q From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 18 20:00:38 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA25290; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:00:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:00:38 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200002190100.UAA25290@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #1 TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:41:41 EST Volume 20 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Happened With Me (TELECOM Digest Editor) Telecom Frequently Asked Questions (Jfonin@worldbank.org) The Feds' Ramsey Electronics Raid Blow by Blow (Monty Solomon) Moderators Fascination with Junction City (Dennis S. Conley) 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 611 East Poplar Independence, KS 67301 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: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:46:34 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: What Happened With Me In case you were wondering about me, after I told you to 'have a nice weekend' the Wednesday of Thanksgiving week, I promptly had an anurism (or "brain bleed") which left me comatose for approximatly one month in Topeka, an event which now two months later I am only starting to recover from. This event began in Fort Riley, KS and because there is no *acute* care hospital facility there a call to 911 left me with no where to go to the hospital in the vicinity. Calls to 911 in Fort Riley are answered by the 299th Company of the Military Police and/or their ambulance crew/base firefighters. I was on the base itself, in a fairly remote area of it, when I got a *violent* seizure, which left my head hurting badly. I blacked out for a few seconds, had a case of almost total deafness for close to a minute. I debated what to do for about a minute after that, and decided to find a solution. It was probably good that I made that decision right away, because of the events which followed. I want to stress this delay was not the fault of the military authorities, but rather the geography of the area. If you have maps on your computer, please review the Junction City, Fort Riley, (town of) Riley and surrounding area. Where Junction City has a population of about 10 thousand people Fort Riley has only a population of about 5 thousand troops scattered over an area five times as large. Please look at your atlas or maps; note how Junction City sits in a tiny corner of Fort Riley. Fort Riley is federal land, a huge reserve miles wide and miles long; it used to be a major Army base; now if is just miles and miles of mostly nothing. The base is completely open; anyone is free to visit any part of it at any time; I give computer lessons to the troops, and help the guys make web pages. I have covered this angle a few times here before. The Army today is not the Army of the past. No more barracks, no uniforms except when the guys are actually on duty Monday through Friday, a few high rise buildings for their housing; with two telephones in each room (one for their computers), and it was this environment which had me on the base that Friday night in November. I was to make a web page for the bowling alley on the base. It was there that I had my accident. Fortunatly, I had someone with me who cared and knew I was serious about the incident; he literally ran to a payphone at the bowling alley and and called 911. It was about 30 minutes later that the ambulance arrived, driving at break-neck speed followed by a squad car with two or three MPs in it. They loaded me in the back and we took off. The ambulance came from the nearby town of Milford (also part of the greater Fort Riley base). After about 30 minutes, the ambulance showed up with a car full of Military Police following it. They had apparently been elsewhere on the base and had some trouble in reaching me. I don't blame them at all; Fort Riley is a big place. They loaded me in the aArmy Community Hospital', where they discovered I was not part of the Army and would be sent to Geary Community Hospital instead. At GCH, the medic looked rather shocked at my condition and said to the MPs accompanying me, 'I do not know why he is still alive. His head is full of blood.' Then he advised the MPs that he was not going to keep me either. The closest place for a person in my condition would be Stormont-Vail in Topeka, almost a hundred miles east, going toward Kansas City. He selected a nurse to make the trip with me; they were all afraid I would bump my head in the back of the wagon going to Stormont-Vail, and that would be the end of me for sure. It took about an hour and a half to make the trip to Topeka; two MPs trained in medical procedures and the nurse in the back of the wagon working on me the entire trip down I-70. When we got into Topeka and Stormont-Vail hospital the emergency room physicians were equally shocked to see me in my condition, and wondered how I had made it that far. 'Only through the grace of God' noted a couple of doctors, and it was the consensus of the doctors that they perform emergency surgery on the spot. I did not like that idea and told them so. One of them suggested I tell someone where I was at, so I called my mother to let her know where I was at. I did not remember what came next, but aacording to the doctor I was talking to my mother and lapsed into a coma which did not end for three weeks. My mother came up from her home in Independence, KS the same day convinced I was going to die and met with the physicians. Needless to say I did not die, but instead came out of the coma three weeks later. My mother's friend Paul (and later her friend Joyce) drove her to Topeka to sit with me off and on over the next three weeks. This got me up to New Years' Eve which was my first recollection of anything which had happened to me. My younger brother Dan was prepared to come down here from his home up in Skokie, and he told me in email just two weeks ago, and he said that he almost went into shock after hearing the news from mother that I was 'as good as dead'. He explained it to me this way: he had been at school at Oakton Community College when the call came in from mother. He left to go home, and the radio in his car was playing a selection of George Frederick Handel (Israel in Egypt) which has always been one of his favorites as well as one of mine. He said at that moment he thought of some things he had wanted to tell me which he guessed would now never be said. Like so many other people I had served as his inspiration for getting on the internet. New Year's Eve was my decision to give up on television once and for all. You may recall that this past New Year's Eve there were a variety of movies dealing with among other things, time travel, and the supernatural. All that day and night I was still mostly out in space myself; unable to deal with reality, and drifting in and out of my coma. Those TV movies frankly scared me to death, not knowing if I was awake or dreaming through them. At one point that day, I actually got out of bed (do not remember doing it) and wound up flat on my back on the floor next to my bed, and calling for help. A couple men came in my room and put me back in the bed, after first picking me up out of my own urine and changing my clothes. I had forgotten about that experience also until it was a couple days before I was released. As I think about it now, I can only vaguely recall the incident. After about a month at Stormont-Vail (including three weeks in the intensive care unit) I was transferred to the Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital which happens to be located right across the street and shares some of the same staff with Stormont-Vail. I stayed for about three weeks longer in the rehab unit. The guys who cared for me in the rehab area were all *super*, especially the ones who worked with me in therapy each day. The first week or so in rehab was difficult, as I was learning to walk from scratch, and learning to feed myself, and use the bathroom alone. My helpers were all very patient and kind. Sean Mather, a nineteen year old student from St. Augustine, Florida taking his internship in physical therapy at Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital taught me how to walk from scratch. David McCartney taught me how to take showers and use the toilet when in the first couple weeks such simple efforts would leave me totally frustrated. They were just a couple of the several people involved in my well being over the months of my absence from this newsgroup. My first knowledge of being comotose for three weeks came when Dr. Kyle, my primary physician at the rehab center made me aware of it. Commenting on the amount of improvement I had made, she said 'the difference between today and when you first arrived (over at Stormont-Vail two months ago) is remarkable.' Then she made mention of my being comotose for three weeks. I asked her if she was having a joke at my expense with the comatose comment. She said she was not and invited me to ask the other guys ... I asked Sean and David to come in the office and asked them point blank did they know I had been comatose for three weeks in December. Yes, they said, we knew this, apparently Dr. Kile had said nothing about it. Now very humble, all I could do is tell David, Sean and Dr. Kile thank you very much for being there when I needed you. The rest of the day, as I had a chance to chat with the other therapists I wanted to thank them all in the same way. They were all gracious. A month ago, I was released from rehab on a 'trial visit to home'; a chance to prove to myself I could make it. Now I am going back to Topeka on Thursday, February 17 for another doctor appointment. And that is my story of how I spent Christmas vacation, and the start of the new millenium. Not quite the way I had planned, but hopefully never to go through again. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Jfonin@worldbank.org Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:32:33 +0100 Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions Dear Mr. Townson, I downloaded the highly valuable document FAQ from the web and will like to thank you for compiling it. I am preparing a Masters in electronicd and Telecommunications in Cameroon and after this a Ph.D. In a country where libraries have no documents on such fields, It is a real pleasure for us to use the web to bridge the gap. Once more thanks a lot. Jerome Fonin Information Technology Analyst World Bank Cameroon Country Office. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are quite welcome. I have devoted several years to this effort, and now despite my setbacks involving my health I am taking up my cause once again, primarily so you and others similarly situated can have the tools you need. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:31:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Feds' Ramsey Electronics Raid Blow by Blow http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/04/2316228.shtml Posted by emmett on Wednesday January 05, @10:00AM from the straight-from-the-horse's-mouth dept. On November 10th 1999, Ramsey Electronics of Victor, New York, was raided by the United States Customs Service for allegedly manufacturing and distributing 'Electronic Surreptitious Intercept Devices' as defined by Title 18 USC, Section 2512. We spoke to Ramsey Electronics President John Ramsey and Joel Violanti, the federal prosecutor on the case to find out exactly what happened, and why. (Click below for more.) The Raid On the morning of November 10th, radio equipment manufacturer Ramsey Electronics was raided by the United States Customs Service by officers with a search warrant. In addition to building radio testing equipment, Ramsey Electronics is also a well-known vendor of electronic hobby kits used by organizations like the Boy Scouts of America. Like an action movie drug-bust, agents moved in at 10 a.m. to search and seize over $30,000 worth of Ramsey Electronics inventory. Company President John Ramsey offered this play-by-play of that morning's events: They had already been here almost an hour when I walked in. I [had been] at the bank. When I came back in, I saw my controller, Ed VanVoorhis and his face was white as a ghost. There were these two guys wearing suits standing on each side of him. He told me that these guys were from the government and they were here with a search warrant. Then the agents took over; they pretty much bullied me down the hallway and into my office. I went to go sit at my desk, and they said 'No. you sit over here,' pointing to a couch in my office. The two of them proceeded to rattle off a lot of mumble jumble like Title 18 USC Section 2512 and other numbers, flashing badges and being surrealistically intimidating. I'm looking at my accountant. I have never seem him like this. The [agents] are verbally batting me back and forth, and I'm like, 'Hey, wh at's going on?' They proceeded to tell me that they were executing a search warrant to find goods that were in violation of section 2512, and they shove this four or five page search warrant in my face. They said that they were here to find stuff that violated section 2512 and I said, 'Like our wireless FM mic kits?' The one [agent] gave me his card, and I noticed that he was from Buffalo, an hour and a half away. I said, 'you two guys came all the way here from Buffalo?' and he said, 'No. There's seven of us.' Then he said, 'If you don't cooperate with us, we'll shut you down. We'll lock the doors, send all the employees home, we'll go through all of your inventory, records, customer lists and computers. We'll go through your computers bit-by-bit. We have experts that do that, and we don't care if it takes months.' I was escorted out to the production and shipping areas, which they had pretty much commandeered. All the doors had 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper taped on them with a large handwritten letter on them - like A, B and C. There was a fellow wearing a photographers vest snapping pictures everywhere; we later counted 5 empty film cans in the trash! About five hours after they arrived, they staged all of the official US government boxes near the back loading dock. They took a huge van and backed it up to my loading dock, and proceeded to load it with my goods. I walked over to the boxes to verify what they were taking; obviously, they would want me to confirm their counts and amounts. I was stunned! They wouldn't let me see what was in the boxes! I have no idea what they took. I went over to look in them, and they told me to get away. They told me they'd give me an inventory sheet. I said, 'That's my stuff and I should be able to check it.' Special Agent Craig Healy turned to me and said 'You can trust us.'" After they had finished loading the van, they presented me with the inventory sheet, a simple handwritten sheet with no names, titles or signatures. There's nothing indicating who it was from on it. I looked at one of the sheets quickly and noticed the very first part number wasn't one of ours and the second item number listed was for a kit that had no function or bearing on their search warrant. They agreed to fish those two items out of the van and sure enough, neither item was correct. One of them said words to the effect of, 'gee, we must have picked up the wrong box from your shelf.' They corrected their mistakes, asked for a recommendation for a good local restaurant and were on their way... After they left, employees told me that they surrounded the building, watching all the entrances while they entered along with a New York state trooper for back-up. This show of force, while maybe necessary for raiding an underground drug lab, was hardly necessary. Our building is located in a typical suburban office park and our showroom is open to all. What's incredible is that two of the agents were here a week earlier, pretending to be customers! This 'recon' obviously would have shown them that no force would be needed, let alone seven agents on a three hour travel time round trip. What's especially aggravating was that during the earlier visit they tried to lead one of my technical people into saying something they wanted to hear. Questions were posed like 'if we placed one of these little kits across the street in that building - for instance - could we hear it over here?' Our technician assured them that although the units work great for model rockets, toy cars and such, they really weren't suited for transmitting out of a building. Steel construction, reinforcing rod and the like limits range. They then asked if they could boost the power to do the job. Our fellow once again reiterated that the kits were hobby stuff and that what they wanted couldn't be found here. After the raid, my technician told me that they were here last week, playing 'customer' and how they had left unsatisfied. So, where do we sit now? I have a Federal Small Business Innovation Grant underway that uses our little FM-5 wireless mike to transmit muscle sensor data to a nearby computer system. The doctors who are partners in the grant specified the FM-5 due to its small size; present technology uses a six pound transmitter that straps to the back of a child. Tough to do on a forty pound kid. The research is on walking disorders on crippled kids. Now what? Shall we violate their interpretation of the law and work with the doctors and the SBIR people? How about all the schools, scout troops and hobbyists who use our kits? We're not talking big money here. The kits amount to a small portion of our business, but what will these folks do now? I have personally received mail from many who say that they are now graduate engineers as a direct result of one of our little kits sparking their interest in electronics. I guess the mobsters, terrorists and kidnappers don't feel the need to write, huh? The Aftermath - and the Feds The raid on Ramsey Electronics has caused quite a stir online, in Ramsey's own discussion forum as well as the submission queue here at Slashdot. People have gotten into intense discussions about freedom of information, freedom of speech, and the importance of using modern electronics in the field of education. At first glance, the raid may look like a cavalcade of constitutional rights issues, but Joel Violanti, the attorney prosecuting this case for the United States Customs Service, disagrees. Here's his take on the Ramsey raid: Slashdot: What happened, Joel? Violanti: On November 10th, there were approximately 13 search warrants issued in New York City and Rochester, New York and Austin, Texas against companies believed to be in the business of selling electronic surreptitious intercept devices, in violation of federal law. Ramsey Electronics was one of those companies. Slashdot: Apparently, Ramsey's been selling this equipment for a very long time. Why did the raid occur last year? Violanti: If something's illegal, it's illegal. pp Slashdot: Is there any reason that Ramsey Electronics wasn't raided earlier? Violanti: Sometimes you can only act upon things when you're informed of them. There's a task force in New York City that's been investigating this for a few years now. They've been shutting down companies or preventing companies from selling these things, and they've been taking several criminal pleas because of this. These people have been pleading guilty in Federal court. San Francisco now has a task force. Other cities are joining in, trying to stop the manufacture and distribution of this equipment. Slashdot: Where does it stop? It seems like I could build something like this on my own, and then be just as guilty. Violanti: The statute prohibits people from manufacturing and distributing these devices, knowing they've been shipped through the mail. Slashdot: Where does the government draw the line at surreptitious use, as opposed to educational use? Violanti: I don't know how to answer that. Use is use. If you place a device in a clock, and you put that clock on the wall, and you monitor someone's conversation that you're not a part of, I think that surreptitious use speaks for itself. Clock, smoke detector, or picture frame, you're taking that device out of its primary use in order to secretly intercept someone else's conversation. We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames. Mr. Violanti made it clear that the US Customs Service was not in any way attempting to 'crack down' on the hobbyist or educational use of electronic devices. The emphasis remains on specific items that fall under the category of surreptitious use. The specific items the feds were apparently looking for in the Ramsey raid were things like microphones and video cameras mounted inside smoke detectors or alarm clocks, effectively masquerading as something they weren't. Despite Mr. Violanti's reasuurances, the Ramsey Electronics raid still leaves questions for innocent geeks who like to tinker with assorted electronic parts. What if, for instance, you build an alarm clock that will sense motion when it goes off, and will keep going off if it doesn't sense you getting out of bed and stops when you do? What if you rig your smoke detector with a video or audio system so that rescue workers can make sure your family gets out of your house safely in the event of a fire? There are many uses for 'surveillance technology' other than listening in on boring conversations. But even if you made these devices with the most innocent purposes in mind, and sold them through the U.S. Mail to people as innocent as yourself, it looks like the Federal Government would feel justified in taking them away from you just in case one of your customers decided to use one of your gadgets to break the law in some way. It's a scary thought, isn't it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2000 08:05:00 From: Dennis R. Conley Subject: Re: Gradually, United Adopts Sprint Customs, Traditions Esteemed Sir, Clearly, I haven't read your comp.dcom.telecom postings often enough. I'm baffled why anyone would live in that fair city who was not otherwise obligated by external factors? In my own case there ( "before Sprint" ), life revolved around wearing funny green clothes, dealing with annoying bureaucracy and ( occasionally ) flying around in helicopters trying to save lives. Eventually, when I finally grew weary of the military nonsense and left, it was with both relief and a _tiny_ bit of regret. JC did, after all, possess a certain charm and offered its own unique entertainment factor, compared, say, to Ogden or "the Hill". Regards, Dennis R. Conley Senior Systems Analyst Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'External factors' in my case referred to employment. I worked on my own doing web page design, and giving programming lessons to new recruits at Fort Riley. I was doing my own thing, happily there, until the day of my anuerism. To tell you how rotten Sprint can be, the month *after* my phone was turned off in Junction City, Sprint sent me a bill for $60 which my mother paid not knowing any better. A bill which was totally bogus and pertained to their insistence on debiting my Chicago bank account even though there was no money in it. I finally got it refunded after hundreds of dollars of my money had been paid to them by my mother. I was perfectly happy at Fort Riley/Junction City and also had a job for a few months as director of internet service for the First United Methodist Church in Junction City, which is a job I hope I can resume some day soon, unless someone offers me a better one. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #1 **************************** Issue 2 comes following issue 5. From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Feb 25 15:06:04 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA22526; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:06:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:06:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200002252006.PAA22526@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #3 TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:26:50 EST Volume 20 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Regulated Charges on Telephone Service (Monty Solomon) Book Review: "Sams Teach Yourself E-Travel Today", Orwoll (Rob Slade) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Danny Burstein) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Joseph Singer) 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Ed Ellers) Directory Number Fee (John Schmerold) TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (??) (Bennett Haselton) Tektronix/Microwave Logic ST-112 SONET Testset (Glenn Simpson) 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, 24 Feb 2000 22:26:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Regulated Charges on Telephone Service http://www.state.ma.us/dor/rul_reg/directiv/2000/dir00_2.htm Directive 00-2 FCC Regulated Charges on Telephone Service Background: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") authority to regulate pricing of telecommunications services. As the result of FCC regulations, some retail customers may see unfamiliar separately stated charges on their telephone bills. The Department has received a number of taxpayer inquiries concerning whether Massachusetts sales or use tax is properly due on these charges. Issue: Are FCC regulated surcharges, which may be separately stated as a recurring monthly charge on a retail customer's telephone bill, subject to the Massachusetts sales and use tax on telecommunications services? Directive: Generally, FCC regulated surcharges, which may be separately stated as a recurring monthly charge on a retail customer's telephone bill, are part of the sales price of telecommunications services subject to tax. The charges include, but are not limited to, local telephone number portability charges, universal service charges, federal subscriber line charges, and Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charges. Discussion of Law: Massachusetts has imposed a sales and use tax on telecommuncations services since 1990. Taxable telecommunications services include "any transmission of messages or information by electronic or similar means, between or among points by wire, cable, fiberoptics, microwave, radio satellite or similar facilities but not including cable television." (1) G.L. c. 64H, 1 and G.L. c. 64I,1. Telephone services including separately stated charges for long distance telephone calls are subject to tax. See TIR 99-2 and 830 CMR 64H.1.6. Generally, tax is imposed on the retail sales price of taxable services, which includes the vendor's cost of materials, labor or services, interest charges, losses or other expenses. G.L. c. 64H, 1. Following is a brief explanation of some charges or surcharges that may appear on a retail customer's telephone bill based on information from the F.C.C. The description of these charges on a customer's bill (or whether they are separately stated to the retail customer at all) may vary from one telecommunications vendor to another. These charges are not taxes; they are not remitted to any federal or state government agency. The charges represent part of the vendor's cost of doing business and are retained by the vendor. As part of the regulation of the pricing of telephone services, the FCC permits, but does not require, a telecommunications vendor to recover these costs from its retail customers through a separately stated charge appearing on the retail customer's telephone bill. These charges are part of the sales price of the telecommunications services subject to tax. See generally DD 86-1. These recurring charges are eligible for the thirty dollar per month residential exemption. 830 CMR 64H.1.6(5). The Massachusetts Department of Revenue does not regulate the pricing of telephone services. The following information is provided for general reference purposes only: Local Telephone Number Portability Charges - To increase competition in local telephone market service, Congress directed local telephone companies to offer "telephone number portability," which refers to the customer's ability to retain the same telephone number if the customer elects to change local carriers. In order to provide this capability, local companies had to invest in upgrades to their network. The FCC determined that local companies could (but were not required to) recover these costs through a small, fixed monthly charge assessed to customers. These charges began appearing in February, 1999 in areas where telephone number portability is available and may continue to appear for 5 years. Universal Service Charges (2) - Generally, the FCC's Universal Service support mechanisms ensure that affordable access to telecommunications services is available to low income telephone customers, telephone customers who live in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries, and rural health care providers. This federally mandated support is funded by compulsory contributions from all interstate telecommunications carriers, including long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers. The amount of the contribution is less than 4 percent of their billings for the previous year, adjusted quarterly based on projected Universal Service demands. The FCC does not require that companies contributing to Universal Service recover these costs directly from their customers, however they are permitted to do so through a separately stated monthly charge that may be a percentage of the customer's bill or a flat amount. Federal Subscriber Line Charges - Local telephone companies recover some of the costs of the actual lines connecting homes and businesses through a monthly charge appearing on the customer's telephone bill. This charge is usually called the "subscriber line charge," but also may be referred to as the "federal subscriber line charge" because it is regulated and capped by the FCC. Currently, the charge is capped at $3.50 a month for a primary residential line. The charge for additional residential lines at the same service address and business lines is permitted to be higher. Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charges ("PICC") - A charge that long distance companies pay to local telephone companies to help them recover the costs of providing the telephone wires, underground conduit, telephone poles, and other facilities that link each telephone customer to the telephone network. A long distance company pays this charge for each residential and business telephone line presubscribed to that long distance company. There is no tax due on PICC charges paid from one telecommunications vendor to another. However, if a retail consumer or business has not selected a long distance company, the local telephone company may bill the consumer or business for the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge. If the PICC charge is billed to the retail customer, it is subject to sales tax. More detailed information on federal regulation of the pricing of telecommunications services is available from the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20554 (toll free number: 888-225-5322) and the FCC website at : http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/factsheets. Additional information regarding the pricing of telephone services is also available from the Consumer Division of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (toll free number 800-392-6066), One South Station, Boston, MA 02110 and the DTE website at www.magnet.state.ma.us. Bernard F. Crowley, Jr. Senior Deputy Commissioner of Revenue January 28, 2000 DD 00-2 Footnotes: 1. A temporary amendment to the definition of taxable telecommunications services which excluded "internet access services, electronic mail services, electronic bulletin board services, web hosting services or similar on-line computer services" expired on July 1, 1999. However, subsequent federal legislation generally created a moratorium on the imposition of new taxes on Internet access charges and electronic commerce until October, 2001. See TIR 99-2 for more details concerning the federal legislation. Despite the expiration of the Massachusetts statutory exclusion for Internet-related services, taxpayers may continue to rely on the lists of taxable and non-taxable services in TIR 99-2 until the expiration of the federal moratorium (and any extensions) or further notice from the Department. (return to text) 2. AT&T currently uses the label "National Access Contribution" when they show the combined charges for Universal Service and the Carrier Access Line Charge (PICC). (return to text) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:09:49 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Sams Teach Yourself E-Travel Today", Mark Orwoll Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKETRAVL.RVW 20000119 "Sams Teach Yourself E-Travel Today", Mark Orwoll, 2000, 0-672-31822-9, U$17.99/C$26.95/UK#12.99 %A Mark Orwoll askmark@amexpub.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 2000 %G 0-672-31822-9 %I Macmillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$17.99/C$26.95/UK#12.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 302 p. %T "Sams Teach Yourself E-Travel Today" This guide would appear to be aimed primarily at those who are completely comfortable with the Internet, but are totally new to travel planning. There isn't much material on the net and its tools, but more pointers of the "oh yes, you will want to find out this type of information" type. Part one starts out with basic facts. Chapter one is a sampling of travel tools on Web sites, starting out with the suggestion that you learn how to use a search engine. (On your own.) How to bookmark Web sites is explained in chapter two. That might be just a tad patronizing, but chapter three's points on how to evaluate the reliability of a Web site are actually very good. Chapter four introduces the major tour guide sites. Web sites for foreign newspapers are mentioned as a good source of pre-travel info in chapter five, but Orwoll doesn't mention the fact that a very large number of foreign radio stations now also broadcast over the net. Government tourism sites are discussed in chapter six. Part two outlines the process of planning a vacation. Chapter seven gives you a quiz to determine what kind of traveller you are, although this doesn't seem to have an awful lot of relevance to the rest of the book. Chapter eight is a bit odd, and it tersely reprises a look at a couple of search engines. Unusual sources of information, such as the US State Department, the CIA World Factbook, and personal travel sites, are suggested in chapter nine. The sites in chapter ten seem to have been chosen almost randomly. There is limited information on weather and events in chapter eleven. Part three looks at booking travel online, with respective chapters discussing online travel agents, travel planning tools, hotels, airfare (with very good tips), rail, car rentals, and sea transport. Part four deals with other travel preparations. Chapter nineteen covers taking your laptop along, but doesn't mention such areas as taking along proof of purchase, electrical adapters, and phone systems and adapters (for modems). There are sites you can use to obtain information about required documents, discussed in chapter twenty. Digital cameras are recommended in chapter twenty one. Chapter twenty two closes with miscellaneous travel tips. There is a lot of joking around in the writing, to very little purpose. The humour does not really support the material under discussion, and even detracts a bit at times. The Internet content is fairly limited, and I found it a bit surprising how few Web sites were included, among the thousands that are out there. On the other hand, Orwoll does seem to go for quality. For those new to travel planning, this book should provide some valuable and useful suggestions. But you'll have to do a lot of work yourself. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2000 BKETRAVL.RVW 20000119 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: 24 Feb 2000 16:42:11 -0500 Organization: "mostly unorganized" In Monty Solomon writes: > By SETH SCHIESEL > A debate is raging at the Federal Communications Commission about whether > cellular telephone customers must continue to pay to receive calls as > well as to make them. > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/22phon.html There is NO federal nor any other legal requirement that the recipient pay for the call. This is a business decision made by the cellular carrier (and, in corresponding turn, endorsed by the subscriber). These companies could, if they wished, end incoming charges tomorrow and simply try to live off the revenue stream from the monthly service fee and outgoing call charges. Gee. just like landline telcos. Clearly the cellular companies want to make money (and there's nothing wrong with that). But what's not so clearly obvious is that they've been running into customer opposition to the incoming airtime charges and are looking for other ways to continue the money stream. Many of them prefer the "caller pays" method since that way they don't have to listen to the hoofbeats of their customers leaving them for less expensive competitors. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:01:28 -0800 Organization: fuzz'n such Reply-To: dov@mail.oz.net On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:38:29 -0500, Monty Solomon wrote: > By SETH SCHIESEL > A debate is raging at the Federal Communications Commission about whether > cellular telephone customers must continue to pay to receive calls as > well as to make them. > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/22phon.html In part from the article: "Regarding consumers, the most important issue is to make sure that people who dial a wireless subscriber who uses a caller-pays plan are made aware that they will be charged, and how much." I see this as a major problem in the North American numbering plan. In the US the FCC took great pains to *not* have a separate numbering space for cell providers in the name of "fairness." If they had allowed separate number space for mobile/cell service it would be a lot easier to implement caller pays. As is the caller pays scheme here is just a crap shoot. You're not sure whether a number might or might not be a motile/cell number. People in most of the US are too used to being able to call anyone on what looks like a "local" number and don't expect to pay anything or at least not pay additional charges. Many areas even have "toll alert" to make a subscriber aware that they must dial a 1 and area code before a call because it is a premium rate call. This is not the case everywhere, but in the majority of locations in the US that's the case. "The wireless carriers appear to be in favor of less notification rather than more. " Of course! If they can put one over on people of course they're not going to announce that there would be a premium charge for the call! "In Europe, where the caller-pays system is generally the rule, wireless phone numbers usually include one digit more than do traditional lines. So while European callers do not hear a notification message, the additional digit indicates that additional fees may apply" Many countries have a separate "area code" for mobile/cell phones. That's not the case in the US. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:06:33 -0500 Linc Madison (LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com) 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." Um, I would suggest that Louisville, Kentucky is also a major city! We still have 7D dialing between parts of the 502 and 812 NPAs, and since the state (wisely IMHO) changed the 270 addition from an overlay to a split I expect we'll have it for some time to come. (The state decision came during the permissive 10D dialing period, and -- guess what? -- permissive 10D hasn't been turned off. Not that it does any harm, of course.) ------------------------------ From: John Schmerold Subject: Directory Number Fee Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:01:58 -0600 In Missouri, there is no fee for Directory numbers. If you have a business with 6 lines, you get 6 numbers, despite the fact that you only need one number. Indeed, the business is better off without 6 numbers due to prevelance of caller-id. So, why not create a revenue neutral tarrif on directory numbers. If a customer wants multiple numbers, that is fine, but there will be a monthly $3 per line charge. Anyone know if this has been tried? Why not? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 02:29:11 -0800 From: Bennett Haselton Subject: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (??) Hi Patrick, I found the URL http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ blocked as "pornography" by an Internet blocking program used to censor Internet access in schools. Obviously the people who added that site to the list didn't bother to check what it was -- and you even have an "All ages" label from SafeSurf!... (The RSAC label does give it a "1" for language, but hardly enough to make it illegal for minors and worth censoring from high schools.) Just thought you might like to know :) I'm doing research on this program to see how accurately it blocks sites in the .edu domain. So far it looks like over half the sites it blocks in the .edu domain are errors by the program. There's an article at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/21/1745232 about a project I did, analyzing the error rate of another blocking program called X-Stop. It turned out to have an error rate of 68% for blocking sites in the ".edu" domain. Normally the list of sites blocked by these programs is encrypted, but I also had to write a program that decrypted the list and printed the list of blocked sites. -Bennett bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 649 9024 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whatever you can do to deal with this will be appreciated. I am still a bit wobbly and not in a mood to start a fight with anyone right now. Let me know whatever results you have. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Glenn Simpson Subject: Tektronix/Microwave Logic ST-112 SONET Testset Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:54:43 -0500 Organization: Nortel Networks Could somebody quickly tell me, Does the Tektronix/Microwave Logic ST-112 SONET testset have STS-3 ECL NRZ clock and data input/output ports (50 Ohm BNC)? From what I can tell there are STS-1 outputs on the front faceplate. Are there additional ports on the back? Glen Simpson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #3 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Feb 28 17:02:36 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA27856; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:02:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:02:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200002282202.RAA27856@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #4 TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:57:19 EST Volume 20 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Arthur L. Rubin) 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (John Beckett) Long Lines Bells (Margaret Hill) Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (Arthur L. Rubin) DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Monty Solomon) http://www.dialpad.com ("contact_phoff") First Long-Distance Call via Underground Cable (Ian Ellis) The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers) Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (Judith Oppenheimer) An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe (Monty Solomon) Prof Can Post His Crypto (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 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: Arthur L. Rubin <216-5888@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:32:30 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Ed Ellers wrote: > Um, I would suggest that Louisville, Kentucky is also a major city!' > We still have 7D dialing between parts of the 502 and 812 NPAs, and > since the state (wisely IMHO) changed the 270 addition from an overlay > to a split I expect we'll have it for some time to come. (The state > decision came during the permissive 10D dialing period, and -- guess > what? -- permissive 10D hasn't been turned off. Not that it does any > harm, of course.) As an aside, has anyone suggested requiring the local phone companies to have permissive 11D dialing for calls within the same area code? I've been unable (as yet) to program my dialers (under Windows 3.1) to handle the 602/623/480 NPA split. (For those not familiar with the split, calls are 7D within each NPA, 10D between them, and 11D (with, I believe, some 10D exeptions near the border with 520) to other NPAs. All calls within those NPAs are local. Arthur L. Rubin 216-5888@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:50:53 -0500 From: jbeckett Subject: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries > Linc Madison (LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com) 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." Perhaps Chattanooga, TN is no longer considered a "major city" - Arbitron has dropped it from 82 to 101 since I moved here. But we've had 7D FNPA dialing the whole time. John Beckett, Associate Director of Information Systems Southern Adventist University - Collegedale, Tennessee USA jbeckett@southern.edu http://is.southern.edu/internet (423) 238-2701 FAX (423) 238-2431 ------------------------------ From: Margaret Hill Subject: Long Lines Bells Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:58:34 -0500 Hi Patrick. I recently purchased a charm bracelet with 2 bells on it. The bells look like the "Bell System" bells and are inscribed: "1 Year Attendance Award LONG LINES". Are you familiar with LONG LINES? Was this once a telephone company? Any information you could share would be greatly appreciated. Margaret Hill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Long Lines" was the informal name for AT&T's long distance operation. "Bell System" was another informal name for AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Arthur L. Rubin <216-5888@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:32:25 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Bennett Haselton wrote: > Hi Patrick, > I found the URL > http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ > Internet access in schools. Are you sure it's not detecting m_ASS_is? (Emphasis mine.) As an aside, I accidentaly activated an Internet blocking program on my machine at work (it's now bypassed, but not technically deactivated), and some computer programs on our intranet were censored. Apparently, where ABCD represents a 4-letter word, some of the code read: t(i)=a(A); /* B(0) */ CDe=tmp Arthur L. Rubin 216-5888@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:02:04 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/double022700.htm BY CHRIS O'BRIEN Mercury News Staff Writer HEY, Web surfers. Somebody is watching you. Every time you call up a Web page, somebody, somewhere, is tracking your every more. They're noting which site you visit and how long you spend there. During the infancy of e-commerce, perhaps nobody has done this as routinely and quietly as DoubleClick Inc., the largest online advertising company. The company collects this data, dissects it, and then uses it to create profiles and send you those flashing banner ads that have become the hallmark of most free Web sites. That seemed innocuous enough because the profiles remained anonymous. But now DoubleClick finds itself at the center of a firestorm of bad publicity because it wants to link that information to your real name and address. Critics say this creates the potential for DoubleClick to become a kind of online Big Brother who would know when Web browsers searched for information on jeans, Alzheimer's or sex toys, and then pass this information to our bosses and insurance companies. Should we be scared? For the moment, privacy advocates and DoubleClick officials agree that the information gathered remains fairly basic. And the company's ability to analyze that data and use it to target you with ads remains primitive. DoubleClick wants to change that. The first step is to build more sophisticated profiles that include your shopping habits in the real world and your online patterns. Many of DoubleClick's online advertising competitors plan to do the same. And real world companies have been tracking credit card use for years. But privacy advocates are hoping to prevent this practice from becoming commonplace in cyberspace, where watching your Web surfing is like following along as you wander the aisles of a store and eventually pay the cashier. They say the rapid online exchange of information also creates the opportunity for more abuses. ``The problem is there is an enormous amount of data and there's no protection,'' said Jason Catlett, president of Junkbusters, a non-profit privacy organization. ``They are hurting e-commerce by turning the Web into a surveillance tool.'' How it works DoubleClick, based in New York, is a champion of the banner ad. The company has built its success around a piece of software it developed called DART (Dynamic Advertising Reporting and Targeting). DART works like this: When you visit AltaVista, your computer sends a message over the Internet requesting the Web page. Written into the AltaVista page is a short ``tag'' that sends a request to DoubleClick for a banner ad. If this is the first time you've ever visited a Web site that does business with DoubleClick, DART will place a cookie on your hard drive. The cookie is computer code that gives you an identification number, according to Eddie Smith, DoubleClick's vice president of product and business development. This ID number tells DoubleClick the Internet address of your computer and the approximate geographic location, California or the Bay Area, for example. Every time you visit a page with a DoubleClick banner ad, the company's network will recognize you and place information in your DoubleClick file. That file then keeps a record of which Web sites you visit, which pages you clicked through, which ads have been sent to you and whether you clicked on them. This helps DoubleClick target you in a few ways. The sites you visited are grouped by broad categories, such as travel or sports. As you visit more sites, DoubleClick knows you're more likely to be interested in an ad for day trading rather than an ad for a cruise. In addition, if a shoe company has placed five banner ads with DoubleClick, the system knows you've seen the first three and to send you the fourth next time. But the DoubleClick network has plenty of limitations. The system has only a small fraction of a second to decide which ad to send. So DoubleClick sticks to broad categories that gives it limited insight into your online behavior. DoubleClick also gets only a tiny snapshot of your overall online experience. The company works with 1,500 Web sites, just a few compared with the millions of sites on the Web. Also, cookies have their own problems. If a family of four shares a computer, it has only one DoubleClick cookie, which doesn't distinguish between family members. For now, the company estimates that fewer than 5 percent of the 1.5 billion ads it serves daily are chosen based on a user's profile. In the vast majority of cases, the user is simply getting a sports-related ad because they are visiting a sports Web site, Smith said. Increased precision If DoubleClick could be more precise in targeting you with ads, it could make more money. To increase the sophistication of its system, DoubleClick bought marketing firm Abacus Direct last year for $1.7 billion. Abacus' most attractive feature was a huge database of purchases based on information from 1,500 retail and catalog companies. These individual retailers can't see your entire buying history. Instead, someone who contributes to Abacus might use it to decide which customers to target with a catalog. The company could give the database a list of 1,000 names and Abacus might then identify the 300 most likely to purchase something. This is considered valuable because your past purchases give a more accurate prediction of your future purchases than merely looking at which Web sites you visit. DoubleClick wants to merge your Abacus profile with your online profile, dramatically increasing what they know about you. This won't be easy. There's little overlap between the two databases. So to link them, DoubleClick needs you to provide your name and address online so it can match that to your cookie ID. The company would then find your corresponding file in Abacus. DoubleClick says it will ask permission before gathering this information from users. And executives insist this will be a good deal for consumers because they'll be shown ads that more closely mirror their interests. ``Users will have all the information they need to make an informed decision,'' said Jonathan Shapiro, senior vice president for Abacus. ``What we want most of all is to bring the right message to the right user at the right time.'' Privacy watchdogs But this strategy has angered privacy groups. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), has filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating DoubleClick to see whether it misled consumers about how their data would be used. In addition, the Michigan Attorney General's office and a Marin County woman have filed lawsuits against DoubleClick claiming the company has crossed the privacy boundaries. ``I think a lot of people have the sense that they're losing control of their private information,'' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. ``We'd like to see them go back to the anonymous approach. There's got to be a way to do online advertising that doesn't require them to know who you are.'' DoubleClick executives say they'll work hard to reassure their online partners and consumers that the company can be trusted. They also argue that it's in everyone's interest to make advertising work as efficiently and effectively as possible. ``This has to be done in balance with privacy issues,'' said Smith of DoubleClick. ``But it also has to be balanced with the needs of our constituency and advertisers. It's the people who pay for advertising who allow much of the content on the Web to remain free to the rest of us.'' Contact Chris O'Brien at cobrien@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5464. copyright 2000 Mercury Center ------------------------------ Reply-To: contact_phoff From: contact_phoff Subject: http://www.dialpad.com Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:43:34 -0800 Organization: contact_phoff I heard that there might be a sound card available that would enhance the sound quality of the calls made from dialpad.com but have not been able to locate or identify the sound card that would make this difference. Does anyone out there know of the sound card I am looking for. May You Be Blessed With Good Health & Abundance, or as Spock might say, "Live Long and Prosper" :-) Patricia A Hoffman Hoffman Enterprises The "ONE-STOP-SHOP" http://www.OppsKnocks.com Voice Mail: 1-760-280-6459 Fax: 1-954-827-7689 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:28:07 -0500 From: Ian Ellis Reply-To: ian@iglou.com Subject: First Long-Distance Call via Underground Cable. Elesewhere on the net, I have read: "February 26: In 1914, first long-distance phone conversation via underground cable was made." I cannot find any verification for this date. Can you help? If it is correct, a little more information would be helpful. I will enter it on my "Today in Science History" (educational) site. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 01:19:50 -0500 I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me -- namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor imitation of a phone line, one which unnecessarily distorts the signal and therefore blocks the use of V.90 modem connections. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/27/007r-022700-idx.html (no registration required) ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:34:23 -0500 One of the keywords that triggers blocking is "chat." If memory serves correctly, Pat put a chat section on his site. That's probably the (erroneous, inaccurate, inappropriate, inapplicable, and just plain stupid!) problem. Judith 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://1800TheExpert.com: 800 # Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support, Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Domain Name & Trademark Issues. Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 02:29:11 -0800 From: Bennett Haselton Subject: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (??) Hi Patrick, I found the URL http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ blocked as "pornography" by an Internet blocking program used to censor Internet access in schools. Obviously the people who added that site to the list didn't bother to check what it was -- and you even have an "All ages" label from SafeSurf!... (The RSAC label does give it a "1" for language, but hardly enough to make it illegal for minors and worth censoring from high schools.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:01:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe By SUZANNE DALEY PARIS, Feb. 23 -- Fears that the United States, Britain and other English-speaking countries are using a cold-war eavesdropping network to gain a commercial edge roused passions across Europe today, even after Washington and London roundly denied the notion. The subject kept the European Parliament in Brussels entranced for hours and drew banner headlines across the continent. One political cartoon showed Britain in bed with the United States, despite Britain's membership in the European Union. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/24spy.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:30:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Prof Can Post His Crypto http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,34550,00.html Prof Can Post His Crypto Reuters WASHINGTON -- The United States will allow a computer scientist to put instructions for writing a powerful computer data-scrambling program on his Web site, but his high-profile lawsuit challenging U.S. export restrictions on encryption may continue, his lawyer said on Thursday. President Bill Clinton in January dramatically liberalized once-strict U.S. export limits on encryption programs, which scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." The changes recognized that encryption, used in everything from Web browsing software to cellular telephones, has become essential for securing electronic commerce and global communications. The move also followed a 6 May, 1999 decision by a U.S. Appeals Court panel that the old rules barring University of Illinois professor Daniel Bernstein from posting instructions for his "Snuffle" program on the Internet were an unconstitutional violation of the scientist's freedom of speech. In a private advisory letter sent last week, the U.S. Commerce Department confirmed that the new encryption export policy permitted Bernstein to post instructions, called source code, for his program on the Internet for all to see. Any other computer programmer could easily compile the source code into a functioning program. "In light of the changes in licensing and review requirements for publicly available source code, the new regulations do not interfere with his planned activities as you have described them," the Commerce Department letter said in response to a letter from Bernstein's lawyer. Under the old rules, Bernstein had to obtain an export license for each person who wanted to view his Web site from outside the United States -- an impossible task given the Net's global reach. But the new rules allow anyone to post encryption source code on the Internet as long as they also send a copy to the government and do not charge royalties for use of the code. "We are still considering our options," said Cindy Cohn, Bernstein's lawyer. Cohn said the Commerce Department letter failed to clear up some questions about the new rules. The department did make clear that a Web site which merely picked up code posted by someone else, a practice known as mirroring, would not be held responsible for following the export rules. And Bernstein or others would not have to notify the government again each time they posted bug fixes or updates. Bernstein's lawsuit came about because under the old rules, a book containing computer source code could be shipped out of the United States without restriction but the same source code posted on the Internet or put on a floppy disk could not be "exported" without a license. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year decided two to one that the old rules violated the First Amendment by restricting Bernstein's speech. But in January, the full court asked the panel to reconsider the ruling in light of the new Clinton policy. Copyright 1999-2000 Reuters Limited. Copyright 1994-2000 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #4 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Feb 29 17:05:54 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA14868; Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:05:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:05:54 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200002292205.RAA14868@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #5 TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:09:37 EST Volume 20 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe (W.D.A. Geary) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (John S. Maddaus) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Someone) Re: http://www.dialpad.com (Steve Sobol) Re: http://www.dialpad.com (Susan Chen) Searching: Info on Service Usage Accounting and Billing (Bharat Bhushan) Book Announcement--Stefik (Jud Wolfskill) Regarding FAX Spammers (Steve Winter) Re: Long Lines Bells (Phil Smiley) Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (Roy Smith) Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" (W.D.A. Geary) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: wdag@my-deja.com (W.D.A. Geary) Subject: Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:03:26 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > By SUZANNE DALEY > PARIS, Feb. 23 -- Fears that the United States, Britain and other > English-speaking countries are using a cold-war eavesdropping network > to gain a commercial edge roused passions across Europe today, even > after Washington and London roundly denied the notion. > The subject kept the European Parliament in Brussels entranced for > hours and drew banner headlines across the continent. One political > cartoon showed Britain in bed with the United States, despite > Britain's membership in the European Union. Given the French government's past use of espionage to support its state-owned companies, this reminds me of another (fictional) pronouncement by a French official: "I'm shocked - shocked! - to find gambling going on here!!!" - as he pocketed his winnings. W.D.A.Geary Wardenclyffe Microtechnology Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:09:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Monty Solomon wrote: > If this is the first time you've ever visited a Web site that does > business with DoubleClick, DART will place a cookie on your hard drive. > The cookie is computer code that gives you an identification number, > according to Eddie Smith, DoubleClick's vice president of product and > business development. Which is why I have my browser set to accept only cookies that get sent back to the originating server and to warn me before accepting any cookies. I always manually reject cookies that are associated with advertising and regularly clear both cache and cookies from my machine using a batch file I picked off of either Tucows or Zdnet (can't remember which). Ironically one of the biggest offenders of placing doubleclick ad cookies on my machine has been the home page of my ISP. So, I set my home page to some other location and only visit when necessary. I've actually been able to keep spam down to a manageable level. jmaddaus@usa.net ------------------------------ From: "Someone" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:44:33 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com "Monty Solomon" wrote in message news:telecom20.4.5@telecom-digest.org: > Every time you call up a Web page, somebody, somewhere, is tracking > your every more [by placing] a cookie on your hard drive. Do what I do. Either configure your browser to reject cookies or else routinely delete all cookies. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.Net (Steve Sobol) Subject: Re: http://www.dialpad.com Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:55:21 GMT Organization: New Age Consulting Service Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA > From 'contact_phoff': > I heard that there might be a sound card available that would enhance the > sound quality of the calls made from dialpad.com but have not been able to > locate or identify the sound card that would make this difference. Does > anyone out there know of the sound card I am looking for. For what it's worth ... A friend called me over Dialpad. I wouldn't have been able to tell the call wasn't made from a phone if he hadn't said so (I was on my regular phone line). But he had some noise and other quality problems on *his* end. (interesting!) North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET ------------------------------ From: Susan Chen <1SSC9654@mtsac.edu> Subject: Re: http://www.dialpad.com Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:48:33 -0800 Organization: CSUnet Dialpad.com is created by Korean, so you might want to check so Korean sound Card Manufacture. contact_phoff wrote: > I heard that there might be a sound card available that would enhance the > sound quality of the calls made from dialpad.com but have not been able to > locate or identify the sound card that would make this difference. Does > anyone out there know of the sound card I am looking for. > May You Be Blessed With Good Health & Abundance, or as Spock might > say, "Live Long and Prosper" :-) Patricia A Hoffman Hoffman Enterprises The "ONE-STOP-SHOP" http://www.OppsKnocks.com Voice Mail: 1-760-280-6459 Fax: 1-954-827-7689 ------------------------------ From: bhu Subject: Searching: Info on Service Usage Accounting and Billing Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:07:21 +0100 Organization: GMD-FIRST Dear Readers, I am searching for information on service usage accounting and billing products and standards (from IETF, TMF, ITU-T, etc.) for our research and development purposes. What we are specifically interested in: * Accounting and billing for Internet services such as VoIP, video conferencing, web and domain hosting, etc. * Information and standards on service usage data record * Tariff schemes and tariff management * Standards (produced by IETF, TMF, ITU-T, etc.) on service usage accounting and billing. * Information on service usage accounting and billing system (both commercial solutions and research prototypes). * Information on systems that are based on an ORB (which version and implementation of ORB is used?) * If we wish to integrate our prototype system into a commercial product, what sort of programmable interfaces do the available systems provide? I would like to give some background information. We are developing a prototype of service usage accounting system for IP-based and telecom networks and we want to enhance the functionality of the prototype to include billing functionality. We want to do this with a view to integrate many vendors into our prototype accounting system. The main purpose of doing this is to develop a prototype of an integrated accounting and billing system that can deal with diverse accounting and billing needs. We would also like to add value to the services provided our prototype. Our prototype provides IDL interfaces for the purpose of integrating other vendors' billing systems. The prototype is being developed using Visibroker, Java and C++ and we also include in our implementation certain concepts of TINA (Telecommunication Information Networking Architecture). I shall be very grateful if you could provide me with information on above mentioned points. If fact, any information, hints or suggestions will be very useful. Please send your answers directly at my email address: bhushan@fokus.gmd.de Many thanks in advance, Best regards, Bharat Bhushan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:20 -0400 From: Jud Wolfskill Subject: Book Announcement--Stefik The following is a book which readers of this list might find of interest. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/promotions/books/STE1RHF99 The Internet Edge Social, Technical, and Legal Challenges for a Networked World Mark Stefik Sometimes when we face change, we feel conflicting forces driving us forward and pulling us back. This place of tension and confusion can be called an "edge." The "Internet edge" is our collective struggle to change as the world becomes more connected. Turmoil at the Internet edge occurs around interacting social, legal, and technological realms. Examples include issues of on-line privacy, censorship, digital copyright, and untaxed business competition over the Net. Such issues reflect conflicts between values--local and global, individual and corporate, democratic and nondemocratic. This book is an eagle's eye view of the Internet edge. It is about the experiences of those who encountered similar issues as they built precursors to the Net such as videotext, teletext, and the Source. It is about the trends in technology that will make the Net of the next few years a very different experience from the desktop surfing of today. Finally, it is about how old myths of magic, power, and control can help us to understand our fascination and fear of new technologies. Mark Stefik is a Principal Scientist and Manager of the Human Document Interactions Area at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center and adjunct member of the Secure Document Systems area. He is the author of Internet Dreams (MIT Press, 1996). 6 x 9, 336 pp., 8 illus., cloth ISBN 0-262-19418-X | Jud Wolfskill ||||||| Associate Publicist Phone: (617) 253-2079 ||||||| MIT Press Fax: (617) 253-1709 ||||||| Five Cambridge Center E-mail: wolfskil@mit.edu | Cambridge, MA 02142-1493 http://mitpress.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Regarding FAX Spammers Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:31:15 -0500 Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com Update, We had been FAXing spam FAXes over to the FCC, but they have asked that we now mail them. The reason being that they want the top header line intact and re-FAXing often overwrites that top header. So, what we are doing now when we receive a spam FAX is printing it out, noting any caller ID info and dropping it into a Priority mail envelope to send them off once a month or so. Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Philips Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering New Quad Philips color observation systems ------------------------------ From: Phil Smiley Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:53:58 GMT Long Lines was shortened name for AT&T Long Lines. Long Lines was the long distance arm of the Bell System. Long Lines' lost it's identity when it was folded into AT&T at divestiture in '84. Long Lines gave us the famous "Reach Out and Touch Someone" ads ... sigh, those were the days. Smiley Margaret Hill wrote: > Hi Patrick. I recently purchased a charm bracelet with 2 bells on it. > The bells look like the "Bell System" bells and are inscribed: > "1 Year Attendance Award LONG LINES". Are you familiar with LONG LINES? > Was this once a telephone company? Any information you could share > would be greatly appreciated. > Margaret Hill > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Long Lines" was the informal name for > AT&T's long distance operation. "Bell System" was another informal > name for AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:15:01 -0500 Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > One of the keywords that triggers blocking is "chat." If memory serves > correctly, Pat put a chat section on his site. > That's probably the (erroneous, inaccurate, inappropriate, inapplicable, and > just plain stupid!) problem. We had this exact same stupidity happen inside our own intranet. We hired a consulting company to develop an on-line sexual harrasement training course forus. The day after people started taking the course, people in one part of our campus found that the URL had been blocked at one of our own firewalls. And this is in a hospital, where a lot of traffic contains anatomical references. What brain-damage. Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine ------------------------------ From: wdag@my-deja.com (WDA Geary) Subject: Re: TELECOM Archives Censored as "Pornography" Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:58:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > One of the keywords that triggers blocking is "chat." If memory serves > correctly, Pat put a chat section on his site. Tough luck for French feline fanciers, n'est-ce pas? W.D.A.Geary Wardenclyffe Microtechnology Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 1 17:30:24 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA09392; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:30:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:30:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003012230.RAA09392@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #2 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Mar 0 16:45:21 EST Volume 20 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Hahn, Ki Suk) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Douglas Dunlop) Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Blake Droke) Re: Long Lines Bells (Dean Forrest Wright) Re: Long Lines Bells (Fred Goodwin) NXX by NPA (Robert M. Bryant) Your Wireless Phone/Laptop Experience (lorent@point.com) Wireless Extensions (George Yanos) Amazon's Market Conversation (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Hahn, Ki Suk Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:14:11 -0600 >From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) > Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust > Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net > Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:09:01 GMT > Organization: AT&T Worldnet > Which is why I have my browser set to accept only cookies that get > sent back to the originating server and to warn me before accepting > any cookies. I always manually reject cookies that are associated > with advertising and regularly clear both cache and cookies from my > machine using a batch file I picked off of either Tucows or Zdnet > (can't remember which). [...] >jmaddaus@usa.net I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested here some time ago and this works ok. But the IE 4.72... that I sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named username@domain.txt ) I've tried to set this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back. Is there any way to make it stick? Ki Suk Hahn ------------------------------ From: Douglas Dunlop Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:11:18 -0500 Rather than bother with manually accepting and rejecting cookies, I set Netscape to accept all cookies. I also deleted everything below the "do not edit" line in the cookies.txt file and set the file properties to read only. All cookies are accepted, none are stored ... > Which is why I have my browser set to accept only cookies that get > sent back to the originating server and to warn me before accepting > any cookies. I always manually reject cookies that are associated > with advertising and regularly clear both cache and cookies from my > machine using a batch file I picked off of either Tucows or Zdnet > (can't remember which). Ironically one of the biggest offenders of [Dunlop, Douglas [ATC:M004:EXCH]] [snipped] ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:47:43 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Arthur L. Rubin wrote: > Ed Ellers wrote: >> Um, I would suggest that Louisville, Kentucky is also a major city!' >> We still have 7D dialing between parts of the 502 and 812 NPAs, and >> since the state (wisely IMHO) changed the 270 addition from an > overlay >> to a split I expect we'll have it for some time to come. (The state >> decision came during the permissive 10D dialing period, and -- guess >> what? -- permissive 10D hasn't been turned off. Not that it does any >> harm, of course.) Memphis might also be called a major city and still has 7D cross-NPA dialing between local numbers in 901 (TN), 662 (MS) and 870 (AR). Unlike Louisville, however, no 10D calling is allowed. Of course there are only 13 Mississippi 662 NXXs local from Memphis and 5 Arkansas 870 NXXs. I noticed a potential problem in the Neustar database recently. 901-739 has been assigned to a CLEC in 901, while 870-739 is assigned to Southwestern Bell and is a local call from Memphis 901. Might not be a problem since Tennessee is a toll alerting state. It depends on which rate center will get 901-739. If its in the Metro Memphis area, there will be a dialling conflict. ------------------------------ From: Dean Forrest Wright Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:00:44 GMT Organization: Wright Engineers P.C. Incidentally, the name Long Lines really meant exactly that. AT&T Long Lines was, with a few exceptions, responsible for carrying telephone calls which crossed state lines, with the local Bell Operating Company (i.e. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph) being responsible for carrying calls within a given state or related geographical area. -- Dean Forrest Wright, P.E. Telecommunications (Central Office Equipment) Engineer dean at imt dot net "When one lacks a sense of awe, there will be disaster" ------------------------------ From: Goodwin, Fred Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:56:15 -0600 Phil Smiley wrote: > Margaret Hill wrote: >> Are you familiar with LONG LINES? Was this once a telephone company? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Long Lines" was the informal name >> for AT&T's long distance operation. PAT] > Long Lines was shortened name for AT&T Long Lines. Long Lines was the > long distance arm of the Bell System. Question on a minor point: didn't the local BOCs own and operate the *intrastate* LD networks prior to Divestiture? I thought LL owned and operated only the AT&T *interstate* LD network, and that the BOCs had to spin off to LL their own intrastate, interLATA LD plant at Divestiture? If you're equating "long distance" to "interstate", then my point is moot. 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: Robert M. Bryant Subject: NXX by NPA Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:16:46 -0500 Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? Robert M. Bryant DNAE IBM Team 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 397-8451 Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lorent@point.com Subject: Your Wireless Phone/Laptop Experience Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:44:11 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. I'm researching the use of laptops in conjunction with wireless phones to access the Internet and to fax. Please tell me of your experiences. Is it frustrating? Easy? Too many disconnects? Too slow? (Of course it is). But has it made your life easier in any way? Any good stories of how you use the combo? Please email me at lorent@point.com Thanks, Loren Tanner Staff Editor Point.com (Formerly Wireless Dimension) www.point.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:58:42 CST From: George Yanos Subject: Wireless Extensions Several months ago there was at TELECOM Digest discussion of wireless extensions for wireline phones. One sub-topic was "which phone has the longest range". Now, suddenly, I find myself needing such a phone which will work across several hundred, perhaps 1,000, yards of dense suburb. Dense meaning old houses on 40 foot lots with an occassional brick 3-flat apartment house tossed in. I wonder if the old discussion is still definitive or if there is a new winner in the long range contest? George Yanos 312-413-0059(w) 708-848-4221(h) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:40:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Amazon's Market Conversation http://davenet.userland.com/2000/02/29/amazonsMarketConversation From Scripting News... It's DaveNet! Released on 2/29/00; 8:23:02 AM PST ***Good morning! After yesterday's piece, the net is working it's magic on the Amazon patent situation. Last night's post from Tim O'Reilly got SlashDot moving; and this morning Dale Dougherty, also of O'Reilly, posted a short list of "controversial" patents that relate to the Internet industry. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/patents/2000/02/29/contro.html ***Jeffrey Wilkinson From Jeffrey Wilkinson. "You might suggest that people write letters. Boycotts are more effective when you write and tell them that you're doing it and exactly why. Just cutting off your links and buying without telling them explicitly is less effective." I totally agree! ***Faisal Jawdat Then I was cc'd by Faisal Jawdat on an email in response to an Amazon promotional mailing. For full effect, a screen shot of the email: http://static.userland.com/misc/snImages/faisalConversesWithAmazon.gif I like how he says he'll come back when Amazon is finished with patents. A message saying "you've lost me forever" might be emotionally satisfying, but probably gets your message into the bit bucket, and might get your name removed from their database. And in reality, many of us *will* come back to Amazon when the pressure is off. Why? Because Amazon has a deserved reputation for being responsive to its customers. I get promotional emails often, and Amazon does it better than anyone else. Their database knows what I like. They sign the emails with the name of a person, an editor or product manager, sometimes even Jeff Bezos himself! I like that because it's personal (even though I know it's a script that wrote the email.) Presumably there's a real person reading the responses. Like a letter to your Congressman, this is the most precise place to register your point of view. It should be the place that Amazon wants to hear from you. So think, and then say what you think, next time you get an email from Amazon. ***Dave Winer PS: Assume there's a real person reading the email, and please treat that person with respect. They almost certainly played no role in Amazon's policy in re patents. Scripting News: ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 2 18:15:29 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA01135; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:15:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:15:29 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003022315.SAA01135@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #6 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:38:47 EST Volume 20 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Mike Pollock) Traffic Exchange (Sergey Mosienko) Stop Missing Calls While You're Online! (Mike Pollock) Re: NXX by NPA (Ben Schilling) Re: NXX by NPA (Michael G. Koerner) Re: NXX by NPA (Joe Jensen) Re: NXX by NPA (Fred Daniel) Re: NXX by NPA (Eli Mantel) Re: NXX by NPA (Michael Sullivan) U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity (Monty Solomon) New '10-10' Call Ads Coming (Monty Solomon) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Ryan Shook) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (A. E. Siegman) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Maxime Flament) Record Telephone Calls (Stephan Lux) Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Michael G. Koerner) Should Your Boss Know About Those Visits to The Shrink? (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Mike Pollock Subject: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:24:36 -0500 Organization: It's A Mike! By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 2, 2000 How many wood poles do woodpeckers peck, since woodpeckers do peck poles? In a typical midsize city, roughly 1,000 telephone poles have to be replaced every year because birds -- and then rain -- cause them to rot. That annoys utilities and sets them back about $200 a pole. It's a needless expense in the opinion of the nation's steel industry, which has decided that the telephone pole is an important niche for steel. Not only are steel poles woodpecker-proof, the industry says; they also don't break as easily -- there are fewer down wires -- and they are better for the environment. One junked car can make four utility poles. Better yet, they come in colors. Places in Texas, Arizona, California and Ohio, among other states, have put up decorator steel poles. Pole Camouflage "We can even make them look like trees," says Richard Favreau, the president of U.S. operations for International Utility Structures Inc., in Calgary, Alberta, which makes steel poles. "There is tree-bark applique that we have. It's bloody expensive, but if you want to hide a steel pole, this is the way." Tree-bark applique, which is an inch-thick plastic coating that can be melded onto steel poles, has yet to catch on in the U.S. But it is big in England, where steel poles resembling tree trunks are a far more common sight. In weather-beaten places like Puerto Rico and the Philippines, steel poles work out much better than wood did. But steel poles face the concerted opposition of the North American Wood Pole Coalition. The group, which represents the big wood-pole manufacturers, mainly concentrated in the Northwest, notes that wood poles don't glare and that linemen who climb poles prefer wood. Every year, there is a Lineman's Rodeo (last year, it was in Kansas City, Mo.) where pros race up wood poles. It isn't as easy to climb a steel pole unless you use clip-on stairs or a cherry picker. The wood-pole people also scoff at the claim that steel poles are good for the environment. "You don't get much greener than a tree," say brochures for the wood poles. Adds Dennis Hayward, chairman of the coalition and also executive director of the Western Wood Preservers Institute in Vancouver, Wash.: "Wood poles soak up carbon and help reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases." As for the fact that creating a wood pole involves killing a tree, the group says a new tree (Southern pine, Douglas fir or Western red cedar) matures during the life of every wood pole. Sign of Progress But the biggest plus, at this point, is history and market dominance. Wood poles have predominated since 1897, when American Telephone & Telegraph Co. put a line from Washington, D.C., to Norfolk, Va. They were cheap, plentiful and durable. Wood poles up to 50 feet tall were planted in cities, towns and neighborhoods all over the country and fed wires into individual houses. Sure, they were ugly, but they were a welcome part of a new era of comfort. Not much has changed, except that more wires than ever are strung up. Electrical, telephone and even cable-television lines move from pole to pole throughout the U.S. Burying wires might seem like a good way to avoid the eyesore, but it can cost three or four times as much. Because utilities are reluctant to cough up the money, buried lines are reserved mainly for dense commercial areas and expensive new residential neighborhoods. The U.S. currently has about 90 million wood telephone poles. Steel poles have tripled since 1997, but they still represent less than 2% of the market. The key, the steel industry believes, is in the telephone-pole replacement market: Four million wood poles each year need to be replaced because of routine maintenance, accidents, construction, and steel's friend, the woodpecker. George Manning has had a lot of experience with woodpeckers. "Those little fellows can make one heck of a lot of damage. There isn't much that you can do that is environmentally friendly," says the executive vice president of Licking Rural Electrification Inc., Utica, Ohio. Despite the best efforts of utility companies to distract woodpeckers in the past, the birds almost always came back. Companies plugged holes. They sounded loud alarms to scare off birds -- to no avail. Various chemical coverings were tried, but sometimes they seeped into the ground and risked contamination or endangered animals. The average wood pole lasts about 35 years, though a few pampered ones survive from their earliest days at the end of the 19th century. Mr. Manning's company eventually switched to steel. "Woodpeckers are no match for steel," he says. A true believer in steel poles, Mr. Manning, of the Licking utility, has stumped for the steel industry in seminars held in Illinois, Georgia and Texas. He tells developers, utility executives and mayors that steel poles can be resistant to renegade snow plows and to ice storms. They are a little more expensive -- about $266 a pole, compared to $205 for wood -- but will last longer, he says. The debate over wood vs. steel isn't confined to the industry. At Mohican State Park, in north-central Ohio, and other state park lands, steel poles have been tinted greenish and "sky gray" to better blend with grass and trees. In Arizona, industrial plants have painted their poles white to match their water towers. A Texas housing developer says that his company won't take free wood poles that electric companies offer because they are unattractive. Instead, he pays to install steel poles. "Aesthetically, the wood poles wouldn't work. Steel looks cleaner," says Robert Long, director of a Texas company called MK Development. In Austin, at Steiner Ranch, a huge new development west of the city, three neighborhood meetings were held to discuss telephone poles. The utility company presented a slide show of other neighborhoods around the city, some with new steel poles, others with newly replaced wood poles. Consensus couldn't be reached among the people along Koenig Lane, a major thoroughfare in Austin. Residents wanted a nice, soothing brown steel pole that doesn't look like a tree but blends in with the trees. To many an untrained eye, the coating, which over time turns brown as it oxidizes, resembles the color of an old rusty car. Smooth and shiny gives too much of a sterile feeling, residents argued. Businesses, on the other hand, liked smooth and shiny, because it looks clean and sterile. So half the street is shiny and the other half is brown. Claire Barry, an Austin activist, is perplexed by all the fuss over the color or kind of poles. She wants the telephone lines and electricity lines buried, and she has pushed her government representatives to force the electric company to pay for it. "My ultimate goal is to get shade trees," she says. Write to Robert Guy Matthews at robertguy.matthews@wsj.com Copyright Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------ From: Sergey A. Mosienko Subject: Traffic Exchange Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:25:22 +0300 Organization: TOR-Info Ltd. Hi, Pls, Where I can find the references for an IPT traffic exchange ( WWW) ? Soon we shall have Moscow - Nakhodka ( Russia ) min E1 ( max 36 E1 ), Router - Tigris AXC-711 ( Ericsson ) and Gateway AXI-511 ( Ericsson ). Best Regards, INCOM Telecom and Datacom Networks Sergey A. Mosienko Deputy Director on Business Development Tel / Fax. +7 - 095 - 795-3323 E-mail: mosienko@incom-svyaz.ru Web: http://www.incom-js.ru [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would a couple of our readers please correspond with Sergey in Russia and see if his questions can be answered. Thanks very much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: Stop Missing Calls While You're Online! Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:40:31 -0500 Organization: It's A Mike! This is sort of interesting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "CallWave News" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:58 AM Subject: Stop Missing Calls While You're Online! > Dear Mike Pollock, > We have exciting news! In just 4 months, more than 1,000,000 > people have installed CallWave's FREE Internet Answering > Machine (IAM). It's our newest FREE service. We're handling > over 10 million calls a month now - saving our customers money > and time by answering their phone calls while they're on the > Internet! CNET calls IAM "a brilliant alternative to a second > phone line." Have you tried it yet? It's a perfect complement > to your FaxWave service. > > Get it now by clicking here: http://www.callwave.com/?r=FaxWave2 > > What is it? > > The Internet Answering Machine makes it possible for you to > hear who's calling while you are surfing the Internet. You no > longer need to order, install and pay for a separate telephone > line to make sure you don't miss important calls while online. > IAM also eliminates annoying busy signals for callers trying to > reach you when you are on-line. Instead of getting a busy signal, > the caller can leave a voice message WHICH YOU HEAR > INSTANTLY OVER THE SPEAKERS ON YOUR PC! It > also displays incoming calls, plays messages, and saves messages > for later retrieval. > Installing IAM is easy. All you have to do is click here: > http://www.callwave.com/?r=FaxWave2 > > It takes less than a minute to download the FREE software (it's > only 180k!) The small installation program will register the > service and set up the Internet Answering Machine. The software > includes a demonstration and easy-to-follow instructions. > Why not join the 1 million other IAM users who are surfing the > Internet without worrying about missing important phone calls? > The CallWave Team > FREE ALTERNATIVES TO EXPENSIVE PHONE LINES! ------------------------------ From: Ben Schilling Subject: RE: NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:49:29 -0600 You can get the lists from http://www.nanpa.com/ . They are under Central Office Codes (Prefixes). There are sixteen zip files in the entire set. ------------------------------ From: Michael G. Koerner Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:22:37 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: mgk920@dataex.com Robert M. Bryant wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > Robert M. Bryant > DNAE IBM Team > 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. > White Plains, NY 10601 > (914) 397-8451 > Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] The best thing I can think of is a copy of the 'NPA-NXX Active Code List' ('NNACL'), available from the TelCordia (formerly 'BellCore') website http://www.trainfo.com. Click on the 'catalog' and look for the product. It is issued quarterly and costs $150/issue. Monthly updates to that list are called the 'NPA-NXX Activity Guide' ('NNAG'), and are also available via the website. Regards, Michael G. Koerner Appleton, WI ------------------------------ From: Joe Jensen Subject: Re:NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:42:49 -0500 > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? Try www.nanpa.com Joe Jensen Buckeye TeleSystem Toledo, Ohio ------------------------------ From: Fred Daniel Organization: @Home Network Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:21:57 GMT Robert M. Bryant wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? Look at www.stuffsoftware.com for a program called COFinder. Good luck. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:11:49 PST Robert Bryant wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA > or by City or State?? Check out my "area code links" page at http://cageyconsumer.com/areacode.html which contains several links to web pages that provide the prefixes that exist in each area code. These are generally unofficial lists, so use them at your own risk. Eli Mantel ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 05:55:34 GMT "Robert M. Bryant" wrote: Go to http://www.nanpa.com and click on the appropriate link, by state or whatever. > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] But the NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Administrator) site is relatively up to date and has the files in usable form. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 00:04:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. 1.Mar.2000 PST WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government may need sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute future denial-of-service attacks, top law enforcement officials said Tuesday. Anonymous remailers and free trial accounts allow hackers and online pornographers to cloak their identity, deputy attorney general Eric Holder told a joint congressional panel. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34659,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 00:11:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New '10-10' Call Ads Coming Reuters 7:25 a.m. 1.Mar.2000 PST WASHINGTON -- The government will announce new advertising guidelines Wednesday for long-distance phone companies, to rein in promotions that bombard consumers with confusing promises about the terms of "10-10" services, also known as "dial-around." The rise in the use of the services, which offer an alternative to a consumer's chosen long-distance carrier, has been accompanied by a rising tide of complaints. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34663,00.html ------------------------------ From: Ryan Shook Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:54:54 -0500 Organization: University of Waterloo On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, it was written: > I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested > here some time ago and this works ok. But the IE 4.72... that I > sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's > windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named > username@domain.txt ) I've tried to set > this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back. Is > there any way to make it stick? There are several possibilities to get around doubleclick.net. 1) most computers have some sort of hosts file where the TCP/IP drivers try to lookup domain names there before consulting with a DNS. Insert the major doubleclick servers and set their IP address to 127.0.0.1. This makes your browser think that you are doubleclick.net and try to retrieve the banner from your computer which it obviously won't provide. The gotcha is that with IE5 you get sent to "this page can't be loaded" far too often, there is something fancy going on where doubleclick seems to be executing a script or something. 2) because 1) is flawed I found another solution. in IE5 there are security zones set. Tools | Internet Options | Security. You can add domains to a security zone. By default most everything is considered in the internet domain. Instead ad *.doubleclick.net to the restricted sites list. I have *.doubleclick.net and *.ads.*. Then go through the list of rights given to restricted sites and make sure they can't play with cookies. I believe it is set that way by default. The trouble with solutions that completely turn off cookies (you can do that in the above mentinoed "internet domain" is that they are truly useful and sometimes necessary. By the nature of the web it is not really connection based. You make and break hundreds of connections as you surf instead of making a connection when you start at a website and break the connection when you go elsewhere. For this reason it is difficult for web servers to have a sense of state. Cookies allow a sense of state. They allow a server to recognize you and serve content appropriately based on information they saved in their databases. This is used by banks, airlines, car companies that let you "build" a car online, and yahoo finance so it can remember your customizations and many other groups who use the technology properly. Unfortunately it is hard to control abuses. The "security domain" settings in IE4 & 5 are tricky, I'm still trying to find a combination that lets me get what I want productively from websites while not letting me become too much of a statistic. Ryan Shook Mechanical Engineering | RJShook@uwaterloo.ca Amateur (HAM) Radio Lic.:VE3 TKD | www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rjshook Your mouse has moved, reboot required for the changes to take effect. ------------------------------ From: siegman@stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:31:58 -0800 Organization: Stanford University In article , Douglas Dunlop wrote: > Rather than bother with manually accepting and rejecting cookies, I > set Netscape to accept all cookies. I also deleted everything below > the "do not edit" line in the cookies.txt file and set the file > properties to read only. All cookies are accepted, none are stored ... I'm guessing this is a Unix system. Is there a way to do the same thing with the MagicCookie file in Netscape on a Mac? (Email cc of any replies to siegman@stanford.edu appreciated.) ------------------------------ From: Maxime Flament Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:26:14 +0100 Organization: Chalmers University of Technology Monty Solomon wrote: > By SETH SCHIESEL > A debate is raging at the Federal Communications Commission about whether > cellular telephone customers must continue to pay to receive calls as > well as to make them. > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/22phon.html During the CTIA Wireless 2000 a few days ago there was interesting debates about this issue, and especially about the advantage of caller-pay systems: > From PC Week Online, February 28, 2000 3:42 PM ET [snip] Sharp words from Vodafone chief Next Tachikawa, NTT, up was Chris Gent, CEO of Britain's red-hot Vodafone Airtouch, which, with several major alliances in the past few months, including its acquisition of Mannesmann, is arguably the largest wireless network service provider in the world. While Tachikawa concentrated on his own company's success, Gent talked more about U.S. shortcomings. Aside from there being too many competing networks in the States, compared with the pervasive GSM standard in Europe, Gent said the U.S. doesn't offer enough in the way of cell phone services where only the calling party pays. Right now, most cell phone customers pay for incoming calls, so they tend to leave their phones off a lot. "When people leave their phones on all the time, because they don't have to pay for incoming calls, it becomes an integral part of their lives," Gent said. "That hasn't happened in America." In terms of standards, he said, the U.S. may be in trouble there even after everyone begins to adopt 3G. (3G is supposed to be a combination of several network standards.) While that should make things more uniform in the U.S., it may not make things globally uniform because "even now, we're looking at a 3G U.S. and a 3G rest of the world," Gent said. Vodafone, for its part, intends to adopt a WAP (Wireless Access Protocol) platform in July, with plans to move up to GPRS later this year and, eventually, 3G next year. [snip] ---- It is true that since we don't pay for being called we leave the phone always on - even at night - even at meetings (without ring)... A few weeks ago, the Swedish mobile operator started to even pay back people when then answer (http://www.comviq.se/tjanster/abonnemang/kontant.html in Swedish). This holds for only the prepaid card subscription, you get money on your calling account every minutes you spend answering your phone (0.25 re: 3cents/minute). not that much but it is quite amazing!! Regards, Maxime Flament Doktorand Maxime Flament, M.Sc. mailto:Maxime.Flament@s2.chalmers.se Department of Signals and Systems Tel work: +46-31-772 1764 Communication Systems Group Tel home: +46-31-16 38 17 Chalmers University of Technology Tel fax: +46-31-772 1748 SE-412 96 Gteborg - Sweden http://www.s2.chalmers.se/~maxime/ ------------------------------ From: Stephan Lux Subject: Record Telephone Calls Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:42:27 +0100 Hello. I am a student and write even my thesis with the title " development and evaluation of a concept for voice recognition in a call center ". I hang even something firmly, since I cannot to be implemented white as I it that the telephone call can be stored separately according to caller and called person as a sound file. My considerations are so far: 1. I handle me into the cable of the Head set and lead the cables in the sound cards from there - input and take up then the discussions separately from each other. 2. I put a PC with ISDN card, with the call center agent with telephone-software telephoned and try the discussions there to separate. 3. I examine the ISDN Protokol and try on the basis of the header the packages there to partition. Those are my considerations, which are however so far only grey theory. Perhaps someone can help me, and to me say whether at all one of these possibilities to be implemented would be and perhaps how. Of course I am to be had also for new suggestions. I am grateful for each tip or each assistance. Stephan lux [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will you please see what advice can be given to Stephan. Thank you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael G. Koerner Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:34:58 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: mgk920@dataex.com Blake Droke wrote: > Arthur L. Rubin wrote: >> Ed Ellers wrote: >>> Um, I would suggest that Louisville, Kentucky is also a major city!' >>> We still have 7D dialing between parts of the 502 and 812 NPAs, and >>> since the state (wisely IMHO) changed the 270 addition from an >> overlay >>> to a split I expect we'll have it for some time to come. (The state >> decision came during the permissive 10D dialing period, and -- guess >>> what? -- permissive 10D hasn't been turned off. Not that it does any >>> harm, of course.) > Memphis might also be called a major city and still has 7D cross-NPA > dialing between local numbers in 901 (TN), 662 (MS) and 870 (AR). > Unlike Louisville, however, no 10D calling is allowed. Of course there > are only 13 Mississippi 662 NXXs local from Memphis and 5 Arkansas 870 > NXXs. > I noticed a potential problem in the Neustar database recently. 