From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 21:36:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05146; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170136.VAA05146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #251 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 21:36:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors (Robert J. Perillo) Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence (John McGing) Reflections on PCS'97 (Tara D. Mahon) Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) (Steve Hayes) Re: Phoning Home to 5 (John Mianowski) Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release (Laura Twombly) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Tom Watson) Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition (Zev Rubenstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 18:22 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: Dyslexic Telephone Switch Causes Billing Errors Northern Telecom Ltd. stated last week that its widely used DMS-100 telephone switch caused numerous billing errors in many phone company central offices due to a software bug introduced during a software upgrade this summer. The software glitch caused the billing interface to become dyslexic and use the wrong area code in phone company Central Offices covering more than one area code. The software snafu was fixed after about a month of erroneous billings. Net users calling their "fixed price" local access number found hundreds of dollars of overcharges on their telephone bills this summer. The local number was billed as a toll call with a different area code attached. To add to the confusion, customers were told by their local telephone company that the billing problem was with their long distance company or the Internet Service Provider (ISP). And these companies directed customers back to the local telephone company. Customers were refused an explanation but were finally told that it was a "System Error". Pacific Bell acknowledged that 167,000 Californians, mainly in the Bay Area's 415 and 510 area codes and 805 near Los Angeles, were billed $667,000 in unwarranted local calls. The problem was also reported by Nynex customers (now Bell Atlantic) in the New York City area. I do not understand why complete testing and some sort of independent review was not done by NorTel before they released the software upgrade? The local telephone companies should also have some sort of Quality Assurance program in place before they allow a contractor to upgrade software in their Central Offices? I also do not understand why the local telephone companies did not handle the problem better in terms of customer service, and inform all possible affected customer's of the problem? [References: Inter@ctive Week, "Net Users Overcharged in Glitch", by Louis Trager, 08-Sep-1997. Forbes Magazine, "Midsummer madness, New technology is marvelous, except when it isn't. System Errors", by Dan Seligman, 08-Sep-1997, page 234. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP Richmond, VA Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil ------------------------------ From: jmcging@dm.net (John McGing) Subject: Bell Atlantic Changes re: Wire Maintenence Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:30:36 GMT Organization: @Home Networks Note the out they put in if you run a modem on the line (or a fax, I guess.) BellAtlantic Dear Customer, September 1997 The Terms & Conditions for Bell Atlantic Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service and Optional Wire Maintenance (the "Plans") have been revised. These changes will become effective on November 1" 1997. A copy of the new Terms & Conditions is enclosed. We encourage you to take the time to review the revised Terms & Conditions. A brief description of the changes to the Terms & Conditions are listed below. Description of the Plans - Optional Wire Maintenance : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that coverage applies to the inside wire and jacks associated with a Bell Atlantic or other eligible carrier's dial tone line. Inside wire and jacks associated with a dial tone line service not protected by the plan are not covered under the Plan. The description has also been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade dial tone line to transmit or receive data or signals. Description of the Plans : Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service : The description of the service has been revised to indicate that a service charge may apply when a repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the transmission or receipt of data or signals which is beyond the operating capabilities of the dial tone line. For example, using a voice grade line to transmit or receive data or signals. Additionally, a sentence has been added to indicate that Guardian Enhanced Maintenance Service is not available for residential ISDN lines. Charges : A late payment charge has been added. A late payment charge may be applied to the unpaid balance of the bill for each billing period in which you fail to pay the bill in full by the due date. Exclusions : Two exclusions have been added to the Plans. In West Virginia, repairs resulting from major fires or acts of nature, such as floods, wind-storms and earthquakes will no be longer covered by the Plans. These exclusions have previously applied in all other states within the Bell Atlantic mid Atlantic service area. As noted above, an exclusion has been added to indicate that the Plans do not cover malfunctions in the dial tone line resulting from the use of voice grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which exceed the operating capabilities of the line. A service charge may apply if a repair person is dispatched and the problem is determined to be of that type. Non-acceptance Instructions : If you do not wish to accept the above changes, you may terminate your participation under the Plan at any time by contacting Bell Atlantic al the number shown below. If you wish to continue your subscription to the Plan, do nothing. The Plan will remain on your line pursuant to the revised Terms & Conditions. Should you have any questions, please call us at 1 -800-232-4008. Sincerely, Glenn Pettit Assistant Product Manager ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 10:51:36 +0100 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Reflections on PCS'97 Hi Pat and DIGEST, The following went out as part of Insight's email newsletter, NewsFirst Telecom, yesterday -- thought the list would be interested. Best Regards, Tara D. Mahon, tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation >>>NEWSFIRST EXTRA Reflections on the PCIA's PCS'97 Show, Dallas, TX As Texans are fond of telling everybody, things are bigger and better in Texas. This year's PCIA Personal Communications Showcase conference, held September 9-12, seemed to confirm this, with over 20,000 attendees and 600 vendors loudly proclaiming their wares. On the show floor were singing salesmen at PageNet, dancers at Samsung, H. G. Wells at Ericsson, and several towering antennae. Amid the noise and hoopla, we also observed signs of important trends in the wireless industry: o Wireless handsets for cellular or PCS operation are rapidly becoming commodities. Several vendors showed very similar models with price and distribution as the only clear differentiators. While market leaders sought to create distinct market niches--Nokia with style, Motorola with small size and range of products, Sony with innovative design-- the growing list of vendors, plus new products from Samsung and Lucent/Philips, make this an increasingly crowded market. For several vendors, innovative software from Unwired Planet and GeoWorks provides Internet access and enhanced wireless services. o Wireless Local Loop has arrived. Interesting new products from Mitsubishi, LG Electronics, Sony and others give carriers and installers a range of choices in this increasingly important market. We even saw a version of the Japanese PHS wireless system for use in the US. Using both the licensed and unlicensed PCS frequency bands, vendors are meeting the demand for lower cost alternatives to stringing more copper wire. Insight sees this as a rapidly growing and potentially exciting market both in the US and in developing countries. o Competition between the CDMA, TDMA, and GSM digital protocols continues. By now most vendors realize that Qualcomm's CDMA technology really works, while end-users want features and are confused by technology. As of mid-1997 there were 44 million wireless phones registered in the US and market research is finding households with multiple wireless phones. Insight sees success in this competitive market increasingly being determined by how well carriers can meet users' needs for coverage, security (especially for business users), and network reliability. o There was a lot of talk but few announcements of LMDS products. Since the FCC announced last March that it will auction off spectrum in the 28-31 Ghz band for this new service, there has been a lot of speculation about its performance and competitive benefits. There is also something of a backlash against more auctions and vendors' taking on large amounts of debt. Insight sees LMDS as one of several local loop distribution technologies. LMDS has advantages for carriers entering a new market and initially having limited penetration or market share. Its cost advantages in these "thin" markets for CLECs and other new carriers should make it valuable, especially for providing "bursty" services to smaller establishments. o As carriers seek to differentiate their services, security or fraud reduction is being recognized as a problem facing carriers and their corporate customers. Just as "churn" was the buzz word that would get carriers' attention last year, so systems and software vendors from Lucent Technologies to Systems Link Corp. see fraud reduction as an important sales opportunity. Insight Research would be pleased to discuss any of these issues and how they might apply to your firm. For further discussions, please contact Michael French, Vice President of Market Research at (973) 605 -1400, or by e-mail at michael@mf.insight-corp.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:34:09 -0400 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Phone System Pricing (was Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare...) In Telecom Digest V17 #241, Dave Stott wrote: > I did the arithmetic a little differently. If I'm an ISP and buy a > business line for $35 (the going rate in Phoenix from U S WEST), hook > a modem up to it for incoming calls, then receive calls every single > minute of every single day in a typical 30 day month (43,240 busy > minutes), then I'm paying 0.081 cents/minute for access. If, more > typically, I use the specific line 75% of the time (32,400 busy > minutes), then I'm paying .108 cents/minute for access. >If IXCs are paying PacBell >> versus $0.014 per minute paid to the local phone company for >> handling connections to a long distance carrier > then there isn't that much difference. Dave - check your arithmetic. $0.014 per minute is 1.4 cents/minute. That is about 13 times as much as .108 cents/minute. Quite a difference, I'd say. In any case, much of that $35 is paying for the physical line to the ISP. I'm sure that the IXC has to either provide the physical interconnection itself or pay something comparable to or more than $35/month for it. In my opinion, the whole thing is a mess. Most people in North America have become used to "unlimited free" local calls which are heavily cross-subsidized by that 1.4 cents/minute and (in most places) relatively high line rentals. Here in Britain, we have the opposite situation - lower line rentals and (in general) lower long-distance rates but hefty local call rates (about 5c/min daytime). Neither is a satisfactory situation. They don't reflect the real costs; resulting in poor utilization of the telecommunications infrastructure. My prescription would be: 1 - Phone service should be metered like electricity. With per-minute non-fixed costs in the fraction of a cent range, the metered rate might be about 0. 5 cent/min - a bit more for long distance. This sort of rate shouldn't deter most people from using the phone, any more than electricity rates deter most people from turning on a light. It would deter people from abusing the system with ISP connections nailed up all day, etc. If someone still wanted a nailed-up connection, they would be paying enough to cover the extra costs. 2 - The metered rate would not provide for itemized billing any more than you get itemized billing when you switch on a light. If you still need itemization even at 0.5 cents/minute, you could buy recording equipment or perhaps Telco could offer this service at extra cost. I suspect it costs as much to bill calls unde r the present system as it does to connect them. It must cost a whole lot more to promote all those confusing call plans, to administer all those charge card and collect call charges and to sort out all the billing disputes. And what about the costs of area code splits because every competing carrier needs its own office codes for rating purposes? 