put in a DSL-capable line and move the intended phone number to it, but have done neither. At this stage, three months after originally ordering DSL, she now has no DSL service at all and USWest are still dithering around saying things like "There may not be a definitive answer." Two questions come immediately to mind: 1) Are USWest usually this incompetent? 2) How can the US ever have any level of phone number portability if USWest can't even swap two numbers in the _same house_ in three months??! Craig Macbride ----------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig--------------- "It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Public Acceptance of Electronic Ringers? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:45:54 GMT One significant difference between mechanical and electronic ringers is their current draw. The FCC established a standard "Ringer Equivalence Number" ("REN") that represents the current draw of a standard mechanical ringer as REN=1. Electronic ringers are typically a fraction of that. This is important because there is only enough ring current on a loop to power a limited number of ringers, typically 3-5 REN, depending on loop length, which adds resistance and thereby limits the available current. In the bad old days, telcos used to bar use of more than three to five extensions for this reason. Now you can have more that that number of devices attached to your line, and in many cases people do, because of the increased electrical efficiency (reduced current draw) of electronic ringers. Even though they sound awful. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 28 Oct 1999 04:17:00 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: A Stink Over "Skunk Works" > Am I my cybersquatter's keeper? Not according to a U.S. appeals court. > The decision is one more battle in a long war as trademark rights > clash in the global space of Net domain names. Does anyone know how far back the phrase "inside man at the skunk works" goes? If "skunk works" is a mark, it is, IMHO, a weak one, but the real point is the processor of registrations isn't held to be the enforcement agent of every holder of every alleged mark or name in the world and the holder's only cause of action's against the registrant. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: John De Hoog Subject: Re: Japanese Telephony Questions Date: Thu, 28 Oct 99 04:21:14 GMT Organization: Wonmug's World http://wonmug.com On 28-Oct-1999, Mark Fine wrote: > We would like to ask you the following question about Caller ID and > phone number format in Japan. Every answer, WWW address, etc. will be > very appreciated. Most of the Japanese telecom standards are available here: http://www.ttc.or.jp/j/summary/index.html John De Hoog, Tokyo http://wonmug.com ------------------------------ From: blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) Date: 28 Oct 1999 04:43:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan > Well, I have just today signed up with a new company I found on > the Internet. http://newetex.electrotex.com/telecom/longdistance.html It seems you're about to have signed up with Cincinnati Bell. Your site's an agent for a company that's part of IXC which is merging with Cincinnati Bell. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: New York Times Web Policy Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:27:07 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Demographics and statistics gathered > in Europe or Asia are just as useful to some companies as the same > thing when gathered from USA users. Overall, I do not like seeing > that kind of imposition made on netizens, especially newer ones who > have not yet seen how fast they can wind up on a spam mailing list > after turning over their name and email address at a web site they > visit. I am sure NYT sells all that data to commercial interests on > the web for spam purposes. PAT] Pat, the NYT privacy statement says you are wrong: ---------------------- What does The New York Times on the Web do with the information it gathers/tracks? Statistical Analysis and Banner Advertising: The New York Times on the Web may perform statistical analyses of user behavior in order to measure interest in the various areas of our site (for product development purposes) and to inform advertisers as to how many consumers have seen or "clicked" their advertising banners. The Times also uses demographic information to allow advertising banners on our Web site to be targeted, in aggregate, to the readers for whom they are most pertinent. This means that readers see advertising that is most likely to interest them, and advertisers send their messages to people who are most likely to be receptive, improving both the viewer's experience and the effectiveness of the ads. In this statistical analyses and banner advertisement targeting, we will disclose information to third parties only in aggregate form. Personal information about you as an individual subscriber will not be provided to any third party without your consent. E-Mail: Using the e-mail addresses provided at registration, The New York Times on the Web periodically sends promotional e-mail to its subscribers about services offered by The New York Times on the Web and its advertisers. You can indicate on the subscriber registration form that you do not wish to receive e-mail information from The New York Times on the Web or its advertisers. The New York Times on the Web may contact you regarding account status, changes to the subscriber agreement, and to confirm registration. The above is from . Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: The last paragraph dealing with email says the same thing I said, only in different words. I said 'the email addresses they collect are used for spamming'. They said, the email addresses they collect are used to periodically send promotional email about services and advertisers. Another name for 'promotional mail about services and advertisers' is 'spam', is it not? They offer to remove your name from their spam list (or not add it to start with), but so does every spammer. Are we in agreement then that NYT uses its registration requirement as a way to collect email address to be used for unsolicited commercial emails? They call it promotional advertis- ing material, I call it spam. Consider the little web site I here: Actually sort of skimpy compared to many/most web sites, I only get on average 5000-7000 hits per day from actual users (excluding bots, excluding hits on GIF images, etc,) but this week a couple times it has exceeded 9000, which is unusual. Now how many of those readers each day who visit the telephone online museum, read this Digest you are reading now, visit the telecom archives or use the other features here would come back to visit here a second time if the first time I 'caught' them looking at my various deep-links, etc I hustled them right up to the front door and told them they had to provide me their name and email address before I would let them look at anything? I can see asking politely if someone wants to be on your mailing list or not, and in fact you can make that decision when you are at telecom-digest.org but I do think it is out of line to *require* a person to give up that personal info about themselves merely to be able to view a web site. It goes completely against the spirit of what the web and the net are about. I would never want a policy like that at this little site of mine, no matter what I had to offer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rustyx@redconnect.net Subject: Re: Caller ID Boxes w/Rejection Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:10:34 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Most calls I receive either show the name or number of the caller or both and in the case of telemarketers, it shows up on my caller id as either "Unavailable" or "Out of the Area". I've heard that they use pbx's and that's why no caller id info comes through. Anyway, once the info is shown on the boxes display, I press the reject button to put it on my reject list. This works for actual numbers or "Unavailable" and "Out of Area" calls too. I've yet to get a call from "Unavailable" and "Out of Area" numbers from someone I actually wanted to talk to, so I don't worry about missing wanted calls. On 27 Oct 1999 20:08:10 GMT, caltax@aol.comp.mil (CalTax) wrote: >> The Radio Shack Caller ID System 400 does indeed reject calls that >> show up as "Unavailable" or "Out of Area". One called early this >> morning, I put their "Unavailable" number in my reject calls list. >> They called again a couple of hours later and were rejected after the >> second ring. Too bad the way caller id is transmitted that it takes >> between the 1st and 2nd rings to capture the callers info. But at >> least now the telemarketers get hung up on without completing the > What do you mean by "put their "Unavailable" number in my reject > calls list." I don't receive numbers with Unavailable or Out of > Area. Do you just program the machine to reject anything that comes > through as Unavailable or Out of Area? Or do you program in actual > numbers to reject? ------------------------------ From: samantha_krysztal@my-deja.com Subject: Telephones Needed Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:23:23 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. We need info about distributors of the following cellular telephones: We need a Nokia 3210, 5110, 6150. Motorola Startac, and Siemens C25 and more. Thanks for info or a contact. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:22:02 -0400 From: Bram Dov Abramson Subject: Re: Seeking Ranking Jorge de Vicente Benito , 10/27/99: >I've also visited the websites of ITU and Telegeography but haven't >found what I am looking for. > - a ranking of the top 10 U.S carriers by total volume of traffic > measured in hours or minutes. (I already have the ITU listing of the > Top 10 International Telecommunications Operators.) Hi. Good timing: we're just finalizing some of the data for the next yearbook, _TeleGeography 2000_. Once ready, I'll post the list of the top ten international carriers in the world as well as the top ten international carriers in the U.S. (both ranked by volume of minutes) to telecom-digest. > - a break-down of each carrier traffic (both 10 Top Lists mentioned > above) by international and domestic traffic. We cannot publish carrier breakdowns by country-to-country route, however. Sorry. Cheers, Bram Dov Abramson Telecommunication Research Analyst TeleGeography, Inc. babramson@telegeography.com tel +1 202 467 4043 http://www.telegeography.com fax +1 202 467 0851 ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: Another Chat Room Incident Frightens Students Organization: The Home Office Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:05:05 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > According to law enforcement officials in Townsend, Massachusetts, a > teen-age computer user in Missouri used an America Online chat room > to make 'Columbine-like' threats to hurt students and teachers at > one of their schools. > Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly announced over the weekend > that the teen-ager, whose name and hometown in Missouri were not > released made the threats using a chat room on AOL which had been > established for use by the eighth-grade class at Hawthorne Brook > Middle School in Townsend, a community of about two thousand residents > in northern Massachusetts. The gentleman in question is a quadripligic from Smithville, MO (a suburb of KC) and his name was released (although I do not recall it). He is currently under mental observation in a facility in the KC area. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The poor guy was obviously acting-out as he did in a desparate call for help. I hope some good will eventually come from this very sad story. I know his parents must be quite dis- tressed by it, also. Let's hope he can return to his community and his family in a positive and healthy way at some time in the future. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:06:24 -0700 From: Arthur Ross Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? At 12:02 AM -0400 10/28/1999, Ryan Shook wrote: > RE dBm > Your units don't add up. the m indicates mili. Mili what? I'm used to > seeing decibel MicroVolts or dB MiliVolts. Is this what you meant? dBm = dB relative to a milliwatt - standard, well-known terminology in radio-related stuff! To get that all to work, you have to be careful with the units. That was the point of my comment about the "unusual units". When you add two numbers that represent dBm, what you get is something that is dB relative to a square milliwatt. That's kindof odd. Remember that adding dB's corresponds to multiplying the linear units, so the sum of two "dBm" things gives the 10* the log of the product of the two linear things. Ergo, dB relative to a square milliwatt. That help? It is indeed a little confusing if you/ve never seen it before! -- Best -- Arthur (from Romania) Dr. Arthur H. M. Ross 2325 East Orangewood Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85020-4730 Tel: 602-371-9708 Fax: 602-336-7074 Portable (CDMA, of course!): 602-677-1021 ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 05:29:32 GMT Cortland Richmond wrote: > I understand it is unlawful for anyone to inform the target of a > legally placed wiretap of its existence. However, perusal of Title 18, > chapter 119, (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/) fails to > show a specific provision in THAT section of the Federal law making it > so. Perhaps this falls under interfering with law enforcement. Believe me, a recording device on a subscriber's private property, after the demarc, is certainly not a "legally placed wiretap." If a law enforcement agency has a wiretap authorization, it goes to the telco, which provides access to the lines for a wiretap. If it does not have a lawful wiretap authorization, it cannot lawfully intecept a subscriber's communications. Period. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interfering with law enforcement I > would say. There is nothing illegal about "interfering with law enforcement" if the law enforcement agency's actions are grossly in violation of federal law, Pat. In fact, the law enforcement agency's illegal wiretap gives the subject grounds for a civil suit and could subject the agency's hot-rodders to a federal felony prosecution. I'd encourage the installer in this case to report a possible crime to multiple authorities, as well as disclose it to the customer. If there was a legal wiretap on the line, the telco's procedures would have ensured that the installer sent out knew about it in the very unlikely event it was on the customer's side of the demarc. > I am reminded of quite a few years ago when the Lawson > YMCA in Chicago had a three or four position cord board serving its > residence area (about 800 rooms). The phone room was up on the > fifth floor. One day a couple of police officers walk in the room > with a technician from Illinois Bell. They serve the Chief Operator > with a search warrant and ask to see the toll tickets for the past > couple of days. She finds the ticket they are looking for and the > cops consult with the Illinois Bell guy for a couple minutes. Now > those old switchboards were quite tall and wide; you could take the > back off of them and almost walk inside one. The tech goes around > to the back of the board, takes off the wooden cover, practically > crawls inside and attaches some wires differently than what they had > been, attached a small tape recorder, climbs out and puts the wooden > cover back in place. > A couple of the operators had been watching this in between taking > calls and they were obviously curious. The cop sees their curiosity > and he says, 'you two keep your mouths shut; you did not see anyone > here doing anything; if I find out you even told the other operators > who come in on the afternoon shift what you saw, then you two are > going to go to jail also!' The next day they apparently had a tape > of what they wanted, because the man came back, got back inside the > innards of the switchboard, removed his tape recorder and wired it > all back like it had been. I guess this is an example of traditional Chicago justice. That wiretap was grossly illegal, if it was as you described it, and the cop was violating the 1968 Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act, intimidating witnesses to a crime and obstructing justice -- all of which are criminal offenses and grounds for suspension from the force, as well as giving rise to civil suits. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While I agree with your thoughts about traditional Chicago justice -- and before I got to the point that my stomach would churn each time I read the daily newspapers there or went out into inner city neighborhoods on business, etc, and finally left the town purely for my own peace of mind, I saw a lot of 'Chicago style justice'. But for all I know, they may well have had a legal wiretap order for John Doe, execute the order when you find out who it is, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #515 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 15:33:28 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA08883; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:33:28 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910281933.PAA08883@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #516 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 99 15:33:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 516 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Britain Knocked Off the Internet Map (Danny Burstein) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Ameritech ISDN Service (Brian Elfert) Re: Area Code 716 Split (John R. Levine) Re: Tone Frequencies (Dennis K. Wong) Re: Latency Standards? (James Carlson) Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan (Bill Ranck) Re: Recording Device Found on Line (Justa Lurker) Re: New York Times Web Policy (Kenneth A. Becker) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Fred Baube) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (L. Winson) Re: A New World Order - 9th Circuit Rulings (Adam H. Kerman) Last Laugh! Trials and Tribulations of a Telemarketer (Clive Dawson) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 28 Oct 1999 11:42:19 EDT From: Danny Burstein Subject: Britain Knocked Off the Internet Map From New Scientist magazine 30/10/99 (October 30, 1999 for USA types) Spam hits the fan A NATION OF PORNOGRAPHERS and spammers. That was the view of Britain apparently adopted by one of the biggest Internet service providers in the US last week, as it decided to block all incoming e-mail from British companies. The action was taken by IDT, a New Jersey-based provider, in response to a wave of unsolicited and offensive e-mails received by some of its customers. "It was for massive spamming -- pornographic material," [snip, snip] But the scope of IDT's block is unusual. "To block all commercial traffic from a major industrialised nation sounds clueless to me," [snip, end] The rest of the story is available (no registration or fees needed) at http://www.newscientist.com BTW, since IDT is a major reseller and also a backbone contributer, it's quite possible this 'kill' affected a lot more than just folk with idt.com addresses. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@JustThe.Net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service Date: 28 Oct 1999 12:54:20 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:07:25 -0500, wierdo@mtlaw.nwark.com allegedly said: > The only thing I find perplexing about that, though, is that > everywhere I've seen, 56k modem speeds are quite good, usually around > 46k if not a little higher. I had always had the impression that > fiber was *BAD* for 56k connect speeds. Depends on the brand and model of modem and remote-access server used, I think. At the ISP where I used to work, most of the dialup lines are provided by ICG Communications. They're ISDN PRI circuits. The POP in Cleveland sits on a phone number served off the ICG Cleveland CO which is copper. Some other numbers are served out of Garfield Heights. Garfield Heights is sitting on a SONET ring and is 100% fiber. I've seen mixed results. Most of the customers saw improved speeds. Some did not. North Shore Technologies Corporation Steven J. Sobol, President & Head Geek 815 Superior Avenue #610 sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Cleveland, Ohio 44114 http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net I'm collecting donations for the Cleveland Indians so they can buy some pitching. If you want to contribute, please contact me. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Service From: belfert@foshay.citilink.com (Brian Elfert) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:42:49 GMT Fred Goldstein writes: > ADSL, the consumer thang that ILECs mostly sell and which runs atop > analog voice, works on most lines to 12 kf easily, and on *good* lines > to 18kf, sometimes. No repeaters. US West got a RADSL line working for me on a 19,000 foot loop. Of course, the only reason it worked was the 22 gauge cable US West had used in the area. Brian ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1999 02:43:14 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Area Code 716 Split Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > The one objection that I can hear to this (besides the screaming about > loss of toll revenue, since the phone companies would no longer be > able to gouge people for calls to points a few miles away), is "What > if there is currently more than one phone company operating in what > would be a combined exchange? How do you merge exchanges that are > served by different ILEC's?" Well, I really don't see problem in > that. In effect, those companies now become competitors. Don't even have to do that, they can keep their exclusive ILEC territories, but their exchanges are now all part of the same rate center. Remember, the billing topology of the network now bears very little relationship to the physical topology. My cell phone has an Ithaca prefix and calls to it are billed like calls to an Ithaca landline number, even though the switch is actually 75 miles away in Syracuse. As I've noted before, the CO in my town has three prefies in three separate rate centers, one of which is a toll call to the other two. 