From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 25 12:57:46 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA27016; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:57:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:57:46 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203251757.MAA27016@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #201 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:57:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 201 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tie Mod Key 16 Programming Information? (plus: Verizon sucks) (J Goggan) SMS for PSTN (Leonid) How Do I Judge the Quality of a Standard Phone Set? (Ran Chermesh) Re: Looking for Bell System Technical Journal (Mike Berger) Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base (Don Saklad) Phone Book Cabinet Question (Barb) Re: Recourse For Very Slow T1 Installation? (JDS) Re: Erlang Calculator for the Palm (Rob Clark) How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Rob Clark) FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed (Ken Abrams) Free Classes (Low Cost Certification) (abcsupport@wbcnet.net) Re: News Headlines - EU Getting Global Navigation System (G. Novosielski) News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) So Much Junk Mail (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Goggan Subject: Tie Mod Key 16 Programming Information? (plus: Verizon sucks) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:10:02 GMT Organization: Journey Communications (journey.net) We have an old Tie Mod Key 16 system (with GTE phones) in use at our office. It has been programmed as we want it and fine for years. We share a wiring/phone closet with two other small businesses in our building. Two weeks ago, our phones suddenly went dead. We went down to check and, lo and behold, Verizon was in the closet mucking about. We informed them that our phones had just went dead and they immediately said "we didn't change anything!" As if it was a huge coincidence that they are playing in the closet and our phones died! heh. In any case, after some arguing, it turns out that they needed a 110v A/C outlet for their test equipment, so they "just unplugged this unused Mod Key system" (as they pointed to OUR previously working phone system). :) Well, after they plugged it back in, we were back -- except that the programming appears to have gone back to the defaults. The only real feature that we need is the ability to pick up a line when someone else is already on it (i.e. conference several people in the office to one outside line). By default, the system prevents this so that you don't accidentally pick up someone else's in-progress call. We want to switch it back to what we had. Anyone have the information handy on this system that can tell us how to set it so that the stations can pick up an in-use line? We might also be interested in buying the full programming manual if someone has one cheap. In either case though, we kind-of need the information for a planned conference call on Monday. :) So, even if you want to sell us the manual, if you could still email me the information on just that part beforehand, I would appreciate it. Thanks! - John Goggan... jgoggan@dcg.com ------------------------------ From: Leonid Subject: SMS for PSTN Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:15:34 +0200 Hi, I know there is ETSI standard (ES 201 912) which defines SMS communication for fixed phones in PSTN. According the standard I see that speech path should be established from the telephone to the SMS center. Maybe you can explain why it was done this way? Is it possible to establish speech path from the phone to the switch (e.g. DMS) and then transfer the SMS over CCS7 (over TCAP maybe using MAP)? Thanks, Leonid ------------------------------ From: chermesh@bgumail.bgu.ac.il (Ran Chermesh) Subject: How Do I Judge the Quality of a Standard Phone Set? Date: 22 Mar 2002 02:38:33 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi, The market is overfloaded with a variety of phones, some cheap, some expensive, some small, some big, some colored, some not. I'm looking for a set of criteria for a best buy. Which technical specifications should I consider? Which ignore? I tried to locate a source on this topic, but got nowhere. Can you help me? Ran ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: Looking for Bell System Technical Journal Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:34:27 -0600 Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies, Inc. University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus) Engineering Library used to have it (and may still). Pritam wrote: > Hi, can anybody tell me where can I find C. Clos, A Study of > Non-blocking Switching Networks, Bell System Tech. J., > vol.32, 1953. Thanks in advance. > > Pritam ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base From: Don Saklad Date: 22 Mar 2002 04:43:47 -0500 Thank you Jay! a. What exactly is widely available at Kmart? ... b. What's a tip? ... c. What's a butt in? ... ------------------------------ From: rlindsay@mergetel.com (Barb) Subject: Phone Book Cabinet Question Date: 21 Mar 2002 18:17:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am hoping someone out there can help me get some information on a phone book cabinet that I have. It is made by the Telephone Book Service LTD formerly the Trans Canada Distributors of Toronto Canada with a patent date of 1921. If any one can offer any information please email me at rlindsay@mergetel.com Thanks, Barb ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Recourse For Very Slow T1 Installation? From: JDS Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:35:11 GMT Ed M wrote in news:telecom20.194.11@telecom-digest.org: > Since December we have had a T1 on order from a relatively small LEC > in upstate NY (Frontier in Orange County NY) Although we are across > the road (in Verizon territory) from the area Frontier's CO serves > they are able to offer services in our area. > The installation is long overdue from the January date ... [snip] > complain to? This is getting ridiculous. Write to your public utilities commission and to the Federal Communications Commission. They grant these monopoly franchises, and they need to know how well the carrier is fulfilling its obligation to serve the public. Your LEC can tell you to whom you should write -- and your request will perhaps get them going. If you don't tell them, they won't know. ------------------------------ From: Rob Clark Subject: Re: Erlang Calculator for the Palm Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:47:49 +0800 Also ... checkout the Erlang-P product from http://www.erlang-software.com/ Erlang-P supports 6 different models (Erlang-B, Erlang-C, etc) and is a clone of the very popular and robust Erlang-G product. Cheers Rob Clark "Claire Pieterek" wrote in message news:telecom20.198.2@telecom-digest.org... > Regarding Alan E's inquiry about an Erlang traffic calculator for his Palm > device. > Try http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm? > sid=32743320020319073642&prodID=39445 > L3's ErlangB is a highly specialized application, intended for telecom > network analysts, pbx resellers, call center operators, and voice > service providers. It implements the widely used telecommunications > circuit group sizing algorithm, Erlang-B, to predict how many circuits > will be necessary to carry a given duration of telephone calls. > PalmGear is the oldest and best archive of Palm software on the net. > I have no affiliation with PalmGear other than being a long time > satisfied customer! > Best, > Claire Pieterek > Senior Technical Editor > PalmPower Magazine > http://www.palmpower.com ------------------------------ From: Rob Clark Subject: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:57:03 +0800 My apologies if this question has been answered well before. Are there statistics, or rules-of-thumb, for determining a design goal for caller queues? For example ... if you had a call center, where typical conversation times with an agent was XXX seconds, then does anyone have any suggestions for how many callers drop off impatiently as a function of time? I guess people's internal 'impatient timer' is triggered at different times depending on what they are waiting for. eg. I would wait up to - 3 sec for a dial tone; - 3 mins for a conversation with an agent ... where I expected the conversation to take 3 mins; - 6 months to finalize a holiday booking for a 6month cruise on the Love Boat. Cheers, Rob Clark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most business places operating a phone room keep records of lost calls, ie. calls in which the caller disconnects without speaking with a live agent. I know when I worked at Amoco Credit Card Center back in the 1960's-70's in the phone room one of my tasks as the midnight shift supervisor was to tally up the logs on this. We were getting about ten thousand calls per 24 hours, and there were little clickers mounted in the wall of my office which did various things. Most of the calls -- about 8000 -- came during the regular business day. Overnight we had about 1000 - 1500 calls from dealers getting credit authorizations. There were counters for each incoming line on the ACD, and a master counter for all lines totalled. There were counters for each agent position, and a counter for calls lost, where the caller disconnected without waiting for an answer. If the ratio of lost calls to total calls exceeded some small percentage of the total, there were procedures in place to increase the number of agents on a temporary basis by recruiting clerks from another part of the office. They did not really care how long someone had to wait, only if they hung up without waiting longer if necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600 Or so it seems. It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this ruling. Common Carriers (primarily phone companies) are exempt from liability for the content of the traffic they transmit. This was true for ISPs too but not anymore. Information Providers have no such exemption. They can be held liable for transmitting content that is illegal, even if "they" do not originate the content. This also leaves them open to harassment for transmitting content that the current Administration (Big Brother) finds objectionable, simply by claiming that it is illegal even if it isn't. One possible scenario (and a likely one as I see it): Ashchroft's henchmen contact an ISP(s) and say: "You have been transmitting illegal content in Usenet messages. We intend to prosecute you for that ... OR ... if you cooperate with us to help identify the individuals that originated the messages (without having to go through the cumbersome detail of obtaining a court order), we will agree not to prosecute you (the ISP). At this point, it appears to me that the ISP has 4 choices. 1) Fight. Not likely since that would cost BIG bucks. 2) Institute MASS censorship. Not likely since that would be a HUGE and costly undertaking. 3) Stop carrying Usenet. Possible. 4) Cooperate with the Feds. to identify and prosecute (and/or harass) individuals who post content that is "objectionable" or illegal. Unfortunately, I think this is the most likely possibility. Could it be that this was a "hidden agenda" for the ruling itself? If not, how long do you think it will take for the "idea police" to figure it out? Could this also apply to E-mail messages you send? Could it be that Orwell was right? ------------------------------ From: abcsupport@wbcnet.net Subject: Free Classes (Low Cost Certification) Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:22:06 GMT Check out ABC University's online computer training courseware. Get access to certification classes for 1 year for as low as $125.00 per year. Take Free classes http://www.wbcnet.net/signon1.htm Check out course catalog http://www.wbcnet.net/dpec/webpromo/catalog/contents.htm Visit ABC University: http://www.abc2learn.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:52:22 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: News Headlines - EU Getting Own Global Navigation System On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:14:26 -0500, Gail M. Hall wrote: > Well, I'm an "American" and think it's not a bad idea for the EU to > set up another navigational system. It would be easy for terrorists > to knock out one system, so a backup system would be a good idea. Well, unless terrorists have come a long, long way in just the past few weeks, that's a pretty silly statement. Just what do you imagine would be an "easy" way of knocking out a space-based triply-redundant system comprising more than a score of satellites? Slingshots? Homemade rockets? Scud missiles? The ground-based portions are located on military bases and other widely scattered and highly secure areas, many of which are no doubt secret. You'll recall that when the system was launched, the major adversary of the US was the USSR, and there was essentially no worry that even they, with all their military resources, would be able to "easily" knock out the system. Terrorists have no (zero) chance of knocking it out, even if they tried very, very hard. The necessity for a European system, completely independent of GPS, is that the US military can (and would) disable the system, or introduce intentional error into the signal, any time they like. There are very few Europeans foolish enough to trust them not to, and at just the wrong time. (Remember, throughout most of Europe, George W. Bush is still recognized as the same babbling moron he was a year ago.) For the same reason, the idea of the systems "talking" to each other would probably be rejected, or at least limited to non-essential communications that could be shut off quickly and unilaterally at the EU end. I'm not sure there would be any benefit to having them communicate in the first place, and the system would be far more secure from US tampering if they didn't talk at all. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:08:41 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest Mobiles 'worse than drink-driving' Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol. And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1885000/1885775.stm High-speed wireless Net service launches By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com March 22, 2002, 2:55 PM PT Another company is jumping into the Wi-Fi pool. Joltage launched Friday with plans to sell wireless high-speed Internet access on a national network made up of Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, wireless networks, Chief Executive Andrew Weinreich said Friday. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-867127.html Wireless connection Industry chiefs say 3G and WiFi may not be rivals but collaborators By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 3/22/2002 ORLANDO, Fla. - Wireless phone companies pouring billions of dollars into ''third generation'' networks that offer high-speed Internet connections without the tether of a cable or phone line have been casting a wary eye on a cheap wireless broadband system popping up on college campuses, in hotel and airport lobbies, and even in Starbucks coffee shops around the nation. The cheap, short-range, but super-fast ''WiFi'' networks have been seen in some quarters as a potential threat to carriers' huge investment in third generation, or ''3G,'' wireless networks. Some people may decide, the thinking goes, they are happy enough with a fast wireless connection they can only use when sitting down and don't need to buy one they can use anywhere. But in forums and interviews at the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association convention here this week, executives of some companies involved in both 3G and WiFi said they think the two technologies may turn out not to be archrivals, but close collaborators offering unprecedented mobility and speed for people who want to stay connected to the Net. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/081/business/Wireless_connection+.shtml Bleak future looms if you don't take a stand By Dan Gillmor Mercury News Technology Columnist This is a quiz about your future. It's about how you view some basic elements of the emerging Digital Age. 1. Do you care if a few giant companies control virtually all entertainment and information? 2. Do you care if they decide what kinds of technological innovations will reach the marketplace? 3. Would you be concerned if they used their power to compile detailed dossiers on everything you read, listen to, view and buy? 4. Would you find it acceptable if they could decide whether what you write and say could be seen and heard by others? Those are no longer theoretical questions. They are the direction in which America is hurtling. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/2922052.htm Telecom, Tangled in Its Own Web By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Thanks to a star-quality cast, the Enron wreck has been riveting theater. Greedy executives concocting transactions to inflate company earnings, grasping Wall Street bankers eager to assist, pliant accountants and analysts looking the other way - Broadway's finest could not have come up with a better script. Yet while all eyes remain on Enron, a tragedy of identical plot but with far more damaging implications has been playing out on another stage. Unlike Enron's saga, this drama is not about a single, rogue company operating to enrich its executives. This tale is about an entire industry - telecommunications - that rose to a value of $2 trillion based on dubious promises by Wall Street and company executives of an explosive growth in demand for telecommunications services. When that demand failed to materialize, the companies were left with mountains of debt and little revenue. Now, securities regulators are examining transactions among some telecom companies - Global Crossing and Qwest Communications are two - that may have been designed to pad inadequate revenue. Last week, Congress, too, started an investigation of the telecom mess, looking at how certain companies accounted for the deals they struck with one another and whether employees in the companies' 401(k) plans were treated fairly. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/technology/24TELE.html The smart highway Over budget, behind schedule, the big brain would allow instant communication between controllers and drivers - if and when it works By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff, 3/24/2002 When transportation planners first unveiled designs for a downtown Boston Expressway in 1930, they billed the elevated highway a ''central artery.'' But despite the blood vessel imagery, the steel-and-asphalt leviathan they soon created shared little with the frustrated humans who used it. When the new Central Artery fully opens in late 2004 or early 2005, the roadway will finally have a touch of humanity. Thanks to a $200-million-and-climbing investment in a so-called ''Intelligent Transportation System,'' the project will be endowed with an electronic brain, a central nervous system, lungs, eyes, nostrils, a sense of touch, even a voice. Called the Integrated Project Control System, or IPCS, the Central Artery's electronic monitoring mechanism will constitute the nation's largest, most sophisticated, and most expensive system, allowing highway operators and engineers to respond in real-time to collisions, car fires, and traffic jams, with plenty of help from computers that will do much of the thinking for them. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/083/metro/The_smart_highway+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:23:11 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: So Much Junk Mail Today I sat down here at the computer for the first time in about 24 hours to begin working on an issue of the Digest. The first dozen messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and how many of these you are familiar with: There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help with disbursing some large sum of money. Then I got two or three core dumps (all huge, but I am reluctant to say record-setting in size). Two had a single line message saying 'this is a new game I wrote, and you will be my first player. Please enjoy. One of them said 'can you please read this and straighten it out, and show me where my error is?' I have had a few of those in the past, where they asked me to read over their 'work' and try to correct it. I have had the one about 'my new game and you will be the first player a few times also. I wonder if one person is sending all these out, or if there is some kind of source where people go to get these cute little one- liners to prepend to a huge core dump which they then mail out. I have to wonder also if there is some kind of virus buried deep inside the core dump which infects people's computers upon being opened and 'read'. I wonder why people send those core-dumps out? They couldn't really be serious about not knowing what it was and asking my advice could they? Or about writing a new game and wanting me to be the first player? I have to wonder if what I am actually getting in the mail are instances of people getting viruses in the mail and then their address book proceeds to send it out to everyone it can find. But because I only use a Unix text based mailing program here on lcs.mit.edu it does nothing to me, where it would proceed to infect someone with a Windows type computer. I have yet to actuzlly read through one of those dumps, to attempt to straighten it out or whatever. As soon as I open the mailer and see a piece of email consisting of six billion, three hundred million bytes and a subject line saying 'can you help me?' or 'my new game' I just immediatly zap it. I mean, exactly what is the purpose in sending those out, other than try and spread a virus somehow? Then there were four or five pieces of 'traditional' spam; the chances to become a millionaire in an hour by selling porn web sites or by selling scripts to manufacture still more spam. Then after that I had two of those things with subject lines which always seem to come from southeast Asia and you can't make anything out of them. Its not a thing where it is 'western' script in some other language, but rather a thing where the subject line looks like this #$@&%##@( like massis is trying to deal with Japanese, Korean or Chinese characters and can't do it. Then the message itself consists of HTML code in large quantities. After looking at a full *dozen* things in the mail like the above, I finally got some 'real' mail for the Digest, and it is all printed above. Every bit of it. More junk than real mail today. My main question is about the core-dumps and the patently silly requests to examine their work or play their new game. What is that stuff? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #201 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 25 21:24:00 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA05903; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:24:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:24:00 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203260224.VAA05903@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #202 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:24:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 202 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #325, March 25, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) NH Town Fights to Keep Its Only Pay Phone (The Old Bear) Re: So Much Junk Mail (hes@unity.ncsu.edu) Re: So Much Junk Mail (KimBrennan) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Mark Crispin) Re: So Much Junk Mail (S. Falke) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Gail M. Hall) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:07:18 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #325, March 25, 2002 TELECOM UPDATE published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 325: March 25, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** AT&T CANADA http://www.attcanada.com ** BELL CANADA http://www.bell.ca ** GROUP TELECOM http://www.gt.ca ** LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES CANADA http://www.lucent.ca ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ** UNISPHERE NETWORKS: http://www.unispherenetworks.com IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Orders Videotron to Defend Licence ** Teleglobe Outsources Backroom Operations ** Telus Buys Out Fibre Venture ** Bell Considers Higher-Speed DSL ** GT Panel Examines Financial Options ** Rogers AT&T to Offer Treo Communicator ** Rogers Boosts Wireless Stake ** Videotron Reports E-Mail Loss ** Sprint Plans DSL Internet Service ** Cellphone Users Worse Than Drunks ** UBS Elects New Board; Management Quits ** Bell to Launch Higher-Speed Wireless in Montreal ** Emergis Reports Revenue Fall ** CRTC Website Changes Face ** ISP Outsources to Telus ** Report Examines Foreign Ownership ** Minacs Revenue Up 53% ** Sales Down 60% at Fibre Testing Firm ** Correction -- Cisco SIP ** Meet Us at Call Centre Canada ** Angus "Convergence" Study Gets Around CRTC ORDERS VIDEOTRON TO DEFEND LICENCE: The CRTC has ordered Videotron and its cable affiliates to attend a public hearing on April 23, to show why the sale of its inside wire to Cablage QMI does not constitute a breach of its licence conditions and Broadcasting Regulations. The CRTC may issue a "mandatory order" for compliance, which would trigger court penalties if not obeyed. ** Several competitors have complained to the CRTC about the $5/month/subscriber fee that CQMI wants them to agree to (see Telecom Update #324). http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Hearings/2002/n2002-3.htm TELEGLOBE OUTSOURCES BACKROOM OPERATIONS: In a move that it says will save US$15 million-$20 million a year, Teleglobe is outsourcing its network operations, technology, IS/IT, and real estate management functions to Bell Canada and CGI. One hundred employees will lose their jobs; 600 will be transferred to Bell and CGI. TELUS BUYS OUT FIBRE VENTURE: For what it calls a "nominal consideration," Telus Corporation has purchased all of Metromedia Fiber Network's minority interest in the joint-venture the two companies established two years ago to construct a fibre network in Toronto. ** New York-based MFN originally planned to install over 800 strands of dark fibre in Toronto. It recently announced that it may have to file for bankruptcy protection. BELL CONSIDERS HIGHER-SPEED DSL: A Bell Sympatico market survey says the company is considering offering "Sympatico Pro," a new service with 2.5 Mbps download speeds. It asks customers whether they would pay $59.95, $69.95, or $79.95 a month for the higher speed alone, and whether they would pay $64.95, $74.95, or $84.95 for higher speed bundled with firewall, anti-virus, and on-line storage services. GT PANEL EXAMINES FINANCIAL OPTIONS: Group Telecom has named a committee composed of its independent Directors to help the carrier seek "capital structure enhancements," with the aid of Morgan Stanley & Co. GT says it had $598 million in available liquidity at the end of 2001. ROGERS AT&T TO OFFER TREO COMMUNICATOR: Rogers AT&T Wireless says it will begin offering the Handspring Treo 180 Communicator to Canadian customers in April. The device, which offers Palm OS organizer, cellphone, and Short Message Service functions, will sell for $749.99 with a two-year contract, or $849.99 with a one-year plan. ** Rogers AT&T now offers the Sierra Wireless AirCard 750, a wireless modem for laptops and PDAs. ROGERS BOOSTS WIRELESS STAKE: Rogers Communications has agreed to pay $102 million in stock to investors in Rogers Wireless, increasing its stake in the cellco to 56% from 51%. VIDEOTRON REPORTS E-MAIL LOSS: Videotron says it lost between 10,000 and 12,500 e-mails addressed to its Internet customers last week because of network congestion and the impact of computer viruses. SPRINT PLANS DSL INTERNET SERVICE: According to the Toronto Star, Sprint Canada plans to offer DSL-based high-speed Internet access for small businesses and residences, beginning in Toronto by August. CELLPHONE USERS WORSE THAN DRUNKS: A new study, sponsored by Direct Line Motor Insurance in the U.K., concludes that drivers talking on cellphones have 30% slower reaction times and have more trouble stopping than drivers who are legally drunk. Handsfree phones were only marginally safer than handheld units. UBS ELECTS NEW BOARD; MANAGEMENT QUITS: Shareholders of Unique Broadband Systems have elected a slate of directors associated with founder Alec Dolgonos, who is currently the subject of a securities investigation. The company's entire senior management team resigned immediately after the March 18 meeting. BELL TO LAUNCH HIGHER-SPEED WIRELESS IN MONTREAL: Bell Mobility will begin offering 1XRTT wireless data service in the Greater Montreal area tomorrow. EMERGIS REPORTS REVENUE FALL: BCE Emergis stock prices fell 44% March 21 on news that expected first quarter one-time revenues "have not materialized." Projected net loss for the quarter: $25 million to $30 million. CRTC WEBSITE CHANGES FACE: The CRTC has redesigned and updated its website, with revised menu selections on the top and side navigation bars, new search options, and a site map. http://www.crtc.gc.ca. ISP OUTSOURCES TO TELUS: Internet Service Provider Inter.net Canada has agreed to outsource part of its network operations to Telus. The two-year deal is valued at "up to $13 million." REPORT EXAMINES FOREIGN OWNERSHIP: Montreal-based Lemay-Yates Associates has announced a 50-page report entitled "Foreign Ownership of the Canadian Telecommunications Industry." For more information go to http://www.lya.com. MINACS REVENUE UP 53%: Call centre outsourcer Minacs Worldwide had 2001 sales of $146 million, 53% more than in 2000. The net loss was $3.7 million, compared to a $2.3 million profit in 2000. SALES DOWN 60% AT FIBRE TESTING FIRM: Exfo Electro-Optical Engineering of Quebec City, which makes fibre-optic testing equipment, reports sales of $14.6 million for the quarter ended February 28, down from $36.3 million last year. CORRECTION -- CISCO SIP: Last week's Telecom Update item on Cisco's new SIP-based products was correct, but the headline wasn't. The products work with Cisco's wide area Voice over IP equipment, not a "Cisco PBX." MEET US AT CALL CENTRE CANADA: Advanstar's Call Centre and CRM show will be held Tuesday and Wednesday of this week at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Angus TeleManagement Group and Angus Dortmans Associates will be in booth 222 -- we encourage Telecom Update readers to drop by and say hello. ANGUS "CONVERGENCE" STUDY GETS AROUND: Ian Angus's "Who Put the Con in Convergence," which originally appeared in the January issue of Telemanagement, has been republished by a U.S. telecom journal, Business Communications Review. ** Ian's analysis is now available on-line at the Angus website, along with 150 other articles from Telemanagement. Go to http://www.angustel.ca. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 500 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:49:04 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: NH Town Fights to Keep Its Only Pay Phone Manchester Union Leader Monday, March 25, 2002 Acworth fights to keep its only pay phone ACWORTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE -- Residents are preparing to fight over the future of the town's only pay phone. In recent years, Verizon has pulled pay phones from more than 100 small towns across New England in an effort to save money and weed out phones that are not making a profit. When the news reached Acworth's 800 residents that their public telephone, situated in a booth outside the South Acworth Village Store, was about to be pulled, they began a petition to save it. Some people in the town say they rely on that phone for emergencies because cell phones and radios don't work in the area because of nearby hills. The closest other public telephone is eight miles away in Alstead. Erle Pierce, a Verizon spokesman, said the pay phone was to be removed because it was not making any money. "Pay phones are a very competitive business," he said. "If it doesn't make any money, it has to go." Rep. Jay Phinizy, D-Langdon, said he has heard many complaints about the decision and, pending a discussion with Verizon, he plans to contact the governor and state Office of Emergency Management. "We have had some problems in that area with the fire and rescue radios," said Phinizy. "They needed to use that pay phone because radios and cell phones do not work in that area. There is a valid need for a public telephone there." Acworth Police Chief Dave Webber said he has used that pay phone several times on official business, because police radios don't work in that area. He also said it is important for many residents. "If you have a situation in the middle of the night, sometimes you can't go knocking on your neighbor's door," Webber said. "At least, for now, you still have the pay phone. I'd really hate to see it go." And Chris Robbins, one of the directors of Women's Supportive Services in Claremont, said that the organization's crisis line has received calls for help from that pay phone. "That phone was instrumental in saving the life of one victim of domestic violence," said Robbins. "The victim had to travel two miles to use that phone to call for help. If it was not there, this woman would not have received the help." ------------------------------ From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:17:57 EST Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Organization: North Carolina State University In article you write: > Today I sat down here at the computer for the first time in about 24 > hours to begin working on an issue of the Digest. The first dozen > messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and > how many of these you are familiar with: I get 20 - 50 pieces of UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail) plus viruses, etc. a day. > There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King > or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help > with disbursing some large sum of money. I usually get several of these each day. > Then I got two or three core dumps I think that these are actually viruses/worms. They are usually mime encoded, but the MIME headers (which you should get to right at the top of them) will give a file name. I bet that most of them will have an extension which says it is an executeable file. > (all huge, but I am reluctant to say > record-setting in size). Two had a single line message saying 'this is > a new game I wrote, and you will be my first player. Please enjoy. One > of them said 'can you please read this and straighten it out, and show > me where my error is?' I've not seen these yet -- but I've received many saying something like "I'm sending this to you for your advice" -- and that *is* a virus/worm. > ... I have to wonder also if there is some kind of virus buried deep > inside the core dump which infects people's computers upon being > opened and 'read'. Usually -- but it's not buried inside, the file is actually an executable (at least it is if you are running Microsoft Windows.) Best wishes, henry schaffer ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 25 Mar 2002 19:02:21 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail > The first dozen > messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and > how many of these you are familiar with: Gee, I envy you. Only a dozen "spams". I used to use my "kim@aol.com" email address. It now receives abot 350 pieces of spam (or misdirected) email a day. Since it is an AOL email address, I automatically forward all the email to their "spam fighting bot" tosspam@aol.com. It doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. It's a lost cause really. There are many technological ways to deal with SPAM. Most of them won't be implemented because of political reasons. SPAM, telemarketing and junk (snail) mail are all symptoms of the society (marketing driven) that we live in ... and are foisting on other countries. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C.Fields [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am running filters, but those that I see (at least a dozen a day, although not usually a dozen in a row at the start of the mailing cycle) are the ones that managed to slip in anyway. I guess a lot of those guys are getting very tricky at learning how to get around filter-rules, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:22:27 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > My main question is about the core-dumps and the > patently silly requests to examine their work or play their new > game. What is that stuff? They are viri. The intent is to get you to run them on a Windows PC, so they can do their mischief. In some older versions of Outlook and Outlook Express, they run automatically so you don't even have to click on the virus to run it. The alleged source email address was culled from publicly-available mailing list archives. I was very amused to get one of these "from" an email address of a former co-worker on a system that hasn't existed for 13 years, having been shut down shortly after he and I each departed for greener pastures. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ From: s falke Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:54:34 GMT "TELECOM Digest Editor" wrote in message news:telecom20.201.14@telecom-digest.org: > Today I sat down here at the computer for the first time in about 24 > hours to begin working on an issue of the Digest. The first dozen > messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and > how many of these you are familiar with: Pat -- I seem to get a lot of one more type of junk mail -- Get-Rich-Quick promises if I will just buy a cdrom of 245-million 'clean' email addresses and become a spammer too. --s falke ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: For Pat - Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:11:22 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net Hi Pat! On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:23:11 EST, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (TELECOM Digest Editor ) wrote: > Today I sat down here at the computer for the first time in about 24 > hours to begin working on an issue of the Digest. The first dozen > messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and > how many of these you are familiar with: Welcome back, Pat!! The amount of spam increased greatly during the time you were out of touch with us. Most of the ones you mentioned are familiar to me. I've been fortunate not to get any "core dumps" for a long time. (Keeping my fingers crossed!) Being a group moderator, you may be on more people's hate list than some of the rest of us quiet types. Being a list moderator, you are in a more awkward situation for filtering out spam, but depending on your reader you may still be able to do it to some extent. I use Fort Agent, and they have very good help and ways to setting up filters, most of them based on contents of various headers. Do you use software that can access procmail filters? If so, you might want to do a search on help for writing the procmail filters. You could redirect some of those messages to a "might be junk" folder and look at them when you have more time. That way you will end up with fewer messages to deal with right away. You might want to check out this site: http://www.cauce.org/about/resources.shtml > There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King > or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help > with disbursing some large sum of money. Well known even by the FBI. Some of them appear to come from other countries as well as Nigeria. > Then I got two or three core dumps (all huge, but I am reluctant to say > record-setting in size). Two had a single line message saying 'this is > a new game I wrote, and you will be my first player. Please enjoy. A good way to get a virus or worm! I stay away from those! I got one a while back telling me to look at this "site" for the party pictures from last night or some such thing. The writer was depending on people not knowing the difference between a .com file and a dot-com web site. What I got was an attachment that was a .com (executable) file. It was a new virus that our virus catcher didn't know about. The next day the service updated and identified the file. Fortunately I know better than to launch executable files I get from sources I am not expecting them from. > One of them said 'can you please read this and straighten it out, and show > me where my error is?' I have had a few of those in the past, where > they asked me to read over their 'work' and try to correct it. I guess my writing is not as good as yours. I haven't got any asking me to correct their writing! > I have had the one about 'my new game and you will be the first > player a few > times also. I wonder if one person is sending all these out, or if there > is some kind of source where people go to get these cute little one- > liners to prepend to a huge core dump which they then mail out. I have > to wonder also if there is some kind of virus buried deep inside the > core dump which infects people's computers upon being opened and 'read'. > I wonder why people send those core-dumps out? They couldn't really > be serious about not knowing what it was and asking my advice could > they? They don't have enough chores to do at home! We need to go back to the days when kids have to feed the chickens and clean out the barns. ;-) > Or about writing a new game and wanting me to be the first > player? I have to wonder if what I am actually getting in the mail are > instances of people getting viruses in the mail and then their address > book proceeds to send it out to everyone it can find. But because I > only use a Unix text based mailing program here on lcs.mit.edu it > does nothing to me, where it would proceed to infect someone with a > Windows type computer. I have yet to actuzlly read through one of those > dumps, to attempt to straighten it out or whatever. As soon as I open > the mailer and see a piece of email consisting of six billion, three > hundred million bytes and a subject line saying 'can you help me?' > or 'my new game' I just immediatly zap it. Way to go! > I mean, exactly what is > the purpose in sending those out, other than try and spread a virus > somehow? Is this the modern equivalent of calling a bunch of numbers and asking if there is a road running past your house. When the person says yes, the kid says, you better go out and catch it! Then they hang up. No, on second thought, it's probably not really the same. Those old phone jokes were short and didn't take up a lot of the victims' time. Maybe they are similar to telemarketers. Most telemarketers know that most people aren't one bit interested in buying what they are selling, but they bother us anyway. > Then there were four or five pieces of 'traditional' spam; the chances > to become a millionaire in an hour by selling porn web sites or by > selling scripts to manufacture still more spam. My ISP has started filtering out domains that have open relays. Maybe you can get your service to do the same. MIT does have a reputation for being really laid back about what kind of abusers they tolerate, though. Still, I think they wouldn't want too many people who use their service to be the target of core dumps. That could constitue a form of denial of service if those dumps filled up their systems too fast, especially filling up mailboxes of innocent victims. > Then after that I had two of those things with subject lines which > always seem to come from southeast Asia and you can't make anything > out of them. Its not a thing where it is 'western' script in some > other language, but rather a thing where the subject line looks like > this #$@&%##@( like massis is trying to deal with Japanese, Korean or > Chinese characters and can't do it. I filter out some countries altogether, but as a moderator, you can't really do that. Still you could shove those into a temporary directory and deal with them after you have finished with your ordinary messages. > Then the message itself consists of HTML code in large quantities. I filter out all messages that contain only HTML and no plain text. Most of that is spam anyway. I see nothing wrong with a moderator making rules stating that messages should be in plain text. > After looking at a full *dozen* > things in the mail like the above, I finally got some 'real' mail for > the Digest, and it is all printed above. Every bit of it. More junk > than real mail today. I get the "Digest" via usenet, so all the messages appear individually. I don't know which of the messages appeared "above" and which came in another "digest." > My main question is about the core-dumps and the > patently silly requests to examine their work or play their new > game. What is that stuff? Junk! DELETE IT! If you think you are the target of harassment, then you may need to do some research by checking headers to see if there are any real ones (not forged) to see where the messages are coming from. Maybe some others who use MIT have had the same problems and can give you some advice. Do you have access to any of their local newsgroups? There are some general newsgroups out there that deal with abuse. If you have time (dream, dream!) you might find help in some of those, too. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #202 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Mar 25 22:56:04 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA08139; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:56:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:56:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203260356.WAA08139@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #203 TELECOM Digest Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:56:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 203 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet and Nobody Noticed (Jeremy Beal) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet and Nobody Noticed (Ross Oliver) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet and Nobody Noticed (Sbc-Msi) Re: FCC [allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet (Fred Goldstein) BSTJ On Line? (Looking for Bell System Technical Journal) (A. Seigman) Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base (John R. Levine) Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base (Don Saklad) Company Pitches Wireless Mesh Net For Congested Areas (Monty Solomon) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Robert Casey) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Gail M. Halll) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: thejbeal@netscape.net (Jeremy Beal) Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 25 Mar 2002 16:07:16 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Ken Abrams wrote in message news:: Comments below ... > It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) > Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom > and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service > Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. > While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater > flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a > more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this > ruling. > Common Carriers (primarily phone companies) are exempt from liability > for the content of the traffic they transmit. This was true for ISPs > too but not anymore. Information Providers have no such exemption. > They can be held liable for transmitting content that is illegal, even > if "they" do not originate the content. This also leaves them open to > harassment for transmitting content that the current Administration > (Big Brother) finds objectionable, simply by claiming that it is > illegal even if it isn't. A link of relevance is: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html This is a serious problem -- possibly a back-door attempt to impose liability for transmitted content on the typical ISP. As you say, the consequences could be huge for the typical ISP -- especially considering that it is impossible for ISPs to police content in general. However, I'm not sure how much of this "Declaratory Ruling" is intended to address content censorship versus other regulatory issues separating internet service over cable from general cable service. However, there is mention made of constitutional issues, and there will be regulatory rules which have not yet been written (see below) To me, it's all just content over a wire. I can't see a good reason why the cable provider might be exempt from liability for transmitting, say, slanderous or libelous content over their "television" bandwidth, but not for transmission of similar content over their "internet" bandwidth. Then again, IMO they never should have deregulated the cable industry without removing the wire provider's control of the data content ... The FCC issued simultaneously with the "Declaratory Ruling" a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". This should have appeared in the Federal Register near March 14. One issue for the proposed rules is "The scope of the FCC's jurisdiction to regulate cable modem service, including whether there are any constitutional limitations on the exercise of that jurisdiction". This scope of jurisdiction is the heart of the matter. This is only a notice of proposed rulemaking by the FCC. In order to establish new regulatory rule, they will need to formalize a proposed rule, allow a reasonable period for comments on the proposed rule, then issue a final rule. It has been a while since I worked with the Federal Register, and I can't remember if comments are generally accepted in a NPR. If so, the time is NOW to make your comments. If not, then it is vitally important to make serious comments as soon as the proposed rule hits the Federal Register. There's still some time, but we need to raise awareness of this issue. Jeremy Beal ------------------------------ From: reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver) Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 25 Mar 2002 23:21:51 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600, Ken Abrams wrote: > It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) > Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom > and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service > Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. The actual decision was a bit more subtle. On March 14, the FCC reclassified cable modem service from "common carrier" to "information service." The net effect is that cable companies cannot be forced to open their infrastructure to competing ISPs as telecommunications companies have been required to do. IMHO, this is bad for consumers because it strengthens the monopoly of cable companies both for broadband Internet services and cable television. Read the full FCC press release at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html Ross Oliver ------------------------------ From: Goodwin, Fred A Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:16:30 -0600 Maybe nobody noticed the "deathblow" because the FCC action was nothing of the sort? ISPs were never classified as common carriers. Fred Goodwin, CMA Executive Director-Federal Regulatory SBC Telecommunications, Inc. 1401 I St NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 202-326-8913 office 202-408-4809 fax fred.goodwin@sbc.com -----Original Message----- From: Ken Abrams Subject: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600 > Or so it seems. > It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) > Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom > and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service > Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. > While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater > flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a > more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this > ruling. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:46:11 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600 Ken Abrams wrote, > It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) > Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom > and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service > Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. > While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater > flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a > more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this > ruling. > Common Carriers (primarily phone companies) are exempt from liability > for the content of the traffic they transmit. This was true for ISPs > too but not anymore. Information Providers have no such exemption.... Utter hogwash, the whole note. ISPs have never been classified as Common Carriers. Had they been, then they would have been required (until recently) to file tariffs, among other onerous things. ISPs are and have always been information providers. The responsibilities of an ISP are spelled out in some laws, whose cite I can't remember. They have some protection for content that is similar to that afforded to common carriers, based on a reasonable statutory determination that they can't be held responsible for everything that passes by. Common carriers had that protection anyway, but ISPs have most of it and don't lose it. There are certain responsibilities; those don't change. The whole thread is ridiculous. ------------------------------ From: Anthony Siegman Subject: BSTJ On Line? (Looking for Bell System Technical Journal) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:19:19 -0800 Organization: Stanford University The more researchy or academic types on this NG will know that the full publication runs of many major scientific and technical journals are now available in electronic form on line -- for example, every issue of Phys Rev is now available on line, starting from its inception back sometime before 1900. (Older issues are scanned PDF files.) Given the immense technical important of the Bell System Tech. Journal in earlier decades -- including classic pioneering papers on basic topics in physics and engineering including circuits, electronic devices, noise, information theory, statistics, radio astronomy, microwaves, as well as telephony -- its full publication run ought to be on line also. Anyone know if this is this case? And if not, anyone have any ideas on how it might be brought about? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 2002 13:39:02 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > a. What exactly is widely available at Kmart? ... All sorts of stuff. There are K-Marts at Assembly Square in Somerville, on Western Ave in Brighton, and Mass Ave in Dorchester where you can check for yourself. The one in Dorchester is probably closest to the Boston Public Library. > b. What's a tip? ... One of the two wires that connect to a telephone, named after the tip of the plugs that operators used to use. > c. What's a butt in? ... It's when a telephone lineman clips his portable phone onto a pair of phone wires either to test them or to order a pizza. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Don Saklad Subject: Re: Wall Corded Telephone That Doesn't Use a Base Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:43:43 -0500 Thank you John R. Levine! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:07:06 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Company pitches wireless mesh net for congested areas By Robert Keenan CommsDesign.com March 22, 2002 (6:03 p.m. EST) ORLANDO, Fla - Looking to change the way wireless networks are set up in congested environments, MeshNetworks Inc. (Maitland, Fla.) is pitching a methodology where any piece of equipment on a high-speed wireless network can serve as a network access point. The company is building IC technology and systems that will allow operators to set up ad hoc mesh networks in congested environments, according to Rick Rotondo, director of disruptive technology at MeshNetworks. The intent is to build a network that clients can connect to via routers, access points, or other client devices. http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20020322S0099 ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:48:51 -0500 Organization: wa2ise Rob Clark wrote: > I guess people's internal 'impatient timer' is triggered at different > times depending on what they are waiting for. What I really hate us when the music on hold is interrupted by what turns out not to be a live person picking up, but a recorded announcement saying "Your call is important to us, please continue to hold". Not that I was enjoying the music, but I get tired of these false sensations of finally getting through to a live person and not actually. ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:11:25 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:57:03 +0800, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (Rob Clark ) wrote: > My apologies if this question has been answered well before. > Are there statistics, or rules-of-thumb, for determining a design goal > for caller queues? > For example ... if you had a call center, where typical conversation > times with an agent was XXX seconds, then does anyone have any > suggestions for how many callers drop off impatiently as a function of > time? I think the amount of time a person will wait depends a lot on the purpose of the call as well as whether the caller is calling from work or is a retired person calling from home. When I worked in an office, we were told never to keep people on hold for more than a minute or two. If we had to take longer to find the information, we were supposed to offer to call them back. I think similar rules should hold for those automated queues. My ideal would be if a person has to wait more than 10 minutes, a machine should offer to have a service person call them back. > I guess people's internal 'impatient timer' is triggered at different > times depending on what they are waiting for. I agree. > eg. > I would wait up to > - 3 sec for a dial tone; That sounds tolerable. > - 3 mins for a conversation with an agent ... where I expected the > conversation to take 3 mins; No more than 5 minutes of I expect the answer to be relatively short. > - 6 months to finalize a holiday booking for a 6month cruise on the Love > Boat. Never!! I think anything over 15 minutes is too long. They need to hire more reps or get more lines! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most business places operating > a phone room keep records of lost calls, ie. calls in which the caller > disconnects without speaking with a live agent. I know when I worked > at Amoco Credit Card Center back in the 1960's-70's in the phone room > one of my tasks as the midnight shift supervisor was to tally up the > logs on this. We were getting about ten thousand calls per 24 hours, > and there were little clickers mounted in the wall of my office which > did various things. Most of the calls -- about 8000 -- came during the > regular business day. Overnight we had about 1000 - 1500 calls from > dealers getting credit authorizations. There were counters for each > incoming line on the ACD, and a master counter for all lines totalled. > There were counters for each agent position, and a counter for calls > lost, where the caller disconnected without waiting for an answer. If > the ratio of lost calls to total calls exceeded some small percentage > of the total, there were procedures in place to increase the number > of agents on a temporary basis by recruiting clerks from another part > of the office. They did not really care how long someone had to wait, > only if they hung up without waiting longer if necessary. PAT] I hate being left on hold for more than about 15 minutes. I think a system should click in to offer me a chance to give my number to a machine so a person can call me back. Keeping a lot of people on hold for longer than that uses up phone resources. The company needs to get more people to answer. Some call centers service more than one company. I know a person who works at such a service. I think she called it an "overflow" service. Her employer gets the calls when the main call center is full. She says they get information on their screen showing which company the person is calling, so she can call up the appropriate company on her screen and take their orders or answer their questions. I don't remember how many companies this company services, but it is definitely several. Gail from Ohio USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I was doing that kind of work, 15 minutes per call would have been outrageous. Twenty to thirty seconds per call was more realistic. In fact, when the carrier being used for our incoming toll-free calls advised that they would no longer be billing in six-second increments and all 800 calls would be one minute minimum, then our phone room supervisor WAS outraged. We would be wasting a half-minute on charges eight thousand times daily. Incoming calls were either 800 numbers, a few local Chicago area numbers, internal extensions calling us, or a few 'tie' lines, direct to dealers with a high rate of fraud who were obliged to call in *every last sale* without any floor limit at all. Customer presents plastic, those dealers picked up the red phone and waited for an answer. All the incoming lines, whether 800, local, extension to extension, 'tie' lines or whatever, came into the ACD then got tossed out to the work floor as available. A couple dealers on the south side just off of I-90 had those special phones without dials. Any charge slips they sent in without an approval code were automatically charged back with no questions asked, that's how bad their fraud level was. The phone room had all the oil companies in the old Standard Oil trust (Amoco, Exxon, Sohio, the California bunch whatever they were called) and Diner's Club cards. As I said above, a typical phone call lasted fifteen to twenty seconds, and went like this: (clerks merely waited to hear a 'click in their headset' and breathing on the other end of the line), then said: (our clerk)'Amoco/Diners'. the dealer then read the card number. (our clerk typed it in and asked) 'amount?' the dealer then read the amount. If the computer was able to resolve the matter, the clerk would simply read what the computer said, "Okay 23456" or "declined" and then she hit the release button on her console and a new call popped up right away in many/most cases. If the computer was unable to resolve the matter, the clerk would say 'hold for a credit representative' and after 'moving' the call into the credit reps queue, then disconnect herself and go on to the next call. Fifteen or twenty seconds per call that took no decision-making. The queue for the credit reps was the killer. You could sit there for a couple minutes while one of the reps was reviewing the screen, pulling the credit application from microfilm and reaching a decision. The clerks got all the traffic; the credit reps only had maybe a thousand or so calls per day of the total volume. That was thirty years ago. I understand now they use auto-voices to query the dealer, who inputs card number on touchtone, then the auto-voice tells the dealer what to do. No more clerks. And yet, even with calls that short, there were times there would be a dozen calls holding in the clerk's queue and no parking space in the credit rep's queue. That's when lights would flash, and the supervisor would get off his lazy ass in his cubicle and go over to the steno pool and microfilm operators and tell them to all go over to the stalls, take a headset and start taking calls. And when I started doing that work about forty years ago, they didn't even have *any computers at all*. Everything was in ledger books and everyone in the phone room walked around looking in all the hundreds of huge ledger books. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #203 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 26 01:49:47 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA10859; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:49:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:49:47 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203260649.BAA10859@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #204 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:50:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 204 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Re: News Headlines of Interest (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Steven Lichter) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Mark Crispin) Donation of Junk Email Filter Software (Ross Oliver) My Filter Rules, etc (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:51:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest New services spur growth of public access Wi-Fi By BOB BREWIN (March 21, 2002) ORLANDO -- Public access wireless LAN service shared the center ring here at the annual Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) trade show with third generation mobile data, and one major carrier promised to deliver combined Wi-Fi/cellular services by early next year. Voicestream Wireless Corp. plans to offer a PC Card by early next year that will provide users access to both 40K bit/sec. mobile service over its nationwide General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network as well as speeds of up to 11M bit/sec. over the 802.11b public access Wi-Fi network it acquired from bankrupt Mobilestar Network Corp. (Wi-Fi is another name for 802.11b and was coined by the industry trade group the Wireless Ethernet Compatability Alliance, or WECA) http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO69388,00.html Spammers Lose in Small-Claims Court By Gwendolyn Mariano Staff Writer, CNET News.com March 25, 2002, 4:50 PM PT Free-speech group Peacefire.org has won a legal round in its fight against unsolicited e-mail, invoking Washington state's anti-spam law. The King County District Court in Bellevue, Wash., on Monday granted Peacefire $1,000 in damages in each of three complaints filed by Peacefire Webmaster Bennett Haselton. The small-claims suit alleged that Red Moss Media, Paulann Allison and Richard Schueler sent unsolicited commercial messages to Haselton that bore deceptive information such as a forged return e-mail address or misleading subject line. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-868332.html FCC challenged on high-speed ISP ruling By Reuters March 25, 2002, 4:45 PM PT Verizon Communications, EarthLink and public-interest groups went to court Monday to challenge a decision by the Federal Communications Commission to insulate high-speed cable Internet service from extensive regulations. The FCC declared cable-modem service as an information service earlier this month, which means operators like AT&T Broadband and AOL Time Warner are not presently required to share their systems or provide open access for competing Internet services. That decision immediately elicited an outcry from public interest groups and Internet service providers that want the cable pipeline open so consumers can have a choice of Internet providers. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-868329.html ------------------------------ From: Geoffrey Welsh Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:00:58 -0500 Organization: Bell Sympatico Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom20.201.13@telecom-digest.org... > And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones. ... which suggests to me that getting into a serious conversation, changing the radio station (or CD, or cassette), lighting a cigarette, reading a billboard, or even just getting 'into' a song might all pose significant safety risks ... but those are much tougher to crack down on than cellphone use. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And notice if you will please, despite the various crackdowns we see on cellular use while driving, not a single word is ever said about ham radio operators or CB radio oper- ators who drive while using their radios. Which are more distracting? Nor are any complaints made about police officers who talk on their radios while engaged in high speed chases. But cellular phone oper- ators are fair game it appears. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 26 Mar 2002 03:16:26 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail > My main question is about the core-dumps and the > patently silly requests to examine their work or play their new > game. What is that stuff? They should publish their home address so we can come by and KILL the SOBs Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Which do you consider worse, Steve? A spammer or a virus-spreader who infects some unsuspecting user's computer while he is reading the spam mail which showed up? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:24:58 -0800 Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On 25 Mar 2002, KimBrennan wrote: > It's a lost cause really. There are many technological ways to deal > with SPAM. Most of them won't be implemented because of political > reasons. There is a simple way to bring an end to spam, one that has abundant precedent and legal weight, and wouldn't get in the way of any civil rights protections: TAX IT In 1934, the US government wanted to put an end to gangster use of machine guns, but that pesky Second Amendment to the US Constitution was in the way. The problem was neatly finessed by the National Firearms Act (NFA), which required that all privately-owned machine guns be registered (yes, we *do* have gun registration in the US, just not of "ordinary" guns) and that a tax be paid every time a machine gun was transferred to a new owner. The tax was set to the then-outrageous sum of $200, which doubled the cost of a Thompson submachine gun (which was already expensive at about 10 times the cost of an "ordinary" gun). Today, the tax is still $200, a small fraction of today's purchase prices; a beat-up Tommy gun with no special historical value is about $9800. Nevertheless, the NFA accomplished what it set out to do: it put an end to criminal use of machine guns yet still allowed legitimate (and wealthy!) collectors the right to own one and not affecting owners of ordinary guns at all. We can do the same thing to spam. 1) Narrowly define what is being taxed so that only spam is affected; it does NOT include personal email or non-spam business communications. This will require the most work. 2) Require that all spammers be registered, and pay for the privilege of being registered. 3) Require that each spam email message contain a verifiable electronic postage stamp that certifies payment of a $.05 per message per recipient spam tax. The recipient should be able to present the postage stamp to a government web site, funded by revenues from the spam tax, which will return the registration details of the spammer and the recipient email address. 4) Failure to register as a spammer is felony tax evasion, punishable by imprisonment and fines in addition to full payment of estimated tax evaded. 5) Falsification of the electronic postage stamp is an even more serious felony. 6) All revenues from the spam tax in excess of expenses (including operating the electronic postage stamp verification web site) to be credited to consumers in the form of rebates to telecommunications taxes (e.g. telephone taxes). The spam tax should not be an onerous burden to so-called "legitimate spammers." Microsoft et al can continue to send spam to their customers; $.05 is still cheaper than third-class mail. Thus, the Direct Marketing Association should have no quibble with what is, at most, a minor addition to their cost of doing business. It would, however, bankrupt the get-rich-quick, quack medicine, porn, etc. scumbag spammers. Even better, it would set the taxman on them, the one government entity that we can count upon to be aggressive in doing its job. > SPAM, telemarketing and junk (snail) mail are all symptoms of the > society (marketing driven) that we live in ... and are foisting on other > countries. At least half of the spam I get comes from Red China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or South Korea, with Argentina and Brazil vying for the silver statue in the Hall of Shame. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:32:24 -0800 From: Ross Oliver Subject: Donation of junk email filter software Hello Patrick, I would like to offer a donation of my spam filter software to help with your junk mail problem. I sell the software as a commercial product, but I would be happy to provide a copy to you at no charge. If the packaged product is not suitable for your needs, perhaps I could customize a version for you. More information about the product is available at my web site, www.tech-mavens.com. Let me know if this is of any interest to you. Best regards, Ross Oliver reo@tech-mavens.com or reo@airaffair.com In comp.dcom.telecom, you wrote: > Today I sat down here at the computer for the first time in about 24 > hours to begin working on an issue of the Digest. The first dozen > messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and > how many of these you are familiar with: > There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King > or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help > with disbursing some large sum of money. > Then I got two or three core dumps (all huge, but I am reluctant to say > record-setting in size). Two had a single line message saying 'this is > a new game I wrote, and you will be my first player. Please enjoy. One > of them said 'can you please read this and straighten it out, and show > me where my error is?' I have had a few of those in the past, where > they asked me to read over their 'work' and try to correct it. I have > had the one about 'my new game and you will be the first player a few > times also. I wonder if one person is sending all these out, or if there > is some kind of source where people go to get these cute little one- > liners to prepend to a huge core dump which they then mail out. I have > to wonder also if there is some kind of virus buried deep inside the > core dump which infects people's computers upon being opened and 'read'. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My problem is, I would rather recieve a dozen pieces of humongous spam rather than risk missing a single piece of legitimate mail from a well-meaning user with a telecom comment or question. Unfortunatly, since filters are not human beings with brains and emotions and reasoning abilities, they will never reach the point they can assure me they will work as intended 100 percent. Look at the fuss in the past few years about porn filters and children and the internet. People just do not realize the harm that comes from filters intended to do good. Since we know that most legitimate messages can be written in fewer than 50 K bytes, I think a filter that tosses everything that large would be good, and one that dumps all messages totally in HTML would be good. And I do not intend to pick on the people from Nigeria, but they do seem to have an awful fraud over there, and spam. I sent you my office phone number in private mail and maybe we can talk about this sometime in the next couple days. And I hope readers here who want a good filter for spam will check out your work at tech-mavens.com My, won't the King of Nigeria be surprised to find out that we Americans are not as dumb or greedy as he expected. His spam always suggests that when the money gets here, we will be eager to dip into the pot ourselves on the way to passing it along. Well, maybe most Americans are as greedy as he thinks. Certainly a lot of my fellow Americans are almost as dumb as he needs to make his schemes work. But, as the famous comedian Jack Benny once said, referring to his friends, 'The dumber they are, the better I like them.' Maybe that's what spammers/scammers/viri spreaders think about us on the net also. In the next and final message for this issue, I am taking all of you on a tour through my filter rules, asking for your suggestions on improving them. After all, this isn't 1980 or even 1990 any longer. I need to junk most of these rules and come up with new ones. But put nothing in stone before asking me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:28:26 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: My Filter Rules, etc I will annotate these rules as we go along. Your suggestions for improvements will be welcome. # Basic rules to follow in sorting mail: # # 1: Daily logs of this filter's activity: if subject filterlog then save /u/ptownson/.elm/logs/log.%m.%d.%t My daily logs are mailed to me, this prevents them from going through the lcs system and my mail filter a second time. # 2-3. Email to/from Archives; to/from users: if from archives then save /u/ptownson/tel-archives.mail if to archives@ then execute /u/ptownson/infoserver/bin/process These rules pertain to the old archives<>email system I still run for people seeking to obtain archives files by email. Some people still prefer it over using the web pages. # 4-5: Prevent loops if possible. If we sent a receipt, "Receipt" is in the # subject so if we see it coming past again, dump it in the mailbox as is. if subject receipt then leave if to autoreply@ then save "/dev/null" Mail loops used to be a big problem. You write and my daemon answered you then your daemon answered me, and my daemon answered back, etc. That's why if your ORIGINAL message contained the word 'receipt' in the subject line you did not get a receipt from me, even though I did get your message. # 6-10: Do not send receipts in these cases: if from ptownson then leave if from ladd@ then leave if from @telecom-digest.org then leave if from wollman@ then leave if from massey then leave if from noahm@lcs.mit.edu then leave LCS administrative staff usually, writing me a note about something. They don't want reciepts, neither do I. # 12-28: Mail Daemon Handling if subject 'User unknown' then save "/u/ptownson/t-request" if subject 'Delivery Report' then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from smtp then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if subject SMTPLINK then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from Mail_System then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from postm then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if to post then leave if from daemon then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from bounce then save "u/ptownson/bounced" if from mmdf then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from network then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from uucp@ then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from mail@ then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from administrator then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" if from root@ then leave if from gateway then save "/u/ptownson/bounced" Users unknown are filed in a box where I would manipulate the name out of the mailing list. 'postm' allows for postmasters, postmistresses, etc. But there have been legitimate users in the past whose name was Emily Post, etc. And now and then, a root owner will write me for some kind of business. Mostly it all went in a bounced box where it would get zapped frequently. # 28-31: what mail is left over should be legitimate; ie, from a # real person. Either they wrote an article or admin request. # If they wrote to -request or subscribe, then send one type of # autoreply, and if apparently an article for the Digest, send # the other type. if to -request then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/requestreply if to subscri then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/requestreply if subject subscri then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/requestreply if subject cancel then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/requestreply I send two types of autoreplies. One is worded for people who have send what is suspected to be an article for publication. We'll get to that later. The other type of autoreply is for people who would ask to be added to or removed from the mailing list. Letters to telecom-request or with a subject line which includes the words (un)subscribe or cancel get the other kind. This is no longer used since subscription things now go to majordomo at John Levine's place. # 32-36: But if they posted it direct to comp.dcom.telecom and some local # site forwarded it here, sometimes there will be no 'To', and sometimes # there will be spurious blank lines in the header where they should not # be. We make an effort to repair that, and once the envelope is repaired # if possible, we send the new mail right back here to be filtered again. # I also get bcc'd and cc'd on other people's mail sometimes. if to feedback then save "u/ptownson/feedback" if to dmassey then leave if to dcom then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/fix.blankline if to editor@ then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/autoreply if not to ptownson then execute /u/ptownson/.elm/fix.apparently-to If an article for the Digest, send the autoreply. Massey's mail is forwarded to him separately. People who write to comp-dcom-telecom@ heir.site wind up here, but with extra blank lines unfortunatly. I will show you how I fix that. Mail with me as cc or bcc sometimes does not have my name in it, just as the Digest does not always have your name in the 'To' line. I try to deal with that also. #37: At this point we can issue the reply message for remaining mail always execute /u/ptownson/.elm/autoreply # The 'always' instruction always ends filtering. # Patrick Townson, November 5, 1991 # changes for eecs.nwu.edu made in 1992. # changes made for massis.lcs.mit.edu 11-8-95 # changes made for telecom-digest.org 04-13-97 # further changes and refinements made 08-26-97 # further changes for Tribute/Massey mail made 06-26-99 --------------------------------- Now these next scripts treat the odd pieces of mail which need more work, due to blank lines and no recipient but recieved 'apparently to' # #! /bin/sh # sed '1,/^$/{ # /^$/d # }' |/u/ptownson/.elm/autoreply Remove the # marks as needed at the far left side only. This takes mailing lists I am on and removes blank lines as needed then funnels the mail over to the autoreply mechanism. # #!/bin/sh # sed "1,/^$/{ # s/to:/To:/ # w /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcchead.$$ # }" > /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcc.$$ # trap "rm -f /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcc*.$$" 0 1 2 3 15 # if grep '^To: ' /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcchead.$$ > /dev/null # then : # elif grep '^Apparently-To: ' /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcchead.$$ > /dev/# null # then sed '/./,/^$/{ # s/^Apparently-// # }' /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcc.$$ | /usr/local/bin/filter -o /u/ptownson/.elm/filter-errs ; exit # fi # cat /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcc.$$ | /usr/lib/sendmail \\ptownson # rm -f /u/ptownson/.elm/tmp/bcc.$$ # exit This script looks at mail where I am listed as a cc or bcc and corrects it for the Digest. Because I do not know if it is for the Digest or not I don't want to send a reciept, so I have to mail it back to my box. The first backslash with my name tells unix to mail it absolutely! to me, bypassing any .forward files and the backslash before that is needed to serve as a 'quote' for the next backslash. Love that Unix!! If I am not mistaken, I think a long-time reader, David Tamkin helped me with some of this. Just remember, if you ever want to write to some user directly and by-pass any filters or other steps he has in your way, write to him absolutely! by backslashing his name like this: some_user@his.site.com becomes \some_user@his.site.com and the backslash says ignore any .forward files you come across, just go for his mailbox. This is only guarenteed for Unix/Linux systems, and if *your* system requires you to quote the backslash in order to get it accepted as a backslash then do that also, i.e. \\. Obviously, .forward files serve a good purpose when people move to a different machine, etc and want their mail forwarded. So use the backslash only in cases where you know the .forward file is feeding into filter-rules pertaining to spam, etc. For instance, my .forward file here at massis.lcs.mit.edu looks like this: "| /usr/local/bin/filter -o /u/ptownson/.elm/filter-errs" That says pipe the mail to the elm filter on the local machine (massis) to the attention of ptownson and deal with any errors that elm can't handle. When the stream hits the filter it is dealt with as described above. Most of you know that 'telecom-digest.org' itself is simply an alias which points to massis, just as 'editor' points to ptownson when it gets here. Not too bad, I guess, for someone who suffered such extensive brain damage like I did following my brain aneurysm November 29, 1999, but I could never reconstruct all that today if I were just starting any Digest. Two months in a coma in Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital followed by another month or three in rehab and then a year or so in a nursing home ... but now days I get *so* tired from working at my computer. Spam is the last thing I need to see, but I sure do get it. Obviously, old scripts written in the early 1990's are not sufficient today. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #204 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Mar 26 21:39:13 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA29039; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:39:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:39:13 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203270239.VAA29039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #205 TELECOM Digest Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:39:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 205 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nigeria Launches Web Site to Target E-Mail Scam (Jim Weiss) Nigeria Launches Web Site to Target E-Mail Scam (Robert A. Pierce) Mystery of Missing Text Messages (Monty Solomon) Web Radio's Last Stand (Monty Solomon) Re: News Headlines of Interest (Dominic Richens) Re: News Headlines of Interest (Bill Horne) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed (Larry Finch) Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and (Ken Abrams) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed (Larry Finch) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed (Jim Carlson) Telecom Questions From an Idiot (John McLeod) Re: Consolidation of Prefixes in Rural Part of 402 (Neb (George Rapp) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Andy Bender) Radio Shack Wall Corded Telephones That Don't Use Cradle Base (D. Saklad) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: NBJimWeiss@aol.com Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:32:48 EST Subject: Nigeria Launches Web Site to Target E-Mail Scam A Nigerian government Web site targets e-mail fraud scams that have been sweeping the world. http://computerworld.com/nlt/1%2C3590%2CNAV47_STO69562_NLTAM%2C00.html From the Offices of: Network Brokers, Inc. Providing Long Distance Services for Less Jim Weiss, nbjimweiss@aol.com 305-252-1822; Fax: 775-796-9973; Miami Fax: 305-252-1823; ------------------------------ From: Robert A. Pierce Subject: Nigeria Launches Web Site to Target E-Mail Scam Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:29:05 EST This article seems timely: Nigeria launches Web site to target e-mail scam A Nigerian government Web site targets e-mail fraud scams that have been sweeping the world. http://computerworld.com/nlt/1%2C3590%2CNAV47_STO69562_NLTAM%2C00.html (The site is at http://www.nigerianfraudwatch.org/) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:16:24 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Mystery of Missing Text Messages Ever "lost" a text message? Ever claimed not to have received one when you did? The fact is, text messages go missing. BBC News Online's technology correspondent Mark Ward investigates. Mobile phone text messages are the mayflies of technology. Like adults of the insect order Ephemoptera, they have a notoriously short lifespan, three days typically, and leave little evidence of their passing. And often their prospects for survival are as uncertain as mayflies that choose to dance on the surface of a well-stocked trout stream. The reason is that text messages are a victim of their own success. According to the GSM Association, the mobile phone industry's trade body, 30 billion a month are now being sent. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:21:59 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Web Radio's Last Stand Web radio's last stand A new ruling involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is set to wipe out independent online music stations. By Katharine Mieszkowski March 26, 2002 | SomaFM is the kind of Internet-only radio station that offers a true alternative to the mainstream fare on the offline dial. About 20,000 listeners a day tune in to the URL to groove to the streams of ambient down-tempo electronica. In the mix: the Chemical Brothers, Mama Gravy, old Moby and obscure new discoveries like the German band Electroslide. The San Francisco-based station, which began as a pirate radio operation in 1996 at the Burning Man festival, has been continuously broadcasting online for about two years. It runs completely on donations -- about $1,000 a month, plus some bandwidth -- from listeners. But a new ruling under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act threatens to change the playlist at SomaFM and other stations like it, if not actually shut them down altogether. http://salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/26/web_radio/index.html ------------------------------ From: Dominic Richens Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 07:50:25 -0500 Organization: Nortel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... But cellular phone oper- > ators are fair game it appears. PAT] ... because there are so many more of them that the danger is now statistically significant. Either there were not enough CB'ers out there to get a statistically relevant sample, or the portion of accidents caused by CB radio was so small it wasn't worth the $$ to regulate it. Now that 1 in 10 drivers has a yak-box glued to the side of their head and is only using half their brain to drive, it can be proved that it is a problem, hence it is worth the cost to regulate it. ...not that I'm saying it's fair, just realistic :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course, there wouldn't be any politics involved now, would there. In fact, at one point back in the early 1980's, nearly every motorist had a CB radio. I would say during the 1970's and 1980's *everyone* had a CB radio it seems. It was the Usenet of that era, and almost as wide a communications medium in those days as computers are today. No, of course there wouldn't any politics involved. Our government does not allow politics to interfere in good administration. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:33:10 -0500 From: Bill Horne Subject: Re: News Headlines of Interest > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And notice if you will please, despite > the various crackdowns we see on cellular use while driving, not a > single word is ever said about ham radio operators or CB radio oper- > ators who drive while using their radios. Which are more distracting? > Nor are any complaints made about police officers who talk on their > radios while engaged in high speed chases. But cellular phone oper- > ators are fair game it appears. PAT] Pat, I think that's an unfair comparison. I can't speak about CB, but Ham operators are much better trained in mobile operating technique than cell phone users. The Amateur Radio examinations emphasize safety and responsibility: not only electrical and RF safety, but operating safety as well, including proper mobile operating technique. Moreover, Ham (and CB) communications are Half-Duplex, i.e., "Push-to-talk", where the person transmitting can't be interrupted. So, it's a fundamentally different paradigm than cellular use, where the driver may be easily distracted by interuptions from the other end of the line (or simply by the effort of listening for them). Don't forget that cell phones used in cars are often tucked under a shoulder, impeding movement, while Amateur equipment is almost always mounted beneath the dash, with a lightweight microphone that's easy to hold. Last, let's remember that cellular calls and Ham Radio conversations are, fundamentally, two very different things: a business call held on a cell phone, where money is at stake and the driver is concentrating on making a good impression, is far more distracting than the technical jargon, jokes, and traffic reports which Amateur operators trade to pass the time. In short, I think you're painting with too broad a brush. Bill Horne W1AC (Remove ".nouce" from my return address for direct replies.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am certainly glad to hear that like other areas in our government, there are no politics involved in this and that the decision to punish cellphone users was only made in our Best Interest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:43:44 GMT Ken, I think it would be prudent to review the FCC's announcement and the NPRM before rushing to judgment. The press release is at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html; there is a link there to the full 75 page text of the order. A quick read shows several differences between what you wrote and the actual FCC action. (I suspect you got it from news media, who are typically poor at interpreting what they read.) Most notably, It does not reclassify ISPs as "Information Content Providers." It classifies Cable Modem Service as an "Interstate Information Service" rather than a "Cable Service." There are big differences between "ISP" and "Cable Modem Service" and between "Information Content Provider" and "Interstate Information Service." Cable Modem Service was never classified as a Common Carrier; it was previously classified as a Cable Service. ISPs are not currently classified as Common Carriers. If they were Common Carriers they would be under the jurisdiction of the FCC, and they are not. Larry Ken Abrams wrote: > It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) > Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom > and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service > Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. > While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater > flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a > more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this > ruling. Larry Finch ::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!) N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:53:04 -0600 Fred Goldstein wrote in message: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600 Ken Abrams > wrote, >> It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) >> Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom >> and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service >> Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. >> While this was done under the guise of allowing the ISPs greater >> flexibility and to allow for more competition, there will likely be a >> more important (and probably not unintended) consequence of this >> ruling. >> Common Carriers (primarily phone companies) are exempt from liability >> for the content of the traffic they transmit. This was true for ISPs >> too but not anymore. Information Providers have no such exemption.... > Utter hogwash, the whole note. Please, don't hold back Fred. Tell me what you really think! Try to come up with a few more offensive invectives. That one is pretty lame. > The responsibilities of an ISP are spelled out in some laws, whose > cite I can't remember. They have some protection for content that is > similar to that afforded to common carriers, based on a reasonable > statutory determination that they can't be held responsible for > everything that passes by. Common carriers had that protection > anyway, but ISPs have most of it and don't lose it. There are certain > responsibilities; those don't change. As you properly point out above, ISPs are not classified exactly the same as other "real" common carriers but their classification is, in many ways, similar. Seems like I remember them being referred to as an OCC (Other Common Carrier) but that may not be totally correct either. > The whole thread is ridiculous. Another link to what appears to be a good summary is: http://news.com.com/2100-1033-868329.html My original comments missed the mark by quite a bit it seems and others have given a link to the full text of the ruling but I hardly think that my comments qualify as "ridiculous". ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:50:16 GMT Ross Oliver wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0600, Ken Abrams > wrote: >> It appears that the current "conservative" (oppressive and repressive) >> Federal Administration has dealt yet another back-door blow to freedom >> and liberty. Last week, the FCC voted to reclassify Internet Service >> Providers from Common Carrier status to Information Content Providers. > The actual decision was a bit more subtle. On March 14, the FCC > reclassified cable modem service from "common carrier" to "information > service." The net effect is that cable companies cannot be forced to > open their infrastructure to competing ISPs as telecommunications > companies have been required to do. IMHO, this is bad for consumers > because it strengthens the monopoly of cable companies both for > broadband Internet services and cable television. > Actually, even that is incorrect. Cable modem service was reclassified from "cable service" to "interstate information service." It was never classified as "Common Carrier." > Read the full FCC press release at: > http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html Larry Finch ::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!) N 40 53' 47" W 74 03' 56" ------------------------------ From: James Carlson Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 26 Mar 2002 08:35:31 -0500 Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - BDC reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver) writes: > The actual decision was a bit more subtle. On March 14, the FCC > reclassified cable modem service from "common carrier" to "information > service." The net effect is that cable companies cannot be forced to > open their infrastructure to competing ISPs as telecommunications > companies have been required to do. IMHO, this is bad for consumers > because it strengthens the monopoly of cable companies both for > broadband Internet services and cable television. I'm a long-time cable Internet subscriber, and, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm *not* related in any way to any of the service providers -- either cable or otherwise. I'm just a customer. (And, in the interest of completeness, I can't and don't speak for my employer. This is my personal opinion. Got it?) I think this is a *wonderful* decision. The mechanisms used today to allow 'equal access' on DSL (IP over PPP over PPPoE over Ethernet over ATM) are technically hideous. Anything that avoids having my cable service damaged by the likes of PPPoE is a great boon. I think mandating a false sense of "competition" to the detriment of technical correctness is a bad path to follow. James Carlson, Solaris Networking SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.234W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.497N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ------------------------------ From: jmcleod@msjcorp.com (John McLeod) Subject: Telecom Questions From an Idiot Date: 26 Mar 2002 14:00:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi there, I've got a few questions regarding phone systems and whatnot. Where I work, we have an NEC phone system. All Dterm phones. My questions are: 1. what is centranet ? 2. What does an NEC Digital Remote Unit(DRU) do? Why have all the DRU units I have seen connect to a T1(DS1)? 3. Someone once told me that there is a DID line coming into our main facility for the phone system. What is a DID? Any light you can shed would be a great help. Thanks, [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Centranet' *sounds to me*, when used in a telecom context, as though it is similar to the telco offering known as 'centrex', a service where telco is basically your company's PBX operator. The company PBX or switchboard is actually at telco's office. All your internal calls (through the PBX or PAX) are handled by telco. At least. that's what 'centrex' is, and I think 'centranet' is a similar offering. 'DID' refers to 'Direct Inward Dialing'. It is quite possible there are DID lines behind a centrex at your company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Rapp Subject: Re: Consolidation of Prefixes in Rural Part of 402 (Neb Date: 26 Mar 2002 10:57:22 -0600 Carl Moore wrote: > Old notes I looked at had, in area 402 in Nebraska: > 436 HUBBELL > 327 N. SABETHA > ("North Sabetha" apparently meaning an area just across the border > from an area served by exchange in Sabetha, Kansas) > But 436 and 327 appeared for addresses in Lincoln, and they do now > show up in www.thedirectory.org as LINCOLN. What little I can scrape > up for Hubbell showed usage of 324 prefix (Chester), so was 436 closed > down at Hubbell and subscribers who were on it merged into the 324 > prefix? I don't have a guess for what would have become of subscribers > on 327 at North Sabetha. I don't know where it came from, but the 402-436 exchange was appropriated by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, around 1988-89, for residential student phone numbers (dorm rooms, fraternity/sorority houses, etc.) Previously, all UN-L numbers were 402-472; after the "split", 402-472 was reserved for University offices and buildings. George Rapp (Columbus, OH) Home: gwr -- at -- novia.net Work: george.rapp -- at -- eds.com (or) george.rapp -- at -- dfas.mil "Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." ------------------------------ From: abender@virtualhold.com (Andy Bender) Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: 26 Mar 2002 07:55:25 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We all hate being left on hold for more than a few minutes. A system to offer a take the callers phone number and call them back at the same time they would have come off of hold to an agent is available. This saves money on the 800 toll charges, can reduce agent staffing requirements, and improves customer satisfaction. Check out Virtual Hold at http://virtualhold.com ------------------------------ Subject: Radio Shack Wall Corded Telephones That Don't Use Cradle Base From: Don Saklad Date: 26 Mar 2002 01:01:10 -0500 What other wall corded telephones without a cradle base are around that don't have this problem? Available from the Massachusetts Cambridge Boston Radio Shack stores, here're the wall cored telephones that don't use a cradle base Apollo Flip-Style Phone Mini Flip-Style Fashion Telephone [ http://www.radioshack.com/category.