3 - Line rentals should - on average - cover fixed costs plus a reasonable mark-up. This would tend to be higher than at present but would be partly offset in most parts of North America by stripping out the current payment for those "free" local calls. 4 - In time, competition would drive all these prices down and bring them even closer to costs. With the present arrangements, there's much less incentive to focus on costs and much more to focus on silly marketing gimmicks. If you're at long-distance carrier paying 2.8 cents/minute for local network access, there's not much incentive to work on the 1 cent/minute or so it actually costs to connect the calls. 5 - Payphones should charge a fixed per-minute cash amount on all calls (except emergency) in addition to the metered charge to cover the cost of installing and maintaining the phone. No doubt, some other arrangement could be set up to allow calls to be made without coins but this arrangement should cover its own administrative costs. I'd say that this cost would be so much higher that everyone would decide to put the coins in instead. As an aside, this already happens in most of Europe. In Britain, you can make a short call to anywhere in the country with a 10p coin (about 15 cents). Very few people go through the operator to make a collect call for about 10 times as much. 6 - Where it was necessary to subsidize phone service (rural and low-income), this should be explicit and probably a responsibility of government. The revenue could be raised by a percentage tax on all telecommunications services. Although I'm sure that most telcos are making quite ample profits, I don't see this as the real problem. It's more that the present price structures prevent efficient use of the system and lead to massive overheads which we all end up paying fo r. Steve Hayes, Swansea, Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: mianows@ix.netcom.com (John Mianowski) Subject: Re: Phoning Home to 5 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:26:46 GMT Organization: Netcom When I was in the second grade, our small town got dial. It was a VERY big deal, with open houses at the CO, training presentations at the school, etc. I have a very vivid memory, from about three or four years before, having the following exchange: (Young child picks up phone handset). Operator: "Number please." Child: "459." Operator: "Their mother is sleeping." My friend's mother was a telephone operator, who had apparently worked the previous overnight shift. The day operator of course knew this, and would not put my call through!! JM ------------------------------ From: Laura Twombly Subject: Re: Area Code 209 Split - CPUC News Release Date: 16 Sep 1997 19:15:45 GMT Organization: ESAC Leonard Erickson wrote in article : > Anthony Argyriou writes: >> The 209 area code split will be implemented in the following stages: >> November 14, 1998 Start of Permissive Dialing >> May 15, 1999 Start of Mandatory Dialing >> August 21, 1999 End of Mandatory Dialing. > Excuse me? *End* of Mandatory dialing? I think someone at the CPUC is > using a bit too much "medical" marijuana. :-) It sounds goofy, but it's a useful name for what occurs at that time. That is when the new codes that the split released will begin to be assigned. The rest of the available codes will be removed from the special announcement that says something to the effect of "you must dial area code XXX." Which means that customers that misdial after that point will reach the standard Vacant Code announcement, or a wrong number. Laura Twombly ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:47:37 -0700 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Could someone explain to me exactly _HOW_ these MedicAlert devices work? > I was under the impression that a _LOCAL_ telephone number of a _local_ > hospital or emergency reporting center would be dialed upon pressing the > 'panic' button, _or_ at least a toll-FREE 800 (or 888) number would be > programmed-in to be dialed. Do all MedicAlert signaling devices > throughout the US dial-out to a California 209 (toll) number? Medic Alert was founded BEFORE 800 numbers were in existance (or used very often) and as such, the early bracelets had instructions to call a 209 number COLLECT to get the 'vital' information. Later they did get an 800 number, but not until LOTS of bracelets had been issued. Thus I can see the reason why a particular number in 209 should continue to be that way. Of course, the phone company could do the "right thing" and setup a one-number CO that forwards the particular number to the correct area code (or some nice automated response). The fact remains, the number MUST be protected, as it is a "cast in stone" style number. I suspect that MedicAlert did some early negotation with the phone company (which was quite easy then) to insure that it would be "protected". Yes, there are lots of nice "igh-tech" solutions, but this is a political decision, and "high-tech" doesn't enter into the decision, only emotions. (*SIGH*) Perhaps we should re-unite the Bell System. (That's another topic, please create a new thread for it). tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:23:38 -0400 From: Zev Rubenstein Subject: Re: Wireless ISPs and Free Competition Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) writes: > Obviously ISPs should network themselves with the most cost-effective > technology possible, and the FCC part 15 spectrum is great for that. etc. Regarding ISPs networking themselves (in the business sense), check out Verio (http://www.verio.com), which has gotten lots of funding to buy smaller ISPs to create a nationwide network. Regarding wireless ISPs, check out http://www.warpdrive.net/hires/index.htm They are one of many wireless ISPs; they are using UHF frequencies for fixed wireless connectivity. I was going to use them myself, but am out of their current service area. Regarding bypass of the LEC in general by ISPs and NSPs, there was a great article a few weeks ago in Inter@ctive Week, which discussed how companies like Concentric Networks were applying for CLEC (competetive local exchange carrier) status. Concentric in particular doesn't offer ISDN service: they are banking on xDSL longer term, and are using frame relay and fractional T1 to service their market, which is primarily corporate & home office. As wireless technology is better able to compete with wireline infrastructure for bypass, there will likely be a price point where NSPs (like Concentric), larger ISPs and merged ISPs (e.g. Verio affiliates) eager to bypass the LEC bottleneck will pick the appropriate wireless technology to reach customers. Recall, also, that AT&T announced plans to use proprietary technology developed by AT&T Wireless Services (AWS) to do the same for both voice and data. (I recognize that there are those who claim that AWS is bluffing; I'm only pointing out that there are others with the same concept). Finally, MCI, which has always stuck to a reseller strategy in wireless and a build-infrastructure strategy in local service (in some areas) may choose to do the same: buying spare wireless capacity as it arrives (as George Guilder predicts it will). Zev Rubenstein Business Development Manager Predictive Systems 510-749-3210 zev@predictive.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #251 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Sep 16 22:25:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08633; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:25:21 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709170225.WAA08633@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #252 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Sep 97 22:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT (R Ghosh) Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh (H. Peter Anvin) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Fred Goodwin) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (F Goldstein) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (M Chance) Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (R McMillin) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Michael Kagalenko) Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities (Clive D.W. Feather) Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert (Bruce Wilson) Re: Nextel Cellular? (Michael D. Sullivan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Indian Cabinet Clears Private ISP Policy Leaving Details to DoT Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 17:53:12 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org Organization: Deus X Machina, New Delhi The Indian Techonomist - bulletin, September 16, 1997 Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Indian Cabinet clears private ISP policy * Broad outlines cleared, details left for later * Telecom capacity shortage: $250 mil backbone plan * Power utility, railways long-distance telecom networks September 16, 1997: The Indian Cabinet in a meeting today cleared the policy proposal to allow private Internet service providers. As predicted by The Techonomist (August 31), what was cleared by the Cabinet makes up the broad outlines of the new Internet policy environment: no licence fees for two years, reduced telecom tariffs, traffic to be routed through the international telecoms monopoly (and till now the Internet monopoly), VSNL. The devil is certainly in the details here, and Department of Telecoms (DoT, the telecoms monopoly) has apparently evaded others' attempts to get it to include specific licensing terms in the policy approved by Cabinet. It is now up to the DoT to decide what exactly the new tariffs should be, and to whom they will apply. It remains unclear whether private operators' traffic must be routed through VSNL's TCP/IP gateway, or through transcontinental telecom capacity (also leased through VSNL). The policy on direct interconnectivity between private operators has not been clearly specified - the DoT has always preferred to act as intermediary, or penalise links between separate private operators with especially increased telecom tariffs. However, DoT Secretary A V Gokak had earlier this month said that interconnections would probably be allowed, ending the ridiculous situation where traffic between to geographically proximate nodes in separate networks has to take a path half-way round the world. Mr Gokak had also indicated that private operators would be free to set tariff structures for their customers, with the market, rather than the DoT determining prices. (Previously, private e-mail operators had to stick to DoT-specified tariff bands.) DoT "backbone" unlikely to ease capacity constraints There is no doubt that the growth in Internet users will take off rapidly - there are about 50,000 commercial subscribers today. Given the continuing restraints on operators, and capacity constraints, the number of Internet hosts will probably remain pitiful (barely a thousand), and Indian web sites will continue to be hosted off US-based servers. The DoT is also being urged to build telecom capacity specifically for an Internet backbone. It is not particularly keen to do so, given the far higher profit margins in extending India's limited infrastructure for telephony traffic. There is a proposal to build an Internet backbone, budgeted at roughly $250 million, but DoT cannot reasonably be expected to find the money on its own. It is, of course, spending several billion dollars on expanding its telecom network, and part of that may go into a dedicated Internet backbone - if someone else pays for it. Telecom capacity off power utility, railways' networks might Proposals have been floating around the corridors of government for alternative long- distance networks operated by the railways (a government Ministry) and the electricity transmission utility (Power Grid Corporation of India, PGCL). Both have huge property giving rights of way across the country, and the Ministry of Railways already runs a vast internal telecoms network. Both see long- distance telephony as a money-spinner rather more profitable than their core operations, and would like to build bulk capacity for either the DoT or private operators. India is expected to end the DoT's monopoly on domestic long-distance traffic in 1999 (the DoT's local monopoly has been in the process of ending since 1995, the first private local wireline operator plans to start operations this November). For the moment, the government is not allowing the Railways or PGCL to go ahead with joint-ventures with private or foreign companies, it is "studying the issue." Perhaps a good experimental first step would be to let the Railways sell the spare capacity on its telecoms network - much of it optical fibre - to new private Internet operators. As a compromise, the Railways could do this at non- competitive rates, sharing some revenue with the DoT. Given the DoT's attitude to new services - which is paranoid rather than welcoming - this solution to