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: Dennis K Wong Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Date: 28 Oct 1999 07:49:02 GMT Organization: Simon Fraser University Srinivas Prasad wrote: > I have a small query with respect to tone frequencies in the US. I > would appreciate if you could help me out. > I would like to know the tone frequencies in US for the following. > (a) dial tone; 350+440Hz Continuous > (b) busy tone; i. Busy tone: 480+620Hz 0.5s ON 0.5s OFF ii.Reorder: 480+620Hz 0.25s ON 0.25s OFF > (c) ring and ring back tone. i. Most common: 440+480Hz 2.0s ON 4.0s OFF (the initial ring on some telephone exchanges may range from 0.5s ON to2.0s ON) i. Some PBXs: same frequency, but cadence varies from (1.0s to 1.5s ON and 2.0s OFF to 3.5s OFF) ii. Mitel PBXs (When calling from outside) same frequency, but 0.5 ON 0.5 OFF 0.5 ON 1.5s off (burr burr burr burr....) (Internal calls) 1.0s ON 3.0s OFF ------------------------------ From: James Carlson Subject: Re: Latency Standards? Date: 28 Oct 1999 08:16:24 -0400 vrenios@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu (Alex Vrenios) writes: > I am looking for a document that describes latency standards. > How much delay in audio is acceptable? At what point do users > complain that they cannot communicate with another party? Etc. Have you ITU-T G.114, "One-Way Transmission Time," yet? James Carlson, System Architect IronBridge Networks / 55 Hayden Avenue 71.246W Vox: +1 781 372 8132 Lexington MA 02421-7996 / USA 42.423N Fax: +1 781 372 8090 "PPP Design and Debugging" --- http://people.ne.mediaone.net/carlson/ppp ------------------------------ From: Bill Ranck Subject: Re: Warning: AT&T Bait and Switch With One-Rate Online Plan Date: 28 Oct 1999 12:25:21 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Bruce Wilson wrote: >> Well, I have just today signed up with a new company I found on >> the Internet. http://newetex.electrotex.com/telecom/longdistance.html > It seems you're about to have signed up with Cincinnati Bell. Your > site's an agent for a company that's part of IXC which is merging with > Cincinnati Bell. A call to 700-555-4141 revealed IXC as my LD carrier. I called Eclipse Communications and asked about that, and they verified that they are part of IXC. Hard to keep all these phone companies and psuedo-phone companies straight. Electrotex is apparently an agent selling LD service for Eclipse, who in turn are part of IXC, who are about to be absorbed by Cincinnati Bell. I'm fairly certain Electrotex is just an electronics company in Texas who are branching out into the telephone LD business. Never heard of Eclipse before, but IXC I recognized. Not sure if that's good or bad. Time will tell I guess. I am supposed to get my toll-free number from them in the next couple of days. I will be following up on that closely since I have two kids in college that I want to use this. Also I want it for myself when on trips, so I can avoid the outrageous hotel phone charges. ***************************************************************************** * Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center * ***************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: Recording Device Found on Line Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to email will be POSTED) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:47:54 GMT It was Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:10:54 -0700, and Cortland Richmond wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 Justa Lurker (/dev/null@.com) wrote: >> The tech is the subscriber's agent in repairing the >> line. I see no reason not to tell the customer what the >> problem was. > I understand it is unlawful for anyone to inform the target of a > legally placed wiretap of its existence. However, perusal of Title 18, > chapter 119, (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/) fails to > show a specific provision in THAT section of the Federal law making it > so. Perhaps this falls under interfering with law enforcement. As others have mentioned, legal wiretaps are generally better installed and placed than the device in this thread. The installer had no clue to the legality or not of this tap. Pat's story was clearer -- the police did the tap and the operators were aware that the tap was done by police. If this installer would be charged with interfering it would be an interesting trial, as he would have no clue that he had interfered with a legal tap. (Unless the police had been kind enough to leave a note by the tap.) Even without telling the customer he has interfered by removing the tap from the line. He might as well tell. I hope that the tap was a prank, or that this question is from an ethics lesson. Should that customer fall prey to a crime that could have been prevented by knowing about the tap *I* wouldn't want to be the installer reading about it in the paper. JL ------------------------------ From: Kenneth A. Becker Subject: Re: New York Times Web Policy Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 09:12:47 -0400 Organization: Wavestar Michael Sullivan wrote: Snipped for brevity ... > E-Mail: Using the e-mail addresses provided at registration, The New > York Times on the Web periodically sends promotional e-mail to its > subscribers about services offered by The New York Times on the Web > and its advertisers. You can indicate on the subscriber registration > form that you do not wish to receive e-mail information from The New > York Times on the Web or its advertisers. The New York Times on the > Web may contact you regarding account status, changes to the > subscriber agreement, and to confirm registration. > The above is from . > [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: The last paragraph dealing with email > says the same thing I said, only in different words. I said 'the email > addresses they collect are used for spamming'. They said, the email > addresses they collect are used to periodically send promotional email > about services and advertisers. Another name for 'promotional mail > about services and advertisers' is 'spam', is it not? They offer to > remove your name from their spam list (or not add it to start with), > but so does every spammer. Are we in agreement then that NYT uses its > registration requirement as a way to collect email address to be used > for unsolicited commercial emails? They call it promotional advertis- > ing material, I call it spam. Pat, There's spam and there's SPAM. It's one thing to check (or uncheck) a box in a sign-up web form saying that one doesn't want spam; it's another thing to find stuff in your inbox promoting the worst possible scams, porn, and so on, which one gets willy-nilly. For the record, I made sure that box was unchecked when I signed up with the NYT; and, no, I haven't received any spam from those guys, period. I do get spam that apparently comes from harvesters on the web, as do we all, I guess. The way I figure the NYT has a right to make some money.. If their registration means that they can keep track of the number of readers so they can get advertisting money >>so they can keep the web site up!<<, then so be it. In fact, as things go, I like the idea of "aggregate statistics" -- they don't, apparently, report who the individual users are to the marketeers, but they do give the advertisers a pretty good idea of how many eyeballs run past the ads. Much better than the doubleclick.net folks who seem to want to keep track of one's every move. Ken Becker [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where the doubleclick people are concerned, I personally regard them as one of the worst scourges of all. I am surprised in a way that some hackers have not seen fit to sacrifice them permanently for the overall good of the net. They spy, and even very experienced netizens can get caught up with cookies sent by those people if not careful; they are in and out so fast when a call is made to a web site which is affiliated with them, you don't even see what they did. Thus the need to carefully and regularly flush out your cache, defrag your hard drive, etc. Anyone can be polluted by those people, and probably has been at one time or another. In your mention of lowercase 'spam' and uppercase 'SPAM', I think the only difference is in the eye of the beholder, or recipient. Emails I enjoy receiving are spam in your sight, and vice-versa. If I sent this Digest out to someone without an explicit 'opt-in' request on file, it would be spam. That's why I have a file of all the requests received for changes to the mailing list, and I keep it for a month or so after making the change. That's my proof that someone 'opted-in' to receive the Digest. On the rare occassion when I get a complaint 'how did you get my name?' I send them back a copy of the letter I received, presumably from them, asking to be added. I do not think it is right to require someone to provide personal information and then further require them to opt-out of mailings. I see no problem with making your web presentation and including a conspicuous note saying, "if you would like to receive mail from us from time to time, please put your name and email address here". In other words, an opt-in approach on web sites. There are people who like getting the latest pyramid chain-letter, just as there are people who do not mind getting the latest 'promotional message from our advertiser', just as there are people who like getting this, and hundreds of other newsletters/digests on the net. But the only acceptable way to do it is by opt-in, and not the kind of 'double-opt' where you *must* opt-in to see the web site and you *must* subsequently opt-out to not receive unwanted email. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:44:59 +0300 From: Fred Baube Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Reply-To: fred@moremagic.com John Ledahl wrote: > How would you feel if after a protracted amount of time it is > irrefutably proven that certain amounts of cellphone exposure causes > specific kinds of damage to the body (lets not leave out the > possibility of radiowaves impacting normal brain functions like > memory, etc.) and millions of people around the world are directly > suffering from these effects -- INCLUDING TWO PEOPLE IN YOUR IMMEDIATE > FAMILY? And it was avoidable? How would you feel? Call me loony, but here's a solution I came up with a year ago. An irritating thing about the latest generation of phones is that they are so compact that when you speak into them, with the speaker next to your ear, the microphone is as close to your ear as it is to your mouth. Clearly something is amiss designwise, when you speak and your voice misses the mike by a mile; could this explain the awful sound quality the listener receives? After all, the mike has to make do with only a small portion of your voice energy, and probably only the lowest tones at that. So I suggest, kill two birds with one stone. Make a phone shell where there is a thumb slide that pops out a mike from the bottom of the phone, on a stalk. When it snaps into the dropped-down position, it's right next to the mouth of the average user. And next to this mike is the antenna; it's not one centimeter from your brain (as is the case for current phones), it's at least six centimeters from your brain. It only look odd because you're used to the current design, which is potentially dangerous. The user gets used to it. Can I patent this ? Fred Baube F.Baube(tm) * "Geese, I'm led to understand, make G'town U. MSFS '88 * excellent watchdogs. Which is good fred@moremagic.com * because Rottweillers make lousy poultry." +358 (40) 737 6934 * http://www.brunching.com/ratings/ #include * rate-farmanimals.html ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: 28 Oct 1999 18:04:51 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Here's a question: Has there been any long term study done of telecom and electrical workers to see if they have a greater risk of illness than the general population of industrial workers? Many utility workers (Bell System and power companies) tended to work there their entire career, making it easy to trace health exposures. Power company workers were exposed to very (albeit low frequency) electro-magnetic fields from generators and power lines. Telephone company workers, esp in Long Lines, were exposed to high frequency carrier line exposures. Some worked near microwave towers. Of course, other adverse factors have to be taken into account (eg environmental hazards where the person lived, smoking, etc.). ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: A New World Order - 9th Circuit Rulings Date: 28 Oct 1999 11:19:29 -0500 Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 82 Brian Webb wrote: > The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just handed down a ruling in > the case *LOCKHEED v. NETWORK*, or more completely *Lockheed Martin > Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc.". The 9th Circuit upheld the > District Court's judgment ... > After procedural motions were made, the court issued its summary > judgment. The court said that contributory infringement occurs when > the defendant either intentionally induces a third party to infringe > the plaintiff's mark or supplies a product to a third party with > actual or constructive knowledge that the product is being used to > infringe the service mark. The court analogized that NSI's role > differs little from that of the United States Postal Service: when an > Internet user enters a domain name combination, NSI translates the > domain-name combination to the registrant's IP Address and routes the > information or command to the corresponding computer. > Although NSI's routing service is only available to a registrant who > has paid NSI's fee, NSI does not supply the domain-name combination > any more than the Postal Service supplies a street address by > performing the routine service of routing mail. Where domain names > are used to infringe, the infringement does not result from NSI's > publication of the domain name list, but from the registrant's use of > the name on a web site or other Internet form of communication in > connection with goods or services ... NSI's involvement with the > use of domain names does not extend beyond registration. I don't understand the Subject you chose: A New World Order. In the case you have described, the court did not order registrars to determine whether or not a domain name could be a trademark infringement. The court did nothing to expand the traditional duties and obligations of a registrar. This would seem to maintain the status quo. I am curious what the registrants of skunkworks.com and skunkworks.net had intended to do with their sites and what Lockheed threatened them with. Was either site set up by folks interested in the history of the facility? If so, God help freedom to publish. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:19:07 CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Last Laugh! The Trials and Tribulations of a Telemarketer Hi Pat, I don't know the source of this; maybe it's been going around for years, with the rate changing to keep up with the times ...! Cheers, Clive Dawson Austin, TX ------- Start of forwarded message ------- One thing that has always bugged me, and I'm sure it does most of you, is to sit down at the dinner table only to be interrupted by a phone call from a telemarketer. I decided, on one such occasion, to try to be as irritating as they were to me. The call was from AT&T and it went something like this: Me: Hello AT&T: Hello, this is AT&T... Me: Is this AT&T? AT&T: Yes, this is AT&T... Me: This is AT&T? AT&T: Yes This is AT&T... Me: Is this AT&T? AT&T: YES! This is AT&T, may I speak to Mr. Byron please? Me: May I ask who is calling? AT&T: This is AT&T. Me: OK, hold on. At this point I put the phone down for a solid five minutes thinking that, surely, this person would have hung up the phone. Much to my surprise, when I picked up the receiver, they were still waiting. Me: Hello? AT&T: Is this Mr. Byron? Me: May I ask who is calling please? AT&T: Yes this is AT&T... Me: Is this AT&T? AT&T: Yes this is AT&T... Me: This is AT&T? AT&T: Yes, is this Mr. Byron? Me: Yes, is this AT&T? AT&T: Yes sir. Me: The phone company? AT&T: Yes sir. Me: I thought you said this was AT&T. AT&T: Yes sir, we are a phone company. Me: I already have a phone. AT&T: We aren't selling phones today Mr. Byron. Me: Well whatever it is, I'm really not interested but thanks for calling. When you are not interested in something, I don't think you can express yourself any plainer than by saying "I'm really not interested", but this lady was persistent. AT&T: Mr. Byron, we would like to offer you 10 cents a minute, 24 hours aday, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Now, I am sure she meant she was offering a "rate" of 10 cents a minute but she at no time used the word rate. I could clearly see that it was time to whip out the trusty old calculator and do a little ciphering. Me: Now, that's 10 cents a minute 24 hours a day? AT&T: (getting a little excited at this point by my interest) Yes sir that's right! 24 hours a day! Me: 7 days a week? AT&T: That's right. Me: 365 days a year? AT&T: Yes sir. Me: I am definitely interested in that! Wow!!! That's amazing! AT&T: We think so! Me: That's quite a sum of money! AT&T: Yes sir, it's amazing how it ads up. Me: OK, so will you send me checks weekly, monthly or just one big oneat the end of the year for the full $52,560, and if you send an annual check, can I get a cash advance? AT&T: Excuse me? Me: You know, the 10 cents a minute. AT&T: What are you talking about? Me: You said you'd give me 10 cents a minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek, 365 days a year. That comes to $144 per day, $1008 per week and $52,560 per year. I'm just interested in knowing how you will be making payment. AT&T: Oh no sir I didn't mean we'd be paying you. You pay us 10 cents a minute. Me: Wait a minute here!!! Didn't you say you'd give me 10 centsa minute? Are you sure this is AT&T? AT&T: Well, yes this is AT&T sir but...... Me: But nothing, how do you figure that by saying that you'll give me 10 cents a minute that I'll give you 10 cents a minute? Is this some kindof subliminal telemarketing scheme? I've read about things like this inthe Enquirer you know. Don't use your alien brainwashing techniques on me! AT&T: No sir we are offering 10 cents a minute for..... Me: THERE YOU GO AGAIN! Can I speak to a supervisor please! AT&T: Sir I don't think that is necessary. Me: Sure! You say that now! What happens later? AT&T: What? Me: I insist on speaking to a supervisor! AT&T: Yes Mr. Byron. Please hold on. So now AT&T has me on hold and my supper is getting cold. I begin to eat while I'm waiting for a supervisor. After a wait of a few minutes and while I have a mouth full of food: Sup.: Mr. Byron? Me: Yeth? Sup.: I understand you are not quite understanding our 10 cents a minute program. Me: Id thish Ath Teeth & Teeth? Sup.: Yes sir, it sure is. I had to swallow before I choked on my food. It was all I could do to suppress my laughter and I had to be careful not to produce a snort. Me: No, actually I was just waiting for someone to get back to me so that I could sign up for the plan. Sup.: OK, no problem, I'll transfer you back to the person who was helping you. Me: Thank you. I was on hold once again and was getting really hungry. I needed to end this conversation. Suddenly, there was an aggravated but polite voice at the other end of the phone. AT&T: Hello Mr. Byron, I understand that you are interested in signing up for our plan? Me: Do you have that friends and family thing because you can never have enough friends and I'm an only child and I'd really like to have a little brother... AT&T: (click) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #516 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Oct 28 23:00:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA25428; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:00:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910290300.XAA25428@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #517 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Oct 99 23:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Two New Anonymizing Features Added Here (TELECOM Digest Editor) To 'Bell' or NOT to 'Bell' - Names/Logos/Holdings/etc. (Mark J. Cuccia) The Internet is Dangerous - Two Users Found Dead (Jonathan Loo) MSN Is First National ISP to Offer Nortel's Internet Call Waiting (Solomon) FCC Gets Larger - Includes More Watchdog Activities (John Stahl) Re: The City of Philadelphia's Centrex (Bill Levant) Re: Japanese Telephony Questions (Fritz Whittington) Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone (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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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, 28 Oct 1999 22:20:57 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Two New Anonymizing Features Added Here I wanted to let everyone know of two new anonymizing features added at this website for use by anyone who needs them. Anonymous outgoing email: You may now send single (one piece at a time) email letters from this site which indicate to the recipient that they were sent by 'anonymous'. No response back to you is possible. Anonymous postings to Usenet newsgroups: You may now send single (one newsgroup at a time) postings from this site to any newsgroup which will indicate to the readers that they were sent by 'anonymous'. Again, no response back to you is possible, and moderators of moderated newsgroups may choose to decline your anonymous posting in their sole judgment. Like secret-surfer, these two new anonymizing features are **not to be abused or used for the transfer of text and/or images which are illegal to possess in the country from which you are calling.** Any abuse or harassment will not be tolerated. Like secret-surfer, they are intended exclusively as privacy-enhancing tools for honest, law- abiding netizens who wish to add a layer of privacy to their surfing of the net or newsgroup/email correspondence. These two new tools cannot be used when a response is expected via email. For that, you need one of the anonymous mailboxes also offered. Both tools, like secret-surfer, are provided by cotse.com (The Church of the Swimming Elephant) and are cross-linked and reachable from: http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html (or) http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice I hope that you find them both useful, and will treat them with the same respect as I have come to expect of postal patrons and secre- surfers to date. Enjoy surfing/reading/posting! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 15:40:42 CDT From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: To 'Bell' or NOT to 'Bell' - Names/Logos/Holdings/etc. Orginally in "Local Inter-NPA (Cross-NPA-Boundary) 7D-Dialing", Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Cincinnati Bell for the Metro area in sw OH / northern KY / se IN, > as well as Southern New England Telephone in most all of CT, are > the two BOCs that AT&T never owned a majority of by 1984, the time > of divestiture; these two "semi-BOCs" were treated 'specially' at > the time of divestiture, and are now frequently classified as > 'independent' LECs; Cincinnati Bell was _NOT_ made part of > Ameritech; S.N.E.T. was _NOT_ made part of NYNEX.) and Michael D. Sullivan (avogadro@bellatlantic.net) replied: > SNET was recently acquired by SBC, so Connecticut is now in RBOC > country, not independent, for the first time. Although SNET is > owned by an RBOC, it is not a BOC, however. At divestiture, Cincinnati Bell kept the "Bell" name and logo. AFAIK, they are still not part of any "RBOC" holding company. SNET never seemed to have the "Bell" name - pre-divestiture, the Connecticut company had always seemed to be known as "Southern New England Telephone". They _DID_ use the "Bell System" logo (whichever one was the style of the 'Bell' for that decade), but at divestiture, they dropped that logo in favor of a five-pointed star or geometric design. (They've had at least two different logos since divestiture). Now they are part of 'SBC' (which wants to merge with Ameritech). At divestiture SBC (Southwestern Bell Corporation) was the only one of the seven "RBOC" holding companies which was one-in-the-same identical original pre-divestiture Bell Operating Companies. I don't think that SNET has (re)adopted the "Bell" logo yet or not. SBC also took over Pacific*Telesis, one of the original seven post-divestiture RBOC holding companies. At divestiture, California's BOC - Pacific Telephone (and Telegraph) and Nevada Bell (which was always partially owned by Pac Tel), became part of the new spun-off RBOC holding company Pacific Telesis. Prior