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F001%5F001%5F009%5F000&Page=2 ] The Apollo Flip-Style Phone speaker wasn't loud enough to hear the person at the other end clearly. At high loudness setting of the 3 choices the sidetone was too loud defeating attempts to hear the person at the other end without pain. Sidetone feeds your voice to your ear through the same speaker that you listen to the person from the other end. Sidetone when set at the proper level gives you aural feedback about the connection quality. The Mini Flip-Style Phone is very tiny. It wouldn't stay in the crook of your neck during a conversation while reaching for a pen and paper. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #205 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 27 12:26:32 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA11233; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:26:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:26:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203271726.MAA11233@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #206 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:24:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 206 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: So Much Junk Mail (Dave Garland) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Steven Lichter) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Barry Margolin) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Clarence Dold) Different PICC Verification Numbers? (Mike Pollock) T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems (Vidya Ramachandran) Re: Recourse For Very Slow T1 Installation? (Vidya Ramachandran) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (John David Galt) Re: Rejecting "Unavailable" Phone Calls (pobox---@ix.netcom.com) Central Office Code Assignments (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Ron Bean) Re: FCC Deals a Deathblow to Usenet ... Nobody Noticed (Dave Anderson) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Herb Stein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Dave Garland Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Organization: Wizard Information Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:01:27 -0600 It was a dark and stormy night when TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King > or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help > with disbursing some large sum of money. Forward them with headers to 419.fcd@usss.treas.gov. The gentlemen who wear sunglasses even at night would like to talk to the King. (It's known as "the 419 scam".) Use a subject line of "no financial loss" (if you happened to lend the King a couple of thou to tide him over until you both cash out, you might indicate that in the subject line instead). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But as was pointed out in the last issue of the Digest earlier tonight, the King has grown quite concerned about this fraud against him and his good name, so he has decided to resolve the matter by starting a web site telling his side of the story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 26 Mar 2002 12:54:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Pat said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Which do you consider worse, Steve? A > spammer or a virus-spreader who infects some unsuspecting user's > computer while he is reading the spam mail which showed up? :) PAT] About the same, but I have Macs so I don't have as much of a problem with Virus spreading. Maybe we should have the virus spreaders contact the spammers and infect them. Point of information, that Auto Dealer in Beaverton, Oregon, that kept spamming me has a bit of a problem with several states Attorney generals and now has another toll free number, I guess he must have gotten many calls again. Next time he spams me I'll publish his number on every hacker newsgroup. Another way to end the spam would be to bring legal action against the IPs that support it and companies; legal and large companies like Chase Bank which use spammers and don't seem to see anything wrong with using them. Hit them with a couple of billion dollar fines your life in prison with no chance of getting out and it will end now. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:36:28 GMT In article , Mark Crispin wrote: > There is a simple way to bring an end to spam, one that has abundant > precedent and legal weight, and wouldn't get in the way of any civil > rights protections: > At least half of the spam I get comes from Red China, Taiwan, Hong > Kong, or South Korea, with Argentina and Brazil vying for the silver > statue in the Hall of Shame. Since so much of it comes from outside the country, how would your TAX IT solution address that? Also, most spam is difficult to trace to a source (since they want to avoid retaliation). How do you tax someone if you can't identify them? Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: dold@80.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: 26 Mar 2002 17:20:43 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:23:11 EST, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (TELECOM Digest Editor ) wrote: >> There were three or four 'nigerian scams'. You know, where the King >> or some government official in Nigeria is looking for someone to help >> with disbursing some large sum of money. The Nigerian government is taking a look: http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO69562,00.html Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, the government officials there are very indignant that some Usenet hacker in the USA is ruining the good name of their King by trying to trick his fellow netters out of their hard-earned money. See the press reports in the prior issue of the Digest tonight. Listen, whoever is doing it, nigerian scams have been going on for at least forty years or more. In the old days, when I was working for the credit card center in Chicago, Diners Club just about got eaten alive by fraud from Nigeria. They had red flags out everywhere whenever a credit app came in from someone who appeared to have lived 'over there'. Let him get a piece of plastic in his hands and he would run up a million dollar bill without blinking before one of the sales authorizers could catch him and pull the card. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:57:55 PST From: Mike Pollock Subject: Different PICC Verification Numbers? I just switched my PICC to ZoneLD, http://www.zoneld.com , a Global Crossing reseller. [As a Winstar casualty, I'm trying not to let *that* worry me!] When I dial 1-700-555-4141 to verify my PICC, I expect to hear "Thanks for Choosing Global Crossing," as I had heard just prior to the change, when I was PICCed to UniTel, another Global Crossing Reseller. Instead, I get hung up on. It just clicks back to dial tone. I mentioned this to ZoneLD Customer Service, and instead of saying, "thanks for the heads up -- we'll fix it," they said, "Please dial 1-700-555-2550 instead." I've not been home to test that to see if it works, but I'm wondering: what's the significance of different resellers having different 700-555-XXXX numbers? I've noticed other resellers have their own, too. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: mrvidya2001@yahoo.com (Vidya Ramachandran) Subject: T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems Date: 26 Mar 2002 18:17:53 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have recently installed a voice T1 for a small company. The local company is Focal and the long distance provider is Global Crossing. The firm is experiencing One-Way incoming audio problems meaning that if an outside party calls the receiver of the phone call can't hear them after three minutes and ultimately drops the call. It's very frustrating. I've given focal the call samples and they haven't been able to figure it out. Does anyone have experience with this and if so any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Vidya Ramachandran Outsourcing Specialist Telecom Services 202-463-4929 ------------------------------ From: mrvidya2001@yahoo.com (Vidya Ramachandran) Subject: Re: Recourse For Very Slow T1 Installation? Date: 26 Mar 2002 18:20:35 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'll get you up in running in no time and my rates are damn good. If you are interested give me a call: 202-463-4929 or 404-277-6267 ask for Vidya. JDS wrote in message news:: > Ed M wrote in > news:telecom20.194.11@telecom-digest.org: >> Since December we have had a T1 on order from a relatively small LEC >> in upstate NY (Frontier in Orange County NY) Although we are across >> the road (in Verizon territory) from the area Frontier's CO serves >> they are able to offer services in our area. >> The installation is long overdue from the January date ... >> complain to? This is getting ridiculous. > Write to your public utilities commission and to the Federal > Communications Commission. They grant these monopoly franchises, and > they need to know how well the carrier is fulfilling its obligation to > serve the public. Your LEC can tell you to whom you should write -- > and your request will perhaps get them going. If you don't tell them, > they won't know. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:40:00 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Rob Clark wrote: > Are there statistics, or rules-of-thumb, for determining a design goal > for caller queues? The longest I'll wait is 10 minutes, and if even that much delay persists I'll find another company to do business with. Not having a human being I can call and talk to immediately is the height of insufferable arrogance on the part of any company, IMO. YMMV. ------------------------------ From: pobox---@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Rejecting "Unavailable" Phone Calls Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:20:47 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Neil Williams wrote: > Of course telemarketers are the phone companies' best buddies. > First they sell your phone number to the telemarketers, plus they > sell phone service to them, then they sell caller ID and call > blocking/intercept/etc to you to block the problem the phone > company created in the first place. > Is your number unlisted? What I've discovered (and I have > four phone lines at home, so I have a little experience) is that > if you didn't specify it when you bought the line, then you're > SOL. Adding it later does very little. If you get unlisted from > the get-go, you will receive significantly fewer calls - you'll > probably still get a couple a week, though. > If you did have your line listed to begin with, try changing the > number and make sure it's unlisted. Changing your number is > cheap - I think it's under $10. > --Neil You have hit the nail on the head. I tried using "Call Intercept" from Verizon. This service "screened" all incoming numbers that were "Private" - "Blocked" - "Out of Area" or "Anonymous." The only problem was -- every night about 6:30 - until 9:30 pm the service went down, and it would not allow any callers to get through. I did miss a few important (not emergency) calls. I reported this matter to Verizon repair. One assistant didn't even know what "Call Intercept" even was! Another rep. said she could not call me back to test it because she didn't know HOW to block her call to me. And another rep. told me that -- due to FCC Regulations she could NOT call me back because it was after 9 pm and it was against the law! (Give me a break, please!) Finally -- one repair rep. did call and heard the recording that stated ... "try your call again later ..." After all of this nonsense, I finally called the Solutions Center at 800-870-0000 and received a weird recording that stated ......"due to an emergency we can not take your call ... but you can visit our website at ..." The next day I called back to complain and the rep. who answered said ... what emergency? We didn't have an emergency yesterday ..." I played her the tape of the recording and she asked "What do you need?" I quickly canceled the Call Intercept service because I knew there must have been a major software problem that could not be fixed anytime soon! I saved the "closed for emergency recording" to a .wav file and will send it to anyone who responds to this email address below. What a mess! (ken) respond to pobox-dc at ix dot netcom dot com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:57:02 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Central Office Code Assignments NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like this for many years, and this will prove to be an amazingly useful tool in resolving problems. Now if only there were a similarly public database for 800/888/877/866 numbers ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:32:43 -0600 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc > Mail with me as cc or bcc sometimes > does not have my name in it, just as the Digest does not always have > your name in the 'To' line. I try to deal with that also. How much of this cc or bcc mail turns out to be legit? I've found that over 95% of the spam comes as bcc mail, so it might be worth sending that to a different mailbox where you can deal with it separately. This is so effective that I've discarded all my other filter rules, and just dump the bcc mail to /dev/null (after checking it against a list of known "From" addresses, such as mailing lists). Some spam gets past this, but not much. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:34:49 EST From: Dave Anderson To: telecom@telecom-digest.org Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed At 26 Mar 2002 08:35:31 -0500, James Carlson wrote: > reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver) writes: >> The actual decision was a bit more subtle. On March 14, the FCC >> reclassified cable modem service from "common carrier" to "information >> service." The net effect is that cable companies cannot be forced to >> open their infrastructure to competing ISPs as telecommunications >> companies have been required to do. IMHO, this is bad for consumers >> because it strengthens the monopoly of cable companies both for >> broadband Internet services and cable television. > I think this is a *wonderful* decision. The mechanisms used today to > allow 'equal access' on DSL (IP over PPP over PPPoE over Ethernet over > ATM) are technically hideous. Anything that avoids having my cable > service damaged by the likes of PPPoE is a great boon. I certainly agree that PPPoE is an abortion which should be rooted out and destroyed (except perhaps in some special circumstances). However, it is *not* an intrinsic part of DSL (for example, my DSL line doesn't have it) -- IIRC it's pushed on their v/i/c/t/i/m/s/customers by many ILECs because it lets the ILEC get away with underprovisioning, but many (most?) CLECs don't use it. There's no technical reason (that I know of) why a cable company which was required to provide "equal access" would need to (or perhaps even could) force the equivalent of PPPoE on those competitive providers. Dave Anderson ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:23:30 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: TELECOM Digest Editor Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:28 PM Subject: My Filter Rules, etc > I will annotate these rules as we go along. Your suggestions for > improvements will be welcome. <---snip---> > Not too bad, I guess, for someone who suffered such extensive brain > damage like I did following my brain aneurysm November 29, 1999, > but I could never reconstruct all that today if I were just starting > any Digest. Two months in a coma in Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital > followed by another month or three in rehab and then a year or so > in a nursing home ... but now days I get *so* tired from working > at my computer. Spam is the last thing I need to see, but I sure > do get it. Obviously, old scripts written in the early 1990's are > not sufficient today. > PAT It's very good to have you back and keep up the good work. The times are changing and I guess we "geezers" have to keep up. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While that is true, that geezers like you and people like me need to keep up, it none the less galls me to see how the net has been taken over by idiots in the past couple years, ever since Al Gore invented it. Thanks for your kind words of encouragement however. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #206 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Mar 27 23:33:03 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA22113; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:33:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:33:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203280433.XAA22113@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #207 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:30:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 207 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 50 Cent Pay Phones Coming to NYS (Daniel Salomon) Satellite TV in Europe (JT Thompson) Galileo Expert? (JT Thompson) Unicom Plans to Double CDMA Network Size in 2002 (Monty Solomon) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Rob Clark) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Herb Stein) Re: T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems (Jim Hopkins) Talking with Robot Agents (Leela) Re: So Much Junk Mail (KB7M) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Kim Brennan) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Mark Crispin) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Barry Margolin) Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and (Jeremy Beal) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... Nobody Noticed (Stanley Cline) Re: Different PICC Verification Numbers? (Stanley Cline) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (David Green) So Many Phones, So Little Need (Monty Solomon) Wireless Design Conference 15-17th May, London (dave) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: danielksalomon@my-deja.com (Daniel Salomon) Subject: 50 Cent Pay Phones Coming to NYS Date: 26 Mar 2002 23:08:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Recently I've seen lots of Verizon pay phones popping up around the NYC metro area that claim that local calls cost 50 cents for unlimited time. When the price was raised in the other Verizon states (except Rhode Island) from 35 to 50 cents last summer, New York was supposed to stay at 25 cents since the rates were regulated by the state. So I called the operator from a pay phone and asked what was going on. She said that the rate increase was authorized on March 8, and that phones would start charging 50 cents once they updated their software. Is this true? Does anyone know why New York State would let us down like this after holding the line at 25 cents for so long? Do people who put in 50 cents today get anything for the extra quarter? Dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I was living in Chiago at the nursing home several months ago, one day all the Ameritech payphones had a new notice attached saying 'local calls now fifty cents; unlimited time'. I put in my fifty cents, and made a call, only to be cut off after 3 minutes. I found out later that 'local' in their definition meant eight miles or less. Prior to that, calls from Ameritech payphones had indeed been unlimited *anywhere* within the city, regardless of the distance. Calls to suburban points had been fifty cents for three minutes. The new rate of fifty cents plus the telco's definition of 'local' and 'unlimited' are sort of confusing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:42:41 +0000 From: JT Thompson Subject: Satellite TV in Europe Is there anyone out there using a PC to access satellite TV in Europe? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno about a PC, but I have a satellite dish on my roof pointed at 16.5 and get Cricket matches from England and other places. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 12:54:35 +0000 From: JT Thompson Subject: Galileo Expert? Who is the world expert on the new Galileo European satellite system? What are the best websites on it? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:51:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Unicom Plans to Double CDMA Network Size in 2002 HONG KONG, March 27 (Reuters) - China United Telecommunications Corp, parent of Hong Kong -- listed China Unicom Ltd (HKSE:0762), said on Wednesday it is sticking with plans to double the capacity of its new CDMA standard cellular network to 30 million users by the end of 2002. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26622376 ------------------------------ From: Rob Clark Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:57:59 +0800 All, Appreciate the replies, and we all agree that we hate being on hold, and we should design systems with minimum delays. But, does anyone have any stats on the abandonment rate vs time on hold for real callers? Rob Clark Rob Clark wrote in message news:telecom20.201.9@telecom-digest.org: > Are there statistics, or rules-of-thumb, for determining a design goal > for caller queues? > For example ... if you had a call center, where typical conversation > times with an agent was XXX seconds, then does anyone have any > suggestions for how many callers drop off impatiently as a function of > time? > I guess people's internal 'impatient timer' is triggered at different > times depending on what they are waiting for. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most business places operating > a phone room keep records of lost calls, ie. calls in which the caller > disconnects without speaking with a live agent ... > ... They did not really care how long someone had to wait, > only if they hung up without waiting longer if necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:57:23 GMT John David Galt wrote in message news:telecom20.206.8@telecom-digest.org: > Rob Clark wrote: >> Are there statistics, or rules-of-thumb, for determining a design goal >> for caller queues? > The longest I'll wait is 10 minutes, and if even that much delay > persists I'll find another company to do business with. Not having a > human being I can call and talk to immediately is the height of > insufferable arrogance on the part of any company, IMO. YMMV. We all have different tolerance to this crap. If I call Quickbooks (just an example), no biggie. If I call my ISP, I expect an IMMEDIATE answer. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 ------------------------------ From: Jim Hopkins Subject: Re: T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:03:58 GMT Make sure your PBX is providing answer supervision. When your user answers the call you should see one of the signaling bits (A-bit I think) toggle. Vidya Ramachandran wrote in message news:telecom20.206.6@telecom-digest.org: > I have recently installed a voice T1 for a small company. The local > company is Focal and the long distance provider is Global Crossing. > The firm is experiencing One-Way incoming audio problems meaning that > if an outside party calls the receiver of the phone call can't hear > them after three minutes and ultimately drops the call. It's very > frustrating. I've given focal the call samples and they haven't been > able to figure it out. Does anyone have experience with this and if > so any guidance would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: lajavakom@yahoo.com.au (Leela) Subject: Talking With Robot Agents Date: 27 Mar 2002 17:26:57 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear All, I'm an student in Information Management and Systems. I had an experince asking for some information from my bank via phone. A robot agent answered me immediately that I had not to queue for a long time for live agent. I'm interested in an Interactive Voice Response system, which are increasingly used by especially call centers. However, I think it's not quite popular yet because there are strong points and weak points to both companies and customers. I'd like to hear any comments and recommendation on this technology. Maybe you've ever had an experince with this technology as well. Regard, Leela. ------------------------------ From: KB7M Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:56:47 -0700 There is one way to eliminate SPAM. Unfortunately, it requires the cooperation of EVERYONE. That is to make it a non-economically viable method of advertising. I NEVER EVER BUY ANYTHING from an UNSOLICITED source. This includes SPAM, TELEMARKETERS, and unsolicited snail-mail. If I want to buy something, I go looking for it. If I can determine that the company uses any form of unsolicited marketing, then I look elsewhere. If EVERYONE refused to buy, they would quickly go out of business, and good riddance. This would eliminate most SPAM and TELEMARKETING. The only reason that they do it is that they can make money that way. VOTE with your wallet! KimBrennan wrote in message news:telecom20.202.4@telecom-digest.org: >> The first dozen >> messages were spam. Let me just take a poll of what all was here, and >> how many of these you are familiar with: > Gee, I envy you. Only a dozen "spams". > I used to use my "kim@aol.com" email address. It now receives abot 350 > pieces of spam (or misdirected) email a day. Since it is an AOL email > address, I automatically forward all the email to their "spam fighting > bot" tosspam@aol.com. It doesn't do anything as far as I can tell. > It's a lost cause really. There are many technological ways to deal > with SPAM. Most of them won't be implemented because of political > reasons. > SPAM, telemarketing and junk (snail) mail are all symptoms of the > society (marketing driven) that we live in ... and are foisting on other > countries. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am running filters, but those that > I see (at least a dozen a day, although not usually a dozen in a row > at the start of the mailing cycle) are the ones that managed to slip > in anyway. I guess a lot of those guys are getting very tricky at > learning how to get around filter-rules, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kimbrennan@aol.comfrtz.com (KimBrennan) Date: 27 Mar 2002 22:33:26 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Barry Margolin bespeaks: > Also, most spam is difficult to trace to a source (since they want to > avoid retaliation). How do you tax someone if you can't identify > them? Therin lies the root issue. One of my suggestions is ... get the ISP's to start >ENFORCING< the guidelines for mail, such as, if mail coming in has incorrect headers, the mail gets bounced. This won't stop SPAM, but it is a first step towards identifying them. It is a political issue though, not a technical one. A lot of folks won't enforce the standards due to fear that some CEO's mother won't get her email, or that certain mailing lists will break. To me, the simple truth is, if they were following the standards before, they won't have a problem when the standards are enforced. If the big ISPs insist on enforcing the standards, then the smaller ones will have to follow suit or find themselves isolated and unable to get their mail through. The smaller ISPs will find it is less expensive to enforce the standards then allowing users to forge headers. I may be simplistic but I think this is the necessary first step for dealing with SPAM. "I'm sorry, all my money is tied up in currency." W.C. Fields ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:55:13 -0800 Organization: Networks and Distributed Computing On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Barry Margolin wrote: > Since so much of it comes from outside the country, how would your TAX > IT solution address that? Most spam from outside the country advertises a domestic source. For truly foreign-origin spam, the resolution ultimately has to go through treaties. However, note that the taxing authorities of countries around the world are in remarkable accord when it comes to treaties that help them get their bite. Diplomatic hostility in other matters is irrelevant when it comes to the taxman's business; I think that the only country in the world that we don't have a set of tax treaties with is North Korea, and that's being worked. This is how the overseas tax shelters ultimately fail, as some dot-com millionaires are starting to discover. > Also, most spam is difficult to trace to a source (since they want to > avoid retaliation). How do you tax someone if you can't identify > them? The source of the spam may be difficult to trace, but the entity that benefits from the spam is not. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:18:30 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc At 12:26 PM 3/27/2002, TELECOM Digest V20 #206 wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:32:43 -0600 > From: Ron Bean > Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc >> Mail with me as cc or bcc sometimes >> does not have my name in it, just as the Digest does not always have >> your name in the 'To' line. I try to deal with that also. > How much of this cc or bcc mail turns out to be legit? If there's a news article or announcement that I'm submitting to the digest, it's likely to be of interest to some of my friends who don't subscribe for one reason or another. If I send a message to more than a couple of people I use BCC to keep the headers from getting long and ugly. > This is so effective that I've discarded all my other filter rules, > and just dump the bcc mail to /dev/null (after checking it against a > list of known "From" addresses, such as mailing lists). Some spam > gets past this, but not much. Probably also causes you to miss a lot of legitimate messages, but you know your correspondents. I also have used such a filter rule at one of my addresses, and find that the spammers increasingly send mail with my name in the "TO:" field, often with 10 or 20 others. But I can't simply write a filter that rejects mail with 20 names in the "TO:" field because some of my correspondents do send me mail with ugly headers containing the names of all their friends. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as mail to this Digest is add- ressed TO: one of my names then you can do as you please with your cc and bcc. The reason none of you see each other in my headers is because I put you all in the bcc. I address the Digest FROM myself and TO myself; the other couple thousand or so of you go into the bcc. At least before John Levine took over the mailing aspects of the Digest I was doing it that way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:01:45 GMT In article , Ron Bean wrote: > I've found that over 95% of the spam comes as bcc mail, so it might be > worth sending that to a different mailbox where you can deal with it > separately. > This is so effective that I've discarded all my other filter rules, > and just dump the bcc mail to /dev/null (after checking it against a > list of known "From" addresses, such as mailing lists). Some spam > gets past this, but not much. I hope you're not one of our customers (or if you are, we're in your known "From" list). We have lots of aliases that we use to reach our customers, and scripts that build the aliases from our contact databases. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, 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: It would be impossible for me, or anyone who moderates a newsgroup to have a 'known From list.' I never know who is going to write me, and one of the reasons I am sort of 'laid back' (as someone accused LCS-MIT of being) regards filtering of mail is because I seriously would rather get a dozen pieces of junk spam rather than lose one serious piece of mail from a good netizen. You can't seem to have both it appears. PAT] ------------------------------ From: thejbeal@netscape.net (Jeremy Beal) Subject: Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Date: 27 Mar 2002 13:02:41 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Ken Abrams wrote in message news:: > Fred Goldstein wrote in message: >> The whole thread is ridiculous. > Another link to what appears to be a good summary is: > http://news.com.com/2100-1033-868329.html > My original comments missed the mark by quite a bit it seems and > others have > given a link to the full text of the ruling but I hardly think that my > comments qualify as "ridiculous". I tend to agree with you, Ken. I'm pretty sensitive to the constitutional issues of regulation, and sometimes a strong public reaction is necessary to protect freedoms. I would hope that the Supreme Court would have shot down the CDA regardless of public opinion, but who knows. I don't think that your concern is ridiculous, mainly because the FCC does appear to be possibly seeking to expand their regulatory domain to include enforcement of content regulation. (Or at least they have thought about it enough to indicate that they are considering rules which may have constitutional issues) The domain of regulatory agencies is written in shifting sand with changes in the executive branch, and can change pretty quickly. Different administrations bring people with different views. Very rarely, however, does it seem that a regulatory agency establishes a new area of authority which is later released by the agency. (See the FDA and tobacco - David Kessler spent years justifying expanding the grasp of the FDA to include control over tobacco sales, despite the fact that the FDA is focused on foods and medicinal drugs, and two separate agencies exist that are more suited to address the issues, the DEA and the ATF. The FDA will never let go of its newfound tobacco authority now.) If the FCC decides to take responsibility for enforcing content regulation, they'll be at it for a while ... ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 27 Mar 2002 20:10:03 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services / Roamer1 Communications Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org In article , James Carlson wrote: > I think this is a *wonderful* decision. The mechanisms used today to > allow 'equal access' on DSL (IP over PPP over PPPoE over Ethernet over > ATM) are technically hideous. Anything that avoids having my cable > service damaged by the likes of PPPoE is a great boon. PPPoE is absolutely *NOT* required for "competitive" DSL! DirecTV DSL uses ILEC DSL transport (DSLAMs, ATM VCs) in nearly all areas (they've just started using WorldCom/the old Rhythms "again" in some areas) and does NOT use PPPoE. The main reasons ISPs (ILEC and independent) use PPPoE are to conserve IP addresses and to provide a "dialup" experience for newbies (that reduces security concerns, etc.) PPPoE isn't needed for "open access" on cable either -- modem or NIC MAC authentication can take care of things. As an example, Earthlink customers on Time Warner cable do not use PPPoE, but they do get different IP addresses from customers of TWC Road Runner or other competitive ISPs. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: Stanley Cline Subject: Re: Different PICC Verification Numbers? Date: 27 Mar 2002 20:22:03 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services / Roamer1 Communications Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org In article , Mike Pollock wrote: > I just switched my PICC to ZoneLD, http://www.zoneld.com , a Global > Crossing reseller. [As a Winstar casualty, I'm trying not to let > *that* worry me!] I just switched to ECG :) -- they use Qwest for the most part (in fact, my two toll-free numbers with ECG are RespOrg'd to Qwest; I assume the actual carrier is Qwest as well, but given some inconsistencies with caller ID I'm not so sure), but they asked me to re-PIC to Global Crossing for 1+. The email I got from them said that I might hear one of "Allnet", "Frontier", or "Global Crossing" (all names the carrier with CIC 0444 has used at one point or another) when dialing 1-700-555-4141/etc. > works, but I'm wondering: what's the significance of different > resellers having different 700-555-XXXX numbers? I've noticed other > resellers have their own, too. It just goes to a different recording, that's all. Excel, who has resold nearly everyone under the sun (since buying Telco Communications Group they seem to have moved everyone over to that network) and frequently moved customers from one underlying carrier to another, has done this for the longest time ... (1-700-555-0752) WorldCom (at least on the 0555/old WilTel network) got it right, though -- they now route 1-700-555-4141 and 1-NPA-700-4141 to different recordings based on who your reseller actually is. For example, I just switched from Capsule Communications, who has their own network in CA and most of the Northeast and resells WorldCom elsewhere; for the longest time calls to 1-700-555-4141/etc. went to "Thank you for using MCI WorldCom" but it eventually changed to "Thank you for using Capsule Communications". Customers of GTC Telecom (another WorldCom reseller) and others have repoted similar. Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/ "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time." -/usr/games/fortune ------------------------------ From: David Green Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:38:15 -0800 Thanks, this is a great list. We do a lot of telco work and this will come in very handy. Thanks, David www.gbtechnologies.com Babu Mengelepouti wrote in message news:telecom20.206.10@telecom-digest.org... > NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North > America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at > http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like > this for many years, and this will prove to be an amazingly useful > tool in resolving problems. Now if only there were a similarly public > database for 800/888/877/866 numbers ... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:00:00 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: So Many Phones, So Little Need By Elisa Batista 2:00 a.m. March 27, 2002 PST Even though sales were down last year, that didn't stop manufacturers from unleashing a dizzying array of new mobile phones at a recent industry conference in Florida. While analysts applauded new phones that are compatible with today's high-speed mobile data networks -- something they felt was long overdue -- they say the manufacturers are taking a big risk. http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,51152,00.html ------------------------------ From: iwillseedeadraised@hotmail.com (dave) Subject: Wireless Design Conference 15-17th May, London Date: 27 Mar 2002 14:43:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear All, This message is to announce the coming Wireless Design Conference, 15-17th May in London - http://www.wirelessdesignconf.com. A 10% discount on the conference fee is available to folk booking through the Bluetoothweb community - for details see http://www.bluetoothweb.org/Member/WDCform.htm Conference Details: Wireless Design Conference 15-17th May 2002 Business Design Centre, London, UK Organised by United Business Media The conference will include over 85 technical papers with presentations from companies including Intel, Parthus Technologies, Silicon Laboratories and Radioscape. There will be 6 workshops & 2 short courses covering software radio, wireless networking, RF & optoelectronics packaging, MEMS, high linearity power amplifiers and broadband wireless access. The Wireless Design Conference covers several Bluetooth papers, including: Implementation of a single chip Bluetooth transceiver - Jan Craninckx: Alcatel Making Bluetooth IP accessible - Charles Sturman: TTPCom An Integrated Bluetooth and GPS Radio - Micí McCullagh: Parthus There will also be a seminar/workshop on the 17th May covering "Test Considerations for the Development of Bluetooth-enabled Products". See the program details - http://www.wirelessdesignconf.com/conference/programme.html Kind Regards, David Wireless Communities Manager www.dectweb.org www.bluetoothweb.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #207 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 28 20:22:53 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA10333; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:22:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:22:53 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200203290122.UAA10333@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #208 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:23:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 208 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Siemens to 5ESS Switch Conversion (David Green) Wescom Hybrids (Scott Dorsey) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (Stratus) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (Clarence Dold) Re: Galileo Expert? (Clarence Dold) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Ross Oliver) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Jeremy Beal) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Vince Mulhollon) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (John Tombs) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... Nobody Noticed (Jeremy Beal) Re: Talking With Robot Agents (Gail M. Hall) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Jack Decker) Re: T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems (Jay Hennigan) Re: Nigeria Launches Web Site to Combat Fraud (Dale Neiburg) News Headlines of Interest (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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: David Green Subject: Siemens to 5ESS Switch Conversion Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:41:52 -0800 Hello List, Our company does a lot of data bashing with switch translations and other data sources during cutovers, revenue assurance and other projects. We are looking at project to move/cutover some lines from Siemens switch to a 5ESS remote. My question since this our first time dealing with a Siemens switch how would I expect to extract working lines translations out of the switch. In a 5ESS we run scripts to pull the relations and write to tape; DMS100 we use the dumptab command to write tables to tape; GTD5 and DMS10 we capture the dn and other query's to a file from a screen capture; the 1AESS we use the backup tape and have a program to extract the information. With the Siemens can anybody tell me which process I would expect to use on this switch. Thanks, David Green System Analyst G & B Technologies Inc 661 948-5678 david@gbtechnologies.com www.gbtechnologies.com ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Wescom Hybrids Date: 28 Mar 2002 11:43:36 -0500 Organization: Former Users of Netcom Shell (1989-2000) Does anyone have documentation (schematics would do it) for Wescom hybrids 443-00 and 4413-00? Wescom seems to have evaporated. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." ------------------------------ From: Stratus Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:17:59 -0700 Organization: Stratus Computer (DE) Inc, Maynard MA, USA Where is there a list of the locations of the switches named in this database? David Green wrote in message news:telecom20.207.17@telecom-digest.org: > Thanks, this is a great list. We do a lot of telco work and this will > come in very handy. > Babu Mengelepouti wrote in message > news:telecom20.206.10@telecom-digest.org: >> NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North >> America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at >> http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like >> this for many years, and this will prove to be an amazingly useful >> tool in resolving problems. Now if only there were a similarly public >> database for 800/888/877/866 numbers. ------------------------------ From: dold@71.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments Date: 28 Mar 2002 18:19:35 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North > America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at > http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like This is handy, but it doesn't recognize NPA-NXX-F splits. There are an increasing number of NPA-NXX sets around the country being split onto different switches. This might not matter, but ... 210-396 in San Antonio is spread across five switches, but at least they are all in the same city. In Maryland, there are some splits across actual city boundaries, although the "localities" are the same, for now. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. ------------------------------ From: dold@77.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Galileo Expert? Date: 28 Mar 2002 17:30:53 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data JT Thompson wrote: > Who is the world expert on the new Galileo European satellite system? > What are the best websites on it? I'd stumble into the Usenet News Group sci.geo.satellite-nav. You'll find people that know everything about the technology hanging out in that group. Not much junk, similar in quality content to this group. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. ------------------------------ From: reo@roscoe.airaffair.com (Ross Oliver) Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc Date: 28 Mar 2002 19:57:15 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Barry Margolin wrote: >> This is so effective that I've discarded all my other filter rules, >> and just dump the bcc mail to /dev/null (after checking it against a >> list of known "From" addresses, such as mailing lists). Some spam >> gets past this, but not much. > I hope you're not one of our customers (or if you are, we're in your > known "From" list). We have lots of aliases that we use to reach our > customers, and scripts that build the aliases from our contact > databases. If you're going to do this, you have to do two things: 1) publish the aliases in advance, 2) stick to them. Almost every time my DSL provider sends (or tries to send) me an announcement, it is from a new and never-before-seen email address. This has become so annoying that I have come to assume announcements of any great significance will come with a postage stamp attached. The fact is filtering happens, so if you want your message to have the best chance of getting through, you had better account for it. Ross Oliver ------------------------------ From: thejbeal@netscape.net (Jeremy Beal) Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: 28 Mar 2002 14:59:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ spamcop.net will help you complain in the best way available about spam that you receive. They offer a spam-filtered email accounts at $30 annual, but they also allow you to create an account for reporting spam only, currently at no cost. They have processes which parse the headers in your spam and make serious efforts to trace back to the sender as far as possible. Usually the trail ends at an open mail relay, an SMTP server which has not been properly secured against abuse. Spamcop tracks open relays in conjunction with ORBZ and applies as much pressure as possible to get the relays secured. Unfortunately, new unsecured relays are generated as quickly as they are secured. Still, at least it makes some effort to close holes used by spammers. Agressive reporting of spam via spamcop seems to be resulting in a decrease in spam received. We'll see ... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail From: Vince Mulhollon Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:06:37 -0600 >> From: KB7M >> Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail >> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:56:47 -0700 >> There is one way to eliminate SPAM. Unfortunately, it requires the >> cooperation of EVERYONE. That is to make it a non-economically viable >> method of advertising. I NEVER EVER BUY ANYTHING from an UNSOLICITED >> source. This includes SPAM, TELEMARKETERS, and unsolicited snail-mail. >> If I want to buy something, I go looking for it. If I can determine >> that the company uses any form of unsolicited marketing, then I look >> elsewhere. If EVERYONE refused to buy, they would quickly go out of >> business, and good riddance. This would eliminate most SPAM and >> TELEMARKETING. The only reason that they do it is that they can make >> money that way. VOTE with your wallet! It's a "supply side" problem not a "consumer side" problem. There's a difference between people whom hire spammers, and the spammers themselves. Most spammers hire-ers learn the hard way that spam doesn't make money, such as Pat's oft repeated story of the flower shop owner. The spammer senders make money off ignorant people by sending spam for them. Obviously they will do their best to encourage their ignorant customers to spam. The problem is as long as there is one moron in the world whom believes they could "make money fast" if they try spamming, and there is one anti-social tech whom will do the spamming for them, there will never be an end to the spam problem. In summary, as long as two stupid people exist in the entire world, there will be spam. It doesn't matter what the rest of the universe thinks of them. My personal solution, is that I've found SpamAssassin at : http://spamassassin.org is not only free, but 100% accurate in removing spam and only spam... ------------------------------ From: John Tombs Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:10:27 -0500 Organization: ECI Telecom Rob Clark wrote in message news:telecom20.207.5@telecom-digest.org: > But, does anyone have any stats on the abandonment rate vs time on > hold for real callers? Any serious call center will have such stats. We write and sell reporting applications with average/max wait time to answer, average/max wait time to abandon etc. etc. Call centers will adjust their staffing to achieve the desired wait time and abandonment rate, i.e. low for sales (profit center), higher for support (cost center)! Your difficulty would be getting hold of this information, which is of value to competitors. John Tombs Tadiran Telecom ------------------------------ From: thejbeal@netscape.net (Jeremy Beal) Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 28 Mar 2002 14:49:30 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Stanley Cline wrote in message news:: > PPPoE is absolutely *NOT* required for "competitive" DSL! DirecTV DSL > uses ILEC DSL transport (DSLAMs, ATM VCs) in nearly all areas (they've > just started using WorldCom/the old Rhythms "again" in some areas) and > does NOT use PPPoE. The main reasons ISPs (ILEC and independent) use > PPPoE are to conserve IP addresses and to provide a "dialup" experience > for newbies (that reduces security concerns, etc.) Fully agreed. At home I use a competitive ISP, everything runs over a bridged connection from a static IP with a permanent DNS hostname, TCP/IP over ATM. It works beautifully, and I wouldn't trade it for cable modem service with or without PPPoE or any other dial-up garbage. Nobody has ever convinced me that any additional layering does anything but make life more difficult. Jeremy Beal ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: Talking With Robot Agents Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:52:07 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On 27 Mar 2002 17:26:57 -0800, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (lajavakom@yahoo.com.au (Leela)) wrote: > I'm an student in Information Management and Systems. I had an > experince asking for some information from my bank via phone. A robot > agent answered me immediately that I had not to queue for a long time > for live agent. I'm interested in an Interactive Voice Response > system, which are increasingly used by especially call centers. > However, I think it's not quite popular yet because there are strong > points and weak points to both companies and customers. I'd like to > hear any comments and recommendation on this technology. Maybe you've > ever had an experince with this technology as well. My biggest problem with robots is that if you are hard of hearing you can't get them to repeat what they said or get them to talk slower or louder. Often speaking more slowly is better than talking just louder. Which brings up the next worst problem: companies that hire reps that don't speak the language well. In my case it's English, but I suspect there are similar problems in places where French or Spanish are the language. No matter how many times I ask them to repeat what they are saying, some of them still talk too fast or too unclear for me to hear them. I suspect those companies are hiring off-shore people to handle their calling or answering but not screening them well enough for speaking clearly in the language they are supposed to be communicating in. I hate getting collect calls from those robot "operators" with the recording from the person giving their name. The recording never is loud enough for me to hear who is trying to call, so I always just refuse to accept the call. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:08:29 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com On 26 Mar 2002 07:55:25 -0800, abender@virtualhold.com (Andy Bender) wrote: > We all hate being left on hold for more than a few minutes. Very true. > A system to offer a take the callers phone number and call them back > at the same time they would have come off of hold to an agent is > available. This saves money on the 800 toll charges, can reduce agent > staffing requirements, and improves customer satisfaction. Not necessarily. What the people who use these systems forget is that there are a certain number of people who can't wait around for a call-back, or that may not be in a place where they can receive calls. For example, consider an employee at a company that can only make personal calls during an assigned break, and that dares not leave his/her employer's number for a call-back. Or, if the business that uses a system of this type deals with low-income people, they should remember that there are a certain number of people who may not have phones in their homes, and if they are using a pay phone (which may not accept incoming calls) or a neighbor's phone (where the neighbor may not want them hanging around for an hour or two, waiting for a return call), they may not be able to leave a number for a call-back. What really amazes me is when doctor's offices have these kinds of systems (especially if the doctor serves a low-income neighborhood). Does no one ever consider that it just might be an emergency, or that the person may be unconscious by the time the call-back arrives? (I know, you will say a person in that bad a shape should call 911, but again, if it's a low-income clinic the person may not have any hospitalization insurance and may try to call the doctor even if feeling faint, thinking it may not be that serious). If the system gives the caller a choice to continue to wait or be called back, that might be a little more acceptable (provided the customer really is called back promptly -- one reason a lot of people don't like these is because they leave their name and number and a couple days later they're still waiting for the call). But in my mind at least, any business that can't answer their phones (using a live person) within two or three minutes, except in exceptional circumstances, is telling me that they don't really give a d*mn about me or my business. Think about when you have called some company that you feel you just can't dump easily (a utility company, perhaps) and have been made to wait on hold for the better part of an hour. You really don't feel that good about doing business with that company (to put it mildly)! I'm not saying that there are no situations where a device of the kind you mentioned might be useful -- the unexpected situations that you just can't plan ahead for come to mind -- but I will guarantee you that any company that depends on the general public for their business and uses such a device to "reduce agent staffing requirements" is going to lose a certain amount of business. These reason is that there are always people who will think,"If you aren't ready to talk to me now, I'll find someone else who is." Resources for Michigan Telephone Users page: http://michigantelephone.workbench.net/ ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: T1 Incoming One-Way Audio Problems Reply-To: jay@west.net Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:50:31 GMT On 26 Mar 2002 18:17:53 -0800, Vidya Ramachandran wrote: > I have recently installed a voice T1 for a small company. The local > company is Focal and the long distance provider is Global Crossing. > The firm is experiencing One-Way incoming audio problems meaning that > if an outside party calls the receiver of the phone call can't hear > them after three minutes and ultimately drops the call. It's very > frustrating. I've given focal the call samples and they haven't been > able to figure it out. Does anyone have experience with this and if > so any guidance would be greatly appreciated. It sounds like your PBX equipment is not returning supervision when it connects the call, or the carrier isn't recognizing the seizure. In the "good old days" one could come off-hook very briefly to trip ringing, then go on-hook and provide local battery either with a capacitor and power source or high-value resistor, and have audio transmission in both directions. The call was treated as unanswered by the receiving switch, and thus was not billed, coins would return if called from a pay phone, etc. This type of setup was called a "black box" or "terminus" as opposed to the more well-known "blue box" and used to cheat the phone company. To stop these shenannigans, modern switching gear doesn't open the forward audio path (toward the called party) until it receives a signal that the line has been seized or answered. The reverse audio path (towards the caller) is open, so that the caller can hear ringing, busy signals, intercept recordings and the like. The signal that the call is answered is a loop closure on conventional lines, a ground on ground-start lines, battery reversal on DID lines, and setting the A and B bits on T-1 lines. It sounds as if your signalling of seizure isn't recognized by your carrier, and therefore the carrier isn't opening the forward audio path. Check the signaling type and options in your PBX vs. the provisioning from your carrier. Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/ WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: Nigeria Launches Web Site to Target E-Mail Scam Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:06:43 -0500 NBJimWeiss@aol.com wrote: > A Nigerian government Web site targets e-mail fraud scams that have > been sweeping the world. > http://computerworld.com/nlt/1%2C3590%2CNAV47_STO69562_NLTAM%2C00.html And I just got another copy of the scam, this time purporting to come from the widow of the late president of Zaire! Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-513-2640 "The radio is nothing but a conduit through which pre-fabricated din can flow into our homes." --Aldous Huxley, 1946 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've had her a couple times myself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:48:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest 3/28/02 Motorola's new phones get the red-carpet treatment Mar 28, 2002 12:06 PM By Ben Klayman CHICAGO, March 28 (Reuters) - Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT) is aiming to get the same brand buzz as its larger rival Nokia and is banking on fresh products and a new advertising campaign that includes red-carpet plugs from Oscar nominees. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26643938 Washington tunes in Critics accuse Clear Channel of shady radio deals and nasty concert business. Now the government is starting to pay attention. By Eric Boehlert March 27, 2002 | Clear Channel Communications, the country's largest radio broadcaster and the dominant player in the live entertainment concert business, is drawing fire from some Washington regulators. With holdings that include approximately 1,225 radio stations and 130 concert venues, the company in recent years has amassed unparalleled power in the music and entertainment industries. That power -- and what it means for the music business, as well as for Clear Channel competitors -- has been the topic of heated debate within the music industry for the last year. http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/27/beltway/index.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #208 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 2 20:36:54 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA04829; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:36:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:36:54 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204030136.UAA04829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #209 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:37:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 209 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #326, April 1, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Talking With Robot Agents (Robert Casey) Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email (Robert Casey) Need Recommendations For Introductory Telecom Books, etc (Frank B Denman) Still Need a Manual For Voice Logic? (Mike) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Ron Bean) Re: So Much Junk Mail (John David Galt) Example of a Core Dump: Celtic New Years Celebration (Patrick Townson) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:59:50 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #326, April 1, 2002 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 326: April 1, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** AT&T CANADA http://www.attcanada.com ** BELL CANADA http://www.bell.ca ** GROUP TELECOM http://www.gt.ca ** LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES CANADA http://www.lucent.ca ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ** UNISPHERE NETWORKS: http://www.unispherenetworks.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Videotron Acquires Stream Assets ** Microcell to Combine Companies ** 50% Want Ban on Cellphone Use by Drivers ** Mitel Signs Global Distributor ** Shaw to Lay Off 400 ** Telus Invests in Softswitch Developer ** U.S. Wireless Carriers Get $2.8 Billion Refund ** Avaya Offers IP Call Centre ** Sales Rise 39% at Cygnal ** Glentel Reaches Breakeven ** Forbes Confirmed as Aliant CEO ** Rogers AT&T Names CIO, Consumer VP ** Centrinity CEO Resigns ** Is It Time to Consider an IP-PBX? ============================================================ VIDEOTRON ACQUIRES STREAM ASSETS: A Toronto court has approved a bid by Videotron Telecom Ltd. to buy the assets of bankrupt carrier Stream Intelligent Networks. VTL now owns Stream's fibre networks in Toronto and Mississauga and its broadband wireless licences across Canada. (See Telecom Update #321, 322) MICROCELL TO COMBINE COMPANIES: Microcell Telecommunications Inc. says it will merge two wholly owned subsidiaries, Microcell Connexions Inc. and Microcell Solutions Inc, and eliminate the positions of President and Chief Operating Officer in both, as soon as regulatory approval is received. ** Connexions owns and operates Microcell's GSM network; Solutions sells Microcell's Fido service. 50% WANT BAN ON CELLPHONE USE BY DRIVERS: According to a new survey by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 66% of Canadians believe cellphone use by drivers is a serious or extremely serious problem, and 49.9% "strongly agree" that there should be a law banning it. Less than 10% are strongly opposed to a ban. ** The survey results can be considered accurate within 2.8%, 19 times out of 20. http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com MITEL SIGNS GLOBAL DISTRIBUTOR: Damovo, a UK-based equipment supplier with 2,700 employees, has agreed to distribute Mitel's new 3100 and 3300 IP-based PBXs internationally. Damovo, which acquired 80% of Ericsson's enterprise sales operations in 2001, is headed by former Newbridge Networks CEO Pearse Flynn. SHAW TO LAY OFF 400: Shaw reports sales of $472 million and a net loss of $74.4 million for December-February. The cableco says it is reducing capital and promotional expenditure and will lay off 400 employees. ** Shaw says it will sell its cable properties in Florida and Texas by August. The U.S. systems, with 75,000 subscribers, were acquired when Shaw bought Moffat Communications in 2000. TELUS INVESTS IN SOFTSWITCH DEVELOPER: Telus Ventures has invested $3 million in Maryland-based Telica Inc., which is developing a software-based switch that Telus hopes to deploy in its network. U.S. WIRELESS CARRIERS GET $2.8 BILLION REFUND: The FCC has returned US$2.8 billion, 85% of the down payments made by Verizon Wireless and other carriers last year for legally disputed wireless licenses. The FCC says the carriers will still have to pay the full $16.3 billion they bid if the FCC wins a case that is now before the Supreme Court. AVAYA OFFERS IP CALL CENTRE: Avaya has released its IP Contact Center for Mid-Sized Businesses, designed for call centres with 20 to 50 agents. Suggested system price: US$150,000 to $225,000. SALES RISE 39% AT CYGNAL: Oshawa-based Cygnal Technologies reports 2001 sales of $141.8 million, up 39% from 2000. During 2001, Cygnal bought Lasertel Telecom, Saltel Electric, and West Technical Technologies; it also owns White Radio and Accord Communications. ** Cygnal has named Kieron Dowling, formerly of Alcatel, Celestica, and Nortel, President and COO. GLENTEL REACHES BREAKEVEN: Glentel, a Vancouver-based wireless provider, reports net income of $464,000 for October-December, compared to losses of $2.2 million for 2001 as a whole and $10.6 million for the previous year. Sales of $50.1 million in 2001 were 10% higher than the previous year. FORBES CONFIRMED AS ALIANT CEO: Jay Forbes, Acting CEO of Aliant since March 1, has been confirmed as the Atlantic telco's permanent President and CEO. ROGERS AT&T NAMES CIO, CONSUMER VP: Rogers AT&T Wireless has named Bruce Burgetz, previously CIO of Shoppers Drug Mart, as Senior Vice-President and CIO. John Boynton, formerly of Inquent Technologies, is now Rogers' VP Consumer Marketing. CENTRINITY CEO RESIGNS: Myles McGovern has resigned as CEO of Markham-based Centrinity, which makes unified messaging software. CFO Jane Mowat and COO John Myers will jointly fill the position until a new CEO is chosen. IS IT TIME TO CONSIDER AN IP-PBX? Every PBX maker now says that you should buy an IP-based system. Why have they changed? Should you agree? See our special report on the IP-PBX Revolution in the April issue of Telemanagement, available this week. Also in Telemanagement #194: ** Lis Angus interviews top Telus execs on the company's accelerating move into Ontario. ** Gerry Blackwell reviews the new breed of all-in-one wireless devices. ** Henry Dortmans discusses the challenges facing call centres in 2002. Single copies of Telemanagement #194 are $75 each -- call 905-686-5050 ext 500 and charge to Visa, American Express, or Mastercard. Save 49% with a 10-issue subscription -- go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Re: Talking With Robot Agents Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:17:12 -0500 Organization: wa2ise Ever hear the expression "Voice mail hell"? On some of these systems, you can go down what turns out to be a wrong path and get trapped with no way to escape except to hang up and start over again with a new call. Someone ought to connect a set of earphones to one of the outgoing lines to listen to callers saying dirty words in frustration being trapped in voice mail hell. That would tell you if the system is making customers happy or just pissing them off ... Still, for routine things it's faster and easier to deal with a computer system when you are familiar with the system and know that the option you need is there to punch up. And the humans are there to take care of the unusual stuff. I remember classmates at my university complaining about computerization of stuff like class registration and wanting to deal with humans instead. Well, for routine stuff computers are better, and if what you need is an exception, that's what humans are good at. Humans get bored by routine stuff and start making errors. Leela wrote: > I'm an student in Information Management and Systems. I had an > experince asking for some information from my bank via phone. A robot > agent answered me immediately that I had not to queue for a long time > for live agent. I'm interested in an Interactive Voice Response > system, which are increasingly used by especially call centers. > However, I think it's not quite popular yet because there are strong > points and weak points to both companies and customers. I'd like to > hear any comments and recommendation on this technology. Maybe you've > ever had an experince with this technology as well. > Some tasks I can do better on a web page. Like accessing my accounts at my bank. I can see the numbers on the screen better than having to listen to numbers read out on the phone and having to mentally keep track of if I'm hearing my checking account or savings or credit card balance. All that can be presented on the web page at the same time. Sure someone could hack that system, but they could hack the phone based one too. With the phone based system you could opt (usually) to talk to a live human, but after endless muzak on hold (BTW, I hate those false interruptions of the music just to hear a recording of "your call is important to us, please continue to hold" when I think I have finally reached a human and it turns out not to be). On the web, my ISP has a chat mode help desk. I can post a question and the guy at the help desk can send a reply to me while he is waiting for results for another customer's problem. Thus I don't have to wait for him to finish up the other customer's problem before he gets to me. And I can continue to surf the web or whatever (this assumes that I still have some functionality being logged in, like usenet server down but web server still up). Of course a customer will wait longer on hold if it's a toll free call. Or is at work calling on the boss's dime... ======================================= I'm having roast rabbit for Easter dinner. ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:38:18 -0500 Organization: wa2ise Got this spam, looks like a virus attached to it (which I didn't open, and is not attached here (I cut and pasted the text of the message only below). Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: home.com: no data known) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:24:22 -0500 (EST) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: The original message was received at Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:02:49 -0500 (EST) from logs-wp.proxy.aol.com [205.188.201.135] *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----". The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----". The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator. --AOL Postmaster ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 ... Host unknown (Name server: home.com: no data known) Reporting-MTA: dns; rly-ip02.mx.aol.com Arrival-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:02:49 -0500 (EST) Final-Recipient: RFC822; lsassm@home.com Action: failed Status: 5.1.2 Remote-MTA: DNS; home.com Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:24:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: A WinXP patch Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: wa2ise To: lsassm@home.com This is a WinXP patch I expect you would enjoy it. ------------------------------------------ Yeah, I'd trust a patch from an unknown source..... NOT! ------------------------------ From: Frank B Denman Subject: Need Recommendations for Introductory Telecom Books, etc Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:25:30 -0800 Organization: Northwest Link I'm looking at a possible job coordinating computer and telecom changes associated with office moves in a large hospital. I know project management and computer networking, so I'm ok with that part of it. But I need a fast introduction to phone systems. In addition to planning the moves, I would be responsible for confirming that systems were working properly after the changes. Would greatly appreciate any suggestions re books, manuals, web sites, etc. TIA Frank ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:36:02 -0600 Subject: Still Need a Manual For Voice Logic? From: Mike I have one I might be able to fax you or make a copy of. I'd sure appreciate speaking with someone who uses one because I have many answers which are not in the manual. Mike DeSantis DeSantis Photography "Making Your Company Look Great In Pictures." mike@desantisphotography.com www.desantisphotography.com 573-875-5511/voice 573-875-5767/FAX 573-999-4663 (999-GONE)/cell ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:46:28 -0600 From: Ron Bean Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc Barry Margolin writes: >> This is so effective that I've discarded all my other filter rules, >> and just dump the bcc mail to /dev/null (after checking it against a >> list of known "From" addresses, such as mailing lists). Some spam >> gets past this, but not much. > I hope you're not one of our customers (or if you are, we're in your > known "From" list). We have lots of aliases that we use to reach our > customers, and scripts that build the aliases from our contact > databases. Yes, if I were one of your customers, your domain would be on my list, so it wouldn't matter which alias you used (that is, anything ending in "genuity.net" would get through). I also scan procmail's log files periodically, so if I do miss something legit (which happens about once a year), at least I see the "From" and "Subject" lines. In that case I usually send a note saying "My spam filter ate your message, if it was important please resend, if not don't worry about it". Since most people keep copies of their outgoing email, they usually reply "It wasn't important but here's a copy of it anyway". > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would be impossible for me, or > anyone who moderates a newsgroup to have a 'known From list.' That's why I suggested sending it to a separate mailbox, where you could sort through it at your leisure, and not *have* to deal with it every time you read your mail. The spammers are getting a *little* smarter -- more spam gets through this than in the past -- but not a lot more. I don't think you'll ever filter all of it, but you can cut it down quite a bit. FWIW, some clever filter rules (for procmail) based on typical spam content can be found at: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/comp.mail.misc/Craig_Johnston1 I tried some of these, but found that most of the spam was hitting the bcc filter first. I did get a few hits on some of them, so YMMV. Also see the "mail filtering FAQ"-- launchers at: http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/launchers/mail/filtering-faq/ http://www.best.com/~ii/internet/faqs/launchers/mail/filtering-faq/ One other note: while the bcc filter is becoming slightly less effective than it used to be, filtering out all-HTML messages should be getting more effective. They used to include one line of text saying "This is an HTML message!" for those of us who have HTML disabled. But these days a large percentage of spam doesn't include any plain ASCII text at all. I don't know how many people send legitimate email with no plaintext. ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:25:13 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society KB7M wrote: > There is one way to eliminate SPAM. Unfortunately, it requires the > cooperation of EVERYONE. That's why it can never happen. Newbies and the gullible will always be with us. Therefore legislation is needed. ------------------------------ Subject: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.148) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 21:11:59 -0500 Received: from dialup-63.208.89.32.dial1.miami1.level3.net ([63.208.89.32] helo=h8v7b7) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16qlqj-00015T-00 for editor@telecom-digest.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:10:41 -0500 From: "Bill Sansbury" To: editor@telecom-digest.org Subject: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:15:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary" Content-Disposition: Multipart message Message-Id: Status: RO ------32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: message text Hi! How are you I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later Thanks ------32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary Content-Type: application/mixed; name="CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION.doc.pif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION.doc.pif" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You'll see me later? You bet ... I'll see you in hell, you miserable S.O.B. You want my advice? Quit wasting your time and mine with this sort of garbage. You ask for *my* advice? Me, with my deseased, aneurysm-riddled brain? For the rest of you, I truncated the remaining 550,000 (five hundred fifty thousand) bytes of this petitioner's inquiry so save you all the grief I had with it. I saved the headers and the text part of the message so you all could get a good look at it. Everyday, these show up, asking me for advice. This is one of the smaller 'inquiries' I have received. What a wasted life some of these cretins have! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #209 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 2 21:13:27 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA06099; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:13:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:13:27 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204030213.VAA06099@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #210 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:11:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 210 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Marcus Didius Falco) AOL as Proxy (Steve Kraus) Recommendation for 1U Rack Chassis (Brian C) Need Recommendations For Introductory Telecom Books, etc (Frank B Denman) Ericsson Cordless Phone Support Group (Nickolas) VoIP (Newbie) Question; IPCourier/IPShuttle (Robert Krten) CBX 500, GX 550, and B-STDX 9000, and Circuit Packs Available (Robertson) ICANN Considered Harmful (George Mitchell) Using a Cisco AS-5300 as a Non VoIP Voice Switch (Ramon F. Herrera) How to Ring Back (Don Saklad) Different PICC Verification Numbers? (Gary) How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? (Ramon F. Herrera) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:58:33 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch http://news.com.com/2100-1033-870832.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com March 28, 2002, 12:55 PM PT Cell phones, fax machines and pagers are dialing through the country's supply of phone numbers. The Federal Communications Commission, aware of the dwindling supply of 10-digit phone numbers and complaints from customers forced to change numbers, has already given telecom carriers a November deadline for allowing cell phone customers to keep their phone numbers if they switch service providers. But carriers have balked at the cost, which they put at $1 billion for the industry, and the FCC has already granted several deadline extensions to allow the carriers to make more pressing changes. The FCC is due to vote any time on a petition from Verizon Wireless that the FCC drop the plan entirely or exempt Verizon from the program. Other carriers have filed papers supporting Verizon's petition. But proponents of the plan, who say keeping your phone number is a customer benefit that could increase competition among carriers by making it easier to switch, say Verizon and other carriers should not be granted further delays. Carriers say the industry is already competitive, with a high number of customers switching carriers even though they don't have the option of keeping their numbers. Although the carriers and the FCC have focused on the cost and competitiveness aspects of the debate, some backers say there's another reason to allow people to hold on to the same number: The pool of 10-digit phone numbers is shrinking. "Some say the end is coming sooner rather than later," said Frank Colaco, a senior area code relief planner for the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), which distributes phone numbers in North America. Quest for more numbers New U.S. government reports estimate that the United States, Canada, Guam, Bermuda and Trinidad will run out of 10-digit numbers by the year 2025. In the United States, most major cities have already gone through several area code additions, aggravating customers forced to change letterhead, business cards and billing records. And for some, simply losing the cachet of a particular area code, such as 212 for Manhattan, was enough to raise their hackles. The 310 area code in Los Angeles, as well as Raleigh, N.C.'s 919, are both expected to be exhausted by next year. New Mexico's 505, the state's only area code, will run out by 2004. The idea that the carriers could run out of numbers is tempered by the knowledge that carriers hold huge blocks of area codes in reserve and that there are working plans to improve technology such as the merging of Internet and telephone technologies to reduce the number of phone numbers needed to connect digital devices. But one industry organization has already drawn up a plan for a 12-digit future. Eight years in the making, a report by the Alliance For Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) proposes adding an extra number to every new area code and dialing prefix. Instead of a telephone number like 415-555-1212, the number would be 4151-5555-1212. Adding the two digits would create a well of 640 billion more telephone numbers. But telephone companies would need at least 10 years of work to make the appropriate changes, according to the report. "Anything that relies on a telephone number would have to be changed to accept the additional digits," Colaco said. "You remember Y2K? That was big. This will be big." History has shown that even smaller changes to telephone numbers have caused problems for carriers. Several years ago area codes changed to include something other than a 1 or 0 as the second digit. Some companies discovered much of their equipment was hard coded to read only a 1 or 0 in that part of a telephone number, so they needed to buy new phone networks. But others say simply conserving the existing numbers is the best tactic. The industry should continue to keep using conservation measures that have been in place since 1998, such as rationing telephone numbers, said Lori Messing, director of numbering issues for telephone lobbyists the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. To this end, the FCC has stepped in and told telecommunication carriers they won't be able to buy telephone numbers in blocks of 10,000 anymore. Instead, it will be blocks of 1,000. Messing said the industry supports the effort. "Anytime you have a report developed for eight years by the industry, people are going to take it seriously and look at it," Messing said of the ATIS report. "But we're in no danger of exhaust at this point." She said it would be better to rely on NANPA, which gets reports every six months from state public utility commissions and carriers about how many telephone numbers they need and have used. If an area code appears to be in danger of running out, NANPA becomes just like the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It takes charge and can, for example, "reclaim" unused phone numbers from carriers or lower the number of area codes it is willing to provide. ------------------------------ From: Steve Kraus Subject: AOL as Proxy Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:10:04 -0600 I keep an AOL account for continuity on one email address and some added web space to boot. I connect via other ISP's. Seems to me that I recall that if I looked at a web site that reports back my IP, that while using my regular browser would it would show my real IP but if I used the AOL IE browser it would report an AOL IP. In other words, the AOL IE did not go out to the net via my ISP winsock but rather connected back to the mother ship in Virginia and went out on the net from there. AOL is, of course, known for running huge proxy servers and I always kept this indirect access in mind if for some reason I'd rather a site see me as part of the great unwashed. Now I just tried it again and visiting a site via AOL and my true IP is reported back. I thought maybe it was a difference in versions but I tried it with an older one where I know the former case was true and it's the same there too. I know I can set up proxies if I wish but I'm really just curious if anyone else noticed this change. I guess I would have to use some port monitoring software to determine if AOL IE is now talking directly to web sites via my connection OR if it still goes through Virginia but they've done something so the actual IP is passed along to the site being visited. Good golly, you don't suppose people were doing bad things and hiding behind an AOL IP number, do you? ------------------------------ From: Brian C Subject: Recommendation for 1U Rack Chassis Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:59:14 GMT Hello, Can anyone recommend a budget brand and source of quality 1U rackmount PC chassis? We've been using BoomRack, but they are quite expensive (almost $300.00 with power supply). We need to build some budget web servers for an upcoming test product, and would love to use some of our exisiting computers in a 150.00 1U enclosure. Thanks, Brian C loungesong@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Frank B Denman Subject: Need Recommendations for Introductory Telecom Books, etc Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:54:48 -0800 Organization: Northwest Link I'm looking at a possible job coordinating computer and telecom changes associated with office moves in a large hospital. I know project management and computer networking, so I'm ok with that part of it. But I need a fast introduction to phone systems. In addition to planning the moves, I would be responsible for confirming that systems were working properly after the changes. Would greatly appreciate any suggestions re books, manuals, web sites, etc. TIA Frank ------------------------------ From: Nickolas Subject: Ericsson Cordless Phone Support Group Organization: http://.ca.msnusers.com/cybergenie Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:01:59 -0500 We formed a group for users and developers of the Ericsson DECT & Cygnion CyberGenie Cordless Home/Office products. http://ca.msnusers.com/Cybergenie ------------------------------ From: nospam89@parse.com (Robert Krten) Subject: VoIP (Newbie) Question; IPCourier/IPShuttle Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:39:28 GMT Organization: Magma Communications Ltd. Recently, I acquired some scrapped Nokia IPCourier and IPShuttle phones and boxes. These things wanted to be DHCP'd with an IP address, and that part of the configuration process worked fine. Now the IPCourier sez, "Connecting IPC Server..." and just sits there. Obviously, this is a totally newbie question -- what do I do next? Thanks in advance for any leads! Cheers, Robert Krten Email my initials at parse dot com. ------------------------------ From: trbear@comcast.net (Terry Robertson) Subject: CBX 500, GX 550, and B-STDX 9000, and Circuit Packs Available Date: 31 Mar 2002 00:14:44 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I have invested a ton and have cornered the market on these hard to find ATM switches, and spare circuit packs. This is not a joke. The manufacturer, I understand, has many of these packs unavailable, but will manufacture them on demand only. Many packs new in box. All parts tested in lab prior to shipment and 100% guaranteed. Email me, trbear@comcast.net. Discounts available. Send parts request for a quote. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:07:06 -0800 (PST) From: George Mitchell Subject: ICANN Considered Harmful A modest proposal: http://www.f-iw.org/ Subject: George for Benevolent Internet Dictator My platform: "You could do worse." ------------------------------ From: ramon@conexus.net (Ramon F Herrera) Subject: Using a Cisco AS-5300 as a Non VoIP Voice Switch Date: 31 Mar 2002 16:21:32 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ AS-5300 with 48 voice resources, 128 MB DRAM Cisco IOS Version 12.2(2)XB VCWare 9.19 with DSPWare 3.6.15 SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 Dialogic D/240SC-T1, System Release 2.0 for OpenServer Dialogic ISDN Package 4 (5ess, dms, ni2 and nt1) I have been working on a Cisco AS-5300, being used strictly as a POTS voice switch (i.e., no VoIP yet). The switch is connected to 2 upstream PRIs -one DMS from MCI and one 5ESS from AT&T. There are 2 devices downstream: an Avaya Definity PBX and an IVR D/240SC-T1 Dialogic board. The connection which is giving me trouble is the Cisco <--> Dialogic. In theory, I have 3 choices for protocol, but each one has some problem. Option (1): CAS T1 on the Cisco, CAS T1 on the Dialogic. I have created the Cisco configuration, but I don't know if the Cisco actually support it. The interface shows as down. Option (2): NI network side on the Cisco, NI-2 user side on the Dialogic This would be my prefered configuration, but calls don't last too long, they keep on getting dropped. Option (3): 5ESS user side on the Cisco, NT1 network side on the Dialogic This combination works, but not too reliably. Dialogic itself says not to use this firmware (nt1) on a production environment, it should be used only for testing. See config below. Any insight on this issue will be very much appreciated. Thanks, Ramon F. Herrera ! ! Last configuration change at 23:55:17 EST Sat Jan 26 2002 ! NVRAM config last updated at 23:55:18 EST Sat Jan 26 2002 ! version 12.2 no parser cache service timestamps debug datetime msec show-timezone service timestamps log datetime msec show-timezone service password-encryption ! hostname as5300 ! boot system flash logging rate-limit console 10 except errors enable secret 5 $1$xlU8$6xv/AfBWwzetPDvgDlUKc/ enable password 7 060F0B2E425A02170A00 ! ! ! resource-pool disable clock timezone EST -5 clock summer-time EDT recurring ! ip subnet-zero no ip source-route ip rcmd remote-username ramon ip domain-name somedomain.com ip name-server 1.2.3.4 ! no ip dhcp-client network-discovery isdn switch-type primary-dms100 isdn display layer2-status ! ! ! fax interface-type modem mta receive maximum-recipients 0 ! ! controller T1 0 description Corporate Worldcom MCI PRI (444) 555-1200 -> 1399 clock source line primary framing esf linecode b8zs pri-group timeslots 1-24 ! controller T1 1 description Lucent/Avaya Definity PBX clock source internal framing esf linecode b8zs pri-group timeslots 1-24 ! controller T1 2 description Incoming AT&T IVR PRI clock source line secondary 1 framing esf linecode b8zs pri-group timeslots 1-17,24 shutdown ! controller T1 3 description Dialogic Production IVR Board (D/240SC-T1) clock source internal framing esf linecode b8zs pri-group timeslots 1-24 ! ! interface Loopback0 no ip address shutdown ! interface Ethernet0 no ip address shutdown ! interface Serial0 no ip address shutdown fair-queue clockrate 2015232 ! interface Serial1 no ip address shutdown fair-queue clockrate 2015232 ! interface Serial2 no ip address shutdown fair-queue clockrate 2015232 ! interface Serial3 no ip address shutdown fair-queue clockrate 2015232 ! interface Serial0:23 description Corporate Worldcom MCI PRI (444) 555-1200 -> 1399 no ip address dialer-group 1 no snmp trap link-status isdn switch-type primary-dms100 isdn tei-negotiation first-call isdn incoming-voice modem isdn T321 0 isdn T306 30000 isdn T310 10000 no fair-queue no cdp enable ! interface Serial1:23 description Lucent/Avaya Definity PBX no ip address dialer-group 1 no snmp trap link-status isdn switch-type primary-ni isdn protocol-emulate network isdn tei-negotiation first-call isdn incoming-voice modem isdn T321 0 isdn T310 10000 no fair-queue no cdp enable ! interface Serial2:23 description Incoming AT&T IVR PRI no ip address no keepalive isdn switch-type primary-5ess isdn tei-negotiation first-call isdn incoming-voice modem isdn T321 0 no fair-queue no cdp enable shutdown ! interface Serial3:23 description Dialogic Production IVR Board (D/240SC-T1) no ip address dialer-group 3 no snmp trap link-status isdn switch-type primary-5ess isdn protocol-emulate user isdn tei-negotiation first-call isdn incoming-voice modem isdn T321 0 no fair-queue no cdp enable ! interface FastEthernet0 ip address 65.206.86.4 255.255.255.128 duplex full speed 100 ! ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 65.206.86.1 no ip http server ! ! ! snmp-server engineID local 0000000902000001961F782A snmp-server community public RO snmp-server packetsize 2048 ! call rsvp-sync ! voice-port 0:D description Corporate Worldcom MCI PRI (444) 555-1200 -> 1399 echo-cancel coverage 32 ! voice-port 1:D description Lucent/Avaya Definity PBX echo-cancel coverage 32 ! voice-port 2:D description Incoming AT&T IVR PRI echo-cancel coverage 32 ! voice-port 3:D description Dialogic Production IVR Board (D/240SC-T1) echo-cancel coverage 32 ! ! mgcp profile default ! dial-peer voice 10 pots incoming called-number ^14445551[23].. direct-inward-dial port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 20 pots incoming called-number .T direct-inward-dial port 1:D ! dial-peer voice 1 pots destination-pattern ^1.......... no digit-strip port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 978 pots destination-pattern ^978....... no digit-strip port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 11 pots destination-pattern ^011T no digit-strip port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 411 pots destination-pattern ^411 no digit-strip port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 911 pots destination-pattern ^911 no digit-strip port 0:D ! dial-peer voice 900 pots destination-pattern ^0170 no digit-strip port 3:D ! dial-peer voice 256 pots destination-pattern ^6529 no digit-strip port 3:D ! dial-peer voice 266 pots destination-pattern ^4871 no digit-strip port 3:D ! dial-peer voice 877 pots destination-pattern ^863[0-2] no digit-strip port 3:D ! dial-peer voice 6300 pots destination-pattern ^491[7-9] no digit-strip port 3:D ! gateway ! ! line con 0 exec-timeout 90 0 password 7 070C2E724B110C16 line aux 0 line vty 0 4 password 7 096B41251D0019350A1801 login ! ntp clock-period 17180384 ntp server 4.2.2.2 ntp server 192.5.41.41 ntp server 192.5.41.40 ntp server 4.2.2.1 prefer end ------------------------------ Subject: How to Ring Back From: Don Saklad Date: 30 Mar 2002 03:32:18 -0500 Rather than troubling an operator, in Cambridge Massachusetts, what's the number for ringback? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe someone in Cambridge knows a number which works for this purpose. I can tell you it varies from one exchange to another. There no longer is any uniform number for this purpose. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:20:08 -0500 From: Gary Subject: Different PICC Verification Numbers? On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:57:55 PST, Mike Pollock wrote: > I just switched my PICC to ZoneLD, http://www.zoneld.com , a Global > Crossing reseller. [As a Winstar casualty, I'm trying not to let > *that* worry me!] > When I dial 1-700-555-4141 to verify my PICC, I expect to hear "Thanks > for Choosing Global Crossing," as I had heard just prior to the > change, when I was PICCed to UniTel, another Global Crossing > Reseller. Instead, I get hung up on. It just clicks back to dial tone. Yeah, there's something wrong with them. It was working okay, but about a week or two ago it just quit. (I use PNG, another GBLX reseller, and noticed the same thing. LD service continues properly.) > I mentioned this to ZoneLD Customer Service, and instead of saying, > "thanks for the heads up -- we'll fix it," they said, "Please dial > 1-700-555-2550 instead." I've not been home to test that to see if it > works, but I'm wondering: what's the significance of different > resellers having different 700-555-XXXX numbers? I've noticed other > resellers have their own, too. Well, it depends how you define "works". It says something like "Thanks for using Zone Telecom". Only problem is, I don't use Zone Telecom. So it doesn't seem to be verifying very much, other than that somebody gave you that number to dial. When I was buying telecom services a few years back, MCI had a "different" verification number to use for certain types of consolidated business accounts. They were never able to explain why they used a different number. =Gary ------------------------------ From: ramon@conexus.net (Ramon F Herrera) Subject: How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? Date: 1 Apr 2002 12:04:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ One of the biggest problems I have had in many years dealing with PRI circuits is something conceptually very simple: What ISDN protocols is being use by the telco at the remote side of my equipment? I have noticed that sometimes it doesn't _seem_ to matter very much: I can change from 5ESS to DMS on my side, and apparently everything works fine. I even remember one case in which my provider was colocated with us, and I had the luxury of asking the guy to change ISDN "flavors" back and forth until we found one that wordked reliably. Well, the best combination turned out to be a mismatched one: the telco switch was configured for DMS and our Cisco AS-5300 was configured for 5ESS. Go [con]figure ... It occurred to me that a very helpful tool would be to have a software utility which would open the ISDN port, query it, and report which ISDN is being spoken at the remote side. I have access to Cisco AS-5300s, Avaya Definity (which probably won't have the capability to perform the query), but I also have Dialogic boards, which can be programmed. I guess anoter solution would be to get some sort of hardware ISDN line tester or analyzer. I would like to hear about both software or hardware solutions to this query problem. TIA, Ramon F. Herrera ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #210 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 2 22:51:36 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA08735; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:51:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:51:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204030351.WAA08735@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #211 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:51:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 211 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Forces Ham Radio Operators to Use Windows (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: My Filter Rules, etc (Denis Mcmahon) Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? (Rob Clark) NHC Shareit Physical Layer Swith (M. Wiener) New Live Chat @www.telcosupport.net (Al Younker) Re: Local Calling Policy (was Re: Information Request) (Wes Leatherock) Re: The Latest Fad From Japan (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (Clarence Dold) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (Wes Leatherock) Re: Seeking ITU Docs (Phil McKerracher) Caribbean Telecom Deregulation Status? (Jack Adams) Yasser Arafat Using Cell Phone (Carl Moore) Want to buy Lucent Excel E1 Cards & Switches Selling Cisco (R. Bazzarre) Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email (Gary) DTMF Over Internet (Monad) Last Laugh! Joke of the Day (info@mind-over-fatter.