the shortage of available telecoms capacity is not very likely. The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news Copyright (C) 1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Reproduction permitted with this notice attached ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Heheheheh Date: 16 Sep 1997 08:54:46 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) In belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert) wrote: > The CCITT no longer exists. It was replaced by the ITU. > The ITU is not refusing to standardize 56K. They are currently > working on the standard, possibly to be called V.PCM. Because the ITU > is a political committee, it does take them quite a while to decide on > a standard. I can imagine the biggest political hurdle is probably two major corporate entities trying to get the standard as close as possible to their particular already existing nonstandard implementation ... hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key Always looking for a few good BOsFH. ** Linux - the OS of global cooperation I am Baha'i -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ ------------------------------ From: Fred Goodwin Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500 Eric Ewanco wrote: > In article Eric Florack > writes: >> Objection: Your use of the word "subsidy" suggests that the money >> lost to this (How can you lose something you never had?) is being >> gotten from some other source. That's simply not true. And yet, the >> telco's are hardly going broke over this. > Here I absolutely agree with you: the author employs a subtle shift in > language. He refers to price controls as "subsidies". So simply > because the tariffs are set low, he declares this a subsidy. A > subsidy is when the government forks over money to keep a profitless > but necessary effort afloat. It's not when it regulates a monopoly's > prices. > Even if we were to grant this, a flaw in his argument is that because > ISPs don't pay per minute for receiving calls, this amounts to a > "subsidy". But this is the same tariff all businesses pay. If the > ISPs are subsidized, so are other businesses. If it really did cost > the telco some rate per minute to maintain a connection, then they'd > be losing money on other business calls, too. But one can hardly > argue that the LECs would structure their business rates below cost! > Besides, the model for telco charges is that the one who places the > call usually pays for it. If the telcos are losing money, then why do > they offer flat rate residential service, that makes this possible? > Wouldn't the responsibility lay more logically with flawed tariff > structures on the calling end, rather than on the receiving end? Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of shorter duration than calls to an ISP? If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP customers. Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Fred Goodwin CMA SBC-Technology Resources, Inc. fgoodwin@eden.com Opinions are my own, not SBC-TRI fgoodwin@tri.sbc.com 9505 Arboretum, 9th Floor Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page Austin, TX 78759 http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 15 Sep 1997 16:25:18 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , hicom@oldcolo.com says: > What is Nathan (and indeed the RBOCs who cry in their beer about > overloaded switches) going to say when the 4,500 ISPs in the US wake > up to the fact that they can already, and soon will be able to do ever > faster and cheaper, drop the use of local loop telco services and > convert their customers to no-licence digital wireless? Bypassing the > local wired common carriers entirely? ... > When the shoe is on THAT foot, watch the RBOCs start bitching about > the 'bypass' technologies, and Internet phone. > *REAL* competition and open marketplace anyone? Interesting digression. Telcos' (specifically, ILECs') collective market power is eroding under both technological and regulatory weight. Alas, the vast majority of dial-up Internet users (especially the low-volume residential recreational users) are stuck with ILEC phones as their only option at the present time. So it is important to keep that channel available. But yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus on the horizon. The catch is that no one gift works for everyone. Wireless answers are getting better. Last winter the FCC gave us a wonderful gift in the "Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure" (U-NII) band, allowing up to 4 watts ERP for unlicensed wideband high-speed data in the 5.7 GHz range. This is too new for equipment to be available yet but there is huge potential for cellular-style (in topology, not pricing, but hey those towers look nice) "community networks". This goes back to Apple's 1995 petition. There's also a 2.4 GHz "unlicensed PCS" band medium-speed data; a fair amount of gear is now available for this. The 902 MHz "junque band" is still there but rather a bit noisy for longer-range (non-LAN) uses. Trouble is, these radio frequencies (the term "microwave" scares off civilians who think of ovens and thus danger) are somewhat limited to "line of sight". If you have a high tower or hilltop surrounded by the plains of Colorado or Arizona, then you'll do well. But here in New England we have rolling hills (tougher to get line-of-sight) and big trees (foliage fade). Some areas have serious rain fade problems. So a wireless solution typically ends up missing substantial areas. Still worth pursuing though. Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. The second approach is "Unbundled Network Elements" (UNEs). Here, ILECs must rent CLECs elements of their network (the FCC defined the list) at cost-based prices. Local loops, switch ports, and LEC switch and trunk minutes-of-use are all included as UNEs. Incoming switch use is generally free, and ISDN PRI ports and interoffice mileage under UNE agreements are a fraction of tariff rates. Same network, different price. So the ILECs have less incentive to try to screw ISPs than they did a year ago, because the ISPs have CLEC alternatives (switched or switchless). And radio technology is making the local-loop bottleneck less critical than it used to be. I suppose an ideologue can call anything a subsidy, but enough lawyers have pounded on these rules to make for a very tender cutlet. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Michael Chance Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:57:18 CDT Robert L. McMillin wrote: > What I have to wonder about here, though, is the idea that monopolies > are necessarily bad. In the long run they tend to be unsustainable; > and in any event, anti-trust legislation seems to me to be a > blunderbuss aimable at any politically convenient target (unions were > the first such target in the U.S.). While I could be wrong, I believe that the first anti-trust efforts were directed at such targets as Rockefeller's Standard Oil, J. Paul Getty's empire, Carnegie's U. S. Steel, and the big railroads. Those were the targets of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Except for the Grange, the unions didn't get big enough to notice until the 1920s-1930s. Michael A. Chance Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., St. Louis, Missouri Tel.: (314) 235-4119 Email: mc307a@helios.sbc.com ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:48 -0700 Organization: Syseca, Inc. -- a Thomson company Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > It would have been nice if Newman got his facts right -- but it's not > really necessary. In other words, proponents of market regulation (or outright nationalization) don't have to worry about the accuracy or truthfulness of their arguments -- all they have to do is make the right noises. Down with The Man! Feh. > While correcting his errors, all you've done is reiterate the need > for government regulation to ensure that prices bear some relation to > costs (your comparison with Europe is apt) and to ensure free > competition. That probably makes Newman satisfied. What??? Last time I checked, last-mile service is *required by law* to be provided by goverment-selected monopolies. That bears no resemblance at all to "free competition". Honestly, I'm astonished that Newman continues to get airtime around here. He is the Lyndon Larouche of Telecom. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I run his stuff (I keep a little of it around in stock here) whenever I hear snoring coming from the direction of your terminal and realize that you must have fallen asleep, or other- wise gotten bored with the discussions. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Kagalenko Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:40:29 EDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > I'll grant you there are dishonest IP's. But quite a few are honest > even if their information or service is essentially useless and they Now wait a minute. You assume some very interesting meaning of the word "honest" here. I would be interested to see how you could possibly consider honest someone who bills for worthless service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, what you and I may consider to be worthless in our lives may be a treasure to someone else. For example, I have absolutely no use for astrology; I have no use for Tarot and other similar things. But there are people who believe stongly in these things and there are IPs who legitimatly provide these services to the believers. Not every IP who operates a religious phone service is a fraud. Granted, many are. Some IPs sincerely believe they are providing a great public service at a reasonable cost, and they have documented call counts to show they are getting inquiries, etc. Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying 'worthless as far as I am concerned ...' Here is another example: let's consider yours truly. I am an IP, albiet not using the phone or billing via telco. I send out this Digest every day to a few thousand names on the mailing list plus to a newsgroup and a few specialized other lists, etc. I maintain a web site with all the back issues. I say to whoever reads this, 'hey how about sending a donation every year or so in the suggested amount of twenty dollars ...' Now, you and some others think my rants mixed with news and reviews in the telecom scene are really great and you send me the money as encouragement to continue. On the other hand I get letters saying 'your stuff is useless; totally worthless to me; I would not send you five cents if you downloaded the entire archives to me ...' but they do not (in most cases, although some have) suggest I am dishonest for publishing 'useless' information. That is what I meant. There *are* many -- maybe most -- telephone IPs who sincerely believe in what they are doing and the service they are providing. Perhaps most people would disagree, but the IP did make good on delivery of information, etc. HaHa! I just remembered: I got another notice today asking me to cease and desist from sending spam to a site, despite the fact that the user at that site is on the mailing list. I removed the user's name from the list and sent him a note cc'd to his admin saying 'here, you guys work it out; I do not send out spam'. I'll let the user yell at his admin about it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 06:18:02 +0100 From: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Re: BellSouth Refuses 900 Service to Charities Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.) In article , Bob Holloway writes > 2) there is no easy way, currently, for 900/976 service > providers to know whether the person calling is authorized to use the > phone that he/she is calling from. Obviously, they would like to > assume that they do -- but this isn't always the case. I see this as > particularly a problem that prevents sex lines from screening their > calls to make sure they are from adults In the UK these lines are on 0898 numbers. Before these numbers can be dialed, the subscriber has to obtain a specific PIN from BT. No PIN, no calls, no charges. Problem solved. Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email: Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | | Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 02:33:28 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: California's 209 NPA Split and MedicAlert In article , jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) writes: > You mean someone actually BOUGHT the "Help, I've fallen and I can't > get up" gadget? And it costs them a long distance call every time the > neighbor opens his garage door? And they're still working? Somehow, > these have always seemed to be in the same realm as Chia pets and the > Clapper. You obviously are neither a senior citizen nor have a parent who's one. My late father, who died July 1 in his 82nd year, subscribed to a service provided by a local ambulance company; and one of the first things I did on arriving at his apartment was to see if he was wearing the pendant or find it and lecture him if he wasn't. The "base station" was effectively a radio-controlled speaker phone which autodialed the ambulance dispatch center on activation. Its pickup was sensitive enough to hear him anywhere in the apartment; and I got a call if he didn't respond when the dispatcher came on the line to ask him what was wrong. (Having more than one line, they could keep his open while calling me on another one.) Getting back on-topic for this discussion, I don't see why the base units can't be programmed (or reprogrammed) to dial *any* number, including changing the area code, if necessary. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Nextel Cellular? Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 09:30:23 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 19:27:44 GMT, Ben Parker wrote: > All the discussion in the Digest here recently on CDMA/TDMA/GSM and > various cellular and PCS carriers and such has been very interesting > and informative. However, nobody has mentioned Nextel in this > discussion yet and I'd like opinions about there place in the overall > scheme. > Nextel seems to offer a nationwide digital/analog network (TDMA) that > is free of roaming charges. Additionally their phone sets offer text > paging functions and also have a unique 2-way radio capability that > allows you to connect to specific handsets anywhere in their network > for much less than usual rates. In essence this is long-distance > radio, using their cellular (850mhz) network. Seems like it delivers > today what most PCS promises for tomorrow. Too good to be true? I haven't used Nextel, but they don't use the cellular or PCS bands; they use the 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) bands, which are in the same vicinity as cellular. Their phones cannot roam on cellular systems; just on Nextel's own network (and potentially on other enhanced SMR networks using compatible technology, if and when there are such systems). Before Nextel, SMR frequencies were used for high-power, area-wide dispatch communications; Nextel bought up lots of these systems and "cellularized" the system architecture (lots of lower-power transmitters in a cellular grid). Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #252 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:04:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA24364; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:04:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190204.WAA24364@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #253 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) (Rob Slade) AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage (Robert J. Perillo) Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing (Jon Gilbert) Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA (John Cropper) ISP Termination Charges (Joe Jensen) Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award (Monty Solomon) Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Servers (Stuart McRae) NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced (Bob Goudreau) Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone (S Dietrich) Heads-up for 800 Service Users (Judith Oppenheimer) NYNEX Voicemail Product? (Michael Gutteridge) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:33:01 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet Infoscavanger" (Periodical) PRININSC.RVW 970319 "Internet InfoScavenger", Cathy D. Dupre, 1996+, 1088-0666, U$149/yr %A Cathy D. Dupre %C MSC473, 1153 Bergen Parkway, Suite M, Evergreen, CO 80439-9501 %D 1996+, monthly %G ISSN 1088-0666 %I InfoScavenger Communications, Inc. %O U$149/yr 303-674-2794 800-449-8533 fax: 303-674-4184 subs@infoscavenger %T "Internet InfoScavenger" This is an eight page (letter size) periodical published monthly or possibly ten times per year. The slogan is "Sites and insights for growing businesses." The contents of the four sample issues I received deal with various issues of using the Internet as a business resource. There are articles on market research services, copyright, and business models, but the primary emphasis is on advertising and marketing. In fact, about half of the total material in what I received dealt specifically with publicizing your Web site. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) are liberally sprinkled through the articles, and the last page of each issue lists all the Web sites again. Despite, or perhaps because of, the limited range of topics, the advice is practical and generally sound. An article on ensuring that your site gets frequently "hit" by search engines also notes that the tactics may be interpreted as "spamdexing", and thus may backfire. For those who are new to the Web, and primarily interested in using it as an advertising tool, there is a lot of good advice. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 PRININSC.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 13:57 EDT From: Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (Robert J. Perillo) Subject: AT&T Database Glitch Caused '800' Phone Outage AT&T's network of toll-free numbers (800) crashed Wednesday 03-Sep-1997 and thousands of callers were greeted with busy signals between 12:30pm and 2:00pm EDT. The network outage was the company's worst overall outage since Jan. 15, 1990. AT&T blamed human error of a technician for the crash. AT&T Corp. stated that it would compensate customer's for their toll-free service disruption. Many customers have contracts that entitle them for compensation. The problem was caused when a technician uploaded to AT&T's Signaling System # 7 (SS7) an incorrect set of translations for the routing of '800' phone calls. Calls using the new '888' prefix were not affected. '800/888' numbers have become increasingly popular for remote access and call centers, and may account for more than 40% of the volume on AT&T's domestic network. Loading incorrect Routing and Translation tables have been the cause of many recent network outages. These tables should be tested off-line, and automatically checked for format problems by a pre-processor. Preferably an automated "knowledge engineering" system should be used to create these tables. Since many of these problems have been blamed on a "technician's human error", increased training is in order. Before the changed Tables/Instructions are uploaded into the system, there should be a mandatory Quality Assurance review. [References: AP, "AT&T to Compensate Customers", 04-Sep-1997. Network World, "Database glitch KOs 800 lines", 08-Sep-1997. ] Robert J. Perillo, CCP, CNE Perillo@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Principal Telecommunications Engineer Richmond, VA ------------------------------ From: Jon Gilbert Subject: Comprehensive International Country/City Code Listing Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:42:14 -0400 Organization: Access Orlando (407) 895-1200 Reply-To: jong@ao.net I've seen the archives at http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/country.codes/, and the Americom CGI at http://www.inconnect.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/americom/aclookup, and I'm despaired: Is there a comprehensive listing in a singular format of internation country and city codes available? I'm planning on writing an automatic dialling script, and I'm going to need something along those lines. And rather than try to format all the data at massis into a standard format, I'm hoping that someone already has done this. Have they? jong out. Jonathan Gilbert jong@ao.net ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Bell Atlantic Drops the Ball on New NPA Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:15:05 -0400 Bell Atlantic is consistent, if not accurate. Upon trying to reach a client in the new 931 area code today, I was stopped at the 8th digit by a BA circuit in northern New Jersey with the standard canned message "it is not necessary to dial a 1 before calling this number". Upon calling Bell Atlantic repair, rep after rep repeated the company line: "It is a problem with your long-distance carrier, not us". I repeatedly tried to explain that THIER switch was not even letting me through, because 931 was not entered as an NPA, but apparently they had already made their mind up on the issue, and I was just "some dumb customer who didn't know better". Having completed a call TO THE SAME NUMBER earlier in the day using my LD carrier's calling card, I know that BA is pretty much full of S. This is the second incident in two days that BA has blamed on the LD carrier, and both were problems on THEIR end. In a few months when competition is in full swing, I will be among the first in line to switch local dialtone providers if BA's service department continues with their 'limited culpability'. John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 ICQ: 2670887 FREE areacode info: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/ $17.95 internet: http://www.lincs.net/internet/dialupacs.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had the very same problem a few years ago with a new exchange which opened in 414; Illinois Bell refused to listen to anything I had to say. Finally after a couple days of trying to tell them my LD carrier worked just fine, I had to go way over their head and talk to a guy from AT&T based in Kansas City. I told him about it and how IBT/Ameritech would not even try to correct it. His response was, "they'll listen to me and do as I say ..." and sure enough, a couple days later I was able to get through just fine. I guess Ameritech had to completely reload the tables or something. So John, perhaps a reader here who carries some weight will get in touch with you for particulars and then call someone at BA and get them to straighten it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Jensen Subject: ISP Termination Charges Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:40:08 -0400 In a recent TELECOM Digest article, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Two other gambits stem from the Communications Act of 1996, based on > the status afforded to Competitive LECs. A CLEC who owns a switch > negotiates a "reciprocal compensation" agreement with the Bell. > This is sort of like what the UK and now Holland have -- the LEC > recipient of a call is paid to terminate it. (US IXCs, on the other > hand, pay the LEC at both ends.) The ILEC and CLEC are peers and pay > each other. An ISP on a CLEC switch therefore generates "terminating > minutes of use" revenue for the CLEC -- why do you think MFS (CLEC) > bought UUNET (ISP)? Typical MOU reciprocal compensation rates are .3 > - .7 cents/minute. Some ISPs are becoming or are creating > data-oriented CLECs to take advantage of this. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the RBOCS, based on the inequity between outgoing termination compensation and incoming compensation. In at least one region, the RBOC has filed a complaint and placed the termination compensation associated with ISP traffic that would have gone to the CLEC in escrow pending resolution. Their argument is that internet access is interlata and therefore not subject to termination charges. This issue is still being debated at the national and state level. Joe Jensen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:15:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:06:33 -0700 From: Susan Evoy Subject: Peter Neumann to Receive Social Responsibility Award September 16, 1997 For Immediate Release Contact: Duff Axsom 650-322-3778 Peter Neumann To Receive Social Responsibility Award Palo Alto, CA. - Peter Neumann, a national authority on computer security and risk, will be given the prestigious Norbert Wiener Award for excellence in promoting socially responsible use of computing technology. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) annually honors an outstanding leader for personal dedication to increasing the public awareness of the social and political consequences of the uses of technology. Dr. Neumann will be honored October 4, 1997 at the CPSR Annual Conference in Berkeley, CA. "Peter Neumann is a remarkable scholar and social activist", said CPSR president Aki Namioka. "His contributions to our knowledge about the risks and reliability of computing technology are widely published in scientific journals, but even more importantly he initiated the public dialogue through open discussion in one of the most widely read computer online USENET newsgroups, RISKS Forum (comp.risks)." "Dr. Neumann is a pioneer in linking the risks in using technology to our most cherished rights to privacy and our need for a secure environment", stated Namioka. "CPSR is extremely proud to present the Norbert Wiener Award for 1997 to a truly important citizen, an activist and a distinguished scientist. He was one of the early members of CPSR and helped bring public awareness to the major flaws in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) during the Reagan administration." The Norbert Wiener Award was established in 1987 by CPSR in memory of the originator of the field of cybernetics. Norbert Wiener was among the first to examine the social and political consequences of computing technology. His book, The Human Use of Human Beings, pointed out the dangers of nuclear war and the role of scientists in weapons development in 1947, shortly after Hiroshima. Dr. Neumann's research on the implications of computing gained wide recognition when he created the ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes in 1976 with considerable attention to risks issues, and then created the online Risks Forum in 1985. He was also co-author of the National Research Council (NRC) report, Computers at Risk in 1990. Dr. Neumann is the author of Computer-Related Risks, published in 1995 by The Association for Computing (ACM) and Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Computer-Related Risks summarizes many real events involving computer technologies and the people who depend on those technologies, with widely ranging causes and effects. It considers problems attributable to hardware, software, people, and natural causes. More information about this book can be found at: http://heg-school.awl.com/cseng/authors/neumann/crrisks/crrisks.html His expertise in the issues of privacy and cryptography are demonstrated in his role as an author of the seminal study, Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society for the NRC. He served on the Expert Panel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. He is a member of the U.S. General Accounting Office's newly formed Executive Council on Information Management and Technology. Over five decades, Dr. Neumann, Principal Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, CA, has been concerned with critical computer and communications systems issues such as security, reliability and human safety. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and was a Fulbright scholar at the Technicsche Hochschule, Darmstadt, Germany. He has worked in the computer field since 1953. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He was the recipient of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award in 1996 and the ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Service Award in 1997. More information and access to many of his writings may be obtained at his webpage, http://www.CSL.sri.com/neumann.html. CPSR was founded in 1981 by computer professionals in the Silicon Valley concerned about the use of computers in nuclear weapons systems. CPSR has grown into a national public interest alliance of computer scientists, information technology professionals, and others concerned about the critical choices facing society in the applications of computer related technology. CPSR has 22 Chapters throughout the United States and is based in Palo Alto, CA. ---------------- Duff Axsom, Executive Director http://www.cpsr.org/home.html Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Phone: (650) 322-3778 Fax: (650) 322-4748 Email: duff@cpsr.org ------------------------------ From: Stuart McRae Subject: Dial Access Unit For Value Added Fax Sservers Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:27:37 -0400 I'm looking for information on redialer units to provide access to value added fax services. We can route faxes over the intranet if a fax user dials the server and then DTMF's the recipient, but end user's aren't motivated to figure out how to do this (and some fax machines make it real hard). I've heard people talk about auto-dialers that can re-route calls like this to a different number, and DTMF the number dialed, but have never come across such a unit. I guess it would also need to insert a DTMF prefix to identify the originating machine for routing non-delivery notifications (and to authorize access). Can anyone provide a lead on how I find such a unit? I've never seen one in a catalogue, but I'd have thought that with more Internet Fax services being advertised there'd be a growing demand. I'm interested in availability in the US and also Europe and other countries. For users at the same site as the fax servers, it has been suggested that PABXs might support this function. Is this reasonable? Thanks, Stuart McRae ------------------------------ From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:24 EDT Subject: NC's Three New NPA Numerics Announced Today's issue of Raleigh's newspaper _The_News_&_Observer_ says that Bellcore has announced the numeric values of the three new North Carolina area codes which are to be split off from the existing three NPAs over the forthcoming year. The story also listed most (but not all) of the dates associated with the splits. The new codes are: 336, which will cover the northern half of the current 910 NPA, and which will encompass the "Piedmont Triad" of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point, among other areas. This is the NC code in greatest jeopardy, and so it will take effect very soon (12/15). Unfortunately, there was no mention of the date on which permissive dialing will end. 252, which will cover the eastern three-quarters of the current 919 NPA, including cities such as Greenville and Rocky Mount and most of eastern North Carolina including the Outer Banks. This NPA takes effect on 3/22/98, and becomes mandatory 6 months later on 9/21. 828, which will cover the western two-thirds of the current 704 NPA, including Asheville and most of NC's western mountain region. This NPA is *tentatively* schedule to take effect on 6/1/98 and become mandatory on 10/5. For more details, see the N&O story online at . Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Subject: Multiple Subscriptions on Ericsson (Sprint Spectrum) PCS Phone? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:46:46 EDT From: spock@blacksun.adelphi.edu (Dr. Sven Dietrich) Hopefully someone can clarify this one for me, or point me in the right direction: I recently bought an Ericsson CH-337 PCS 1900 phone, with a subscription to Sprint Spectrum PCS. What prevents me from getting another smartcard (SIM chip) from, say, Omnipoint (NY) and using it with that in NY rather than roaming with Sprint? I mean, it's the _same_ model as the one being sold by Omnipoint, no? It's the same GSM technology, right? I've heard different stories, so if someone could explain the technical details or direct me to a FAQ, I'd be grateful. Please reply by e-mail, if possible. Dr. Sven Dietrich | Internet: spock@abraxas.adelphi.edu (MIME/PGP) Dept of Math & CS | Voice: +1-516-877-4488 Fax: +1-516-877-3545 Adelphi University, New York | http://www.adelphi.edu/~spock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:42:49 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Heads-up for 800 Service Users AT&T IS SHIFTING GEARS in its policies towards call centers, large corporate users and others that have low-or-no-or-infrequent volume 800/888's along with their more active toll-free numbers. The essence of it is to reduce specific inventory that carries cost with no revenue, regardless of the overall business done with the carrier. Details can be found at ICB TOLL FREE NEWS, http://www.icbtollfree.com. 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Gutteridge Subject: NYNEX Voicemail Product? Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:31:14 -0700 Organization: ONYX Software Corp. Reply-To: mikeg@spam.onyx.com Hiya I want to use NYNEX's Voicemail product in the Stoneham area (617-438-xxxx). Basically, there aren't enough people in our remote office there to really justify a key/integrated system, but we'd like to retain some "real" voicemail features. Most notably, we'd like to have the ability for people who reach a subscriber's mail box to transfer out to an operator (zero destination, I think it's called on the Meridian?) However, to get this feature, we are told that we need to go with what NYNEX calls "Type III" service, at the rate of $150 *per line*. For the 25 (minimum) lines we'd have to get, that's far too much money. I cannot believe this is accurate. I guess I'm suspicious because the NYNEX rep keeps bringing out a salesman hawking the Intertel switch/voicemail system. And, while he will talk with the end-users, he won't call me (responsible for telecom, thankyouverymuch.) Any users of NYNEX voicemail out there? Any hints on a way to do this without buying a switch? Thanks, Michael Gutteridge ONYX Software Corp. System Administrator http://www.onyx.com mikeg @ onyx.com 425.519.4118 (remove spam in the "from" address) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #253 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Sep 18 22:33:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26398; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709190233.WAA26398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #254 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Sep 97 22:33:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market (Brad Allen) Re: ISP Subsidy? (Gary Novosielski) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (John Stanley) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Greg Hennessy) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (David Richards) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Rahul Dhesi) Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes (Bill Sohl) The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Joey Lindstrom) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Hypocrisy of ISP Welfare and Myth of Internet Free Market Date: 18 Sep 1997 16:31:32 -0400 Organization: Q > The ISPs along with AT&T, Apple Computer, Netscape, Microsoft, > Compaq Computer, IBM, and a host of other computer companies demanded > and won continued FCC intervention to prevent market pricing on local > telephone company services used by ISPs to reach their customers in > the first place. Since the initial breakup of AT&T back in 1983, the > FCC has exempted Internet providers from paying the same kind of > per-minute access charges to local phone companies that long distance > companies have to pay to connect their customers. This has allowed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Internet providers to pay the flat business rate to local phone ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > companies that ordinary local business customers pay -- which in turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > has allowed them to offer flat-rate service for the Internet to their > customers. I take it you consider the backbones free? When's the last time peering at an interexchange point was free? When's the last time leasing fiber under the sea was free? When's the last time paying "settlement" fees to large ISPs that have good backbones from hither to fro was free? When's the last time that setting up cooperatives to make it more cost effective to deal with these settlement issues was free? Hey, btw, when's the last time that leasing a line from the local "previous"-monopoly "baby bell" was free? Oh, let's not forget the free connection that MAE charges you to connected to their POP. Hey, those free routers are really useful too. Oh, the free labor and free service contracts for all of these components is really a nice perk. Uh hum. Oh, I almost forgot --- and those large energy companies going through their own industry shakeup, hey, they love giving ISPs power for free, too, when used for the backbone! Radio equipment is free too. And setting it up! Wonderful price. Not to mention all the free real estate space that ISPs use. Oh -- I'm talking about the backbone connections the ISP has here, which you probably don't think exists, so it must be free. You betch'a. What you are forgetting is that this "flat rate" you speak of is actually far above a reasonable profit margin for the local phone company, since the connections are going through local networks with high capacity, and furthermore the biggest blunder in your argument is that the backbone that the ISPs use does NOT EXIST! Else, they'd be called "Service Providers", not "Internet Service Providers". The only problems that may come about due to overcongestion and cost of providing service are the stupid engineering and layout of the system by the local phone companies to not take advantage of the simple efficiencies involved. Take my connection. I have a 24 hour a day, 365 day a year wire from my home to my phone company, and there is another similar connection between them and my ISP. If the phone company is worried about congestion between their own switch and their own switch, which are in the same building, then they have a big problem. I'm just using the connection that's already there from me to the switch and from the switch to the ISP. The buildings' switch's being full is mere bullshit; they cost less than the wire that is already 24 365. In the case of interswitch congestion, the local bell companies haven't exactly made a point of tarrifing a seperate charge for that problem; instead they install enormous capacity. If they complain, it's because they designed the charge system in such a way as to complain. I consider it fair to ask ISPs to charge slightly higher rates for interswitch links, if they are also given