to divestiture, Nevada had the "Bell" name _AND_ logo; California's Pacific had the "Bell" logo, but not the "name" - it was still Pacific Telephone (and Telegraph). With divestiture the "Bell" name was taken by the Pacific company, replacing "Telephone (and Telegraph)", yet everything under Pacific Telesis, including the Pacific and Nevada operating companies, as well as Pac Telesis itself adoped the "touchtone star" logo rather than the "Bell" logo! I think that is still the case, even though SBC has taken them over. Prior to the early 1960's, Oregon, Washington (state) and central Idaho were handled by Pacific (Bell) Telephone (and Telegraph). But around that time, those states (or portions) were split-off to form a new BOC, Pacific Northwest Bell. With divestiture, PNB became part of US West (along with Northwestern Bell and Mountain Bell)). Except for SBC and Bell Atlantic, the "corporation" holding companies logos of NYNEX, BellSouth, Ameritech, US West -- did _NOT use the "Bell" logo for a number of years at divestiture, although their "Cellular" (Mobility) subdidiaries frequently did use the "Bell" logo along with the "Corporation" name. The individual "pre-divestiture" operating company names STILL DID use the "Bell" logo (except, of course for Pacific and Nevada as mentioned earlier). As the "corporation" entities began to consolidate their individual operating companies (i.e, New York Tel and New England Tel both changing to NYNEX; the five Midwest state telco names all changing to Ameritech; Southern Bell and South Central Bell changing to BellSouth; and Pac NW Bell, Mountain (States) Bell and Northwestern Bell all changing to US West) into the "corporate" name, most all of them adopted the "Bell" logo as part of the corporate logo,, at least for the logo for traditional regulated local telephone services. Back to the two companies that AT&T held less than a majority of (SNET, Cincinnati Bell) -- there was yet ANTOHER operating telco that AT&T held part of, albeit an ever shrinking tiny ownership of, until about 1975 -- that being The Bell Telephone Company of Canada. AT&T held only single-digit percentages of Bell Canada (Quebec and Ontario) until 1975. Bell Canada used the OLDER (pre-1970s) Bell System logo until 1975 (even when the US Bell telcos went to the current modern-looking logo), but the words printed inside of the 'Bell' were "Bell Canada" rather than "Bell System". They abolished the use of that logo altogather. Only recently has Bell Canada re-established some form of logo - but it is so "ultramodern", I can't really figure out what it is supposed to represent! Incidently, Bell Canada (or now its holding company BCE - Bell Canada Enterprises Inc.) has owned a sizeable portion of the telcos in the Maritime Provinces. (Recently, those four holding corporations have merged into 'Aliant', not to be confused with independent Lincoln (NEBRASKA) Tel & Tel's use of 'Aliant' in the mid-to-late-1990s -- LT&T (Neb) Aliant and independent group-owner "Alltel" recently merged -- and "Alltel" is now the name used for Lincoln Neb's Tel). But back to the Canadian Maritime Provinces -- NBTel, Maritime Tel and Tel (NS) which owns part of (Prince Edward) Island Tel, and Newfoundland Tel -- at one time many decades ago, these telcos TOO used the OLD Bell System logo. This was circa 1930's. The words inside of the "Bell" were the name of the province and 'telephone company'. I don't think that any of them use the word 'Bell' in their actual 'name'. Later acquisitions of BCE Inc, such as NorthwesTel (YT/NWT/Nunavut), Telebec (PQ) and Northern Telephone (ON) never seemed to have used neither the "Bell" name nor logo. Finally, in the early 1970's, Bell Canada and Northern Electric (partially held by Bell Canada, (US) Western Electric, and AT&T itself) formed a new R/D entity called "Bell Northern Research". It has the 'Bell' name, but not logo. It was formed to take over Canadian R/D needs in preparation for the dissolution of the corporate arrangement between Bell Canada/NECO and AT&T/WECO/Bell Labs, as well as to start some "Canada specific" R/D in the meantime. Bell Labs in the US went with AT&T at divestiture. It dropped the "Bell" logo, but not the name. It was frequently called AT&T-Bell Laboratories. Of course, with the spin-off of Lucent (WECO) a few years ago, Bell Labs went with them. However, neither Lucent nor Bell Labs uses the "Bell" logo. And except for the 1984-85/86 use of the "Bell" name by AT&T for Bell Labs, Judge Greene told AT&T that they couldn't use the "Bell" name with divestiture, as the name/logo was reserved to the operating companies. That's why AT&T changed to the so-called 'death-star' logo. However, beginning in Jan.1983 (one year before divestiture officially took effect), there was an equipment/computer branch of AT&T using the current 'death-star' AT&T logo, but was called "American Bell Inc" (not to be confused with the 19th Century "Bell" entity known as American Bell - I don't remember offhand what their functions or ultimate consolidation was). That use of the "Bell" name by AT&T probably preceded Judge Greene's order against AT&T using the "Bell" name (or logo) except for Bell Labs, the order (IIRC) from Greene was issued in Summer 1983, just half-a-year before the official start of divestiture ... And then there's Bellcore ... With divestiture looming in 1982/83, AT&T (Bell System) created a "Central Services Organization" (CSO) to handle nationwide/NANP-wide common efforts and co-ordinations. It was to be owned by the seven regional Bell Corporations spun-off by AT&T, and was initially organized and staffed by people from AT&T-HQ, AT&T Long Lines, WECO, Labs, the various BOCs, and other miscellaneous parts of the Bell System. With divestiture in 1984, the CSO became known as Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore, for short). It had rotating staff from the various BOCs or their holding companies, as well as a permanent staff. More recently, the NANP administrative functions of Bellcore were spun-off to Lockheed-Martin (although that too may change yet again). Also, the SAIC entity purchased the ownership of Bellcore from the seven (or six or five) Bell corporations. The use of the "Bell" name and logo in Bellcore had to be eliminated with the purchase by SAIC. The new name has become Telcordia, with its own 'T/T' logo (Telcordia Technologies). But even the (post-1969) "Bell" logo used in Bellcore was reduced DRASTICALLY in size in the late 1980's, and on some letterheads was non-existant in most recent years, even before the name-change to Telcordia due to the purchase by SAIC. Incidently, SAIC-Canada recently became the "Canada-specific" numbering administrator, known as the CNAC (Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium). Those duties had previously been under the CRTC, prior to that by the Canadian Government's "Industry Canada", and prior to that by Stentor. And Stentor, which is basically dissolved now (Canada-wide co-ordination of the traditional network is to be managed jointly by Bell Canada and Telus - which through recent mergers and associations have become the two only 'major' telcos or groups of telcos in Canada) - used to be called "Telecom Canada" (1982-92), and prior to that was called TCTS (the Trans-Canada Telephone System, founded circa 1930; which was a re-naming or re-formation of the 1920's TAC - Telephone Association of Canada), a group-association of the basic dominant provincial local/toll LECs in Canada. But Bell Canada (PQ/ON, pts of the NWT) has always been the more "dominant" member of Stentor or whatever it had previously been known as. ONE BELL SYSTEM -- It _USED_ to work! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:45:58 EDT From: Jonathan Loo Subject: The Internet is Dangerous - Two Users Found Dead Organization: University of Maryland University College Two people who ran an investment marketing web site have been found dead. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/slaying991028.html ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: MSN Is First National ISP to Offer Nortel's Internet Call Waiting Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:22:21 -0400 High-Quality Service Helps MSN Internet Access Subscribers Manage Incoming Calls REDMOND, Wash., Oct. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Nortel Networks(TM) Corp. (NYSE: NT; Toronto) today announced an agreement to provide MSN(TM) Internet Access subscribers across the country with Nortel Networks' Internet call waiting (ICW) service. ICW alleviates the need for a second telephone line and enables consumers to quickly and easily receive and manage incoming telephone calls while remaining connected to the Internet. With MSN ICW, consumers can take advantage of traditional call waiting and caller ID services via the Internet, meaning while online they can identify who is calling and manage the call without losing their Internet connection. "Microsoft is committed to delivering best-of-breed services like Internet call waiting to MSN Internet Access subscribers," said Yusuf Mehdi, director of marketing for Microsoft's Consumer and Commerce Group. "Teaming with an industry leader like Nortel Networks provides our customers with a reliable, easy and affordable Internet call waiting solution and advances our Everyday Web vision by helping customers to leverage the full power of the Internet." MSN ICW rollout began today in Atlanta, Seattle and San Diego, and there are plans to offer the service to MSN Internet Access subscribers in 50 major U.S. metro areas over the next several months. The service is aimed at delivering key ICW benefits, including incoming-call notification, call-management capabilities and cost savings as a result of the fact that MSN Internet Access subscribers at home or in small businesses don't need a second telephone line. When online, Internet users will be notified immediately of incoming calls through a pop-up message on their computer screen with the name and number of the caller. They can then choose to either answer the call through their telephone or computer, without losing their Internet connection, or click on an icon to forward the call to another phone number or deliver a personalized or automated call-back message to the caller. "As telecommunications and the Internet converge, Nortel Networks is combining its unique skills to deliver value-added services that enhance the Web experience for consumers," said Irving Ebert, vice president of Strategic Alliances, Nortel Networks. "We are thrilled to work with Microsoft to deliver this exciting service to MSN Internet Access subscribers." International Data Corp. forecasts that 21.6 million households will subscribe to Internet call waiting services by 2003. "Internet call waiting is an innovative service that will save customers from missing calls while on the Internet," said Dana Thorat, senior research analyst at IDC. "It offers consumers a compelling alternative to purchasing a second telephone line." Availability and Pricing for MSN Internet Call Waiting MSN ICW is available immediately to new and existing MSN Internet Access subscribers in Atlanta, Seattle and San Diego. There is no activation fee, and customers can sign up for the service at http://www.extremevoice.com/msn/. The current monthly fee ranges from $4.95 to $5.95, depending on location. To use MSN ICW, users need the call forward busy service, which can be activated by local telephone companies for a small extra monthly charge; consumers also have the option to sign up for the call forward busy service as part of the online registration for MSN ICW. About MSN Internet Access MSN Internet Access (MSNIA) works with Microsoft(R) Windows(R) 95- or 98-based PCs to provide a fast, reliable Internet connection so users can make the most of their time online. At the heart of MSNIA is Internet