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 20:20:41 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: FCC Forces Ham Radio Operators to Use Windows * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber From: "Robert J. Berger" Organization: UltraDevices, Inc Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:57:01 -0800 Subject: FCC forces Ham radio operators to use Windows http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=659653 Applying for or renewing an amateur radio license? If you ain't using Microsoft Windows, fugetaboutit. Summary 'Linux? Step to the back of the bus, please. This section is reserved for Windows users only.' That's the message everyone but Microsoft Windows users get when they wish to do more than browse the FCC's Web site. Ironic that an agency bearing the name 'communications' does such a lousy job of it. (1,200 words) By Joe Barr (LinuxWorld) -- Early in January, I sent e-mail to each of the four FCC commissioners: Michael Powell, Kathleen Abernathy, Michael Copps, and Kevin Martin. Their names are displayed prominently on the FCC homepage (see Resources for the URL) so it seemed completely natural and fitting that I contact them about a problem on the FCC Web site. My complaint was that certain functionality on the site is not available to me because I use Linux instead of Windows. I never received a response from any commissioner. I first became aware of the problem last year when a friend of mine, a lawyer and Linux aficionado, sent me a copy of a letter he had mailed to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The letter asked that the FCC stop the "wholly unnecessary and entirely unconscionable" practice of providing online license renewals for amateur radio licenses only to users of Windows. Like me, my friend never received a reply. Then I pretty much forgot about the issue. After all, it did not affect my daily life. Recently I began studying for a ham license. I mentioned that to another friend who happens to be a licensed amateur radio operator. That reminded her that she needed to report a recent change of address to the FCC. When she tried to do so from my desktop computer, the following pop-up window appeared in the browser: (pop up message not recieved here ... PAT) Ugly, isn't it? Not just the popup. Not just the message. I mean the fact that the FCC is helping Microsoft in its illegal practices to maintain its monopoly. Intentional or not, that's the result here. Moreover, it appears to have been in place since the ULS first went online. I found a newsgroup post from August of 1999 that said "I did notice one of the other FCC Web page popped up with a window saying 'This plug-in is only available for Windows 95/98'. I have no clue what the plug-in did." Whoever wrote the ULS applications, and thus far, I haven't been able to learn where it came from, or who currently maintains it, used JavaScript for the task. There is huge irony in this because JavaScript, like Java itself, was designed to provide interoperability across different platforms. To fashion a Windows-only JavaScript application requires either deliberate intent or myopic programmers. I asked some JavaScript experts how to create Windows-only code. Most opined it is the result of using Microsoft's ActiveX. If they are right, it means this site's functionality not only flies in the face of interoperability and open access to all, it's fundamentally insecure as well. In my e-mail to the commissioners I wrote, "The problem as reported to me -- and as confirmed by a friend this past weekend -- is that certain functionality on the FCC Web site is available only to Windows users. Specifically, the JavaScript or CGI used to allow Ham radio operators to update their licensing information online. This leaves Hams using Macintosh, Linux, OS/2, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and other operating systems out in the cold." I also asked the obvious question, "As the Internet, HTML, and Java are all about the interoperability of different types of computers and software platforms, how does it come about that a governmental agency implements a solution available only to a single platform?" I noted that since JavaScript works on many different platforms, making a JavaScript application "Windows only" seems to require deliberate intent. Mr. Barr calls Washington. After a week, and not a word in reply from any of the FCC commissioners, I took it to the next level: I picked up the phone and called the FCC. When I asked to speak to their media relations people, the operator asked what my call was about. When I said it was about functionality on the FCC Web site, they directed my call not to public relations, but to David Kitzmiller, the FCC Webmaster. Kitzmiller knew which corner of the bureaucracy to look in for answers, even though it didn't fall directly under his purview. He copied me on a portion of the e-mail he sent to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), who evidently is responsible for relations with the contractor providing the ULS services. His e-mail appeared to be aimed at the right people, asking that they do the right things to fix the problem. In addition, he asked that they update the site's help and support pages to explain the situation. He concluded it by saying "let me know what happens with this, since we get quite a few e-mails to webmaster@fcc.gov on this subject." That was January 15, 2002. For several weeks afterwards, I would query Kitzmiller for the latest status on the fix. Finally, I exhausted his patience. He told me on February 22 that he had been told by someone or something called "TPTB" at the WTB that the problem was bigger than they first thought. However, he went on to say that it would still be fixed. He quoted TPTB saying, "The FCC is in the process of revising the software and the revised software will work with Linux. The first application to be revised will be License Search later this month. Other ULS applications will follow." Here we are a month beyond the promised date for implementing the first fix, and it still isn't in place. Neither have the help/support pages been updated as Kitzmiller requested. Some active Ham friends of mine have suggested that the FCC site is in violation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1194.22, which defines access requirements for government Web sites among other things. I've asked the GSA this question directly, but have yet to receive a reply. Time for the soapbox. I can almost understand the buffoonery of the FCC commissioners. Colin Powell's son Michael and the others have other things to do than be concerned about ordinary citizens trying to avail themselves of ordinary services on their Web site. They certainly can't be held accountable if the FCC's Web site is "accidentally" helping Microsoft maintain its malignant monopoly. In fact, they can't even be counted on to answer their mail: paper or electronic. They are busy with other things. They have bigger fish to fry. Bigger fish like making sure the cable companies are unfettered by the regulations that bind their broadband competition at the Baby Bells. And defending themselves from the rash of lawsuits that action has spawned. Some of their bigger fish don't live in the corporate pond, but in the pond of public morality. Like the integrity (or lack thereof) of individual amateur radio operators. Like Kevin Mitnick, for example. Mitnick has held and used his Ham license for 25 years. The FCC blocked his recent application for renewal, and not on the basis of any misuse of the license, but because he was convicted of computer crime. Sagging as they must be under the weight of those awesome responsibilities, it's easy to see why I was pointed away from them and towards Kitzmiller. Speaking of Kitzmiller, I just received an update from him this morning. (Ed. Barr wrote this Friday, March 28, 2002.) Kitzmiller wrote that the License Search application is now "available." When I raced to the Web site to try it, the new "Linux friendly" version had yet to appear. It does sound as if it is on the way, however. Maybe folks who don't do Windows won't have to ride in the back of this bus for too much longer. About the author Joe Barr is a freelance journalist covering Linux, open source, and network security. His 'Open Source' column has been a regular feature of LinuxWorld.com since its inception. As far as we know, he is the only living journalist whose works have appeared both in phrack, the legendary underground zine, and IBM Personal Systems Magazine. Robert J. Berger UltraDevices, Inc. ------ End of Forwarded Message For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: FCC [Allegedly] Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:41:01 GMT Jeremy Beal wrote in message news:telecom20.207.14@telecom-digest.org: > Ken Abrams wrote in message > news:: >> Fred Goldstein wrote in message: >>> The whole thread is ridiculous. Quite right. The text below shows this. > I don't think that your concern is ridiculous, mainly because the > FCC does appear to be possibly seeking to expand their regulatory > domain to include enforcement of content regulation. (Or at least > they have thought about it enough to indicate that they are > considering rules which may have constitutional issues) The FCC has (quite rightly in my opinion) determined not that ISPs are information services providers -- it had done that long ago, and this was not a serious issue under debate -- but that an ISP that self-provisions its own telecommunications, such as a cable company, does not by virtue of doing so, become a provider of telecommunications service, which is a common carrier. The definition of "telecommunications service" is, in essence, a provider of telecommunications (1) to the public (2) for a charge. An ISP that self-provides its own telecommunications transport and does not make that transport otherwise available to the public for a charge is not offering a telecommunications service. All information services are, by statutory definition, provided via telecommunications, but not all are provided via a segregable, publicly sold, telecommunications service. By classifying cable modem ISPs (and, tentatively, LECs providing ISP service via DSL) as information service providers and not telecommunications carriers, the FCC has reduced, not increased, government intrusion and regulation in the Internet arena and has certainly not instituted some sort of content-based regulation. There is the possibility that cable modem ISPs might be subject to open access requirements at some point even though not telecommunications carriers. Still to be fleshed out: whether LECs providing DSL-based ISP service will still have to piece out the telecommunications they use into a telecommunications service for sale to the public and/or for resale (currently yes), whether this will affect the requirement that the LECs make DSL-capable lines or shared lines available as unbundled network elements or UNEs, etc. > The domain of regulatory agencies is written in shifting sand with > changes in the executive branch, and can change pretty quickly. > Different administrations bring people with different views. > Very rarely, however, does it seem that a regulatory agency > establishes a new area of authority which is later released by > the agency. Actually, this is pretty common when there is a change in administration. The courts can restrain this, by requiring a rational explanation for dramatic shifts, but their power is, ultimately, limited. > If the FCC decides to take responsibility for enforcing content > regulation, they'll be at it for a while ... I think the FCC knows this. They spent years attempting to come up with constitutional rules on "dial-a-porn," after much litigation on broadcast indecency. This is an issue that the FCC has typically tried to dodge when it can. ------------------------------ From: Denis Mcmahon Subject: Re: My Filter Rules, etc Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:20:32 +0000 Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denisrt@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Pat wrote: > It would be impossible for me, or > anyone who moderates a newsgroup to have a 'known From list.' I never > know who is going to write me, and one of the reasons I am sort of > 'laid back' (as someone accused LCS-MIT of being) regards filtering > of mail is because I seriously would rather get a dozen pieces of junk > spam rather than lose one serious piece of mail from a good netizen. > You can't seem to have both it appears. Agreed, I have filtering by received header, and various subject and from criteria, but I still get maybe 2 pieces of spam a week that don't get put in the junk folder, and maybe 1 or 2 pieces of good mail that do. But it has got better as time has gone on, and I guess my success rate must be better than 99%, but as you say, I don't want to lose any good mail. So I just flit through the junk folder pressing next, and occasionally back up and move a mail to the good folder, and tweak a rule at the same time. Rgds, Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile! Block [a.b.*.*] of any UC/BE relay. Posts > 100 lines ignored. sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia! ------------------------------ From: Rob Clark Subject: Re: How Long do Callers Wait on Hold? Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:46:20 +0800 Anonymity assured !!! Folks - feel free to protect the innocent. Rob John Tombs wrote in message news:telecom20.208.9@telecom-digest.org... > Rob Clark wrote in message > news:telecom20.207.5@telecom-digest.org: >> But, does anyone have any stats on the abandonment rate vs time on >> hold for real callers? > Any serious call center will have such stats. We write and sell > reporting applications with average/max wait time to answer, > average/max wait time to abandon etc. etc. Call centers will adjust > their staffing to achieve the desired wait time and abandonment rate, > i.e. low for sales (profit center), higher for support (cost center)! > Your difficulty would be getting hold of this information, which > is of value to competitors. ------------------------------ From: mwiener@fuse.net (M. Wiener) Subject: NHC Shareit Physical Layer Switch Date: 1 Apr 2002 11:20:13 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Does anyone have any documentation on these old Muxlab switches? I am specifically working on the 2424B Ethernet version. I am trying to bring one back from the dead, but I am not having much luck. I have serial communications established. I have the VSSC software. But I can not get the software to communicate with the switch. Main question I have for now is the address setting. How should the address be set on the dip switch to communicate with the VCCS at address 1? Any help or pointers to other links would be appreciated. Mike ------------------------------ From: ayounker1@netscape.net (Al Younker) Subject: New Live Chat @www.telcosupport.net Date: 2 Apr 2002 10:34:31 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ www.telcosupport.net is pleased to now offer interactive chat. Using Netmeeting you can now access an engineer in real time. Why wait for answers ... get them now! From our site http://www.telcosupport.net click on the Live Chat button and select from any engineers on line. You can use text, voice or video to speak to an engineer. We hope you enjoy our web site and unique services and encourage you to visit often. Thank you, questions@telcosupport.net ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 02 Apr 2002 18:57:29 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Local Calling Policy (was Re: Information Request) > MMcKie99@aol.com wrote in : > The largest local calling area is probably Atlanta's, which reaches to > Alabama and basically incorporates the entire metro area, up to next > year's outer sprawl (which is very far). BellSouth and the Georgia > PUC decided, I guess, to have a basic monthly rate that is a bit > closer to full cost, without intra-metro tolls. I believe Oklahoma City's (and perhaps Tulsa's) is larger geographically than Atlanta's, but Atlanta's includes more EAAs. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Latest Fad From Japan Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 01:37:13 GMT > They are called cellular phone ring detectors and sometime come packaged > [...] > AND THEY WORK. When ever a cell handset rings, it also sends a brief > transmission back to the cell site. These little gadgets have a small IC > and battery that detects that signal (or any other RF signal nearby!) > and causes some very bright subminiature leds to flash for a few > seconds. > Has nothing to do with what carrier or service you have. Surely it must depend on the TYPE of service you have. How does the chip distinguish between regular "I am here" messages and "the phone is ringing"? Doesn't this depend on the type of service? -Joel ------------------------------ From: dold@71.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments Date: 29 Mar 2002 17:49:42 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Stratus wrote: > Where is there a list of the locations of the switches named in this > database? >> Babu Mengelepouti wrote in message >> news:telecom20.206.10@telecom-digest.org: >>> http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like Oh, no free ride there. ;-) The AllCodes list is a handy Access Database, made up of individual download text files that have been free for a while. You want the LERG, which costs money, to locate the switches. I think the full LERG is $800, the TPMDATA is $300. Lerg has lots of stuff, TPM is Terminating Point Master. < http://www.telcordia.com/products_services/trainfo/catalog.html > Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. ------------------------------ From: wesrock@aol.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: 02 Apr 2002 01:05:53 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments > Babu Mengelepouti wrote: >> NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North >> America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at >> http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like > This is handy, but it doesn't recognize NPA-NXX-F splits. There are > an increasing number of NPA-NXX sets around the country being split > onto different switches. This might not matter, but ... > 210-396 in San Antonio is spread across five switches, but at least > they are all in the same city. In Maryland, there are some splits > across actual city boundaries, although the "localities" are the same, > for now. I have read this several times, and I don't understand the question. Municipal boundaries rarely are coterminous with wire center boundaries, rate center or zone boundaries, or exchange boundaries. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: Seeking ITU Docs Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 11:51:18 +0100 samrat wrote in message news:telecom20.189.6@telecom-digest.org... > I am an individual enthusiast of telecom technology and and am > interested in downloading some itu specifications. Is there any way > that I can get free download facility of the documents or is there > anyone willing to share their copies with me? Limited quantities can be downloaded free for personal use from www.itu.int. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: Jack Adams Reply-To: jack.adams@ieee.org Subject: Caribbean Telecom Deregulation Status? Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:59:22 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Has anyone heard any recent actions among the caribbean telecoms (nations) to deregulate their businesses? With the extremely high rates present in most countries to send traffic back to North America, it seems that egressing traffic (packetized voice for example) from those which are going to liberalize their infrastructure would make terrific sense as an arbitrage opportunity. John "Jack" Adams, IEEE Fellow jack.adams@ieee.org "God's job is to pass judgment on Bin Laden and company. The USMC's job is to make that meeting happen!" Tom Friedman (NYTimes 1/4/2002) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:41:25 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Yasser Arafat Using Cell Phone In the news stories I have heard about Israeli troops surrounding Yasser Arafat's office, I have heard that: - Arafat had contact with the outside world via cell phone; - it wasn't known how long the battery would last. ------------------------------ From: Russ Bazzarre Subject: Want to Buy Lucent Excel E1 Cards & Switches Selling Cisco Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:56:01 UTC Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Anyone have used Lucent Excel E1 cards for sale? I want to buy them, will take 8E1 or 16E1 cards. Also need any EXS cards. I have for sale Cisco AS5300-VOIP-120A 4E1 $18,000 USD Also Cisco AS5300-VOIP-60 2 E1 $9,000 USD AS5350-VOIP 4E1 & 8E1 New AS5400-VOIP 16 E1 New call or email Russ Bazzarre russ@itxventures.com 954 924-1800 USA Florida Genex Communications ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:57:33 -0500 From: Gary Subject: Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:38:18 -0500, Robert Casey wrote: > Got this spam, looks like a virus attached to it (which > I didn't open, and is not attached here (I cut and pasted > the text of the message only below). > Subject: > Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: home.com: no data known) > Subject: > A WinXP patch > Date: > Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:35:01 -0500 (EST) > From: > wa2ise > To: > lsassm@home.com > This is a WinXP patch > I expect you would enjoy it. > ------------------------------------------ > Yeah, I'd trust a patch from an unknown source..... NOT! Well, it may be a fake bounce and it may not. It is entirely consistent with your already being infected with one of the many e-mail viruses that sends itself to your entire address book. Some old addresses in the book may bounce, which is the only way many victims discover that they are infected. I'd advise you to look and see if that bounced home.com address is in your address book, or in any old messages in your outbox, and if it is, be very afraid. It would mean that you might actually have sent that message, and the bounce was not fake, but real. Gary ------------------------------ From: monad@super.net.pk (Monad) Subject: DTMF Over Internet Date: 31 Mar 2002 14:31:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hello, I'm working on a project which is based on VOIP. I'm using netmeeting with gateway. When I dial the number the IVR system at server asks for the phone number which it will dial. But the problem is it recognizes DTMF sounds but when I dial the number, the DTMF goes to the server but it takes time and the connection between server and the dialer breaks. Can anyone help? That is, how can I manage to send DTMF without breaking the server client connection. ------------------------------ From: info@mind-over-fatter.com Subject: Lat Laugh! Joke of the Day Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:42:41 UTC Organization: WWW.US.INTER.NET Instant winner : A blonde goes into a restaurant and notices there's a "peel and win" sticker on her coffee cup. So she's peels it off and starts screaming, "I've won a motor home! I've won a motor home!" The waitress says, "That's impossible. The biggest prize is a free lunch." But the blonde keeps screaming, "I've won a motor home! I've won a motor home!" Finally the manager comes over and says, "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. You couldn't possibly have won a motor home because we didn't have that as a prize!" The blonde says, "No it's not a mistake. I've won a motor home!" And she hands the ticket to the manager and he reads ... Scroll down ... (You're going to love this!) WIN A BAGEL Enjoy! Doug www.mind-over-fatter.com Use the power of your mind to increase your metabolism and burn off the fat! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #211 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 3 13:46:37 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA21588; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:46:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204031846.NAA21588@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #212 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:46:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 212 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet; Nobody Noticed (Koos van den Hout) Re: FCC Forces Ham Radio Operators to Use Windows (Larry Finch) Re: How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? (Phil McKerracher) Re: DTMF Over Internet (Al Younker) Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Raspberries For BlackBerries? (itsamike@yahoo.com) Re: Yasser Arafat Using Cell Phone (Robert Casey) Solopoint? (James Gifford) Re: Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email (Robert Casey) Another one for the Toll Free Spammer Directory (Steven Lichter) And Yet Even More Entries For the Business Directory (David B. Horvath Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS (Marcus Didius Falco) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS (John R. Levine) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS (Robert Bonomi) Re: So Much Junk Mail (Carl Moore) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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, 31 Mar 2002 16:05:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest Cable Television Turn Off Frustrated communities take TV into own hands By Robert Preer, Globe Correspondent, 3/29/2002 Escalating rates. Long waits on hold for customer service. Confusing changes in channel lineups. Local officials unhappy with cable television service in their communities have called public hearings, fined cable companies, and threatened not to renew licenses -- all with little effect. So now, some Massachusetts cities and towns have adopted another strategy: launching their own cable television systems as alternatives to the hometown monopolies. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/088/metro/Cable_turnoff+.shtml --------------------------------- Phone number mix-up gives utility customers steamy offer By Associated Press, 3/27/2002 01:32 PITTSBURGH (AP) A utility company that offers its customers clean energy inadvertently referred Pennsylvania callers to a risque phone number. In letters sent to Green Mountain Energy Co.'s 93,000 local customers, the company misprinted its toll-free number, sending 200 people to a phone-sex service where a husky-voiced woman offered ''wild, one-on-one-adventures.'' ... Customers won't see their phone bills increase along with their electricity bills. The phone-sex line is a directory to other toll phone numbers. ... http://www.boston.com/dailynews/086/region/Phone_number_mix_up_gives_util:.shtml ------------------- Howling Mad Over Hollings' Bill By Brad King 2:00 a.m. March 28, 2002 PST Jim Dinda's apartment is a high-tech entertainment haven, but that could change if a bill that restricts how electronics devices work is passed into law. Dinda's DSL phone line connects his entire home entertainment network. His movies, music and personal files are stored on a Windows 2000 server. He uses his Dell computer for e-mailing and Web surfing. He's teaching himself programming using a Linux server. He built a Pentium 3 with a video card that links his VCR, DVD and TiVo. The final piece is a wireless base station that allows him to roam the house with an IBM ThinkPad laptop. http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,51337,00.html --------------------------------- New V.92 Modems Improve Narrowband Surfing - Study By Michael Bartlett, Newsbytes SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, U.S.A., 29 Mar 2002, 5:15 AM CST The majority of Web connections in the United States are made via telephone lines, which means most surfers must choose between paying for a second line or not being able to receive phone calls during Internet sessions. According to a study by research firm In-Stat/MDR, new modem technology known as "V.92" soon will revolutionize the narrowband online experience. http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175549.html ----------------------------- April 1, 2002 Will Ma Bell Be Taken Over by Offspring? By SETH SCHIESEL Will AT&T stand alone as a telecommunications company? Many industry executives say they believe that by the middle of next year, a big local phone company like SBC Communications or BellSouth will try to acquire what remains of AT&T. If AT&T's stock price remains anywhere near where it is today - $15.70 a share - such a deal appears almost inevitable. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/technology/ebusiness/01PLAC.html -------------------------- Verizon Wireless to expand new service in U.S. 1 Apr 2002, 11:58am ET CHICAGO, April 1 (Reuters) - Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless operator, said Monday it will launch its advanced wireless service, capable of high-speed Internet connections, in Chicago, Pittsburgh and St. Louis on Tuesday. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26667617 -------------------------- Verizon Wireless to Launch Express Network, Significantly Boosting Speed Capability 1 Apr 2002, 07:00am ET CHICAGO, April 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Verizon Wireless will launch its high-speed data and voice Express Network throughout the Chicago area on April 2, 2002, giving customers significantly faster and more robust wireless capabilities. Verizon Wireless is the first and only U.S. wireless carrier to commercially introduce a sizable 1XRTT, 3G (third generation) network footprint. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26665212 ---------------------------- Verizon Wireless to Launch `3G' Technology in Florida; High-Speed Express Network to Make Wireless Internet Access, Email Faster and Easier 1 Apr 2002, 12:07pm ET BOCA RATON, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 1, 2002--Verizon Wireless today announced the launch of its high-speed wireless service in Florida, offering customers faster, easier wireless Internet access and email capabilities, as well as enhanced phone and streaming video quality. Verizon Wireless' Express Network is the U.S. industry's first commercially available, third-generation (3G) wireless network. It supports enterprise applications, promising to give companies with mobile employees new tools for increased productivity and efficiency. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26669394 ------------------------------------- California PUC Claims Jurisdiction Over DSL Services 04/01/02 Apr 1, 2002 02:52 PM (Newsbytes) SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 2002 APR 1 (NB) -- By Dick Kelsey, Newsbytes. The California Public Utilities Commission has claimed regulatory power over digital subscriber lines (DSL), the first time a state has claimed jurisdiction in DSL service matters, ISPs said today. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26671618 ----------------------------------- Verizon Wireless to allow intercarrier short messaging Most big carriers allow for service By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff, 4/1/2002 In a key boost for adoption of ''short messaging services'' by US cellphone subscribers, Verizon Wireless, the country's biggest cellphone carrier, this week is committing to enabling its 29 million subscribers to send short messages to other carriers' customers. Verizon is the last of the big consumer-oriented wireless carriers to make a public commitment to allowing subscribers to send so-called SMS notes -- messages of up to 160 characters tapped out on the phone keypad -- to other carriers' customers just by entering their 10-digit phone number. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/091/business/Verizon_Wireless_to_allow_intercarrier_short_messaging+.shtml ------------------------------- Handspring Treo 180 Review, Parts 2,3 http://danbricklin.com/log/treo180part2.htm http://danbricklin.com/log/treo180part3.htm ------------------------------ New Yorkers Will Use New Dialing Method for Calls Within Same Area Code - Required for All Calls Starting February 2003 - NEW YORK, April 2 /PRNewswire/ -- To comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, New York City residents and businesses will need to dial additional digits to call family and friends in their same area code by early next year. This change means that residents and businesses with a 212 telephone number, for example, who are calling another 212 number, must dial 1 plus 212 plus the seven-digit telephone number of the person or business they are trying to reach. Similarly, callers dialing within their own 646, 917, 718, or 347 area codes will have to dial 1 plus the area code plus the seven-digit telephone number to complete their call. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26688069 -------------------------------------- Stealth P2P network hides inside Kazaa By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com April 1, 2002, 5:35 PM PT A California company has quietly attached its software to millions of downloads of the popular Kazaa file-trading program and plans to remotely "turn on" people's PCs, welding them into a new network of its own. Brilliant Digital Entertainment, a California-based digital advertising technology company, has been distributing its 3D ad technology along with the Kazaa software since late last fall. But in a federal securities filing Monday, the company revealed it also has been installing more ambitious technology that could turn every computer running Kazaa into a node in a new network controlled by Brilliant Digital. The company plans to wake up the millions of computers that have installed its software in as soon as four weeks. It plans to use the machines -- with their owners' permission -- to host and distribute other companies' content, such as advertising or music. Alternatively, it might borrow people's unused processing power to help with other companies' complicated computing tasks. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-873181.html ------------------------ The Dominoes Keep Falling In Telecom Mark Lewis, 04.02.02, 12:12 PM ET NEW YORK - The metro market was the last redoubt for telecom true believers. Now the Alamo is about to fall: Metromedia Fiber says it is in default on some loan agreements. If no restructuring deal can be reached with its creditors, the firm will become the latest -- and one of the largest--telecom upstarts to file for bankruptcy. If Metromedia winds up in bankruptcy court, it could soon be followed by Williams Communications, which announced yesterday that it had skipped an interest payment on some of its debt and suspended the dividend on its preferred stock. Williams said its creditors had agreed to extend the negotiating period until April 26. The Tulsa, Okla.-based firm also withdrew its performance guidance for 2002, and said that the loss it had reported earlier for 2001 would be more than doubled to account for the declining value of certain assets. ... http://www.forbes.com/home/2002/04/02/0402metromedia.html ------------------------------ Cincinnati Bell Makes IP Telephony Available to Broad Base of Businesses - Apr 3, 2002 10:01 AM (BusinessWire) 3Com's Networked Telephony Products Will Reduce Costs and Streamline Administration for Businesses Cincinnati Bell, a wholly owned subsidiary of Broadwing Inc. (NYSE:BRW), and 3Com Corporation (Nasdaq:COMS) today announced that Cincinnati Bell will offer 3Com(R) NBX(R) networked telephony products to its small and medium business customers as the standard solution for Internet Protocol (IP) telephony services. IP telephony combines a business' voice and data services together on one network, reducing costs by giving them only one network to manage. It also simplifies the expensive process of adding, moving or making changes to employees' workstations. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26703169 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:33:45 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch >Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch > http://news.com.com/2100-1033-870832.html > By Ben Charny > Staff Writer, CNET News.com > March 28, 2002, 12:55 PM PT > Cell phones, fax machines and pagers are dialing through the > country's supply of phone numbers. Oops! I should have noted that this is incorrect. The major cause of the shortage of numbers is the allocation of blocks of 10,000 numbers to every CLEC in every rate center. Few of them need as many as 1,000 in any rate center. The solution is to allocate numbers in blocks of 1,000 (states that have done this have been able to cancel some planned splits or overlays). A second solution would be to combine rate centers. Many metropolitan areas have dozens of rate centers, where only one or at most a few would be needed with more rational tariffs. (The number and location of rate centers is an artifact of the way manual switchboards were located over 70 years ago.) Or, as noted in the original article (see T-D 20-10, 4/2/02 at 9:13 pm), full local number portability would solve the problem, but the ILECs hate that because it would make it easier for customers to switch carriers. ------------------------------ From: Koos van den Hout Subject: Re: FCC Deals a Death Blow to Usenet ... and Nobody Noticed Date: 3 Apr 2002 08:57:54 GMT Organization: Van den Hout Creative Communications James Carlson wrote: > I think this is a *wonderful* decision. The mechanisms used today to > allow 'equal access' on DSL (IP over PPP over PPPoE over Ethernet over > ATM) are technically hideous. After having a cable-modem with PPPoE (casema) and now adsl with pptp (mxstream+xs4all) and using both from a Linux firewall without any problem I'd really like to know what the exact technical reasons are for the dislike of PPPoE. As a cable/dsl subscriber, I'd really dislike it if the operator offered standard IP over ethernet. That way, the cable-ethernet works as a broadcast medium (so you get to 'enjoy' the windows netbios broadcasts for example). Normally subscribers will not see each others outgoing traffic but a very determined person can find ways to tap into the traffic of neighbours using mac address spoofing (and the arp traffic will make those mac adresses visible). And authentication is much simpler: you set up a connection with username/password. The ISP knows who had which IP when. Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 via keyservers koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl or DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 Fax +31-30-2817051 Visit my site about books with reviews http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ ------------------------------ From: Larry & Wanda Finch Subject: Re: FCC Forces Ham Radio Operators to Use Windows Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:15:25 GMT Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > For several weeks afterwards, I would query Kitzmiller for the latest > status on the fix. Finally, I exhausted his patience. He told me on > February 22 that he had been told by someone or something called > "TPTB" at the WTB that the problem was bigger than they first > thought. However, he went on to say that it would still be fixed. He > quoted TPTB saying, "The FCC is in the process of revising the > software and the revised software will work with Linux. The first > application to be revised will be License Search later this month. > Other ULS applications will follow." "TPTB" is bureaucratese for "The Powers That Be" Larry Finch ::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com ::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!) ------------------------------ From: Phil McKerracher Subject: Re: How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:40:28 +0100 Ramon F Herrera wrote in message news:telecom20.210.12@telecom-digest.org... > One of the biggest problems I have had in many years dealing with PRI > circuits is something conceptually very simple: What ISDN protocols is > being use by the telco at the remote side of my equipment? I have > noticed that sometimes it doesn't _seem_ to matter very much: I can > change from 5ESS to DMS on my side, and apparently everything works > fine. I even remember one case in which my provider was colocated > with us, and I had the luxury of asking the guy to change ISDN > "flavors" back and forth until we found one that wordked reliably. > Well, the best combination turned out to be a mismatched one: the > telco switch was configured for DMS and our Cisco AS-5300 was > configured for 5ESS. Go [con]figure ... > It occurred to me that a very helpful tool would be to have a software > utility which would open the ISDN port, query it, and report which > ISDN is being spoken at the remote side. I have access to Cisco > AS-5300s, Avaya Definity (which probably won't have the capability to > perform the query), but I also have Dialogic boards, which can be > programmed. > I guess anoter solution would be to get some sort of hardware ISDN > line tester or analyzer. I would like to hear about both software or > hardware solutions to this query problem. This problem is unique to North America -- you're supposed to phone your supplier and ask them, but of course you don't know who to phone when confronted with an unlabelled pair of wires. It *is* possible to sense the switch type and auto-configure (I've implemented it) but the Telcos hate it and won't sanction equipment that does this, presumably because alarms are raised at the switch if the "wrong" protocol is detected. The various flavours of "National ISDN" are an attempt to solve this, but it's not widely implemented. A classic failure of standardisation. Phil McKerracher www.mckerracher.org ------------------------------ From: ayounker1@netscape.net (Al Younker) Subject: Re: DTMF Over Internet Date: 3 Apr 2002 07:27:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Can you send all digits at the same time? ie number for voicemail + access code. There must be a setting in the gateway for this I would think. monad@super.net.pk (Monad) wrote in message news:... > I'm working on a project which is based on VOIP. I'm using netmeeting > with gateway. When I dial the number the IVR system at server asks for > the phone number which it will dial. But the problem is it recognizes > DTMF sounds but when I dial the number, the DTMF goes to the server > but it takes time and the connection between server and the dialer > breaks. Can anyone help? That is, how can I manage to send DTMF > without breaking the server client connection. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! Organization: Excelsior Computer Services From: joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:36:26 GMT >> I am trying to source a cordless phone that I can use in the UK with a >> range exceeding 1/2 mile. Must be able to fit in a normal size pocket >> [...] > There are personal communicators available in the US that are pocket > sized and have a range of up to 2 miles. However, they cannot connect > to the telephone network. They are pretty cheap, too. I don't know Hmm. This raises a question. Why hasn't anyone put together a walkie-talkie and a phone to make a cheap phone that reaches a couple of miles? Joel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno. Would *you* want just anyone with a similar unit within two miles to be able to access your dial tone? I wouldn't care for that. Did you ever hear about 'cruising for dial tone' where guys drive around in their car with the handpiece of a cordless phone, parking in front of people's houses and 'borrowing' the person's dial tone to make a call (or two or three). With your walkie-talkie/phone combination, guys would not have to park in front of your house any longer. Just be within a mile or two would be good enough. That says nothing about snoopy people who just want to listen in and see what you are talking about on the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: itsamike@yahoo.com Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:12:43 PST Reply-To: itsamike@yahoo.com Subject: Raspberries For BlackBerries? They're handing out BlackBerries. I want one! =========================== Raspberries For BlackBerries? Devices' cost a school sore point By Nick Chiles STAFF WRITER April 3, 2002 Using school funds, Chancellor Harold Levy has acquired $300 pocket wireless-mail devices called BlackBerries for each of the city's 44 school superintendents. In addition, more than 100 central school board bureaucrats, including all seven board members and the chancellor himself, are packing the trendy gadgets. Costing more than $94,000 in all, including monthly user fees, the emergence of the communication devices is stirring criticism that it sends the wrong message in a year of severe belt-tightening across the school system. "While the chancellor is pleading poverty, he gives all the superintendents BlackBerries," scoffed a teacher, who asked not to be identified. "Half of them have no idea how to use them and have to talk to the tech people to teach them." The chancellor defended the extensive use of the BlackBerry in an interview. "It allows you to multitask," he said. "It's got all kinds of functionality -- a phone list, your schedule, an emergency list, an address book. It's quite an extraordinary tool." But when Newsday inquired further about the purchase, Levy spokeswoman Catie Marshall said at least 50 central school board officials would be stripped of their BlackBerries as soon as possible. Citing impending school budget cuts, Marshall said the devices will be returned to the manufacturer with the hope of obtaining a refund for the board. The Board of Education paid more than $43,000 for the BlackBerries and pays more than $51,000 a year in monthly service fees. Most were purchased during the school year. "Since we're now cutting budgets, we are cutting back everything we conceivably can. For those for whom having a BlackBerry is not essential, we're going to eliminate them," said Marshall. Levy has rarely missed a chance to decry what he calls the most disruptive school budget cuts in decades -- at least $686 million for the coming school year alone. Sept. 11 was another impetus for the purchases, he said, noting that the BlackBerry has become standard equipment for many government officials, including some members of Michael Bloomberg's mayoral administration. It works even when phones don't. "Because it's connected through the Internet," said Levy, "it's a particularly secure way of communicating throughout the districts and city. It also has the virtue of putting the superintendents in immediate contact with central and their schools." Levy said he uses his BlackBerry "all the time" and often can be seen peering down at the little gadget during school board meetings. He also requires his superintendents to keep the devices on 24 hours a day. Copyright (c) 2002, Newsday, Inc. This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/news/yahoo/ny-nyberr032652515apr03.story ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Re: Yasser Arafat Using Cell Phone Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:34:34 -0500 Organization: wa2ise Carl Moore wrote: > In the news stories I have heard about Israeli troops surrounding > Yasser Arafat's office, I have heard that: > - Arafat had contact with the outside world via cell phone; > - it wasn't known how long the battery would last. On one of the TV network news shows (ABC, NBC or CBS) they showed footage of the Israelis knocking down telephone and/or power poles around Arafat's headquarters. Think the last footage of Arafat was in a dark room, with only TV news camera lights for lighting. So that likely means his power is out. I can understand the Israelis being pissed about suicide bombers, but the Israelis have seemed to me been treating for years the Palestinians like as if they were cockroaches or mice to be eliminated and totally suppressed. And are getting some "payback" Or maybe the USA is unusual in that we here get along as well as we do, compared to other places in the world. ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Subject: Solopoint? Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:41:40 -0800 Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Reply-To: jgifford@surewest.not Does anyone know what happened to Solopoint? Their web site is gone and I can't find hide nor hair nor DSP of them. Are they a victim of the telecom implosion? | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies | ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Re: Another Wrinkle on Spam: Fake Bounced Email Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:43:12 -0500 Organization: wa2ise Gary wrote: > Well, it may be a fake bounce and it may not. It is entirely > consistent with your already being infected with one of the many > e-mail viruses that sends itself to your entire address book. Some > old addresses in the book may bounce, which is the only way many > victims discover that they are infected. > I'd advise you to look and see if that bounced home.com address is in > your address book, or in any old messages in your outbox, and if it > is, be very afraid. It would mean that you might actually have sent > that message, and the bounce was not fake, but real. My address books (Eudora and Netscape) are empty (I never used them, never put anything into them), and lsassm@home.com doesn't show in either sent (outbox) files. I'm running windows 98 if that makes a difference. Guess I better tell the MacAfee program to scan my system ... ------------------------------ From: StevenL11@aol.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:38:34 EST Subject: Another One For the Toll Free Spammer Directory For A Private Consultation: Call Toll Free: 1-877-620-9024 Monday - Friday (9am - 9pm EST) or CLICK HERE To Email Us Your Name, Phone Number And The Best Time To Call..... Our Warmest Regards. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:39:23 -0500 From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: And Yet Even More Entries For the Business Directory Do you need an "Affordable, High-end E-mail Marketing Solution"? then call > Warp 9 Inc. > http://www.warp9inc.com > (800) 508-9339 Universal Advertising Systems sends out a lot of Ad's. If you want to speak with them (to get off their lists for instance), you can call them "toll free at 1--8.8.8--605--2485 and give us your email address" David B. Horvath, CCP Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor Board Member: ICCP Educational Foundation, ICCP Test Council, and Philadelphia Association of Systems Administrators ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:22:29 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION > Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (207.69.200.148) > by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 21:11:59 -0500 > Received: from dialup-63.208.89.32.dial1.miami1.level3.net > ([63.208.89.32] helo=h8v7b7) > by granger.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 16qlqj-00015T-00 > for editor@telecom-digest.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:10:41 -0500 > From: "Bill Sansbury" > To: editor@telecom-digest.org > Subject: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION > date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:15:51 -0500 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary" > Content-Disposition: Multipart message > Message-Id: > Status: RO > > ------32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: message text > Hi! How are you > I send you this file in order to have your advice AHA! This is a well-known virus. I've forgotten its name but it was big last summer. It sends one copy of a random file from the infected computer to everyone in the infected computer's OUtlook or Outlook express address book (under all versions of Windows). Sometimes you get an infected executable. Sometimes you get an infected text file (sometimes an infected CONFIDENTIAL text file). Blame people dumb enough to run Outlook, and dumb enough to run Windows without extensive and carefully updated virus protection. But it's not SPAM, and it's not malicious on the part of the person whose name is on the file (it is really malicious on the part of the person who wrote the virus, which actually brought some Email servers down when the virus first came out). Actually, I'm having to send this from my secondary ISP: my primary ISP blocked it at the SMTP server because if the "content" (presumably the line "I send you this file in order to have your advice," which is a well-known virus tag). > See you later Thanks > ------32A14064_Outlook_Express_message_boundary > Content-Type: application/mixed; name="CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION.doc.pif" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CELTIC NEW YEARS > CELEBRATION.doc.pif" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You'll see me later? You bet ... I'll > see you in hell, you miserable S.O.B. You want my advice? Quit > wasting your time and mine with this sort of garbage. You ask for > *my* advice? Me, with my deseased, aneurysm-riddled brain? For the > rest of you, I truncated the remaining 550,000 (five hundred fifty > thousand) bytes of this petitioner's inquiry so save you all the grief > I had with it. I saved the headers and the text part of the message so > you all could get a good look at it. Everyday, these show up, asking > me for advice. This is one of the smaller 'inquiries' I have received. > What a wasted life some of these cretins have! PAT] Just a virus. The wasted life is on the part of the virus writer. To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 2002 23:43:04 -0500 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Hi! How are you > I send you this file in order to have your advice > See you later Thanks This is a virus that infects Redmond Crudware(tm) mail programs and mails itself to everyone in your address book. The nominal sender is rarely aware of what's going on, although he often wonders why his PC is so slow and why the modem lights are flickering so much. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner http://iecc.com/johnl Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION From: robert@bonomi.invalid Organization: Not Much Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 05:34:09 GMT PAT, this is a *virus* that has infected their computer. They don't even -know- the mail is going out. There are half-a-dozen or so varients on the 'plain text', then it grabs a random 'real' file that exists on their machine, inserts the virus as the beginning of that file, uses the 'double extension' (".doc.pif") to conseal its real type from a Windoze user, and goes. if you can 'auto-wastebasket' anything that has an attachment with two periods in the 'filename', you'll find life a lot less stressful. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 09:11:01 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: So Much Junk Mail Was there an attachment to the message which had the following lines? > Hi! How are you > I send you this file in order to have your advice > See you later Thanks Those text lines were brought to my attention quite some time ago now as the Sircam virus, so I advise you **NOT** to open that attachment! In general, you need to be cautious about attachments from sources you don't know. Just this morning, I myself deleted yet another a message ("Hi! How are you..." as above) which had an attachment detected by virus- detection. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Was there an attachment? Was there? Was there! 550 M of attachment! Anything that size I automatically dump in the trash, even if it was a *sincere*, well-meaning person writing something for me to study. I wonder when things like that come in if it does any harm to the Unix box I am using at MIT? I can't help but wonder when the stream of something like that runs through my filter if the filter and/or storage space Unix uses to hold it gets infected somehow. You see, Carl, all my mail gets a preliminary exam as it comes in the door, long before I personally get around to reading it and manually rejecting it. I've got to try and figure out how to write a filter rule to put at the top of my rules (you all have seen the rules recently) which says 'if this mess coming in is more than about 20 K then reject it and return it to the sender'. A lot of folks do that to me, assuming the size of this Digest 'must mean' it is just junk spam mail or a virus. Any of you know how to write that? I know I am getting sick from the messes around here. Such a filter rule would eliminate several pieces of mail each week. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #212 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Apr 4 14:24:52 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA13388; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:24:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:24:52 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204041924.OAA13388@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #213 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:24:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 213 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: "core dumps" (John Shriver) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (D Mcmahon) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (Margolin) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (D Gibson) Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Dave Close) FTC Goes After Spam And Scams (Marcus Didius Falco) Phone Bots and Spampaigns (Gail M. Hall) Cell Phones and Car Bombs (Judith Oppenheimer) Dialogic D/41B Voice Board (Matt) Telephone, Cable & Network Wiring in Houston (Richard) Re: How to Protect From Erroneous Toll-Free Usage? (extempore) Re: Mobile Telecoms / The Tortoise and the Hare (extempore) Re: How to Ring Back (Jim Van Nuland) Thanks, Telcosupport.com! (dmc) Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! (Scott Dorsey) New 'Easy 0' Service Speeds Calls to Key Verizon Services (M Solomon) Bluetooth Questions, Please Help (Vivian) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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, 03 Apr 2002 12:01:18 -0500 From: John Shriver Organization: Sockeye Networks Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: "Core Dumps" I read the TELECOM Digest, but don't yet have things configured to be able to post with a false address so I won't get SPAM. (Posting even one message on any newsgroup essentially guarantees that said address will be harvested to send SPAM to!) So you can take this input with my name, but please don't post the e-mail address ... You got a "core dump" email containing this string: "I send you this file in order to have your advice." That is the signature of the SirCam worm. I did a web search and found a good article at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,45476,00.html The fractured English in the text of a message is often a sign of a virus. Romanian is often the programmer's first language. So somebody caught that worm who has you in their Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express address book. The core dump is the binary of the worm, which is a program which will run when clicked on in Outlook, and then send this message to everyone in your online name and address book. It is also possible to write programs that will be run by Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express WITHOUT you clicking on them. They can be written to run when you read the message, and even when you preview it in the preview pane. Microsoft historically has made no distinctions betwen code and data, especially in Outlook. Every e-mail message is a program in the deluded author's eyes. They think this is good. I view it as a petri dish for virus breeding. ------------------------------ From: Denis Mcmahon Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 19:14:31 +0100 Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denisrt@pickaxe.demon.co.uk John David Galt wrote: > Hi! How are you > I send you this file in order to have your advice > See you later Thanks Pat, this is a well known virus and the poor sod probably doesn't even know that it's sitting on his system sending chunks of his data (yep, it grabs a copy of one of his documents every time it sends itself out) in virus infested packets to other machines. It has it's own email engine and either an outlook address reader built in or may even intercept email addresses through the ip stack, can't remember which. Rgds, Denis McMahon / +44 7802 468949 / denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Top-posters, posters of adverts & binaries are scum. Killfile! Block [a.b.*.*] of any UC/BE relay. Posts > 100 lines ignored. sulfnbk is not a virus, see the symantec virus encyclopaedia! ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 19:09:15 GMT In article , John R. Levine wrote: > This is a virus that infects Redmond Crudware(tm) mail programs and > mails itself to everyone in your address book. The nominal sender is > rarely aware of what's going on, although he often wonders why his PC > is so slow and why the modem lights are flickering so much. What I'd like to know about this virus is why I get these things from people all over the Internet. Today I got one from someone in UAE; what am I doing in this random guy's address book? Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, 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: That was going to be my next question. So many people have written me and said in essence "He does not know he is doing it. Your name is in his address book. It gets sent out on its own, etc." Well good ... except like Barry, I have recieved so many from such unusual places. How am I in their address books? I will agree I do not and could not begin to remember everyone who has written to the Digest in the past 20 years, but still -- today alone, Thursday, I got *six* of those monsters. Two were 'can I have your advice', a couple were about 'my new game, you are the first player', and I think a couple others were assorted spam. Don't any of these people look at or review their *outgoing/sent* mail folders now and then to see what they have been doing? The six I received today were just the humongous spam, the outrageously-sized things. That does not include the 'more traditional' spam of recent years. I still get those also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daryl R Gibson Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:09:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION On 2 Apr 02, at 20:36, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: (moderator's general curse at spammers deleted here.) Pat, this is behavior exhibited by the sircam worm. The worm picks up files (usually around 200K) and sends them along with a virus payload. It picks e-mail addresses out of Outlook addressbooks and browser cache, so the users whose name appears on the mail are: 1, unaware of the mail; and 2, one of your readers. I'm sure they'd appreciate a note to direct them to Symantec's website, which has a fix for the worm, but otherwise, just delete the things. If you want to allow your antivirus software to clean the files, you can get some pretty interesting documents, if you're a voyeur. Daryl "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole" --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu http://www.drgibson.com http://www.salesstar.com Personal Motivation and Positive Attitude [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Daryl, would it be okay to *return the mail to the sender* saying 'I wanted you to see what your computer is sending out on its own. I assume it was on its own, since only a rotten, fornicating, S.O.B. would send this on purpose. And I know you personally would not be asking my advice/asking me to play a new game (check which applies) and that only the computer would be asking my advice or wanting to play a game. Enjoy' Then Daryl, dump the whole mess back in their Outlook Express with the above as my text at the start of it. Maybe it would create a mail loop and start going through their address book a second or third time. Big humongous mail loop, going around and around. All email everywhere has to shut down while the mess gets sorted out. That's what I would call personal motivation to begin checking ALL your incoming and outgoing mail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 05:59:23 GMT Marcus Didius Falco quotes Ben Charny: > Although the carriers and the FCC have focused on the cost and > competitiveness aspects of the debate, some backers say there's > another reason to allow people to hold on to the same number: The > pool of 10-digit phone numbers is shrinking. Actually, as I understand how number portability works, allowing it would /increase/ the number of numbers in use, not decrease it. That is because when a number is ported to a different carrier, a new number is actually assigned by the new carrier, and then the old number is transparently forwarded to the new number. Ergo, two numbers in use where there was previously only one. However, I doubt that the quantities involved would cause a serious problem. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com 1 714 434 7359 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:52:16 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: FTC Goes After Spam And Scams It's a drop in the bucket, but it's a start! Edupage, April 3, 2002 FTC GOES AFTER SPAM AND SCAMS The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), working with six U.S. states and Canadian officials, is cracking down on operators of Internet scams, including those that commit deceptive advertising in spam e-mail. Spam has become a lucrative method for propagating frauds, allowing criminals to send many millions of solicitations to prospective victims. This enforcement group, started by the FTC two years ago, has begun legal proceedings against Internet crimes in 63 cases in recent months. Recent targets of the FTC include a pyramid scheme, a cancer treatment scam, and a mail-order CD business that settled charges of mail order fraud. San Jose Mercury News, 3 April 2002 http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/2989145.htm Plus some related good news: AOL WINS PORN SPAM CASE America Online has won a civil lawsuit against Netvision Audiotext, which AOL accused of sending pornographic spam to AOL customers. The victory means Netvision will pay AOL monetary damages but also must stop sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL accounts. AOL hopes that the case will establish a precedent for others to challenge spammers in court. Jason Catlett, president of Junkbusters, was pleased with the victory, but said there is still a long way to go to curb the amount of spam being sent. CNET, 3 April 2002 http://news.com.com/2100-1023-874664.html This is probably good news: CALIFORNIA PUC CLAIMS AUTHORITY OVER DSL SERVICE In response to a complaint filed by the California Internet Service Provider Association (CISPA), the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has asserted that it has jurisdiction over direct subscriber line (DSL) services. The complaint charged that Pacific Bell used its control of phone lines to favor some ISPs at the expense of other ISPs that are not affiliated with PacBell. This marks the first time a state agency has claimed authority over broadband access over local phone lines. CISPA argued that the control exerted by PacBell on the DSL market has led to a 90 percent share of the market for SBC Communications, which owns PacBell. Washington Post, 1 April 2002 http://www.washtech.com/news/regulation/15938-1.html And some very bad news: METROMEDIA THE NEXT BANKRUPTCY? Metromedia Fiber Network, one of the largest suppliers of optical network communication to urban areas, seems headed for bankruptcy after it missed an $8.1 million interest payment, putting it into default on more than $440 million in outstanding notes. Last month the company missed a $30 million interest payment to another creditor. Metromedia Fiber has 2.1 million miles of optical network, most of it in 29 large cities in the United States and Europe, and much of the capacity of that fiber is owned by companies including Verizon, Sprint, and SBC Communications. Many industry experts anticipated problems for Metromedia Fiber, saying that trouble was looming as long as nine months ago. If the company is unable to restructure its debt, it will be one of the largest telecommunications bankruptcies to date. New York Times, 2 April 2002 (registration req'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/technology/02FIBE.html To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Phone Bots and Spampaigns Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 18:32:31 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net In the USA this is an election year. For a number of years we have been plagued by bots calling us to tell us to vote for whichever candidate whose campaign team was dumb enough to hire the bots to call us. Now I read in our local newspaper that some candidates have been dumb enough to fall for the marketers of spam. Some clever writer(s) coined "spampaign" for this. If you care about your favorite candidates not falling for this marketing hype, call or write them and tell them NOT to fall for using spam as a way of reaching their constituents. I don't have anything against a candidate having a web site and asking people who WANT to receive email from them to subscribe to their mailing lists. But some campaign managers may fall for using spammers instead. With USPS rates going up soon, they will probably look for less expensive ways to promote themselves. That's why I am asking people to warn their favorite candidates against using spam. I hang up on those electronic messages, even when they come from election campaigners. I will certainly zap spam that comes from them, too, and give that candidate marks down for being dumb enough to fall for using it. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: Cell Phones and Car Bombs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:57:25 -0500 "Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan ... An innovator, with a good scientific brain (if terrorism can be termed a science), it was Dahlan who first applied cellular telephones to triggering car bombs and explosive devices." See http://www.debka.com/, April 4 column, US and Israeli Special Forces Try to Head Off Arafat's Next Terror Offensive Judith Oppenheimer http://JudithOppenheimer.com http://ICBTollFreeNews.com 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 03:32:43 GMT From: Matt Subject: Dialogic D/41B Voice Board Organization: Optimum Online I am in possession of a Dialogic D/41B 4-port voice board. Does anyone have any manuals or drivers for this? Dialogic's (Intel's) website is less than helpful when it comes to "outdated" products. Thanks, Matt Bartlett Galaxy Creative Services www.galaxycs.com (631) 586-6865 matt@galaxycs.com ------------------------------ From: myphonejacks@netscape.net (Richard) Subject: Telephone, Cable & Network Wiring in Houston Date: 4 Apr 2002 08:28:30 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Visit www.myphonejacks.com We install telephone jacks, cable outlets and network wiring in your home or businesse and also pre-wire your new home. We offer the lowest prices at the highest quality of work in Houston and the surrounding areas. Call us today and we'll get it done for you, guaranteed. Richard - 832-277-0441 Rick - 832-419-0441 ------------------------------ From: extempore Subject: Re: How to Protect From Erroneous Toll-Free Usage? Organization: Alphabetical Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:09:42 -0500 Ross Oliver, with nothing better to do on 06 Mar 2002 00:53:42 GMT, spewed forth in message and told us all: > The only time I will look for an 800 > number is when calling large organizations like a bank where I might > be on hold for 10-20 minutes. I actually deal with non-urgent bank business in writing (which has the added advantage of creating a paper trail). And unless it's a company I know well, I'm loathe to use their toll-free number, or if I do, call from a payphone. It keeps me in control of my privacy (since *67 doesn't work on ANI) and has seriously cut down the number of telespammers I have to deal with. extempore ------------------------------ From: extempore Subject: Re: Mobile Telecoms / The Tortoise and the Hare Organization: Alphabetical Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:09:44 -0500 Monty Solomon, with nothing better to do on Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:18:28 -0500, spewed forth in message and told us all: > So he was horrified to discover that in > America, text-messaging is almost impossible. Up here in the frozen north, tonight there was a news blurb that all Canadian wireless telcos have hooked up their systems, so that one can text from one carrier to another and vice-versa. Of course, given that a) most of my friends have AMPS service, and b) everyone I've known who has SMS has only received spam with it, it's hard to say if this will take off here. extempore ------------------------------ From: Jim Van Nuland Subject: Re: How to Ring Back Date: 4 Apr 2002 09:18:40 GMT Organization: Silicon Valley Public Access Link Don Saklad wrote: > Rather than troubling an operator, in Cambridge Massachusetts, what's > the number for ringback? Try dialing your own number, then hang up. This worked in mid-Wisconsin a few years ago. Jim Van Nuland, San Jose (California) Astronomical Association ------------------------------ From: daniel.mcrae@worldonline.cz (dmc) Subject: Thanks, Telcosupport.com! Date: 4 Apr 2002 01:40:14 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ A really appreciate your invaluable assistance over the past week. Waiting for my vendor support group was driving me insane! It's great to have another resource for problem resolution that doesn't cost a fortune and is sooooo fast! Keep up the good work. ------------------------------ From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! Date: 3 Apr 2002 14:09:02 -0500 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >>> I am trying to source a cordless phone that I can use in the UK with a >>> range exceeding 1/2 mile. Must be able to fit in a normal size pocket >>> [...] >> There are personal communicators available in the US that are pocket >> sized and have a range of up to 2 miles. However, they cannot connect >> to the telephone network. They are pretty cheap, too. I don't know > Hmm. This raises a question. Why hasn't anyone put together a > walkie-talkie and a phone to make a cheap phone that reaches a couple > of miles? They have. You can get a nice trunking radio system from Motorola that can be connected to a telephone line for autopatching over the air. Licenses required, of course, and you can't use the itinerant frequencies. scott "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I repeat what I said before: Do you really want your dial tone to be avalable to everyone in that radius? And hackers can easily break through any codes you keep on it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:50:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New 'Easy 0' Service Speeds Calls to Key Verizon Services; BURLINGTON, Vt., April 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Beginning today, dialing "0" will provide Vermont callers with shortcuts to many of the Verizon services they frequently call. "Easy 0"(SM) gives customers access to a menu that instantly connects them at no additional charge to services they request from operators, including Verizon business offices, repair service, directory assistance and call-completion options. Easy 0 is now available to Verizon customers in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26704729 ------------------------------ From: Vivianweiliang@hotmail.com (Vivian) Subject: Bluetooth Questions, Please Help Date: 4 Apr 2002 03:07:16 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Hi! Does any one know where I can gain some market research charts/figures of Bluetooth technology? I am looking for some realistic figures and survey, for instance how much money that SIG has now invested on research and developing Bluetooth and what's the future market of Bluetooth technology. Many thanks, Vivian ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #213 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 5 00:21:05 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA22843; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:21:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:21:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204050521.AAA22843@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #214 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:18:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 214 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Seeking Advice From a Telcom Professional (Gregory Meadows) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (D. Gibson) Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (D. Garland) SirCam Virus (Carl Moore) Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Fred Goldstein) Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Clarence Dold) Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! (John Schmerold) Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Central Office Code Assignments (John Schmerold) Re: Cell Phones and Car Bombs (Dave Garland) Re: Fall of the Pre-Paid Revolution (extempore) 718 or 516 for a Hospital (Carl Moore) Interested in IVR Information (Serious Technical Project Manager) Re: How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? (Rick Ellis) Public Service Announcement: ** FREE "FDNY' Stickers ** (StickerMan) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Gregory Meadows Subject: Seeking Advice From a Telecom Professional Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 05:32:42 -0600 [TELECOM Moderator's Note: No, this is not one of those 'I need your advice' things we have talked about for a couple days. PAT] Hello Patrick, I'm currently in school and was presented with a business case by one of my instructors. Since 1995 the U.S. business long haul (LH) market has undergone considerable change. Once the core profit generator for major carriers, it now is considered a low margin service. Many IXCs and CLECs are attempting to bolster the earnings loss from business LH by bundling higher margin services with traditional voice. This is a major shift in the telecommunications market. He wants to know some of the reasons for this shift or change. I have come up with a few, but I need to know if I'm on target or not. I thank you in advance for your input to my response. Response: There are several reasons, which attributed to the decline of profit margins for U.S. companies that were in the long haul business. First, let start with the court decision in 1980s to decreed competition in the long distance telecommunications markets. The US wanted to aggressively break up monopolies and promote competition. These actions resulted in private capital flowing into the long-haul market and opened the market to resellers. Since 1984, rates have dropped 56 percent as a result of the competition from approximately 600 long-distance companies that are estimated to provide service today. And, most importantly, as a consequence of this decision, information infrastructure was built out -- that is the foundation upon which the Internet rests today. Another major reason for the decline in profit margin for long haul services is the birth of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1992. The first audio and video multicasts were broadcasted over the Internet. As a result of the WWW, a technology spin off called Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony emerged. IP telephony embodies one way that the Internet makes possible the impossible through technological ingenuity. IP telephony bring the immediate benefit of expanded access to telephony and it offers users new services and expanded functions at lower prices. This is because the network underlying the Internet has the capability to integrated voice, data, and video. Another reason for the decline in profit margin for long haul providers is Congress decision to pass the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which required the FCC to develop 80 rule makings leading to increased competition is all aspects of telecommunications. Through Regional 271 approval, RBOCs including Bell South, SBC, Qwest and Verizon will gain considerable long distance market share over the traditional players. For instance, AT&T, a traditional IXC, is expected to decline in total market share from 40% in 2000, to less than 30% in 2006. In conclusion, there are several factors, which lead to a decrease in profit margins for long haul providers. Key regulatory decisions such as the break up of AT&T, which played a significant role in fostering competition in long haul markets and eliminating the monopolistic ways of the past. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which provided for rule makings to increase competition in all aspect of telecommunications. And last, the advancement in technology, the birth of the World Wide Web, has played a key role in the decrease of profit margins for long haul providers. The WWW ability to broadcast audio and video over the Internet Protocol has opened up new ways for people and businesses to communicate. And last the use of IP Telephony, which rides on the Internet, will eventually gain more market share, thus creating a decline in profit margins for the once dominating long haul providers. As a part of the shifts in the industry, we will witness a consolidation of metro and long haul networks to provide end-to-end services. Carriers with hybrid products and diverse technology portfolios will be best suited to evolve into next-generation service providers. Thanks again! Gregory Meadows ------------------------------ From: Daryl R Gibson Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:18:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION >>Daryl Gibson wrote >> I'm sure they'd appreciate a note to direct them to Symantec's >> website, which has a fix for the worm, but otherwise, just delete the >> things. If you want to allow your antivirus software to clean the files, >> you can get some pretty interesting documents, if you're a voyeur. >> Daryl > Pat wrote > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Daryl, would it be okay to *return > the mail to the sender* saying 'I wanted you to see what your computer > is sending out on its own. I assume it was on its own, since only a > rotten, fornicating, S.O.B. would send this on purpose. And I know > you personally would not be asking my advice/asking me to play a new > game (check which applies) and that only the computer would be asking > my advice or wanting to play a game. Enjoy' Then Daryl, dump the whole > mess back in their Outlook Express with the above as my text at the > start of it. Maybe it would create a mail loop and start going through > their address book a second or third time. Big humongous mail loop, > going around and around. All email everywhere has to shut down while > the mess gets sorted out. That's what I would call personal > motivation to begin checking ALL your incoming and outgoing mail. PAT] Well, like most of the e-mail viruses being generated now, the Sircam virus has its own SMTP engine, so there is no outgoing mail being placed in the outbox. They seriously are unaware of it unless someone brings it to their attention. It'd seem, however, that since the people are most likely your readers, that sending the stuff back to them with an Irish curse would be counterproductive. Plus, you're right -- since the mail would come into Outlook Express, the virus would pick up the mail address again, and send another payload to you. I've received a number of these viruses from people who have perused one of my websites. Maybe you could send a request for money along with the heads up, since they are 1: your readers, and 2: receiving technical information from you. You might want to talk to MIT and see if they would put a virus filter on your mailbox. Sircam is so obvious that it's pretty easy to catch it from the message body alone -- or you could choose to filter out all attachments, since most of these viruses only come in as MIME attachments anyway. Anyway, Symantec has a good removal tool for Sircam, so it's not usually as much of a problem as it was last summer. Daryl "As you ramble through life, brother, no matter what your goal, keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not upon the hole" --Dr. Murray Banks, quoting a menu http://www.drgibson.com http://www.salesstar.com Personal Motivation and Positive Attitude ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Organization: Wizard Information Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:19:21 -0600 > what am I doing in this random guy's address book? I don't know about that particular worm, but some look for email addresses in more places than just the address book ... places like the browser cache, for example. > Don't any of these > people look at or review their *outgoing/sent* mail folders now and > then to see what they have been doing? Only because I can't remember what I've told people or whether I've sent a particular email or merely thought about it. Somebody with a better memory or more organized life might not need to. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:45:21 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: SirCam Virus You have by now seen some other messages about the SirCam virus. That's the one which, besides the attachment, includes "I send you this file...". When email with that virus reaches me (usually con- taining between 200,000 and 300,000 characters), this is what happens: 1. one copy goes into Unix mail and is a bunch of harmless characters; 2. one copy goes to Lotus notes, where the virus-detection gets rid of the attachment, and said copy arrives shorn of the actual attach- ment, along with a separate mailing telling me that a virus has been found and that the sender is notified to clean their system. Some- one complained to me about getting such a clean-your-system notice (apparently the result of email with the SirCam virus coming from his system to me), and I figuratively threw up my hands, replying that the virus can indeed go to people you never heard of. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:06:52 -0500 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 05:59:23 GMT dave@compata.com (Dave Close) said, > Actually, as I understand how number portability works, allowing it > would /increase/ the number of numbers in use, not decrease it. That > is because when a number is ported to a different carrier, a new > number is actually assigned by the new carrier, and then the old > number is transparently forwarded to the new number. Ergo, two numbers > in use where there was previously only one. However, I doubt that the > quantities involved would cause a serious problem. Happily for the network, your understanding is incorrect. The general rule for number portability is that the new carrier does not assign its own number. Instead, it simply programs the ported number into its own switch. Every switch has one number of its very own, in one prefix of its very own which needs no connection to any specific subscriber's rate center, called the Location Routing Number (LRN). The number portability database lists the LRN assigned to each number. So when the number's ported, the LRN is of the new switch, while the prefix code is "native" to the old switch but also allowable in the new switch. It's like the Internet. Names are not addresses. Phone numbers used to be addresses, like 128.33.252.119. Nowadays they're names, like telecom-digest.org. The LNP database is the equivalent of DNS. But the name (DN) and address (LRN) both use E.164 (numeric) format, so the distinction is not as obvious as with the Internet. ------------------------------ From: dold@95.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch Date: 4 Apr 2002 20:37:11 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Dave Close wrote: > Marcus Didius Falco quotes Ben Charny: >> Although the carriers and the FCC have focused on the cost and >> competitiveness aspects of the debate, some backers say there's >> another reason to allow people to hold on to the same number: The >> pool of 10-digit phone numbers is shrinking. > Actually, as I understand how number portability works, allowing it > would /increase/ the number of numbers in use, not decrease it. That > is because when a number is ported to a different carrier, a new > number is actually assigned by the new carrier, and then the old > number is transparently forwarded to the new number. Ergo, two numbers > in use where there was previously only one. However, I doubt that the > quantities involved would cause a serious problem. If I take a customer from another LEC, I handle the physical connection to that number. But because the NPA-NXX-F belongs to another carrier, any lookups for routing the number go to the original carrier. That is translated to point to my switch. There is only one phone number. Forwarding involves two phone numbers. >> The major cause of the shortage of numbers is the allocation of >> blocks of 10,000 numbers to every CLEC in every rate center. We certainly don't have blocks of 10,000 in every rate center. We do have blocks of 10,000 in some rate centers. Most of our customers retain some of their old phone numbers. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. ------------------------------ From: John Schmerold Subject: Re: Long Range Cordless Phone Wanted! Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 04:21:24 GMT http://www.engeniustech.com is supposed to have a unit that goes five miles. I have not tried out a unit. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote in message news:telecom20.212.7@telecom-digest.org: >>> I am trying to source a cordless phone that I can use in the UK with a >>> range exceeding 1/2 mile. Must be able to fit in a normal size pocket >>> [...] >> There are personal communicators available in the US that are pocket >> sized and have a range of up to 2 miles. However, they cannot connect >> to the telephone network. They are pretty cheap, too. I don't know > Hmm. This raises a question. Why hasn't anyone put together a > walkie-talkie and a phone to make a cheap phone that reaches a couple > of miles? > Joel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I dunno. Would *you* want just anyone > with a similar unit within two miles to be able to access your dial > tone? I wouldn't care for that. Did you ever hear about 'cruising for > dial tone' where guys drive around in their car with the handpiece of > a cordless phone, parking in front of people's houses and 'borrowing' > the person's dial tone to make a call (or two or three). With your > walkie-talkie/phone combination, guys would not have to park in front > of your house any longer. Just be within a mile or two would be good > enough. That says nothing about snoopy people who just want to listen > in and see what you are talking about on the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:14:50 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) On Thu 4 Apr 2002, Dave Close wrote: > Actually, as I understand how number portability works, allowing it > would /increase/ the number of numbers in use, not decrease it. That > is because when a number is ported to a different carrier, a new number > is actually assigned by the new carrier, and then the old number is > transparently forwarded to the new number. Ergo, two numbers > in use where there was previously only one. Well, yes there are two POTS ten-digit NANP telephone numbers involved with porting, the original number which the calling party dials, and also the LRN (Location Routing Number) which is the number that actually forwards/routes the call to the ported-to central office switch. However, ALL numbers which have been ported-to the same "new" central office switch use the same LRN. This "default" number is an unassigned telephone number with an NPA-NXX c.o.code that is "traditionally" assigned to that (ported-to) central office switch. The "line-number" of an LRN is "usually" something like -1111 or -9999 or -1234 or -9876 or some other similar "easy" type of line-number. There is a section in the Telcordia-TRA LERG which lists the assigned LRN for each and every central office switch capable of handling ported-to customer's numbers. When a call is placed to a number that has been ported, there is usually an SS7-check in setting up the call. If the dialed number is indicated as having been ported, the LRN will be indicated in an SS7'd back message. This LRN will indicate which central-office switch to actually route to. When that actual destination switch is reached, the original dialed telephone number of the "ported" customer is delivered to that switch which then rings the actual circuit/line of that customer. So, while there are "two" ten-digit NANP POTS numbers involved, the actual "routing" or forwarding number is a single generic "default" number used for any/all porting to that ported-to central office switch, and not a unique one-to-one mapping based on any dialed number. And the telco industry is looking at (but it isn't finalized yet, as if anything in the telco is ever finalized) more efficient methods of number porting and number/code conservation. Presently, each potential provider of local telephone service needs to get a c.o. code (or at least a single "thousands" block) per rate center that they desire to provide service to. Rate center consolidation does help to reduce the number of rate centers that c.o.codes or thousands-blocks will need to be assignedd to. Also being studied is "unassigned-number-pooling", in which a c.o. code is *NOT* "default" assinged anymore to a carrier or switch, but *strictly* to a rate center. Any unassigned -xxxx line-number will be "up-for-grabs" to a LEC/CLEC in that rate center, on a first-come-first-served basis, similar to the way 800/888/etc. toll-free number portability is offered. It isn't yet in place, but it is being studied. Mark J. Cuccia New Orleans LA ------------------------------ From: John Schmerold Subject: Re: Central Office Code Assignments Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 03:51:57 GMT You can't be given enough "atta boys" for this treasure. Great reading! Babu Mengelepouti wrote in message news:telecom20.206.10@telecom-digest.org: > NANPA has released an Access database of Central Office codes in North > America, including CLLIs and carrier names. It is available at > http://www.nanpa.com/nanp1/AllCodes.zip. I've wanted something like > this for many years, and this will prove to be an amazingly useful > tool in resolving problems. Now if only there were a similarly public > database for 800/888/877/866 numbers ... ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Car Bombs Organization: Wizard Information Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 17:38:59 -0600 It was a dark and stormy night when Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > "Gaza security chief Mohammed Dahlan ... An innovator, with a good > scientific brain (if terrorism can be termed a science), it was Dahlan > who first applied cellular telephones to triggering car bombs and > explosive devices." Let's not slight the Israelis, who seem to favor the boobytrapped cell or pay phone, where they can call and verify that the selected victim is on the line (and has his head right up against the earpiece) before triggering the charge. ------------------------------ From: extempore Subject: Re: Fall of the Pre-Paid Revolution Organization: Alphabetical Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:09:36 -0500 Mark Crispin, with nothing better to do on Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:04:23 -0800, spewed forth in message and told us all: > On 10 Feb 2002, Jeff Frontz wrote: >> A lot of prepaid cellular is sold to 1) folks who don't make that >> many calls (they just want the phone in the glovebox in case they >> need to call AAA); 2) folks who are "credit challenged" (e.g., not >> credit worthy); or 3) folks who want to give a phone to someone but >> not have the user rack up a huge bill (e.g., parents giving a phone >> to children). > 4) People who own vacation property, and want a *local* phone number > there. Compared to the cost of connecting and disconnecting a > landline phone each year (or paying for months that the phone goes > unused), prepaid cellular looks quite attractive indeed. 5) People who move to a strange city, need a local number FAST, and don't know how long they're going to be living at any fixed address for the first couple of months. BTW, people in the Lower Mainland of BC really haven't grasped the concept of an overlay yet. I get strange looks when I give out my phone number (+1 778, Microcell/FIDO GSM), and IIRC, the seven-digit permissive dialing date expired months ago. (And Telus phones even replace the blank name field on CID as "BRIT COLUMBIA.") extempore ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:18:15 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 718 or 516 for a Hospital http://www.lij.edu/lij_homepage_directions.html lists three addresses pertaining to the Long Island Jewish Medical Center. The reason for this posting is that all three have telephone numbers with "718 or 516" for the area code! The prefix is 470, and in old area 212; it was in Bellerose in the borough of Queens, and I presume that is the present 718-470. I don't know about 516-470, though. ------------------------------ From: the_munching_buffalo@yahoo.com (Serious Technical Project Manager) Subject: Interested in IVR Information Date: 4 Apr 2002 07:48:33 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I am interested in receiving information about effective IVR systems that can use e-payment modules and can share resources with a customized web solution that is not built by the same IVR solution provider. I am not interested in receiving every IVR company's solution, rather I am interested in hearing from those of you who have implemented IVR solutions or have researched them. I want to learn from your experiences. Companies can send me email once. If you bother me beyond that, since I use Yahoo, I will just send your subsequent emails to the Trash. Please respect this wish. Please excuse my email address. This is a serious inquiry, though the email address is a bit bizarre. I was given that name many years ago because I like to eat. Thanks in advance for all of your help. Please no viruses. ------------------------------ From: Rick Ellis Subject: Re: How to Determine ISDN Protocol at Remote End? Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:04:31 -0000 Organization: S.P.C.A.A. In article , Phil McKerracher wrote: > This problem is unique to North America -- you're supposed to > phone your supplier and ask them, but of course you don't know > who to phone when confronted with an unlabelled pair of wires. The problem I always had with asking the supplier is the supplier not giving me the right answer. All too often the problem was provisioning and the official answer couldn't be right until that was fixed. > It *is* possible to sense the switch type and auto-configure > (I've implemented it) but the Telcos hate it and won't sanction > equipment that does this, presumably because alarms are > raised at the switch if the "wrong" protocol is detected. It can also cause the switch to disable your lines. Then you have to get the supplier to tell the switch to take you out of maintenance. > The various flavours of "National ISDN" are an attempt to solve > this, but it's not widely implemented. A classic failure of > standardisation. Reading the ISO standards quickly shows one why this problem happened. Standardization works a lot better when the documents are written better. http://www.spinics.net/linux/ ------------------------------ From: StickerMan Subject: Public Service Announcement: ** FREE "FDNY' Stickers ** Reply-To: StickerMan Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 02:09:18 GMT Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay I am offering one (1) *FREE* FDNY sticker to anyone who wants it. I created these in memory of the terrible attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, USA. If interested, just stop by my website, see the image of the sticker, and place your order. LIMIT OF 1 STICKER PER REQUEST, PER ADDRESS! Thanks for looking! http://web.tampabay.rr.com/sticker/ THE STICKER SHOP [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Sticker Man. The reminder I have of September 11, 2001 is a poster saying 'Proud to be an American! We will not forget!' and below that, an American eagle wiping tears from his eyes. I got it from a printing company here in Independence who donated all the proceeds to the American Red Cross. By comparison to 9-11, so many other of the hateful things we encounter each day seem rather petty. The New York Fire Department were the real heroes wern't they. I invite readers to visit Sticker Man's shop. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #214 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 5 20:47:42 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA10332; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:47:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:47:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204060147.UAA10332@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #215 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:43:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 215 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION (D. Phelps) New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Terry Knab) Answering Messages (Lynda Ray) Re: Phone Bots and Spampaigns (John David Galt) Re: Seeking Advice From a Telecom Professional (Bryan Hesters) Re: New 'Easy 0' Service Speeds Calls to Key Verizon Service (Weaverling) Wireless Carrier Access Billing (Bill Hartzer) Re: Want to Buy Lucent Excel E1 Cards & Switches Selling Cisco (Aaron) Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) (Ed Ellers) Correction of Postal Addresses for Big Telecom Directories (jbc) Re: How to Protect From Erroneous Toll-Free Usage? (Pete Weiss) Interface for Long Range Cordless Phone Senao, Harvest (BAM) Judge Hits US Ban on 'Junk' Faxes (Monty Solomon) Use a Surplus Primestar Dish as an IEEE 802.11 Wireless (Monty Solomon) Dialogic Hardware Simulation (Adnan Qasim Khan) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Dave Phelps Subject: Re: Example of Core Dump I Got: CELTIC NEW YEARS CELEBRATION Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:51:06 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Your email address isn't modified to prevent software from pulling your email out of your posts. Something like barmar (at) genuity (dot) net would probably help alot, but it's probably too late. Good thing you have a lot of bandwidth :-) [This followup was posted to comp.dcom.telecom and a copy was sent to the cited author.] In article , barmar@genuity.net says: > In article , > John R. Levine wrote: >> This is a virus that infects Redmond Crudware(tm) mail programs and >> mails itself to everyone in your address book. The nominal sender is >> rarely aware of what's going on, although he often wonders why his PC >> is so slow and why the modem lights are flickering so much. > What I'd like to know about this virus is why I get these things from > people all over the Internet. Today I got one from someone in UAE; > what am I doing in this random guy's address book? > Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, MA *** DON'T SEND > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That was going to be my next question. > So many people have written me and said in essence "He does not know > he is doing it. Your name is in his address book. It gets sent out on > its own, etc." Well good ... except like Barry, I have recieved so > many from such unusual places. How am I in their address books? I > will agree I do not and could not begin to remember everyone who has > written to the Digest in the past 20 years, but still -- today alone, > Thursday, I got *six* of those monsters. Two were 'can I have your > advice', a couple were about 'my new game, you are the first player', > and I think a couple others were assorted spam. Don't any of these > people look at or review their *outgoing/sent* mail folders now and > then to see what they have been doing? The six I received today were > just the humongous spam, the outrageously-sized things. That does not > include the 'more traditional' spam of recent years. I still get > those also. PAT] Dave Phelps Phone Masters Ltd. deadspam=tippenring ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Organization: The Home Office Date: 5 Apr 2002 05:06:43 -0700 Has anyone see this come up on thier caller ID lately? 800-xxx-xxxx (some toll free number) and out of area? I sense some telemarketers are doing this to avoid things like privacy manager and such. Anyone got thoughts on how they do this? ------------------------------ From: Lynda Ray Subject: Answering Messages Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:12:47 -0700 Do you know where I can go on the internet to listen to phone messages that I might like to put on my own answering machine. Thanks, Lynda [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On our website http://telecom-digest.org you might like to go to linkspage.html and check out "The Web Site You Have Dialed" by a lady (I believe) named Jennifer Martino. She has a collection of oddball recordings collected over the years, mostly from phone companies. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Phone Bots and Spampaigns Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:42:19 -0800 Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Gail M. Hall wrote: > I hang up on those electronic messages, even when they come from > election campaigners. I will certainly zap spam that comes from them, > too, and give that candidate marks down for being dumb enough to fall > for using it. From a purely selfish/amoral point of view, spam makes sense for selling products, because some fraction of a percent of recipients will buy, and the spammer doesn't have to care about the fact that he's annoyed the rest of us. But spam from a candidate does not make sense that way, because a lot of those annoyed people (if they live in the candidate's district at all) will react by voting against him/her. But this doesn't necessarily mean that a candidate whose spam I get has made a mistake. It may actually mean that the spam was a dirty trick by one of his opponents. In which case the candidate will appreciate hearing about it, and may even be able to put the blame where it belongs in time to avoid losing those votes. So I always write back and let them know. ------------------------------ From: Bryan Hesters Subject: Re: Seeking Advice From a Telecom Professional Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:09:20 -0600 Organization: ClubCorp I think you're close, but keep in mind, he's asking you SINCE 1995. All your numbers and causes are well before that. I think he's targeting the 1995 act that forced the incumbent long haul providers who already had these MASSIVE networks built to share with the smaller CLEC's. Up until that point, all the big companies were struggling to expand their nationwide backbones and mesh their networks to get the most optimal coverage areas. After the 1995 act and the CLEC competition, the focus was then on acquiring other networks (The QWEST/USWEST merger, MCI /WORLDCOM, etc..) rather than taking the financial risk of building it themselves. Follow this link and see if that takes you in another direction. You also might want to proof-read your response before you submit it. http://www.clec-planet.com/forums/heleinjune14.html Gregory Meadows wrote in message news:telecom20.214.1@telecom-digest.org: > [TELECOM Moderator's Note: No, this is not one of those 'I need your > advice' things we have talked about for a couple days. PAT] > > Hello Patrick, > > I'm currently in school and was presented with a business case by one > of my instructors. Since 1995 the U.S. business long haul (LH) market > has undergone considerable change. Once the core profit generator for > major carriers, it now is considered a low margin service. Many IXCs > and CLECs are attempting to bolster the earnings loss from business LH > by bundling higher margin services with traditional voice. This is a > major shift in the telecommunications market. He wants to know some > of the reasons for this shift or change. > > I have come up with a few, but I need to know if I'm on target or not. > I thank you in advance for your input to my response. > Response: > There are several reasons, which attributed to the decline of profit > margins for U.S. companies that were in the long haul business. First, > let start with the court decision in 1980s to decreed competition in the > long distance telecommunications markets. The US wanted to aggressively > break up monopolies and promote competition. These actions resulted in > private capital flowing into the long-haul market and opened the market > to resellers. > Since 1984, rates have dropped 56 percent as a result of the competition > from approximately 600 long-distance companies that are estimated to > provide service today. And, most importantly, as a consequence of this > decision, information infrastructure was built out -- that is the > foundation upon which the Internet rests today. > Another major reason for the decline in profit margin for long haul > services is the birth of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1992. The first > audio and video multicasts were broadcasted over the Internet. As a > result of the WWW, a technology spin off called Internet Protocol (IP) > Telephony emerged. > IP telephony embodies one way that the Internet makes possible the > impossible through technological ingenuity. IP telephony bring the > immediate benefit of expanded access to telephony and it offers users > new services and expanded functions at lower prices. This is because the > network underlying the Internet has the capability to integrated voice, > data, and video. > Another reason for the decline in profit margin for long haul providers > is Congress decision to pass the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which > required the FCC to develop 80 rule makings leading to increased > competition is all aspects of telecommunications. > Through Regional 271 approval, RBOCs including Bell South, SBC, Qwest > and Verizon will gain considerable long distance market share over the > traditional players. For instance, AT&T, a traditional IXC, is expected > to decline in total market share from 40% in 2000, to less than 30% in > 2006. > In conclusion, there are several factors, which lead to a decrease in > profit margins for long haul providers. Key regulatory decisions such > as the break up of AT&T, which played a significant role in fostering > competition in long haul markets and eliminating the monopolistic ways > of the past. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which provided for rule > makings to increase competition in all aspect of telecommunications. > And last, the advancement in technology, the birth of the World Wide > Web, has played a key role in the decrease of profit margins for long > haul providers. The WWW ability to broadcast audio and video over the > Internet Protocol has opened up new ways for people and businesses to > communicate. And last the use of IP Telephony, which rides on the > Internet, will eventually gain more market share, thus creating a > decline in profit margins for the once dominating long haul providers. > As a part of the shifts in the industry, we will witness a consolidation > of metro and long haul networks to provide end-to-end services. > Carriers with hybrid products and diverse technology portfolios will be > best suited to evolve into next-generation service providers. ------------------------------ From: weave@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling) Subject: Re: New 'Easy 0' Service Speeds Calls to Key Verizon Services Date: 5 Apr 2002 23:59:45 GMT Organization: Delaware Technical and Community College In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Easy 0 is now available to Verizon customers in New York, New > Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, > Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. > http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26704729 The article also states ... "Patent protection for the company's Easy 0 system is pending." What an "inventive" idea. Dial a number, have an automated attendant speak out a menu of options, then press a key on your touchtone phone to get routed to correct area. I'm just so happy that our patent system is here to protect valuable "inventions" such as this. Without our patent system and the protections it provides, Verizon would have most likely never had the incentive to bring to market a groundbreaking invention like "Easy 0." Ken Weaverling (ken @ weaverling.org) WHOIS: KJW http://www.weaverling.org/ ------------------------------ From: bhartzer@cha-systems.com (Bill Hartzer) Subject: Wireless Carrier Access Billing Date: 5 Apr 2002 09:08:48 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ The FCC Docket Number 01-316 may allow wireless companies to bill for carrier access revenue. This means that wireless companies could bill long-distance carriers for each and every call that those carriers terminate on a wireless network. Some wireless companies have already begun to do this, but many long-distance providers have refused to pay the bills they have received. AT&T Corp. has taken the issue to the FCC, asking it to rule that wireless companies cannot collect carrier access revenue. The case is pending a Commission ruling scheduled for June 24, 2002. If the FCC rules that wireless companies can bill for access revenues, this opens up a potential new revenue stream for wireless carriers. However, there is a catch: It may not be cost-effective for wireless carriers to collect for access if their billing is not efficient. Should wireless companies be able to bill for access revenues? Bill Hartzer http://ipmediationsystem.com http://www.billing-mediation.com http://www.3g-mediation.com http://www.interconnectsettlements.com http://www.leastcostroute.com http://www.telecoms-fraud.com http://www.operationalsupportsystem.com http://www.carrieraccessbilling.com http://www.work-order-software.com http://www.outsideplantsoftware.com ------------------------------ From: aaronb@spamcop.net (Aaron) Subject: Re: Want to Buy Lucent Excel E1 Cards & Switches Selling Cisco Date: 5 Apr 2002 12:38:21 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Russ Bazzarre wrote in message news:: > Anyone have used Lucent Excel E1 cards for sale? I want to buy them, > will take 8E1 or 16E1 cards. Also need any EXS cards. > I have for sale Cisco AS5300-VOIP-120A 4E1 $18,000 USD > Also Cisco AS5300-VOIP-60 2 E1 $9,000 USD > AS5350-VOIP 4E1 & 8E1 New > AS5400-VOIP 16 E1 New > call or email > Russ Bazzarre > russ@itxventures.com > 954 924-1800 USA Florida > Genex Communications Do you know of any less expensive switches available for sale? Thanks, Aaron Bazar http://www.abclongdistance.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:28:50 -0500 Mark J Cuccia wrote: > "Presently, each potential provider of local telephone service needs > to get a c.o. code (or at least a single "thousands" block) per rate > center that they desire to provide service to. Rate center > consolidation does help to reduce the number of rate centers that > c.o.codes or thousands-blocks will need to be assigned to." Why can't an NXX or a thousands block be mirrored, at the CLEC's option, in more than one rate center? In other words, if a CLEC wants to serve both Mayfield and Bellport from a CO in Mayfield assigned the (311) 555-4xxx thousands block, why can't it arrange that that block can be dialed as a local call from the Bellport rate center as well, and so that its customers in either rate center can make local calls into both rate centers? Granted, they may have to pay some money for this capability, but it ought to be cheaper than a second block (which might well be physically located in the same CO anyway). ------------------------------ From: jbc Subject: Correction of Postal Addresses for Big Telecom Directories Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:02:06 +0200 Bonjour, I have a question regarding the possible solutions that I can have for daily updating the postal address informations available in big telecom directories. In France, we have some phone directories but with a high-level of bad addresses: more than 8% are NPAI (no people to this postal address!) Do you correct easily phone directory addresses? How it cost to you pro month, pro item, pro updates? All possible articles, files, documents, comments will be greatly appreciate! Regards, Jean-Bernard Condat, Chrystol B.P. 59, 93402 Saint-Ouen Cedex, France condat@chrystol.com, phone: +33607238628 ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: How to Protect From Erroneous Toll-Free Usage? Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:08:14 -0500 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:09:42 -0500, extempore wrote: > And unless it's a > company I know well, I'm loathe to use their toll-free number, or if I > do, call from a payphone. It keeps me in control of my privacy (since > *67 doesn't work on ANI) and has seriously cut down the number of > telespammers I have to deal with. In control of your privacy when working with a financial institution? Is that the same one that has your SSN? /Pete ------------------------------ From: BAM Subject: Interface for Long Range Cordless Phone Senao, Harvest Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:33:30 +0400 Organization: Odessa State Polytechnic University Use Interface with our handset of long range (up to 50km) cordless phone (Senao,Harvest) for recive fax, connect to Internet (through modem of PC up to 19200bps). http://www.geocities.com/senao_868/eindex.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:04:40 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Judge Hits US Ban on 'Junk' Faxes Judge hits US ban on 'junk' faxes Says federal law on such unsolicited ads is unconstitutional By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff, 4/2/2002 In a little-noticed case that could have major implications for users of fax machines, a federal judge in Missouri has ruled that a federal law banning unsolicited fax advertisements is unconstitutional. The ruling by US District Judge Stephen Limbaugh applies only to the eastern half of Missouri, and Missouri Attorney General Jeremiah ''Jay'' Nixon has vowed to appeal. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/092/business/Judge_hits_US_ban_on_junk_faxes+.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:39:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Use a Surplus Primestar Dish as an IEEE 802.11 Wireless Primestar was recently purchased by Direct TV who is phasing out all the Primestar equipment. This means that the dishes are being trashed, and are available for other uses such as the one I describe here. It is easy to make a surplus Primestar dish into a highly directional antenna for the very popular IEEE 802.11 wireless networking. The resulting antenna has about 22 db of gain, and is fed with 50 ohm coaxial cable. Usually LMR400 or 9913 low loss cable is used if the source is more than a few feet from the antenna. The range using two of these antennas with a line of sight path is around 10 miles at full bandwidth. I must stress the line of sight part though. Leaves really attenuate the signal. http://www.wwc.edu/~frohro/Airport/Primestar/Primestar.html ------------------------------ From: adnan938@yahoo.com (Adnan Qasim Khan) Subject: Dialogic Hardware Simulation Date: 4 Apr 2002 21:16:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm developing a Dialogic based voice mail app. Is it possible to write and test software without having an actual dialogic board installed in the computer? Ideally I would like to install some kind of "dummy" driver pretending to be an actual dialogic board. Then use software to simulate the phone line, eg. ring, dialtones, etc. Adnan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #215 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Apr 6 23:22:39 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA00943; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:22:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:22:39 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204070422.XAA00943@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #216 TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Apr 2002 23:20:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 216 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dialogic Hardware Simulation (Adnan Qasim Khan) Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Carl Navarro) Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Gail M. Hall) Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) (Dave Close) Jennifer Martino's Web Site Not Working (John Stahl) News Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Java: It's What's On The Cell Phone (Eric Friedebach) HDTV White Elephants (Marcus Didius Falco) Obituary: Comm Pioneer (and SF Writer) John Pierce (Marcus Didius Falco) More on ATTBI / Eudora / SSL and Semi-Open Relays (Marcus Didius Falco) Spring Ahead (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: adnan938@yahoo.com (Adnan Qasim Khan) Subject: Dialogic Hardware Simulation Date: 4 Apr 2002 21:16:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I'm developing a Dialogic based voice mail app. Is it possible to write and test software without having an actual dialogic board installed in the computer? Ideally I would like to install some kind of "dummy" driver pretending to be an actual dialogic board. Then use software to simulate the phone line, eg. ring, dialtones, etc. Adnan ------------------------------ From: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:01:44 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On 5 Apr 2002 05:06:43 -0700, tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) wrote: > Has anyone see this come up on thier caller ID lately? > 800-xxx-xxxx (some toll free number) and out of area? > I sense some telemarketers are doing this to avoid things like privacy > manager and such. > Anyone got thoughts on how they do this? Maybe they have a PRI and properly programmed it? Carl Navarro [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Carl, its impossible to have your PRI 'properly programmed' AND have 800-xxx-xxxx as the number. You see, *there is no such thing* as an OUTGOING 800 number. 800/888 etc are for INCOMING CALLS only. Your PRI is supposed to be your outgoing number, isn't it? For your outgoing calls, you would be on some more 'traditional' area code. If a number shows up on my caller ID box I would like to have it be the number that was calling me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gail M. Hall Subject: Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 17:31:22 -0500 Reply-To: gmhall@apk.net On 5 Apr 2002 05:06:43 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom, you (tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab)) wrote: > Has anyone see this come up on thier caller ID lately? > 800-xxx-xxxx (some toll free number) and out of area? > I sense some telemarketers are doing this to avoid things like privacy > manager and such. > Anyone got thoughts on how they do this? I don't have caller ID on my phone, but in my opinion, if the number is a valid contact number for the company doing the calling, then I think that makes good sense. After all, if you did decide to call them back, wouldn't you prefer the number to be a valid contact number? After reading various comments in this group about the frequency of invalid number showing or incorrect numbers showing or no info available, etc., I have no real incentive to pay actual $$$ to subscribe to the caller ID "service" from my phone company. If the marketing company is not displaying their own number or the valid contact number for their clients such that some other innocent party gets their toll-free service charged, then that would be criminal theft, IMO. Gail from Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:59:51 GMT Ed Ellers writes: > Why can't an NXX or a thousands block be mirrored, at the CLEC's > option, in more than one rate center? Certainly, it could be mirrored technically, though there might be a need for some programming not now in place. The real problem is regulation. If one carrier were allowed to have a number block be present in multiple rate centers, it would be effectively consoli- dating rate centers, and that is something the regulators insist is their sole perogative. There has been some movement toward rate center consolidation recently, but nowhere near enough. I've written before, starting several years ago, that the distinction between "local" and "long distance" calls is an historical artifact, and is now purely artificial and should be eliminated. Most of the cell phone companies have realized this and now offer plans which treat all calls the same. It is only a matter of time until the wireline companies are forced to do the same. In fact, some are, though the prices I've seen are comparable to the cell plan prices, and thus far too high since they don't include any air time. The only logical rate center now is a national boundary. If it weren't for the absurd taxes most countries impose on telephone calls, even that limit might become obsolete. Telephones are no longer a luxury and should not be subject to any excise tax. I suspect that nationwide flat-rate telephone service in the US could be offered for about what most people pay for just local service today. To me, the desireability of wide-area flat-rate pricing is so strong that it is one of the major reasons for opposing any "toll alerting" schemes. Those schemes just inhibit the evolution of the system and condition people to accept the idea that some calls should cost more. I wrote: > Actually, as I understand how number portability works, allowing it > would /increase/ the number of numbers in use, not decrease it. That Mark J Cuccia responded: > So, while there are "two" ten-digit NANP POTS numbers involved, the > actual "routing" or forwarding number is a single generic "default" > number used for any/all porting to that ported-to central office > switch, and not a unique one-to-one mapping based on any dialed > number. Thanks to Mark and the others who corrected my understanding. I am pleased to know that things are more efficient than I thought. But the original post to which I was responding claimed that number portability would decrease the need for number assignments. While I was wrong that the need would increase, it still seems that it won't decrease. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 2002 09:32:04 -0500 From: John Stahl Subject: Jennifer Martino Bad Link Pat, The link on your site (Ref. Issue TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:43:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 215) for the subject, reports back that the link is NG. Perhaps she changed her site or something. Any suggestions? John Stahl Consultant - Telecommunications and Data Aljon Enterprises Endwell, NY USA URL: http://home.att.net/~aljon [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I removed the link to 'The Web Page You Have Dialed' earlier today. I do not know what happened to Jennifer and her web site. It had some good stuff. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:53:27 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: News Headlines of Interest Motorola seeks to make its phones easier to use Apr 5, 2002 05:27 PM By Sinead Carew NEW YORK, April 4 (Reuters) - Motorola Inc.(NYSE:MOT) said it will introduce new wireless telephone screens designed to be as easy to use as those of Nokia Ab, Oy (HELS:NOK1V) (NYSE:NOK) and Samsung (KOREA:00830), making it simple for customers to switch brands without learning a whole new system. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26738894 ---------------- EchoStar Pulls Out of Satellite Net Access By Tiffany Kary Staff Writer, CNET News.com April 5, 2002, 3:10 PM PT EchoStar Communications is backing out of its satellite-based Internet access business in what many see as a tactic to pressure U.S. regulators to approve its proposed takeover of Hughes Electronics. The move could also paint EchoStar into a corner if the merger doesn't get approved. As of mid-April, EchoStar will stop accepting new customers for its Internet access service via satellite, a business done in joint venture with McLean, Va.-based StarBand Communications and Israel's Gilat Satellite Networks. The money-losing venture has managed to attract only 40,000 U.S. subscribers. http://news.com.com/2100-1033-877154.html ------------------- Communications Pioneer Pierce Dies Apr 5, 2002 07:11 PM (AP Online) By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - John Robinson Pierce, an electrical engineer who pioneered satellite communications and coined the word "transistor," has died. He was 92. Pierce, who died Tuesday in Sunnyvale, also was a musician and science fiction writer. He recorded some of the first synthesized music and wrote under the pen name J.J. Coupling. But he once said his greatest contribution took place in 1948 while he worked at Bell Laboratories, then the research arm of AT&T. Colleagues had invented a solid state device that amplified electrical signals. ... http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26739950 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:14:34 PST From: Eric Friedebach Reply-To: friedebach@yahoo.com Subject: Java: It's What's On The Cell Phone Anxious for a positive development, telcos push Web services By Christopher T. Heun, Information Week, April 1, 2002 At least in some eyes, all that the punch-drunk telco industry needs in order to recover is a set of exciting new services -- Web services, to be exact. Wireless phone carriers are working up enthusiasm for proposed wireless data services such as text messaging, E-mail, and video games due this year. Most of those services are being written in Java, with Microsoft's .Net a second choice for developers. .Net-enabled phones with a similar array of services are expected to be available before year's end. http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020329S0031 Eric Friedebach ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:40:33 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: HDTV White Elephants There was a big article in the business section of Friday's Washington Post about Chairman Powell of the FCC trying to jawbone the TV industry and the manufacturers to speed up the introduction of HDTV If the copy protection in the article below occurs, when word gets out, then the whole HDTV industry will just about die. * Original: FROM.... Dave Farber -----Original Message----- From: "Gregory Soo" < Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 12:08:19 Subject: HDTV white elephants John Dvorak (April 2 2002): http://www.pcmag.com/article/0,2997,s=1493&a=24658,00.asp ... It appears that the new copy-protection schemes being dreamed up by Hollywood will make every single HDTV set sold to date obsolete. And buyers of new sets are not being told about this situation in a dubious attempt to dump very expensive inventory. I'm sure those of you who spent $5,000 to $10,000 for what may become an albatross are going to love reading this. What happened was that the Hollywood folks, who are just freaked over the possibility that we'll be copying HDTV movies, have promoted copy protection that requires the decode circuit to be built into the display, not into the set-top box. This requires the set-top box to send a signal to a connector that new HDTV sets will have. If you're thinking of buying an HDTV, don't, unless it has this connector and circuit-whenever they are finalized. I suspect that this copy protection mechanism will be used for certain broadcasts, too, since there has been a lot of talk about copy-protecting DSS and other transmissions. The concept is that when copy protection is put within the circuitry of the display, you can't decode something with a set-top box and then grab the signal as it comes out of the box and before it gets to the screen. Meanwhile, the HDTV-promoting Consumer Electronics Association is going to eat crow if all the current HDTV sets turn out to be white elephants. I see no evidence that this mess will be resolved without a lot of burned consumers. All the Hollywood studios are belatedly demanding the new system. I suppose an expensive retrofit could be developed, but it probably won't be ... For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:42:46 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Obituary: Comm Pioneer (and SF Writer, musician) John Pierce * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber I had the privilege of knowing John djf Communications Pioneer Pierce Dies By MATTHEW FORDAHL AP Technology Writer April 5, 2002, 7:11 PM EST SAN JOSE, Calif. -- John Robinson Pierce, an electrical engineer who pioneered satellite communications and coined the word "transistor," has died. He was 92. Pierce, who died Tuesday in Sunnyvale, also was a musician and science fiction writer. He recorded some of the first synthesized music and wrote under the pen name J.J. Coupling. But he once said his greatest contribution took place in 1948 while he worked at Bell Laboratories, then the research arm of AT&T. Colleagues had invented a solid state device that amplified electrical signals. One of the inventors, Walter Brattain, knew of Pierce's ability with words and asked for advice for a name. He suggested it be called a transistor. "It was supposed to be the dual of the vacuum tube," he said in a PBS interview for the program "Transitorized!" "The vacuum tube had transconductance, so the transistor would have 'transresistance.' "And the name should fit in with the names of other devices, such as varistor and thermistor," he said. "And ... I suggested the name 'transistor.'" The name stuck and transistors would be used to develop everything from small radios to computers, ushering in the digital age. In 1954, Pierce said satellite communication would be possible by bouncing signals off an orbiting object, an idea first proposed by science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in 1945. Pierce's ideas were proven in 1960 with the launch of Echo, a giant balloon that bounced phone calls across the country from the Bell Labs facility in Crawford Hill, N.J. In 1962, he played a key role in the development and launch of Telstar, the first active communications satellite. In addition to carrying phone traffic, it relayed the first live television images between the United States and Europe. Pierce won one of engineering's top awards, the Draper Prize, with fellow satellite pioneer Harold Rosen in 1995. Pierce retired from Bell Labs in 1971 as director of research in communications. He returned to his alma mater, the California Institute of Technology and its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as an engineering professor. Later, he was a music professor at Stanford University and wrote books on theories of music and sound. He is survived by his wife, Brenda Woodard Pierce, as well as a son and daughter from a previous marriage. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-obit-pierce0406apr05.sto ry?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:45:04 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: More on ATTBI / Eudora / SSL and Semi-Open Relays * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber - Forwarded Message From: Kai Lui Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 14:14:41 -0500 Subject: Re: IP: More on ATTBI / Eudora / SSL I'm catching up on old email so please excuse the tardiness of my comments. Verizon's SMTP blocking is NOT an anti-spam measure, as the company claims, but a way to force their users to switch domain hosts (Interland is their outsource partner). Once you switch, they allow you to use your own domain name in outgoing emails. Anyone can send an email through Verizon's smtp server so long as the reply address is in the verizon.net or bellatlantic.net domain, regardless of the validity of the account. (I just tried, and I'm not a Verizon customer). Any spammer can use this essentially open relay. Kai Lui Computer Consultant ------ End of Forwarded Message For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Spring Ahead Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 23:00:00 Just a note to readers: As you read this issue of the Digest Saturday night or Sunday sometime, be certain that your clocks reflect the correct time. Set your clocks forward one hour if you are in most areas of the USA, and a few other countries as well, since Sunday at 2:00 AM (your local time) starts Daylight Saving Time. And what are the other two things you are supposed to do at clock change time each year? Well, for one, check the batteries in your smoke detectors and two, send your moderator a modest offering for the next year. Since I was not around last year to put out any Digests, and thus could not give you any nag-ware messages on same, we will just write last year off. However some of you have not remitted anything for at last two or three years or longer, and it would be a great help to me if you would do so at this time: (Amounts are your choice). TELECOM Digest / Post Office Box 50 / Independence, KS 67301. Oh and do not forget to check/change those batteries/clocks! Thanks. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #216 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Apr 7 17:56:31 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA15188; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:56:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204072156.RAA15188@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #217 TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Apr 2002 17:56:00 EDT Volume 20 : Issue 217 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Carl Navarro) Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Ken) Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using (Terry Knab) Re: Jennifer Martino Bad Link (Colin Sutton) Your Cell Phone Is Watching You (Monty Solomon) Re: Talking With Robot Agents (Leela) MCI Litigation (R.H. Townsend) Global Crossing Litigation (R.H.Townsend) Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number (Why Telco Hates DSL) (M. Falco) Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Carl Navarro Subject: Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 01:14:32 -0500 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:01:44 -0500, Carl Navarro wrote: > On 5 Apr 2002 05:06:43 -0700, tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) wrote: >> Has anyone see this come up on thier caller ID lately? >> 800-xxx-xxxx (some toll free number) and out of area? >> I sense some telemarketers are doing this to avoid things like privacy >> manager and such. >> Anyone got thoughts on how they do this? > Maybe they have a PRI and properly programmed it? > Carl Navarro > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Carl, its impossible to have your > PRI 'properly programmed' AND have 800-xxx-xxxx as the number. You > see, *there is no such thing* as an OUTGOING 800 number. 800/888 etc > are for INCOMING CALLS only. Your PRI is supposed to be your outgoing > number, isn't it? For your outgoing calls, you would be on some more > 'traditional' area code. If a number shows up on my caller ID box I > would like to have it be the number that was calling me. PAT] Well, not exactly true Pat. Verizon nee GTE has been doing that for years. If I call you on any of my lines, it reports the pilot number. Not really a bad thing to do, since it sure makes it easy for contact manager software and number recognition. An outbound PRI has no trunk number assigned to it in most cases, leaving you with the "out of area" or "unknown" report from the CID database. Which would you rather have, a return number to call, or "Unknown?" I'll take a number :-) Carl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Given those two choices (unknown/out of area or a dummy callback number which at least gets to someone/something at the caller's premises), I suppose I would agree with you. Since non-geographic area codes are possible now, with ease, how about an 'area code' for telemarketers such as '666' and drop them all in there. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ken Subject: Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 09:09:19 +0100 Organization: ntlworld News Service Terry Knab wrote in message news:telecom20.215.2@telecom-digest.org... > Has anyone see this come up on thier caller ID lately? > 800-xxx-xxxx (some toll free number) and out of area? > I sense some telemarketers are doing this to avoid things like privacy > manager and such. > Anyone got thoughts on how they do this? Not sure about N. America, but certainly in UK, it is possible to have "Presentation Numbers" sent to the called party. The PN can be a toll-free or other non-geographic number, but the regulator stipulates it must be "owned" by the subscriber, to prevent abuse. There are different types of PN -- some fixed in the subscriber's public exchange, others sent by its PBX (using ISDN). Many PBX systems can now assign PNs to specific extensions for outgoing calls. Properly used, it can be of benefit to both parties. There would be no point in making a return call to a main switchboard number (the default case where there is no PN), but where the PN points to a recording, or auto-attendant, the called parties can find out who called without bothering an operator. Of course, telemarketers can and do use it to defeat Anonymous Call Rejection, but they could do that with a geographic number anyway. ------------------------------ From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab) Subject: Re: New Trick Telemarkters Are Using Organization: The Home Office Date: 7 Apr 2002 05:55:39 -0700 Gail M. Hall wrote: > I don't have caller ID on my phone, but in my opinion, if the number > is a valid contact number for the company doing the calling, then I > think that makes good sense. After all, if you did decide to call > them back, wouldn't you prefer the number to be a valid contact > number? I called one of thsoe numbers back (from a prepaid cell phone, which seems to be quite useful for this sort of thing) ... they were like 'if you missed our call, we'll call back, so hang up' ... or press 2 to enter your number and get off our call list. ------------------------------ From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: Jennifer Martino Bad Link Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 13:23:31 GMT Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) Are these the messages, on http://heymoe.freeyellow.com/? Colin Sutton John Stahl wrote in message news:telecom20.216.5@telecom-digest.org: > Pat, > The link on your site (Ref. Issue TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:43:00 > Volume 20 : Issue 215) for the subject, reports back that the link is NG. > Perhaps she changed her site or something. Any suggestions? > John Stahl > Consultant - Telecommunications and Data > Aljon Enterprises > Endwell, NY USA > URL: http://home.att.net/~aljon > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I removed the link to 'The Web Page > You Have Dialed' earlier today. I do not know what happened to > Jennifer and her web site. It had some good stuff. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have never before heard of 'heymoe. freeyellow'. Exactly what is it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:46:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Your Cell Phone Is Watching You YOUR CELL PHONE IS WATCHING YOU Chris Kanaracus, Valley Advocate The tracking ability of cell phones will soon grow exponentially, as the FCC has ordered all new phones to be equipped with GPS tracking devices. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12776 ------------------------------ From: lajavakom@yahoo.com.au (Leela) Subject: Re: Talking With Robot Agents Date: 7 Apr 2002 08:22:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Dear All, Thank you for all comments on this topic. I'd like to add more benefits about this. I read from articles and understood that if companies apply this technology, it will help operators or live agents answering simple questions. Then they can go for the complex question so it also reduce the time consuming for customers. I'd like to hear more comments on the advantages and disadvantages affecting both companies, which apply this technology and customers, who use it. ------------------------------ From: rht@allweb.com (R.H. Townsend) Subject: MCI Date: 7 Apr 2002 10:20:14 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I believe that everyone in telemarketing is aware of the class action litigation involving MCI (listed on NYSE: MCI) I am involved in similar litigation with MCI, it's officers and subsidiaries. As or more importantly, if you are a former employee MCI, especially in the telemarketing sales area or public relations, news releases to the public, I need your help very badly. I really need to hear from you ASAP. . I need to hear your story. Please take a moment and call me, Robert Townsend, toll free at 1-800-308-7716, Ext 4007. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------------ From: rht@allweb.com (R.H. Townsend) Subject: Global Crossing Date: 7 Apr 2002 10:21:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ I believe that everyone in daytrading/long term investments, stock brokerage and securities dealings is aware of the litigation involving the dramatic drop in the value Global Crossings (listed on NYSE: GBLXQ) stock and it's subsequent Chapter 11 filing for reorganization, investigation by the FBI and SEC which has generated class action litigation. I am involved in similar litigation with Global Crossing it's officers and subsidiaries. I need your help very badly. If you were damaged by the restatement of the financial statements and earnings of Global Crossings , it's officers or subsidiaries I need to hear your story. As or more importantly, if you are a former employee of Global Crossings, especially in the financial, stock transactions area or public relations, news releases to the investing community or Sales the public, I really need to hear from you ASAP. Please take a moment and call me, Robert Townsend, toll free at 1-800-873-9657, Ext 4007. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 22:43:45 -0500 From: Marcus Didius Falco Subject: Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number Why Your * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010222.html Sorry, Wrong Number (Why Your Phone Company Hates DSL) By Robert X. Cringely My next-door neighbor is an engineer who works for Cisco Systems doing something having to do with optical networking. Like me, he has been frustrated by the problems of rural Web surfing. But unlike me, he is honest about his situation. "I'm a bandwidth junky," he says. Give the man DSL and he'll want a T-1. Give him a T-1 and he'll lust for a T-3. And the truth is we are all that way. Everyone I know would like a faster Internet connection. That's the attraction of DSL, which is the fastest connection at a good price that most of us can get. Yet DSL is to many people a disappointment because it can be so hard to get in the first place and often hard to keep running. Both of these problems can be traced back to a source that isn't your ISP and probably isn't your DSL provider, either. The problem is your phone company. Avram Miller was not long ago a vice president of Intel charged with managing the company's $1 billion venture portfolio. Now he is out of Intel running his own Avram Miller Company doing much the same work. Avram lives in the next valley over from me in a rammed earth house on a hill above the Kenwood winery. Avram, too, is a bandwidth junky. Going further, he's a bandwidth junky with money. And that makes it especially frustrating that from his hilltop perch he can actually see, only a quarter mile away, the telephone company central office (CO) that serves his home, yet Avram Miller can't get DSL service. His phone company (Verizon) doesn't offer it from that CO and there is no other DSL provider in the building, either. And while this situation bugs the heck out of Avram Miller -- a guy who is pondering starting his own DSL company just to get DSL -- it doesn't bother the phone company at all. If anything, this is the outcome many phone companies prefer. To understand this phenomenon, you have to think about how the telecommunication business has changed in the last decade. In the beginning there was Ma Bell, and she was your phone company pretty much anywhere in America. Then, in 1983, AT&T tired of a long anti-trust fight with the government and proposed to end the case by splitting itself into many parts. AT&T would retain the long distance phone service -- where the real money was being made back then -- while local service would stay with a number of Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Judge Green said yes, and the current phone market was born. Years passed, and the RBOCs also began to lust for some of that lucrative long distance revenue. So they asked the Federal Communications Commission for the right to enter the long distance market. The price of entry was defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which said that the RBOCs could enter the long distance business IF they would allow other companies to compete for local phone service and IF they would deploy "advanced network services," which means DSL. So the RBOCs -- your local phone company -- became ILEC's (Incumbant Local Exchange Carriers), and a new class of local phone companies was born called CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers). CLECs have rack space in the Central Office run by the ILEC. CLECs use the ILECs phone lines, too. But most CLECs don't do much voice service. Most of them just provide DSL. Covad, Northpoint, and Rhythms are all examples of CLECs that concentrate on DSL service. The ILECs have not generally been very kind to the CLECs, and give them as poor service as possible. They are, after all, competitors. But even worse, from the perspective of the ILECs, is the fact that their original reason for entering into this unholy alliance -- to be able to sell long distance service -- isn't, itself, the money maker it used to be. Long distance, which inspired not only the Telecom Reform Act of 1996 but also the AT&T breakup of 1983, is today a business with almost no profit. That's exactly why AT&T has spent over $100 billion to enter the mobile phone, cable TV, Internet, and local telephone markets -- their long distance business sucks. The decline of the long distance business has changed the competitive landscape for other services, too, as the ILECs adjust. And that adjustment is what this column is all about. Right now most CLEC and DSL stocks are in the toilet, which is exactly what the ILECs want. They want weak competitors and horror stories about broadband. Their plan has worked perfectly. Not that the ILECs have engineered our slowing economy, but this weakness among the CLECs mean there is no pressure for the ILECs to beef up their own broadband initiatives, so DSL doesn't make it to Kenwood. There is gear available that would allow DSL almost everywhere, but who wants to spend that kind of money? The CLECs can't because they're all on life support. The ILECs don't want to because it'll cut into profits. With no competitive pressure to do so, why bother? This is at the heart of why Verizon cancelled its purchase of Northpoint. It is why Northpoint is suing Verizon, and why some Verizon customers are suing over delayed DSL deployments. The ILECs actually WANT to delay DSL deployment. They don't want the technology to succeed too quickly because that would mean massive upgrades to field gear and cuts into profits. The only reason why any ILEC built out a DSL product line was because of competitive pressure from CLECs and that darned Telecommunications Act of 1996, which they wanted so much at the time but now hate. With long distance dead as a profit center, the CLECs have swooned and the ILECs are back at square one -- trying to boost profits by not spending money. Why upgrade when you can charge the same amount for use of a hundred year-old plant? It appears to me that the ILECs are for the most part treating their DSL service as a loss leader. They've priced it so low to compete with CLEC offerings that they cannot possibly make any money at it. This is why they are delaying customer installations. Why not hold that money-losing installation a few more months until all the DSL CLECs are dead, then raise prices? The ILECs have obviously learned something from Microsoft. This is all bad news for a nation of bandwidth junkies. It means DSL will get to your network later than expected and eventually cost more than expected. The saddest part of all is that this is a product that will revolutionize society, yet there are lots of people trying to stop that. For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ To reply use the address below: falco_marcus_didius yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 01:10:20 -0500 Dave Close wrote: > I suspect that nationwide flat-rate telephone service in the US could be > offered for about what most people pay for just local service today." Except that would destroy the interexchange carrier industry, aside from the "carriers' carriers" that actually operate large fiber networks, meaning that there would be a *lot* of yelling and screaming to Congress from those whose businesses would be destroyed in one fell swoop. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #217 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Apr 8 14:11:12 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA05737; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:11:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:11:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204081811.OAA05737@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #218 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:00:00 EDT Volume 20 : Issue 218 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #327, April 8, 2002 (Angus TeleManagement) Alternative to Do Not Call Lists (Chris Williams) Re: HDTV White Elephants (Robert Casey) Headlines of Interest (Monty Solomon) Another Clueless E-Mail Spammer With a Toll Free Number (Steven Lichter) Re: Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number Why Your (Herb Stein) Re: MCI, Global Crossing, and 4th-Grade Grammar (Null) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 10:53:43 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #327, April 8, 2002 TELECOM UPDATE published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 327: April 8, 2002 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** AT&T CANADA http://www.attcanada.com ** BELL CANADA http://www.bell.ca ** GROUP TELECOM http://www.gt.ca ** LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES CANADA http://www.lucent.ca ** PRIMUS CANADA: http://www.primustel.ca ** Q9 NETWORKS: http://www.Q9.com ** TELUS: http://www.telus.com ** UNISPHERE NETWORKS: http://www.unispherenetworks.com ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Cellcos Launch Inter-Carrier Messaging ** Call-Net Debt Slashed ** Videotron Focuses on Business Telecom ** Quebecor Says BCE Funding of ExpressVu Unfair ** Price Cap Decision Delayed ** Nortel, Teleglobe Debt Gets Junk Rating ** Teleglobe Closes Sale of Excel ** RIM to License BlackBerry Technology ** BCE to Take Over Intrigna? ** AT&T Predicts Bigger Canadian Loss ** New York to Get 11-Digit Dialing ** BCE Emergis to Lay Off 550 ** On-Line Sales Up 43% in 2001 ** Bell Adds Minimum Fee to First Rate Plan ** Shaw, @Home Sue Each Other ** Onlinetel Readies VOIP Network ** CWTA Signs Partner for Fall Trade Show ** Exclusive -- Telus Execs Outline Ontario Strategy ============================================================ CELLCOS LAUNCH INTER-CARRIER MESSAGING: On April 2, Canada's four national cellular carriers launched the first multi-carrier wireless text messaging service in North America. Customers simply address their SMS text messages to the recipient wireless phone number, regardless of which carrier they use. (See Telecom Update #308) CALL-NET DEBT SLASHED: Call-Net has received the court's go-ahead to implement changes that will reduce the company's debt by $2 billion. On April 3, 97% of Call-Net's noteholders and 96% of its shareholders voted to approve the deal, under which current creditors will trade their bonds for 80% of the company's stock, plus cash and new bonds. (See Telecom Update #321) VIDEOTRON FOCUSES ON BUSINESS TELECOM: Now that it has purchased Stream's assets (see Telecom Update #326), Quebecor subsidiary Videotron Telecom says it is "back on track and back in the black." President Eugene Marquis says the company is now focused exclusively on business telecommunications services and will hire sales and marketing staff to support growth in the Toronto-Ottawa- Montreal corridor. QUEBECOR SAYS BCE FUNDING OF EXPRESSVU UNFAIR: In a letter to CRTC Chair Charles Dalfen, Quebecor CEO Pierre-Karl Peladeau accuses BCE of "a blatant form of cross- subsidization" of its ExpressVu subsidiary, which competes for broadcast subscribers against Quebecor-owned Videotron. PRICE CAP DECISION DELAYED: The CRTC says that its Price Cap decision, previously scheduled for April, will be released "on or before 31 May 2002." ** "ARC et al," a major consumer alliance that has participated in the price cap proceeding, has reiterated its support for a Call-Net/AT&T request that telco rates be made interim (see Telecom Update #313) so that the new price cap regime could be made retroactive when approved. NORTEL, TELEGLOBE DEBT GETS JUNK RATING: Moody's Investors Services has cut the rating of Nortel Networks and BCE Teleglobe senior unsecured debt three notches to Ba3, a junk grade. ** Nortel says the downgrade will not have a significant impact on its operations. Teleglobe will comment Wednesday. (See Telecom Update #324) TELEGLOBE CLOSES SALE OF EXCEL: BCE's Teleglobe unit has finalized the sale of Excel Communications to VarTec Telecom for proceeds of US$227.5 million in promissory notes. (See Telecom Update #297) RIM TO LICENSE BLACKBERRY TECHNOLOGY: Research In Motion plans to offer other manufacturers a "comprehensive hardware and software platform" enabling them to build BlackBerry-type devices. BlackBerry's custom-designed chip will also be made generally available by Analog Devices. BCE TO TAKE OVER INTRIGNA? Last December, BCE announced that it was negotiating with Manitoba Telecom Services to gain greater control over Bell Intrigna, the western CLEC they jointly own. An unconfirmed Globe & Mail report now says that BCE wants to trade part or all of its 20% share of MTS for full control of Intrigna, which it would then merge with Bell Nexxia. The deal may be completed this month. AT&T PREDICTS BIGGER CANADIAN LOSS: In its quarterly 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T Corp. says it expects AT&T Canada's current review of financial alternatives to "have a negative effect on the underlying value of AT&T Canada shares," and that this will result in "up to US$250 million in additional losses" on AT&T Corp's commitment to buy AT&T Canada shares next year. (See Telecom Update #324) NEW YORK TO GET 11-DIGIT DIALING: Effective February 1, 2003, all local calls in New York City, including those within the same Area Code, will require 11 digits -- 1 plus the Area Code plus the 7-digit local number. BCE EMERGIS TO LAY OFF 550: BCE Emergis says it will "streamline our service offering and cost structure," laying off 550 employees (20% of its total) and discontinuing non-core services. ON-LINE SALES UP 43% IN 2001: Statistics Canada says Canadian businesses received $10.4 billion in revenue from on-line sales in 2001, 78% from sales to other businesses. On-line sales were up 43.4% from 2000 but were still only 0.5% of total business revenue for the year. BELL ADDS MINIMUM FEE TO FIRST RATE PLAN: Starting in May, subscribers to Bell Canada's First Rate residential long distance plan will pay a minimum fee of $4.95 a month for up to 60 minutes of off-peak calls in Canada. SHAW, @HOME SUE EACH OTHER: @Home Corp. is suing Shaw Cablesystems for US$65 million for breach of contract. Shaw has countersued for $120 million, claiming that @Home stopped providing service. (See Telecom Update #323) ONLINETEL READIES VOIP NETWORK: Onlinetel, a unit of Toronto-based Eiger Technology, plans to activate a Voice Over IP network with points of presence in nine Canadian cities and New York by mid-May. http://www.onlinetel.com ** Eiger says public trading of its shares will begin next month. CWTA SIGNS PARTNER FOR FALL TRADE SHOW: The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association has agreed to produce its fall conference and trade show jointly with Expo Comm Events. This fall's event, planned for November 5-7 in Toronto, is now called Expo Comm Canada Communications 2002. EXCLUSIVE -- TELUS EXECS OUTLINE ONTARIO STRATEGY: In the April issue of Telemanagement, three Telus executives describe the company's expansion strategy in Central Canada. ** Single copies of Telemanagement #194 are $75 each -- call 905-686-5050 ext 500 and charge to Visa, American Express, or Mastercard. Save 49% with a 10-issue subscription -- go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 ============================================================ HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@add.postmastergeneral.