reasonable rates to interconnect with the various other switches as well using their own communications network. Yes, that might cost the ISPs a little bit more, but considering the business, feature and flexibility possibilities, not by much, if any, will there be an end charge on that; the worst problem with this scenereo is that the local phone company previous-monopoly would now have a bigger network as their competition. The local phone companies are involved in anticompetitive measures, and regardless of whether they are paying you, you are definately a part of their scheme to obtain those ends. You are the hyprocrite. Wait, I seem to have missed something: > Worse than the actual costs of the upgrades for ISPs is the fact > that those investments are being made in traditional analog voice > phone lines and switches, instead of the phone system moving the ISP > phone traffic onto high-speed digital switching systems right at > customers homes, an approach that would be more efficient and create > the basis for upgrading all data traffic. Most of the Baby Bells > began offering such high-speed digital services for ISPs in 1997, but ^^^^ > the Internet providers have little incentive to pay for such services > as long as they can convince the FCC to allow them to use the local > phone lines like ordinary business users. Wow! And you're complaining about the way things were before 1997! Good for you! Of course, there is SO much time between 1997 and this year -- all that time to actually find out about these wonderful services you're talking about (what are they, anyway? DSP? Nope. Cable Modem? Nope. I can't get either, here. I'm in the middle of Manhattan!) We're talking about really fast companies, too -- companies, that when the customers have a large need for things back in the 1970s and 1980s, they are so fast to come to market that they have something in 2000s that answers those requests!!!! Well, at least we wish it were that good ... I *hope* they'll have *something* in my lifetime that is faster than ISDN. BTW, I'm thinking of augmenting my network with "Cellular Vision" here in the NYC area, and jettisoning that awful Time Warner Cable that I have. I'm sure that puts you up in arms -- you'd probably want a "air tax" that gets paid directly to Bell Atlantic, because Cellular Vision "threatens their monopoly". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:59:03 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? In TELECOM Digest V17 #252, Fred Goodwin wrote: > ... I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. ... [T]he cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Well, there's a drug store about two blocks from here. When I need a newspaper, I walk down there and buy it. There's no need to get in the car since it's so close. But I notice that a lot of people do drive to that same store. In fact, in the last year, since they've started carrying milk and bread, auto traffic has increased -- so much so that they've been forced to add a whole new section to the parking lot. It occurred to me that this must be pretty expensive, and that I wasn't getting any use out of it, because I always walk to the store. In fact prices are a little higher than I remember, and I'm sure this has something to do with it. The cost of that parking lot is being borne by all the customers, not just those who use it. I got mad, and asked the lady behind the counter how come she was forcing me to give a subsidy to all the non-pedestrian customers of the store, and I demanded a lower price for my newspaper than the guy behind me in line, who had driven in from the street just as I arrived. She just looked at me funny. (I think she's a communist.) ------------------------------ From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 18 Sep 1997 13:58:15 GMT Organization: Oregon State University In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. Anyone who has a teenager knows this. Anyone who has a computer at home knows this. Anyone who has called any company with any sort of automated telephone system knows this. The typical data call I make lasts three minutes. How long does Mrs. Smith spend on the phone to her Mom? I have been paying a premium for a line that I almost never use just so I can use anther line for my computer. I had to pay extra for my "voice" line so I could pay more for unlimited calling on my "data" line. I have been paying this "subsidy" that the telcos are whining about, but I don't see them rushing to refund my money. > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. I would submit that the telco should have used the premium I have been paying for seven years for unlimited calling on my voice line to keep its services up to par. They demanded that I get a more expensive line than I needed for a line I make almost no calls on, just because I had one line that was unlimited calling. If they didn't mean to charge me more, then I want my money back. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection The ISP isn't making the call, it shouldn't have to pay more than any other business does. I am already paying more for flat-rate than I have use, so why should I pay more? ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:52:08 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:18:34 -0500, Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, damnit. You obviously don't have teenagers. :-) > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Nope. Poor foresight on the part of a regulated monopoly utility is _not_ the fault of the customers. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. You might, potentially, use that word, were it not for the fact that the RBOC's themselves are one of the beneficiaries, they being in the ISP business, too. But the sweepingly fast advance of wireless is going to make this a moot point shortly, I suspect, anyway -- as I noted in a posting a couple days back. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: gsh@clark.net (Greg Hennessy) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 15:00:24 GMT Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes. I deny that, since calls to an ISP are residential calls. This is simply trying to ghettoize internet users and suck more money out of them. ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 11:56:29 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Yes, calls to ISPs are longer than 'typical' residential calls. But so are calls to BBS systems -- multiline BBS systems date back at least 15 years (Ripco does, anyway); they're just more popular now. And there have been rumors of an 'FCC mandated BBS tax' for almost that long. The problems of congestion and switch capacity upgrades are the result of telco monopolies not being prepared for a sudden shift in consumer calling habits, and chosing a rate structure that encourages certain behavior. Strange how I don't see any complaints about congestion in the Chicago area -- only in the last couple of months (coincidentally just after the launch of Ameritech's own internet service) has my ISP received _ANY_ customer gripes about 'fast busy' or 'The number you have dialed...' intercept messages. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Bullshit. The telco proposes their own tariff, they chose to make packet-switched data service so expensive as to be out of the reach of the end user. because I suddenly order, use, and PAY FOR more circuits than they anticipated is a problem, but the telco dug their own grave by how they set up the rates. > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. The local telephone _monopoly_ chose to set rates so as to discourage use of X.25 (packet-switched) services and encourage long holding times by endorsing flat-rate local calling. Compare this to Europe, where X.25 is in widespread use and untimed calls are generally an unheard of luxury. ------------------------------ From: c.c.eiftj@15.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: 17 Sep 1997 03:38:41 GMT Organization: a2i network In Fred Goodwin writes: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Um, the situation is much simpler than that. Short calls are typically shorter than long calls. Let me repeat that: Long calls are longer. Short calls are shorter. > OTOH, if you do agree that ISP calls are of longer duration, and that > blockages can and do occur as a result, then I would submit the ISP (or > its customers) should be the ones the foot the bill for the switch > upgrades the telco must make in order to restore the required grade of > service to its other, non-ISP customers. You want heavier users to pay more. Then why not simply make heavier users pay more? I don't understand why it must be based on whether or not they call an ISP. I know people who are on the phone for hours and hours talking to their friends -- should they or should they not pay more? I know people who call their ISP for five minutes a day, max. Should they or should they not pay less? I really don't understand why people try to make it so complicated. If long calls are the problem, penalize the long calls. Let me ask you something, hypothetically. Suppose people of a certain race (call it Yellow, or Green, or Black, or whatever) were observed to make longer calls on the average than people of other races. What would your preference be, if you had to choose one of these two possibilities? - Charge all people of that race more for phone calls, regardless of the length of their call; - Charge people based on the length of their call regardless of their race. Explain and justify your choice. Rahul Dhesi ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: ISP Subsidy? Yes Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:12:30 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Fred Goodwin wrote: > Well, the flat-rate tariffs you refer to were built on a cost-model > that assumed much lower holding times than are seen for ISP traffic. > Does anyone in this group deny that residential calls are typically of > shorter duration than calls to an ISP? Not in a household like mine with three kids. > If not, then there is no point in my making any additional comments, > because you will never be convinced. OTOH, if you do agree that ISP > calls are of longer duration, and that blockages can and do occur as a > result, then I would submit the ISP (or its customers) should be the > ones the foot the bill for the switch upgrades the telco must make in > order to restore the required grade of service to its other, non-ISP > customers. Thousands of business lines generate huge minutes of use on a flat rate basis yet you wish to ignore those users and only focus on ISPs because they have tilted the model previously used. How do you identify ONLY the cost causing lines since they are only incoming calls terminating on them? > Because neither the ISP nor its customers are willing to pay for more > than a flat-rate connection (which, again, assumes a much lower holding > time), then the cost of the telco switch-upgrades necessitated by them > is instead borne by all and that, to me, sounds like a subsidy. Yet most ISPs busiest times are outside the normal peak hour periods. It seems there's more trouble with ISPs that don't provide enough lines (thus causing busy conditions to their users) than the network being short of switch capacity or trunking. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 03:07:20 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha Pardon me, a relative neophyte, for butting in here ... but it seems to me like we're going to see more problems like this Medic-Alert thing happening with every new area code split that comes down the line. It's another argument in favour of overlays, but I won't get into that - I'll just say that Mark Cuccia is God and that's that. :-) But I think it's completely AMAZING that the CPUC decided to change its mind and grant one area the right to keep the old area code while switching the other, more-populated, area to the new NPA, simply because Medic-Alert *HAD* to keep it's old phone number. What's wrong with simply going ahead with the split as originally intended, and then REPLICATING THE MEDIC-ALERT PHONE NUMBER IN BOTH CODES until such time as Medic-Alert can, over time, ensure that all the existing Medic-Alert bracelets are replaced? Or indefinitely if we want to save some expense? It's one phone number. It's done with toll-free numbers all the time for FAR less needful reasons ... am I missing something here??? Just a thought. From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403-606-3853 EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #254 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 13:58:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15196; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:58:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709211758.NAA15196@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #255 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 13:58:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN (Judith Oppenheimer) 800/888 Problem - Suggestions Welcome (Jay R. Ashworth) Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup (Douglas Reuben) Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" (Rob Slade) AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (Chris Mathews) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* 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, 21 Sep 1997 11:18:24 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SMS Changes 888 Release Policy AGAIN For years the RespOrgs say all numbers are the same, no one has any rights or interests in numbers, and the FCC buys into this and makes it law. During which time, however, the FCC facilitates the RespOrgs setting aside "valuable" 888's matching "valuable" 800's in which their customers have an "interest." Then the customers who've set aside their 888's want them, so the FCC says they can have them, *if* they assert no interest in them. (Who else besides me has said "huh?" yet.) So this goes on for a whole YEAR, until the FCC issues its guideline codification aka the April Report and Order, at which time the SMS says, a ha!, RespOrgs have been abusing the release process to grab 'their' numbers in violation of the FCC edict that they have no 'interest' in them. (I gotta tell you here, when the release of 888 set-asides was first ordered by the FCC in June '96, an SMS insider who shall remain anonymous told me it was because the FCC was getting pressure from 800 subscribers who wanted THEIR numbers.) But I transgress. So now, June 1997, the SMS changes policy, batches 888 set-aside releases and tells everyone what numbers are coming out, so that everyone has an equal chance to grab these "valuable" 888's, per the FCC's first-come-first-serve scenario. Except now the RespOrgs are complaining that other RespOrgs are "stealing" numbers out of 888 release that "belong" to their customers. (There's sort of an "honor system" among 'real' RespOrgs: that you don't touch "my" numbers, ie that 'belong' to my customers, and I don't touch yours. And if you do by mistake, of course, we'll settle it among ourselves. Not that we're brokering or dealing in numbers, of course.) Now remember: the 'my numbers' and 'belong' here refer to 888 numbers in the set-aside pool that have been assigned to no one, and according to the FCC, belong to no one. Heck, they even say numbers assigned to you and working for you that you PAY for, don't belong to you. SO, NOW, the SMS, as of September 17, "based on recent RespOrg input", will discontinue issuing a weekly list of 888's being released, and will release them in some un-defined timeframe as well. Presumably, it will be harder for "thieves" to "steal" the numbers. Of course, it will also be harder for RespOrgs to capture 888 releases "belonging" to their customers (which customer said they "assert no interest in" in order to get them released.) Who's had enough of this absurdity? If all these years everyone is saying that customers have no interest in these numbers -- as the Industry Guidelines, written by RespOrgs themselves, have always clearly stated -- then why are these same RespOrgs duking it out over their customers' proprietary interest in specific numbers? Perhaps it's time for everyone to get it that the Emperor is waddling down the street NAKED. (Gee, maybe someone should tell the FCC?) Judith 800/888 ICB TOLL FREE NEWS 800/888 ...today's regulatory news for tomorrow's marketing decisions. TRY US FREE FOR 15 DAYS !!! http://icbtollfree.com (ph) 212 684-7210. (fx) 212 684-2714. 1 800 THE EXPERT. ICB Headlines Autosponder: mailto:headlines@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: 800/888 Problem; Suggestions Welcome Date: 20 Sep 1997 14:57:33 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Well, here we go again. A client of mine, who's had the same doesn't-spell-anything-in- particular 800 number for about ten years now, started getting calls this week that they didn't expect. 300 or more of them. For "AESolutions", which is apparently the power utility in Pennsylvania, somewhere. You see, the folks at AE Solutions apparently went to their carrier, MCI (big surprise) and said "we'd like a number that spells out our name". Presumably, the MCI people looked up my client's 800 number, discovered that it was assigned, and then said "well, 800-AESOLUT is already taken ... but 888-AESOLUT is available, why don't you take that". The customer, not knowing any better, of course said "sure". The expected chaos is ensuing. _My_ outlook on this is that the culpable party is the utility's sales rep at MCI, who should understand his business well enough to know, as we all do, why assigning a branded number in 888 is probably a bad idea just now. Obviously, the real culprits are the customers, but hell, you can't expect people to _read_ or anything. Would anyone like to challenge my appraisal of the situation, or offer suggestions are to which is the best approach to a solution? We can't even run a prompter front end to let callers pick the right number ... because their INWATS carrier and ours are different. I agree with Judith, as those who read my DNS NOI notes will know: branded numbers belong in 800, numbers that don't need to be branded should only be assigned in the other blocks. I'd grandfather, but if your brand ain't available in 800, lump it: find another way to spell it. Same problem as the "new big 7", which suck, BTW. :-) Please email, I'll summarize. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You could always answer with a taped announcment on the front saying 'this is Company X ... repeat, this is Company X; this is not AE Solutions. If you are calling AE Solutions you have reached a wrong number; please hang up now; if you are calling Company X at 800-whatever please remain on the line for an answer." Stress the 'eight hundred' part of the number, and maybe add a line saying 'this is not 888-whatever' stressing the 888 part. Of course some people will dial over and over when they hear that, but at least you can dump them after 15 seconds or so each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@tiac.net (Douglas Reuben) Subject: Bell Atlantic Alpha Messaging: Followup Date: 20 Sep 1997 20:38:53 GMT Organization: Interpage Network Svcs Inc / +1 510 254-0133 / www.interpage.net After receiving some feedback as a result of a recent post regarding Bell Atlantic's Alpha Messaging product on their Digitial Choice CDMA plans, I'd like to make a few corrections and add a few observations. 1. I noted that there should not be any alpha messaging in the ex-Contel Cellular of Vermont/00300 system, covering northern Vermont (north of a line running roughly from Rutland to White River Jct., more or less along US-4, and generally north of I-89), and that the switch servicing the 00300 system was probably still a Motorola EMX. Neither of the above are correct: Despite what BAMS told me (and I mean this only in a constructive way; the product manager was very helpful in explaining the issues involved), there IS alpha messaging in the areas I have traveled in the 00300 system, mainly from White River to Montpelier. Messages come in very quickly, and not only was it a pleasant surprise after being told that it would be "a while" before messaging worked there, but since my pagers do not work there, it was very useful being able to get my pages on the mobile phone. Interestingly, it seems that the switch recordings I get in the 00300 system say "119", which is the BAMS/A-side switch ID for the Connecticut system. Perhaps Vermont is being run off of the CT switch in some manner, similar to the way the Dutchess and Orange County (00486/00404) systems appear to be operating off the Albany (00078) switch (and thus receiving messages)? Additionally, the switch serving 00300 is definitely not an EMX, and sounds like an AT&T Autoplex, so that would perhaps support the notion that it is somehow run off of the CT switch or something along those lines. Just a guess, though. 2. I also unintentionally confused the two Vermont systems; to clarify: 00300 - is the "B" side in Northern VT, which used to be owned by Contel, and is now run by BAMS. It does not cover southern VT or New Hampshire (as does the A carrier), but handoffs work well (at least on I-89 and I-91 in the White River area) between the 00300 and the growing United States Cellular 01484 system serving Southern VT and southwestern NH. (The 01484 is on the NACN even though US Cell in this market is the "B" carrier, "A" roamers can roam on the system and receive calls, use features, etc. You can even set your phone to roam on the strongest signal, A or B, and receive calls, place them, and use features on either the 01484 or it's A-side counterpart, the Atlantic Cellular 00313 system. Roam charges, if any, may vary between the two system; check with your home carrier.) As noted above, the 00300 seems to be an Autoplex, although I think under Contel it was an EMX. 00313 - Cell One/VT and Western NH. This system is owned by Atlantic Cellular, which seems to own a number of RSA's, mainly in mountainous areas :) (Seriously, they also own a system in El Dorado County, CA, also in the hills southwest of Lake Tahoe. You can spot these systems by the male recording they employ in (seemingly) all their markets.) They cover all of Vermont (they took over the failing Montpelier and northen Vermont system a few years ago), as well as a good chunk of western New Hampshire. They also operate half a system (along with Cellular One/Boston) in the Lakes Region of eastern NH, which is so mismanaged it is laughable (the SID is 01485 or 87, I forget...one is in NH, the other is in NJ). They are the premier carrier in the region, offering by far the best coverage and service area. They finally got their EMX switch well integrated into the NACN, and calls and features for all NACN roamers work fine there. They also operate a small area near VT on the NY state side, and Franklin County, Mass, which they purchased from BAMS maybe 3 years ago. 3. Maine is NOT included in the BAMS extended "home roam" airtime plans, so if you go to Maine, you don't get the free incoming minute, or the off peak airtime plans (if you subscribe to them.) I do believe Maine's B side is run, at least in Southern Maine, off of the BAMS switch for the 00028 or 00428(?) system, so perhaps Alpha Messaging does work there. Anyone test that yet? Additionally, Rochester NH and the immediate surrounding area is covered by the Maine B side, so be careful if you roam there. Most people I know living in seacoast NH or in Rockingham County and Portsmouth are very disgusted with their cellular service: The A side has 3 systems all bleeding into each other in the area, and the B has two, none of which reciprocate in terms of airtime plans on their respective sides, so customers have to frequently pay higher roaming charges for using their phone because they happen to live on the line between systems. (A good market for Nextel? :) ) 4. The BAMS Eastern New Hampshire/00428 system also has alpha messaging. Thus, it would seem that the largest "holes" in the BAMS messaging "network" area: NY: Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), Richmond (Staten Island), Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, and Southern Putnam Counties in NY (all in the 00022 system -- do they even sell Alpha in NY? Who'd want it?) (Note: Kings County is Brooklyn, not the Bronx as I indicated in my earlier post.) RI: No Alpha Messaging anywhere in RI, except perhaps extreme northern sections of the state and Woonsocket, ie, near the Boston part of the 00028 system, where messaging does work. MA: No Alpha Messaging in the SE Mass area, New Bedford, Taunton, etc. CT: No Alpha Messaging in Litchfield, which is not run by BAMS. PA: Areas of Philadelphia seem to have it, and others don't; can't figure it out yet. I could also just be due to occasional delays in getting messages. Overall, though, with messaging now available in the BAMS Hudson River corridor (00486, 00404, 00078), VT (00300 - it may have worked there for a while; I was told it didn't), and Eastern NH (00428), the utility of the service has increased, at least for me. Now if they could only get all their markets online and allow more than 55 characters per page! ... Well, at least there is some progress :) Regards, Doug dreuben@interpage.net / +1 (510) 254-0133 / www.interpage.net Interpage Network Services Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:36:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference" BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference", Que Corporation, 1997, 0-7897-1144-3, U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 %A Que Corporation euteam@que.mcp.com 72410.2007@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1144-3 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$19.99/C$28.95/UK#18.