Explorer 5 browser software. This powerful software delivers a cleaner, more intuitive interface that allows users to spend less time figuring out how to use the Internet -- and more time getting things done online. MSNIA offers award-winning e-mail functionality with Microsoft Outlook(R) Express, local phone numbers across the United States, 24x7 toll-free technical support and a customizable home page. Customers can order a free* one-month trial of MSN Internet Access by visiting http://free.msn.com/ or by calling 800-FREE-MSN (373-3676). About Nortel Networks Nortel Networks is a global leader in telephony, data, wireless and wireline solutions for the Internet. The company had 1998 revenues of $17.6 billion (U.S.) and serves carrier, service provider and enterprise customers globally. Today, Nortel Networks is creating a high-performance Internet that is more reliable and faster than ever before. It is redefining the economics and quality of networking and the Internet through Unified Networks(TM) that promise a new era of collaboration, communications and commerce. Nortel Networks can be visited online at http://www.nortelnetworks.com/ . About Microsoft Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the worldwide leader in software for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device. NOTE: Microsoft, MSN, Windows and Outlook are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries. Nortel Networks and Unified Networks are trademarks of Nortel Networks. Other product and company names herein may be trademarks of their respective owners. *Connect-time charges may apply. SOURCE Microsoft Corp. Copyright PR Newswire. All rights reserved ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:57:52 From: John Stahl Subject: FCC Gets Larger - Includes More Watchdog Activities Here is an article from Inter@ctive Week magazine relating that the FCC has "grown" two new branches to it's organization 'tree'; one, with the onerous name of the "Enforcement Bureau", to 'police' the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and the other, with a 'nice-sounding' name called the "Consumer Information Bureau", to presumably to shell out info to consumers. Respectively submitted, John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------ This story was printed from Inter@ctive Week, located at http://www.zdnet.com/intweek. The FCC Expands By Randy Barrett, Inter@ctive Week October 27, 1999 1:25 PM PT URL: http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2382969,00.html The Federal Communications Commission announced the creation of two new divisions: the Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer Information Bureau. The changes are part of an agency overhaul announced this summer by FCC Chairman William Kennard. The new bureaus will be operational by Nov. 8. "Our decision to establish bureaus devoted exclusively to enforcement and consumer information signals the enormous importance of these functions in our transition from an industry regulator to market facilitator," said Kennard, who added more reorganizations will be announced soon. The Enforcement Bureau will be led by David Solomon and will consolidate the enforcement functions of the existing Common Carrier, Mass Media, Wireless Telecommunications and Information divisions. The bureau will have primary responsibility for enforcing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as FCC rules and orders. Lorraine Miller will lead the Consumer Information Bureau, which consolidates the Gettysburg Call Center, the Office of Public Affairs, Public Service and Reference Operations Divisions. ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:52:59 EDT Subject: Re: The City of Philadelphia's Centrex > The Phila City Hall centrex (MUnicpal 6-1776), years ago, did also use > cord switchboards, a *24* position (two rows of 12) 608 cord board. > All the operators did was plug you into a line and dial (TT pad) the > desired extension for you. Transfering calls worked the same as the > older systems described above. I don't think they use that any more, > while City Hall is still MUnicipal 6 (now called 686), they've added > 685 as well; and a I know a lot of city agencies have new phone > numbers. There are probably only three people in the world who care about any of this (me, the guy who originally posted, and the guy at City Hall who's responsible for it all), but: -- In the old days, the City Hall switchboard was 215/MU6-9700. They changed it to -1776 for the bicentennial (at allegedly "great cost", if I recall ...) -- They used to have *four-digit* extensions, which could be dialed from outside as 686-xxxx, and *five-digit* extensions in the form xx-yyyy (mostly in outlying City buildings) that had weird dialing rules, and which couldn't be called directly from outside without going through the operator (though they could dial out locally). To call between five-digit extensions in the same "xx" group, one dialed the last three; to call between five-digit extensions in different "xx" groups, one dialed "8" plus 5 digits; from five digits to four digits, 8-51-xxxx; from four to five, 1-xx-yyyy, and from four to four, just xxxx. By fooling around one day, I discovered that you could call from four digits to four digits with 1-51-xxxx (though why anyone would want to is beyond me). The five-digit groups had "weird" ringing tones, mostly unique to a particular 5-digit group. All this went away in the early '80's, in stages, though in some of the less-traveled corners of City government, you can still find phones with the old MU6-9700 dial cards and five-digit extensions. Nowadays, the City has 215 686-, 683- and 685- all to itself; all calls are dialed as 5-digits (e.g. 3-xxxx, 5-xxxx) even within a single prefix, the old five-digit extensions have been folded into 685- (and to a lesser extent, 683-); and they have some tie trunks to City-related agencies not on the main Centrex (e.g. dial 1-5x-yyyy for the airport [parts of 215-492 and 215-937], the pension board [part of 215-496], and so on, depending on what "x" is). Used to be, NOBODY could dial outside the City Limits without the operator. In the bad old days, it would ring 150 times before you'd get the toll operator. An incredible nuisance. You had to have an authorization number for the operator, but as long as it fit the format (2D-1L-3D), no one validated it. Interestingly, though, the fax machine was on an UNRESTRICTED Centrex line, so a simple solution presented itself: Dial out from there, and then transfer the call back to your desk. Worked every time. They also used to block calls to MCI's and Sprint's 950 and 800 access numbers, and forced you to use AT&T through the operator. At least, they did until someone gave the City Hall operator their calling card number, which promptly ended up in heavy use at the prison (where the operator's boyfriend, uh, lived). Now, everyone has 7-digit PIN numbers for toll calls. They even have voice mail. Geez. There's something weird about the 685- numbers; when dialed, the system "hesitates" a moment before cutting through to ringing tone ... since the 685- numbers are all over the City (the 686- and 683- numbers are almost all downtown), I wonder if 685- is actually a pseudo-code, with a database lookup for routing, or something like that. It may also be a DID setup; I think 686- is still "real" Bell Centrex. Bill ------------------------------ From: Fritz Whittington Subject: Re: Japanese Telephony Questions Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:09:01 -0500 Organization: James P. Lazar, P. C. Mark Fine wrote: > My name is Mark Fine. I am Software Development Team Leader at NetGong > Ltd. a software company from Israel that specialized in CTI > (Computer-Telephony Integration) applications. . . . > PS: We have a lot of experience working with Caller ID in Israel and > USA. If you are interested please don't hesitate to ask us about > this. OK! I'll take your offer! We recently switched from SW Bell analog lines to T1 PRI DID lines from InterMedia. As part of the changeover, we installed a new Norstar MICS KSU. Everything works very nicely except for one thing: when we make outgoing calls, the called party with a CallerID box will see our number, but *Unknown Name* instead of our business name. The InterMedia trouble-shooters say it isn't broken, their system just doesn't pass the name info, just the number. Only the ILECs can do that, not the CLECs. Do you know if this is common or uncommon? Are there other CLECs that DO pass the name? Are there any FCC regs (pending, but not yet in full effect) that will require the name to be passed? Best Regards, Fritz Whittington The Law Offices of James P. Lazar, P. C. +1 214 273 2576 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:07:19 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone As you know, golfer Payne Stewart and five others were killed in a plane crash (if they weren't already dead due to depressurization). You heard the plane was going from Orlando (Fla.) to Dallas (Texas) and strayed, pilotless, up to South Dakota before it ran out of fuel. I heard a radio report which said there was some live coverage of this story as it broke. That report says Stewart's wife was following it and tried to call him on his(?) cell phone. So there can be a cell phone on a Learjet? I take it the attempt(s) by Stewart's wife failed because Stewart was unconscious or dead. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #517 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Oct 29 03:54:26 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA05166; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199910290754.DAA05166@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #518 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Oct 99 03:54:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Cell Phone Hazards? (Kim Brennan) Re: New DNS Entry (Sonya Woods) Re: Local Cross-NPA-Boundary Seven-Digit Dialing (George Rapp) Re: A Stink Over "Skunk Works" (John Nagle) Re: US West DSL Woes (Hudson Leighton) Re: US West DSL Woes (Ed Ellers) Re: To 'Bell' or NOT to 'Bell' - Names/Logos/Holdings/etc. (Linc Madison) Older Business Systems? (L. Winson) Re: Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone (John R. Levine) Re: Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone (Jeremy M. Posner) Re: Two New Anonymizing Tools (Al Iverson) 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 about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! 