901-739 > has been assigned to a CLEC in 901, while 870-739 is assigned to > Southwestern Bell and is a local call from Memphis 901. Might not be a > problem since Tennessee is a toll alerting state. It depends on which > rate center will get 901-739. If its in the Metro Memphis area, there > will be a dialling conflict. According to my recent NNAG issues, effective 10-Feb-2000, '901-739' was assigned to a local landline carrier in 'Huntingdon, TN', located about 20 km north of I-40 (about halfway between Memphis and Nashville) and, apparently, WELL outside the local calling area of Memphis. Regards, Michael G. Koerner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:40:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Should Your Boss Know About Those Visits to The Shrink? salon.com > Technology March 1, 2000 URL: http://www.salon.com/tech/books/2000/03/01/database_nation Employers sniffing through medical records, would-be forgers having UPS deliver your signature -- Simson Garfinkel reveals a world rife with privacy violations in "Database Nation." By Thomas Scoville When the Berlin Wall came down in October 1989, there was, of course, a lot of gloating in the West. We'd won; capitalism and free markets had triumphed over the dark forces of Soviet tyranny and centralized control, conspicuously vindicating the American way. But what about the age-old advice: Ignore at your peril the ominous shadows cast by the creepy glow of hubris; if there's any time the gods love to strike you down, it's during your victory lap. I was haunted by a half-formed notion that, despite all the economic chest-thumping and political high-fiving in the so-called Free World, we were converging on our own reckoning, a day when we would realize our own failures beneath the weight of unacknowledged Western tyrannies. I had no good idea how this might actually come to pass. But reading Simson Garfinkel's new book, it's starting to become clear: The combination of free markets and ubiquitous information technology imposes its own kind of tyranny, the end results being often as scary as a KGB nightmare. "Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century" is a dense treatise on electronic identification and surveillance technology, as well as a guide to the workings of the modern consumer tracking complex. Garfinkel, a technology writer who runs an ISP on Martha's Vineyard, outlines the laws and policies that make these mechanisms possible and explains the commercial appetites that motivate the relentless corporate mining of the mountains of consumer data. The picture is more than a little hair-raising. Take, for instance, the hazards of corporate credit-tracking databases: In the tangled web of electronic repositories that chronicle your personal credit history, a single mistake or false report can be propagated to multiple agencies, ensuring that you'll never be approved for a credit card or a mortgage. Worse, errors can never be expunged, but only mitigated with supplemental reports. Of course, the burden of proof is on the individual. Equifax, Inc. may have made the mistake, but the consumer suffers the consequences, which can last for years. Then there are the hidden perils of those ubiquitous enticements to give up a few shreds of your identity to the commercial data sphere. Think that supermarket discount card was a bargain? Tell it to the man who slipped and injured himself while shopping, then sued the store. His corporate grocers used his consumer profile against him, courtesy of the discount card. A history of large liquor purchases undermined the credibility of the customer's claim. Then there are the databases tracking your medical history: Garfinkel reports that 35 percent of Fortune 500 companies acknowledge that they have drawn on personal health records to make employment decisions. Think you're in line for a big promotion? Not with your record of psychiatric treatment, or that one-time abnormal T-cell count after a nasty virus. For HMOs, controlling costs also means the permanent suspension of patient confidentiality; the ramifications of this are nightmarish. Suddenly insurance companies, marketers and mass-mailers have access to the most intimate details of your flesh and blood. The deeper Garfinkel digs, the more ghoulish the picture becomes: Near the bottom of the pit, there's the Medical Information Bureau, a widely used clearinghouse of patient data for medical insurers, which cloaks itself as would any sinister covert agency: unlisted phone numbers, a profile so low as to approach invisibility, concentric layers of codes and obfuscation in reporting procedures. And though its data remains invisible to consumers, its effects do not; with the wrong codes affixed to your name in the MIB data cores, you'll never get health insurance again. And you may never know why. Corporate databases also greatly increase the individual's vulnerability to fraud, identity theft and a host of other criminal abuses. I was surprised to read, for instance, that United Parcel Service stores customers' digitized signatures as proof of delivery. UPS will fax you a receiver's signature if you supply them with a package tracking number. It appears to be relatively easy for someone to arrange for UPS to deliver a facsimile of my signature. Garfinkel makes the infuriating revelation that much of the most promising technology that could decrease consumer jeopardy isn't implemented because of the marginal costs to corporations; profits are more important than individual welfare, apparently. Indeed, this inversion of corporate over individual rights emerges as the dominant theme of "Database Nation." Certainly, Garfinkel finds corporate disdain for consumer privacy rights is right out in the open. Most incensing is the attitude of a mass-mailing maven, the kind of marketer who upholsters your mailbox daily with unwanted catalogs: "There is no such thing as 'junk mail' -- only junk people." In other words, corporation über alles. Starting to sound a little like tyranny? Of course, resistance doesn't seem to be coming from the technology sector -- the Internet's masters of the universe are too busy pawing through your e-commerce cookies and profiling your Web surfing to take much notice. The onslaught of corporate privacy abuses has been resisted by only a few: whistleblowers like Garfinkel, underground groups like the Cypherpunks and -- in a most un-Orwellian turn -- by the federal government, which has passed legislation to slow the invasion. There are a few problems with "Database Nation." At times Garfinkel seems to wander outside the implicit charter of the book. For instance, his extended taxonomy of surveillance techniques veers away from credibility and dangerously close to "X-Files" territory with accounts of thought-tapping and remote viewing experiments. At other times he seems to want to write a completely different book on spy technology, more appropriate for, say, Jane's Defense Weekly. Garfinkel also has an annoying habit of creating shocking anecdotes of privacy abuse out of whole cloth, not telling the reader until afterward these horror stories only represent possible portraits of the future. He opens one chapter with an account of his e-mail correspondence with a person who turns out to be a program sucking data about his shopping habits and movie preferences -- then reveals that the scenario is make-believe. This sensationalist technique is more suited to National Enquirer than anything else, and serves to subtly undermine his audience's trust. Overall, though, "Database Nation" is well worth the read. In the face of escalating corporate incursions onto our fundamental liberties, popular opposition is in alarmingly short supply; those determined to galvanize public indignation are performing a valuable service, and deserve to be heard. salon.com | March 1, 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - About the writer Thomas Scoville is either an Information Age Savant or an ex-Silicon Valley programmer with a bad attitude. He is the author of the Silicon Valley Tarot. Copyright 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 3 12:41:22 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA06126; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:41:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:41:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003031741.MAA06126@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #7 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Mar 0 10:56:18 EST Volume 20 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Using Samba" (Rob Slade) ICB: Free Daily Headlines, New Domain Name Content (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (anonymous) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Mark S. Brader) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Jeremy Greene) Re: U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity (Herb Stein) FTC Orders Credit Bureau to Stop Selling Marketing Lists (Monty Solomon) Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (Monty Solomon) DoubleClick Puts Hold on Tying Personal Info to Online Habits! (M Solomon)) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Jeremy S. Nichols) Telco 214 Licenced (Clay Nanton) Re: Stop Missing Calls While You're Online! (Ed Ellers) Communication Tower Being Built (Linda Harris) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:38:44 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Using Samba" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKUSAMBA.RVW 20000126 "Using Samba", Robert Eckstein/David Collier-Brown/Peter Kelly, 2000, 1-56592-449-5, U$34.95/C$51.95 %A Robert Eckstein %A David Collier-Brown %A Peter Kelly %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 2000 %G 1-56592-449-5 %I O'Reilly and Associates %O U$34.95/C$51.95 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 416 p. %T "Using Samba" Server Message Block (SMB) is a protocol used for simple client-server networking. More importantly, however, it is the protocol used in Microsoft's basic Windows products. There are Windows clients for other protocols, such as NFS (Network File System), but these are not supplied with the operating system and must be purchased separately. As well, these add-on clients are not as tightly coupled with the Windows operating system and its functions. Samba is a UNIX server program using the SMB protocol. This allows UNIX administrators to set up file and print sharing on UNIX machines, for access and use by Windows PCs without specialized clients on all the workstations. Chapter one is an introduction to Samba and the basic SMB concepts. Compilation and installation of Samba on the UNIX server are covered in chapter two. Setup of Windows clients is dealt with in chapter three, as well as some header level information about the protocol itself. The material details configuration of Windows 9x and NT separately, because of the slight differences in menus and dialogue boxes. The instructions are quite detailed, even down to the information that the IP 192.168.x.x address range can be used for internal LANs, although more time is spent with the 9x versions than with NT. Most of the rest of the book is spent on configuration options for Samba. Chapter four provides an outline of the smb.conf file and the basic preference settings. Browsing (functions advertising and searching for resources) and advanced file sharing choices are given in chapter five. Security related settings are discussed in chapter six, along with some practical tips. Chapter seven looks at printing and name resolution, while miscellaneous functions are presented in chapter eight. Chapter nine outlines not just troubleshooting tools, but also detailed procedures. Appendices list information on the use of SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), performance tuning, daemons and commands, as well as a command reference. The book is aimed at experienced UNIX administrators. The explanations of how Windows works will definitely be of help to these people. However, it is a bit of a pity that slightly more information wasn't included about UNIX for those not familiar with the system. While there certainly are good references for UNIX administration available (many of them coming from O'Reilly), it is arguably the case that the greater "market" for Samba is among those who administer Windows networks, and need the basic and reliable server functions that UNIX can provide. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2000 BKUSAMBA.RVW 20000126 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com A European says, `I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?' An American says, `I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?' - Terry Pratchett (author) http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICB: Free Daily Headlines, New Domain Name Content Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:29:57 -0500 Pat, this release went out a month ago, and in your absence I didn't forward it to the Digest. Now that you're back (hooray!), I'd like to submit it. ICB is offering free daily email headlines plus limited site access at no charge; we've upgraded the site (it's now completely databased - load, search, etc., are quite fast.) And we've added a substantial amount of domain name news content. We've also raised the price for full subscription, from $399 to $549. But I'd like to offer Telecom Digest readers the old price through the end of March. Here's the original release. TIA - Judith Company Contact: Judith Oppenheimer ICB Inc. Phone 1 212 684-7210 joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com http://icbtollfree.com FREE DAILY EMAIL DELIVERS HOT DOT COM NEWS HEADLINES Online 800/Domain Name News Service Announces FREE HeadsUp Headlines, Expanded Domain Name News Coverage, and Site Upgrade. New York, NY February 7, 2000 ICB Toll Free News, premier source of toll free 800 and dot com industry intelligence, today announced: ** FREE HeadsUp Headlines ** Expanded Coverage of 800 and Dot Com Industry, Marketing and Political News ** and Faster Web Site Load, Search and Navigation Only one news source specializes in 800 number and domain names news. ICB Toll Free News has covered 800 and dot com politics, power plays, trends, and impacts, delivering competitive intelligence to a business readership of corporate and industry giants, as well as small business owners and entrepreneurs, since 1995. ICBs new HeadsUp Headlines is a free email service that includes news summaries plus modified text and site access. At eight to ten headlines daily, a quick glance flags important 800 and dot com developments for busy execs. Indepth coverage of dot com and 800 news is key for ICB Premium Service readers. 'Success today is measured in Internet time, so its imperative for businesses to move quickly and decisively on multiple fronts,' says Emil G. Michael, Director of Business Development, Tellme Networks, Inc. 'For instance, telecommunications regulations govern customer access channels, which ultimately impact our ability to build a strong, recognizable brand.' "ICB keeps us up on the changing marketplace," he says, "providing intelligence we consider a critical driver of our business." Jim Hawkins, Senior Executive, BellSouth Public Communications, agrees. "ICB is a superb real-time source for staying on top of the growing cross-linkages between toll-free service and the Internet." "ICB delivers great bang for the buck," says Glen Davidson, President of ATG Technologies. "I visit the site almost every day." Richard Sapio, CEO of MUTUALS.COM, agrees. "We've invested a lot of money in our brand," he says. "ICB is our eyes and ears." "ICB delivers great bang for the buck," says Glen Davidson, President of ATG Technologies. "I visit the site almost every day." Richard Sapio, CEO of MUTUALS.COM, agrees. "We've invested a lot of money in our brand," he says. "ICB is our eyes and ears." Register for ICB Toll Free News at http://icbtollfree.com. Registration is free and includes daily HeadsUp Headlines. Registered members can upgrade to Premium Service at any time. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND In 1993, 800 numbers became 'portable', granting number holders control over their 800 numbers. The brand and monetary impact was immediate. From 800 COLLECT to 800 FLOWERS, commercial and political gamesmanship from the highest levels sprung up everywhere amidst the rising values and awesome returns of 800 vanity numbers. Domain names now join 800 numbers in this arena: witness the recent sale of loans.com for $3 million dollars. Only one news source rides herd, exclusively, on these parallel fast paced industries. ICB Toll Free News, published by ICB Consulting, reports on 800 and dot com politics, power plays, trends, and impacts, delivering competitive intelligence to a business readership of corporate and industry giants, as well as small business owners and entrepreneurs. Consulting since 1993 and online since 1995, today ICB announces three major enhancements. FREE HEADSUP HEADLINES ICBs new HeadsUp Headlines is a free email service that includes news summaries plus modified text and site access. At eight to ten headlines daily, a two-minute review keeps savvy readers on top of 800 and dot com intelligence. Registration for daily ICB HeadsUp Headlines is available at http://icbtollfree.com. There is no cost to register. EXPANDED 800/DOT COM INTELLIGENCE: “...a critical driver of our business.” For corporate and industry execs in the trenches, ICB provides indepth coverage of regulatory, legal, industry and marketing news relating to 800 numbers and domain names. "Success today is measured in Internet time, so its imperative for businesses to move quickly and decisively on multiple fronts," says Emil G. Michael, Director of Business Development, Tellme Networks, Inc. "For instance, telecommunications regulations govern customer access channels, which ultimately impact our ability to build a strong, recognizable brand." Michael is emphatic about ICBs usefulness. "ICB keeps us up on the changing marketplace," he says, "providing intelligence we consider a critical driver of our business." Jim Hawkins, Senior Executive, BellSouth Public Communications, agrees. "ICB is a superb real-time source for staying on top of the growing cross-linkages between toll-free service and the Internet," he says. "With daily review of developments in the toll-free, and now internet marketing industries, I get great value for my annual subscription, plus I've learned a lot about increasing linkages and cross-marketing in these areas." ICB Premium Service subscribers include key executives in telecom, internet, convergence, wireless and VOIP, along with the end users impacted by their decisions: corporate marketers and telecom managers; entrepreneurs and attorneys, as well as regulatory staffers, worldwide. Because ICB is an active presence at the major industry forum working groups under telecom's Alliance of Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), and the web's Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), ICB's subscribers benefit from a unique insider vantage point. "Both of these industries: toll free, and domain names -- hold your brand in the very palm of their hand," says ICB head Judith Oppenheimer. "The same brand, marketing, and legal issues, often piloted by the same players in adjoining back rooms, impact most companies head on, often when they least expect it." ICB's consulting practice puts out a lot of fires. "Our readers get a daily heads-up. Its a real competitive advantage," Oppenheimer said. "Crisis consulting clients become ICB readers, but rarely the reverse, because ICB readers are better prepared to dodge and duck the 800 pot holes and dot com curve balls." "It just keeps getting better," raves ICB News subscriber Scott Richards, President of Dial 800 Inc. "I don't know how they get it, but the information is extremely useful in running our business." "We've invested a lot of money in our brand," concurs Richard Sapio, CEO of MUTUALS.COM. "ICB is our eyes and ears." WEB SITE UPGRADE ICB upgraded its programming and server for faster load, search and navigation to keep ICB's readers -- many of them daily visitors -- in the fast lane. "I follow regulatory and industry news as well as marketing trends, and find every part of ICB's website exceedingly useful and valuable," says Patricia Miller, President, TeleServices, Inc. "ICB on my daily 'must read' list," says Kim Crowther, President of Regal Results, Inc. agrees. "Its a wonderful, informative service." As Glen Davidson, President of ATG Technologies, sums it up, "ICB delivers great bang for the buck. I visit the site almost every day." Register for ICB Toll Free News at http://icbtollfree.com. Registration is free and includes daily HeadsUp Headlines. Registered members can upgrade to Premium Service at any time. ABOUT ICB ICB Toll Free News (http://icbtollfree.com), premier source of 800 and dot com industry news, is owned by ICB Inc., a consulting practice (http://1800TheExpert.com) founded in 1993 and publisher of the WhoSells800.com Toll Free Service Provider Directory (http://whosells800.com). The sites serve approximately 65,000+ visitors logging in over 90,000 user sessions each month. ICB is an industry leader in toll free and domain name intelligence, advising business owners, corporate marketers and the telecom industries since 1993. For more information contact: Judith Oppenheimer, ICB Inc., 160 East 26 Street, Suite 6E, New York, NY 10010. Phone: (212) 684-7210. Toll Free: (800) 843-3973, Email joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com, ICB News Web Site http://icbtollfree.com. ------------------------------ From: No-reply-required Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:14:41 -0400 Organization: Netcom Canada Thanks for the good read. I think any pole and wire is an eye sore. I await the day when wireless technology rules and hydrogen fuel cells are plentiful. No more poles, steel or wood. I wonder how much copper we've got suspended above ground on this planet. PS - I might be in for a long wait. :-) ------------------------------ From: msb@vex.net Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:09:01 EST Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Organization: - Mike Pollock quotes Robert Guy Matthews in The Wall Street Journal: > The U.S. currently has about 90 million wood telephone poles. Steel poles > have tripled since 1997, but they still represent less than 2% of the > market. The key, the steel industry believes, is in the telephone-pole > replacement market: Four million wood poles each year need to be replaced > because of routine maintenance, accidents, construction, and steel's > friend, the woodpecker. About two years ago Toronto Hydro, the local electric company, rewired my street and replaced the old wooden poles with concrete ones. Is concrete not a common choice of for utility poles in the US? Is there an important distinction for some reason between *telephone* poles and those for other utilities? Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab msb@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Greene Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:59:47 -0500 How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires! As long as you're digging up the street to lay pavement, sewers, gas, water, etc., why not just bury the electricity, coax, fiber, telephone cable, etc. along with it? You won't have to worry about drunk drivers mowing down poles and knocking out phone and electrical service. Your modems won't choke when squirrels start chewing on the phone lines. And if the phone/cable companies would just spend the extra money for decent infrastructure like fiber optics and good watertight conduit, they won't have to come dig up the sidewalk in 10 years to replace obsolete cables. Why do they sometimes bury residential feeder cables bare, with no conduit? Isn't that just asking for trouble when a woodchuck decides to burrow through your front yard? Jeremy ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: U.S. Wants Less Web Anonymity Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:19:08 GMT Good grief. Protect us all from more "sweeping new powers" in the hand of the Federal government. If they're the solution, I'd rather live with the problem. In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > by Declan McCullagh > 3:00 a.m. 1.Mar.2000 PST > WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government may need sweeping new powers to > investigate and prosecute future denial-of-service attacks, top law > enforcement officials said Tuesday. > Anonymous remailers and free trial accounts allow hackers and online > pornographers to cloak their identity, deputy attorney general Eric > Holder told a joint congressional panel. > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34659,00.html Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:19:52 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Orders Credit Bureau to Stop Selling Marketing Lists http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/CWFlash/0003024transunione By Sharon Machlis 03/02/2000 The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has ordered Trans Union LLC to stop selling information from its consumer credit reports to third-party marketers. In a statement issued yesterday, the FTC said it told Trans Union to stop selling the target marketing lists through its subsidiary, Performance Data, to outside marketers "who lack an authorized purpose for receiving them under the Fair Credit Reporting Act." Chicago-based Trans Union is one of three nationwide credit bureaus and holds data on roughly 160 million consumers. In a statement issued yesterday, Trans Union vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Trans Union argues that the portion of the Fair Credit Reporting Act barring the sale of consumer data violates the First Amendment. The company says it doesn't sell confidential credit information in its lists, only "names, addresses and types of credit held by consumers." Consumers also can opt out of having their names on those target-market lists. However, the FTC maintains that target marketing isn't a permissible use of credit bureau data under federal law, which was designed to protect the privacy of such data. The unanimous ruling by the FTC involves a complaint first filed in 1992 against Trans Union for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The company has 14 days to file a petition for reconsideration. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:21:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks By Glenn R. Simpson THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 2 - Personal financial information that consumers key into Intuit Corp.'s popular Quicken Web site has been leaking out to advertisers, and the company moved swiftly to address the problem. http://www.msnbc.com/news/376864.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:59:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Puts Hold on tying Personal Info to Online Habits! Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: From: mclark@cdt.org Subject: DoubleClick puts hold on tying Personal Info to Online Habits! Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:55:29 -0500 (EST) Internet advertiser DoubleClick announced today that it will NOT move forward with its plans to tie personally identifiable information to Internet users' online surfing habits until government and industry have reached a consensus on privacy rules for the Internet. You can see DoubleClick's statement at: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/000302doubleclick.shtml This would not have happened without you. Thousands of Internet activists joined CDT's DoubleClick campaign opting out of DoubleClick and writing to its chairman and its partners, complaining about the company's new invasive privacy practice. This really made a difference. Please make sure that those to whom you forwarded our alerts on this issue know that, with their help, the tide is beginning to turn in favor of Internet privacy. CDT will continue to keep you informed about privacy legislation and concerns as well as other issues that will affect the Internet. We have ended our targeted campaign against DoubleClick. CDT will let you know when you are needed to contact someone else about privacy or some other Internet related issue. CDT is still urging those concerned about privacy to use our "Operation Opt-Out" tools at http://optout.cdt.org . This site will help you learn how to get off direct marketing, telemarketing, online profiling and other lists. To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at: http://www.cdt.org/join/ If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at: http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe yourself and then sign up again or contact: mclark@cdt.org Michael Clark, Grassroots Webmaster Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 voice: 202-637-9800 fax: 202-637-0968 mclark@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/ PGP Key available on keyservers ------------------------------ From: Jeremy S. Nichols Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:29:01 -0600 Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus I would like a pair of phone numbers for my phone: one for which I pay the charges, and the other for which the calling party pays. My (U.S.) mobile account gives me first incoming minute free, so I can leave my phone powered on full time risk-free. I am careful to whom I give the number, however, as I don't want to be bombarded with junk calls like I am on my land-line phone. Calling-party-pays would seem to be a disincentive to junk callers and I could be much more free distributing that number. But there are many people who would never call me if it were going to cost them $0.50 US per minute. I would want to give them a free number to call. One potential problem with calling-party-pays is that there is no price pressure. As a mobile subscriber I choose a calling plan to minimize my costs and the carriers compete for my business. As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and have no way to shop for a better rate. I likely won't call. The calling-party-pays plans I have seen here have a per-minute rate 2-5 times the subscriber's rate. It boils down to who's convenience is being served by the mobile phone. Ideally the extra charge for a mobile call would be paid by the party benefitting the most. Of course, this perspective is from someone in an area where all local non-mobile calls have no per-minute charge. Jeremy S. Nichols, PE j.nichols@ieee.org Minneapolis MN USA jsn@tc.umn.edu Maxime Flament wrote in message > By SETH SCHIESEL >> A debate is raging at the Federal Communications Commission about >> whether cellular telephone customers must continue to pay to >> receive calls as well as to make them. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/22phon.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:33:41 -0500 From: Clay Nanton Subject: Telco 214 Licenced Mr. Townson My name is Noel Nanton. I have found your site to be very informative through my many searches. This specific search is one that has stumped me or possible just been starring me in my face due to poor research techniques on my part. I am in search of Telco 214 licensed companies. I am starting my own small business and I am in need of information on these specific licensed companies because I am looking for the same licensing. If possible would you know of any possible areas where I might find some information. If this is a shot in the air It's ok to tell me. I thank you so much for your help and keep this site moving strong. Looking forward to hearing from you. Noel Nanton e-mail - reyel40@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I hope readers with information on the licensing required by Mr. Nanton will write to him to share their information. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Stop Missing Calls While You're Online! Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:38:08 -0500 My answer to the same problem was to set up Call Forwarding On Busy to go to a digital wireless phone with voice mail. This gives me coverage any time that the wireline phone is in use -- for Internet access or otherwise. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did basically the same thing but I included 'Call Forwarding on No Answer' as well as on Busy. This for me allows not having to remember if I turned on forwarding or not. Then if I am on the computer calls go to my voicemail but they will also go there if I walk away from my phone. The nice thing that Southwestern Bell (no United Tel/Sprint here in Independence; they are in Junction City and Fort Riley) only charges $1 per month for the service instead of $8 like Sprint. I forward all those calls to my 800 number which in turn rings my cell phone first and my voicemail second. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Linda Harris Subject: Communication Tower Being Built Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:38:53 GMT We have been approached by a communications company, who wish to put a cellular communications tower on our property. We meet all their requirements regarding site, elevation etc., They had done all their homework before they approached us, and they know its in a prime site. Its known throughout this district, that our area is a black spot for cellular phones. We would like to know, before we go any further, as to the payment for the lease offered by them. The lease is to run for over 50 years. Is there anyone who has had similar dealings with having towers put on their property, and could give us an Idea as to what they were given as payment. Its obvious that they offer you the very minimum as an opening offer. We are curious as to the "going" rate. We live in western PA. Yours Faithfully, Linda Harris e-mail address....Tamworth@voicenet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 3 20:50:57 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA25237; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:50:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:50:57 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003040150.UAA25237@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #8 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:59:48 EST Volume 20 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice (David Chessler) Book Review: "NFS Illustrated", Brent Callaghan (Rob Slade) Re: NXX by NPA (Jim Orr) Re: NXX by NPA (Clarence Dold) Re: NXX by NPA (Larry Finch) Re: NXX by NPA (Tony Pelliccio) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Walter Dnes) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (marc_k) What's That Smell? Oh, It's DoubleClick (Monty Solomon) North American Numbering Plan Proposals - New Discussion Forum (Goldstein)N Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Bill Horne) Re: Wireless Extensions (joe) Latin American Telecom Summit (Laura Garcia) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (John Hines) Re: Communication Tower Being Built (Andrew) Netscape Cookies on a Mac (Isaac Wingfield) Re: Directory Number Fee (Clint CRG) Surf Watch (Rory Matthews) Court Blocks WA School from Suspending Student Over Web Site (M 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:41:20 -0500 From: David Chessler Subject: Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice Content-Location: "http://www.latimes.com/wires/20000302/ tCB00V0757.html" Thursday, March 2, 2000 By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer WASHINGTON--The government is seeking advice from the world's most infamous computer hacker, just weeks after his release from federal prison, about keeping its own electronic networks safe from intruders. In a bizarre twist to the federal prosecution of Kevin Mitnick, a Senate panel today asked him to explain ways hackers infiltrate sensitive computer systems, and to suggest solutions to lawmakers. "I have gained unauthorized access to computer systems at some of the largest corporations on the planet and have successfully penetrated some of the most resilient computer systems ever developed," Mitnick said in prepared remarks. Mitnick, 36, also boasted that over 20 years, he broke into all but one computer system he targeted -- including a California college he victimized that eventually paid him as its consultant in an unusual arrangement he called "hire the hacker." Mitnick, who is prohibited from using any computer or even a cellular telephone for the next three years, was released from prison Jan. 21 after almost five years. He became an underground cause celebre after leading the FBI on a three-year manhunt that ended when investigators traced his electronic signals to an apartment in 1995. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is considering a wide-ranging bill to require agencies to create anti-hacker programs and seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget that such plans are adequate. Mitnick called the legislation "a good first step" and offered a half-dozen suggestions -- such as requiring agencies to assess what data is most valuable and training employees to recognize attacks under way. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., the bill's co-sponsor, said previously "it's only a matter of time" before an intruder into government computers commits serious damage. Another expert, Jack L. Brock Jr. of the General Accounting Office, said nearly all government agencies "are plagued by poor computer security," and cited recent audits that 22 of the largest ones were "not adequately protecting critical federal operations and assets from computer-based attacks." The Environmental Protection Agency temporarily closed its Internet connection weeks ago after GAO found serious risks. The interest from the Senate comes on the heels of sensational electronic attacks against some of the Internet's flagship Web sites. Those attacks didn't compromise the security of the companies, just overwhelmed their services for hours. James Adams, head of Infrastructure Defense Inc., called them "mere pinpricks on the body of e-commerce" and warned that worse -much worse -was possible. He urged Congress to create a new "Office of Business Assurance." The hearing also comes amid a fledgling effort by the government to encourage private companies to collectively share information about computer attacks. Mitnick recently acknowledged that, "I would have never been found or arrested unless several -- not only the federal government but several Internet service providers and telephone companies cooperated together to track my location." But Mitnick also suggested that computer security must include more than updated software or firewalls to keep hackers out. He described in detail his successful efforts to break into AT&T Corp.'s worldwide network: He posed as an executive, he recounted, and called a receptionist, convincing her to fax to him an important password. Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I were in Kevin's position I am not sure at all that I would have cooperated. I would have sent back a note to the investigative committee and told them "you are about five years too late asking for my advice, and furthermore the terms of my probation forbid me to use any sort of computer necessary to assist you." I do not think I would give them any cooperation at all. I think the terms of his probation require him to cooperate with *FBI* and other *investigators*, not with the Congress of the United States. That's just how I feel. Those congress- critters could have had him out of prison at the snap of their fingers years ago if they wanted to. They obviously did not care about him either way; now I would show the same concern for them and their dillema. If I were cited for contempt as a result, I would ask them, "what do you plan to do, lock me up for another four years without a trial like last time?" His case left me feeling very bitter about the US Government's role in his case. If he does decide to 'work along' with Congress I hope he gets up there and rips them into shreds for their dishonesty in calculating the amount of 'damages' he supposedly caused. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:15:16 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "NFS Illustrated, Brent Callaghan Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKNFSILL.RVW 20000129 "NFS Illustrated", Brent Callaghan, 2000, 0-201-32570-5, U$49.95/C$74.95 %A Brent Callaghan %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 2000 %G 0-201-32570-5 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$49.95/C$74.95 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 bkexpress@aw.com %P 513 p. %T "NFS Illustrated" For simple network file and print services, the Network File System (NFS) protocol is a basic cross-platform utility. Frequently referenced in networking texts, NFS is often not covered in detail. This work makes good that shortfall. Chapter one provides a history, including a kind of family tree of previous protocols. External Data Representation (XDR), explained in chapter two, is the data format used by NFS. Open Network Computing (ONC) Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) are outlined in chapter three. Chapter four discusses the various levels available for RPC authentication. The file system model and file/path name considerations, are covered in chapter five. Chapters six and seven detail the functions of NFS 2 and 3 respectively. Common operations of implementations are dealt with in chapter eight. Chapter nine looks at the MOUNT protocol, chapter ten the Lock Manager, and chapter eleven automounting. Variants of NFS are reviewed in chapter twelve. Other distributed file systems are discussed in chapter thirteen, including AFS (Andrew File System), DCE/DFS (Distributed Computing Environment/Distributed File System), and SMB/CIFS (Server Message Block/Common Internet File System). PCNFS is covered in chapter fourteen. Chapter fifteen explains both the considerations in, and programs for, NFS benchmarking. WebNFS is a simplified version, outlined in chapter sixteen. The book closes in chapter seventeen with discussion of the Internet requirements for NFS 4, and the work going on in the Internet Engineering Task Force. Callaghan's text is not bad, but it isn't particularly readable, either. The illustrations are sometimes more puzzling than illuminating. Overall, the book has the necessary information, but it is demanding of the reader, and requires some application. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2000 BKNFSILL.RVW 20000129 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Failure is not an option. It is a privilege reserved only for those who try. http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: Jim Orr Organization: GST Telecom Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:25:12 -0800 No code can go active until it is registered in the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide). The company I work for gets it monthly on a CD in Access form. The Database has several other aspects as well, including the associated LEC Access Tandem, Rate Center association, Wire Center association and Portability information. The monthly update version is $1,500/year from Telcordia. "Robert M. Bryant" wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > Robert M. Bryant > DNAE IBM Team > 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. > White Plains, NY 10601 > (914) 397-8451 > Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: 2 Mar 2000 02:02:34 GMT Organization: a2i network Reply-To: dold@email.rahul.net Robert M. Bryant wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] Not several CDs, only one. http://www.trainfo.com/tra/catalog.htm The LERG is about $700, and contains _all_ the data. The V&H Terminating Point listing has NPA-NXX, city, V&H, about $250. "City" might not be what you think it is, though. Changes are downloadable for free, but I've never looked at that format. The TPM CD includes flat ASCII and MS-Access databases. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Reply-To: LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:02:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet "Robert M. Bryant" wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > Robert M. Bryant > DNAE IBM Team > 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. > White Plains, NY 10601 > (914) 397-8451 > Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] I used to have a program that had it called "NPA" It also had the CO town name, latitude & longitude, V&H, zip code, etc. Took about 4 MB as I recall. The publisher also sold the database separately for ~$500. Bellcore publishes the information on electronic media as the Terminating Point Master (TPM). There is also an ITPM (International). This has other useful information, including special use flags for NXXs such as Cellular, Pager, etc. You subscribe to TPM; it includes monthly updates. I don't remember the cost, but it was reasonable for a business to buy. Larry Finch ::LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com ::(whew!) N 40º 53' 47" W 74º 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:37:19 GMT In article , rmbryant@att.com says: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > Robert M. Bryant > DNAE IBM Team > 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. > White Plains, NY 10601 > (914) 397-8451 > Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] Quite some time ago someone posted an address for a program by the name of NPA for Windows. The web address is http://www.pcconsultant.com and their phone number is 888-456-7950. For $35.00 you get the full version but I'll be honest, it's VERY accurate. Even the newer cell prefixes are listed in it. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Walter Dnes Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:07:46 -0500 On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:14:11 -0600 , Hahn, Ki Suk wrote in article : > I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested > here some time ago and this works ok. But the IE 4.72... that I > sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's > windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named > username@domain.txt ) I've tried to set > this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back. Is > there any way to make it stick? Given how often you have to reboot Windows, try the following line in your AUTOEXEC.BAT... ECHO Y|DEL C:\WINDOWS\COOKIES\*.* Walter Dnes http://www.waltdnes.org SpamDunk Project procmail spamfilters. A picture is worth a thousand words; unfortunately, it consumes the bandwidth of ten thousand words. ------------------------------ From: marc_k@walrus.com (marc_k) Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: 2 Mar 2000 01:57:50 GMT Organization: Walrus Internet Hahn wrote: > From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) > Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust > Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net > Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:09:01 GMT > Organization: AT&T Worldnet >> Which is why I have my browser set to accept only cookies that get >> sent back to the originating server and to warn me before accepting >> any cookies. I always manually reject cookies that are associated >> with advertising and regularly clear both cache and cookies from my >> machine using a batch file I picked off of either Tucows or Zdnet >> (can't remember which). [...] > I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested > here some time ago and this works ok. But the IE 4.72... that I > sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's > windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named > username@domain.txt ) I've tried to set > this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back. Is > there any way to make it stick? > Ki Suk Hahn You might try setting the system flag, as well as the read-only one. Perhaps Windows will respect a system flag better. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:35:29 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: What's That Smell? Oh, It's DoubleClick http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12440,00.html What's That Smell? Oh, It's DoubleClick No stink is more pungent than that of a loser. DoubleClick may not have attained that lowly status just yet, but it's on the ropes. The online advertising company's ongoing tussle with privacy advocates is prompting some clients to walk away, according to a widely cited report in this morning's Wall Street Journal. A News.com report suggests that bucks - not ethics - prompted at least one of the defections. While DoubleClick CEO Kevin O'Connor was copping his typically bullish pose on Net advertising at a New York conference, Kozmo.com CEO Joseph Park was telling the Journal that his company wants out of the DoubleClick circle. The home-delivery site plans a relaunch next month and was planning to dump banner ads even before the DoubleClick controversy arose, Park told the Journal. The brouhaha just confirmed the wisdom of that move, he said. Of course the move had nothing to do with reports that DoubleClick was siphoning the video-rental data of Kozmo customers. AltaVista has also backed away from DoubleClick, according to Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Andrea Petersen. The search engine will switch to an opt-in model, meaning that DoubleClick will only be able to round up the stats of Web surfers who have OK'd the scrutiny. AltaVista's distancing is bad news for DoubleClick, which rakes in 20 percent of its revenues from the portal. For its part, Kozmo hopes it's exchanging the nose-holding aroma of DoubleClick for the sweet smell of greenbacks. News.com identified unnamed sources as the basis for its report that Kozmo is about to file for an IPO. In November, online grocer Webvan made its debut at $15 and opened at $26. Webvan is now trading for less that $12, but hey - isn't it the opening-day pop that counts the most? - Deborah Asbrand AltaVista, Kozmo Distance Themselves From DoubleClick Over Privacy Worries http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB951880945433278787.htm [Paid subscription required.] DoubleClick held at arm's length by partners (Reuters) http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1561080.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1005-200-1561080 DoubleClick: Collecting User Data Is No Crime http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2453151,00.html Kozmo May Deliver Itself to the Public http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-1560962.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif?st.ne.fd.gif.c ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:41:09 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: North American Numbering Plan Proposals - New Discussion Forum The North American Numbering Plan, the rules by which telephone numbers are assigned in the USA, Canada, and some Caribbean countries, is a popular discussion topic here on the Digest. Last November, in response to a previous posting, I mentioned a proposed design for a new NANP that I was working on. I've finished drafting the description of my proposed plan, and I've put it up on a web discussion site. Interested parties are welcome to check in to http://www.delphi.com/nanp . (Delphi is now a discussion-forum web site with free membership. Some might remember it as an early on-line service provider, one of the first to offer Internet access. But that's another tale.) I'm not reopening the usual issues of overlay vs. split, etc. I'm instead taking the long view: What should the NANP be in the future, after the current plan runs out of area codes? There are of course discussions going on in industry forums already. But they're mostly based on making a larger, uglier version of the existing (1947) plan, usually requiring 11 or 12 digit dialing for all calls, even local. (Parenthetically, I realize that number conservation measures such as unassigned number pooling can stretch out the existing number supply well beyond its planned late-aughts exhaust. But that too is a digression.) The proposal I've put up has a different approach. Taking into account the way the telephone network works in North America (i.e., the need for deterministic number length, its special codes like 911, and its uses of 1 and 0), the proposed plan is still more like, say, the British one than the US one. An ideal plan has large enough "areas" so that an "area code" covers as much territory as one did back in the '80s; this means that 8-digit local numbers are permitted. But 7-digit numbers can exist too, so long as an area is all one or the other -- I suggest the Caribbean microstates, for instance, will stay with 7 digits. Area codes in this plan are *always* dialed with a 1 (the UK equivalent is the leading 0), so they are written that way -- 1267, for instance, instead of 1-1267. Geographic USA area codes always begin with 12 or 13; 14 is for non-USA areas. The whole 18 space is for free calls (800, 888, etc... assume that there will be a lot of them) and 19 for premium-rate calls. The 15 space is for nongeographic services, be they voice or data, which will become more important, while 17 is reserved for carrier-specific and subscriber-specific (private) numbers. It's well understood that you can't just go to 8-digit numbers from 7, since there is no room in the plan. This is made very clear on Linc Madison's excellent area code page (http://www.lincmad.com). In order to eventually have 8-digit dialing, a transition period is needed wherein all calls, local and toll, need the area code. (This is where most industry plans stop!) That allows the old 7-digit numbers to be flushed out during a "permissive" period, before 8-digit locals become permissive. Existing 3-digit prefix codes are algorithmically converted to 4-digit ones; since multiple existing area codes are being merged, the old area code determines the second digit of the prefix. The Digest is a great forum but I don't think we should burden Pat with the volume of traffic that this topic sometimes gets, so I request that discussion of this topic be limited to the above forum. Thanks. (And welcome back, Pat!