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: TelecomUpdate@remove.postmastergeneral.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. ============================================================ COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2002 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:30:11 -0500 From: Chris Williams Subject: Alternative to Do Not Call Lists I don't know where the idea of the Do Not Call List first appeared, but it had to have been from people who didn't want it ever to have any realistic effect. There is so much work that you have to do if you really want it to work. You have to be put onto a ridiculous quantity of individual DNCLs, and then YOU have to track all the calls that you get to see whether a particular call is in violation. You catch one, and then you have to go to court. Why is all this work placed on the shoulders of the consumer? And then how long before you have to start the process all over again because your entry on a particular DNCL expired? It's absurd that WE have to do so much work to be left alone. Why has this become such a labor-intensive process? My personal feeling is that this whole DNCL concept is flawed and needs to be replaced by something that would actually work and not force people to pay for Caller ID or Anonymous Call Rejection or any of the other products and services marketed by your LEC and others; items that cost you both your money and your time. My proposal is to require all unsolicited marketing calls to be flagged by the caller's LEC or IXC, either by trunk or individual call, and for that indicator to become part of the call setup information. People not wishing to receive these types of calls can dial a *XX service code to tell the terminating switch to reject calls of this type. No work for the consumer other than to turn this service on once. The equipment does all the work as it should. Since it would be so unambiguous about which calls would be in violation, fines for telemarketers not having their calls flagged could be significantly greater, and, best of all, automatic. Using something like the *57 Call Trace function, fines could show up on the caller's bill the same way 900 numbers are billed. Are there any technical hurdles that couldn't be overcome, or are they all just political? Chris Williams ------------------------------ From: Robert Casey Subject: Re: HDTV White Elephants Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:01:58 -0400 Organization: wa2ise > The concept is that when copy protection is put within the circuitry > of the display, you can't decode something with a set-top box and then > grab the signal as it comes out of the box and before it gets to the > screen. If I take the back off the set, I'll be able to grab the signal just after it is converted from digital to analog by the DAC. Oh, I'd have to build some buffer circuits, but surely enough people on the various electronics newsgroups and web sites will tell how to do it. "I was a wrong number at the phone company" "The phone company's got your number!" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 22:36:08 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Headlines of Interest FCC official says "unthinkable" media deals possible Apr 7, 2002 03:21 PM By Jeremy Pelofsky LAS VEGAS, April 7 (Reuters) - Big mergers of media companies that were previously "unthinkable" may now pass regulatory muster to allow the industry to achieve efficiencies that could benefit the public, a top U.S. communications regulator said on Sunday. The Federal Communications Commission is facing a daunting task over the next several months of overhauling how it regulates ownership in the cable, broadcast and newspaper industries after many of its rules have come under fire from a federal appeals court. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26743436 'Crappy' WAP Bridging Gap By Elisa Batista 2:00 a.m. April 8, 2002 PDT As soon as they started getting thumb cramps and eyestrain from browsing the Web on their mobile phones, American consumers immediately shunned the so-called mobile Internet. The wireless application protocol -- WAP for short -- became a beacon for epithets. "WAP is crap" was a popular refrain. Some frustrated users said WAP stands for "what a pity." The "growing epidemic of WAPlash" struck fear into the hearts and minds of hopeful early adopters who wanted a scaled-down version of Web content on their cell phones. http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,51516,00.html Motorola Shatters Industry Records for Cable Modem Service Scalability Apr 8, 2002 08:00 AM (PR Newswire) The Motorola BSR 64000 Connects Nearly 15,000 Cable Modem Customers -- Triple The Industry Average per Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) HORSHAM, Pa., April 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) Broadband Communications Sector announced today that its customer, Cox Communications of Las Vegas, one of Cox's fastest growing regional cable television systems, has surpassed industry norms by supporting 14,700 cable modem customers on a single CMTS/router -- the Motorola Broadband Services Router (BSR) 64000. This quantity, which is approximately three times the number of cable modems typically reported to be connected to competitive cable modem termination systems (CMTS), demonstrates Motorola's technical leadership in building high-performance CMTS/routers. The BSR 64000's ability to support such large populations of cable modems has helped position it as one of the industry's leading CMTS/router platforms, selected by major networks around the world. http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=26747175 ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 08 Apr 2002 01:43:52 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Another Clueless E-Mail Spammer With a Toll Free Number ... to teach this individual about the cost of owning an 800 number ... -----Original Message----- For A Private Consultation: Call Toll Free: 1-877-620-9024 Monday - Friday (9am - 9pm EST) Remember it is against the law to harrass anyone by telephone. Also you should use a payphone so that the operator can make a little money. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve, have you any idea what the nature of the consultation is to be about? Is it to instruct the caller on matters of making money fast; how to send massive spams for free on the net; or something more mundane like sex-talk? As I tell my chatters on America On Line and Yahoo Messenger each day, I don't do cyber; I don't do fone; and I don't send out naked pictures. And I don't get that many inquiries on making money fast or sending out spam. What does this one want to talk about? Any ideas? I guess readers will have to call 877-620-9024 and ask them what they want to chat about. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Herb Stein Subject: Re: Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number Why Your Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 15:17:36 GMT Marcus Didius Falco wrote in message news:telecom20.217.9@telecom-digest.org: > * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010222.html > Sorry, Wrong Number (Why Your Phone Company Hates DSL) > By Robert X. Cringely > My next-door neighbor is an engineer who works for Cisco Systems doing > something having to do with optical networking. Like me, he has been > frustrated by the problems of rural Web surfing. But unlike me, he is > honest about his situation. "I'm a bandwidth junky," he says. Give the > man DSL and he'll want a T-1. Give him a T-1 and he'll lust for a > T-3. And the truth is we are all that way. Everyone I know would like > a faster Internet connection. That's the attraction of DSL, which is > the fastest connection at a good price that most of us can get. Yet > DSL is to many people a disappointment because it can be so hard to > get in the first place and often hard to keep running. Both of these > problems can be traced back to a source that isn't your ISP and > probably isn't your DSL provider, either. The problem is your phone > company. > Avram Miller was not long ago a vice president of Intel charged with > managing the company's $1 billion venture portfolio. Now he is out of > Intel running his own Avram Miller Company doing much the same > work. Avram lives in the next valley over from me in a rammed earth > house on a hill above the Kenwood winery. Avram, too, is a bandwidth > junky. Going further, he's a bandwidth junky with money. And that > makes it especially frustrating that from his hilltop perch he can > actually see, only a quarter mile away, the telephone company central > office (CO) that serves his home, yet Avram Miller can't get DSL > service. His phone company (Verizon) doesn't offer it from that CO and > there is no other DSL provider in the building, either. And while this > situation bugs the heck out of Avram Miller -- a guy who is pondering > starting his own DSL company just to get DSL -- it doesn't bother the > phone company at all. If anything, this is the outcome many phone > companies prefer. > To understand this phenomenon, you have to think about how the > telecommunication business has changed in the last decade. In the > beginning there was Ma Bell, and she was your phone company pretty > much anywhere in America. Then, in 1983, AT&T tired of a long > anti-trust fight with the government and proposed to end the case by > splitting itself into many parts. > AT&T would retain the long distance phone service -- where the real > money was being made back then -- while local service would stay with > a number of Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Judge Green > said yes, and the current phone market was born. > Years passed, and the RBOCs also began to lust for some of that > lucrative long distance revenue. So they asked the Federal > Communications Commission for the right to enter the long distance > market. The price of entry was defined in the Telecommunications Act > of 1996, which said that the RBOCs could enter the long distance > business IF they would allow other companies to compete for local > phone service and IF they would deploy "advanced network services," > which means DSL. > For archives see: > http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ Interesting article on why DSL is not as widespread as we might hope. At least here in the St. Louis, I'd guess that the competitive cable TV services (Charter Pipeline service in my area) rather than the CLECs are the main competition for SBCs DSL service. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 952-4601 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in Independence, we have two local ISPs (one of which is actually locally owned by the Radio Shack guys) and the other one which used to be locally owned but is now owned by a conglomorate but with a local switch which they inherited but kept operating when they bought out the local guy). I think maybe that one is 'wired through' to their local office in Kansas City. Those of us 'lucky enough' to be within 15 thousand feet or so of the telephone building on Maple Street can get DSL, which means most folks in town, and the DSL identifies itself as Wichita, KS. The local cable service, Time-Warner, does not give cable modem service here in town, but they may start it 'some day'. In other words we do not get much choice. But, the DSL works pretty well. I've noticed that occassionally, the DSL connection simply refuses to go anywhere, and the DSL modem has to be reset, or the entire computer rebooted. I don't know why. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Null Subject: Re: MCI, Global Crossing, and 4th-Grade Grammar Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 02:25:34 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet R.H. Townsend wrote in message news:telecom20.217.7@telecom-digest.org: > ... I am involved in similar litigation with MCI, it's officers and > subsidiaries ... The word is "its". When picking over the dead husks of companies scavengers should at least have the decency to use correct grammar. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably, Null, you should blame me for being the indecent one. After all, I am the editor of this column and spend time each day going through adding and deleting things like commas, periods, 'question marks' and the like, and correcting some spelling now and then, although spelling is not my good point in life. I used to correct the Digest to the extent of the *Chicago Manual on Style* but I've stopped that since I no longer live in Chicago. That was today's ob-joke, or last laugh. I know that the word 'its' is an exception to the rule of adding 'apostrophe /s/' when making the word which follows a possession of the (pro)noun in front of it. For example, when describing a Note as the possession of the Editor, we are supposed to spell it 'E-D-I-T-O-R-apostrophe-S'. We do not do that in the case of the pronoun 'it' since that conflicts with the use of apostrophe-S when used for a contraction of 'it is'. When Mr. Townsend sent his correspondence to the Digest, he may or may not have known that fine point of English grammar, but I knew it. Trouble is, with my deseased brain, due to the aneurysm I was dealt as part of my hand, I don't always do as well on this Digest as I used to do in the past. I sometimes let things slide, such as not following the *Chicago Manual of Style* to the letter. But I did graduate from fourth grade, and can prove it. Another thing Editor has possession of are prerogatives; and one of Editor's prerogatives is to change subject lines as I wish, and to require writers to sign their names to what that they have written. I did not amend your subject line to read 'Last Laugh! Re: MCI, Global Crossing, et al' because I did not want to offend your sensibilities by making mock of your message, nor did I reject it for lack of name and email address, but I would appreciate it if in the future you would give a realname@address and ask me to remove it if you feel it is important. 'Null' isn't very creative is it? Anyway, don't blame Mr. Townsend, blame me. I should have caught it prior to printing. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #218 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Apr 9 01:11:31 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA19324; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:11:31 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204090511.BAA19324@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #219 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:11:00 EDT Volume 20 : Issue 219 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ICB Toll Free News for 4/8/2002 (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Alternative to Do Not Call Lists (Robert Krten) Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch (Scott D. Fybush) Re: HDTV White Elephants (Ed Ellers) Re: Another Clueless E-Mail Spammer With a Toll Free Number (S. Lichter) Re: Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number Why Your (Barry Margolin) Re: Your Cell Phone Is Watching You (John Bartley) T1 / Laptop? Want to Web-Broadcast From Hotels (Mike Whalen) Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) (Clarence Dold) Employment Opportunities: Telecom Careers (Jennifer Chamberlain) Re: MCI, Global Crossing, and 4th-Grade Grammar (Larry N. Osborne) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. 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: Judith Oppenheimer Subject: ICB Toll Free News 4/8/2002 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:37:32 -0400 http://ICBTollFreeNews.Com HEADS UP HEADLINES from ICB Toll Free News - Covering the Political, Legal and Marketing Arenas of 800, ENUM and Dot Com. CONTENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL 8, 2002 - IAB VERSUS VERISIGN, AKA WHAT'S THE ITU GOT TO DO WITH IT? - THE PAY PHONE PIRATES - ACM APPEALS TO ICANN TO SCALE DOWN - 800 SERVICE INTEGRITY REMAINS AN ACTIVE ENUM ISSUE - THE OTHER ALSC COMMENTS - THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT /=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= advertisement =-=-=-\ -- Lost and Stolen Number Retrieval -- ENUM Survival Strategies -- Crisis Resolution -- Vanity Number Issues, Guidance & Navigation -- Tollfree Number Traces -- Representation at SNAC, ENUM & ICANN Forums -- Strategic Leadership + Competitive Intelligence -- Custom Research Reports -- Custom Problem Solving: disputes, litigation support, RespOrg issues, etc. ICB Consultancy -- http://1800TheExpert.com \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=.=/ Looking for the best 800 and long distance rates available today? Choose from multiple programs - Rates as low as 2.9 cents per minute, with no monthly minimums or hidden service charges! Click here: http://WhoSells800.com \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ - WE SHOULD BE OVERCOMING ICANN BY LISTENING TO PAUL BARAN - NET HEAVYWEIGHTS: DEPOSE ICANN - PUBLIC FORUM LOCK DOWN - ICANN DIRECTOR SUES TO INSPECT BOOKS - GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY ____________________________________________________ ARTICLE ACCESS CODE LEGEND ICB Toll Free News offers two valuable service options: F = Free - News and Features articles P = Premium - Unlimited Site Access including all Articles and Documents. Registration information is not sold, leased or rented. *** For additional information about topics and stories, keyword search here: http://www.icbtollfree.com/Search.cfm. ____________________________________________________ P - IAB VERSUS VERISIGN, AKA WHAT'S THE ITU GOT TO DO WITH IT? RFC 2916 anticipated that ITU would take responsibility for determining the legitimacy and appropriateness of applicants for delegation of "country code"- level subdomains of the top-level ENUM domain. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5643 F - THE PAY PHONE PIRATES It appears that someone has created a "call center" of pay phones dialing toll free numbers solely for the purpose of collecting the dial- around compensation ... Using an automatic dialer hooked up to a bank of pay phones could make you a millionaire in less than a year. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5642 F - ACM APPEALS TO ICANN TO SCALE DOWN ... expresses concerns with the current state of Internet governance and the status of ICANN. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5641 P - 800 SERVICE INTEGRITY REMAINS AN ACTIVE ENUM ISSUE It is critical that certain controls and checks be inserted in the ENUM provisioning process to verify that the service integrity is maintained for non-geographic services to correlate with the non-geographic numbers being accessed, says Verizon. Conversely, AT&T and WorldCom seem to be abandoning their toll free customers, where ENUM is concerned. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5641 P - THE OTHER ALSC COMMENTS "The too much process argument we've heard is phony with respect to the pending question of at-large membership, the proposed at-large organization, at-large board seats, and even at-large elections, because the ALSC, at the specific request of the Board, completed its process on schedule and has recommended a practical, implementable action plan ... [ICANN management's proposal is] a declared intent of a palace coup d'etat from within ICANN." CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5639 F - THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT "... it's surprising that ICANN has lasted," explained one industry insider, "The government agencies typically coordinate among themselves, and it was always dubious whether DoC even had the authority to do what it did with ICANN. I guess they will collectively pull the plug, unless the White House does it for them," he continued. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5638 ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ EVERY 3.6 SECONDS SOMEONE DIES FROM HUNGER http://www.hungersite.com/ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ F - WE SHOULD BE OVERCOMING ICANN BY LISTENING TO PAUL BARAN "The Internet provides an instructive model for the future of telecommunications regulations. The Internet allows worldwide communications at a far lower cost than any alternative; serving data users inexpensively, and opening access to the world's information to a greater number of people than ever initially imagined." CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5637 F - NET HEAVYWEIGHTS: DEPOSE ICANN David J. Farber, Peter G. Neumann, and Lauren Weinstein declare, "Wide consensus has already been achieved on at least one key point -- even by ICANN's current president -- ICANN is seriously broken. We agree, and we additionally assert that ICANN's history, structure, and behaviors strongly indicate that the most productive course would be for ICANN's role in Internet affairs to be discontinued." Immediately. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5635 F - PUBLIC FORUM LOCK DOWN In a week when Stuart Lynn branded it "a joke" and initiated action to free the Board from democratic accountability to the online community, ICANN closed down its most popular public forum, recipient of over 7,000 postings in recent months. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5636 F - ICANN DIRECTOR SUES TO INSPECT BOOKS Because ICANN is a non-profit California corporation, the organization must comply with a California statute giving any director of the corporation an "absolute right" to inspect and copy corporate records. "Directors, not management, have the ultimate responsibility and authority to oversee the operations of a corporation like ICANN," explained Auerbach's attorney James Tyre. "ICANN staff's arbitrary and changing policy regarding access to corporate records is not only disturbing, but unlawful in the state of California." CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5633 F - GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY It has always been the case that the actual matters before the board are generated within the last few days. However, at this meeting that practice reached a new low -- the resolutions were not posted to the public at all and most were available to Directors only a few hours in advance. In fact some were made available only at the start of the meeting. One can not say that there was any time for quiet and deep consideration or for any consultation or discussion. Looming over this meeting was the specter of the President's "roadmap" to reform ICANN. Although that is just a discussion document, two of its large goals -- the eradication of public participation in ICANN and the elimination of the Independent Review Panel -- major reversals of years of ICANN policy - suddenly appeared among the resolutions and, as we saw, were adopted. CONTINUED HERE: http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5634 ___________________________________________________ ABOUT ICB ICB HeadsUp Headlines is sent by request. Subscriptions to ICB HeadsUp Headlines are free to qualified applicants. Visit http://www.icbtollfree.com/reg.cfm?NextURL=Index.cfm to sign up. To unsubscribe mailto:editor@icbtollfree.com, subject: unsubscribe. (Unsubs are processed manually, approximately bi-weekly.) ___________________________________________________ ADVERTISING For information on advertising in ICB HeadsUp Headlines, mailto:editor@icbtollfree.com, subject: Headlines Advertising ____________________________________________________ Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. ____________________________________________________ Copyright 2002 ICB, Inc. All rights reserved. ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: nospam89@parse.com (Robert Krten) Subject: Re: Alternative to Do Not Call Lists Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 02:05:59 GMT Organization: Magma Communications Ltd. Chris Williams wrote: > I don't know where the idea of the Do Not Call List first appeared, > but it had to have been from people who didn't want it ever to have > any realistic effect. There is so much work that you have to do if you > really want it to work. You have to be put onto a ridiculous quantity Canadian Radio-Television Council (CRTC) states that if a customer asks to be put on a "Do Not Call" list then you *MUST* not call that customer for a year. There are probably other US style regulations, dunno ... > of individual DNCLs, and then YOU have to track all the calls that you > get to see whether a particular call is in violation. You catch one, Easy. Put it in your caller ID database, as a "DNC" number :-) > and then you have to go to court. Why is all this work placed on the Court? No, just call the CRTC and complain ... Then it's up to them. > shoulders of the consumer? And then how long before you have to start > the process all over again because your entry on a particular DNCL > expired? It's absurd that WE have to do so much work to be left alone. In Canada, one year. > Why has this become such a labor-intensive process? > My personal feeling is that this whole DNCL concept is flawed and > needs to be replaced by something that would actually work and not > force people to pay for Caller ID or Anonymous Call Rejection or any > of the other products and services marketed by your LEC and others; > items that cost you both your money and your time. It costs me time and money to answer the door for Jehovah's Witnesses and other annoying "spam". Perhaps your solution should apply to both? :-) > My proposal is to require all unsolicited marketing calls to be > flagged by the caller's LEC or IXC, either by trunk or individual > call, and for that indicator to become part of the call setup > information. People not wishing to receive these types of calls can So, as a business I'd have to register as a telemarketer? What if I don't? What if I do "sporadic" telemarketing? > dial a *XX service code to tell the terminating switch to reject calls > of this type. No work for the consumer other than to turn this service > on once. The equipment does all the work as it should. Since it would > be so unambiguous about which calls would be in violation, fines for > telemarketers not having their calls flagged could be significantly > greater, and, best of all, automatic. Using something like the *57 > Call Trace function, fines could show up on the caller's bill the same > way 900 numbers are billed. > Are there any technical hurdles that couldn't be overcome, or are they > all just political? Probably just political. Who's the phone company gonna listen to, you or someone who has 30 outgoing business lines? :-) Cheers, Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316. Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led Training and Consulting at www.parse.com. Email my initials at parse dot com. ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: FCC to Vote on Phone-Number Crunch Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 02:13:41 GMT Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, from Rochester NY: my parents were served by Rochester Tel/Frontier for decades, on 716-442-xxxx. They switched to Time Warner a few years back (admittedly before the advent of "full" portability), and were given a 716-785-xxxx number from Time Warner. But that number was unpublished - 442-xxxx kept appearing in the phone book, and dialing 442-xxxx reached them. Caller ID registered 785-xxxx, though, and trying to use busy-number redial only worked when you dialed the 785- number. About 18 months ago, this changed. They're still served by Time Warner, but the number registers as 442-xxxx on caller ID, busy redial works when you call 442-xxxx, and you can't dial them on the 785- number any more. -s ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: HDTV White Elephants Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:47:49 -0400 Robert Casey wrote: > If I take the back off the set, I'll be able to grab the signal just after > it is converted from digital to analog by the DAC. No, you'll be able to grab it as it comes out of a chip and goes into the RGB amplifiers that drive the CRT, by which time it will probably have been aperture corrected, meaning you'd have to undo the correction before recording. (The signal at that point will probably be at a level that varies with the picture control setting, too.) ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.com (Steven Lichter) Date: 09 Apr 2002 01:15:19 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Another Clueless E-Mail Spammer With a Toll Free Number I guess it got clipped. They offer a service to get out of dept, but must they spam everyone. I have 3 e-mail addresses, 2 that I don't use for anything and they get hundreds of junk e-mails a week. This posting one is blocked except for persons or groups on its lists. I called these people to complain and they really did not care, just another way to advertise for them. You will get a real person. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Steve, have you any idea what the > nature of the consultation is to be about? Is it to instruct the > caller on matters of making money fast; how to send massive spams > for free on the net; or something more mundane like sex-talk? As I > tell my chatters on America On Line and Yahoo Messenger each day, > I don't do cyber; I don't do fone; and I don't send out naked pictures. > And I don't get that many inquiries on making money fast or sending > out spam. What does this one want to talk about? Any ideas? I guess > readers will have to call 877-620-9024 and ask them what they want to > chat about. PAT] Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II 24 hours 2400/14.4. An OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one!!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) Kill Spammers, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That part of your message never got here. So they want to talk to you about getting out of debt? Hmm, that's very noble of them. Especially since their phone bill next month may cause them to have to get a second or third mortgage on their own house, just to pay the phone bill. Call 877-620-9024 and give them some advice about keeping their phone bill under control. Remember, don't harass them, just point out the facts. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Cringely on DSL or Sorry, Wrong Number Why Your Organization: Genuity, Woburn, MA Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 15:46:53 GMT In article , Marcus Didius Falco wrote: > * Original: FROM..... Dave Farber > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010222.html > Sorry, Wrong Number (Why Your Phone Company Hates DSL) > By Robert X. Cringely > This is all bad news for a nation of bandwidth junkies. It means DSL > will get to your network later than expected and eventually cost more > than expected. The saddest part of all is that this is a product that > will revolutionize society, yet there are lots of people trying to > stop that. Except that DSL isn't the only broadband game in town -- there's also cable modems. This also requires cable companies to upgrade their plant, but they need to do that in order to offer digital cable (500 channels of crap instead of just 100 channels of crap), and cable modem services can ride along for free. Although the cable modem business isn't doing too well, either. Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net Genuity, Woburn, 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:58:35 PDT From: John Bartley Subject: Re: Your Cell Phone Is Watching You Monty Solomon wrote on Sun, 7 Apr 2002: > YOUR CELL PHONE IS WATCHING YOU > Chris Kanaracus, Valley Advocate > The tracking ability of cell phones will soon grow > exponentially, as the FCC has ordered all new phones > to be equipped with GPS tracking devices. > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12776 Not true -- and alternet.org now becomes an unreliable source. The FCC requires celcos to provide locating for E911, but does not dictate that GPS be part of the solution! John E. Bartley, III - telcom admin, Portland OR, USA - Views are mine. http://www.viewreviews.com/vp.php?id=6 Review of SPH-i300 http://palmwireless.cjb.net Wireless FAQ for PalmOS(R) This post is quad-ROT13 encrypted. Reading it is a violation of the DMCA. You are granted to store this informationTM in your brain for private, not commercial use. Commercial use of this information whether in your brain or other bodily parts requires the express written consent of its license holders and property owners. ------------------------------ From: otakuvidiot@hotmail.com (Mike Whalen) Subject: T1 / Laptop? Want to Web-Broadcast From Hotels Date: 8 Apr 2002 09:15:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ A colleague's desktop machine has a PCI card in it that allows him to hook directly into a T1 line. (I don't know the make of a card.) He's hoping to find some sort of similar solution for a laptop/notebook. What's at issue here is he's attempting to webcast from various hotels around the world. All these hotels would have T1 on premises, but without the PCI card, he thinks he's out of luck. Is he? Does anyone know of something that would do this? Cheers, Mike ------------------------------ From: dold@69.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Local Number Portability (was re: FCC to Vote ...) Date: 8 Apr 2002 16:36:34 GMT Organization: Wintercreek Data Dave Close wrote: > I've written before, starting several years ago, that the distinction > between "local" and "long distance" calls is an historical artifact, > and is now purely artificial and should be eliminated. Most of the That simply isn't true, mechanically. The cost of carrying calls on a CLECs own network is different from that needed to reach anything off net. I might agree that once you reach "LD", the rates needn't be different, but there still is a substantial mechanical difference between local service and LD service, and there always will be, as long as one is confined to a company's facilities, and the other requires traversal to a different company. The rates for LD could be used to subsidize... ;-) I won't even go there. Clarence A Dold - dold@email.rahul.net - Pope Valley (Napa County) CA. ------------------------------ From: jennifer@wenje.com (Jennifer Chamberlain) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Careers Date: 8 Apr 2002 10:36:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ We are exclusively engaged on behalf of Sprint Canada to find two Strategic Alliance Managers [Marketing Channel Managers] background of individuals should include: Voice and or Data Marketing and some experience in Sales would be very helpful. Can email a full job description to any interested parties, or if you have any suggestions regarding referrals, would be greatly appreciated. 905-887-0840, email: Jennifer@wenje.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:08:42 GMT From: osborne@Hawaii.Edu (Larry N Osborne) Subject: Re: MCI, Global Crossing, and 4th-Grade Grammar Organization: University of Hawaii > The word is "its". When picking over the dead husks of companies > scavengers should at least have the decency to use correct grammar. Yeah, and there ought to be a comma after "companies" too ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note [...] > ... When Mr. Townsend > sent his correspondence to the Digest, he may or may not have known > that fine point of English grammar, but I knew it. Trouble is, with > my deseased brain, due to the aneurysm I was dealt as part of my hand, > I don't always do as well on this Digest as I used to do in the past. > I sometimes let things slide, such as not following the *Chicago > Manual of Style* to the letter. But I did graduate from fourth grade, > and can prove it. Pat, you've got more style than all of Chicago put together. Don't ever go away again. Larry N. Osborne, Ph.D. Dean, Information Services Chaminade University [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not lived in Chicago since around the start of 1999, when the Sheriff ran me out of town. I hope not to go back. I certainly do not miss the place. Thanks for your kind comments. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V20 #219 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Apr 10 01:17:43 2002 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA09282; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:17:43 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200204100517.BAA09282@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V20 #220 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:15:00 EDT Volume 20 : Issue 220 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Federal vrs. State Laws on Telemarketers (john@pdj01.cinci.rr.com) FTTH and Broadband Internet in Japan (John De Hoog) CLECs and Others Ignoring Caller ID Privacy Bit (Interpage Network) New Breed Spam Filter Slashes Junk Email (Monty Solomon) Re: Local Number Portability (was Re: FCC to Vote ...) (John R. Levine) Re: HDTV White Elephants (Paul Wallich) Re: T1 / Laptop? Want to Web-Broadcast From Hotels (Jim Hopkins) Re: T1 / Laptop? Want to Web-Broadcast From Hotels (John R. Levine) Re: Talking With Robot Agents (Interpage Network Services Inc.) 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 630-841-7174 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. Access to Premium (P) links requires upgrade to a paid subscription. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Only subscribers or registered users of ICB Toll Free News web site will be able to access all or some of the full text of URLs provided. LEGAL STUFF: TELECOM Digest (sm) is owned by Patrick Townson. Copyright 2000 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: john@pdj01.cinci.rr.com Subject: Federal vrs. State Laws on Telemarketers Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:31:12 GMT Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio Just the other day I got a long message on my machine from a telemarketer, it was a pre-recorded message, and he left a local phone number. So I call him to complain, and have my number removed. He told he was in his rights to do everything he did, and that I had to send him a letter to put on his do not call list. I then did a little web searching, and sent him an e-mail, and he responed back. Now the question. Is he right? I don't think he is. I don't see anything that states that the FCC rules are for inter-state telemarketing only, thus the federal laws apply to everyone in this case. I've included the E-mail. My E-mail has been removed, and the one in the header is anti-spammed. From bspry@raduga.net Tue Apr 9 07:32:10 EDT 2002 From: Bill Spry To: References: <200204090023.UAA21357@pdj01.cinci.rr.com> Subject: Re: Telemarketing rules Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:22:24 -0400 Disposition-Notification-To: "Bill Spry" John, I know that these rules are very confusing. But you see, I do not fall under Federal rules (FCC) as I am not involved in Interstate Commerce. I do not do ANY business with anyone that resides in ANY community across ANY State lines. Therefore, I fall under the State Of Ohio law, not federal (FCC). Please see the following ... http://www.ag.state.oh.us/pressrel/telemrk.htm also see: http://www.simplesimon.com/resources/statelaws/statelaws.asp#Ohio I am a Christian business man that IS NOT doing an dishonest scamming agressive telemarketing campaign. I am a local guy that sells mulch at a much lower price than others in this area and I am trying to let everyone know. I have grown very tired of attitudes like yours. I do not hire anyone to do it for me, I do it myself. I don't harass people. I very willingly take names of my list as people request it. I am not a jerk, but my patience often grows thin when uninformed people approach me like you did. That is not the way to treat people. Why would I want to continue to call people who don't want to be bothered? As a business man I receive many computer generated calls on a daily basis. I just hang up. I don't like the calls either. But they don't bother me to the extent that I would harass the telemarketer. People have a right to make a living. I just don't understand. I am just way too busy to even care. It must be nice to have all of that time on your hands. You are right about it being your phone. I was wrong about suggesting you disconnect it. However, if you really want to protect your privacy as you claim, then change your phone number to an unlisted one. Most telemarketers don't call unlisted numbers. Furthermore, you might want to do a little more investigation next time, like I did. Get an attorney for straight answers, like I did. Enough said. I won't bother you again and I am sorry that I upset you so much. It was just a short 15 second call. William J. Spry Spry Lawn and Supply ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:23 PM Subject: Telemarketing rules > Bill, > I thought I heard it all, but your comment that nothing you did was > against the law is just wrong. What an friendly attitude you have, > you stated that if I didn't want telemarketing calls, I should get > rid of my phone. My phone, house, car, and other things are for my > use, as I please, not yours. Also when I asked to be added to > your do not call list, you stated that I have to send it to you > writing. Again, you are wrong. Just to let you know it took me > about two minutes to find this on the FTC website. How to Reduce > Unwanted Telemarketing Calls Now. If the FTC decides to adopt the > proposal and implement a national "do not call" registry, it will be > months before it takes effect. However, there are steps you can take > right now to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls that > you receive. > 1. Ask companies that call you to put you on their company-specific > "do not call" list. Existing regulations by both > the FTC and the FCC prohibit a telemarketer from calling you after > you have asked them to stop calling you. > Now, a few more minutes of work brings us to: > Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 > http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html > The big part you should read is...... > Calls using artificial or prerecorded voice messages - including > those that do not use autodialers - may not be made to residential > telephone numbers except in the following cases: > emergency calls needed to ensure the consumer's health and safety; > calls for which you have given prior consent; > non-commercial calls; > calls which don't include any unsolicited advertisements; > calls by, or on behalf of, tax-exempt non-profit organizations; or > calls from entities with which you have an established business > relationship. > Your call was not an emergency, was commercial, I had not given you > prior consent, and I had no prior business relationship. So > in the long run, Bill, you lose. The FCC complaint number is 2855220. > Have a nice day. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not venture a guess as to whether or not federal law would apply if Bill's phone calls were *purely*, *absolutely* intrastate. If Bill could certify that his business was totally intrastate, then he may have a point about the various state laws *only* applying to his business practices. I think you might have done well to file a complaint not only with the FCC/FTC at a federal level but also with the appropriate state agencies for Ohio. I don't know which agency and whose rules would prevail, but that is what courts are for, to make decisions like that. Of course you did not -- I assume -- want to go to that much trouble and expense, which is probably what Bill was counting on also. Do you know the amount of money it would cost to subpoena Bill's telephone records, to find a single out of state call, and to fight with an attorney who was willing to do battle with you? Then of course your own attorney costs money while he and Bill's attorney schmooze around sitting in a bar cutting deals, etc, each of them grateful for the business you guys are giving them. I think I would have sent a cc: on that file to the various state commissions before going any further. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:28:17 +0900 From: John De Hoog Subject: FTTH and Broadband Internet in Japan Perhaps some of you would be interested in learning about the status of broadband Internet services in Japan. For many years Japan lagged behind the U.S. in Internet services, two main reasons being the low penetration of personal computers and the high cost of metered telephone service. Recently, however, the situation has changed dramatically. In my neighborhood in suburban Tokyo, for example, I have a choice of always- on ISDN access, 1.5 Mbps or 8 Mbps DSL from several different providers, cable Internet, and 100 Mbps fiber-to-the-home service from at least three carriers. There is also a wireless access provider that has been advertising its services in this area. I recently had one of the FTTH services installed, replacing the rock-solid ADSL service I had been using for the past year, and now enjoy actual download and upload rates as high as 54 Mbps. Using software that is able to take full advantage of the speed by downloading on multiple streams, I'm able to download a couple of hours of music in just a minute or two. The cost for the access line, modem rental and provider charges comes to 6100 yen a month total (around US$45 at today's exchange rates). The number of DSL users in Japan has increased rapidly and now exceeds three million households. FTTH is still new, with around 20,000 users. Along with cable and ISDN unlimited service, the total number of Internet users with always-on connections now exceeds the number of dialup users. There are also active efforts to serve the growing broadband community with content services. This is where the carriers hope to recoup the investment they are making in broadband infrastructure. Looking at the offerings to date, though, I wonder if many of the content ideas will catch on. Installing fiber to the home is an expensive and delicate operation requiring a fairly high level of skill. A typical installation to one home, after the fiber has been strung in front of the house, takes about half a day. The fiber strands (one in each direction in the case of my provider) are fed into the house and snaked through the phone wire ducts to an outlet where the connection will be used. This part is relatively easy. The most time-consuming work takes place outside, as the fibers are cut into the main lines. Then on the user end they have to be threaded into the little unit that converts the optical signals to electrical signals for feeding to the router. (In a multi-family unit the line goes from the optical "modem" to a switching hub.) Whether any of these services manages to be profitable in the long run remains to be seen, but many large corporations are betting huge sums of money on the future of the broadband Internet in Japan. John De Hoog http://dehoog.org ------------------------------ From: Interpage Network Services Inc. Subject: CLECs and others Ignoring Caller ID Privacy bit Organization: www.interpage.net Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 03:17:36 -0400 Hello, I've recently come across a unified messaging provider which appears to be ignoring the privacy bit which is sent as part of the Caller ID (SS7?) protocol to tell the end office not to display a given caller's number. The provider uses both direct dial and toll-free (800, etc.) numbers. Although I have no problem (within the scope of this post) with grabbing ANI (although they grab the caller ID) on toll-frees, I do object to them grabbing the caller ID on local/LD calls when the calls are explicitly blocked. Thus, if you call a given direct-dial (non-800) account in this provider's block of numbers , and either have per-line blocking (all calls on the line are blocked) or use *67 per-use blocking, the called party is nevertheless able to both see a your number if the call is relayed to him, and/or listen to it as a voicemail header if the caller drops to voicemail or the call is unanswered and rings down to voicemail. I'll emphasize again that this is an apparently standard direct-dial