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 202 %T "HTML 3.2 Quick Reference, Second Ed." As with most quick reference guides, this contains all the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags and commands up to version 3.2. As a matter of fact, it goes a little beyond, listing obsolete and proposed commands as well. Each element is listed by name, and contains information on compliance. (The listings are for Netscape, Internet Explorer, Mosaic, HTML 2, and HTML 3.2. The codes for the graphical browsers indicate only the "latest version".) In addition, there is a brief description of syntax, some discussion of purpose and use, and an example or two. Some entries also contain screen shots, or lists of related commands. Surrounding this central reference are a number of aids. The tables grouping related commands are quite useful, as are the character code and colour listings. The newsgroup resources are somewhat less so, with a number of groups included by only the most tenuous connections. The expanded table of contents, alphabetically listing the alphabetically arranged element entries, is a twenty-one page waste of space. The choice of what to include and what to leave out is always problematic. In general, the guide concentrates on more recent or more esoteric commands, which is understandable in a work which is, after all, not tutorial in nature, but meant for experienced users. Less understandable is the brevity of both functions of the vital anchor tag in comparison to individual listings for each of the six header () tags, occupying a total of eight pages. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHT32QR.RVW 970319 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1997 10:43:00 +0100 From: rseoeg@site33.ping.at (Chris Mathews) Subject: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack Forwarded from alt.peeves... ## Nachricht vom 19.09.97 weitergeleitet ## Ursprung : /alt/peeves ## Ersteller: fps@netcom.com Spotted in news.admin.net-abuse.email, reposted FYAmusement. So who wants to break out the bubbly? In article <5vu8rd$pqq@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Mark Boolootian wrote: > In http://207.87.233.68/outage.html, Sanford laments: > Network Outage Update Page > 9-19-97 10:00am > Letter to Cyber Promotions' customers by Sanford Wallace, President... > Dear Customers, > Cyber Promotions has experienced serious network problems for the last few > days. These problems have affected every customer in one way or another. I > have finally collected the information which explains this circumstance, and > I think it may make you quite mad. Cyber is also calling out for your help. > You can be part of this fight right now. > The major network problems started on Wednesday, 9-16-97. Our primary > backbone provider, AGIS, took responsibility for the problem. The following > is a quote from AGIS' web site... > Philadelphia Route Reflector > Posted at 23:45 EDT on September 16, 1997 > At 16:00 EDT, our Philadelphia Route reflector went down. After extensive > troubleshooting with the vendor, it was discovered that the ATM card the > reflector runs off of is defective. ETA for a replacement part on site is > 22:00 EDT on 9/17. Customers in the North East US will experience moderate > to high ping times and traces, but traffic is getting through. We have > opened Ticket# 032499 on this issue, and will update this page when we have > more information or an updated ETR. > Well, since that problem was detected, our network connection was never > restored back to normal. We called AGIS' network operation center over and > over again, every 10 minutes, to get an update and estimated time of repair. > I understood the damage that our customers would incur with each and every > minute of downtime. But AGIS' answer was always the same... "Engineering is > working on it. They won't give us any more info." Yesterday, their answers > began to change. At 8am, their network operation center told me that there > was only one engineer that could resolve the problem, and he wasn't in yet. > He was expected to get there in an hour. At 9am they then said he didn't > come in yet, but rather, he was in an off-premise meeting. But they would > page him. At 10am, they simply said, "He's not here yet." I even went so far > as to offer my personal assistance. At this point, I personally tried to > reach AGIS' CEO, Phil Lawler, to fill him in on the details. But, Mr. Lawler > was apparently out of town on business, and wouldn't return until Monday. > In a desperate move, we started asking our customers to call AGIS and > pressure then into escalating this repair. Within minutes, AGIS > representatives quickly changed their story. They started telling our > customers that the connection was down because Cyber Promotions had breached > some sort of security protocol, and that their routing equipment was never > broken (despite the fact that on their own web page, they still admitted > that the equipment was faulty). And since this was a "security issue" they > stated that they could no longer give out any further details. > At that point, we called in our legal representatives to contact AGIS. Our > lawyers actually got through to AGIS' in-house counsel. Within an hour or > so, we received a copy of affidavits that were prepared by AGIS' engineers. > You're never going to believe this... but in their affidavits, they claimed > that they had to turn off Cyber Promotions' connectivity because Cyber was > being ping attacked by a third party! > The following is important: Agis had filtered ICMP (ping and traceroute) for > months until they upgraded their routers a few weeks ago. When they upgraded > their routers, they stopped filtering ICMP for some unknown reason. We were > concerned, because they left the door open for ping attacks by > anti-spammers. > Here are some quotes from AGIS' affidavits (that were not marked > confidential in any way): > By Adam Hersh, senior engineer: "I attended (a) meeting with Les Addison and > Rick Pado, and we analyzed the status of AGIS network performance problems, > and I determined and recommended that the circuits of Cyber Promotions and > Quantcom needed to remain off in order for AGIS not to suffer further > network performance problems ... The ping flood attacks observed originating > from the west coast into AGIS network and directed to the Washington routers > and Philadelphia routers, severely degraded AGIS network performance to (an) > unacceptable level ... AGIS had no alternative but to shutoff services to > Cyber Promotions and Quantcom." > By Richard Pado, senior engineer: "Les Addion, AGIS Chief Engineer, worked > with me to reset configuration settings in attempts to resolve the AGIS > network disruption. These attempts failed ... I attempted several ICMP > debugs and consequently lost connectivity because of the massive ping flood > attacks ... I performed and analyzed TCP dumps regularly ... I resolved the > AGIS network disruption by shutting down the interfaces of Cyber Promotions, > Inc. and Quantum ..." > In other words, AGIS admitted just three days ago that their equipment was > faulty, and then admitted that their so-called senior engineers don't know > how to stop a ping attack without disconnecting their customers. > Also bear in mind, Phil Lawler, CEO of AGIS, signed the connectivity > contract with Cyber Promotions. I am not allowed to disclose the details of > the contract, but let it be known that immediate termination is blatantly > against the provisions of the agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that > since Mr. Lawler was out of town, the terms of our contract were not even > considered. > What can you do? You may wish to call AGIS and explain to them the damaging > affect of having your connectivity shut down. You may wish to suggest > alternatives to them. You may wish to offer your help. You may wish to give > them a piece of your mind. That is up to you. Our official recommendation is > that you should realize that we are all in this together. Cyber Promotions > will fight hard, and so should you. > At this time, our lawyers are preparing temporary restraining order papers. > We plan to bring this issue to federal court immediately. We are also > transferring many of our services to our backup connections with other > backbone providers. We can not give you an exact ETA on full service > restoral until we get more information about the status of the AGIS > connection. Please come back to this web page to see frequent updates. Thank > you for your continued support. Free commerce on the Internet WILL PREVAIL! > (Agis contacts below). > Regards, > Sanford Wallace > President and CEO > > Cyber Promotions, Inc. > > AGIS contacts: > AGIS engineering: Adam Hersh, Les Addison, Richard Pado (313) 730-1130 > AGIS Network Operation Center (313) 730-5151 > AGIS Fax (313) 563-6119 (submitted to the net by) > Mark Boolootian > booloo@cats.ucsc.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a rotten shame! So is Spamford still out of service or has he managed to snooker other ISP's and/or networks, etc into handling his nasty traffic? I wondered why my inbox had so little spam when I checked it early today, and now I know. Whoever was doing the pinging which caused this to happen, you have the heartiest congratulations of net-people everywhere. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #255 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Sep 21 22:31:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15004; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199709220231.WAA15004@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #256 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Sep 97 22:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option (brian@his.com) 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too (Eric Florack) DNS Scheme For All Telephone Numbers in NANP? (J.F. Mezei) Master List of SLC's by LEC's (Herman Ohme) Online Service Provider a Moneygrubber? (J. DeBert) Re: MedicAlert and 209 Split (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Ed Ellers) Re: The Medic-Alert Brouhaha (Tom Watson) Re: AGIS Pulls Plug on Cyberpromo Due to Ping Attack (William H. Bowen) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* 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, 21 Sep 1997 18:27:02 -0400 From: brian Subject: Bell Atlantic CDMA Privacy Option When I got my BANM CDMA phone in January the saleswoman told me several things that turned out not to be true. The first was the availability of the hands free car kit with external antenna. She said it would be available in about a month. It has been almost nine months now and they still say they don't have it. And the other thing that was not true is the "Privacy" option on the Qualcomm phone. Basically, it is the encryption in the IS-95 CDMA standard. She said that I wouldn't like it because it added about a half second of delay into the audio due to the processing; however, it would be available "shortly." Well, I have never been able to get BANM to define "shortly." Last week however, I finally got a somewhat-knowledgeable customer service agent. She said the only thing on their service menu remotely like encryption is 'Transcrypt' and it was on the analog phones, not the digital phones. So then I send my fourth e-mail to BANM in eight months, hoping to get a higher-level response. This time, they call me back for the first time. A lady in Networks says they have no plans to activate the option. Why? "Dunno." Has anyone else been told anything about "Privacy." Caveat Emptor. And as always, please visit my home page at http://www.his.com/brian Find my PGP keys at http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=brian@his.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 05:58:39 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: 56k Standards Fight is a Patent Fight, Too This has been under discussion, and this adds information to that discussion. /E Fighting Over the Bone by Brian McWilliams, PC World News Radio September 18, 1997 Setting international modem standards used to be a private process carried on behind closed doors, but the heated discussions over the pending 56-kbps modem have spilled into the streets -- again. This time, it's Lucent Technologies that claims to be in the driver's seat regarding intellectual property. "We think that the patents we have will limit the ability of other parties to get patents that read on the core of the technology," says Bob Rango, general manager of Lucent's modem chip-making group. "We didn't say that no other patents would be granted, but since we invented this thing back in 1992, we started filing patents way back then. I mean, the patents that we're getting issued now were filed two to three years ago." Lucent was responding today to the announcement earlier this month by 3Com that it had exclusive rights to the intellectual property of inventor Brent Townshend, who claims to have patents pending on core 56-kbps modem technology. Rango said that Lucent sent a letter to the International Telecommunications Union today saying that it will license its patents on PCM, or pulse code modulation, to other companies under reasonable terms and conditions. 3Com, of course, earlier made a similar announcement regarding its patents. Dataquest analyst Lisa P