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:38:54 -0500 From: Bill Horne Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Ed Ellers wrote: > I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting > some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me -- > namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor imitation of > a phone line, one which unnecessarily distorts the signal and therefore > blocks the use of V.90 modem connections. If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be. Perhaps a Picturephone system, with unlimited local calling and free installation? To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the signal" is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, insure, and support a DLC system which requires more (and more expensive) maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same services, and costs more to run. All this, so that his V.ridiculous modem wouldn't work? May I suggest your reader put some tinfoil around the walls, to keep the cosmic rays at bay? Sorry to be the messenger bringing bad new, but the cable conduits are full, and the manholes are full: there is no more copper to be had, and in some areas, BA has had to rip out copper cables installed less than five years ago to accommodate fiber. The FCC and your local lawmakers decided that the public interest, convenience, and necessity required Bell Atlantic to lease space under the streets at bargain basement rates, so that the legions of BUSINESS customers whom make campaign contributions may have a choice of DIAL TONE providers to serve their BUSINESS communication needs. BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service: they care only about FAX lines, which work fine over DLC. If they need to move data around, they pay for dedicated, diverse, custom designed DATA circuits to do it. I'm sorry, but civilians whom feel offended about the need for more DIAL TONE in businesses have no recourse other than to Internet mailing lists, while businessmen are able to pick up the phone, call their congressman, and have the call acted on. That's the system we live with. Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. By his own admission, your reader is unable to obtain DSL service (it requires copper), so where's the motivation? This sounds like a complaint that BA didn't design it's VOICE network to accommodate net surfers - well, complain all you want, but 56K modems are a hack that requires a very specialized set of circumstances, and when dial tone demands require DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. After all, they get paid to provide dial tone. Bill Horne ------------------------------ Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here Subject: Re: Wireless Extensions From: joe Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:57:14 -0800 You can get phones from a company in Canada that claim some really L O N G ranges, but they are not approved by the FCC ( or whoever sets the regulations here in the states ). If you are in the US; your best bet would probably be from a company named EnGenius. They have a cordless phone that they claim will work at a range of like 5 miles. ------------------------------ From: LAURA Subject: Latin American Telecom Summit Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:01:06 -0300 Dear Sir, I congratulate you for the web site. It is really interesting. I would very much appreciate it if you can inform me about the Latin American Telecommunications Summit to be held in Lima, Peru, on March 13/16. I have not found information on the web about it. Kind regards, Laura Garcia ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:38:16 -0600 Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. msb@vex.net wrote: > Is there an important distinction for some reason between *telephone* > poles and those for other utilities? In the Chicago metro area, they are power line poles, owned and maintained by Commonwealth Edison, and the telephone, and cable companies lease space from them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity to run the city/village for the lease on the right of way for the poles. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Subject: Re: Communication Tower Being Built Date: 3 Mar 2000 18:46:54 GMT Organization: Kill-9 Industries Linda Harris wrote: > We have been approached by a communications company, who wish to put a > cellular communications tower on our property. > We meet all their requirements regarding site, elevation etc., They > had done all their homework before they approached us, and they know > its in a prime site. Its known throughout this district, that our area > is a black spot for cellular phones. We would like to know, before we > go any further, as to the payment for the lease offered by them. The > lease is to run for over 50 years. Is there anyone who has had > similar dealings with having towers put on their property, and could > give us an Idea as to what they were given as payment. Its obvious > that they offer you the very minimum as an opening offer. We are > curious as to the "going" rate. We live in western PA. Down in here in Atlanta, according to a recent newspaper article, the going rate is $1200/month. AT&T wireless put a tower on some property that my stepfather owns in suburban Minneapolis last year. I haven't quizzed him in detail about the deal, but apparently the amount they pay him is indexed to something because they originally payed him $1000/month and this went up to $1048/month after a few months. The agreement he signed has provisions to let competing wireless providers share the tower in which case each competitor would have to pay my stepfather the same amount that AT&T is paying. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:13:23 -0800 From: Isaac Wingfield Subject: Netscape Cookies on a Mac > From: siegman@stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) > Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust > Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:31:58 -0800 > Organization: Stanford University > In article , Douglas Dunlop > wrote: >> Rather than bother with manually accepting and rejecting cookies, I >> set Netscape to accept all cookies. I also deleted everything below >> the "do not edit" line in the cookies.txt file and set the file >> properties to read only. All cookies are accepted, none are stored ... > I'm guessing this is a Unix system. Is there a way to do the > same thing with the MagicCookie file in Netscape on a Mac? Replace the *file* named "MagicCookie" with a *folder* named "MagicCookie" and Hey Presto! a black hole for cookies -- they just go in and vanish. Isaac ------------------------------ From: clintcrg@aol.com (Clint CRG) Date: 03 Mar 2000 00:19:03 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Directory Number Fee In California there is a monthly fee of $45 per 100 numbers for DID (direct inward dialing directory numbers). Also there is a penalty for droping the numbers in less than three years. Clint Gilliland Menlo Park, CA John Schmerold john@katy.com wrote: > In Missouri, there is no fee for Directory numbers. If you have a > business with 6 lines, you get 6 numbers, despite the fact that you > only need one number. Indeed, the business is better off without 6 > numbers due to prevelance of caller-id. So, why not create a revenue > neutral tariff`q on directory numbers. If a customer wants multiple > numbers, that is fine, but there will be a monthly $3 per line > charge. > Anyone know if this has been tried? Why not? ------------------------------ From: Rory Matthews Subject: Surf Watch Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:21:30 PST Hello Pat, Thought you might enjoy this... Yesterday while at school using the computers I remembered the discussion on the various Internet blocking programs and decided to investigate. My school uses a program called Surf Watch and I was curious to see if they banned your site. As it turned out they didn't block your site at all. But in the process I discovered something else. It seems that when I go through your Anonymous Web Surfing service I'm able to access all those oh-so-naughty sites that are usually inaccessable. It appears your fighting censorship in a way you probably didn't even realize! Rory Matthews [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your kind words of support, Rory. I appreciate your message. Feel free to tell the other guys at your school about Operator Pat and how she supplies things for you guys to look at. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 23:42:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Court Blocks WA School from Suspending Student Over Humorous Web http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n022300c.html Court Blocks WA School from Suspending Student Over Humorous Web Site FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, February 23, 2000 SEATTLE, WA -- In the latest case involving student free speech in cyberspace, a federal judge in Seattle today blocked school administrators from suspending a student because of a web site he had created on his home computer. The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington represented the student in contesting the suspension. "The court recognized today that school officials do not have authority to punish students for exercising their freedom of speech outside of school," said Aaron Caplan, the ACLU of Washington Staff Attorney who represented the student. "Schools need to learn that they can't discipline students who create satires on the Internet." Nick Emmett, the high school senior whom officials in the Kent School District sought to discipline, welcomed the news. "I feel good that the judge understood my rights as a student," he said. "I went to court to fight for my rights because I don't think administrators should be able to make punishments that are unfair." Emmett is a college-bound senior and a co-captain of the Kentlake High School basketball team. On the weekend of February 12 and 13, Nick and a friend posted their own site on the Internet, using the Emmett family computer and AOL account. Nick's father helped set up the graphics. Titled the "Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page," the site was intended as a light-hearted vehicle to promote discussion among the King County school's students. Nick posted compliments to the school's administration, and the home page included the following disclaimer: "This website is meant for entertainment purposes only. In no way, shape, or form is it intended to offend anybody. And to the KL (Kentlake) Administration, ...We love you guys!" At a friend's suggestion, Nick added a fake obituary to the friend's memory; the idea came, in part, from a creative writing class Nick had taken in which students had been assigned to write mock obituaries. This and another obituary written in jest (with the student's permission) proved so popular that other students began posting requests for parody death notices about themselves to be written. As a humorous touch, a feature was added to the Web site enabling people to vote for the next fake obituary. At school, Nick received praise for the Web site from students and teachers alike. On February 16, a television reporter interviewed Nick about the Web site, and a television news report that night suggested that the site had a "hit list" threatening to injure people. Concerned by coverage he considered misleading, Nick and his co-creator closed the site. On February 17, Nick learned that the Kentlake principal was placing him on emergency expulsion, pending an investigation. The next day, Nick received a five-day suspension, causing him to miss a basketball playoff game. He and his parents contacted the ACLU of Washington and with the ACLU's help contested the suspension. "I was surprised they were punishing me and thought it was unfair," Nick said. "I had talked with administrators about the Web site, and they didn't say they had a problem with it. I care about school and want to go to class," he added. After a hearing this morning, Chief Judge John Coughenour of the United States District issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the school district from enforcing the suspension imposed on Nick Emmett. In his ruling Judge Coughenour said, "Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Kentlake High School, the speech was entirely outside of the school's supervision or control." Judge Coughenour cited the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in a 1988 ACLU of Washington case (Burch v. Barker), holding that student distribution of non-school-sponsored material cannot be prohibited "on the basis of undifferentiated fears of possible disturbances or embarrassment to school officials." The judge noted that the school district presented "no evidence that the mock obituaries and voting were intended to threaten anyone, did actually threaten anyone, or manifested any violent tendencies whatsoever." The court's ruling comes as increasing numbers of students are taking freedom of speech into cyberspace. Earlier this month, the Lake Washington School Board decided not to punish three Eastlake High School students represented by the ACLU over a Web site they had created. In 1995, in a much-publicized case, the ACLU of Washington won an out-of-court settlement for Bellevue student Paul Kim after his principal disciplined him for creating a parody of his high school from a home computer. Still pending in the state is an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of a Thurston County high school student who was expelled for a month in 1999 for creating a Web site on his home computer lampooning his school's vice-principal. The ACLU has represented students in similar cases across the country, including Ohio, Missouri and Texas. The pleading filed in the case, as well as the judge's temporary restraining order are available online from the ACLU of Washington at: http://www.aclu-wa.org/ISSUES/students/Kentlake%20TRO/Kentlake%20High%20 School%20Index.htm. Copyright 2000, The American Civil Liberties Union ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Mar 4 16:39:27 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA01225; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:39:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:39:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003042139.QAA01225@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #9 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Mar 0 15:16:16 EST Volume 20 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (Dale Neiburg) Re: Long Lines Bells (Don Kimberlin) Re: Calling-Party Pays (Wireless) (Dave Levenson) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Mark Brukhartz) Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Joel B Levin) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (Paul Rubin) Number of Telephones in the U.S. (Greg Erickson) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Daniel Seyb) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Steve Sobol) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Hudson Leighton) Re: Telco 214 Licenced (Michael Sullivan) Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice (Alan Boritz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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:dneiburg@bpr.org Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 06:23:38 EST Subject: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress FYI. (I haven't obtained reprint permission, but thought you'd like to see this piece.) To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62010-2000Mar2.html Hacker Gives Hill a How-To Just two months ago, America's most notorious computer hacker was wearing prison-issue khakis at California's Lompoc federal penitentiary. Yesterday, Kevin Mitnick sported a pinstriped navy suit and tie and charmed a panel of U.S. senators as a star witness and respected expert on the art of hacking. "If somebody has the time, money and motivation, they can get into any computer," Mitnick told members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which is considering legislation to boost the security of the federal government's networks. Mitnick's testimony comes at a time of surging interest in computer security. The recent attacks by cyber-vandals against Yahoo, Amazon and other prominent New Economy companies have shaken consumer confidence in the burgeoning online medium. And while much of the attention has been paid to computer-cracking tools that can be downloaded from the Internet and used by anyone from a teen to a terrorist, Mitnick raised a more fundamental issue in his testimony. "The weakest link in the security chain," he said, is "the human element." Nobody knows that better than Mitnick, who often was able to get more information by tricking people into giving it up over the phone than by touching a keyboard. Security training and monitoring is as important as improving hardware and software, he suggested. The 36-year-old computer trespasser, who served nearly five years for cell-phone fraud and unauthorized entry into computer systems all over the globe, regaled the crowded room with tales of hoodwinking employees from the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration into disclosing confidential taxpayer information over the telephone. He hastily noted that those exploits occurred in 1992, "which just so happens to be beyond the applicable statute of limitations" for federal computer crimes. Mitnick showed the smooth social skills that helped him to wheedle access to so many computer systems in government and industry, giving earnest advice and engaging in lively banter with star-struck senators. "My motivation was a quest for knowledge, the intellectual challenge, the thrill and the escape from reality," he said, not damaging computers or making money from his exploits. He compared the urge to break into computer systems to the kick of gambling and the allure of cocaine but demurred when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked if he would consider it as "addictive." Back in the days when he began learning about computers, hacking was actually encouraged by some teachers as a way to get students to think about security. Mitnick recalled one teacher assigning him to write a program that would trick users into thinking that they needed to enter their names and passwords and then capture that information. "Of course, I got an 'A,'" he said. Mitnick also railed against the prosecutors who tried him, and against the New York Times, which tracked his case closely; he said he believes that the newspaper goaded the Justice Department into making an example of him. Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Painter, who won the conviction that put Mitnick away, said the testimony accurately portrayed the threat of "human engineering." "The best security system in the world isn't worth much if you can bypass it by getting security people and other people to give you information and he was very good at that," said Painter, who called Mitnick a "cyber-con man." But he scoffed at Mitnick's complaints about the treatment. "He's the one who created the conduct that's all he was charged with, and all he was prosecuted with." Under the unusually stringent conditions of Mitnick's parole, he cannot use a computer or cellular phone for three years; he said he was not allowed to buy a pocket organizer and even had to get permission from his probation officer to get a pager. "I have to live as if I'm part of the Amish," he said. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is purely up to Kevin where to go on this, and it appears he already went before Congress with his testimony, but I personally would have told them to leap off a very high bridge. The treatment he got from the government was very disgraceful and I personally would have given them no cooperation at all. If anything, I would have gone before Congress and publicly encouraged other hackers to continue their work. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:18:46 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells ....Editing a longish thread (Wed Mar 1, 09:56 -0600) > Margaret Hill wrote: >> Are you familiar with LONG LINES? Was this once a telephone company? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "Long Lines" was the informal name >> for AT&T's long distance operation. PAT] > Long Lines was shortened name for AT&T Long Lines. Long Lines was the > long distance arm of the Bell System. ...In actual fact, its proper, complete name was: Long Lines Department of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company ...Trust me. That's what my paychecks from them said. Fred Goodwin asked: > Question on a minor point: didn't the local BOCs own and operate the *intrastate* LD networks prior to Divestiture? I thought LL owned and > operated only the AT&T *interstate* LD network, and that the BOCs had to > spin off to LL their own intrastate, interLATA LD plant at Divestiture? ... In fact, there was a Gordian knot of who-owns-which and who-operates-what in the pre-divstiture Bell System. Where I worked in Florida, Southern Bell had Long Lines operate a great deal of its intrastate plant. Even terminal operations like the sixth floor Private Line Testboard in Miami (which was enormous in size, but that's another story) was perhaps 50% Southern Bell circuits, equipment and operations -- all run by "AT&T" people who answered the same phone number (377-9311) for anything ranging from a 10 mile long FX to Perrine or Hollywood to a transcontinental airline data circuit or press service telephoto circuit. Down on the third floor, intemingled with the rows and rows of interstate L-carrier terminals were bays and bays of ON short-haul carrier terminals to cities ranging from Key West to West Palm Beach, housed, maintained and operated by AT&T personnel for Southern Bell. Up on the seventh floor, there was a Collins microwave to Fort Lauderdale that carried about 2400 voice channels for Southern Bell. By and large, Southern Bell ran its own repeatered transmission lines and the terminals in the outlying cities, and the layout engineering was done by Southern Bell at Jacksonville, but the documents always named the "control office" as "Miami 1," which made the AT&T people the focus of operations and maintenance. Of course, accounting for all that meant a heap of paper and records, which was supposedly settled somewhere in the bowels of the books of the integrated Bell System. ... As recently as five years ago, I was in the Southern Bell building on Caldwell Street in downtown Charlotte. There, one could still find many areas of the plant floors that had wandering yellow stripes painted on them demarcating Southern Bell from AT&T space. All these years later, it's still not been feasible to physically separate the plant of the two entities. Donald E. Kimberlin, NCE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 08:22:45 -0500 From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Re: Calling-Party Pays (Wireless) Calling-party-pays is fine if the caller knows about it. I suggest that CPP wireless numbers be given a distinctive area code (e.g. 900) so that callers will be alerted to the fact that they will be charged an abnormal rate for such calls. This will enable companies who don't want to pay for these calls when made by their employees to block them. It will enable resellers like hotels, payphone providers, and schools to assess the charges correctly to their guests, customers, or students. If CPP numbers with un-documented charges are hidden among ordinary- looking NANPA numbers, then it gives the wireless providers a license to steal from unsuspecting consumers. -Dave Levenson, Westmark, Inc. PS: Pat: it's great to see you back on the net. Hope your recovery continues! ------------------------------ From: Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:54:44 -0600 Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Unless ``calling party pays'' mobile phone charges can be trivially determined from the mobile number, we'd have to expect payphone and hotel telephones to block calls to all of the provider's numbers. Since third-party billing systems cannot listen to recorded fee notifications, they cannot determine how much to charge for a call. Without that information, third party phone operators will have no choice other than to block the calls. This is a major reason why 500 numbers were a dismal failure. They were blocked from payphones, hotel phones and even some office PBX systems because the charges were unpredictable, and possibly steep. Business travelers, the initial market for 500 one-number services, could not use them from their hotels and airport payphones. A solution might be to allocate new area codes for ``calling party pays'' mobile telephones, allocate exchanges to mobile carriers, and require mobile phone carriers to give three months' notice of calling party fee changes. The lead time would be necessary for third party operators to update their systems. Personally, I agree that ``calling party pays'' in the United States would raise the price of calling mobile phones to the point of pain. There is little restraint to imposing fees on non-customers. Witness the explosion of non-customer automatic teller machines fees. In the USA, it is now common to pay about $1.50 to use another bank's ATM. Even though most ATMs were deployed before these fees were permitted. -Mark ------------------------------ From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Organization: self Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:35:04 -0600 Of course, Intuit doesn't mind knowing every time you read email which they sent to you. Look at Intuit HTML email with ID codes in URLs. ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:19:20 GMT In , John Hines wrote: > In the Chicago metro area, they are power line poles, owned and > maintained by Commonwealth Edison, and the telephone, and cable > companies lease space from them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity > to run the city/village for the lease on the right of way for the > poles. In much of New England this was handled by agreements between the local electric companies (especially where an electric company covers much of a state) and New England Tel, when it existed: in alternate towns the utility owned the poles, and in the rest Telco owned them. These were presumably assigned on such a basis that the pole ownership was fairly equal and no one had to pay anyone (well, except the cable TV companies, when they arrived, and they had to pay everyone). On the main topic, out here in the wide open flat desert, shortly after we arrived here a year ago USWest (or APS, the power company, I don't know which) started using steel or aluminum poles instead of wood. People are moving in quite rapidly (for around here) and it's easy to see where new houses are moving in from the growth of metal among the wood. /JBL ------------------------------ From: phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:24:47 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Ryan Shook wrote: > There are several possibilities to get around doubleclick.net. > [good ideas snipped] My favorite tool these days is the junkbuster proxy, www.junkbusters.com. It's free, includes source code, is highly configurable, and removes the referer header from outgoing requests (the referer header is even more invasive than a cookie, in some situations). ------------------------------ From: GERICLAW@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:43:10 EST Subject: Number of Telephones in the U.S. Could you tell me how many telephones are currently in the U.S.A. broken down into Business and Residential or where I can go to research such information? I went to the Census but they are always having difficulties. Anything you could provide I would appreciate. Greg Ericksen Bountiful, Utah ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:36:51 -0500 Bill Horne wrote: > If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone > line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be." Easy -- one that doesn't cause the distortion that a poorly implemented DLC system causes. Specifically, the DLC system should be implemented in such a way that the digital audio signal coming into the switch is passed, *unaltered,* to the end of the DLC system where the subscriber loop begins, and vice versa. If the telcos did that then a DLC system would in fact be superior to a copper loop going back to the switch. But that isn't what they are doing -- they're using the DLC between the loop and a normal line card, so the signal gets converted *three times* instead of once. > "To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the > signal" is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would > spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, > insure, and support a DLC system which requires more (and more > expensive) maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same > services, and costs more to run." No, I am saying that BellSouth -- and now apparently Bell Atlantic -- is doing so in an incompetent fashion. > "All this, so that his V.ridiculous modem wouldn't work? May I suggest your > reader put some tinfoil around the walls, to keep the cosmic rays at bay?" Might I suggest that you are making the wrong inferences -- that I'm not accusing the telcos of some nefarious plot, but of simple negligence backed by arrogance? > "Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money just > to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive." And, once again, that is not the claim I am making. > "This sounds like a complaint that BA didn't design it's VOICE network to > accommodate net surfers - well, complain all you want, but 56K modems are a > hack that requires a very specialized set of circumstances..." No, V.90 modems simply require one D/A conversion rather than several, something that is not a problem for customers served by conventional copper pairs, and would not be a problem with a proper DLC implementation. > "...and when dial tone demands require DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. > After all, they get paid to provide dial tone. No, telcos get paid to provide *communications services,* and if those services are inferior to what they are known to be capable of, they should get called on it. ------------------------------ From: daniel seyb Organization: someday, maybe Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 03:52:35 +0000 Hey, Bill, easy up a little. I'll respond to only a couple of your points: First, you must have spent your life working for much larger companies than I have, to assume that EVERY business has deep pockets and a pipeline to their congressman. Second, Mr Ellers was complaining that Bell Atlantic was cutting corners on the installation. You attacked him for complaining, but didn't dispute his claim. Third, if Bell Atlantic is indeed tearing out cable they installed "less than five years ago", what you have is bad planning. Five years ago was 1995. The cable Mr Horne is talking about was installed in 1996, or even later. And one tip for Mr Ellers: When i was living in New Jersey, i used BAnet as an ISP, just as Mr Horne is now. I almost never used the service, but i was paying protection money. When i had a problem, (which was often) i would get the same "we don't support the Internet" response Mr Horne is spewing. It was useful to point out that i was using a Bell Titanic product. dan Bill Horne wrote: > Ed Ellers wrote: >> I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting >> some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me -- >> namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor >> imitation of blocks the use of V.90 modem connections. > If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone > line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be. > Perhaps a Picturephone system, with unlimited local calling and free > installation? > To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the signal" > is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would spend > hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, insure, > and support a DLC system which requires more (and more expensive) > maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same services, and > costs more to run. > All this, so that his V.ridiculous modem wouldn't work? May I suggest > your reader put some tinfoil around the walls, to keep the cosmic rays > at bay? > Sorry to be the messenger bringing bad new, but the cable conduits are > full, and the manholes are full: there is no more copper to be had, > and in some areas, BA has had to rip out copper cables installed less > than five years ago to accommodate fiber. The FCC and your local > lawmakers decided that the public interest, convenience, and necessity > required Bell Atlantic to lease space under the streets at bargain > basement rates, so that the legions of BUSINESS customers whom make > campaign contributions may have a choice of DIAL TONE providers to > serve their BUSINESS communication needs. > BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service: > they care only about FAX lines, which work fine over DLC. If they > need to move data around, they pay for dedicated, diverse, custom > designed DATA circuits to do it. > I'm sorry, but civilians whom feel offended about the need for more > DIAL TONE in businesses have no recourse other than to Internet > mailing lists, while businessmen are able to pick up the phone, call > their congressman, and have the call acted on. That's the system we > live with. > Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money > just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. By his own > admission, your reader is unable to obtain DSL service (it requires > copper), so where's the motivation? This sounds like a complaint that > BA didn't design it's VOICE network to accommodate net surfers - well, > complain all you want, but 56K modems are a hack that requires a very > specialized set of circumstances, and when dial tone demands require > DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. After all, they get paid to > provide dial tone. News Flash: Microsoft acquires Electrolux, makes extensive design revisions. Finally releases a product that doesn't suck. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.Net (Steve Sobol) Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: 4 Mar 2000 03:28:07 GMT Organization: New Age Consulting Service Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA 'Bill Horne' wrote: > BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service I beg to differ, Bill. As someone who owns a company that provides such services -- or at least contracts with others to do so :) -- and who has worked for several other companies that also have, I can confirm that while medium-sized and larger businesses tend to prefer leased lines, frame relay, ISDN and other broadband offerings, there are still plenty of smaller companies that are fine with just a computer and a modem. > Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money > just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. By his own > admission, your reader is unable to obtain DSL service (it requires > copper), so where's the motivation? This sounds like a complaint that > BA didn't design it's VOICE network to accommodate net surfers - well, > complain all you want, but 56K modems are a hack that requires a very > specialized set of circumstances, and when dial tone demands require > DLC equipment, that's what BA uses. After all, they get paid to > provide dial tone. Good points. North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET ------------------------------ From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:33:34 -0600 Organization: MRRP In article , Jeremy Greene wrote: > How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to > use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires! As > long as you're digging up the street to lay pavement, sewers, gas, > water, etc., why not just bury the electricity, coax, fiber, telephone > cable, etc. along with it? You won't have to worry about drunk > drivers mowing down poles and knocking out phone and electrical > service. Your modems won't choke when squirrels start chewing on the > phone lines. And if the phone/cable companies would just spend the > extra money for decent infrastructure like fiber optics and good > watertight conduit, they won't have to come dig up the sidewalk in 10 > years to replace obsolete cables. Why do they sometimes bury > residential feeder cables bare, with no conduit? Isn't that just > asking for trouble when a woodchuck decides to burrow through your > front yard? > Jeremy An then you can wait weeks while they dig it all up to find a problem, broken wire lines are real easy to spot, repair, replace. Check out some of the various New York City area blackout stories. I seem to remember that buried utilties cost three times more to install and have less that 1/2 the life of pole lines. Also the locals have a harder time killing themselves when digging fence post holes. Hudson http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Telco 214 Licenced Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 04:01:04 GMT Clay Nanton wrote: > My name is Noel Nanton. I have found your site to be very > informative through my many searches. This specific search is one that > has stumped me or possible just been starring me in my face due to poor > research techniques on my part. I am in search of Telco 214 licensed > companies. I am starting my own small business and I am in need of > information on these specific licensed companies because I am looking > for the same licensing. If possible would you know of any possible > areas where I might find some information. If this is a shot in the air > It's ok to tell me. I thank you so much for your help and keep this > site moving strong. Looking forward to hearing from you. Noel, the FCC issues Section 214 authorizations to companies wishing to provide international common carrier service outbound from the United States. A list of authorizations and pending applications (and with a click you can view information about the companies and their authorizations) is online at: http://dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/beta/ib_beta/reports/itc.htm Be forewarned that the file of Section 214 holders is a very large (multimegabyte) HTML table. Not good news on a dialup connection. Information on applying for a Section 214 authorization for nondominant international carriers is available from the .pdf guide to Electronic Section 214 filings on the same page (this is about a 10 megabyte .pdf file, be forewarned). Section 214 authorizations are also issued to dominant common carriers providing domestic service -- specifically, local exchange carriers. I don't believe these are available online, but the local exchange carriers' access tariffs are available online at: http://svartifoss.fcc.gov:8080/prod/ccb/etfs Good luck. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: Infamous Hacker Sought for Advice Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:59:25 -0500 Organization: Dyslexics Untie David Chessler wrote: > Content-Location: "http://www.latimes.com/wires/20000302/ tCB00V0757.html" > Thursday, March 2, 2000 > By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer > WASHINGTON--The government is seeking advice from the world's > most infamous computer hacker, just weeks after his release from > federal prison, about keeping its own electronic networks safe > from intruders. > In a bizarre twist to the federal prosecution of Kevin Mitnick, > a Senate panel today asked him to explain ways hackers infiltrate > sensitive computer systems, and to suggest solutions to > lawmakers... [Details of pointless legislation, political posturing, and general CYA behavior deleted] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If I were in Kevin's position I am > not sure at all that I would have cooperated. I would have sent > back a note to the investigative committee and told them "you are > about five years too late asking for my advice, and furthermore > the terms of my probation forbid me to use any sort of computer > necessary to assist you." No, perhaps you might not. If you were treated like a mushroom for long enough, you might do something to prevent your freedom (what there was of it) from being taken away from you again, if you were in Mitnick's shoes. > His case left me feeling > very bitter about the US Government's role in his case. If he does > decide to 'work along' with Congress I hope he gets up there and > rips them into shreds for their dishonesty in calculating the > amount of 'damages' he supposedly caused. PAT] I think you're missing the point. Many of those "victims" who helped put Mitnick in jail more than likely should have been put on the unemployment line. There's a growing complacency with incompetence that's victimizing the wrong parties in these kind of situations. An organization that experiences a computer security intrusion shouldn't be crying to their lawmakers for legislation, they should be showing their system administrators the door. Alan p.s. Good to have you back! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #9 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Mar 5 18:37:56 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA20667; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:37:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:37:56 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003052337.SAA20667@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #10 ] TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:43:22 EST Volume 20 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (David Chessler) Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (John Willkie) Re: Communication Tower (Linda Harris) Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (John David Galt) Re: NXX by NPA (Leonard Erickson) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Will Roberts) Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Joe Machado) Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust (No Spam) Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe (Steve Hayes) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Justa Lurker) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (The Old Bear) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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, 05 Mar 2000 13:13:06 -0500 From: David Chessler Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress TELECOM Digest Editor responded to dneiburg@bpr.org who quoted a news source: <<>> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is purely up to Kevin where to go > on this, and it appears he already went before Congress with his > testimony, but I personally would have told them to leap off a very > high bridge. The treatment he got from the government was very > disgraceful and I personally would have given them no cooperation at > all. If anything, I would have gone before Congress and publicly > encouraged other hackers to continue their work. PAT] You assume that the Government is monolithic. It's not, and Congress is often at odds with the executive agencies that seek to enforce the laws that Congress botches up ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H writes. Mitnick may not need publicity among the cognizenti (I guess that's us), but his career as a black-hat hacker is probably over. He's now repositioning himself as a "security consultant," quite possibly to the CIS departments of the same government agencies and private companies (such as the New York Times) that tried so hard to put him in jail. Moreover, he can do this without ever actually *touching* a computer. (He may be high-paid enough to do what little actual computer work he must do by dictating to a typist, as Dick Stallman did when he had carpel tunnel syndrome.) Indeed, as reported in this story, Mitnick got the endorsement of his persecutor: [sic] > Los Angeles Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Painter, who won the > conviction that put Mitnick away, said the testimony accurately > portrayed the threat of "human engineering." "The best security > system in the world isn't worth much if you can bypass it by getting > security people and other people to give you information and he > was very good at that," said Painter, who called Mitnick a "cyber-con > man." That is surely good for Mitnick's future security business, giving lectures on "human engineering." Kevin Mitnick knows *exactly* what he's doing, and he's playing those Senators (and prosecutors) like a violin. ------------------------------ From: John Willkie Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:45:14 -0800 Pat; Just how could the "congress critters" (or even one of them) just snapped their fingers to get Mitnick out of jail a year ago? Last time I checked, Congress had no power to overturn a court order, and judgments are court orders, or to pass bills ex-post facto (after the fact) or to pass bills of attainder (affecting one person.) John Willkie [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They certainly can pass bills which affect one person, although it is not done a lot. I think at the very least, they might have held a hearing a year or two ago, placed Janet Reno and a couple of her head honchos on a hot seat and asked her, 'Just why is Kevin Mitnick, a national hero in the estimation of many in this country being held in prison unconstitutionally without any trial for four years?' When they finally got around to letting him out of prison, he should have been allowed to walk freely, without any restrictions whatsoever on his speech or actions. They could have done a lot for him, but chose not to. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Linda Harris Subject: Re: Communication Tower Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:53:34 GMT First of all, thank you to everyone that has responded to our query. I will e-mail all concerned ASAP. We are a farm, southwest of Pittsburgh PA, with an elevation Bench Marker on our property of 1320ft above sea level. The site for the Tower is even higher than the Marker. From the intended site, you can see for a radius of over 30 miles. Saying this, it does not affect any property apart from our own. We have road access already in place, telephone cable and electricity. The site is a perfect spot for the erection of a tower. The tower company is offering us $5,000 per annum, with a 15% increase every 5 years. The lease will run for 55 years. We feel that because we are farmers, and the way farming has declined over the last few years, the tower company is taking advantage, thinking that we will snap up their offer. Obviously they want to get the site for the best possible price, we on the other hand feel that we should try and negotiate to get a fair and more reasonable offer. After all this will affect the next generation on the farm and possibly the one after that. We have read and re read all the e-mails that we have received, and will reply to them all, within the next day or so. Please e-mail me if you have anything more to say since receiving more details. Yours Faithfully, Linda Harris ------------------------------ From: John David Galt@acm.org Organization: Association for Computing Machinery Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 02:36:44 GMT Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote: > Of course, Intuit doesn't mind knowing every time you read email which > they sent to you. Look at Intuit HTML email with ID codes in URLs. I've seen such code used in both e-mail spam and newsgroup postings, and Netscape Communicator automatically executes it upon viewing the message. (Communicator has settings to turn off Java and JavaScript in messages, but not HTML. The only reliable way to avoid connecting to the web site in such cases is to download your messages, unplug your PC from the network, then read the messages.) I have complained to Netscape, was brushed off, and even wrote the problem up in comp.risks. I don't know if MSIE or other Internet software has the same vulnerability. Combine this with a malicious web page, and it will give the lie to the old saw that you can't get a computer virus merely by reading a message. Maybe after this happens and hurts enough people, Netscape will do something. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 18:00:00 PST Organization: Shadownet dold@email.rahul.net writes: > Robert M. Bryant wrote: >> Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say >> the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. >> And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] > Not several CDs, only one. > http://www.trainfo.com/tra/catalog.htm > The LERG is about $700, and contains _all_ the data. > The V&H Terminating Point listing has NPA-NXX, city, V&H, about $250. > "City" might not be what you think it is, though. Better yet, you can visit www.nanpa.com and down load the available and utilized NPA-NXX combos for regions. I'm in oregon so I grab WNAVAIL.ZIP and WNUTLZD.ZIP. (W for Western, N for northern). Here's a sample of WNAVAIL.TXT: State NPA-NXX File Updated 02/29/2000 CO 719-200 CO 719-201 CO 719-202 Here's a sample of WNUTLZD.TXT: State NPA-NXX OCN Company RateCenter Switch EffectiveDate File Updated 02/29/2000 CO 303-200 7378 TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP - CO DENVER AURRCOBUDS0 CO 303-201 6584 THE WESTLINK COMPANY DENVER WMNSCODFCM1 CO 303-202 9636 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS - MOUNTAIN BELL DENVER LKWDCOMADS0 There are 6 or 7 regions. Alas, Canada isn't included in any of them. I think the Caribbean is included in one of them. If anyone knows of a free source for similar tables for Canada, I'd be interested. I'd also be interested in finding out why NANPA *doesn't* include Canadian info beyond areacodes! Last time I looked Canada *was* part of the "North American Numbering Plan Area". Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts) Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:20:16 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Bill Horne writes: > Ed Ellersa wrote: >> I see from The Washington Post that Bell Atlantic has now started shafting >> some of its customers in the same way that BellSouth is shafting me -- >> namely, by using digital loop carrier systems to provide a poor imitation of >> a phone line, one which unnecessarily distorts the signal and therefore >> blocks the use of V.90 modem connections. > If your reader feels that a DLC system is a "poor imitation of a phone > line", then I'm curious what he feels a good "imitation" would be. > To say that a Digital Loop Carrier "unnecessarily distorts the signal" > is a very arrogant way of inferring that Bell Atlantic would spend > hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, equip, install, insure, > and support a DLC system which requires more (and more expensive) > maintenance than copper wires, can't offer the same services, and > costs more to run. It seems that there are two issues concerning the use of subscriber loop carrier arrangements: v.90 modems and xDSL capabilities. I more or less agree with Bill Horne concerning xDSL -- you just can't make copper pairs appear out of nowhere. The incumbent telco is not in the business building copper plant anymore (unless, of course, the incumbent telco sees xDSL as a line of business it wants to be in.) But the v.90 modem problems are just plain lazy engineering even if not a conspiracy. (or maybe a little bit of both) There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several occassions. If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where the analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a vault near the subcribers' homes. As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the problems arise when these digital carrier arrangements are improperly configured -- or when somebody uses them at *both* ends, converting back to analog before presenting the loop to the CO switch. If the ILEC wanted to accommodate v.90 modem traffic (and those nasty long duration calls which internet junkies and VPN-using telecommmuters make), the very well could. The thing that amazes me most, however, is the difficulty that the ILECs seem to have in understanding that CLECs are not going to go away and that if they stopped digging in their heels they could make their wholesale business very profitable indeed. If the 'carrier hotels' that are spring up can make money renting space to various service providers, why aren't the ILEC's building or leasing vault space in subdivisions or city blocks where they can terminate short subscriber copper loops and lease rack space and fiber backhaul to wherever. Nobody's going to build competing last mile facilities if the ILECs maintain their advanatage as efficient producers and progressive stewards of that portion of their plant. Somehow, however, I think that the ILECs are so focused on long distance services -- ironically an increasingly competitive market with decreasing margins and under the sword of Damocles caleld internet telephony -- that they cannot figure out the long-term profit opportunities imbedded in their local plant, engineering expertise, relationships with local government, and remaining craft workers. ------------------------------ From: Joe Machado Subject: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 00:15:43 -0600 It may have started with Eniac, the big beast that would perform calculations quicker than a human could, supposedly. Soon, the need arose for more computing power and a smaller footprint. IBM and folks provided the solutions but still more power and a smaller footprint was needed, especially one where people could easily use the beast. Gates and Jobs provided the footprint and solution, later Compaq and IBM, and soon we were computing on the desktop as well as the data center. My old Kaypro 10, with its CPM operating system could perhaps be considered an early form of mobile computing; just latch the keyboard on and take the whole thing to another location. Wonderful stuff! Laptops later came and got better screens, video, and power. Now we could really compute anywhere! The trend continued and motherboards got smaller as did 'mainframes', while also gaining in computing power. These communication resources were not sufficient, we also needed to speak to one another no matter where we were. Portable phones provided the answer ( no pun intended ) and it looks as if just about everyone in modern civilization today has a cell phone. However, if you could speak using a cellular telephone, and surf using the laptop, why not have the information one gets while surfing on the telephone? Sure, there was the matter of different screen sizes and amount of content, but WAP fixed all that. Now, you can speak on the cell phone, surf the net, receive and send emails and messages, and more, all on the same unit, the cellular telephone. You can also speak through your computer with someone else far away, and for free ... oh no! That is just free stuff, not WAP ). Wonderful opportunities, very interesting, and great fun!!! Excuse me, but is miniaturization going on? Yes, the world is shrinking due to the convergence of technologies and the accessibility we realize by using them, but, is not the technology also shrinking? It seems that what we are trying to do is exert ourselves into the many possibilities available not just as we knew them with a telephone and a computer, but also our realizations due to maturation of the Web with our participation in it, and all by using one single device. ( BTW, where is my cellular Cisco Pix on a chip? Also, can other people hear and see what I am doing? And, am I frying my brain or ear drum with this new gizmo? ). All the things we can do with multiple devices we can now do ( just about ) with one small handheld unit that can fit in a pocket on our clothes. This technology is cool, interesting, useful, and at many times necessary. It is also affordable for many. The technology really works and virtually anywhere, thanks to the big boys, including the Satellite folks! Hopefully everyone will be able to partake of these many options. My question is when are we going to stop using screens? Instead of screens an image could be projected using Red, Green, and Blue from a transmitter in glasses, or from a pendant, or from a wristwatch, or some other such device that does not use a screen to deliver the content. We could also use holographic projections and project the image into 3d space, again, in color. Why can't we look at a web page projected in front of us in space in a size that is relevant, complete with sound and all the content? Why can't we enter a web site and move around in it? Going to the grocery store ahem...) might really be fun, especially if other people were also in the site at the same time. Why can't we see the scene or image and engage in 3d communication with others from a chip planted in our brain? Why can't we think and realize the intent? Will we have to discuss the collective unconscious and how to not just materialize it but also use it? Do we need a chip in our brain? Would I not prefer being in my own home with my family instead of with the world in 3d virtual space? So how do we do a holographic projection that can fill a room? What kind of power source would be required for a set of glasses to deliver a 2 foot by 2 foot image in front of our faces? What technology would be required? Interesting issues and they are pressing. I think some grandchildren today will provide the answers, hopefully sooner than we are ready for them to. The way they would relate with each other would still be as we know it today, an age thing, but their communication would be more meaningful, complete, sharing, and indeed diverse, as well as dimensional. Why? Because they have bridged time and space and now share the world through common experiences ( can the new Cisco PIX prevent my daughter from being with that guy? ). Hopefully they would not forget us, but we are history moving forward. In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page or a NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield instead of the speedometer? ------------------------------ From: No Spam Subject: Re: DoubleClick Looks to Regain Surfers' Trust Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:44:25 +1000 Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct I prefer a piece of shareware called cookie pal. Best $15 dollars I have spent. It remembers who I want to give cookies to, who I don't want to give cookies to. It can even get down to a host in a particular domain. For the intrusive sites, it just accepts all cookies, doesn't put them anywhere though ... On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:54:54 -0500, Ryan Shook wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, it was written: > >> I've set my Netscape cookies.txt file to read-only as was suggested >> here some time ago and this works ok. But the IE 4.72... that I >> sometimes use has a folder that contains these cookies. (NT's >> windows\profiles\username\cookies folder with files named >> username@domain.txt ) I've tried to set >> this folder to read-only but that permission gets changed back. Is >> there any way to make it stick? > >There are several possibilities to get around doubleclick.net. > 1) most computers have some sort of hosts file where the TCP/IP drivers try > to lookup domain names there before consulting with a DNS. Insert the > major doubleclick servers and set their IP address to 127.0.0.1. This > makes your browser think that you are doubleclick.net and try to retrieve > the banner from your computer which it obviously won't provide. The gotcha > is that with IE5 you get sent to "this page can't be loaded" far too > often, there is something fancy going on where doubleclick seems to be > executing a script or something. > 2) because 1) is flawed I found another solution. in IE5 there are security > zones set. Tools | Internet Options | Security. You can add domains to a > security zone. By default most everything is considered in the internet > domain. Instead ad *.doubleclick.net to the restricted sites list. I have > *.doubleclick.net and *.ads.*. Then go through the list of rights given to > restricted sites and make sure they can't play with cookies. I believe it > is set that way by default. > The trouble with solutions that completely turn off cookies (you can do > that in the above mentinoed "internet domain" is that they are truly > useful and sometimes necessary. By the nature of the web it is not really > connection based. You make and break hundreds of connections as you surf > instead of making a connection when you start at a website and break the > connection when you go elsewhere. For this reason it is difficult for web > servers to have a sense of state. Cookies allow a sense of state. They > allow a server to recognize you and serve content appropriately based on > information they saved in their databases. This is used by banks, > airlines, car companies that let you "build" a car online, and yahoo > finance so it can remember your customizations and many other groups who > use the technology properly. Unfortunately it is hard to control abuses. > The "security domain" settings in IE4 & 5 are tricky, I'm still trying to > find a combination that lets me get what I want productively from websites > while not letting me become too much of a statistic. ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: An Electronic Spy Scare Is Alarming Europe Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:15:57 +0000 Hi Pat and everyone, In TELECOM Digest V20 issue 4, Monty Solomon forwarded an article by Suzanne Daley about concerns with potential commercial espionage via the Echelon network. This network is run by the U.S. with various English speaking allies including Britain and intercepts all sorts of telephone, fax and e-mail traffic. Supposedly the network is used to gather intelligence about terrorists and drug traffickers (and, when it was dreamt up, about our Cold War adversaries of course). However, it is obvious to anyone that it can also intercept commercially sensitive information and this is what most concerned the French government when it kicked off the furor. In V20 issue 5, W.D.A. Geary pointed out that it is a bit rich of the French to complain about this in view of their long record of commercial espionage. This is quite true but the U.S. has an equally sordid record and I'm sure that Britain wouldn't fare any better if the facts were all known. If someone warns you not to leave your front door unlocked, you should listen even more carefully if you know that they are a burglar -- after all who would know more about the dangers. There is a story about the well known novelist and politician Jeffrey Archer which non-British readers may not have heard. Some years ago, a friend of Archer made a nice profit on some Anglia TV shares which he bought (or did Archer buy them in his name?) just before a takeover bid was announced. Archer's wife was a director of Anglia TV and the authorities suspected insider trading. Even if Mrs. Archer had kept quiet about the bid, she had been sent faxes about it which must have been hanging out of the Archers' fax machine until she collected them. Even in a case like that, the authorities could not prove anything and the case was dropped. Archer has since come unstuck over a completely unrelated scandal from his past. The point is that if even a case like this is inconclusive, what are the chances of detection - let alone prosecution - if similar information was leaked after it was intercepted by a network like Echelon. The spying agencies (especially the CIA) have long records of partnership with criminals (e.g. drug traffickers) where they could further the agencies' other goals. On top of that, information is passed to politicians who are rarely adverse to a bit of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" (see the current French Elf Oil scandals). Then of course, low level personnel in the agencies may seize their own opportunities. As an old cynic, I suspect that it's private gain rather than the desire to catch terrorists which explains the willingness of governments to fund systems like Echelon. The French have now warned their European partners and companies as well as everyone else that no e-mail, phone call or fax is safe from prying eyes (unless strong encryption is used). I don't think we need be paranoid about the insignificant details of our everyday lives but no-one should send unprotected information which would be worthy of exploitation by someone else. I think that the French have done us all a great service and only wish that my country was not being used so blatantly as part of this network. Steve Hayes South Wales, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:26:50 -0700 From: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Please post to CDT) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:25:53 GMT Organization: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. It was Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:54:44 -0600, and Mark.Brukhartz@wdr.com wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > Personally, I agree that ``calling party pays'' in the United States > would raise the price of calling mobile phones to the point of pain. The point of pain would at least be on the person who decided to make that call. Cellular Caller ID would help, but I carry a cell phone so that certain people can always reach me. I don't want to pay for calls from just anyone, so my number remains private. And the cell company loses business because those calls are never made. I believe that caller pays would lead to an increase of cell phone usage, sharing the infrastructure costs out over more minutes of actual use, and lowering the overall rate paid per minute to the point where calling a cell would cost the calling party a reasonable rate. I would be willing to give out that number more (since I don't have to pay for it) and, just as it is in caller party pays countries, usage goes up. > There is little restraint to imposing fees on non-customers. Witness > the explosion of non-customer automatic teller machines fees. In the > USA, it is now common to pay about $1.50 to use another bank's ATM. > Even though most ATMs were deployed before these fees were permitted. If I use a 'foreign ATM' I am in a sense a customer of that institution. They pay to maintain the location, stock the machine, and network to the national system. I realize that they would spend that money for their own customers only, to a certain extent, but there is cost involved, and some banks have chosen to charge fees instead of eating them. (I also get to pay to talk to a teller at my bank, where I AM a customer. Fees are getting out of hand.) Foreign ATM fees have been around for years, and I dispute your claim that 'most ATMs' were deployed before fees. Too many "ATM Inside" gas station and mall locations popping up over the past few years. I'd like to see some real numbers from the US on the Caller Pays issue. Cincinatti would be a good place to start as they have had a mix of caller pays and cellphone pays prefixes for many years. The foreign trends look good, but it would be nice to see NANP numbers. JL ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:46:44 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton) writes: > Jeremy Greene wrote: >> How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to >> use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires! > And then you can wait weeks while they dig it all up to find a problem, > broken wire lines are real easy to spot, repair, replace. > Check out some of the various New York City area blackout stories. > I seem to remember that buried utilties cost three times more to > install and have less that 1/2 the life of pole lines. > Also the locals have a harder time killing themselves when digging > fence post holes. San Francisco, and many California communities, have been working to place overhead wiring underground for several decades. One serious drawback to overhead wires is that they tend to suffer damage in large earthquakes when the spacing between the tops of the poles oscillates wildly. Obviously, maintaining emergency communications is a issue. But even more is the risk imposed by fallen power lines and poles which can and do become debris blocking streets and preventing access by emergency vehicles. Poles don't go away after an undergrounding project, however. They are still needed in some form to support street lights and traffic signals. However, by not being yoked together at the top, these posts can be designed to vibrate like a diving board stood on end. As for the locals "killing themselves when digging fence post holes," I'd be surprised if the number of such incidents is even significant compared with the number of people who drive into utility poles or are injured when someone else shears off a power pole and it falls onto someone or something. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #10 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Mar 5 19:50:44 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA23337; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:50:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:50:44 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003060050.TAA23337@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #11 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:50:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ICFC Call for Papers (David Loomis) Re: Communication Tower Being Built (Travis Dixon) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Marcus Aakesson) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Marcus Aakesson) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (J.F. Mezei) DoubleClick Cries "Uncle" (Monty Solomon) On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (Monty Solomon) Policy Post 6.06: Privacy Matters -- DoubleClick Doubles-Back (M Solomon) Re: NXX by NPA (Stephen Kaps) Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Stanley Cline) Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries (Steve Riner) Re: Long Lines Bells (Grover C. McCoury III) Re: Long Lines Bells (Tony Pelliccio) Internet Call Centers (Smarty) Did Consumer E-Commerce Happen Too Fast? (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:05:58 -0600 From: David Loomis Subject: ICFC Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS The 18th Annual 2000 ICFC Conference "Convergence of New Technologies and Market Dynamics: Forecasting, Economics and Marketing for the Communications Revolution" Seattle Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Seattle, WA, U.S.A. September 26-29, 2000 Hosted by Illinois State University and the International Telecommunications Society The ICFC Conference is an international communications conference for marketing, forecasting and demand analysis. The ICFC attracts forecasters, demand analysts, market researchers, product managers, statisticians, academics, and consultants within, or interested in, the communications industry. The ICFC provides state-of-the-art information and analysis of existing and emerging issues as they pertain to communications forecasting, planning, demand analysis, market research and cost analysis. Please submit abstracts of 300 words or less by mail, fax or e-mail on or BEFORE MAY 1, 2000 to: (preferred mode is e-mail; please include name, address, phone, fax and e-mail on all correspondence) David G. Loomis Illinois State University Department of Economics Campus Box 4200 Normal, IL 61790-4200 Tel: 309-438-7979 Fax: 309-438-5228 E-mail: dloomis@ilstu.edu Abstracts will be reviewed by the conference Planning Committee and notification of acceptance will be given by MAY 31, 1999. Presentations will be generally about 20 minutes followed by a brief discussion period. If you require more time for your proposed presentation or you have any special audiovisual or computer requirements, please indicate so in your abstract. All presenters are expected to register for the conference and pay the regular registration fee. A limited number of registration scholarships may be available to academic and government presenters. Papers presented at the conference are also eligible to be included in a conference book. For more Information: PLEASE VISIT ICFC HOME PAGE AT http://www.icfc.ilstu.edu/ ************************************************************************** David G. Loomis Email: dloomis@ilstu.edu Illinois State University Voice: (309) 438-7979 Department of Economics FAX: (309) 438-5228 Campus Box 4200 Normal, IL 61790-4200 Web Site: http://www.ilstu.edu/~dloomis/ ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: Travis Dixon Subject: Re: Communication Tower Being Built Organization: None of Your Business Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:22:33 GMT This was a big discussion in misc.rural several months back. You might want to check deja.com for articles on this - there was some excellent info from folks there on easements and such. Basically you should see a lawyer on *your* terms to make sure that you're not giving up something that you don't want to be giving up -- like rights to fence your land, etc... travis Linda Harris wrote: > We have been approached by a communications company, who wish to put a > cellular communications tower on our property. > We meet all their requirements regarding site, elevation etc., They > had done all their homework before they approached us, and they know > its in a prime site. Its known throughout this district, that our area > is a black spot for cellular phones. We would like to know, before we > go any further, as to the payment for the lease offered by them. The > lease is to run for over 50 years. Is there anyone who has had > similar dealings with having towers put on their property, and could > give us an Idea as to what they were given as payment. Its obvious > that they offer you the very minimum as an opening offer. We are > curious as to the "going" rate. We live in western PA. > Yours Faithfully, > Linda Harris > e-mail address....Tamworth@voicenet.com ------------------------------ From: Marcus Aakesson Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 00:58:46 +0100 Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:29:01 -0600, Jeremy S. Nichols wrote: > I would like a pair of phone numbers for my phone: one for which I pay > the charges, and the other for which the calling party pays. > My (U.S.) mobile account gives me first incoming minute free, so I can > leave my phone powered on full time risk-free. I am careful to whom I > give the number, however, as I don't want to be bombarded with junk > calls like I am on my land-line phone. Calling-party-pays would seem > to be a disincentive to junk callers and I could be much more free > distributing that number. But there are many people who would never > call me if it were going to cost them $0.50 US per minute. I would > want to give them a free number to call. That's easy, we just forward our home or office number. That way I pick up the charges _when I want to_. > One potential problem with calling-party-pays is that there is no > price pressure. As a mobile subscriber I choose a calling plan to > minimize my costs and the carriers compete for my business. As a > caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and > have no way to shop for a better rate. I likely won't call. Why ? Here we are all CPP and there is fierce competition between different operators for the lowest landline-to-mobile calls. > The calling-party-pays plans I have seen here have a per-minute rate > 2-5 times the subscriber's rate. Since many parts of the CPP world do not use the "included minutes" plans, this is hard to compare. It is however certain that prices are coming down al the time in CPP systems. Since we also only pay for around half of the calls (outgoing) this also must be considered in the comparison. > It boils down to who's convenience is being served by the mobile > phone. Ideally the extra charge for a mobile call would be paid by > the party benefitting the most. I find it convenient to be able to choose. During working hours, I forward my work phone to my mobile. That way customers will reach me without any extra charges. After hours, I'm only (maybe) available on my mobile number. If they need to disturb me, they pay. Works good for me. > Of course, this perspective is from someone in an area where all local > non-mobile calls have no per-minute charge. Yes, that is a big difference, and the numbering plan is another important issue. Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779 Sweden >>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<< ------------------------------ From: Marcus AAkesson Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:05:20 +0100 Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:24:36 -0500, Mike Pollock wrote: > By ROBERT GUY MATTHEWS > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > March 2, 2000 > How many wood poles do woodpeckers peck, since woodpeckers do peck poles? > In a typical midsize city, roughly 1,000 telephone poles have to be replaced every year because birds -- and then rain -- cause them to rot. That annoys utilities and sets them back about $200 a pole. Poles ? In the Year 2000 they are debating poles ? I havn't seen any new poles come up in my lifetime here. This house is in a residential area built in 1939, and there is not a pole in sight. Out in the countryside there are plenty, but hardle ever in any residential areas planned after around 1930 ... Marcus AAkesson marcus.akesson@NO_SPAM_PLEASE_home.se Gothenburg Callsigns: SM6XFN & SB4779 Sweden >>>>>> Keep the world clean - no HTML in news or mail ! <<<<<< ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 19:22:07 -0500 Jeremy Greene wrote: > How can anyone in their right mind be debating what type of pole to > use in a new residential development? Just bury the damn wires! After the ice storm of 1998 in Montreal, there was much debate about Hydro Quebec having the least amount of its distribution network underground (and thus most exposed to weather). Part of Hydro's response is that while the number of disruptions are lessened, each disruption is more complex since locating the break is difficult and requires digging up backyards (bringing digging equipment to backyards etc is not easy sometimes). Also, considering that stringing fiber to homes is something which will begin soon, I am not sure it would be wise to do much digging up now. Once the shakeout in telecom wiring has occured and we know whether twisted pair , fiber or coax will go to homes, then perhaps it becomes a worthy effort to bury cables. As far as wooden poles being "natural" and "healthy", aren't they treated with creosote or other nasty stuff ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:51:45 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Cries "Uncle" http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12568,00.html Every so often, bad PR actually affects company policy. DoubleClick announced Thursday that it's holding off on linking peoples' Web-surfing habits and online purchases with personal information like their names and addresses. "I made a mistake," DoubleClick chief executive Kevin O'Connor said, in a statement that was quoted across the board. O'Connor didn't say he'd never merge the two databases. He just said his company would take it easy "until there is agreement between government and industry on privacy standards." In other words, you won't see DoubleClick execs laughing over a beer with folks from the Electronic Privacy Information Center anytime soon. Government investigations and privacy advocates put the squeeze on DoubleClick over the last month, but they certainly weren't the only ones. In a page-one story, John Schwartz of the Washington Post described the 100,000-plus consumer complaints DoubleClick has received, the private lawsuits against the company, and the decisions by AltaVista and Kozmo.com to keep their visitors' data from DoubleClick unless individuals give their permission. As New York Times columnist Bob Tedeschi and the WSJ's Andrea Petersen noted, DoubleClick's beleaguered stock rose on the announcement. The L.A. Times suggested that strained relationships with clients inspired the change in plans - and besides, DoubleClick was at least a year away from being able to implement the program in question. Privacy advocates seemed pleased but wary. The editor of Privacy Times even told Tedeschi that DoubleClick's about-face might hurt the effort to establish privacy standards. "By backing down now and doing the right thing, they take a little air out of the balloon, and unfortunately that could slow things down," he said. Sounds like the privacy movement needs a new enemy. - Jen Muehlbauer DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Data Privacy http://publish.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12563,00.html?nl=mg Web Firm Halts Profiling Plan http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/A61991-2000Mar2.html DoubleClick Reverses Course After Outcry on Privacy Issue http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB952019045241548818.htm (Paid subscription required.) DoubleClick Backs off Web-Tracking Plan http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth486.htm DoubleClick Puts off Its Plan for Wider Use of Personal Data http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/columns/030300doubleclick-adcol.html (Registration required.) DoubleClick Backs Away From Linking Consumers to Data http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg030300.htm DoubleClick Cancels Plan to Link Net Users' Names, Habits http://www.latimes.com/business/20000303/t000020658.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:32:20 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend Deposit This On the Internet, your bank is not your friend Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate Wednesday, February 23, 2000 When the notorious bank robber Willie Sutton was finally apprehended, a reporter asked him: "Mr. Sutton, can you tell us why you rob banks?" Sutton's famous reply: "Because that's where they keep the money." The same undeniably simple logic is behind a huge fight now brewing between the already anachronistic banking industry and Internet entrepreneurs who are trying to put more power in the hands of consumers. http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:19:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Policy Post 6.06: Privacy Matters -- DoubleClick Doubles-Back, http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_6.06.shtml CDT POLICY POST Volume 6, Number 6 March 3, 2000 `A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE from THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY CONTENTS: (1) DoubleClick Puts Profiling on Hold; AltaVista Adopts Opt-In (2) Next Steps: Raising Industry Standard through Consumer Action (3) CDT Testifies on Privacy (1) DoubleClick Puts Profiling on Hold; AltaVista Adopts Opt-In In an important step for privacy, Internet advertiser DoubleClick announced on March 2 that it will hold up plans to tie personally identifiable information such as names and addresses to users' online surfing habits until government and industry have reached an agreement on privacy rules for the Internet. CDT played a major role in alerting the public and policymakers to the privacy pitfalls of DoubleClick's profiling plans. On February 1, CDT started an online campaign, creating a Web site where Internet users could: 1) opt-out of DoubleClick; 2) write to DoubleClick's CEO to complain; and 3) write to Web sites that allowed DoubleClick to set cookies on their viewers, seeking clarification of what personal data those sites were sharing with DoubleClick. Over 100,000 people visited our DoubleClick action site. On February 29, CDT along with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumer Action, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Statement of Additional Facts and Grounds for Relief with the Federal Trade Commission, seeking immediate action to prevent harm to consumer privacy as a result of DoubleClick's data matching. In the wake of CDT's online campaign and FTC filing, several prominent businesses publicly distanced themselves from DoubleClick and reevaluated their own privacy practices. * Most notably, Internet search engine and portal AltaVista, DoubleClick's largest partner, announced that it was adopting an "opt-in" policy for personal information collected about the surfing habits of users registered at its site. * Intuit removed DoubleClick advertisements from the loan and mortgage sections of its Quicken Web site after being notified that information about users' salaries and debts were being transmitted to DoubleClick. DoubleClick's announcement: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/000302doubleclick.shtml AltaVista's reply to CDT: http://www.cdt.org/action/doubleclick/altavista.shtml Our FTC filing: http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000225ftcdcstatement.shtml (2) Next Steps: Raising Industry Standard through Consumer Action These recent developments signal an important shift in the privacy debate. DoubleClick's decision to halt its plan to create fully identifiable profiles of online users is testament to the growing and vocal consumer privacy constituency online. These newly empowered Netizens can use the technology to express their privacy concerns in the marketplace, and companies are paying attention. AltaVista's move to an "opt-in" privacy policy is a significant departure from the industry norm and proves that Internet companies can respect privacy and still provide free, innovative services to consumers. Intuit's move to limit the flow of personal information about users to DoubleClick, sets the stage for Web sites taking a more proactive approach to analyzing the privacy implications of their business relationships. This week's DoubleClick and AltaVista developments set an important benchmark for other companies online. CDT will now turn its attention to urging other companies to meet this standard. * First, CDT is calling on all network advertisers to join DoubleClick and not merge individuals' names and addresses with their surfing habits. * Second, CDT is calling on the other search engines and portals to join AltaVista in seeking prior customer approval (opt-in) before disclosing personally identifiable information on subscribers. * Third, we will continue to use the Internet to provide individuals with timely alerts and online resources so that users can make their voices heard with impact. To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, go to: http://www.cdt.org/join/ * Finally, CDT will continue to provide its "Operation Opt-Out" tools helping consumers learn how to get off direct marketing, telemarketing, online profiling and other lists http://optout.cdt.org, including information about how to "opt-out" of DoubleClick. (3) CDT Testifies on Privacy In two separate Hill appearances this week, CDT spelled out its privacy vision. Testifying before a joint House-Senate hearing on February 29, CDT senior staff counsel Jim Dempsey addressed the need for strong privacy protections limiting government access to information. Responding to calls for legislation in response to the denial of service attacks last month, Dempsey stressed that good network security is the responsibility of the private sector, not the government, and can be achieved without sacrificing privacy or anonymity online. He pointed out how legal standards for government surveillance are too weak, and urged Congress, if it adopts any new legislation on computer crime or surveillance authorities, to keep it narrow and to balance it with privacy enhancements. In Senate testimony on the AOL-Time Warner merger on March 2, CDT Executive Director Jerry Berman noted that the proposed merger highlights both the increased risks for privacy problems as the Internet evolves, and the great potential for self-regulatory efforts to enhance privacy protection. Both AOL and Time Warner have access to significant amounts of personal data about their subscribers. For AOL, this includes, for example, information about online service subscribers, AOL.COM portal users, and ICQ and instant messaging users. Time Warner has access to information about ranging from cable subscriber usage to magazine subscriptions. The specter of the merged companies pooling all of their information resources, and then mining those resources for marketing and other purposes, should be cause for concern. Fundamentally, however, the AOL Time Warner merger does not alter the equation for a privacy solution. Protecting privacy on the Internet requires a multi-pronged approach, Berman testified, that involves self-regulation, technology, and legislation, whether or not the merger occurs. Dempsey's testimony: http://www.cdt.org/security/000229judiciary.shtml Berman's testimony: http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000302berman.shtml Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at http://www.cdt.org/. This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_6.06.shtml. Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of ari@cdt.org Policy Post 6.06 Copyright 2000 Center for Democracy and Technology ------------------------------ From: Stephen Kaps Reply-To: skaps@flash.net Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:40:18 GMT Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net The list you desire is the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide?) I found this as the first hit when I searched for LERG. Nathan Stratton nathan@robotics.net wrote: > A few months ago I was trying to put together a list of LERG switch codes. > Many people on this list helped fill in the blanks, but there was still a > large number of codes that I did not know. Even more people asked me where > they could get such a list. Well I just got my copy (actually it looks like > a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy) from Telcordia (Am I the only one > who liked Bellcore better?). It is Telcordia (Bellcore) Practice BR > 751-100-460 issue 3, April 1995 and only cost $10 from Telcordia. Anyway, because so many people asked about it I wanted to post the info to this list. ><> Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting http://www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net Robert M. Bryant wrote: > Do you know where I can get a list of NXX's by NPA or by City or State?? > Robert M. Bryant > DNAE IBM Team > 440 Hamilton, 12th. fl. > White Plains, NY 10601 > (914) 397-8451 > Pager: 888-858-7243, pin 116852 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be a humongous list to say > the least, on several CD Roms, and printing out to hundreds of pages. > And the list never ends, and is never entirely up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:14:52 -0500 Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:47:43 GMT, Blake Droke wrote: [Memphis] > Unlike Louisville, however, no 10D calling is allowed. Of course there SWB allows 10d from West Memphis to Memphis ... or at least they did last May. :) > I noticed a potential problem in the Neustar database recently. 901-739 > has been assigned to a CLEC in 901, while 870-739 is assigned to > Southwestern Bell and is a local call from Memphis 901. Might not be a > problem since Tennessee is a toll alerting state. It depends on which > rate center will get 901-739. If its in the Metro Memphis area, there > will be a dialling conflict. BellSouth Mobility in Chattanooga somehow got 423-937 (I don't recall if it showed up in the NNAG/NIPC/etc. or if it was a translations error for 423-987 or some other prefix assigned to BSM; calls from Atlanta were correctly completed to 423-937, however, which would tend to indicate that IXCs knew about it); Ringgold, GA, which is local to Chattanooga, has 706-937. Needless to say, that got fixed quickly. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ ------------------------------ From: Steve Riner Subject: Re: 7D Dialing Across NPA Boundaries Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:12:09 -0600 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. Arthur L. Rubin <216-5888@mcimail.com> wrote in message news:telecom20.4.1@telecom-digest.org... > As an aside, has anyone suggested requiring the local phone companies > to have permissive 11D dialing for calls within the same area code? > I've been unable (as yet) to program my dialers (under Windows 3.1) > to handle the 602/623/480 NPA split. (For those not familiar with the > split, calls are 7D within each NPA, 10D between them, > and 11D (with, I believe, some 10D exeptions near the border with 520) > to other NPAs. All calls within those NPAs are local. Cities local calling area (area codes 612/651/763/952 and even a couple of exchanges within 507). While their dialing instructions state "DO NOT" dial 1+ for FNPA local calls, 1+10D calls are not charged long distance. Steve Riner Columbia Heights MN Explore Minnesota Highways of the Past and Present at: http://www.frontiernet.net/~riner/main_hwy.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:17:18 -0600 From: Grover C. McCoury III Organization: Corvia Networks, Inc. Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells I dusted off my copy of the "Bell Labs Bible", Engineering and Operations in the Bell System, and found the following definition: The Long Lines Department of AT&T owns and operates long distance transmission facilities and certain switching systems to provide connections between operating companies and with foreign countries. Long Lines, being an operating organization, is the largest part of AT&T, with about 90% of all AT&T personnel. AT&T was organized as follows: ______________________________________ AT&T General Depts. Long Lines Dept ______________________________________ | | | Western Electric | Bell Operating Companies(24 BOCs) | | | | ------ | | | Bell Telephone** Laboratories ** - BTL is 50% owned by Western Electric and 50% owned by AT&T Dean Forrest Wright wrote: > Incidentally, the name Long Lines really meant exactly that. AT&T Long > Lines was, with a few exceptions, responsible for carrying telephone > calls which crossed state lines, with the local Bell Operating Company > (i.e. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph) being responsible for > carrying calls within a given state or related geographical area. > Dean Forrest Wright, P.E. Telecommunications (Central Office > Equipment) Engineer dean at imt dot net /********************************** Grover C. McCoury III @ Corvia Networks, Inc. physical: 212 Gibraltar Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94089 audio: (408)752-0550 x128 electronic: grover@corvia.com WWW: http://www.corvia.com **********************************/ ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:33:04 GMT In article , Goodwin, Fred says ... > Question on a minor point: didn't the local BOCs own and operate the > *intrastate* LD networks prior to Divestiture? I thought LL owned and > operated only the AT&T *interstate* LD network, and that the BOCs had to > spin off to LL their own intrastate, interLATA LD plant at Divestiture? > If you're equating "long distance" to "interstate", then my point is > moot. Many moons ago I asked someone from New Englad Telephone why in state toll rates were so ridiculously high. They explained that AT&T Long Lines handled all in-state toll traffic. It looks like NET at the time didn't have their own toll switches so they let AT&T rape the crap out of us. On the master balance sheet they were all the same company though. Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Smarty Subject: Internet Call Centers Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 02:43:42 GMT Is anyone using or know anything about Internet Call Centers? What do you recommend. Do you like what you are using? Etc. Etc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:29:40 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Did Consumer E-Commerce Happen Too Fast? February 28, 2000 DIGITAL COMMERCE By DENISE CARUSO The latest entrant in the Internet economy's continuing game of buzzword bingo is "business to business," predictably shortened to "B2B." B2B is just what the name implies: businesses selling to other businesses, using the Internet to cut transaction costs and increase efficiencies. It is a $1.76 billion market that, according to Forrester Research, will reach more than $1 trillion in 2002. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/28digi.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #11 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 6 19:25:16 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA10629; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:25:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:25:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003070025.TAA10629@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #12 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:24:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Communication Tower (Dean Forrest Wright) Re: Communication Tower (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (John Stahl) Internet Merchants Fight Back (Monty Solomon) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Julian Thomas) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Michael Hartley) Re: Traffic Exchange (Pavel Gavronsky) Seeking Information on New Company (harad@erols.com) Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (J.F. Mezei) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (Ed Ellers) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Don Kimberlin) Dial 1D Carrier Options in AC 248 (Heywood Jaiblomi) Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (Joel B. Levin) Information Wanted on Telephone Switching Systems (Vaios Savviou) The Demise of An IP Long Distance Service? (Ted Koppel) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Dean Forrest Wright dot@RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Re: Communication Tower Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:02:54 GMT Organization: Wright Engineers P.C. In our world of rapidly changing technology, you should consider the consequences of the tower owner discontinuing its use. In utility line easements, I have seldom seen any clause which requires the owner of the facility to remove it, should it be abandoned. You may wish to consider, however unlikely it may seem at this time, the ramifications of having an abandoned tower and building on your property and consult counsel accordingly. Dean Forrest Wright, P.E. Telecommunications (Central Office Equipment) Engineer dean imt net "When one lacks a sense of awe, there will be a disaster. Linda Harris wrote in article ... > The tower company is offering us $5,000 per annum, with a 15% increase > every 5 years. The lease will run for 55 years. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Communication Tower From: rweller@h-e.com (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:56:19 -0800 Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc. I believe that I missed an earlier message on this subject. Tower site valuation is strongly dependent upon what the tower is going to be used for. If the tower is for a single user, such as a cellular telephone company to fill a gap in its coverage, the value would be much less than if the site will be developed as a multi-user site. The $5k/year proposal sounds reasonable for a single-user pole. Around here (S.F. Bay Area), single-user site leases run $6k-18k/year. Keep in mind those figures are for urban/suburban areas. Rural area land costs are much lower, so tower site lease values would also be lower. In my experience, multi-tenant site owners often negotiate a lease that is based upon a percentage of gross tenant revenue. Percentages for prime sites can run from 15-40% of gross revenue. Another common approach is to negotiate a fixed dollar amount for the first X tenants, plus an escalator (like 2-3%/ year), with a percentage of revenue applying for all tenants beyond X. Bottom line, if $5k/year was their first offer, you need to counter with something higher. Bob Weller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:08:23 -0500 From: John Stahl Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees I too, am concerned about this subject, particularly about the 'calling party' pays portion of the deliberation. Please look at my email note to Mr. Kennard, FCC Chairman, regarding this issue and his answer, below. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Systems Consultant >>> John Stahl 02/29/00 09:55AM >>> Mr. Kennard, I have been reading lately about some FCC deliberation regarding "cellular caller pays". However, I tried to do a search on the FCC internet site to no avail with regards to this subject. I am quite concerned that if this is confirmed by the FCC that many unsuspecting callers will be 'automatically' charged with very high charges when calling a cellular user who is 'roaming' far from their home base (say based in New York and traveling - roaming - in Hawaii). I'm sure you will agree that if this 'calling party pays' is approved, it should have some restrictions on the cellular company to advise the caller of as to what the charges will be in advance of call completion. I would really appreciate finding any internet available information regarding the FCC meetings on this subject. Thank you. John Stahl Response from FCC Chairman Kennard: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:29:17 -0500 From: BKENNARD To: aljon@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: Request to the Chairman When considering potential adoption of these rules, we already considered including a notification announcement to callers if they we going to be charged. Thank you for your concerns. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:29:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Merchants Fight Back Frustrated by fraud artists, business owners take matters into their own hands By Mike Brunker MSNBC March 3 - When their pleas for help in fighting credit card thieves in foreign lands fell on deaf ears, Internet merchants Marc Gilbert, Pat LaMastro and Cheryl Faye Schwartz took matters into their own hands. Their tales of international intrigue, online detective work and, in one case, a deadly confrontation in a Eastern European capital would make good fodder for espionage author John LeCarr's next novel. http://www.msnbc.com/news/377221.asp?cp1=1 ------------------------------ From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:48:36 GMT In , on 03/04/00 at 05:20 PM, wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts) said: > As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the > problems arise when these digital carrier arrangements are > improperly configured -- or when somebody uses them at *both* ends, > converting back to analog before presenting the loop to the CO > switch. I suspect that the DLC concept is old enough that originally it had to work with analog switches (good grief! SxS!!) as well as digital switches -- hence the conversion back to analog. Julian Thomas jata@aepiax.net remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org WarpTech 2000: May 26-28 in Phoenix - plan NOW to attend! www.warptech.org "Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are." ------------------------------ From: Michael Hartley Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:11:47 -0000 > I would like a pair of phone numbers for my phone: one for which I pay > the charges, and the other for which the calling party pays. > One potential problem with calling-party-pays is that there is no > price pressure. Not for call charges, in any case. Experience in the uk shows that inbound call revenue is very inelastic to the per minute charge to the calling party. If people want to call you, they will. > As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and > have no way to shop for a better rate. You can always use a calling card, or choose a tariff which offers mobile-mobile calls at less than land-mobile rates. > I likely won't call. Your loss. Many others will;+) > Of course, this perspective is from someone in an area where all local > non-mobile calls have no per-minute charge. There's a very interesting [and contentious ;+)] uk/us comparison in this. Here in the uk, e-business is seen to be hampered by per-minute call charges regardless of access- leading to a less developed e-economy. In the US, e business booms and the mobile market lags Europe by a couple of years..... M commerce is here in Europe already, draw your own conclusions about how long called party pays will last in the US. Mike (No, I don't want to get in a standards/politics flame war here -- just look at the market penetration figures.) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Traffic Exchange Organization: Telrad Networks Ltd. Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:46:33 GMT Hello Sergey, It's not clear, what do you find exactly, so send me e-mail (KOI-8, WIN, ISO are acceptable). Best regards, Pavel Gavronsky IN System Architect Public Networks Solution Telrad Networks Ltd. Phone (972)-8-9134583 Fax (972)-8-9131255 mailto:pavel.gavronsky@telrad.co.il Sergey A. Mosienko wrote in message news:telecom20.6.2@telecom-digest.org... > Hi, > Pls, > Where I can find the references for an IPT traffic exchange ( WWW) ? > Soon we shall have Moscow - Nakhodka ( Russia ) min E1 ( max 36 E1 ), > Router - Tigris AXC-711 ( Ericsson ) and Gateway AXI-511 ( Ericsson ). > Best Regards, > INCOM > Telecom and Datacom Networks > Sergey A. Mosienko > Deputy Director on Business Development > Tel / Fax. +7 - 095 - 795-3323 > E-mail: mosienko@incom-svyaz.ru > Web: http://www.incom-js.ru > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would a couple of our readers please > correspond with Sergey in Russia and see if his questions can be > answered. Thanks very much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: harad@erols.com Subject: Information Wanted on New Company Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 05:16:58 -0800 Mr. Townson, Are you aware of a new ip telephony co. called @IPbell? Web site www.ipbell.com. There is info about this new start up on the new releases of a US company, science dynamics, (OTC: SIDY). I am interested in learning about @IPbell, believing it to be an investment opportunity to be considered. Unfortunately, the web site is not helpfull, and the only other source of info came from cisco and hp news saying that they are partners. If you could help me learn about this company, I would be greatfull. Thanks Harad@erols.com ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:49:39 -0500 I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and Time-Warner to be so significant. They mention on how Time-Warner gains a new distribution medium for their content. While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy "ISP" companies. Since the internet is worldwide, and since WWW.CNN.COM is already available worldwide through any ISP, how does it benefit CNN to since CNN is already distributed to AOL subscribers whether Time-Warner owns AOL or not ? In Canada, on the heels of the Time-AOL merger, Bell Canada (BCE) decided it had to move and bid for CTV which owns the CTV television network as well as a few specialty TV channels in canada. BCE said that they wanted to add content to their internet services (sympatico). Can someone explain to me what that means ? How does owning a TV station add to your ISP business ? In the past, carriers (telcos, satellite, cable companies) have not been controlled by TV networks, yet the two worked fine and TV was delivered. While I can see advantage of Time-Warner of controlling cable companies since they can ensure that their own channels are carried by that cable company, I fail to see the use of controlling an ISP, since customers can choose from any internet site. Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really* happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ? ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:21:03 -0500 Will Roberts wrote: > I more or less agree with Bill Horne concerning xDSL -- you just can't make > copper pairs appear out of nowhere. The incumbent telco is not in the > business building copper plant anymore (unless, of course, the incumbent > telco sees xDSL as a line of business it wants to be in.) Right, though with the right equipment out in the neighborhoods -- which allegedly is on its way from various vendors, though not yet generally available -- telcos could provide xDSL on DLC-served lines. > There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several > occassions. If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where the > analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a vault near the > subscribers' homes. > As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the problems arise > when these digital carrier arrangements are improperly configured -- or when > somebody uses them at *both* ends, converting back to analog before > presenting the loop to the CO switch. If the ILEC wanted to accommodate > v.90 modem traffic (and those nasty long duration calls which internet > junkies and VPN-using telecommmuters make), they very well could. That's what I've been trying to get across. In my area we were served by a Western Electric 1A ESS, and since this was an analog switch a DLC installation would have had to present the loop to the switch in the analog domain. We were cut over to a Lucent 5ESS-2000 in December 1996, and as best I can tell -- though no one at BellSouth has been honest enough to give a straight yes *or* no answer -- the DLC-extended loops were simply cut over from the 1A ESS to the 5ESS-2000 in the same way that all-copper loops were, rather than being converted to use digital line cards on the switch. > The thing that amazes me most, however, is the difficulty that the ILECs > seem to have in understanding that CLECs are not going to go away and that > if they stopped digging in their heels they could make their wholesale > business very profitable indeed. > If the 'carrier hotels' that are spring up can make money renting space to > various service providers, why aren't the ILEC's building or leasing vault > space in subdivisions or city blocks where they can terminate short > subscriber copper loops and lease rack space and fiber backhaul to wherever. > Nobody's going to build competing last mile facilities if the ILECs maintain > their advanatage as efficient producers and progressive stewards of that > portion of their plant. > Somehow, however, I think that the ILECs are so focused on long distance > services -- ironically an increasingly competitive market with decreasing > margins and under the sword of Damocles caleld internet telephony -- that > they cannot figure out the long-term profit opportunities imbedded in their > local plant, engineering expertise, relationships with local government, and > remaining craft workers. Excellent point. One thing to remember is that, in most places, there is or soon will be *one* potential CLEC that does not need to build new outside plant for voice services -- that's the local cable TV company, most of whom are either rebuilding their systems to 750 or 860 MHz capacity and full two-way capability. If ILECs seriously go into the business of selling the last mile to CLECs, that admittedly would bring in a lot more CLECs -- but it might fragment the market enough to prevent the cable companies from swinging a wrecking ball against the ILECs. ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:43:04 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts) wrote: > There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several > occassions. If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where > the analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a > vault near the subcribers' homes. I agree. SLCs have a bad rap because their initial installations were not integrated with the CO. There would be a SLC in the neighborhood that would concentrate 20+ lines on a single copper pair back to the CO, then another SLC that would demux the lines, where the would be wired individually to the switch. There's a limited amount of bandwidth you can put on a copper pair and the extra mux/demux cycle didn't help either. Modern SLCs do the conversion once and send all the lines digitally right into the switch, usually on a fibre pair direct from the SLC. This can actually be a preferred solution, as the fibre is immune to induced noise. The problem here is that space for a DSL DSLAM in the SLC cabinet is at a premium, if it exists at all. This makes it hard for the telco or CLEC to provide highspeed internet access. SLCs are also confused with "pair gain" type devices that are used when there isn't enough copper from the vault to the demarc on the house. These are nasty as they usually do a frequency split/shift for one of the two lines that destroys any modem performance. Ken ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:25:22 -0500 David Chessler wrote: > Mitnick may not need publicity among the cognizenti (I guess that's us), > but his career as a black-hat hacker is probably over. He's now > repositioning himself as a "security consultant," quite possibly to the CIS > departments of the same government agencies and private companies (such as > the New York Times) that tried so hard to put him in jail. Moreover, he can > do this without ever actually *touching* a computer." Except that the same probation order that prevents him from using a computer also prevents him from giving such advice to clients, though public statements like this are not covered. Personally, though I happen to believe that Mitnick should have been locked up for what he did, I don't think this probation order makes any sense. IMHO, either the court should have let him loose entirely, or -- if he is still a danger to society -- should have kept him in prison. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:24:45 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood ... In typical short-accounting-cycle American style, the utility companies have prolonged use of wooden poles. Resource-limited Europeans have used steel (actually cast iron) poles since the Year Dot of Telecommunications. Metal poles made for Siemens' overland adventure of extending a telegraph line to India in the 1860's are still standing and in use across the Middle East today. Who could argue those have not been economical, since wooden poles, even under the best circumstances, would have required 3 to 5 replacements since then. ... A typically poorly researched bit of American reportage, since anyone who understands a bit of telecommunications history knows that the telegraph was using poles a good 50 years before the AT&T line reported here ... ... The article later goes on to say that metal poles have been shown to survive better in heavy weather locations like Puerto Rico, but ask any traveler parts of the world that the British built their empire in, like East Africa, if they haven't seen metal poles over a good portion of the globe. ... Metal poles? "New technology?" Humbug! Don Kimberlin, NCE ------------------------------ From: heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) Subject: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:02:34 GMT Organization: Uncle Heywood's Trousers of Fun Hi! 1. Welcome back Pat. Take care of yourself, eh? 2. I'm sure this is an elementary question, but I'm not in Michigan so maybe someone can help me. My mother in 248-651-xxxx spends half the year in FL, and still has to pay AT&T $3/month for the privilege of them being her dial 1 carrier. She's a low volume LD user, and I'm sure someone has already done the research on this. Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a monthly fee? If not, who should I suggest she go to? Thanks! Woody If I had my life to live over, I think I'd like to live over a liquor store. ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks Organization: On the desert Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:22:41 GMT In , John David Galt@acm.org wrote: > I've seen such code used in both e-mail spam and newsgroup postings, > and Netscape Communicator automatically executes it upon viewing the > message. (Communicator has settings to turn off Java and JavaScript > in messages, but not HTML. The only reliable way to avoid > connecting to the web site in such cases is to download your > messages, unplug your PC from the network, then read the messages.) My solution is to read mail with a mail reader[1], not a web browser. I also read Usenet with a news reader[1], not a web browser. I surf the web with a web browser[2] (that gets me in enough trouble). Nothing I receive gets saved to disk, much less executed, till I explicitly request it; and all-HTML messages and articles I usually flush without trying to decipher, on principle (though I make certain exceptions, for instance if I get one as junk mail I'll try real hard to make sure the right admins find out about it). /JBL [1] I use Agent, $29 from www.forteinc.com, for both mail and news. There are also other good choices, both free and for money, available, except from what I gather most Microsoft products are os closely integrated with Internet Explorer that reading mail or news with them is almost as risky as using a browser. [2] I use Netscape (fwiw). ------------------------------ Reply-To: Vaios Savviou From: Vaios Savviou Subject: Information About Telephone Switching Systems Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:24:40 -0000 Organization: None Dear Sir/Madam, I am a student in the University of Abertay Dundee in Scotland. I am doing as a project a telephone switching system. Could you please send me any information on how telephone switching systems work. Thank you, Vaios Savviou BSc Mechatronics University Of Abertay Dundee vaios@cableinet.co.uk [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone care to write direct to the author above with information on telephone switching systems? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:39:10 -0500 From: Ted Koppel Subject: The demise of an IP LOng Distance Service? Until this past week, I was a customer of the ICG/Netcom IP Long Distance service -- wherein one dialed a local access number, then the number of the person to contact, and the call would be completed over the Netcom IP network. Although the local access number still answers (here in Atlanta), the calls do not complete -- they are intercepted by a message for Thinklink -- whatever that is. Netcom was purchased by Mindspring some months ago. ICG hasn't heard of their IPLD service. Netcom phone calls are now answered by Mindspring, who also don't have a clue. So, without any notice to customers (how typical!) a company that ostensibly exists to serve the public drops off the scope. Anyone know what really happened to ICG Netcom IPLD? And what this ThinkLink is? Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #12 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 7 12:20:27 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA11238; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:20:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:20:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003071720.MAA11238@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #13 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:50:41 EST Volume 20 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Matt Simpson) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (hoxley@nouce.shore.net) Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 (David Lind) Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (Hal Murray) Re: Long Lines Bells (Hal Murray) Cost of Wiretapping (Hal Murray) 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Don Kimberlin) Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 (Joseph Singer) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (John S. Maddaus) Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Ryan Tucker) Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 (Eli Mantel) WTB: Altigen Quantum card (TSL) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Marvin A Sirbu) DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Privacy (Monty Solomon) Virginia Law Standardizes Internet Contracts (Monty Solomon) Feds: Your Secrets Are Safe With Us (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Matt Simpson Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:58:15 -0500 Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Services In article , JF Mezei wrote: > Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really* > happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ? A lot of new Internet users are not very Internet literate. Their ISP gives them a browser customized to show them the startup page that the ISP wants them to see every time they turn their computer on. Obviously, that can be changed. But many users never do. So if the content company owns the ISP, they can direct a lot more eyeballs to their content. Matt Simpson -- Obsolete MVS Guy University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY ------------------------------ From: hoxley@nouce.shore.net Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:13:13 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Something that I see COULD happen is "content" which used to be available to all Internet users will eventually move behind AOL/TimeWarner's firewall, to only be accessable by AOL/TW subscribers. JF Mezei wrote: > Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really* > happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = Herb Oxley (hoxleyATshore.net) = = Please note I *never* buy any product or = = service advertised by unsolicited E-mail = = from anyone I'm not doing business with! = -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ From: David Lind Subject: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:28:07 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Sooo glad to have this forum and the moderater back!! The Aussies have mandated wireless phone number portability to be implemented in 12 months. So what is holding us up? http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_06.NRdb@2@5@3@5&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@14@2@1 David ------------------------------ From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray) Subject: Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend Date: 7 Mar 2000 09:52:03 GMT Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center > The same undeniably simple logic is behind a huge fight now brewing > between the already anachronistic banking industry and Internet > entrepreneurs who are trying to put more power in the hands of > consumers. > http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ Nice article. Thanks. Although technically possible, it will be difficult and costly for the banks to deploy systems that determine when online records are being requested by an actual customer or by a third-party website that has access to the customer's password. I have visions of smug bankers who have just hacked their router to black hole the evil third-party sites. How long do you think it will take for somebody to write an app that runs on your PC and gets the info from your bank and sends it to the third-party? Is that more or less secure? ------------------------------ From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray) Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells Date: 7 Mar 2000 09:59:19 GMT Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center > Many moons ago I asked someone from New Englad Telephone why in state > toll rates were so ridiculously high. They explained that AT&T Long Lines > handled all in-state toll traffic. It looks like NET at the time didn't > have their own toll switches so they let AT&T rape the crap out of us. Many moons ago in California, the PCU set intra-state long distance charges high in order to cross-subsidize residential rates. For a while, it was cheaper to call the east coast than across the state. ------------------------------ From: murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray) Subject: Cost of Wiretapping Date: 7 Mar 2000 10:40:20 GMT Organization: Compaq Systems Research Center I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps. Is there a good description of that system available on the web? What fraction of the current COs support it? I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep hackers from tapping whatever they want? How much does that system cost? If I took the total cost of that system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? Is this just a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:18:38 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Re: Telephone-Pole In article Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:38:16 -0600 (John Hines (jhines@enteract.com) wrote: > ... power line poles, owned and maintained by Commonwealth Edison, > and the telephone, and cable companies lease space from > them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity to run the city/village for the lease on the right of way for the poles. ... This may be one of those numerous twists and turns in the complex byways of life for common carrier utilities in the United States, but in the southeastern part of the country, and a few other spotty areas I've worked in, the streets and sidewalks are public right-of-way, available free to any state-certificated common carrier -- i.e., no leasing by municipalities or otherwise. ... In fact, in southern states, highway rights-of-way are free for anyone to use (with demonstration of proper engineering drawings and construction plans). ... Do we have here an urban legend of telecommunications, with someone's assumption bubbling into what seems plausible fact? ... In the interest of accuracy, I must challenge the poster to prove his claim with some factual references - and more than a reported phone call to an unnamed town or utility employee, please! ------------------------------ Reply-To: dov@oz.net Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:24:59 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) recently wrote: > 2. I'm sure this is an elementary question, but I'm not in Michigan so > maybe someone can help me. My mother in 248-651-xxxx spends half the > year in FL, and still has to pay AT&T $3/month for the privilege of > them being her dial 1 carrier. > She's a low volume LD user, and I'm sure someone has already done the > research on this. Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a > monthly fee? If not, who should I suggest she go to? I'm not aware at this point of who the other LD carriers besides AT&T might be that charge a "minimum useage" charge like this, but you might consider looking at using a "dialround" long distance the so called "10-10" services and just have your ILEC remove dial 1 long distance. You will not be let off the hook entirely as your local phone company will still bill you a $1 "fee" for not having long distance! As for where to look for information on what plan to consider I would recommend looking at abelltolls.com where you'll find comparisons of many different carriers some for pre-subscribed (dial 1) and others for the dialrounds (so called 10-10) carriers. Also keep in mind that with carriers you may or may not see the cost of the PICC or USF charges. Some carrier incorporate these charges into their rates while other carriers charge a percentage of value of the call or a flat rate for the charge. Depending on the kind of calling you do it may be worth your while to determine whether a carrier charges on a percentage basis or on a flat rate basis. Joseph Singer "thefoneguy" PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 USA +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 16:10:41 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Bill Horne wrote: > Sorry to be the messenger bringing bad new, but the cable conduits are > full, and the manholes are full: there is no more copper to be had, > and in some areas, BA has had to rip out copper cables installed less > than five years ago to accommodate fiber. Not exactly true. As a product planner for AT&T SLC line, we tried to kill the Slc96 for several years. Guess who objected? BA, GTE, SWB, BS just to name a few. Why, because analog copper was still a necessary part of the LEC business plan, partiularly outside large urban areas. In fact there were some states (Texas for one) where the state and local tarriffs made copper the ONLY cost effective alternative in certain areas around DFW. > BUSINESS customers don't give a damn about dialup internet service: > they care only about FAX lines, which work fine over DLC. If they > need to move data around, they pay for dedicated, diverse, custom > designed DATA circuits to do it. Again not true. I am a small business and I darn well care about dialup internet service. I have no need for dedicated data services yet but I'll take the fastest modem I can get and that my ISP supports. > Claiming that BA, or any other RBOC, would spend immense sums of money > just to disable his 56K modem is (let's be kind) naive. Not at all if another portion of the business has a competitive data service to offer and wants to make money on it. Bell Atlantic Mobile deliberately de-tuned their analog mobile system in the D.C area to "force" subscribers to consider digital. There were strong reservations about this from some BA quarters given the original roll-out was going to be TDMA in the DC area to compete against SBMS' TDMA roll-out. The trial performance was so bad that the only way BA management felt they could get enough digital subscribers was to make analog life more difficult. Cell site placement was designed specifically to enhance digital offerings and frustrate analog users. Drive up the 93 corridor with a CDMA and an analog phone in MA and NH and see the difference! By the way, it irritates me to have a 56k capable modem and not be able to use it due to telco mismanagement. We are also served by BA in NH and our local CO and peripherals are too old to support 56k, or so BA says. BA said it was possible to re-home me to another CO but they wouldn't do that for anyone. Turns out that BA had just launched an internet service and was at the time guaranteeing 56k capability for everyone who signed up. The internet service folks had clearly not coordinated with the LEC side. They just stuck a bunch of 56k modems at various locations and started advertising. I asked the telco people how they could do that if our CO could not physically support 56k rates and they hedged big time. I put in a false advertising complaint to the PUC and BA. One week later, all three of my lines were 56k capable. No change in phone numbers, no re-wiring and only one AD/DA conversion where I had three the week before. Magic huh? John Maddaus jmaddaus@usa.net Bedford, NH ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:08:40 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , Joe Machado spewed: > In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page or a > NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield instead of the > speedometer? Because it's already possible. : -) -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: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:18:28 PST Heywood Jaiblomi (heywood@gloucester.com) wrote: > My mother [pays] AT&T $3/month [as a minimum monthly fee]... > Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a monthly fee? AT&T, MCI, and Sprint all do one or more of the following: have monthly minimums or monthly fees, overcharge the single-line user for the PICC fee, charge a flat universal service fee instead of a percentage fee. If you're on their basic service plan, AT&T does all of these things: They charge a $3.00 monthly minimum, $1.51 for the monthly PICC fee, and a flat $1.38 universal service fee, penalizing the low-volume user even further. If that weren't enough, they charge very high per-minute rates for long distance. But can you really blame them for gouging people who can't be bothered to shop around? There's not that much to be concerned about when switching to a different long distance carrier. The local phone company will charge a few dollars for the switch, and you may start getting a separate bill from your new long distance company. Just make sure you understand the monthly fees and per-minute rates. Customer service will vary from company to company, but MCI and Sprint don't necessarily earn high marks on this anyway. The quality of the phone calls is the same unless they're offering IP-based service. There are a number of long distance carriers that don't have a monthly fee or minimum, charge only the actual cost of the PICC fee, and charge a percentage for the universal service fee. Your mother's $5.89 monthly charge from AT&T could be reduced to under $2. For details, look at http://cageyconsumer.com/rateplan/pscalc.html ------------------------------ From: TSL Subject: WTB: Altigen Quantum card Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:45:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Looking for an additional Altigen Quantum card to expand our small system. Can be the 4 trunk / 8 extension version, or the reverse. Needs to be a recent rev., with the onboard power supply. Will take new, used, demo etc. as long as the price is right, which means well below street. If you have one of these and want to turn it into quick cash please get in touch. Thanks, Nick computhings@my-deja.com 212 269-7044, then press 1 ------------------------------ From: Marvin A Sirbu Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:03:44 -0500 Organization: Epp, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA There are a couple of nice papers on the problems of mixing ADSL and DLC, and CLECs and DLC available at http://www.bullcreek.austin.tx.us/mci_worldcom.html Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:33:05 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Beats a Retreat on Privacy http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/1,1151,12596,00.html After a stock slump and bad press, the online ad giant opts out of tying Web user profiles to offline data. By Ben Hammer Responding once again to the controversy over online privacy, Internet advertising firm DoubleClick said Thursday it will not tie Web users' anonymous online activities to their offline personal data until there's agreement on privacy standards. DoubleClick CEO Kevin O'Connor revealed the company had second thoughts after meeting with hundreds of consumers, privacy advocates and others. The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at the beginning of last month, charging that DoubleClick was merging data about Web surfers' online activities with offline data such as names, postal addresses and catalog purchase histories. DoubleClick's own privacy policy forbids merging the data and, in his statement last week, O'Connor stated that his company has never done it. Last year, DoubleClick acquired Abacus Direct and its large consumer purchasing database, giving DoubleClick the ability to link its anonymous tracking of viewers' responses to ads it serves online with those viewers' offline consumer information. The company affirmed it would tie the information, even as it unveiled a five-point plan to assuage the privacy brouhaha. O'Connor's statement Thursday struck a different chord: "I made a mistake by planning to merge names with user activity across Web sites in the absence of government and industry privacy standards. We are going to await clear standards before we decide the future direction of a number of new products." Still, DoubleClick has cross-referenced 100,000 opt-in e-mail addresses from NetDeals - a sweepstakes site that collects personal data - with Abacus' database for targeted e-mail marketing, but O'Connor said DoubleClick didn't create offline profiles. DoubleClick's stock rebounded after the announcement, gaining nearly 10 percent in midday trading Friday. "[This] removes a pretty major overhang on the stock," said David Doft, equity research director for ING Barings, which initiated coverage of DoubleClick Friday with a positive outlook. Some privacy advocates voiced cautious support for O'Connor's remarks. "It is a step in the right direction, definitely, because before [DoubleClick] insisted that opt-out was sufficient for identifying people," said Jason Catlett of privacy consulting firm JunkBusters. "What needs to be done now is for there to be a legal framework to protect the privacy of online profiles." Copyright 2000 The Industry Standard ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:43:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Virginia Law Standardizes Internet Contracts http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000301S0013 By George Leopold, EE Times Mar 1, 2000 (11:37 AM) WASHINGTON - A law enacted by the Virginia General Assembly -- expanding Internet contracts -- could open the flood gates to similar laws around the nation that supporters say would bring uniformity to Internet transactions. On Feb. 15, the Virginia General Assembly in Richmond became the first in the nation to approve a standard commercial code for Internet contracts, the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act." The measure is expected to be signed into law by Gov. James Gilmore, a Republican, after the completion of a series of studies on its impact. Similar measures are being considered by state lawmakers in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and Oklahoma. The Virginia law, which seeks to create uniform provisions for contracts over the Internet such as software licenses, drew support from the software industry and opposition from engineering and consumer groups as well as several state attorneys general. The law contains a lengthy series of definitions designed to clarify the reach of Internet contracts. For instance, it would allow companies to send binding legal notices by e-mail about restrictions on the use of their software. This and other provisions prompted consumer groups to warn that the law could bind customers to unseen licensing agreements, while allowing companies to disable their product if a purchaser missed a payment. Contract law varies from state to state, said Jane Johansen, a software-law specialist with the Washington law firm Drinkard Biddle. "Maybe the time has come for some uniformity" in Internet contracts, she said. While some groups said the bill is anti-consumer, Johansen said the Virginia legislation could provide consumers with a better chance of getting a refund on returned software since it contains new warranty definitions usually not found in software contracts. She said the expressed warranties would force software companies to add disclaimers to licenses, thereby highlighting new protections. Detractors predicted software firms would simply bury the disclaimers in already confusing licensing agreements. Still unclear is how the new code would affect so-called "upstream transactions" by large software companies licensing their products in the state. Another sticky issue is whether the Virginia law changes current laws on reverse engineering. The issue prompted engineering groups, such as the IEEE-USA, to oppose the bill. The legislation "would bind you to an agreement where you can't do any reverse engineering," said Mark Pullen, IEEE-USA's vice president for technology policy. Pullen said the capability is important for software engineers so they can, for example, design software to read different file formats. Plus, said Pullen, the Virginia bill turns a "purchase decision into a license agreement." But Johansen said, "So far, I don't see this law changing the law on reverse engineering" of software. Virginia legislators will study the impact of the law on libraries and other state institutions. Opponents have not ruled out a court challenge. Copyright 1998 CMP Media Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:16:37 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Feds: Your Secrets Are Safe With Us http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12622,00.html Wired News reported two bits of Clinton-Internet news Friday, without highlighting the irony that floated between them. Declan McCullagh summarized a report recommending ways to make it easier for cops to trace users in "real time." A group chaired by Attorney General Janet Reno, and including FBI Director Louis Freeh, wrote the report. According to McCullagh, "The group focused on what it views as the problem of anonymity." Members complained about anonymous remailers, and about e-mail accounts that let folks sign up without confirming their identities. Meanwhile in Silicon Valley, President Clinton was wagging his finger at tech industry bigwigs, including Novell Chairman Eric Schmidt, and warning them that if they didn't do a better job of protecting the privacy of Net users, the government would have to do it for them. Huh? The executive branch could undoubtedly explain the distinction between privacy and anonymity. But in light of the investigative pressure now being brought to bear on DoubleClick, and given the justification provided by the denial-of-service hack attacks, the government just may feel that it's the only organization qualified to follow our movements online. And that begs the question: Whom do you trust with your secrets - DoubleClick or the FBI? - David Sims U.S. Wants to Trace Net Users http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34720,00.html Clinton Visits Valley of the DoS (Reuters) http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34733,00.html Clinton Warns Net Industry to Set Standards for Privacy http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB952127598514787472.htm (Paid subscription required.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #13 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 7 17:35:23 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA23771; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:35:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:35:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003072235.RAA23771@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #14 TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:33:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NXX by NPA (Clarence Dold) Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Ross McMicken) Re: Long Lines Bells (and intrastate dial rates) (Don Kimberlin) Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (John Hines) Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 (C. Wilkinson) Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (John Nagle) Query on LNP (Krishnan PP) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (John R. Levine) Workplace E-Mail Privacy Bill Reintroduced In Calif. (Monty Solomon) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Curtis R. Anderson) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers) Last Laugh! The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS) (Monty Solomon) Last Laugh! Hell Hath no Fury Like a Telco Scorned (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: 7 Mar 2000 17:55:21 GMT Organization: a2i network Reply-To: dold@email.rahul.net Ben Schilling wrote: > You can get the lists from http://www.nanpa.com/ . They are under Central > Office Codes (Prefixes). There are sixteen zip files in the entire set. How strange. Those are incredibly out of date and incomplete. Looking at WSUTLZD.TXT, I find 707-965 (my home) with no description. Looking for NAPA, I find it listed as 415-217. I don't remember how long ago Napa became the 707 NPA. Wait a minute ... I see a pattern. The older NPA-NXX are incomplete, but the "newer" ones are properly described. But there is a _LOT_ of data missing. My dad's house is in in San Leandro, but listed as Oakland. There are 21338 entries in WSUTLZD.TXT 1556 different "Names" 4501 NPA-NXX have no description. 21% The most reliable thing seems to be a one-time download of the NNACL, at $150, and free quarterly downloads of NNAG, from http://www.trainfo.com/tra/catalog.htm There's something about 'non-commercial use' that might bear investigating. The TPM-VH CD that I buy is a commercial product. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: Ross McMicken Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Re: Telephone-Pole Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 12:55:15 -0600 On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:18:38 -0500, Don Kimberlin wrote: > In article Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:38:16 -0600 (John Hines > (jhines@enteract.com) wrote: >> ... power line poles, owned and maintained by Commonwealth Edison, >> and the telephone, and cable companies lease space from >> them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity to run the city/village > for the lease on the right of way for the poles. > ... This may be one of those numerous twists and turns in the complex > byways of life for common carrier utilities in the United States, but > in the southeastern part of the country, and a few other spotty areas > I've worked in, the streets and sidewalks are public right-of-way, > available free to any state-certificated common carrier -- i.e., no > leasing by municipalities or otherwise. > ... In fact, in southern states, highway rights-of-way are free for > anyone to use (with demonstration of proper engineering drawings and > construction plans). > ... Do we have here an urban legend of telecommunications, with someone's > assumption bubbling into what seems plausible fact? > ... In the interest of accuracy, I must challenge the poster to prove his > claim with some factual references - and more than a reported phone call > to an unnamed town or utility employee, please! In Houston, Tx, the utilities pay a franchise fee to the city for use of the city rights of way. I believe it amounts to about 4 percent of gross revenues. We periodically get big squabbles over how much of the fee can be charged to the consumer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 14:33:58 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells (and Intrastate Dial Rates) In article: 7 Mar 2000 09:59:19 GMT , Hal Murray (murray@pa.dec.com) wrote: >> Many moons ago I asked someone from New England Telephone why in state >> toll rates were so ridiculously high. They explained that AT&T Long >> Lines >> handled all in-state toll traffic. It looks like NET at the time didn't >> have their own toll switches so they let AT&T rape the crap out of us. > Many moons ago in California, the PCU set intra-state long distance > charges high in order to cross-subsidize residential rates. > For a while, it was cheaper to call the east coast than across the > state. ... Your California story was accurate; the New England Tel story was an urban fable. While Long Lines did, indeed, operate most all the toll switches for New England Telephone, the rate-setting within each state with short-haul toll rates set high to subsidize local dial tone was the real story everywhere. ... While pundits of the business tried to rationalize telecommunications "costs" for short distances being like those faced by taxi drivers or even airlines as having higher "start-up" or "loading/unloading" costs, any significant reason for higher short-haul dial rates melted away when customers dialed their own calls. ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Re: Telephone-Pole Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:41:08 -0600 Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Don Kimberlin wrote: > In article Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:38:16 -0600 (John Hines > (jhines@enteract.com) wrote: >> ... power line poles, owned and maintained by Commonwealth Edison, >> and the telephone, and cable companies lease space from >> them. ComEd then exchanges the electricity to run the city/village >> for the lease on the right of way for the poles. > ... This may be one of those numerous twists and turns in the complex > byways of life for common carrier utilities in the United States, but > in the southeastern part of the country, and a few other spotty areas > I've worked in, the streets and sidewalks are public right-of-way, > available free to any state-certificated common carrier -- i.e., no > leasing by municipalities or otherwise. The deed to my house says I own the land, but that the village has a utility easement on it. The power lines are in the back, not on the street ROW, here in development. I know that for a fact, its surveyed, and that I have a power pole on the property as well. And it is the power company that shows up when the poles need replacing from storm damage, and that the phone guys have to wait for them. > ... In fact, in southern states, highway rights-of-way are free for > anyone to use (with demonstration of proper engineering drawings and > construction plans). It don't work that way around here. The village offers an exclusive monopoly on electric service, and those are the terms the contract are in. > assumption bubbling into what seems plausible fact? No, you have my recollection of the news reports on the re-negotiating of the contracts, many of which expired in 2000. It was a big issue, since in order to make any changes to the system, every street lamp and stop light would have to be metered, which would add costs. > ... In the interest of accuracy, I must challenge the poster to prove his > claim with some factual references - and more than a reported phone call > to an unnamed town or utility employee, please! http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/EnergyManagement/ See the section on utility oversight. Or http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.westmont.il.us/government/village/manager/CompPlan/WebDocs/chapter_six.htm for another local village. ------------------------------ From: news@askadrian.com (Christopher Wilkinson) Subject: Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 Reply-To: news@askadian.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:28:20 GMT Organization: Cable Internet (post doesn't reflect views of Cable Internet) On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:28:07 GMT, David Lind wrote: > Sooo glad to have this forum and the moderater back!! > The Aussies have mandated wireless phone number portability to be implemented > in 12 months. So what is holding us up? Us being the US? ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Organization: Animats Subject: Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 12:15:16 -0800 Monty Solomon quoted: > Deposit This > On the Internet, your bank is not your friend > Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate > Wednesday, February 23, 2000 This is a puff piece for Yodlee.com, which is a sort of "financial portal" that wants to act as your agent in managing your finanical affairs. Unfortunately, they also want to disclaim all liabilitiy when doing so: http://www.yodlee.com/help/terms.html Read those terms and conditions, and stay away. Anybody offering financial services should take financial responsibility for their errors. Yodlee definitely does not. You could even get stuck paying for third-party claims against Yodlee, and even their legal bills. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:20:39 +0530 From: Krishnan PP Subject: Query on LNP Question: How does LNP (Local Number Portability) work for the following cases : Intra LATA call Inter LATA call I want to know the details of the location of the portability database, the LRN etc. Regards, krishnan ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 2000 20:33:49 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and >> have no way to shop for a better rate. > You can always use a calling card, or choose a tariff which offers > mobile-mobile calls at less than land-mobile rates. Oh, but you can't. The price will be set by the recipient's telco, not the caller's. These numbers will work just like 500 or 900 numbers, which is why I've always said they belong in the otherwise nearly abandoned 500 SAC. Yes, every PBX and payphone in the country blocks calls to 500 numbers. There's a reason for that. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:45:46 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Workplace E-Mail Privacy Bill Reintroduced In Calif. http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/144965.html By Sherman Fridman, Newsbytes SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 03 Mar 2000, 10:09 AM CST California State Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach) has developed something of a reputation as the state's legislative guru on high-tech matters. Now, she's shown that she can be tenacious as well when it comes to the issue of protecting the privacy of employee-generated e-mail. Senator Bowen introduced a bill in last year's session of the California State Legislature that would have prevented employers from monitoring the e-mail of employees unless employees first acknowledged in writing that they had been informed their employer had a specific e-mail monitoring policy. The bill passed both houses of the California legislature by a substantial bipartisan margin but was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis last October on the grounds that the bill's notification requirement would place too great a burden on employers. This year, Bowen has reintroduced, (as SB 1822), a workplace privacy bill that would make it illegal for companies to review the e-mail of employees, the Internet sites visited by employees, and the computer files created by the employee, without providing the employee with notification of the company's computer monitoring policy. Asked by Newsbytes why she reintroduced a previously vetoed bill, Senator Bowen said, "Look, I'm generally not a one-shot-and-out kind of legislator. This may be one of those ideas that takes two, three, or four charges up the hill before it gets signed into law because in some ways it requires people to look through the prism in a different way." Bowen acknowledged that she needed to do a better job of showing people, including the governor, that her bill wasn't about giving computer users special protections; rather, "it's about extending the same privacy protections provided to letter writers and phone users." According to Bowen, "Some employers argue that because they own the computers and pay for Internet access, they have the right to spy on their workers without telling them it's company policy. But these same companies don't have that right in any other part of the workplace. They can't find out what medication you're on even though they're paying for your health care, and they can't eavesdrop on your personal telephone conversations even though they own the phone." The issue of electronic monitoring in the workplace is one that's growing. In 1999, the American Management Association found that out of 1,000 corporations surveyed, 45 percent electronically monitor and record employee communications in the workplace, and 27 percent read their employees' e-mail messages. California has laws addressing employee telephone use at work, but computers are not covered. The California Public Utilities Commission requires employers to inform employees when telephone conversations are recorded or monitored by either putting a beep tone on the line or by playing a recorded message. Bowen says that SB 1822 creates similar "right to know" laws to cover the new technologies that are used in today's workplace. Bowen's bill contains three main requirements; the first of which is a mandate that employers create and distribute to all employees the company's workplace privacy and electronic monitoring policies and practices. The bill would also require employees to sign, either in writing or digitally by electronic signature, that they have read, understood, and received the company's monitoring policies and practices. The third major provision of the bill would give employees the right to access electronic data that the employer collects through monitoring, and the right to dispute or delete inaccurate data. Bowen is quick to point out that her bill doesn't outlaw monitoring, and says that employers have the right to fire employees who violate company policies and misuse company equipment. "But," says Bowen, "people have a right to know what those policies are before they get a pink slip." Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com 10:09 CST Reposted 10:34 CST (20000303/Press contact: Jennie Bretschneider, 916-445-5953 /WIRES TOP, ONLINE, LEGAL, BUSINESS/BOWEN/PHOTO) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:34:55 -0500 From: Curtis R. Anderson Organization: Misguided Followers Of the Late Nicholas Devereux Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast 73115.1041@compuserve.com wrote: > Modern SLCs do the conversion once and send all the lines digitally > right into the switch, usually on a fibre pair direct from the > SLC. This can actually be a preferred solution, as the fibre is immune > to induced noise. The problem here is that space for a DSL DSLAM in > the SLC cabinet is at a premium, if it exists at all. This makes it > hard for the telco or CLEC to provide highspeed internet access. Alltel comes right out on their web site and says they will NOT be putting DSLAMs in their DLC cabinets at this time. At least, Alltel managed to get the contractor to install the DLCs correctly; they have many of them servicing this rural part outside of the Jamestown, NY area. Dialup speeds for me average 49333 bps for inbound V.90. That isn't bad considering the local loop should be < 11000 feet from the DLC to the house. Speeds can peak up to a shocking 52000 under the very best conditions. I watched the contractors installing the DLC one day and got to talking about how my modem speeds improved. They were surprised V.90 even worked at all. They were nervous when I asked about how many T1 trunks were serving it, until I told them I read the Telecom Digest. That seemed to calm them down a lot. I was able to get from the contractor that Alltel did not plan to run fiber to the DLC at this time; copper seemed to be sufficient. Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX We eat korv, not surströmming or lutefisk in western NY. Sorry. http://www.madbbs.com/users/gleepy/ ICQ: 50137888 mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com UTM: PS 7036 7315, zone 17 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:44:32 -0500 Julian Thomas wrote: > I suspect that the DLC concept is old enough that originally it had to work > with analog switches (good grief! SxS!!) as well as digital switches -- > hence the conversion back to analog." Not just SxS by any means -- Western Electric's No. 1, 1A, 2 and 3 ESSes switched in the analog domain under CPU control, as did GTE Automatic Electric's EAX. (Nortel used to make clones of the WECo switches before the Bell Canada divestiture, so I suspect they didn't have their "own" analog switch and concentrated instead on the DMS line.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:55:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS) To: IETF-Announce: ; From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-christey-imps-00.txt Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:32:15 -0500 Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS) Author(s) : S. Christey Filename : draft-christey-imps-00.txt Pages : 18 Date : 01-Mar-00 This draft describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-christey-imps-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-christey-imps-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-christey-imps-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. [The following attachment must be fetched by mail. Command-click the URL below and send the resulting message to get the attachment.] [The following attachment must be fetched by ftp. Command-click the URL below to ask your ftp client to fetch it.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:15:18 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Hell Hath no Fury Like a Telco Scorned When we first met our players last June, dashing young Qwest had swooped down from the Rockies to steal local belle US West from the clutches of Bermuda-based Global Crossing. Because she had already marched halfway down the aisle with her Caribbean beau, US West didn't come willingly. But a backroom deal was struck, the bride surrendered several hundred million dollars in dowry, and the betrothed couple rode back to Denver to plan the wedding. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12621,00.