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: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:22:29 -0500 > people old enough to use cell phones don't have much cell > division going on in the area near the antenna. It seems to me that > the phone might be much more dangerous on your lap than next to your > head. OK, that subject has recent research. New neurons are continually being made. http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500045561-500074264-500183493-0,00.html Not long ago an impossible experiment was done on humans. There's a chemical which in animal studies stains only new neurons, and has shown cell growth in animal brains. But for several reasons, mainly because it is toxic, it could not be given to humans, and the human brains couldn't be cut up for study anyway. A researcher accidentally discovered that the chemical was being given to a few cancer patients due to its specific toxicity; he got permission from some patients to study their brains and over the next several years some of them died. New neurons were found in the human brains. > Here's a question: Has there been any long term study done of telecom > and electrical workers to see if they have a greater risk of illness > than the general population of industrial workers? Did you try asking a library or the Web before asking us? There are people whose business is to do such studies and they've been at work for some time. Of course, a lot of the research is presently in medical journals and non-Web repositories. More library info is coming on line, but a lot of the Web-related info is being sponsored by someone with a certain interest in the material. > Many utility workers (Bell System and power companies) tended to work > there their entire career, making it easy to trace health exposures. A quick look at the Web find a pile of references to a few telephone worker studies with EMF and asbestos focus. Mention was also made in one page to telephone workers having lower illness rates than workers in general, but the same rate as electrical workers could suggest either fewer environmental factors than other workers or an occupational reduction of risk (such as better health due to more physical labor than other workers). One small sample of female telephone workers in the 1980s (how many years of work might the average female telephone worker have done then?) found some differences from average, but also wondered if people with certain other risk factors may have chosen that work. > Of course, other adverse factors have to be taken into account (eg > environmental hazards where the person lived, smoking, etc.). Well, if it were easy it would be obvious already to everyone rather than so much research being done. ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 28 Oct 1999 19:59:45 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? > An irritating thing about the latest generation of phones is that they > are so compact that when you speak into them, with the speaker next to > your ear, Not all cell phones are constructed in this way. Several of the flip open phones (of which the StarTac is probably the most famous) are small compact phones that enlarge to near normal phone proportions ... and the microphone is down near the mouth when the speaker is up near the ear. Actually, the StarTac was one of the phones mentioned in at least one of the reports has having a better than normal design, because in normal operation the antennae is pointing away from the head (being as the antennae is at the hinge of the StarTac design.) Kim Brennan Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo/duoindex.html ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: sonya_woods@my-deja.com (Sonya Woods) Subject: Re: New DNS Entry Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:21:24 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Dear Alan, Do you use the New Tucows Domain Service with OpenSRS? What do you think about it? I visited OpenSRS yesterday, and was searching for the domain name registry process, but didn't find it. I found a primary technical instructions, but I don't know if these instructions are for common users or resellers. Finally, I couldn't register. I forgot this option and came back to my current domain names registrar, Nominalia.net. The Nominalia site guarantee the registry in less than 24 hours (if I pay ...), and offered me easy customer services for managing my domain name request service. I always had been working with NSI, but Tucows prices and services are expensive and prehistoric. I only found a problem with this registrar it's working with owns Nic's instead of Core Nic's. Regards, Sonya In article , Alan Pugh wrote: > A press release concerning a new entry into the DNS field. > TUCOWS Launches Open Shared Registry System for Domain Name > Registration > Move Offers ISP's Wholesale Registrations For $13 Per Year > TUCOWS (www.tucows.com) has revolutionized the wholesale domain name > registration market with today's launch of OpenSRS (Open Shared > Registration System at www.opensrs.com). > > CONTACT: TUCOWS.com > Charmaine D'Silva, cell: 416/824-8374 > charm@tucows.com ------------------------------ From: George Rapp Subject: Re: Local Cross-NPA-Boundary Seven-Digit Dialing Date: 28 Oct 1999 16:05:55 -0500 Organization: Newscene Public Access Usenet News (http://www.newscene.com/) Neal McLain wrote: > According to the 1999-2000 U S West directory for Council Bluffs, > Iowa, it's still possible to call between Omaha and Council Bluffs by > dialing seven digits. > What's really strange about the Omaha/Council Bluffs area is City of > Carter Lake, IA. It's located on the *west* side of the Mississippi > River. Historically, it was located on the east side of the river, in > a "meander" -- a big loop where the river meandered north, west, and > south. Eventually, the river cut a more direct route, leaving Carter > Lake (the city) stranded on the west side. The old river bed is now a > lake, also called Carter Lake. While it's true that Carter Lake is located on the west side of the Mississippi River, that's equally true for the rest of Iowa! I think it's more interesting to note that Carter Lake is on the west side of the *Missouri* River, which oxbowed years ago and left Carter Lake physically adjacent to Nebraska but legally part of Iowa. You would drive through Carter Lake on the way from downtown Omaha to the airport. Incidentally, the action of the Missouri River is also responsible for the fact that there are Native American casinos in Iowa, even though there was never any reservation land created there (it was all in NE). The river stranded a couple of chunks of Winnebago and Omaha reservation land on the Iowa side, and nobody thought too much about it, until Iowa approved casino gambling. Then the tribes went to the Supreme Court to make sure that land *stayed* in Iowa (opposite of the Carter Lake situation), and thus were able to operate casinos on "their" land. I believe the casinos have telephones. 8^) George Rapp (Bellevue, NE) Go 'Huskers!!! Home: gwr@novia.net ICQ: 14583674 AIM: gwrboing Work: grapp01@mail.dfas.msd.eds.com (or) george.rapp@dfas.mil Would a fly without wings be called a walk? ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: A Stink Over "Skunk Works" Date: 28 Oct 1999 18:14:14 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises blw1540@aol.comxxnospam (Bruce Wilson) writes: >> Am I my cybersquatter's keeper? Not according to a U.S. appeals court. >> The decision is one more battle in a long war as trademark rights >> clash in the global space of Net domain names. > Does anyone know how far back the phrase "inside man at the skunk > works" goes? If "skunk works" is a mark, it is, IMHO, a weak one, but > the real point is the processor of registrations isn't held to be the > enforcement agent of every holder of every alleged mark or name in the > world and the holder's only cause of action's against the registrant. The original phrase was "skonk works", from Al Capp's "Li'l Abner" comic. Lockheed originally used "skonk works", got complaints from Capp's syndicator, and switched to "skunk works". John Nagle Animats ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: US West DSL Woes Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:31:47 -0500 Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. In article , craig@glasswings.com.au (Craig Macbride) wrote: > A friend of mine got DSL from USWest in July. She has two phone lines > to her home, let's call them line A, (425.603.XXXX) her main line and > line B, (425.603.YYYY) her business line. She ordered DSL on line B, > and received an email message confirming her order for it to be on > line B. USWest set it up on line A, without even informing her of > this, let alone asking whether it was agreeable with her to do so! snip > Two questions come immediately to mind: > 1) Are USWest usually this incompetent? > 2) How can the US ever have any level of phone number portability if USWest > can't even swap two numbers in the _same house_ in three months??! Sounds familar, in my case: Installed it on the wrong exchange! ie: 122-1234 instead of 123-1234 Have managed to disconnect me once. Part of the problem is staffing, I have had fairly good luck with the USWest DSL Customer service, BUT (big but) I have literally spent a day on hold waiting from them to answer. Slow day, dug out a old speaker phone and camped on the line for about six hours before they answered. Also had one DSL modem die, but since then it has been great. They advertise 256K, I usually get 60K, 100K on big files most of the time, but it does beat 5.6K or 2.8K. Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: US West DSL Woes Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:39:18 -0400 Craig Macbride wrote: > After setting it up and confirming that DSL did in fact work, she > asked them to swap it over to the line it was actually ordered > on. They said they would do so in early September and would call to > let her know so she could switch everything back. Instead, they > attempted it without warning at 6:30 pm on a day in mid-September. Not > only did DSL not work when switched to the other line, but, in doing > the switch over, they totally cut line A off (not just the DSL!) for > about 15 hours. > After quite some days passed, USWest finally told her that DSL won't > work on line B, despite having accepted her order (and payment, of > course) to do exactly that. They originally said they might be able to > swap the phone numbers over, or to put in a DSL-capable line and move > the intended phone number to it, but have done neither. Pathetic indeed, but here's a "stupid" question -- since she has two voice lines coming into her house, why does it matter which one is being used for DSL? Is it that only one of those two lines is wired into the room where the computer, and therefore the DSL modem, is located? Or is it a billing issue of some sort? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My first thought was the line they put it on in error was her listed number (in the directory) for incoming calls and she had a lot of voice traffic on that line which would have to be dealt with. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:50:46 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: To 'Bell' or NOT to 'Bell' - Names/Logos/Holdings/etc. In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Now they are part of 'SBC' (which wants to merge with Ameritech). > At divestiture SBC (Southwestern Bell Corporation) was the only one > of the seven "RBOC" holding companies which was one-in-the-same > identical original pre-divestiture Bell Operating Companies. This is a somewhat nitpicky point, but post-divestiture Southwestern Bell is not quite *IDENTICAL* to pre-divestiture Southwestern Bell. Specifically, the area around El Paso, Texas -- roughly the area of Texas that is in the Mountain Time Zone -- was served by Mountain Bell, but became part of Southwestern Bell at divestiture. It's a fairly small chunk of land, relative to the whole of Texas anyway, but it has well over half a million people. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom(at)LincMad(dot)com * North American Telephone Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: e-mail replies to the address in this sig will be read first! << ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Older Business Systems? Date: 28 Oct 1999 18:13:52 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In our discussion of touchtone keypads, I thought about the phone systems of large organizations and how they've evolved. Time point: 1970 vs. today. IIRC, business users tended to share phone LINES (either centrex or PBX extension) within an office, via the use of six button keysets, rather than giving each person their own direct number, as is done now. For example, with Centrex or PBX, an office of ten people might have three lines. Each person might have a phone on their desk, but a keyset and they'd have to share the three lines. That's the way I remember it back then. It seems like today every worker has their own phone line, and they merely transfer a call to someone else rather than merely yelling over "pick up line 1". I also remember many key systems with bare bone functionality. I know a lot did not have lamps -- they had the hold key and line keys, but no blinking for ringing or steady for in use. ("Wink hold" was also an additional option above having lamps.) And it seemed to take years for Touch Tone to be universal in business offices -- the plain black phone with metal dial (not even plastic) was the standard. I wonder if the pricing of providing individual lines to someone, centrex or PBX was higher in years past, and higher enough to offset the cost of providing key systems. (I see many offices today with simple phones, but more of them.