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #14 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 8 15:45:06 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA07510; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:45:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003082045.PAA07510@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #15 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:45:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nokia Chief Details Web Future (Monty Solomon) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Ryan Shook) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Felix Deutsch) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Mike Hartley) Tracking Net's Prying Eyes (Monty Solomon) Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Michael Sullivan) Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Someone) Re: NXX by NPA (Michael G. Koerner) Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (Andrew Green) Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (David Jensen) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Ryan Tucker) DoubleClick Privacy Questions (Monty Solomon) Does Anyone Use Call Manager? (Keith Knipschild) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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, 8 Mar 2000 00:19:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nokia Chief Details Web Future Nokia Chief Details Web Future Reuters 8:00 a.m. 3.Mar.2000 PST TOKYO -- The chief of Finnish cellular phone maker Nokia Corp said on Friday he expects Web-connected mobile phones to outnumber personal computers linked to the Net within three years. "The future is not PC-centric. It's mobile phone-centric," Nokia chief Jorma Ollila told a seminar on mobile networks and digital home appliances in Tokyo. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,34718,00.html ------------------------------ From: Ryan Shook Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 01:54:41 -0500 Organization: University of Waterloo On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, JF Mezei wrote: > I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and > Time-Warner to be so significant. > While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable > infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I > really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy > "ISP" companies. [...] > Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really* > happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ? I went to C|Net news, one search, one hit: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1518888.html?tag=st.ne.1002. AOL buys Time Warner in historic merger If you check out zdnet, c|net mercurynews or any other news source you can find more articles guessing about how and why. The sale was announced around January 11th. Here's my two cents. The ISPs, well at least AOL have enormous stock prices and so they can spend money. Internet Access is quickly becoming/has become a commodity. If you are in that business, you probably want to find ways to become a leader or find a new business. AOL must figure that Time will do it some good. There is certainly enough content there to keep one's pipe pretty full. Ryan Shook Mechanical Engineering | Amateur (HAM) Radio Lic.:VE3 TKD RJShook@uwaterloo.ca | http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/students/rjshook/ Your mouse has moved, reboot required for the changes to take effect. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery From: Felix Deutsch Date: 08 Mar 2000 10:31:41 +0100 JF Mezei writes: > I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and > Time-Warner to be so significant. > They mention on how Time-Warner gains a new distribution medium for > their content. > While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable > infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I > really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy > "ISP" companies. You are mislead by thinking that AOL is a mere ISP, thus just offering full-IP connectivity. I would think that many AOL subscribers spend a significant amount of their online time using services provided by AOL and not the WWW in general. > Since the internet is worldwide, and since WWW.CNN.COM is already > available worldwide through any ISP, how does it benefit CNN to since > CNN is already distributed to AOL subscribers whether Time-Warner owns > AOL or not ? They may offer some 'added-value' content for AOL subscribers, like discount on the merchandise crap for the latest 'family' *spit* movie. Felix "A further hint at my impending doom was that the specification was based on the OSI model - a group of standards renouned worldwide for their pointless complexity, difficulty of implementation, and unworkability." Donald Becker - "Why IrDA Should Be Laughed Out Of Town" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 04:28:17 PST From: Mike Hartley Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees "John R. Levine" wrote: >>> As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be >>> charged and >>> have no way to shop for a better rate. >> You can always use a calling card, or choose a tariff which offers >> mobile-mobile calls at less than land-mobile rates. > Oh, but you can't. The price will be set by the recipient's telco, > not the caller's. There's probably some UK/US difference here. The point I wanted to bring out was that although the recepient's telco will set the minimum price, individual originating telcos will add varying markups, usually depending on tariff/volume/marketing strategy. So, as an example: If I call a mobile from my PSTN line I'm charged at the rate which my (fairly small) PSTN provider has negotiated with the terminating operator. If I call the same mobile from my PSTN line using a calling card I get a different rate, approx 50% lower, since the calling card telco negotiates with other large resellers/carriers who have managed to secure much more advantagous termination rates based on higher call volumes. If I call from my mobile I get a rate between the PSTN and calling card because I'm on a high volume tariff. > From an anglocentric point of view I don't see how the US can implement calling party pays without giving mobiles their own number groups. Regards, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:17:10 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tracking Net's prying eyes Cybersleuth aims to expose surveillance of consumers By Frank James Special to the Tribune March 6, 2000 BROOKLINE, Mass. -- Richard M. Smith is a software expert who doesn't fully trust his own kind. So he has launched a personal crusade to expose technology practices that threaten the privacy of millions of Internet users. The retired co-founder of a maker of specialized software for industry, he has a growing reputation as one of the Internet's premier privacy defenders. He has essentially become the Techie Avenger for millions of less savvy Internet users who surf unaware of how much of their personal information is silently being gathered. http://www.chicagotribune.com/tech/biztech/article/0,2669,2-42915,FF.html ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:47:15 GMT Hal Murray wrote: > I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems > to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps. You are thinking about CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which requires carriers to provide assistance to authorized law enforcement agencies in performing wiretaps -- more specifically, interceptions of communications and accesses to call identifying information. It's not exactly automated, though. Just complicated, costly, and near-impossible to implement properly. As well as being constitutionally suspect, as implemented. > Is there a good description of that system available on the web? The FBI's CALEA home page is http://www.fbi.gov/programs/calea/calea.htm and the FCC's is http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/csinfo/calea.html > What fraction of the current COs support it? Well, that depends on what you mean. Virtually all COs support, to one degree or another, the provision of wiretapping assistance to law enforcement. None that I know of support all of what the statute requires, yet. The telephone and cellular industries have developed a standard, J-STD-025, or the "J Standard," that will provide a lot of scary stuff, but the FBI and FCC decided that it wasn't enough and imposed further requirements. Compliance with the J Standard is due June 30, 2000, and with the additional FBI "punch list" requirements by September 30, 2001. Right now it doesn't look like more than a handful of COs (if that) will meet those deadlines. > I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make > sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason > that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep > hackers from tapping whatever they want? Yes. Under CALEA and the FCC regs, an interception or access can be set up only if a designated official of the carrier is provided with "legal authorization" by law enforcement, determines that it is valid, fills out some forms, and then gives the carrier's employees authorization to proceed. This is not an automated process; there is human review of all wiretap requests at a fairly high level in the corporation. Neither law enforcement nor hackers will have the ability to simply send codes over the internet to set up a wiretap, if the system works as it should. Under the J Standard, taps will be set up to provide content and/or call identifying information over prearranged facilities (e.g., leased lines), so the law enforcement authorities will be able to get what's authorized back at their offices, not at the CO. > How much does that system cost? Nationwide, it will probably cost several billion dollars. Nobody knows for sure. > If I took the total cost of that > system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would > they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? The system is to be paid for in part by the Feds and in part by the carriers (and ultimately their customers). Specifically, getting pre-1995 switches up to the J Standard is supposed to be paid for by the Feds, and getting post-1995 switches up to the standard will generally by paid by the carriers and/or customers. There are a variety of provisions for the Feds to pick up additional costs under certain circumstances. > Is this just > a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement? Yes. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: Someone Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:14:10 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Hal Murray wrote in message news:telecom20.13.6@telecom-digest.org... > I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems > to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps. Yes, this is correct. > Is there a good description of that system available on the web? There are several, most of which are summarized here: http://www.tiaonline.org/government/CALEA/ ------------------------------ From: Michael G. Koerner Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:34:53 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: mgk920@dataex.com Clarence Dold wrote: > Ben Schilling wrote: >> You can get the lists from http://www.nanpa.com/ . They are under Central >> Office Codes (Prefixes). There are sixteen zip files in the entire set. > How strange. Those are incredibly out of date and incomplete. > Looking at WSUTLZD.TXT, I find 707-965 (my home) with no description. > Looking for NAPA, I find it listed as 415-217. I don't remember how > long ago Napa became the 707 NPA. > Wait a minute ... I see a pattern. > The older NPA-NXX are incomplete, but the "newer" ones are properly > described. But there is a _LOT_ of data missing. > My dad's house is in in San Leandro, but listed as Oakland. > There are 21338 entries in WSUTLZD.TXT > 1556 different "Names" > 4501 NPA-NXX have no description. 21% That is interesting, as I am finding the NANPA 'Utilized' list printout that I am poring over as I write this (I printed out part of the total 'Upper Midwest' file so that it only covers Wisconsin, Illinois, the 906 NPA in Michigan and the 219 NPA in Indiana) to be EXTREMELY accurate and up to date (the file is dated 29-Feb-2000). The 'blank' entries are either 'reserved', 'unassignable' or, in the case of an NPA that is splitting (414-262, mandatory this past Saturday), 'duplicative'. 'Blank' entries that have an 'effective date' at the end have just been assigned, with more info coming later (the TelCordia NNAG seems to be 'faster' in this area, and their entries agree with NANPA's ones). Regards, Michael G. Koerner Appleton, WI ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 16:27:44 -0600 Joe Machado writes: > In the meantime, why can't we work at projecting a web page > or a NetMeeting type interaction inside a car windshield > instead of the speedometer? Um, because you're supposed to be driving? Seriously, we're developing a lot of stuff that obviously could operate just fine inside a car, but not all of it is necessarily a Good Thing there. Laws notwithstanding, I like to think that the reason conversion van and limousine manufacturers, for example, usually shy away from installing their on-board TVs within view of the driver is because common sense dictates that (1) the TV will be a major distraction to the driver, and thus (2) some idiot will drive into one of them newfangled steel telephone poles while watching, um, "Wall Street Week," and promptly sue the manufacturers for putting the TV distraction in view. As it happens, I love the heads-up speedometer display on my Pontiac, because it significantly reduces the distraction and time that would be taken by looking down at the dashboard and then refocusing on the road. But that's a gadget that enhances the driving experience rather than interferes with it. I have a cellphone in there, too, but it's rigged for speed dialing, hands-free operation and generally to be as undistracting as possible. Please, we have enough problems with morons reading the newspaper as they drive (check out any Chicago expressway traffic jam for examples); let's not give them a multimedia show as well. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: David Jensen Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees Organization: Jensen Family Reply-To: david@dajensen-family.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:38:12 GMT On 6 Mar 2000 20:33:49 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote in : > Oh, but you can't. The price will be set by the recipient's telco, > not the caller's. These numbers will work just like 500 or 900 > numbers, which is why I've always said they belong in the otherwise > nearly abandoned 500 SAC. Anyone here expect AOSlime and other dishonest resellers as the first in line to be selling calling party pays? > Yes, every PBX and payphone in the country blocks calls to 500 > numbers. There's a reason for that. We have to have a way to block this unless the prices are regulated and acceptable. ------------------------------ From: rtucker+from+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Reply-To: rtucker+replyto+200001@katan.ttgcitn.com Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:39:07 GMT Organization: Time Warner Road Runner - Rochester NY In , hoxley@nouce.shore.net spewed: > Something that I see COULD happen is "content" which used to be available > to all Internet users will eventually move behind AOL/TimeWarner's > firewall, to only be accessable by AOL/TW subscribers. But AOL invented that game ... the protocol is different, they're a lot bigger, but most people will still not go out of their way to reach www.cnn.com when www.abcnews.com is right over there. They still have some internal content, but they're mainly marketing the ease-of-use and the community aspects (forums and chat), all of which are already commonly kept internal/proprietary. There's two essential things AOL will gain from this: - Time Warner's infrastructure, from telecom to cable modem to satellite to what-have-you, and - a hell of a lot of respect from people who think the Internet is a fad. And those are very valuable things to an Internet company :-) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:56:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Privacy Questions Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:18:53 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: [RRE]DoubleClick privacy questions [Faced with possible action by the FTC in response to complaints by privacy activists (in addition to the ones I've already mentioned on RRE, see ), DoubleClick has announced that it is abandoning the online profiling plans that were so widely denounced a while back. Yet several questions remain. USA Today had reported that DoubleClick "has begun tracking Web users by name and address as they move from one Web site to the next", yet the company's press release specifically denies this. DoubleClick has not ruled out connecting anonymous cookie information with personal identities and profiling information from other sources. To the contrary, it reserves the right to go ahead once "there is agreement between government and industry on privacy standards". Meanwhile, CNET is reporting today that Richard Smith has discovered that sensitive personal financial data entered into the Intuit Web site was being sent to DoubleClick; Intuit claims that this was happening without their knowledge and would constitute a violation of DoubleClick's contract. Smith believes that this is happening at numerous sites, and that it results in these sites violating their own privacy policies. Internet electronic commerce is giving rise to a new privacy disaster about once a week. Usually these sorts of panics are overblown, but the weird thing here is that most people are too complacent. "It's a one-time thing. It just happens a lot." The vast majority of people, including many in the computer industry, woke up to the Internet very recently; they take it as a given, and they have no way of imagining how it could be any different. Maybe you need to have been doing this stuff for decades to realize what a pile of junk it all is. It is not a superficial problem, and the necessary structural solutions won't happen unless a significant amount of force is applied. To this end, the FTC should be made responsible for enforcing the Fair Information Practices and promoting the adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies based on public-key cryptography. The great danger is that the applications architecture we have right now will freeze in place due to well-known standards dynamics. We can't blame the people who designed the stuff; they assumed that they were sketching a first rough draft, not setting something in stone for all time. If we *can't* change those first rough drafts once they become widely used, then the ideological image of the Internet as a roiling cauldron of endless structural change is (like so much of the received wisdom in this area) the opposite of the truth. And in that case, we need to adopt a more deliberative method for adopting the standards that increasingly govern our lives. One structural problem is that the client-server architecture of the Web is misconceived. The client-server concept arose in contexts such as proprietary airline reservations systems in which the institutional relationship between client and server is fixed and well-understood. In such an environment, it makes sense for the technological boundary between client and server to be invisible to the user: the moral and legal boundary is provided by the well-understood contract. As the client-server model moved onto public networks such as the Internet, however, the underlying assumption of a fixed and well-understood institutional relationship between client and server was undermined. A Web client transacts business with an unbounded variety of servers, and the institutional relationship between them -- the rules that govern privacy and a hundred other things -- are no longer fixed or well-understood. Yet the boundary between client and server is still invisible. It will simply not be possible to solve privacy problems in Web-based electronic commerce until this profound architectural and user-interface problem is repaired, and that will require substantial revisions to the most basic conception of the Web. We can begin to imagine what this would look like: take the tools that sophisticated security experts like Richard Smith use to watch packets moving into and out of your personal computer, make those tools an integral part of the operating system, and incorporate user- friendly interfaces for those tools into the architecture of the Web browser. Those stupid pop-up windows that say "you've gotten a cookie XQW27RTOX990876GHRX91 from tormentor666.redzone.doubleclick.com; do you want to accept it?" are a band-aid version of this. They are not built into the operating system, they are annoying, and they are not intelligible to the user. They're designed to make you turn them off. We can do an awful lot better, but first we have to think in moral and legal terms about what personal boundaries are, and the respective roles of technology, policy, markets, consumer education, and community norms in supporting them. Last point. If you're not grossed out enough by Internet privacy and security already, see .] This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html Press Releases STATEMENT FROM KEVIN O'CONNOR, CEO OF DOUBLECLICK NEW YORK, March 2, 2000 - "Over the past few weeks, DoubleClick (Nasdaq: DCLK) has been at the center of the Internet privacy controversy. During this time, we have met and listened to hundreds of consumers, privacy advocates, customers, government officials and industry leaders about these issues. The overwhelming point of contention has been under what circumstances names can be associated with anonymous user activity across Web sites." "It is clear from these discussions that I made a mistake by planning to merge names with anonymous user activity across Web sites in the absence of government and industry privacy standards." "Let me be clear: DoubleClick has not implemented this plan, and has never associated names, or any other personally identifiable information, with anonymous user activity across Web sites." "We commit today, that until there is agreement between government and industry on privacy standards, we will not link personally identifiable information to anonymous user activity across Web sites." "This action does not affect our core business activity. It means we are going to await clear industry standards before we decide the future direction of a number of new products. We will continue to expand our successful media, technology, e-mail and offline data businesses. We will also continue to abide by common industry practices in building anonymous profiles for ad targeting." "Since founding DoubleClick only 4 years ago, our company has grown to 1,800 employees with more than 7,000 customers worldwide. We are helping thousands of companies become successful in our new economy. I'm proud of DoubleClick's leadership as an innovator in improving the value of Internet advertising and keeping the Internet free for consumers. Taking risks, inventing new products and services, and correcting mistakes is a sign of responsible leadership." "Creating industry policies involving something so incredibly important to our global economy and individuals is not something to be taken lightly. We all agree on the goals: keep the Internet free while protecting consumer privacy. It is now time for industry, consumers and government to develop a clear set of guidelines that help create a healthy, free Internet while protecting the privacy of all consumers." About DoubleClick Inc. DoubleClick Inc. (www.doubleclick.net) is a leading provider of comprehensive global Internet advertising solutions for marketers and Web publishers. Combining technology, media and data expertise, DoubleClick centralizes planning, execution, control, tracking and reporting for online media campaigns. DoubleClick Inc. has Global headquarters in New York City and maintains over 30 offices around the world. ------------------------------ From: Keith Knipschild Subject: Does Anyone Use Call Manager ? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:42:04 -0500 Im curious does anyone use Call Manager ( Bell Atlantic calls it ) If so what equipment are you using ? Is it a Standalone unit or built into your phone ? The reason I'm asking is because I have Call Manager and have never used it, since I could not find reasonable priced equipment. Thanks, Keith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= WEB: http://www.knip.com MAIL: keith@knip.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #15 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 9 20:28:50 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA04349; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:28:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:28:50 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003100128.UAA04349@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #16 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:28:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 16 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Psychic Hotline Charges (Paul Cook) Symantec Threatens Legal Action Over I-Gear Report (Bennett) Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... (Bill Phillips) Re: Long Lines Bells (Don Kimberlin) Keystroke Cops (Monty Solomon) Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 (David Clayton) What Can be Done When the LECs T1 Card Goes? (Dan Star) Siemens EWSP Switch (Joshua Walmsley) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (J.F. Mezei) DoubleClick Names Privacy Chiefs (Monty Solomon) Interesting Anomalies in Bell Canada Call Screen Service (GT Snoracer) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Paul Cook From: Paul Cook Subject: Psychic Hotline Charges Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:56:18 -0800 Organization: Proctor & Associates, Inc. Psychic hot line bill: $70,000 Thursday, March 9, 2000 By PAULO LIMA Staff Writer The Bergen Record Had the telephone psychics been more clairvoyant, they might have told Jeffrey Ochs they saw a big bill in his future. As far as Bell Atlantic is concerned, Ochs himself should have seen it coming: After all, he was calling an international number when he repeatedly dialed up a psychic hot line over a seven-week period. Ochs, of Hackensack, said the hot line operator told him, "We'll fix your life," and encouraged him to keep calling back. Ochs' troubles came to a head Feb. 15, when Hackensack police arrested him on a complaint filed by Bell Atlantic, charging him with theft of services for refusing to pay the bill. According to the complaint, Ochs opened up accounts in five different names in order to make hundreds of calls to the hot line, which operates from the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, west of Fiji. The calls weren't cheap, averaging about $6 per minute. "A half-hour call costs approximately $180," said Tom Cassidy, an investigator with Bell Atlantic. "And they were one after another!" Ochs, 49, who works for a job placement agency, has refused to pay for the hot line calls, made between Nov. 15 and Jan. 7. Last week, he filed a report with police seeking to charge Bell Atlantic with deceptive business practices. "I'm not sure if he's upset over the $70,000 or if it's because they didn't fix his life," said Hackensack Deputy Police Chief Ed Koeser. On Monday, Ochs and his attorney pursued the complaint in Hackensack Municipal Court. But a hearing on whether they legally could file a countercomplaint was postponed because Bell Atlantic wasn't represented by an attorney. A new hearing date had not yet been scheduled. "We think he should pay only for the long-distance charge and not for the psychic hot line's fee for its services," said Ochs' lawyer, Richard Galler. "In other words, he should pay whatever it costs to make a regular call to Vanuatu." Galler contends the psychic hot line is not entitled to collect a fee because it never provided a service. Instead, he said, the psychics exploited his client. "He tells them he has emotional problems, and they repeatedly encourage him to call back," Galler said. He refused to elaborate. Ochs, who is single, said he saw an advertisement for the service in TV Guide. Sandwiched between larger displays for the Psychic Source and the Professional Psychic Loveline on the magazine's last page, the two-line "Psychic Hotline" ad promises "live 1-to-1 readings." "They don't even have the rate" in the ad, Ochs said. "It said, 'international rates apply' -- whatever that means." Soraya Rodriguez, a Bell Atlantic spokeswoman, said the company is not Ochs' long-distance carrier and does not decide the charge. "Whatever the long-distance carrier tells us to charge, that's what we bill them," Rodriguez said. Galler said Ochs' long-distance carrier is Sprint, whose charge for a call to Vanuatu -- regardless of whether it's to a psychic hot line, a private residence, or another business -- ranges from about $7 per minute to $3.71 per minute with the company's international plan, under which the caller pays a $5.95 monthly fee. Such disputes over bills ordinarily result when parents discover that their teenage children have been calling phone sex lines. Yet large psychic hot line tabs are not unheard of. Cassidy, the investigator, said he worked a case years ago in which a Central Jersey woman ran up more than $50,000 in psychic hot line charges. And last year, a Los Angeles man reportedly made a staggering $120,000 worth of calls to a psychic hot line. Telephone industry experts emphasized, however, that the high bills do not necessarily reflect the psychic hot line's fee. International long-distance rates depend largely on pre-negotiated contracts between U.S. long-distance carriers -- such as AT&T, MCI, and Sprint -- and the local telephone company in the destination country, said Teresa Evert of Concert, a joint venture between AT&T and British Telecom. Long-distance carriers pay Vanuatu International Telephone Co. a $2-per-minute settlement rate, which is what the Vanuatu company charges to complete the call. The rate is one of the highest in the world, said Evert, adding that most Western European countries charge settlement rates under 10 cents per minute. The high settlement rates have attracted psychic and phone sex lines to the island country in recent years, Evert said. By offering to bring in more calls, the services negotiate deals with the Vanuatu telephone company for their cut of the American dollars. American carriers say they do not add on any extra fees for sex lines or psychic hot lines. "We charge the same price for any standard, direct-dial call to Vanuatu," Evert said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 08:48:23 -0600 From: bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Symantec Threatens Legal Action Over I-Gear Report Reply-To: peacefire-press@iain.com Our report on I-Gear at: http://peacefire.org/censorware/I-Gear/igdecode/ has attracted the attention of Symantec's lawyers, who sent a fax to our ISP demanding that they remove our link to the I-Gear blocked site list on Symantec's server: http://peacefire.org/censorware/I-Gear/igdecode/symantec-to-media3.3-1-2000. txt Our report provided a means to download the list of 470,000 sites blocked by I-Gear and decrypt the list with the "igdecode" codebreaker program. We looked at the first 50 .edu URL's blocked under "pornography" that were still working, and found that 38 of them were mistakes: http://peacefire.org/censorware/I-Gear/igear-blocked-edu.html The blocked pages included a 75 K page written entirely in Latin, a description of a milking machine system written in Spanish, and volumes 4 and 6 of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" -- but NOT volumes 1, 2, 3, and 5 (even though these were linked from the same index page), since apparently all the "good parts" are in volumes 4 and 6. (Before our report was pubilshed, we also sent mail to a few contacts asking them to download I-Gear's list, and act as "witnesses" in case I-Gear removed the list and claimed our report was fabricated.) We also found that the I-Gear installer retrieves your "real name" and "company name" from Windows registration information on your computer, and secretly sends this data back to Symantec -- apparently in violation of the privacy policy on Symantec's Web site. Symantec is demanding that we remove the links to their server, which we have not done. However, Symantec did move the blocked-site list on their server, so the link from our page no longer works. (More precisely, the link contains a serial number that has to be verified before the list can be downloaded, and Symantec de-activated that serial number to stop the link from working.) We believe that the issue at stake is the right to criticize software by looking "under the hood", and to allow others to verify your findings. By decrypting the list, in addition to the 76% error rate for .edu pages, we found that portions of the Web sites of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU.org), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT.org), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC.org), and the Censorware Project (Censorware.org) were blocked by I-Gear in its "pornography" category. On the other hand, none of the major pro-censorship groups (enough.org, frc.org, afa.net, fotf.org, etc.) had portions of their Web sites blocked. Regardless of whether those anti-censorship sites got on the list by accident, the results suggest a bias in the blocked-site database -- which never would have been discovered without decrypting the list. Peacefire has never altered any content on our Web site as a result of legal threats. Our report on I-Gear will stay up, and we will post updates to our Web site regarding the legal situation. For more information: email bennett@peacefire.org or call (425) 649 9024; I'll be in most of the day. We also have a list of lawyers, lobbyists, and activists on the pro- and anti-side of the blocking software debate, at: http://www.peacefire.org/info/press.html complete with email and phone numbers, if you're looking for statements from other people and organizations. -Bennett bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 649 9024 ------------------------------ From: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Subject: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... Organization: ShoeString Projects, Cambridge, MA Reply-To: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:44:11 GMT [The following came from a friend of mine in Washington state. I've left her name off. I figure someone among all you phone gurus has the answer ... Right?] I'm trying to be patient and not paranoid. (which fortunately, I'm generally not very paranoid.) There's a number that keeps calling me, about 6:00 p.m. or so, which is usually when I am out feeding or working with horses. The operator and the phone company can't tell me anything about it (won't? they say they don't know the interchange...YOU'RE THE FREAKIN' PHONE COMPANY!!!! GRRRR....). I've tried reverse directories InfoSpace, AnyWho, and ThinkPC411. The number is 509-533-1504. 509 is eastern washington; I'm in a 509 as well. But the 533 interchange isn't listed anywhere. When I call the number back, I either get a busy signal or it just rings and rings forever (and boy, have I let it ring!). It could be a "switch" number -- like, when I get a call from our hospital to my house, it might be any number, and not match any of the "real" outgoing numbers, because all our calls get routed through a switch. So maybe it's a big telemarketer ... but I sure wish I could figure it out ... it's starting to freak me out. Of course they never leave a message. I guess what's weirding me out is that they keep calling; about 6 times or so in the last 3 weeks. Any ideas for figuring out more about this? I'd just like to know if I'm being stalked by a telemarketer or a real person (vicious point intended). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:25:52 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Re: Long Lines Bells In article Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:17:18 -0600 Grover C. McCoury III (grover@corvia.com) wrote: > I dusted off my copy of the "Bell Labs Bible", Engineering and > Operations in the Bell System, and found the following definition: > The Long Lines Department of AT&T owns and operates long distance > transmission facilities and certain switching systems to provide > connections between operating companies and with foreign countries. > Long Lines, being an operating organization, is the largest part of AT&T, > with about 90% of all AT&T personnel. > AT&T was organized as follows: > ______________________________________ > AT&T > General Depts. Long Lines Dept > ______________________________________ > | | | > Western Electric | Bell Operating Companies(24 BOCs) > | | > | | > ------ | > | | > Bell Telephone** Laboratories > ** - BTL is 50% owned by Western Electric and 50% owned by AT&T That's a good book and a good list. I tell people that pre-divestiture, Long Lines was the "25th RBOC," seeing as its function was to run the intercompany lines between all the others. In the original Bell System setup, Long Lines in fact collected _all_ the money from the RBOCs who had to do the local connecting, provide many interstate operator services, bill and flow the money through -- and originally, got only a measly flat twenty-five cents for their work at each end, while AT&T kept _all_ the rest -- and that in a day when "long distance" was a large portion of a dollar per minute! The RBOCs, by comparison, were mere "tax farms" for 195 Broadway, and the attitude of their personnel toward Long Lines employees generally showed it. When DDD came along and the plant got automated, profitability skyrocketed even further. It should be no wonder that interlopers like MCI finally cracked the code and found out there was so much profit anybody could do it... Donald Kimberlin, NCE ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:11:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Keystroke Cops New software raises troubling questions on worker privacy By Michael J. McCarthy THE WALL STREET JOURNAL March 7 - The American workplace has been put on notice that office computers can be monitored. But who could have imagined the keystroke cops? IN A NEW THREAT to personal privacy on the job, some companies have begun using surveillance software that covertly monitors and records each keystroke an employee makes: every letter, every comma, every revision, every flick of the fingertip, regardless of whether the data is ever saved in a file or transmitted over a corporate computer network. As they harvest those bits and bytes, the new programs, priced at as little as $99, give employers access to workers' unvarnished thoughts - and the potential to use that information for their own ends. http://www.msnbc.com/news/378768.asp?cp1=1 ------------------------------ From: David Clayton Subject: Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:39:36 +1100 Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au David Lind contributed the following: > Sooo glad to have this forum and the moderater back!! > The Aussies have mandated wireless phone number portability to be implemented > in 12 months. So what is holding us up? > http://cnniw.newsreal.com/cgi-bin/NewsService?osform_template=pages/cnniwStory&ID=cnniw&storypath=News/Story_2000_03_06.NRdb@2@5@3@5&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@14@2@1 It may be in legislation, but the established carriers have been "dragging their feet" in agreeing how it is to happen, but: ......... On 1 October 1999, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission determined that full number portability for mobile phone numbers (excluding analogue AMPS mobiles) should be available in Australia, and directed the ACA (Australian Communications Authority) to set the earliest practicable date for its implementation. Mobile number portability is the ability of a customer to change their mobile service provider, while keeping their existing mobile phone number. To assist in setting the implementation date for mobile number portability, the ACA released a discussion paper in December 1999 seeking public comment. Following consideration of the responses to this paper, the ACA will release a report in early March 2000, outlining the ACA's preliminary view of an appropriate implementation date for mobile number portability. After inviting further comment, the ACA will finalise its report by late April 2000 and announce the implementation date for mobile number portability. ............. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 18:44:52 -0600 From: Dan Star Reply-To: danstar@execpc.com Organization: ETCO Subject: What Can be Done When the LECs T1 Card Goes? We had a site coneected via Frame relay go down in the morning due to a faulty T1 card provided by the Ameritech LEC. The Frame service itself is provided by MCIWorldCom. It took the LEC until 8 pm that night to fix it. Can either party be held responsible for this? How should a customer respond to this occurence? Dan ------------------------------ From: Joshua Walmsley Subject: Siemens EWSP Switch Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:35:51 +1100 Organization: Optus Internet Hi, I am looking for information relating to the EWSD switch family. I have searched and all I have been able to get is two pages from Siemens web site. Can somone point me in the direction of information. What I am looking for is setup information, case studies how some compaines have theirs setup..etc. ------------------------------ From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:16:50 -0500 Felix Deutsch wrote: > You are mislead by thinking that AOL is a mere ISP, thus just offering > full-IP connectivity. I would think that many AOL subscribers spend a > significant amount of their online time using services provided by AOL > and not the WWW in general. But what advantage is there for CNN to restrict content to AOL-only subscribers ? If the goal is to have more eyeballs, shouldn't CNN push to be on the world-wide-web and get eyeballs from any ISP in the world instead of just AOL with a proprietary product available only on AOL ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:22:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick names privacy chiefs http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/current/netdaily.htx By Frank Barnako, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 2:10 PM ET Mar 8, 2000 Internet advertising services firm DoubleClick (DCLK) moved Wednesday to quell controversy about its data collection and tracking procedures by hiring two prominent consumer protection experts. Jules Polonetsky, New York City's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, has signed on as DoubleClick's Chief Privacy Officer. Former New York State attorney general Robert Abrams will chair a Privacy Advisory Board for the company. "DoubleClick is dedicated to both guaranteeing user privacy and delivering effective online advertising that will keep the Internet free," said the firm's president, Kevin Ryan. He said Polonetsky will act as an ombudsman for Internet users, working with clients to institute and police their privacy policies. ------------------------------ From: gt_snoracer@my-deja.com Subject: Interesting Anomalies in Bell Canada Call Screen Service Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:16:43 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. My neighbor, who is a single mother with two year old twins and a six year old, has been facing non-stop harassment from collection agents thanks to debts ran up by her deadbeat ex husband, who has fled back to Iran. Since her job entails that she answer the phone at all times, she was at her wits end with them calling late or early and waking the children. when she found out i used to work in the field and talked to me, i explained some strategies, particularly with Bell's call screen service, that could cut down on these calls from these psychological terrorists. (And that's really what they are ... but I digress ...) The agents usually call with the the call display number blocked or unknown, but call screen seems to work with a surprising amount of them. Most have ceased. One interesting thing I have noticed, however, is that two numbers, CollectCorp [(416) 961-9622] and The Collection House [(416) 447-0060] do not work with the system. So the question I have ... is Bell in bed with those two companies? (Or one company perhaps ... these agencies are notorious for using shell companies to cloak operations.) and how effective is a service like this, which is advertised as allowing people to escape harassment (and it's a clear case of it here)? Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #16 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 9 22:27:32 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA08722; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:27:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:27:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003100327.WAA08722@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #17 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:42:37 EST Volume 20 : Issue 17 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Dick Aichinger) SPAM: ADV: Search Engine Registration (Claire Pieterek) Nortel Analog Switches (was Re: The DLC Epidemic...) (Steve Hayes) Re: NXX by NPA (Clarence Dold) Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe (A. E. Siegman) IDT Adopts Cellular/Paging Calling Party Pays (Monty Solomon) 24/7 Europe Develops The World's First WAP Ad Server (Monty Solomon) IEEE Statement Against UCITA (Monty Solomon) Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Don Kimberlin) Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Tony Pelliccio) U.S. Wants to Trace Net Users (Monty Solomon) Re: Last Laugh! The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (Barry Margolin) Desperately Seeking the Next DoubleClick (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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: Dick Aichinger Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:46:55 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. In article , msb@vex.net wrote: > Mike Pollock quotes Robert Guy Matthews in The Wall Street Journal: >> The U.S. currently has about 90 million wood telephone poles. Steel poles >> have tripled since 1997, but they still represent less than 2% of the >> market. The key, the steel industry believes, is in the telephone- >> pole replacement market: Four million wood poles each year need to be >> replaced >> because of routine maintenance, accidents, construction, and steel's >> friend, the woodpecker. > About two years ago Toronto Hydro, the local electric company, rewired my > street and replaced the old wooden poles with concrete ones. Is concrete > not a common choice of for utility poles in the US? Is there an > important > distinction for some reason between *telephone* poles and those for > other utilities? > Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab > msb@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay > My text in this article is in the public domain. The use of concrete poles instead of steel or wood poles for utilities in the US is very regional. Where there is a concrete pole facility, concrete poles seem to be more readily used but for distribution line construction concrete is still not used that much. The much heavier concrete pole is a limiting factor for it acceptance for freight or construction considerations. I believe the authors use of the term "telephone pole" was a generic representation of wood poles commonly seen along roads and along neighborhood backyards. I believe his reference and statistics represent the wood pole use for utilities in general. Dick Aichinger, PE ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:50:52 PST From: Claire Pieterek Reply-To: pieterek@pipeline.com Subject: SPAM: ADV: Search Engine Registration Hi, Pat -- I'm glad you're back! Here is another worthy entry for the Telecom Digest Business Directory. mike@yy3becker92181.net wrote: > From pop_server."pilotgirl"@pop.pipeline.com Wed Mar 8 13:48:56 2000 > Return-Path: > Received: from marci1.marcireau.fr ([212.208.179.3]) > by work.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id > scdick.4lj.37kbi0t > for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:43:47 -0500 (EST) > Received: from computer [212.208.179.135] by marci1.marcireau.fr > (SMTPD32-6.00) id A9243E590084; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:41:56 +0100 > To: > From: > Subject: ADV: Search Engine Registration > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit > content-length: 485 > Message-Id: <200003082241578.SM00311@computer> > Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:41:59 +0100 > Removal instructions below. > I saw your listing on the internet. > I work for a company that specializes > in getting clients web sites listed > as close to the top of the major > search engines as possible. > Our fee is only $29.95 per month to > submit your site at least twice a > month to over 350 search engines > and directories. > To get started and put your web site > in the fast lane, call our toll free > number below. > Mike Bender > 888-532-8842 > To be removed call: 888-800-6339 X1377 Claire Pieterek surfing on a wave of nostalgia for an age yet to come [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think instead of 'Mike Bender' his name should be 'Bend Over'. Sadly, a lot of newcomers on the net will probably bend over, at least to get their wallet out of their pocket to hand him his money every month. I agree this is a good entry for the Busines Directory, but decisions about that are left up to the Editor of the same. I suspect we will see a new issue of the directory before long. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Nortel Analog Switches (was Re: The DLC Epidemic...) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:08:16 -0000 Hi Pat and everyone, First, I should have already said Welcome back, Pat. We can see that the old war-horse is still responding to the bugle call. Many thanks for your efforts. In Telecom Digest V20 No. 14 while contributing to the DLC Epidemic thread, Ed Ellers speculated a bit about Nortel analog switches. I can fill in a few more details which I hope will be interesting to a few readers. In the early 70s, Northern Electric (which became Northern Telecom and now Nortel) made the Western Electric No. 1 ESS switch under license. Northern's engineering department had the not very demanding job of going through the Western documents with red and yellow pencils, crossing out the word "Western" and replacing it with "Northern". They also had to change the leading K on each part number to a Q but that was about it. As I heard it, Western refused to license the later ESS versions. I suppose they hoped to get the business themselves. Northern rose to the challenge and developed the SP1 switch (SP as in Stored Program). This had more advanced CPU control then the No. 1 ESS but used inexpensive and reliable mini-crossbar electromechanical switches for the actual (analog) switching. It was a very successful switch in its day - partly thanks to the captive Bell Canada market of course. I'm not sure but I think that the No. 1 ESS used ferreed switching elements - someone else is bound to know more about that. Digital switching started to come in around the mid 70s and Northern developed the DMS range which soon replaced the SP1. I wonder if any of the SP1s are still in service - like their electromechanical predecessors they had a 40 year design life. It's interesting to speculate whether Northern would ever have developed DMS if the licensing agreements with Western had continued. Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: NXX by NPA Date: 8 Mar 2000 22:06:30 GMT Organization: a2i network Reply-To: dold@email.rahul.net Michael G. Koerner wrote: > Clarence Dold wrote: >> How strange. Those are incredibly out of date and incomplete. >> Looking at WSUTLZD.TXT, I find 707-965 (my home) with no description. >> Looking for NAPA, I find it listed as 415-217. I don't remember how >> long ago Napa became the 707 NPA. > That is interesting, as I am finding the NANPA 'Utilized' list printout ... > NPA in Michigan and the 219 NPA in Indiana) to be EXTREMELY accurate and My supposition, based only on the SF Bay Area, is that the table is now being populated as NPA-NXX are assigned. The NPA-NXX that existed at the start of the 'project' were filled in manually, and only for important areas. The suburbs (most of NPA 707) is sparsely populated. 707-nnn is 644 entries, 365 of which are blank. CA 707-968 for instance. No date, no ... 415-nnn is 693 entries, 34 of which are blank, and some of those are nn/nn/2000 dates. Unassignable? 8 of them are N11. Most of 415, the mature NPA in the area, is populated. So, you might be able to use these tables casually, but you certainly can't depend on them in California. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: siegman@stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Give me Some of That New Wireless, Maybe Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:20:06 -0800 Organization: Stanford University In article , Andrew Green wrote: > Seriously, we're developing a lot of stuff that obviously could operate just > fine inside a car, but not all of it is necessarily a Good Thing there. Based on a day's exposure to a colleague's car in Japan equipped with a GPS system and CD-ROM-driven LCD dynamic map display, this particular system is going to be the premier example of this unresolved dichotomy. * The capabilities of the system for indicating where you are, where you're heading, and what's around you are wonderful (especially in a place like Japan), as well as near unbelievable. * The driver obviously needs to see it. * Yet the amount of information displayed is large (basically two side-by-side maps, one showing immediate surroundings, the other a broader area) and the level of detail involved is very distracting, almost guaranteed to pull the driver's attention away from the road -- and the display unit, at least in the van I rode in, is down low in the general area where radio and heater controls are in most cars, so when you're looking at it, the road ahead is barely in your peripheral vision. In other words, the amount of visual and mental distraction from the task of driving the car is way beyond any simple task like listening to the radio, talking on a phone hands-off, or using an electric shaver. On the one hand, these things are wonderful; on the other hand it's hard to believe they aren't going to lead to an epidemic of rear-end collisions, running down of pedestrians, and similar accidents. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:51:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IDT Adopts Cellular/Paging Calling Party Pays IDT Adopts Cellular/Paging Calling Party Pays 03/03/00 Newsbytes, 03/3/2000 08:11 NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A., 2000 MAR 3 (NB) -- By Steve Gold, Newsbytes. IDT Corp. [NASDAQ:IDTC] has become the first major US carrier to offer calling party pays (CPP) services to its paging and cellular service subscribers. http://investing.lycos.com/lycos/story.asp?symbols=IDTC&startStory=13134897&mode=News ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:56:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 24/7 Europe Develops The World's First WAP Ad Server 02/25/2000 24/7 Europe Develops The World's First WAP Ad Server The advertising network 24/7 Europe (www.247europe.com) has developed the world's first WAP ad server. It enables WAP ad campaigns to be served into mobile content which individual users can access using WAP or SMS enabled devices. The system incorporates ad serving, management and reporting capabilities allowing delivery, monitoring and control of campaigns. http://www.bizreport.com/news/2000/02/20000225-2.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:00:15 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IEEE Statement Against UCITA Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:12:02 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: [RRE]IEEE statement against UCITA [UCITA, the bizarre set of proposed laws governing the sale of software in the United States, is still undead. It is about to be considered by the various state legislatures; if they approve it then it's a done deal. IEEE has taken a strong position against it (enclosed, heavily reformatted), and Slashdot has published a practical guide to lobbying against it: . You will recall that among UCITA's many alarming implications is the very real possibility that software companies can prevent anybody from ever publishing any critical reviews of their products.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:26:47 -0500 From: "Raymond Paul" http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/ucita.html The IEEE-USA Board of Directors approved the following statement on UCITA at the meeting last Thursday. [...] Opposing Adoption of the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) By the States Approved By the IEEE-USA Board of Directors (Feb. 2000) On behalf of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers -- United States of America (IEEE-USA) and its nearly 230,000 U.S. members who are electrical, electronics, computer and software engineers, we wish to reiterate to the state legislatures the concerns regarding the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) that we previously expressed to the National Council of Commissioners on State Laws (NCCUSL). We believe UCITA should be rejected by the states. UCITA would have a widespread, complex impact, including: (a) the provisions of the act itself; (b) its interaction with the existing statutes, principles, and interpretations of Federal intellectual property law; (c) the provisions currently found in "shrink wrap" and "click-through" software agreements -- many of them questionable or unenforceable under current law -- that UCITA seeks to make enforceable; and (d) UCITA's effect on existing business practices and reasonable purchaser expectations. Into the existing and evolving legal and business situation, UCITA would inject an ironclad statutory framework that is very easy to abuse to the serious detriment of consumers, large business users, and small business users of computer software, software developers, computer consultants and the general public. Many organizations, including 24 state Attorneys General, the staffs of the Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Consumer Protection, and Policy Planning Office of the Federal Trade Commission, professional and trade associations, consumer groups, the American Law Institute (originally NCCUSL's partner in drafting UCITA), and others have expressed opposition or concern regarding UCITA In some cases the concerns of these organizations parallel ours, and in other cases they raise additional issues. Our concerns are in the following areas: By changing what would otherwise be considered a sale into a licensing transaction, UCITA permits software publishers to enforce contract provisions that may be onerous, burdensome or unreasonable, and places on the purchaser the burden and cost of proving that these provisions are unconscionable or "against fundamental public policy". Examples of these provisions include prohibitions against public criticism of the software and limitations on purchasers' rights to sell or dispose of software. The first provision prohibits the reviews, comparisons, and benchmark testing that are critical for an informed, competitive marketplace. The second issue could legally complicate transactions including corporate mergers/acquisitions, sales of small businesses, the operation of businesses dealing in second-hand software, and even yard sales. UCITA would undermine the protections provided by Federal intellectual property law and upset the carefully achieved balance between owners and purchasers of intellectual property. One major protection is that "fair use" case law and statutory copyright law permit "reverse engineering" for certain important purposes, such as development of compatible (interoperable) software products and information security testing. Reverse engineering is the examination of software to identify and analyze its internal elements. Current shrink-wrap agreements often contain strict provisions forbidding reverse engineering. By making these provisions enforceable, UCITA would stifle innovation and competition in the software industry, and would straightjacket efforts of users to provide information security protection for their systems. UCITA allows software publishers to disclaim warranties and consequential damages even for software defects known to the publisher prior to sale, undisclosed to the buyer, and having damages that can be reasonably foreseen. For example, under UCITA a software publisher could not only prohibit publication of information on security vulnerabilities that users identify but could avoid responsibility for fixing these vulnerabilities. By legalizing the choices of law and forum often included in software agreements, UCITA would allow software publishers to make expensive and burdensome any efforts by purchasers to protect their rights. This includes issues that for a sale would be handled in local small-claims courts. The "self-help" provisions of UCITA would allow software publishers to embed security vulnerabilities and other functions in their software to facilitate "denial-of-service" attacks (remote disablement or destruction of the software) and to avoid liability for accidental triggering of the attacks or exploitation of these functions by malicious intruders. We urge the state legislatures to reject UCITA. This statement was developed by the Committee on Communications and Information Policy and the Intellectual Property Committee of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America (IEEE-USA), and represents the considered judgment of a group of U.S. IEEE members with expertise in the subject field. The IEEE-USA promotes the careers and public-policy interests of the nearly 230,000 electrical, electronics, computer and software engineers who are U.S. members of the IEEE. Some Sources of Additional Information General information: http://www.4cite.org Encompasses coalition of organizations opposing adoption of UCITA. http://www.badsoftware.com Includes or links to numerous opposition comments. http://www.2bguide.com Includes both pro and con comments. "Whatsnew" page has extensive links to relevant UCITA and UCC-2B documents. Specific: http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POLICY/1999/99july20.html July 1999 IEEE-USA letter to NCCUSL http://www.2bguide.com/docs/citopp.html Memo by Steven Chow, dissenting member of UCITA drafting committee http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990010.htm Letter by FTC staff to NCCUSL opposing UCITA http://www.4cite.org/prinlng.html Memo describing adverse impacts of UCITA on businesses (prepared by Principal Financial Group) http://www.2bguide.com/docs/50799dad.html Memo from former ALI members of drafting committee declining further participation http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/usacm-ucita.html Letter from the President of ACM to NCCUSL opposing UCITA [...] Last Updated: 15 Feb. 2000 Staff Contact: Deborah Rudolph, d.rudolph@ieee.org Copyright (c) 2000 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Permission to copy granted for non-commercial uses with appropriate attribution. Raymond Paul Legislative Representative Technology Policy IEEE-USA 1828 L Street, NW Suite 1202 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-530-8331 Fax: 202-785-0835 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:23:38 -0500 From: Don Kimberlin Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! In article (Tue, 07 Mar 2000 12:55:15 -0600 ) Ross McMicken (mcmicken@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >In Houston, Tx, the utilities pay a franchise fee to the city for use > of the city rights of way. I believe it amounts to about 4 percent of > gross revenues. We periodically get big squabbles over how much of the > fee can be charged to the consumer. Oh my. Now we get into that realm of all the variables, in which Texas is its own kind of unique case where Southwestern Bell managed to keep the state from even having a Public Utilities Commission for decades. As I recall the history there, the State Railroad Commission tried after many decades, and even it suffered legal defeat at the hands of Southwestern Bell taking the state government itself to court. My recall of the Texas situation was that each municipality wound up having to negotiate its franchise deal with SW Bell. Sounds like Houston fared well compared to many. In article (Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:41:08 -0600 ) John Hines (jhines@enteract.com) wrote: >> ... In the interest of accuracy, I must challenge the poster to >> prove his >> claim with some factual references - and more than a reported phone >> call >> to an unnamed town or utility employee, please! > http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Environment/EnergyManagement/ See the section > on utility oversight. > Or > http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.westmont.il.us/government/village/manager/CompPlan/WebDocs/chapter_six.htm > for another local village. ... Of which, the first mentioned only that Commonwealth Edison, the electric company, pays a franchise fee. The telephone company, originally Illinois Bell, but now part of Ameritech, has been (:in)famous since the earliest days of the phone business for being a wily political animal - especially one of the sort that will let members of the public chase their tail over something others got caught with, but which they avoided since Year Dot of "the business." ... The second reference got a failure to find whatever site was quoted. ... All of which is not to say there can be wide variance in the situation. For example, in Charlotte, North Carolina, it wasn't found out until way, way too late in the game to do anything about it that Southern Bell had managed to "overlook" ever getting a franchise from the City. What you gonna do? Throw the phone company out on its ear a century later? Not likely! ... Thus, there may even be the odd town here and there where one could find a firm reference to a fee being paid. However, I'll wager that phone companies paying a fee are the exception, and that even if they do, it's something that finally occurred since we broke up Ma Bell. She was monolithic in more ways than most might imagine. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (Re: Telephone-Pole Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:18:10 GMT In article , mcmicken@ix.netcom.com says: > In Houston, Tx, the utilities pay a franchise fee to the city for use > of the city rights of way. I believe it amounts to about 4 percent of > gross revenues. We periodically get big squabbles over how much of the > fee can be charged to the consumer. Uh -- couldn't that be considered a business expense? If so it could be used to offset revenue thereby increasing the earnings of said utility. Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:43:09 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: U.S. Wants to Trace Net Users by Declan McCullagh 3:00 a.m. 4.Mar.2000 PST WASHINGTON -- The ease of hiding one's identity on the Net is giving police migraines and justifies providing broad new powers to law enforcement, the White House says in a forthcoming report. The federal government should take steps to improve online traceability and promote international cooperation to identify Internet users, according to a draft of the report commissioned by President Clinton and obtained by Wired News. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34720,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe you saw the headline story today in {USA Today} entitled 'How Goverment failed to see or stop largest denial of service attack in nation's history.' The story said they had arrested someone named 'Coolio', I presume since they no longer have Kevin Mitnick to kick around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Last Laugh! The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 22:50:18 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > Title : The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS) > Author(s) : S. Christey > Filename : draft-christey-imps-00.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 01-Mar-00 Wow, has IETF bureaucratic procedure become so entrenched that even an April Fool's Day RFC has to be published as an I-D first? BTW, Monty, you posted two "Last Laugh" messages -- which one is *really* last? 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. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I receive a dozen articles at a time from Monty Solomon; I pick a couple to use every day. The 'Last Laugh' feature runs from time to time also; again it is my choice to do it. I chose to run both of those messages as 'Last Laugh' in the same issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:27:19 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Desperately Seeking the Next DoubleClick http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12675,00.html After the fun it's had recently with DoubleClick, the press may have become addicted to privacy stories. (In case you're just joining this storyline: The Net ad giant, under fire, shelved plans to breach the anonymity of visitors to the sites of its customers.) This morning, three outlets ran almost identical stories about Topica's plan to sell advertisers the qualified eyeballs Topica hits with the thousands of e-mail lists it manages. ZDNet's tag invoked DoubleClick angst, but Wired News won for Best Head: "Hot Topica Conversation." As it turns out, though, the Topica news had little in common with DoubleClick's consumer-hostile plan. Topica's mailing-list clients will remain anonymous to advertisers, and their participation in particular mailing lists carries at least the odor of consumer-friendly opt-in. The press may be flogging a dead privacy pony. The Wall Street Journal's Michael J. McCarthy found a much more compelling privacy angle this morning. He turned in a long piece about Silent Watch, a software package that businesses use to monitor employees' keystrokes - all of them. McCarthy accurately reflected the current legal consensus that an employee can have little expectation of privacy when using his employer's computer. But McCarthy generated goosebumps with his depiction of Silent Watch recording every keystroke, typos and all, as an unwitting employee drafted an application letter for an aviation scholarship. McCarthy quoted the rhetorical question of a privacy-aware lawyer: "When else can you peer into someone's raw thought process?" - Keith Dawson Hot Topica Conversation http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,34772,00.html E-mail List Maker Launches New Ad Service (Reuters) http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/033713.htm An Alternative to DoubleClick Angst? http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2456612,00.html Keystroke Loggers Save E-Mail Rants, Raising Workplace Privacy Concerns http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB952387732195636577.htm (Paid subscription required.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had some corresponence with Topica about a year ago, when they offered to buy TELECOM Digest's mailing list from me. I told them thanks, but no thanks. At that time, I thought maybe Topica was going to be a lot like DoubleClick, and I still feel that way. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #17 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 9 23:51:12 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA12213; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:51:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003100451.XAA12213@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #18 N TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Mar 00 23:51:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 18 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average (David Chessler) Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend (No Spam) Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Fred Goldstein) Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... (Justa Lurker) Is Iridium in or out? (Monty Solomon) Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... (Clarence Dold) Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Anonymous User) Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (John Hines) Re: Communication Tower Being Built (Rich Osman) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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, 09 Mar 2000 21:12:59 -0500 From: David Chessler Subject: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/richmond-phones.html In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average, and Competitive March 9, 2000 By JULIE FLAHERTY RICHMOND, Mass. -- The hand-cranked phone boxes are long gone. The party lines are, too. But the residents of tiny Richmond, a former mining town in the Berkshires, still dial the operator when they need the local news. "Someone called to ask who picks up the trash," said Melissa Perdue, a customer care specialist with the Richmond Telephone Company, the local exchange. "We pretty much know everything about the town." Richmond is in many ways not your typical phone company. Its headquarters is a green-shuttered, white clapboard house on Route 41, in far-western Massachusetts just shy of the New York border. It has 13 employees, including a one-man repair crew named Maurice. Its phone book listings are 12 pages long, representing 1,168 residents and businesses. And it has handled the calls here for 97 years. Ethel Hanson, 82, has known no other phone company. Richmond installed her first dial phone in the 1960's and, before that, ran her parents' party line. "When I heard someone ring two long and two short, I knew that was mine," she recalled. As archaic as it may seem, more than 1,000 small, independent phone companies like Richmond Telephone still do business, mostly in rural areas of the nation. Each incumbent, as they are known in the industry, handles as few as 60 access lines or as many as 50,000, and altogether they serve nearly five million customers. Many are family-run companies, dating to the early 1900's, that were never part of the Ma Bell system, were never bought out by competitors and were basically left to their own devices all these years. Not that they have stayed in the dark ages of telecommunication. Richmond Telephone's old magneto switchboard was retired to a museum in Springfield, Mass., long ago, the president, Lorinda Ackley-Mazur, is quick to point out. Like many other independents, her company, with roughly 1,200 access lines, provides services like call waiting and call answering, just like Bell Atlantic, the dominant company in the Northeast, with nearly 44 million access lines. Richmond installed fiber optic cable in 1996, and last year it began Richmond NetWorx, an Internet access service. High-speed connections are also available. "Plus we have excellent customer service," Ms. Ackley-Mazur said, a contention that is hard to refute when a first name and a street are usually all that any of the four customer-care specialists need to find an account. One customer, Patrick Hanavan, said he stopped by the Richmond Telephone offices to sign up for call answering and found the service activated by the time he made the five-minute trip home. Another praised the prompt repairs. "They don't tell you that you have to wait when the phone gives out," said Tynia Harrington, 44, a cook at a restaurant in nearby Lenox. "They'll get right on it." The basic rate is just $12.50 a month, but calls outside the five-square-mile Richmond service area and Pittsfield, the nearest urban area, count as long distance. That does not bother Ms. Harrington, who usually drops off her payment in person so she can chat with the employees. "I can be late on a bill," she said. "I'll say, 'Is two weeks O.K.?' And they'll say, 'That's fine.' " Maurice Garofoli, 41, the company's sole repairman for the last 21 years, is so well known that customers often call him at home when they have trouble. Having the only repair truck in town makes him popular for other reasons, too. "I change the light bulbs in the Town Hall, put the rope on the flag," he said good-naturedly. Richmond Telephone was formed in 1903, when a group of town residents paid $70 each to become shareholders. Back then, about 6,000 small phone companies were started out of necessity, in areas around the country that the Bell system had overlooked as unprofitable. "They weren't in there to make money," said Martha Silver, a spokeswoman for the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies, a Washington-based trade group. "Many of them, 100 years ago, they were farmers. They were in many ways pioneers." Eventually, through mergers and consolidations, largely since 1950, the numbers dwindled. Now, as phone service becomes an increasingly important economic factor to even the most rural places, little telephone companies that serve out-of-the-way communities are finding themselves in demand by new business. A village in Maine is now home to a credit card call center; a Midwest farm town can employ dozens of residents as telemarketers. The town of Richmond, with its pastoral setting, has attracted its share of business people, mostly telecommuters, and Richmond Telephone is setting up more and more home offices. Last September, Mr. Hanavan, 33, forsook San Francisco for the quiet of a five-acre farm here, but he still dials in to his employer in Seattle through dedicated fax, modem and computer lines. "Coming here I was a bit nervous," said Mr. Hanavan, the director of East Coast sales for SpotTaxi.com, the Web site of Central Media Inc., an audio distributor. "Then Maurice came over and hooked me up. I'm not missing a beat." Richmond Telephone bills itself on the cover of its slim blue phone book as "the small company with big connections," and Ms. Ackley-Mazur says that is not an illusion of grandeur. In January, the company burst out of its comfortable niche to offer local, long-distance and Internet service to all of Berkshire County, a market of about 42,000 access lines, essentially putting itself head to head with Bell Atlantic. For now, Richmond Telephone is leasing Bell Atlantic lines and providing long-distance services in partnership with GFC Communications of Albany. The direct competition, said John H. Johnson, a spokesman for Bell Atlantic, is "good for consumers and it represents growth in the industry." It also serves another important purpose, as Bell Atlantic needs to show that its market is open to competition as it awaits federal approval to move into the long-distance market in Massachusetts. Rex G. Mitchell, an analyst for Banc of America Securities, said many rural telephone companies, already set up to serve the more costly low-population areas, are finding that they can branch out into neighboring towns without much added expense. That is a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed federal regulators to push down the cost of leasing phone lines to jump-start competition. Independents that do not grow seem headed for consolidation, he said, as the swirl of acquisitions and mergers in the telecommunications industry has affected the rural areas. The former Bell companies have not shown much interest because arcane regulations make such acquisitions too costly. But consolidators, companies that specialize in acquiring telecommunications businesses in rural markets, have been snapping up local access lines at $2,400 to $5,000 each. Ms. Ackley-Mazur is aware of the big money involved. Two years ago, when she was acting president and general manager for the Taconic Telephone Corporation of nearby Chatham, N.Y., a concern her grandfather founded in 1908, the company was acquired by MJD Communications Inc. of Charlotte, N.C., a consolidator, for $67.5 million. Taconic had grown to have more than 24,000 access lines and interests in cellular, wireless and cable. Divesting, she said, was the most profitable move for Taconic's 240 shareholders. Still, Ms. Silver, the trade group spokeswoman, said she expected most small incumbents to retain their independence for some time; only about 20 or 30 are sold each year, she said, usually when no one wants to take the helm of the family business. As for Richmond Telephone, Ms. Ackley-Mazur said she had made it clear that she wanted to expand the company, not sell it. For one thing, she likes keeping the business in the family, the way it has been since her father, J. Benedict Ackley, bought it from the remaining 22 shareholders in 1961. He is still chairman and still regularly goes over the books. Despite her small-town surroundings, Ms. Ackley-Mazur is as closed-lipped as the president of any private company. She would not comment about the company's finances except to say that the established telephone part of the business was profitable. She would not even say what her father paid for the company 40 years ago. "I know he borrowed the money from his mother," she said. "His father wouldn't give it to him." And yet another generation seems set in place. Ms. Ackley-Mazur's daughter, Catherine Dullaghan, was also raised in the phone business. She dropped off phone books at age 14 and flagged traffic for the repair truck and installed cable during her college breaks. Now 26 and a business school graduate, she manages marketing and customer care. "It really wasn't a decision for me," she said. "I just knew I was going to be here." Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company ------------------------------ From: No Spam Subject: Re: On the Internet, Your Bank is Not Your Friend Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:37:45 +1000 Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct On 7 Mar 2000 09:52:03 GMT, murray@pa.dec.com (Hal Murray) wrote: >> The same undeniably simple logic is behind a huge fight now brewing >> between the already anachronistic banking industry and Internet >> entrepreneurs who are trying to put more power in the hands of >> consumers. >> http://www.sfgate.com/technology/beat/ > Nice article. Thanks. > Although technically possible, it will be difficult and costly for the > banks to deploy systems that determine when online records are being > requested by an actual customer or by a third-party website that has > access to the customer's password. > I have visions of smug bankers who have just hacked their router to > black hole the evil third-party sites. How long do you think it will > take for somebody to write an app that runs on your PC and gets the > info from your bank and sends it to the third-party? > Is that more or less secure? True. The product looks ok. I tried it with a few accounts and it work well. The sync to a palm device looks good too. This type of product has the ability to remove the need for accounting programs like Quicken .... although I note it is one of their 'sponsors'. Security of my data is always a concern in the back of my mind though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:11:50 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast Lest the dead horse be beaten too much, I can perhaps contribute some background to this thread. DLCs are not in and of themselves, bad things. For instance, my house is 21 kilofeet from the CO, so I couldn't get ISDN (18 kf loop limit) until I found somebody at New England Tel to admit to the existence of a DLC only a few kilofeet away. Said engineer looked at the crufty old wire plant on my block and ordered a new cable job to the DLC. (He was a contractor, which accounted for his higher-than-NYNEX standards.) Now I have ISDN. And if somebody could get into the manhole (CEV), they could probably put in a DSLAM. But as noted, there are two ways to do it. "Universal" mode means back-to-back analog ports at the CO, putting an analog line into a CO terminal. This breaks modems badly. (Not ISDN, though, or related "switched digital" services.) It's the only way to do it on an analog switch, of course, but those are all gone here. "Integrated" mode means that there is a direct digital connection from the DLC into the CO, usually T1 (E1 in Europe, of course). There are two common standardized ways to do Integrated DLC in North America. Telcordia spec TR-008 maps each channel of the T1 to an analog line. There's no concentration; each T1 carries 24 lines from CO to DLC. It's essentially the protocol that AT&T (WECo) used between the SLC-96 remote and CO terminals, using bit-robbed signaling similar to other 1980s channel banks. Telcordia's GR-303 is much newer, having really come into its own within the last few years. It provides for line concentration; a group of 2-20 T1s supports as many as 2000 lines, with channels assigned on demand. ISDN-like signaling and its own maintenance channel are required. It's very slick when it works and has become the standard way for CLECs to access the remote terminals they put in ILEC CO collocation rooms. (European equivalent specs, totally different of course, are called V5.1 and V5.2 respectively.) Universal needs a CO terminal (extra hardware) and analog line ports (extra hardware), so it's hardly efficient. It works worse than Integrated mode. So why is it the norm here in TheFormerNYNEXLand? Some have speculated that it's intentional sabotage of modems. Maybe to some extent, given how much Bell Titanic detests Internet dial-up, but I think that's more of a bonus, icing on their cake as it were. More realistically, GR-303 is quite expensive. Lucent and Nortel charge big bucks for the software license ("right to use", or "RTU", fee). They'd rather have you use proprietary remote terminals. Since there are lots of old channel banks left around from the analog-switch days, the universal-mode CO terminal is "free". But the main reason, which I learned from a retired NYNEX executive, is worse than that. Within the telco hierarchy, there are two very distinct departments, one in charge of "inside plant" (ISP), the other in charge of "outside plant" (OSP). The boundary is near the switch. If there's a CO terminal for universal DLC, that's part of the OSP. So if something breaks, they can pull off the jumper and see if the switch or the DLC is broken. If it were integrated, there would be no clear demarc between the departments, so they'd have to cooperate rather than point fingers at each other. In telco corporate culture, that's virtually unthinkable. So your modem is broken because the manglers in Bell need a physical break in their plant to mimic a hundred-year-old break in the org chart. ------------------------------ From: /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) Subject: Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... Organization: Anonymous People Reply-To: jlurker@bigfoot.com (Replies to DIGEST please) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:13:28 GMT It was Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:44:11 GMT, and wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > The number is 509-533-xxxx. 509 is eastern washington; I'm in a 509 > as well. But the 533 interchange isn't listed anywhere. xxxx's added by me! > From NNAG for December 1999. 509-533 SPOKANE US WEST PNW BELL End Office Code - Portable Modified 03/17/00 5E SPKNWAKYDS0 v:06247 h:08180 Any chance of talking to your phone company's annoyance call bureau? JL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:17:36 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is Iridium In or Out? To avoid deportation to the Land of Dead Companies, Iridium is scrambling for a green card. The satellite-phone company had crossed its fingers that the necessary paperwork would come from "billionaire investor" Craig McCaw, as the media likes to call him. But on Friday, McCaw dumped Iridium. http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,12623,00.html ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell ... Date: 10 Mar 2000 03:30:12 GMT Organization: a2i network Reply-To: dold@email.rahul.net Bill Phillips wrote: : The number is 509-533-1504. 509 is eastern washington; I'm in a 509 : as well. But the 533 interchange isn't listed anywhere. That one shows up as at E 3rd and South Napa Streets, in Spokane, according to http://www.mapquest.com online maps. You might take a shot at calling 509-533-1500, just on a whim, if this is an auto-dialer behind a PBX. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:15:04 +0100 From: Anonymous User Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net > I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems > to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps. CALEA, passed in 1996. > Is there a good description of that system available on the web? > What fraction of the current COs support it? Any search engine on the Web will turn up numerous discriptions of CALEA itself. I believe COs have flexibility on how they achieve compliance to CALEA. As to whether telcos 'support' it there are two answers: telcos are now required by law to implement CALEA so there's no question they will 'support' it in the legal sense. But as to whether telcos 'support' the idea behind it the answer is a universal No - not out of any sense of consumer privacy merely the bottom line: telcos will have to pay for the bulk of CALEA compliance out of their own pockets. Excuse me, out of their customers' pockets, that being us consumers of course. > I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make > sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason > that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep > hackers from tapping whatever they want? Sure there are checks in the system. Just like there are checks in place to make sure people with badges don't shove broomhandles up your backside or pump you full of lead when you reach for a wallet. > How much does that system cost? If I took the total cost of that > system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would > they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? Is this just > a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement? It's not about revenue-generation, it's about power - our govt's insatiable need for more power to control us citizens. Somewhen ago a govt flunky was quoted as saying the feds want the ability to tap 10% of the phone calls being made in the US at any given time. An enquiring mind might ask, "Why?" Maybe Echelon isn't working as well as it used to - more likely CALEA just makes the task of eavesdropping much easier and cheaper. After all, why go to all the effort of eavesdropping on communications when you can pass a law that makes telcos squirt the data right to you no muss no fuss? Steve ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:06:19 -0600 Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Dick Aichinger wrote: > I believe the authors use of the term "telephone pole" was a generic > representation of wood poles commonly seen along roads and along > neighborhood backyards. I believe his reference and statistics > represent the wood pole use for utilities in general. I suspect it was the result of the old Bell system putting metal tags at visible levels on any pole that they had equipment on. They were, and in many cases, still are, all over the place, big highly visible warning signs. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:21:12 -0600 From: Rich Osman Organization: Paranoia was Overcome Subject: Re: Communication Tower Being Built It's heavily dependent on location. I've never seen a ground lease run less than $1000/mo for the most remote rural locations (less that this and the just buy the ground.) The most expensive urban *ground* lease that I'm aware of is $15,000/mo and it's an anomaly. Most urban sites are on existing buildings. Look for other towers, contact the owners and see what they're getting. Check with the local water district and see what they're getting for their water tanks (almost all of them are cell sites these days.) Water tanks are usually more expensive, because the cell companies invest less to use them. One way to look at the price is to figure the cost of purchasing the land, and figure the perpetual annuity value that you could buy for that amount. This helps decide a starting point. Consider the impact on your adjacent property value. Don't forget that the improvements they make can confer a tax liability to you in some jurisdictions. Make sure that the agreement makes them accept all risk and liability, particularly if it's tall enough to require paint or lights. I'd also get them to set up some escrow method to cover the removal of the tower, and establish a mechanism to terminate the lease at your convenience. Linda Harris wrote: > We have been approached by a communications company, who wish to put a > cellular communications tower on our property. > We meet all their requirements regarding site, elevation etc., They > had done all their homework before they approached us, and they know > its in a prime site. Its known throughout this district, that our area > is a black spot for cellular phones. We would like to know, before we > go any further, as to the payment for the lease offered by them. The > lease is to run for over 50 years. Is there anyone who has had > similar dealings with having towers put on their property, and could > give us an Idea as to what they were given as payment. Its obvious > that they offer you the very minimum as an opening offer. We are > curious as to the "going" rate. We live in western PA. > Yours Faithfully, > Linda Harris > e-mail address....Tamworth@voicenet.com -- mailto:Rich@Osman.com http://www.rich.osman.com Rich Osman; POB 93167; Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) ARS: WB0HUQ If you receive something that says "Send this to everyone you know," PLEASE pretend you don't know me. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #18 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Mar 10 16:55:52 2000 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA18020; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:55:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:55:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200003102155.QAA18020@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #19 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:55:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 19 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cost of Wiretapping (Bilgates Remailer) Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! (John Hines) Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average (Mike Sullivan) Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd? (Bill Phillips) Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (Felix Deutsch) DoubleClick Waits on Business Plan as Groups File in FTC Action (M Solomon) Net Camera Scam Alive and Well (Monty Solomon) "Opt-in Rules!" (Monty Solomon) Re: Persistent Mysterious Calls From Hell ... (Andrew Green) Reminder: IDMS 2000 Deadline is March 15 (Clever Ricardo Guareis de Farias) Rescue 211 (Jeremy Pickett) Re: Psychic Hotline Charges (Richard D G Cox) Intrusive Background Checks (reddog3140@my-deja.com) New Local Service and Problem With 1172 (Carl Moore) Re: Cost of Wiretapping (John S. Maddaus) Persistent Mysterious Calls from Hell (Fred Goldstein) Yahoo! News Story - Motorola Warns Iridium Customers (Yahoo! News) Last Laugh! Re: Number of Telephones in the U.S. (Dale Neiburg) 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 611 Poplar Street Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 805-545-5115 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, 9 Mar 2000 22:20:01 CST From: Bilgates Remailer Subject: Re: Cost of Wiretapping Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net > I think the US has regulations requiring telephone systems > to have some automated mechanism for wiretaps. CALEA, passed in 1996. > Is there a good description of that system available on the web? > What fraction of the current COs support it? Any search engine on the Web will turn up numerous discriptions of CALEA itself. I believe COs have flexibility on how they achieve compliance to CALEA. As to whether telcos 'support' it there are two answers: telcos are now required by law to implement CALEA so there's no question they will 'support' it in the legal sense. But as to whether telcos 'support' the idea behind it the answer is a universal No - not out of any sense of consumer privacy merely the bottom line: telcos will have to pay for the bulk of CALEA compliance out of their own pockets. Excuse me, out of their customers' pockets, that being us consumers of course. > I assume there are supposed to be checks in the system to make > sure that it's only used for legal taps. Is there any reason > that I should believe those checks are good enough to keep > hackers from tapping whatever they want? Sure there are checks in the system. Just like there are checks in place to make sure people with badges don't shove broomhandles up your backside or pump you full of lead when you reach for a wallet. > How much does that system cost? If I took the total cost of that > system and put a pile of cash on the table in front of the FBI, would > they spend it on a wiretapping system or something else? Is this just > a sneaky way of taxing phone subscribers to support law enforcement? It's not about revenue-generation, it's about power - our govt's insatiable need for more power to control us citizens. Somewhen ago a govt flunky was quoted as saying the feds want the ability to tap 10% of the phone calls being made in the US at any given time. An enquiring mind might ask, "Why?" Maybe Echelon isn't working as well as it used to - more likely CALEA just makes the task of eavesdropping much easier and cheaper. After all, why go to all the effort of eavesdropping on communications when you can pass a law that makes telcos squirt the data right to you no muss no fuss? Steve ------------------------------ From: John Hines Subject: Re: 1.)Thread Creep Alert! 2.)Urban Legend Alert! Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:45:58 -0600 Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Don Kimberlin wrote: > ... Thus, there may even be the odd town here and there where one could > find a firm reference to a fee being paid. However, I'll wager that > phone companies paying a fee are the exception, and that even if they > do, it's something that finally occurred since we broke up Ma Bell. She > was monolithic in more ways than most might imagine. You're right, there is no need to charge the phone company a franchise fee, since the village, state, and feds already directly tax the service to the consumer. (You may not be taxed at all three levels, but I am.) This is unlike the electric, and cable industries, where the taxes have been hidden from the end consumer. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What many people do not understand is that telco cannot cut off your service for failure to pay the tax due on service. Although they are required to collect the tax and remit it to government agencies (generally one agency collects all the municipal taxes on behalf of all other agencies), if you refuse to pay the taxes (or some portion of them) all telco can do is notify tax collector that you did not pay. As a matter of fact, the amounts of money are so small, chances are likely no one will make an issue of it, but they might, so take care. Back during Viet Nam days, almost no one was paying the federal phone tax, claiming it was being used to support the 'war machine'. The feds did not go out and chase people down; and no one got their phone cut off for failure to pay the taxes. You do need to notify telco of your intent to not pay taxes, so you are not put down as a partial payment on their books. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Sullivan Subject: Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:36:22 GMT The NYT article about the Richmond, Mass. independent telco with "Phone Service Way Above Average, and Competitive" leaves out some very important points and suggests the conclusion that a little family company can do a better job than a Bell behemoth. That this conclusion is false is only apparent to an astute reader who looks at the chart at the head of the article, which was not included in the posted text (not sure if it was in the online version, which is no longer available). The specific facts of interest are: Richmond Telephone has 13 employees, serves 1,200 access lines in a 5 square mile area, and charges $12.50/month for local service. Let's do the math. The company's annual access revenue is 1200*12.50*12, or $180,000. Thirteen employees at, say, $35,000 salary + $15,000 benefits is $650,000. Fixed and variable non-employee costs (depreciation, electricity, gasoline, etc.) add a few hundred thousand more, at the very least; estimate $200,000 to be conservative. Add in return on an investment of $2,000,000 or so -- another $200,000, say. The company's total revenue requirement for a year comes to at least $1,050,000. In other words, the low monthly line charges cover only 17% of the cost of providing the company's "way above average" service. Who pays the remaining 83%? WE DO. Companies like this are massively subsidized by those of us paying more per month for poorer service, through the universal service/high cost program, and through long-distance access charges. This company probably loads the vast majority of its costs onto long-distance users by gouging long-distance carriers for excessive carrier common line charges that are "justified" by the company's high costs -- costs resulting from providing gold-plated, overstaffed service. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA avogadro@bellatlantic.net (also avogadro@well.com) ------------------------------ From: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Subject: Did AT&T Raise Calling Card Charges on Feb. 2nd? Organization: ShoeString Projects, Cambridge, MA Reply-To: wfp@ziplink.net (Bill Phillips) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:23:12 GMT Since last summer we have used 1-800-CALL-ATT and our Bell Atlantic calling card to make calls from work at MIT in Cambridge, MA, mostly to New York City, where her mother is in an assisted-living facility (not cheap, but there seems to be no other way to make an l/d connection from her department). We've had AT&T Reach Out service for many years, and even though it's not very economical for us any more, my wife seems to want to hang onto it. I have trained her, however, to use dialarounds from home.] We looked at our Bell Atlantic bill last night and were shocked. It appears as though AT&T almost doubled our calling card charges without letting us know ... But since I haven't seen any mention of this in the Digest archive, I'm somewhat suspicious. (I admit I'm just a wee bit out-of-it in many ways, so please bear with me if everybody else in the world already knows about this ...) Calls placed before 2/2/2000 were at a much lower rate than calls placed since. I calculated the new rate as $0.69/minute plus a $4.95 per-call charge. Ack! I didn't bother to figure out what it was before, but looks like about half that. So ... what happened, why didn't I know about it, do we have any recourse, and is there a better (cheaper) way to get to an l/d carrier from inside a place like MIT? Thanks. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery From: Felix Deutsch Date: 10 Mar 2000 11:50:45 +0100 JF Mezei writes: > Felix Deutsch wrote: >> You are mislead by thinking that AOL is a mere ISP, thus just offering >> full-IP connectivity. I would think that many AOL subscribers spend a >> significant amount of their online time using services provided by AOL >> and not the WWW in general. > But what advantage is there for CNN to restrict content to AOL-only > subscribers ? Quite obviously to get more people to subscribe to AOL. This way they're trying to push some smaller ISPs out of business. > If the goal is to have more eyeballs, shouldn't CNN push to be > on the world-wide-web and get eyeballs from any ISP in the world instead of > just AOL with a proprietary product available only on AOL ? Yes. But if there was a single goal, then it would be to make more profit. And this can be reached by widening the paying customer base for one _and_ get 'eyeballs' for ads. Felix ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:47:31 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DoubleClick Waits on Business Plan as Groups File in FTC Action By Mike Godwin E-Commerce Law Weekly March 8, 2000 Web advertising agency DoubleClick Inc. announced March 2 that it would hold off on its plans to tie personally identifiable information to Internet users' online surfing habits until government and industry have reached a consensus on privacy rules for the Internet. The decision came two days after five public-interest groups announced that they were filing an "Additional Statement of Facts and Grounds for Relief" with the Federal Trade Commission (see: http://www.cdt.org/testimony/000225ftcdcstatement.shtml), seeking FTC action against DoubleClick. The filing was a followup to the FTC's Feb. 16 announcement that it is investigating DoubleClick for its privacy practices. http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A18091-2000Mar7.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:17:23 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Net Camera Scam Alive and Well Inside the 'perfect crime' - a blow-by-blow account of e-commerce gone bad, as MSNBC 'falls' for scheme By Bob Sullivan MSNBCMarch 6 - Five months and counting. That's how long one Internet scam artist has been able to trick Net users into stealing high-end digital cameras on his behalf. MSNBC first reported on the scam in January, and with no sign of prosecution in sight, we decided to "fall" for it ourselves. The end result? MSNBC "stole" a $982 Sony digital camera from IBuyline Inc.; the e-commerce site and its credit verification service pointed fingers at each other for not catching an obviously fraudulent charge; and a scamster calling himself "Peter Wightman" is still waiting for the $750 we were instructed to wire to his Latvian bank account. http://www.msnbc.com/news/378497.asp?cp1=1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:29:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Opt-in Rules! How does 24/7 Media CEO David Moore target ads without raising the ire of privacy activists? He asks permission. By Lydia Lee When