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to see a lot of interesting combinations on six-button, five-line phones. Do you remember the older phone sets where the line buttons on the bottom were slender and round instead of square as in later years? Or when the 'hold' button (the first one on the left) was clear instead of red? I saw one arrangement where there were three *extensions* (from a PBX elsewhere in the company (three-digit extensions); the fifth button was a dial intercom within that working area of twelve or thirteen people, and the sixth button was non-locking and served as a link to an overhead public announcement system (one pair on it for the talk, and another pair to key the microphone I guess). Why the company did not have an extension phone for each person rather than having three extensions to serve the entire department with an intercom for them to talk among themselves I do not know. In the days before computers when customer service representatives used to have to walk into rows and rows of file cabinets to pull a customer's file to discuss the account there were interesting uses for multi-line phones also. In very large companies, the 'file room' would often be the length of a football field several rows deep and several rows wide of file cabinets. Each aisle would be marked with the equivilent of a 'street sign'. Thousands of file cabinets, each with hundreds of files. The 'street signs' would say something like 'accounts 1234567 through 2345678' with an arrow pointing one way, and some different numbers with an arrow pointing the other way. Every ten or fifteen feet mounted on the wall would be a box with the buttons on it, and a place on the side to jack-in a headset. A common audible and common visual would indicate when any line had a new, unanswered call. Reps would answer a call, take the customer's account number, put the call on 'hold' unplug their headset, walk through the room until they came to the proper aisle, go down the aisle to the proper cabinet, pull the file, plug their headset into the nearest jack on the wall, (hopefully) remember which line *they* had left on hold -- for there were always several lines blinking in the cadence that meant 'on hold' -- and discuss it with the customer. Finish talking with the customer, disconnect, write up the notes for what was desired which went in one of various wire baskets sitting around as mailboxes sit on street corners, then plug in your headset to answer another call, and repeat the above actions. Perhaps as you were at one of the little 'lectern-like' stands everywhere writing your notes and talking to your customer, one of the dozens of file clerks or ledger-posting clerks would come walking along pushing her grocery-like cart in front of her which was loaded with file jackets, scraps of paper and whatever. She'd pull some papers out of her cart, open a file cabinet (the really good, fast ones could do it with their eyes closed), riffle the files looking for the one she wanted and drop her handful of papers in it, close the cabinet and walk on to to another one. If the file was not in the cabinet, she'd look at *you* rather suspiciously, come over to the lectern where you were working with your customer on the phone, pick the file jacket up and see if it was the one she wanted. If it was, she simply took it out of your hands, dropped her paperwork in it, then handed it back to you, and walked away. I think maybe those wall-mounted things for headsets to be plugged into were twelve button sets; eleven lines plus a hold-button. They were all blinking and flashing constantly with calls waiting to be answered and calls answered but on hold while the service reps were around the room looking for the desired files, etc. At a place where I lived that had a manual, cord switchboard, the tenant phones were non-dial, manual sets; but in the manager's office she had a six-button phone with a dial. Two of the line appearances were extensions from the cord switchboard, a third was a direct (with dial tone) 'private outside line', the fourth was a non-locking key which sounded a buzzer on the same style phone in the owner's office in the room next to hers when he was expected to pick up one of the lines, and the fifth line appearance was a 'service monitor' ... she could press that and 'tap' the switchboard to observe the operators. (All it connected across was the operator's talking path, she could not monitor any of the extension users unless they were talking with the operator.) That last line appearance also went to a little speaker on her desk; she could depress that button, leave the phone on hook and listen to the speakerphone-like thing service-observing the operator on duty. But the strangest configuration I ever saw for a six-button phone was in the Chicago Temple Building auditorium. In addition to the hold button, the first line button was an extension from the switchboard which served the building. The second button was an open talking path to four similarly wired instruments. The third, fourth and fifth buttons were non-locking signal buzzers to signal any one of the three other stations on this open-loop party-line talking path. All of these had a headset jack in the back of the phone, and the user would generally just wear the headset all the time, always with that second button depressed, meaning he always heard the background noises etc at the other three locations. To talk with one of them you just spoke into the mouthpiece of your headset. I presume if you could not get their attention then you pressed the associated non-locking button to give them an audible buzz to get their attention. One termination on this loop was stage-right, another was in the sound and lighting booth, a third was in the radio station booth (where a few radio stations had permanently wired connections back to themselves) and the fourth one was stage-left at the organist. There was a fifth termination on the loop as well, rarely used, which was located in the organ pipe-chambers on the second and third floor of the building behind the stage area. This was arranged so that in the event the organ tuner was working upstairs on the pipes he could communicate with his assistant who was at the console on the first floor. Both would wear their headsets and chat back and forth as the tuning or other repairs were being done. They got that peculiar circuit from Illinois Bell of course, just as anything telephone-related came from the phone company. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1999 23:04:25 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I heard a radio report which said there was some live coverage of this > story as it broke. That report says Stewart's wife was following it > and tried to call him on his(?) cell phone. So there can be a cell > phone on a Learjet? Well, sure. It was probably in his pocket. As we've hashed out before, cell phones don't work so well at high altitude. It's also possible that there were aircell phones on the plane, cell phones modified to work with an overlay cellular network that points up and is certified to be OK in planes. > I take it the attempt(s) by Stewart's wife failed because Stewart > was unconscious or dead. That's the working assumption, although if she was calling the phone in his pocket, it could also be because he turned it off at the crew's request when they took off. 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: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: Re: Attempt to Reach Payne Stewart's Cell Phone Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:46:08 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , Carl Moore wrote: > As you know, golfer Payne Stewart and five others were killed in a > plane crash (if they weren't already dead due to depressurization). > You heard the plane was going from Orlando (Fla.) to Dallas (Texas) > and strayed, pilotless, up to South Dakota before it ran out of fuel. > I heard a radio report which said there was some live coverage of this > story as it broke. That report says Stewart's wife was following it > and tried to call him on his(?) cell phone. So there can be a cell > phone on a Learjet? I take it the attempt(s) by Stewart's wife failed > because Stewart was unconscious or dead. Assuming the report was correct, it merely proves that she could dial the number for his phone, not that his phone could have received the signal even if he was capable of answering. Not to mention that the phone could have been off. | Jeremy M. Posner | "The internet? Is that thing still around?" | | jposner@panix.com | -Homer Simpson | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | ------------------------------ From: radparker@radparker.com (Al Iverson) Subject: Re: Two New Anonymizing Features Added Here Organization: See sig before replying! In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I wanted to let everyone know of two new anonymizing features added > at this website for use by anyone who needs them. > Anonymous outgoing email: > You may now send single (one piece at a time) email letters from this > site which indicate to the recipient that they were sent by 'anonymous'. > No response back to you is possible. Please let us know what domain name this outgoing mail is going to use, so we can choose to refuse mail from that domain. I already get enough slimy sleaze and spam from anonymous folks who don't have the guts to sign their name or legitimate contact information; please don't create an attractive nuisance that facilitates this. Al Iverson -- Web: http://al.radparker.com/ -- Home: Minneapolis, USA MAPS LLC RSS Project Coordinator -- at http://www.mail-abuse.org/rss/ STOP! Include SWANKY99 in email replies or they may be tagged as spam. Send me no unsolicited advertising, as I will always return it to you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Surely ... I would look for mail from anonymous@cotse.com if you wish to refuse it. Ditto on Usenet posts. I am sure most moderated newsgroups would not accept anything from it either; heck, I would never publish anything sent here from anonymous@ cotse.com ... but it is available -- I will repeat -- only for netizens with good and honorable intentions by going to one of two locations here: http://telecom-digest.org/postoffice or http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html then clicking on the appropriate links therein. Thus far neither post- office nor secret-surfer has had any problems I am aware of. But they can be closed down promptly if netizens, instead of using these tools, decide to misuse or abuse them instead. Each piece of mail going out by the way is plainly marked at the bottom, 'this came from an anonymous user; address shown is not the correct address'. Before you use any of these privacy tools of course, always begin by sending mail to yourself, in a controlled environment so *you* can see the results. Ditto with secret-surfer. Make sure they will be satisfactory for your requirements, and NEVER use them in an illegal way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #518 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Oct 30 15:30:31 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) i